Einstein

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS. Now go win the division in Miami!

I HATEEE defensive timeouts in that situation. Youre giving your opponent time to come up with a play too!!!

I say keep the divisions and allow the division winner to get into the playoffs, but make the seeding just based on record. Aka, a division winner could be the 7th seed even.

It was always division title or bust.

I could see this type of performance, plus multiple weeks off, come back to bite them in the butt.

Yes. But as stated prior, while it’s a bit more complicated than that, it’s a good metric because it’s a fair comparison across all teams using the same qualifiers and grading.

1) QB’s don’t have 180 degree field vision. They can’t see everything at one time. Not Brady. Not Kelly. Not Mahomes. Not anyone. 2) Allen was not at that point in his progression. He saw Diggs, his first read, have an open look. But by the time Diggs uncovered, three defenders were about to demolish Allen. 3) For both of these reasons, and many more, Allen did not look to Kincaid. You can find “open” receivers for every QB. But the context matters.

Perfectly said!

The video reviewer actually says something along the lines of “on second thought, this is a good play by the Patriots. It’s a tough minus (for Allen)”. Even he admits it’s horse crap to blame Allen for it, but he doesn’t remove it from the film… Another from the video. Josh didn’t hit Diggs 25 yards down field, on the run, with two defenders about to pummel him. It was a scramble drill and THIS was used as an example of Allen missing an open guy. The analysis in the video was a joke. I get that i’m an Allen homer but my goodness some of the stuff he is getting blamed for is wild.

For those who don’t care to watch (probably a good idea), this is one of the first plays they use to demonstrate that Allen missed open receivers. Allen has three defenders in his face and he is blamed for not hitting Diggs. This is an INT waiting to happen as that defensive back has a great opportunity to jump the pass from his position. This is the quality of analysis. PS, yes, there were a few missed receivers in this game, but context always matters (pressure, where Allen is within his reads and progressions, etc).

I don’t agree because the numbers just don’t back it up. Allen’s output outside the pocket is FAR better than in, and this has been the case his entire career. Entire teams defensive philosophies have been to keep him IN the pocket. The Dolphins defensive players talked about this last year. Allen is 8th in the NFL (according to PFF) under pressure this year.

3? Levis came in for injured Tannehill. Stick came in for injured Herbert. Bagent came in for injured Fields. Minshew came in for an injury. Flacco came in for an injured Watson. Browning came in for an injury Burrow. Siemian came in for injured Wilson (and then kept the job). Zappe is also a backup, though he came in not due to injury but rather poor play, and Howell was benched. There are 6 starting QB’s below Allen. Mahomes, Fields, Bryce, Herbert, Murray, Pickett. So, 26th instead of 27th?

I had just listened to that. Cossel said he leaves the pocket prematurely sometimes, but he also said if you want to take that away from him, you’re going to be taking away some of the big jaw-dropping plays he does as well. So you have to find that balance. Because staying in the pocket a half second longer, may mean you HAVE to throw from that pocket, as the escape lanes may be gone after you wait.

That actually makes complete sense. Defenses play backup QB’s differently than they play starting QB’s. You’re confusing two different metrics. Separation SCORE and average yards of separation. What you linked to was part of the WRER metric (which I believe has been long abandoned) The author was explaining a SCORE for separation within the WRER formula (nearly a decade old).

How do we know if a receiver had separation without knowing the play call? Well, if he has separation… Perhaps you mean the threat of him running? but just FYI, this chart excludes receivers who got open on scrambles. Count the players above and below Allen. There are 26 above him. There are also 5 starters below Allen. The rest are backups and spot players.

Allen finds receivers when they get open, at a pace higher than any other QB in the NFL. The problem is that they simply aren’t getting open! @Maine-iac and I were debating this a few days ago. I have been shouting from the roof tops that Bills receiving options do not gain much separation. The argument I get back is simply “Yes they do! Allen just isn’t throwing to the guys that are open”. Here is a chart, plotted through Week 17, that shows Allen has the highest % of throws to open receivers, despite his receiving options being 27th in the NFL in separation (in totality of all QB’s plotted). Also, notice how open Lamar’s receivers are… z

Allen said last week that they were seeing things from defense they haven’t seen on tape all year long. He said it’s what made the Chargers game more difficult than spent and have expected. Miami could have a similar plan.

He did have that one magical postseason 10 years ago. But outside of that one postseason, he has 13 TD’s and 10 INT’s playoffs.

Im not seeing $55M at all. Maybe $40M (if you believe OTC). But let’s take $40M - that’ll be gone so fast our heads will spin. We have to replace Micah Hyde, DaQuan Jones, Leonard Floyd, Dane Jackson, Jordan Phillips, Tyrel Dodson, AJ Epenesa, Gabe Davis, Shaq Lawson, Cam Lewis, AND sign 9 draft picks. I also dont love the idea of restructuring Diggs. Diggs only has 3 years left on his contract after next season. Restructuring makes those last 3 years nearly impossible. We could free up $14M in cap space this off-season but then Diggs cap would be well over $30 million after that. His cap hit would be $31M in 2025, $32M in 2026 and $26M in 2027. Then what? And he would be untradeable and impossible to cut (ever), since his dead cap would be more than $20M every single yeargoing forward. I can almost guarantee the Bills don’t do this. If we replace all of the players we are losing with draft picks… we are going to be in for a tough year IMO.

Tompsett is often wrong. Just FYI. He has admitted to not even reading the balance sheet of how the cap is being formulated and just basing his numbers off what OTC speculates.

Very true. But the Titans have looked bad all season.

Removing the vig lowers the Titans probability of pulling the upset (it lowers both teams in relation to the vig). I'll explain this below. I did have old odds for the games. Taking the updated odds of -190 for the Jags and +155 for the Titans, we have 100 / (155 + 100) = 39.22% the Titans win. You can then double check my formula and math by using an odds/probability calculator The Jags at -190 results in a formula of 190/(190 + 100) = 65.56% To remove the vig, you calculate the combined implied probability (the sum of both team's implied probabilities), which will be more than 100%, and in our case is 104.72. The extra 4.72 is the vig (here is a simplified equation): (100)-65.56+39.22 = 4.72. Then you divide each team's implied probability by this total to adjust for the vig. 65.52%/104.74% and 39.22%/104.74%. Therefore, here are the adjusted probabilities with the vig removed: 62.55% the Jaguars win and 37.45% the Titans win. The Ravens are also +155 now, which means both Ravens and Titans have the same probability at 39.22%. The Steelers sit at -190. Same probabilities and same math, equaling the same result. So we have a 37.45% the Titans win and a 37.45% chance the Ravens win. What you are doing is taking the singular probability of two events (P(team A) + P(team B) - P(team A * team B)). It's a fair take. We shall see what happens. .

No idea how you figured that, but it’s not accurate. Steelers (-195) vs Ravens (+165) implies the Ravens (who we want to win), only have a 33.9% probability of victory. Jags (-265) vs Titans (+190) implies the Titans (who we want to win), only have a 22.9% probability of victory. I’m guessing you’re taking the singular probability of two events (P(team A) + P(team B) - P(team A * team B)), which would be 49% in our case. .