Einstein

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.

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: