oldmanfan

It's simple. Some supposed fans of the Bills would rather be right on an Internet site than root for the Bills to succeed. Sad really.

I would hope two more guys, one sees that play. The one rule change I'd make us to have PI be a 10 yard penalty/automatic first down

But that tries to place objective criteria on what will always be a subjective issue. Always comes down to judgment. I agree with a comment hereinnthat at some point you have to accept bad calls are part of the game. My thought is having two more sets of eyes on the field and a guy upstairs you'll eliminate human error as much as possible. I understand the desire to use more cameras, off site officiating etc., but games would take forever.

Theee are so many complaints about bad calls in the NFL, and many say we should rely more on technology to overcome these. But my concern is you could conceivably look at any given play in the NFL and pick out a call that should have been made. How about adding a minimum two more officials on the field (I'd put them in the defensive backfield) along with allowing the guy in the press box to make a call if he sees something. Give each coach one challenge regardless of the type of call. If you add officials in the back you have two more sets of eyes back there, and it seems the calls that are by and large screamed about occur primarily back in that area. The guy in the box can catch the most egregious holding. And coaches still can challenge truly bad calls. And once this is done, accept the fact that in any game like football there will be human error and just accept that as part of the game.

Good topic. Some here are focused on the pro teams but the key issue is high schools. If they can't get insurance then the pipeline to college ball dries up, and thus to the pros.

Just pure envy here.

I hope you're right.

True. I generally just watch the Bills now; at my age it's hard to stay up for those Sunday night games!

Belichick has 2 weeks to prepare. They will shut down the Rams offense, just like he shut down the Bills in our first SB. Brady will be Brady. Pats will win. No question in my mind. I can't stand Brady or Belichick, but I don't let that stand in the way of acknowledging how great they both are at their jobs.

They have the GOAT at QB and at HC. They are the best at what they do. No sense getting upset about it.

Not sure where you're going with this. Bottom line is that football involves both offense and defense. You have the ball, it's on you to score. You don't have the ball, it's on you to stop them from scoring. Both games yesterday showed why D matters in the league. When you have to get a stop, your D needs to step up.

Both teams had a chance. The Pats had a chance to score, the Chiefs had a chance to stop them.

I suspect thy will grab some guys that are a bit under the radar, but that will make solid contributions. Particularly on the O line. They're not stupid; they know the O line needs help and that they have to protect the investment in their young QB.

First time I've watched the kid. He obviously has talent but also made a lot of young QB errors. Held onto the ball too long leading to sacks, airmailed some passes. The talent is there though as shown in the second half.

Defense counts in the playoffs

Reid being completely outcoached in the playoffs again

Men playing against boys so far

How do you miss that call? Textbook interference.

That's the job of a GM to be sure and they get fired if they are wrong. I was referring to these columnists who think they're so brilliant.

Just to be even nerdier about the OP's analysis, let's talk about what the sources of problems might be when Allen is not accurate. You have two types of error: systematic and random. Systematic means you have a consistent problem with your measurement system that biases results in a certain way. So let's say your bathroom scale is actually at 5 pounds when it should read zero. That is systematic and generally affects accuracy of measurements. So for Allen to improve his accuracy, is there a systematic error that can be corrected? Possibly, that may be where consistent footwork and release point when throwing could come in. The other source of error is random error. That is truly random and are out of control of the measurement system, and in lab tests, etc. these generally affect precision. There are a number of those that could affect a pass, the wind, whether a guy ran the right route, etc. Just more nerdy things to ponder when looking at the kid's development. I think there are some sources of systematic error he can fix, like throwing short passes with more touch. The random errors could be fixed, for example, by having WRs that actually catch the ball vs. drop it.

See my above comments to transplant. I think Allen needs to work on precision, or putting the ball on a specific spot, more because that would allow receivers to make more yards after the catch and so on. I think his accuracy is fine, but the really great ones like Brees are highly accurate and can put the throw within that accuracy range right on the money., right where they want it. When folks talk about fitting a ball into a tight window, to me you have to be really precise. So from that perspective I think there is significance. I support the view of the OP. Hope this clarifies my thoughts. If you ignore me, then why are you commenting? The distinction is real and can have effects not only in medicine but in hitting specific targets.

Don't mistake my comments on precision and accuracy to mean I disagree with your OP. I actually agree. Allen is accurate in my opinion. and I applaud the work you've done here. I did something similar with a game or two after his injury, went back and looked at how many passes I truly thought were inaccurate, and it wasn't many. It comes down to your definition of accurate. Accuracy is how close to a reference value you come. If you're looking at, say , a lab test, it's measured by standard deviation. For a passer you define it by how close to his target. So for your analysis, you chose criteria that seem valid to me. So let's say for sake of argument hitting a guy on the numbers in the target, and the border of his catch radius is two standard deviations. If he hits the guy on the hands, but not right on the numbers, he's accurate. And I agree with you that's the way to look at it, and presuming you were diligent in your analysis between QBs, which I think you were, then Allen is as good as the other rookies. When I speak of precision, it's how many times you hit a specific spot. So let's say Allen wanted to hit a guy in the numbers, but he hits them outside that, his precision was off. The guys arguing against you do so because they have a faulty view of accuracy. They think you have to hit a pass right where you want to hit it to be accurate. To extrapolate to a lab test, accuracy would have to be within say 0.1 SDs. You'd go broke trying to run a lab that way because that expectation is completely off base. You'd never accept a test as normal, and again to extrapolate you'd never see Allen (or any other QB) as accurate if that's the measure you'd judge by. Your analysis is fine. And one can only hope folks look at accuracy as accuracy and not completion percentage, because that dog just don't hunt.

Kent Hull. Allen needs a C that can anchor the line and tell everyone else what to do.

That's not semantics; there's a real difference

Good stuff. You nail it on precision and accuracy in that the only true way would be off field at a specific target. I have made the statement that Allen needs to be more precise and I agree based one one throw that is not measurable. My statement is directed more at say an entire games worth of throws, where I see receivers having to reach back a bit, or where they make a catch but aren't in position to get YAC. I feel he's accurate on such throws but could be more precise, with the assumption that he wanted to hit a different specific target within the catch radius than he did, such that receivers would be running after catch and such. Thanks for this post.