Einstein

Well, duh. It would be expected to be low because that stat is counting any pass from 20 to 100(!!!) yards in length lol. OF COURSE the 50, 60, 70, 80 yard heaves are going to drag the percentage down. And because defenses play a lot of Cover 2 against the Bills and Chiefs and all good offenses, the middle of the field is rarely ever open so the data set is slim. All those 50, 60, 70 yard heaves down field when under pressure and are basically throwaways? Those count. But the typical 25-30 yard lasers across the hash? Closer to the 60% mark. 🤦‍♂️ But sure, let's pretend that a pass that landed within 5 feet of Shakir would have had very little chance of being caught if Allen wasnt hit lol.

I think it’s a good question, but I also think it’s important to remember that whenever we answer questions like this, we should take into account what is theoretically possible for a player to do better and seperate it from what is actually probable, in a game situation, for a player to do better. Some posters, for example, want to defy physics to make a suggestion for what a player should have done differently. Others simply ignore fatigue on what is possible for a player to do late in a game. Anyway, I think you could make the argument that if he took one more step backwards in his dropback (or readjusted one step back after), he gets the throw off. But then we have to ask ourselves - what are we really doing by making these suggestions? And the undeniable answer is that we are clawing to find ways to cast blame on anyone other than the person at fault, Dion Dawkins. Dawkins got blown up. That is what happened. All the nuanced takes of what Allen could have done with a step in this or that direction is simply deflection from the fact that Dawkins got blown up. Also, as I mentioned in a previous post that you may not have seen because it is a couple pages back now, Josh could’ve decided to throw to Diggs and just take the first down. But I will never ever blame a player for going end zone in that situation. It was the right decision. Mathematically it is 100% the right decision.

There was no sliding in the pocket. You can try to make that argument until the cows come home but it won’t ever be the truth. Allen could have completely bailed the pocket and ran right, but then he would have had zero chance at hitting Shakir or Diggs. It would have just been a QB run. But sliding? … no. Any upward movement that wasn’t a complete sprint out of the pocket would have resulted in Jones sacking him. Jones was just waiting for Allen to try that. For goodness sake, that is the entire purpose of a bull-rush. You either disrupt the passer by knocking the linemen into him, or you disengage the lineman (who can’t see behind him) and sack the QB when the QB tries to step up. I don’t know why you’re trying to pretend like these are viable options. I never pegged you as a troll before and am hoping you aren’t becoming one, but I have a hard time believing if Mahomes had picked the wide open TD and his LT ruined the play that you would be finding any blame in Mahomes.

Uh, have you seen Josh Allen play football? 😜 He almost got it to Shakir even *while being hit!* That’s a touchdown if Dawkins didn’t lose the rep. It also wasn’t a tight window at all. Shakir was wide freaking open. The closest defender was 5 yards away.

This is called outcome bias and is an easy (and wrong) trap to fall into. Had Josh thrown to Diggs and Diggs fumbles the ball, you could say “why didn’t Allen throw to a wide open Shakir?”. If Josh scrambles right, and tears his ACL, one can question “why didn’t he throw to diggs or shakir in the endzone?”. Josh made the right decision. You ALWAYS go endzone if the endzone is open because you don’t know what will happen after that if you take the shorter play. Mathematically, endzone will always be the right call due to the unknown. At a clip of 6 yards per play, we need 4 more plays to get into the endzone at a success rate/completion of (0.8) and not turn the ball over at (0.95). Combined chance per play = 0.8 × 0.95 = 0.76. You need 4 successful plays: 0.76⁴ = 0.333 or 33.3%. Reduced odds over one play touchdown. It was the right call. People can argue this (wrongly) until cows come home but Allen made the right decision. It is not his fault that Dawkins got manhandled.

It wasn’t low percentage at all. Had Dawkins now been dog-walked, it would have been a nearly 100% chance of TD (Shakir’s catch % was over 90% at this point). PS, doing something else (like hitting Diggs for a 10 yard slant) or scrambling right is what is truly the low percentage TD pass. 0% actually.

Yes this is the same “he should have done something else” argument that has been refuted a thousand times. He did have room to scramble right. But this, as has been said before, is 1000% the wrong move. You take the TD. Every. Single. Time. You don’t take a 7 yard scramble to the right over a TD. The next play could be a fumble, INT, fluke snap, whatever. You take the TD 100 times out of 100. Bending and twisting every facet of this play to excuse Dawkins getting manhandled is a joke. This is absolute nonsense. Had Josh slid up into the pocket, Jones sacks him. Period. End of story. Literally zero question. You *NEVER* slide up into a bull rush. That is QB-ing 101. Chris Jones would have LOVED for Allen to slide up into that pocket.

Only about 50 times since it has happened form every angle available. Now you're moving the goalposts into an entirely different argument. Another losing one mind you, but the more popular one of "he should have thrown to Diggs". Allen 1000% made the right decision to throw to Shakir. He knew Shakir would be open for the TD and he went for it. He made the right decision and threw the right pass. You never pass up a TD because you don't know what will happen the next play or any play after that. Fumbles, flukes, etc. You take the TD. No it was 100% on Dion. Allen holds zero blame. Your original suggestion of Allen moving up into the pocket would have led to a guaranteed sack and is something you *never* do against a bull-rush. And shifting the line against a 4 man uniform front with a defender motioning a potential blitz on the opposite makes me question your understanding of the game.

What in the world!? You wanted Allen to slide protection against a 4 man rush and a uniform defensive front with a blitzer threatening on the opposite side!? And you wanted Allen to step up into the pocket, which would have hastened him being hit by Jones? QB's step up in the pocket to avoid pass rushers coming on the backside. Not pass rushers bull rushing. If Allen steps up, Jones swims inside and blasts Allen into the turf There is one person to blame on that play and his name rhymes with Peion Pawkins. Maybe an honorable mention to Shakir route running taking a tad longer than it should have.

You're right. Thanks for the reminder I just edited the post.

The poster I was responding to was talking about the NFL’s revenue - not their profit. Accordingly, my comparison was to Walmart’s revenue - not profit. After all, it would not make sense to compare the NFL’s revenue to Walmarts profit - would it? Walmart made a revenue of over $600 billion last year. You looked up the profit, not revenue. Problem is, no-one in this thread walk talking about profit… we were all talking about revenue. If you are going to call someone out in such a condescending way, you should triple check that you know what you are talking about before doing so.

Honestly? I agree with ya. 1500 bucks is a day at Disney for a family of 4. That's worth it for 30 years of fun. *ignoring ticket price raises of course

Perhaps he meant he would be able to sell them for 25% of what he originally paid.

I wasn't crapping on Dion. Just calling a spade a spade.

Yes, silly you for thinking that a conversation about financial investment has something to do with other random types of non-financial investment.

Last year (2023) was the o-line. It's a touchdown if Dawkins wasn't dog walked into Allen has he was throwing to a wide open Shakir in the endzone. We were about to take the lead but Dawkins got manhandled.

The poster was talking about financial investment. He specifically talked about earning money through selling games. Of course the term “investment” can be applied in many facets, such as investing in your health - but we aren’t talking about that type of investment so it seems silly to even mention it. What in the world makes you think anyone is going to pay 25% more? Especially several years from now toward the end of Allen’s career? Look at Jets PSLs. You can pick them up for pennies on the dollar. Same goes for Giants. Same goes for Cowboys. Same goes for Panthers. ”Jets fans who tried to sell PSLs this year lost an average of $3,233 per seat. Giants fans lost an average of $189, even though their team won the Super Bowl last year. And Cowboys PSL owners lost an average of $2,390 per seat since their stadium opened in 2009.” - old article but shows how PSL’s don’t typically appreciate

If you want to argue any other definition, feel free, but it will be a waste of time as 99% of the population agrees with the above.

No it's not. An investment implies the earning of profit.

The reason that they are on pace to sell out in March/April (if that’s true) is because they already adjusted PSL figured based on sales numbers. I doubt they put PSL numbers in stone. They have probably oscillated quite a bit.

The Bills are really paying to pump out these articles

Where’s the line, though? Walmart made over $600 billion last year—should we all just fill our carts and walk out because they’ve “made enough”? Well, if everyone did that, the business would collapse. That’s the problem with justifying theft based on company profits - It literally relies on others doing the right thing so that you can do the wrong thing. The logic is: “I don’t have to pay because enough others already did.” That only works if a critical mass doesn’t think like you. It's freeloading, plain and simple. Simon’s point about collusion and lack of competition is more compelling - but even that doesn’t justify piracy in my opinion. It might justify regulatory pressure, not theft. PS to all who responded to my original post: I'm not ignoring you - I just don't want to clutter this thread with replies. The reply above synthesizes what I would have said in each anyway.

I will never understand people advocating illegal streams. For some reason, it being media makes it pallatable for people to say things like like this. But most of us would never say “oh that restaurant meal was expensive - but there are ways to skip out the door before paying without the waitress knowing”. Why not just straight up say “i’m a thief”?

You think so? Hmm. I see a future where AI programs itself in the not so distant future.