Einstein

He doesn't need to! He covers Coleman until Allen begins his throw and then he leaves Coleman. He doesnt need to cover the low when the low is no longer a threat. This is not rocket science. It happens all the time in the NFL. And because of the positioning (Coleman not slanting deep enough), he was in perfect position to intercept Cooks route.

This is where math can help us figure out what will actually happen. That way we wont have to guess. - Let's say Cook is running West at 4.5 yards per 40 yards (8.89 yards per second) - Defender on Coleman is is 8 yards further west of Cook and 4 yards North and lets say he starts from rest (he isnt moving) - Both players run at the same speed: 4.5 seconds per 40 yards (8.89 yards per second) When do they reach the same position? Well, we have a kinematics equation we can use to start that process. v^2 = v0^2 + 2(a)(x) First let's figure out acceleration... 8.89^2 = 0 + 2a * 4 ... 79.08/8 = that's 9.88 yards/second accel Then we have to figure out how fast Defender on Coleman can accelerate the 4 yards South to meet the same axis as Cook ... v = v0 + (a)(t) 8.89 = 0 + 9.88 (t) = 0.9 seconds. During the 0.9 seconds that Defender on Coleman takes to go from standing still to reaching the axis of X, Cook who as you said is already running at full speed will cover 8.89 × 0.9 = 8.0 yards. Cook started 8 yards back from the Defender on Coleman. So even though Cook makes up 8 yards in the time it takes the Defender on Coleman to go from standing still, to accelerating to the X axis that Cook is running on, they will reach intersection at approximately the same time and about the same speed. In other words, the Defender would have absolutely caught up to Cook IF he leaves the second Josh decides to throw the ball. Obviously there are some other variables involved. For example, stumbles, slips, yada yada. The "eye test" for judging time and distance is notoriously unreliable. Always turn to math when possible. .

If Josh throws the ball, the defender leaves Coleman. That's how it works. As soon as he starts his throwing motion, that defender is leaving Coleman. This happens all the time in the NFL. And Josh has to make that determination in a fraction of a second. Josh from a couple of years ago, throws that ball. And Josh from a couple of years ago, maybe gets picked off. You can literally see Josh, on tape, stare at that defender before moving on. Yeah, I find it surprising that anyone thought one would need to be Usain Bolt to beat someone in a foot race with a head start. I think my fat butt may have had a chance.

Yes, he was. And I'm a Simms fan saying that. It was not his finest hour. But I can understand why he screwed up. The issue resolves around people not understanding that these analysts have to talk about 32 teams each week. A fan only watches the clip the analyst makes for their team. But the analyst still has 31 other teams to analyze. Its simply not possible to review tape for them all. So... They just take what the interns give them and try to make lemonade out of it. Example: Clueless intern sees Josh was 9 of 30 or whatever it was, concludes he was bad, takes a few clips of footage, circles open guys, and marks it ready for production. Notice how most of the plays were at the beginning of game? It's because the intern takes the first things he sees (beginning of the game), and moves on to the next team.

In what world do you need to be Usain Bolt to run less distance than another person? The defender is 7 yards further downfield than Cook. He has a 7 yard head start, AND the angle. If you think it takes Usain Bolt to run the black line, faster than Cook runs the red line, then there is no point in discussing further. This is correct. It's actually the entire design of the play. Brady has 2 clear out routes - one on each side of the field. The problem is that both failed. Coleman didnt slant far enough and Knox whiffed on his rub. There may have been. No argument there. But you have to remember that Allen has to make a risk/reward choice here. He chose to move on to the rub on the other side. I don't blame him for that. It's only a lower percentage play because Knox missed his assignment. Ding! Ding! Ding! Winner! Winner! Winner! Bingo.

Ok, let me explain what happened here, since it appears that Chris Simms really confused you. Here is the route tree for this play: The red routes are not actual progressions. They exist only to clear out defenders. At the bottom of the screen, Coleman is clearing out for Cook, who is running the wheel route. At the top of the screen, Knox is clearing out for Kincaid, who is running upfield. The problem? Knox fails MISERABLY on the rub route. As seen in the picture below, Knox's job is to delay Kincaid's defender, so Kincaid can turn up field for a big gain. But instead of boxing Kincaid's defender out temporarily, he whiffs (with the help of a little tug by the CB on him) and lets the defender go right past him and stick to Kincaid like glue. Because of this one whiff on the rub, the ENTIRE right side of the field is blanketed. Now let's bring it back to Cook. Allen knows that he has 3 options on this play. Cook on the wheel, Kincaid on the out and up with a rub from Knox, or a checkdown to Samuel. He snaps the ball and looks to Cook. At this time in his progression, Cook has not yet beat the LB. Your point is that Josh should just anticipate that Cook will beat the LB and throw it up. Problem with that? Allen also knows there is a deeper defender (the DB on Coleman), who Coleman didn't take far enough inside to clear him out from the play. Allen knows that as soon as he throws this ball, the deeper defender has the chance to beat Cook to the ball, as he is not only further downfield than Cook, but also has the angle. If you look at Allen’s head here, it’s not looking at Cook - he’s looking at the deep defender who could break off and nab the ball if the throws it. In other words, Allen sees an INT happening if he throws this ball here. As mentioned above, what likely happened here is that Coleman didn't take his slant deep enough inside. He didn't do a good enough job of clearing out, which left his defender in position to possibly make a play on the ball to Cook. So Allen is likely thinking.... "I can throw this up to Cook, hope he beats the LB, AND hope the backside defender doesn't go and INT it. Orrrrrr... I could move on to my rub route on the other side of the field which has one of my most sure handed receivers." So he moves on to his next progression. Of course, Allen doesn't know that Knox whiffed on his rub route responsibilities and that the play is blown up over there. The above is what actually happened on this play. It was extremely lazy analysis by Simms, who I typically like. But here's the thing - all these talking heads who played pro ball - they know this stuff. They're not stupid. But they don't actually have time to analyze these plays because they're talking about 32 different teams each week. So instead, its probably just an intern grabbing screenshots and giving them talking points and guys like Simms have to talk about it, perhaps on the fly, while looking at the the play for only the first or second time without breaking it down themselves. If you want someone to blame on this play: 1) Knox, who doesnt complete the rub. 2) Coleman, who didnt take his route far enough inside to clear the DB from peeling off and helping with Cook if Allen throws it. Agreed. We have a disaster class happening at WR, TE, and O-line and people are pointing at Allen. Lineman not picking up blocks, WR's dropping balls, TE's missing rub responsibilities. But it's Allen... Boggles my mind.

I didn’t know people actually enjoyed the taste of whole wheat. I thought they just ate it because they had to.

Yes. And it’s evident all over the All-22 if anyone cares to look. Some of it comes down to what the Texans did on defenses - they squatted on all the short stuff and that really made it hard because of the way Brady runs the offense with small ball. There was absolutely nothing easy for Josh to take. And the few times someone would finally get open, he was being flushed from the pocket by an unblocked blitzer. Now, one criticism that I think is fair, is toward the end of the game, he started to flush himself from the pocket when he didn’t need to. But I think this is just the natural result of him being pressured relentlessly the first 3/4 of the game.

No. That was not a screen. Notice how Kincaid and Hollins don’t block? Samuel was used as a purposeful decoy in order to get the cornerbacks to bite on him, opening up either Kincaid or Hollins for a large gain. Thats why Allen pump fakes to him. Unfortunately, they dont bite. You, like Simms, forget to mention that Allen had moved off the Cook read and into his progression before Cook gets open. He doesn’t have his eyes in the back of his head. By this point, Allen was flushed from the pocket by a blitzer that wasn’t picked up. I think that is ridiculous and I can’t defend PFF on that.

Thank you.

They mean deep (over 10 yards). Bills throw deep outside more than most teams.

Well yeah, that’s where all of our short stuff is… In this offense, the majority of our short passes (under 10 yards) are right in the middle. The typical passing chart since Brady took over looks like this under 10 yards (this is an actual Allen passing chart). Right 70% of our short passes are completed in the middle as an overall average.

Yeah this is essentially what Simms did. And he could only find 4 total plays to point out. On one of the plays, he circled Cook, who got open after Allen already moved on in his progression (and while pressure was coming from Cooks side with a blitz). On another play, he wanted Allen to drop it into a bucket behind 2 CB’s and in front of a charging safety. Oh, and while he was about to get crushed because Spencer Brown got beat… It was around 80% in the first half. Shockingly, that is when people claim he played the worst.

What short easy passes though? Do you mean the 4 total plays that Simms showed? Houston's entire defensive gameplan was to squat on our short stuff and dare us to throw deep. Thats why we got Hollins up deep a couple times. Go watch the ALL-22. You may find a couple examples of times where a short pass was open, but 95% of the time they were completely blanketed.

I think that you are misunderstanding my viewpoint. I’m not saying his play didn’t look poor. The point is that it’s only because of the o-line and receivers. No QB in NFL history would have looked good with the compliments we put out there on Sunday. Not Brady. Not Manning. Not Mahomes. Not Montana. They all would have stunk. But it wouldn’t have been from their doing - it would have been from the pieces around them failing them. Analogy; It’s like if I asked you to pour water into a cup, but kept hitting your arm as you poured it. Are you doing a bad job at pouring water in the cup? Well, more water spilled on the table instead of the cup. You must have been terrible at pouring water in a cup that day! Or… someone was hitting your arm as you were pouring it, and your performance appears poor because of it. You and Simms can take 4 screenshots (out of 60) and claim he was a bad player that day. But it doesn’t make it so. It sure is easy hanging fruit to do so though, isn’t it? I’d hazard to guess that those saying he played poorly haven’t even reviewed the 22. Because if they had, they would be asking “where did I want Josh to throw this ball?” Consider this: Those 4 examples Simms showed were the BEST examples he could find the entire game of Allen playing poorly - and even 2 of those 4 were poor analysis (see my first post).

Im not sure what you mean - no one is arguing that his play looked poor. The point is that it’s only because of the o-line and receivers. No QB in NFL history would have looked good with the compliments we put out there on Sunday. Not Brady. Not Manning. Not Mahomes. Not Montana. They all would have stunk. But it wouldn’t have been from their doing - it would have been from the pieces around them failing them.

100%. His play was a result of non-stop pressure and receivers not gaining separation. You can make a video of any QB from any game, and focus on a few plays where they missed a guy. The entire video literally showed 3 or 4 plays… out of 60+ the offense ran. Super lazy analysis too (and I like Simms). Like pointing out Cook being open after Allen already moved on from that progression and was flushed to his right by the blitzer. Yeah, with his back turned he’s not throwing to Cook. I suppose he could have thrown it up on first read, hoping Cook beats the guy (and doesn’t drop it). And on this play, when Allen decides where to throw (before his wind-up), the receiver was parallel with the CB and Allen saw the safety coming down. Maybe he fits it in. Or maybe it gets picked off. You can tell he is working on not getting INT’ed. So yeah, anyone can make a video of 3 or 4 plays (out of 60-something) and take strategic screenshots that ignores the full context of the play.

Why? I ask that genuinely. You’re not alone in that sentiment but I can’t figure out why people like him. All I ever see when he runs is slow, plodding, poor field vision. Very limited sample but what i’ve seen has been meh. I think the Bills agree, as his snaps have been dwindling over the past few games. He went from 14 snaps in week 2, to 12 in week 3, to 10 in week 4, to only 2 in week 5.

That nightmare is on pace for 60-some receptions this year.

In this particular thread, you’re right. I apologize. I’ll bow out and allow the thread to get back on topic.

You and I were having a cordial conversation about correctness. As a rule. Not on one topic, but in general. In fact, you specifically mentioned that there are many times when being in the majority means you are on the correct side. By definition, that means that you were including other situations about non-subjective topics - otherwise, how could you have decided that being in the majority side was right? I then took our conversation and made a quick model of it. Based on *your* guidelines in the conversation. You then had some sort of trouble with my reply, so you started insulting me, stating I was trying too hard, bringing up posts from years ago, and claiming that I think i’m a genius after posting basic calculus(!?!?). Certainly caught me off guard, because I thought we were just having a nice conversation. And that leads to here and now. You could have just apologized for acting as you did, but instead you chose to dig your heels in. Which I suspect you will continue to do.

Sorry for the confusion. I’m using normal bell-curve distribution as a model to represent the distribution of people’s beliefs or judgments about correctness. Aka, not on whether a player played well. μ represents the average opinion or belief about a topic (like Allen’s performance), while the standard deviation (σ) measures how spread out those opinions are. This doesn’t find how many standard deviations from the mean a player is. It shows how the majority’s opinion might cluster around an average belief, regardless of its correctness. Thus, probability of being correct in a majority. Now, as you may be wisely picking up on, and as I mentioned in the original post when I posted the model, one of the problem with it is the assumption of correctness being inversely related to the density of the distribution. It’s a good starting point though, if you’d like to improve on it.

Proven wrong... runs and hides behind "trying too hard". I wish it wasn't so transparent. I've also never professed to be a genius. If basic mathematical models feel "genius" level to you, that's a whole new can of worms that we don't have time to unwrap.

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.