Billy Claude

Holy cow. I think this must have been asked before, but do you actually sleep? You do all this detailed analysis (which I greatly appreciate and learn a lot from) and I am assuming that you do the same level of analysis for Arsenal and the Premier League. You also seem to have a pretty high position in the UK government bureaucracy . When do you have time to do all this?

Or more likely, Allen has been so obviously good it's been pretty much impossible to ignore unless you are an obvious troll like Skip Bayless or his apprentice, Nick Wright. (I do realize the original comment was mostly kidding.)

Yes, I did read the study you presented and I am accepting the data they present as true. I simply disagree with some of the conclusions and I have explained why. Yes, a sacks and knockdowns definitely more dangerous than a designed run. However, no offensive coordinator designs a play to get their quarterback sacked or knockdown. To compare the injuries per sack to injuries per designed run is unreasonab;le. If I misunderstood the study please tell me how.

How does the data not back up the claims? You said there were 90 injuries out of 5135 sacks -- since sacks are 6.3% of passing plays that corresponds to about 82,000 passing plays. You give a total of 90 (sacks) + 52 (knockdowns) + 23 (scrambles) = 165 injuries in that time span. So 165 out of the 82,000 passing plays resulted in a injury. This means 2 injuries out of every 1000 passing plays or 0.2%. You quoted injuries at 0.6% per running play so that says, per play, one is three times as likely to be injured on a designed run than a designed pass. It is very straightforward math.

The only source I am using is your data so you have already provided the data to back up my claims and, yes, you provided both totals and per play. The only thing I added was that 6.3% of the drop backs last year ended in sacks to estimate the total number of dropbacks during the range of the data you provided. This can be looked up anywhere. Unless you want me to go through the math, there is nothing extra for me to provide.

Link? I am just using the data you quoted on # of injuries per sack, knockdown, and designed run. I would be glad to listen to why my analysis is wrong. I am actually surprised that the difference was so large. However, I am sure that comparing injuries per sack to injuries per run is not the right comparison to make. Quarterback knockdowns were included. I am not sure what that means but I assume that means QB hits.

The author of original study does not appear to have any background in statistics. Any conclusions based on 10% differences between groupings of 10 has zero statistical significance since changing one data point can completely change your conclusions. The best you can say from her data is that the QBs that runs the least (lowest 30 percentile) are less likely to get hurt while there is no obvious correlation between run rate and games missed for those in the upper 70 percentile. The comparison regarding injury rates per type of play are apples to hamburgers. You have to compare the average injury per drop back to average designed run play. In 2021 there were 2.3 sacks per team per game and 34.4 passes per team per game so about 6.3% of dropbacks end up with sack. If we assume this same ratio for her 10 years of data -- this would mean 165 injuries out 82000 dropbacks or 0.2% of dropbacks result in injuries.* So based on this data, a designed QB run is three times as likely to lead to a QB injury than a designed pass play. The reason more injuries happen in the pocket is simply because there are a lot more dropbacks than designed QB runs. On a per play basis, a QB is still much more likely to get hurt on a run play than a pass play. *I have left out injuries that occur when the QB is not sacked or knockdown (Allen hitting his hand on a helmet his rookie year) but I find it hard to believe that would change it to any more than 0.25% of dropbacks.

Zach Wilson also faked going out of bounds during a big run against the Bucs last year. If QBs do junk like that, they definitely deserved to be hit.

Highly doubtful 350 would give much different results than 300. As noted numerous times in this thread, teams throw a lot because they are behind. A really big passing game is not indicative of a team winning. It would be better to look at just first half stats which presumably would not be affected as much by the game score. I am not sure how one can extract those. The fallacy is to use the correlation between 100 yards rushing and winning to conclude that a lot of running yards lead to winning so a team should emphasize building a good running game. Actually it is winning that leads to a lot of running yards, i.e., the cause and effect is reversed.

I thought Bill Walsh settled this argument in the 1980's. This is statistics so there are always exceptions. It's like using the 90 year old pack a day smoker to say that smoking isn't unhealthy. So pointing out exceptions is not a valid argument by itself -- you need to look at reasonably large numbers. Here is the rushing yards rankings for the 14 playoff teams last year. Some takeaways. 3 out of the top 4 rushing teams did not make the playoffs. The teams in the Super Bowl finished 23 and 25th in rushing. Half of the playoff teams ranked in the bottom half in rushing. A really good running game guarantees you about 8 wins (see Ryan, Rex). 1. PHI 5. TENN 6. BUFF (obviously a lot of that is Josh Allen) 8. NE 9. DAL 10. ARI 16. KC 18. GB 21. LAC 23. CIN 25. LAR 26. TB 28. LV 29. PITT For comparison, here are the passing rankings. Takeaways: The top 10 passing teams all made the playoffs. 12 out of the 14 playoff teams finished in the top half passing The five lowest ranked playoff passing teams did not win a single playoff game. You won't get far in the playoffs without a very good passing game unless you have both a top rushing game and a dominant defense (see 2019 49ers and Jimmy Garoppolo). 1. TB 2. DAL 3. LAC 4. KC 5. LAR 6. LV 7. CIN 8. GB 9. BUF 10. ARI 14. NE 15. PITT 24. TENN 25. PHI

Not really surprised. He is tied for the 47th highest paid CB. Considering players on rookie contracts and that the newest contracts are larger, this is pretty much high end backup CB money.

It is really not unreasonable for Allen to have a better year this year than in 2021. All he has to do is return to his 2020 level. His 2021 peak may be better but there is no doubt Allen was much much more consistent in 2020. Almost all his 2020 numbers were better, some significantly, even with the mid-season shoulder injury.

I don't remember seeing that, but this would makes sense. In a league where Van Roten and Hart are being counted on to contribute, it's hard to understand why Darryl Williams is not on a roster otherwise.

Well, the guy hasn't thrown an interception in 3 years.

I was surprised at the number given how bad the Jets roster was supposed to be in the last two years but the other hand, even though there are a lot of players on other teams, none of them have made much of an impression. However, I do get the impression that Gase, and likely Saleh also, like to run their system whether they have the right type of players for it or not. Also the change from Gase to Saleh probably led to players being release as not a fit to the new system.

I am just going by what you wrote in your original post. It said -- to quote "A quick rundown of former Bills now on other teams the last 2 years." The post then lists nine Bills who were on the squad the last two years that are now on other teams and the post ends with "Just crazy the number of players who can't make Bills roster but end up somewhere else.", implying that there are nine players because the Bills roster is so strong. i am simply pointing out that nine is not a very large number. In fact, there were 26 players who couldn't make the Jets roster in the last two years that are now on other teams.

I am sure you missed a bunch of Bills but you listed former Bills in the last two years on other teams and said that was impressive. Players move around a lot now, nine is actually a very small number. Here is the list of players that were on the Jets since Aug 31 2020 who are on other teams 53 man roster as of today. There are 26, including three former Jets (Lawson, Crowdher, and Van Roten) on the Bills: Josh Andrews NO Mathhais Farley LV Lamar Jackson CHI Nate Hairston MN Jordan Willis SF Sam Darnold CAR Michael Dwumfour TX Shaq Lawson BUF Corey Levin TEN Milo Eifler WAS David Moore CHI Elijah Campbell MIA Ryan Griffin CHI Thomas Morstead MIA Edy Pineiro CAR Blake Cashman HOU Grep Van Roten BUF Jamison Crowder BUF Javin White CHI Jason Pinnock NYG Chuma Edoga ATL Isaish Dunn SEA Rachard Wildgoose WAS Javelin Guidry ARI Del' Shawn Phillips BAL Trevon Wesco CHI

You would really need to compare to other teams to tell whether this is a lot. For example, the Jets had seven players picked off waivers today and 11 players over th3 last two weeks. That's two more than the Bills have in two years in just in two weeks.

Ok. Thanks, didn't know about the rule change.

Is there a maximum? Former Bills rb Jonathon Williams got 510K to sign with the Broncos p.s. after he was cut by the Bills. Unless the rules, changed, I think the maximum is whatever the team is willing to pay, though I agree that the Bills won't give Barkley much more than the minimum allowed.

Right -- I forgot. I will fix it. In any case, I doubt that any team will pick him up for their 53 and I assume he would rather be in the Bill's practice squad than another teams.

I'm 98% sure that he will be cutted and then placed on the practice squad to be this year's Davis Webb. It's highly doubtful that someone else pick him up and put him on their 53 at cutdown.

Given the nature of the accusations, this was absolutely predictable when the accusations came out and could not be easily refuted. Every team in the NFL would have done the same thing with a rookie punter, including the Browns and the Chiefs. You can't give any special credit to Bills for releasing him. A rookie punter is simply not worth the distraction.

Folks will definitely be mad, it just won't be at Barkley.

I don't remember any talk about Daboll in 2017 but definitely agree that well known assistants don't want to work for first time head coaches since there is a high likelihood that those first time coaches will not last very long.