Einstein

Because it was thrown away (outside) from where the safety was when Allen started his wind up (which is different from where the safety is when the ball arrives). Also, Allen doesn’t typically miss laterally on long throws. He just typically throws them too short or too long. QB’s throw well before the receiver is actually open. Thats why being in position is so important. Passers throw to a spot where you’re supposed to be. This isn’t backyard football, throwing when you see your uncle open to the spot he is at the moment.

Suppose it depends on your definition of “often”. If often is “sometimes”, then yes. But logically, for the majority to be right, they must have a large number of people with the right opinion within it. And by virtue of it being the majority, this means that most people are intelligent enough to be on the “right” side. I think I can even model this mathematically… Let X be a variable representing correctness (or in my opinion, being on the “Allen played well” side of the equation). Well, X follows a normal distribution with mean μ and variance σ^2. The probability density of X would be f(x) = (1 / (σ * sqrt(2π))) * exp(-(x - μ)^2 / (2σ^2)). To find the probability that an opinion falls within a majority range defined as [μ - kσ, μ + kσ], we can calculate P(μ - kσ ≤ X ≤ μ + kσ) = integral from (μ - kσ) to (μ + kσ) of f(x) dx. We can also define C(x) as inversely related to the density function, meaning C(x) is proportional to 1 / f(x). Long story short, the probability that the majority would be wrong can be approximated (with my model anyway) by Rate of error = 1 - integral from (μ - kσ) to (μ + kσ) of (1 / f(x)) dx. This model would imply that majority skews toward the wrong side of the correctness scale. The problem is that the inverse relation of C(x) is problematic and there are assumptions here. But I think you get where i’m coming from anyway.

Great post. Welcome to the hill. Population is small, but those who are correct are often in the minority.

You’re right. And the reason some can’t see it comes down to cognitive neuroscience (aka, it’s not their fault). The human brain often struggles to separate individual performance from the broader context, especially in high-stakes situations. This phenomenon is tied to a cognitive bias known as the fundamental attribution error where people tend to attribute outcomes to a player’s actions rather than understanding how external factors forced the play of the individual. You see it in this very thread. For example: “Allen was 9 of 30” is used as a basis to say he played poorly. The brain sees this fact and has trouble differentiating between parts of a whole in order to see faulty sections and attribute properly. Look up the gestalt perception. But others have differently wired brains and are able to differentiate parts of a puzzle. In this case, some are able to differentiate between Allen’s apparent mistakes and attribute them to the result of factors beyond his control like breakdowns in offensive line protection, receivers running the wrong routes, or dropped passes. The brain in large parts of the population tend to lump these issues together, leading people to unfairly pin the blame on players when the real problem lies with the team’s execution as a whole.

I’ll die on this hill: Allen did not play poorly. It only looked bad because of a mixture of horrible offensive line play, numerous drops, no-one getting separation, and missed blocks by Kincaid. there isn’t a quarterback in NFL history that would’ve looked good with that team. We put out there on Sunday.

i’m confused. Before you said that Alan threw it to the wrong spot. Now you’re saying that why would I expect Allen to admit that you threw the right spot? Nico ran the right route. Thus the ball was on target. I don’t think Hollins ran to the right spot.

According to whom? Did Brady or Allen say this?

There are human beings on this forum blaming the QB for this not being complete. Mind boggling.

I have a home in the St Pete area. The homes near the water are already a mess. This is very unfortunate.

This is who I want. Make the trade. Guy is a freak athlete:

Coleman may end up being the better WR and it would still have been stupid to trade KC that pick. I truly can’t believe Beane did that.

I know you didn’t. I was leading you to water. If he has never needed more than 2, and has only used 2 in 0.02 games. Why would anyone be worried about him using 1?

There ya go. Now how many times has he challenged 3? (Meaning won 2 and used the 3rd)?

Bingo. This is one of those IQ test threads… Its telling.

Posting this should be a bannable offense. And this should be a criminal charges pending offense.

McDermott has coached over 100 games. Take a guess how many times he has challenged twice in one game.

It actually didn’t move at all as he went out of bounds. It shifted when he hit the turf. Either way, probably not getting overturned. Speaking of Kincaid, he kinda sucks. Woofta that feels good to finally let that out. I’ve bottled that up for a year now. He is super underwhelming as a first round pick. He has dropped or bobbled multiple balls that hit his hands, and he sucks major donkey cahones as a blocker. Multiple times we have plays set up that would go for big gains, but Kincaid gets beat. On this play, Cook has a legitimate chance of scoring if Kincaid doesn’t get suplexed. He would have had to make 1 defender miss. And here is another screen where Allen gets sacked because Kincaid gets beat so bad that Curtis Samuel would have been crushed if Allen threw it. Lucky he didn’t get called for holding to boot.

And that’s OK. This is a point that many people miss. It is okay to challenge a call pivotal call in the first half when your offense is reeling even if you think you’ll lose it. Why? It’s simple logic. The upside is that you get a key first down in field goal territory. The downside is you might lose a timeout that you didn’t use (we had 3 timeouts left with only a few minutes remaining in the half). It’s OK to take that risk there.

because you don’t rebuild with a top 3 QB. Patriots never did it under Brady. Chiefs haven’t done it under Mahomes.

I don’t agree with this. Sean is a good leader, a good man, and a quality coach in many facets. He has end of game issues, but EVERY coach will come with some issue they struggle with. I genuinely don’t think we could find anyone better. I don’t even think we can find anyone that’s even equal to him.

McDermott, about 10 mins ago at the press conference: “I wish I had that back”.

Im genuinely curious what some fans wanted Allen to do. Escape an untouched rusher, roll to his right, and then throw to an absolutely blanketed receiver? What was he supposed to do!?

This is an insane take in my opinion. There is not a QB in the NFL who throws into tighter windows and makes covered guys open more than Josh Allen. What… the… literal… bleep. I can not begin to understand the mental leaps one must make to think that the QB running for his life the entirety of the game and watching as his receivers dropped 5 passes, as well as a TD pass, was the problem.

I respect this view viewpoint. To make the view even more micro, the game was lost when the line could not contain Houston’s pass rush. Allen was bailing to his right repeatedly due to non-stop pressure… which is why that final drive failed.

You’re right - they likely would have gotten a kick off. But all else being equal, It would have been a longer kick. And every yard you add to kick, reduces the probability of making it. And there’s also a chance time runs out during the spike play - heck, it was getting dangerously close to running out with Watson buying time on the second to last play even with a timeout. You need a *minimum* of 12 seconds to run a play and spike the ball. That doesn’t mean it can’t take, 13, 14, 15 seconds. 12 seconds is minimum. Especially when the defense knows you can’t throw deep and puts 10 defenders within 5-8 yards. The absolute best chance of stacking your odds to win the game (outside of a first down), is to take away their timeouts. That drastically limits their playbook. Sure, you want a first down. But we don’t live in a world where we always get what we want. That is why you must have backup plans. You have to understand every chess move before it happens. That is what made Belichick so damn deadly. Outside of having the GOAT Qb, he simply knew every move before it happened. It was special to watch, if not nauseating as well. In an interview about the Super Bowl where they beat the Seahawks, he mentioned that a lot of coaches would have called timeout inbetween the play before Wilson threw the game sealing INT. And he thought about it. But he had such a great sense for the game that he looked over to the other sideline and could tell that they were in disarray. Position groups were having trouble figuring out who was going in and out, coaches were scrambling, etc. So he decided not to bail them out with a timeout, which would have given them extra time to think and perhaps run the ball. The next play, they intercept Wilson. He just had a great sense for the game and he knew every chess move. Coaches need to understand the game further than just “dur, need first down, dur”. This isn’t caveman football. If you don’t get that first down, you need a contingency. The best contingency is removing their timeouts. Sure, they might still get a kick. But that kick is significantly harder without timeouts. Heck, the whole situation is significantly harder without timeouts. Not only are they further back, but their playbook is also limited due to no timeouts. The Bills committed 2 safeties deep on that second to last play because McD knew that with Houston having timeouts, the entire field was fair game. With no timeouts, the Bills could have squatted 10 guys within 5-8 yards of the LOS and it would have been next to impossible for them to gain more than a yard or two before spiking the ball. I think more than likely, Watson throws the ball away with so many defenders squatting. He wouldn’t take the turnover risk. So yes, the kick may have happened. But the kick would have absolutely been longer - there is practically no way for it not to have been. It was a failure of thinking. And thankfully McD seems to agree, which means he learned from it. That’s all you can ask for.