Allen is NOT inaccurate unless Baker, Lamar, Darnold, Rosen, 2017 Watson & 2016 Wentz are, too

[Bangarang]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

I get it.  The people that misinterpret stats don't.

 

No, you clearly don’t get it. If we’re talking about Allen’s low completion percentage in relation to the rest of the league then you can’t simply use his adjusted completion percentage to prove everything is fine without comparing it to the adjusted completion percentages of his peers. It’s not misinterpretation if you’re asking for an equal comparison. 

[oldmanfan]

22 minutes ago, Foxx said:

 

talk about not addressing a question presented. wow.

I don't think adjusted completion rate is particularly useful to assess a QB.  There are many variables such as protection that can lead to hurried throws, throwaways etc. that have nothing to do with a QBs performance.  In fact, if you have a QB that throws it away instead of taking a sack his adjusted rate could be lower for doing the right thing.

2 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

 

No, you clearly don’t get it. If we’re talking about Allen’s low completion percentage in relation to the rest of the league then you can’t simply use his adjusted completion percentage to prove everything is fine without comparing it to the adjusted completion percentages of his peers. It’s not misinterpretation if you’re asking for an equal comparison. 

Where did I say it's fine?  I have indicated where Allen needs to improve.  And I can do that watching him without the benefit of an overinflated poorly constructed statistic.

[Cripple Creek]

8 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Explain to me how comparing a first year QBs stats to a HOF QB with vastly more experience, with different receivers, different O line, coaching and all the other variables makes sense.  I can watch Allen on the Bills last year, and I watched every play over his last three games, and I can tell you what he needs.  He needs to make his reads more quickly, to get the game to slow down.  He needs to improve his ball placement (which is more precision than accuracy) especially on shorter throws.  He needs to improve his footwork throwing to the right.  He needs better receivers and better protection.

 

Prett much all these are what you'd expect from a young QB.  Comparing him to a HOFer as if he should be at that level today is pointless and achieves nothing.

You’re the one setting parameters, not me. How about comparing the other rookie QBs? See any value in that? What about first year starters? Any value there?

 

And, while we’re at it WTF is wrong with comparing to the best that are out there? How else do you know how far you have to go? If you don’t think Allen studies other QBs then you’re sadly mistaken.

 

i think there’s someone for you to chase off your lawn

[Foxx]

10 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I don't think adjusted completion rate is particularly useful to assess a QB.  There are many variables such as protection that can lead to hurried throws, throwaways etc. that have nothing to do with a QBs performance.  In fact, if you have a QB that throws it away instead of taking a sack his adjusted rate could be lower for doing the right thing. ...

 

your replies to and accounting from my post where it was said that without something to measure against, you can't possibly know how any stat rates. i would think that you of all people should understand this. that you are avoiding answering such an obvious question is absurd.

Edited June 29, 2019 by Foxx

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

your replies to and accounting from my post where it was said that without something to measure against, you can't possibly know how any stat rates. i would think that you of all people should understand this. that you are avoiding answering such an obvious question is absurd.

The questio was how does one know the value of adjusted completion rate if you don't compare between individuals.  And my answer is simple:  if the star has limited value if any, as I would suggest, then comparisons are meaningless.  

 

Yiu are correct that stats give you a sense of trends in a group and a basis for comparison, but when you oversimplify a stat and don't take into account the myriad of variables that affects said statistic then it becomes of little consequence.

 

Have you ever designed a study?  Figuring out and controlling variables is one of the key things you have to do before determining the value of what you're going to measure

[Bangarang]

15 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Where did I say it's fine?  I have indicated where Allen needs to improve.  And I can do that watching him without the benefit of an overinflated poorly constructed statistic.

 

Are you even paying attention to the discussion right now? I don’t think you are

9 minutes ago, Foxx said:

your replies to and accounting from my post where it was said that without something to measure against, you can't possibly know how any stat rates. i would think that you of all people should understand this. that you are avoiding answering such an obvious question is absurd.

 

If Allen’s adjusted completion percentage was among the best, it would matter. Since it isn’t, it’s irrelevant. That’s how these things tend to work around here. 

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

 

Are you even paying attention to the discussion right now? I don’t think you are

Yes I am.  I don't think you understand the basis of statistical analysis correctly.  

 

You claimed I am using my argument to say everything is fine with Allen.  Which I never said, and in fact I pointed out areas he needs to improve.  You are the one being disingenuous here.

Edited June 29, 2019 by oldmanfan

[Bangarang]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

Yes I am.  I don't think you understand the basis of statistical analysis correctly.  

 

You’ve come to the conclusion that I lack an understanding because I want to see an equal comparison? It’s shocking  how dense you’re being right now.

Edited June 29, 2019 by Bangarang

[Foxx]

3 hours ago, Foxx said:

most of this thread is, 'unwatchable'.

i reiterate.

[Cripple Creek]

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

i reiterate.

I concur and I am ashamed to have added to it.

[oldmanfan]

17 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

 

You’ve come to the conclusion that I lack an understanding because I want to see an equal comparison? It’s socking how dense you’re being right now.

 

17 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

 

You’ve come to the conclusion that I lack an understanding because I want to see an equal comparison? It’s socking how dense you’re being right now.

But it's not an equal comparison because there are a lot of variables between teams that in turn can affect the stat you're looking at, independent of the QBs actual play.  

 

I have had graduate level course work in stats.  If you have as well then let's have an intelligent discourse on this.  The fact that you have not responded to the difficulties with this stat despite my pointing them out several times indicates you don't understand statistical analysis.

 

Prove to me you do and we can talk.

[Bangarang]

33 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

You claimed I am using my argument to say everything is fine with Allen.  Which I never said, and in fact I pointed out areas he needs to improve.  You are the one being disingenuous here.

 

No, I’m not. That was in reference to the person who brought up Allen’s adjusted completion percentage. You keep proving you aren’t paying attention.

[Foxx]

37 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

The questio was how does one know the value of adjusted completion rate if you don't compare between individuals.  And my answer is simple:  if the star has limited value if any, as I would suggest, then comparisons are meaningless.  

 

Yiu are correct that stats give you a sense of trends in a group and a basis for comparison, but when you oversimplify a stat and don't take into account the myriad of variables that affects said statistic then it becomes of little consequence.

 

Have you ever designed a study?  Figuring out and controlling variables is one of the key things you have to do before determining the value of what you're going to measure

one can pretty much tailor any statistical polling to get it to say what they are wanting, depending upon the variables used. however and this is my last word on the subject for now unless this takes a turn for the more intelligent discussion, without something to measure any stat against, said stat is completely useless for purposes of having an understanding of what that stat means.

 

in the 70's a 50% completion percentage, when weighed against peers was considered good. you take that same stat and today it is garbage because of the current context of other peer stats.

 

[Bangarang]

15 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

 

But it's not an equal comparison because there are a lot of variables between teams that in turn can affect the stat you're looking at, independent of the QBs actual play.  

 

I have had graduate level course work in stats.  If you have as well then let's have an intelligent discourse on this.  The fact that you have not responded to the difficulties with this stat despite my pointing them out several times indicates you don't understand statistical analysis.

 

Prove to me you do and we can talk.

 

Can you spot a receiver dropping the ball? Or a QB throwing the ball away because he was pressured or spiking it to stop the clock?

 

if you understood what went into figuring out adjusted completion percentage you would know it doesn’t take an advanced understanding of each team’s specific scheme, play call or route concepts. 

 

Are you trying to discredit such a simple concept because it doesn’t yield the result you want it to? Genuinely asking.

[oldmanfan]

1 hour ago, Foxx said:

one can pretty much tailor any statistical polling to get it to say what they are wanting, depending upon the variables used. however and this is my last word on the subject for now unless this takes a turn for the more intelligent discussion, without something to measure any stat against, said stat is completely useless for purposes of having an understanding of what that stat means.

 

in the 70's a 50% completion percentage, when weighed against peers was considered good. you take that same stat and today it is garbage because of the current context of other peer stats.

 

True.  The question though is whether a stat is worth comparing.

1 hour ago, Bangarang said:

 

Can you spot a receiver dropping the ball? Or a QB throwing the ball away because he was pressured or spiking it to stop the clock?

 

if you understood what went into figuring out adjusted completion percentage you would know it doesn’t take an advanced understanding of each team’s specific scheme, play call or route concepts. 

 

Are you trying to discredit such a simple concept because it doesn’t yield the result you want it to? Genuinely asking.

No.  I think I understand what goes into the calculation. And for me some of the variables are more team related vs. QB related which is why I don't give it much relevance to assessing QBs.

 

And quit telling me I'm looking for a specific result. I'm not. I would argue it's the opposite.

Edited June 29, 2019 by oldmanfan

[Bangarang]

31 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

No.  I think I understand what goes into the calculation. And for me some of the variables are more team related vs. QB related which is why I don't give it much relevance to assessing QBs.

 

Can you elaborate on what you mean? 

 

Quote

 

And quit telling me I'm looking for a specific result. I'm not. I would argue it's the opposite.

 

Well, I never said you were. I merely asked given how opposed you are to such a comparison. 

Edited June 29, 2019 by Bangarang

[oldmanfan]

15 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

 

Can you elaborate on what you mean? 

 

 

Well, I never said you were. I merely asked given how opposed you are to such a comparison. 

First, your quote:

 

Are you trying to discredit such a simple concept because it doesn’t yield the result you want it to? .

 

So yes you did say I'm looking for a result.  Yield the result you want it to.  Your words.

 

Second if you look at the denominator for the adjusted completion percentage it has things like throwaways, drops, and such.  If you have WRs that can't get open as well as the next team, or a line that doesn't protect as well, then the denominator increases and the percentage decreases.  And those are more on different parts of the offense other than the QB.  So you could have a QB that has to throw the ball away more because of poor line play, and his ACP would be lower.  In such a case the QB is making the smart play but his stat suffers.

 

Thus the ACP to me may have usefulness as a team stat, but not a QB stat.  

 

 

[Patrick Duffy]

wtf

[transplantbillsfan]

6 hours ago, Bangarang said:

 

No, you clearly don’t get it. If we’re talking about Allen’s low completion percentage in relation to the rest of the league then you can’t simply use his adjusted completion percentage to prove everything is fine without comparing it to the adjusted completion percentages of his peers. It’s not misinterpretation if you’re asking for an equal comparison. 

 

Which was precisely the reason I compared him with 6 other rookie QBs rather than 6 veteran HOF QBs

[transplantbillsfan]

6 hours ago, Bangarang said:

 

If Allen’s adjusted completion percentage was among the best, it would matter. Since it isn’t, it’s irrelevant. That’s how these things tend to work around here. 

 

Well, Allen threw the 2nd highest percentage of catchable passes excluding Throwaways among the 7 rookie QBs I compared.

[transplantbillsfan]

 

[Bing Bong]

On 6/29/2019 at 1:42 AM, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Did you not read the OP where I laid our my criteria for what a catchable vs an uncatchable pass is?

 

As I said in the OP, if the ball hit (or was able to hit) the WR in the hands as would be considered "mitts" as you allude to, it's catchable. If the WR is ONLY able to get his fingers, but no part of the hand/palm on the ball, it was unwatchable.

 

Our WRs (and OL) blew chunks last year. Let's hope they've improved immensely this offseason.

No I completely understand your work here and I know it mitigated a lot of things you said.. of course it can't everything but it's great work. I like it. I'm not referring to the OP exactly just the super tired argument we're getting from semantics like precision vs accuracy as if we're in a physics undergrad course to the scoffing of completion % like the stat means nothing. 

 

Completion % speaks to our passing game and is super important clearly. Your work speaks more to JA's ability as much as we can quantify it. They are each important stats. 

[oldmanfan]

16 minutes ago, BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P said:

No I completely understand your work here and I know it mitigated a lot of things you said.. of course it can't everything but it's great work. I like it. I'm not referring to the OP exactly just the super tired argument we're getting from semantics like precision vs accuracy as if we're in a physics undergrad course to the scoffing of completion % like the stat means nothing. 

 

Completion % speaks to our passing game and is super important clearly. Your work speaks more to JA's ability as much as we can quantify it. They are each important stats. 

I'm sorry you don't care to be educated about precision vs. accuracy as they are, in fact, different and speak to where Allen can improve.  As for completion percentage, I agree it's important as a team statistic.  Not so much as a barometer for QB performance.

[JaCrispy]

???

[Bing Bong]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

I'm sorry you don't care to be educated about precision vs. accuracy as they are, in fact, different and speak to where Allen can improve.  As for completion percentage, I agree it's important as a team statistic.  Not so much as a barometer for QB performance.

I know the difference. It's undergrad physics... Not football terminology.. which is why it pains me to hear JA needs to improve in both precision and accuracy. A basketball player that's accurate yet not precise would shoot consistently at an imaginary basket 4 feet to the left of the real basket and never score a basket. That sounds like a real sports situation.. Unless JA is intentionally trying to miss his WR always 2 feet high we want him to just be more precise. The physics definition of accuracy is not what football coaches mean when they say accuracy. When the layman says accuracy he means both precision and accuracy. 

 

Next time you're at a home game with your buds with a beer let me know how many times you guys exclaim "wow! Gee golly that quarterback is simultaneously precise AND accurate!" In laymen's terms we (and analysts, coaches, players, fans, TV announcers) call that accurate.

 

We want Josh Allen to be precise and accurate by the physics terms. He'd suck if he was really bad at either. So why are we going on about the difference and giving physics undergrad lessons with dartboard pictures when we can just drop physics terms and use football terms pertinent to the sport.

 

It is entirely unnecessary to use the technical definition. Use a Webster's dictionary for the meaning in casual language outside of laboratories. The physics terminology is unnecessary because rather than testing radiocarbon dating, we are observing athletes actually try to hit a specific target. So they are inherently accurate in the scientific sense.

 

ac·cu·ra·cy

/ˈakyərəsē/

Learn to pronounce

noun

1. the quality or state of being correct or precise.

   "we have confidence in the accuracy of the statistics"

   synonyms:

   correctness, precision, exactness, rightness, perfection, validity, unambiguousness, authority, reliability More

   • TECHNICAL

     the degree to which the result of a measurement, calculation, or specification conforms to the correct value or a standard.

     plural noun: accuracies

     "the accuracy of radiocarbon dating"

Edited July 10, 2019 by BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P

[oldmanfan]

3 hours ago, BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P said:

I know the difference. It's undergrad physics... Not football terminology.. which is why it pains me to hear JA needs to improve in both precision and accuracy. A basketball player that's accurate yet not precise would shoot consistently at an imaginary basket 4 feet to the left of the real basket and never score a basket. That sounds like a real sports situation.. Unless JA is intentionally trying to miss his WR always 2 feet high we want him to just be more precise. The physics definition of accuracy is not what football coaches mean when they say accuracy. When the layman says accuracy he means both precision and accuracy. 

 

Next time you're at a home game with your buds with a beer let me know how many times you guys exclaim "wow! Gee golly that quarterback is simultaneously precise AND accurate!" In laymen's terms we (and analysts, coaches, players, fans, TV announcers) call that accurate.

 

We want Josh Allen to be precise and accurate by the physics terms. He'd suck if he was really bad at either. So why are we going on about the difference and giving physics undergrad lessons with dartboard pictures when we can just drop physics terms and use football terms pertinent to the sport.

 

It is entirely unnecessary to use the technical definition. Use a Webster's dictionary for the meaning in casual language outside of laboratories. The physics terminology is unnecessary because rather than testing radiocarbon dating, we are observing athletes actually try to hit a specific target. So they are inherently accurate in the scientific sense.

 

ac·cu·ra·cy

/ˈakyərəsē/

Learn to pronounce

noun

1. the quality or state of being correct or precise.

   "we have confidence in the accuracy of the statistics"

   synonyms:

   correctness, precision, exactness, rightness, perfection, validity, unambiguousness, authority, reliability More

   • TECHNICAL

     the degree to which the result of a measurement, calculation, or specification conforms to the correct value or a standard.

     plural noun: accuracies

     "the accuracy of radiocarbon dating"

Well, I disagree.  As Transplant has shown Allen's accuracy was good.  But being more precise would make a difference between having a guy reach back a bit for the ball and be down there vs. putting it out front where he gains another ten yards because he runs away from contact.  But I do think we agree on his potential, and I understand it's a nuanced thing.

[John from Riverside]

21 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Well, I disagree.  As Transplant has shown Allen's accuracy was good.  But being more precise would make a difference between having a guy reach back a bit for the ball and be down there vs. putting it out front where he gains another ten yards because he runs away from contact.  But I do think we agree on his potential, and I understand it's a nuanced thing.

I actually saw plenty of passes that were put out in front of pass catcher's......sure there were some that were not like any other qb...I have actually seen (gasp) Tom Brady throw a bad pass or two

 

What I do know is the better quality of pass catcher's you have...the more of those slightly overthrown/underthrown balls find their way into the hands of the intended pass catcher....AND they actually do something with it afterwords.......

[MJS]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Well, I disagree.  As Transplant has shown Allen's accuracy was good.  But being more precise would make a difference between having a guy reach back a bit for the ball and be down there vs. putting it out front where he gains another ten yards because he runs away from contact.  But I do think we agree on his potential, and I understand it's a nuanced thing.

Dude, everyone just calls that accuracy. Being able to lead a receiver, putting the ball on the correct shoulder, hitting the receiver in the hands, throwing it in a way the receiver can easily turn up field for yards after catch, etc. That's all accuracy. Putting the ball where you mean to put it.

 

If Josh is trying to put the ball in a certain spot and it is off the mark, requiring the receiver to reach back for the ball, or jump up and snag it, etc. that means Allen just needs to work more on accuracy.

 

This is clearly a semantics argument. No point in even arguing.

[oldmanfan]

38 minutes ago, MJS said:

Dude, everyone just calls that accuracy. Being able to lead a receiver, putting the ball on the correct shoulder, hitting the receiver in the hands, throwing it in a way the receiver can easily turn up field for yards after catch, etc. That's all accuracy. Putting the ball where you mean to put it.

 

If Josh is trying to put the ball in a certain spot and it is off the mark, requiring the receiver to reach back for the ball, or jump up and snag it, etc. that means Allen just needs to work more on accuracy.

 

This is clearly a semantics argument. No point in even arguing.

Well, not really.  But it's not worth the effort arguing the point.  The main thing that Transplant and at least one other person here has shown by grading every throw Allen made is that the accuracy thing is overblown.

[Bing Bong]

5 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Well, not really.  But it's not worth the effort arguing the point.  The main thing that Transplant and at least one other person here has shown by grading every throw Allen made is that the accuracy thing is overblown.

Yea idk why I blew up, sorry. Not worth arguing it is semantics. I wouldn't tell you how to interpret a throw so long as you're measuring the distinction.. but at what point are we just describing that JA needs to be more consistent (accuracy) and accurate (precision). I'd just recommend y'all translate others' use of sports terms to how you like to think about it because neither is wrong.. we're just using synonyms between science and sports terminology. 

 

It's like describing a player's "jerk" when it's lumped into acceleration or as best as some people describe it "ability to shift gears". Arguably a 40 time and shuttle at the combine measure jerk more than anything but why are we creating 2 different attributes when acceleration can simply mean both in sports.

 

I mean is it fair to say you also mean consistency? That's all I'm saying. When someone says JA is inaccurate I guarantee they mean precision. And it sounds like you are describing consistency in his precision as Transplant likely debunked the problem is partly precision not accuracy as demonstrated he throws so hard anything not consistently on the money are difficult catches yet accurately still in the catch radius

 

And I'm being a smart *** here: but I'm pretty sure the terms make no sense in the context of sports. The dartboard analogy is.. just that, and analogy to relate an easy to understand sports chart to the measurement of testing and the results. Quarterbacks know they want to hit the middle.. and aim for it. I can't think of a single quarterback that wouldn't be considered highly accurate in this sense as these are professional throwers intentionally aiming at a spot. Some dude building a machine to throw darts would use the terms. Not that I'd know but I highly doubt professional darts enthusiasts use these terms.. but maybe a scientist testing a dart throwing machine would.

Edited July 10, 2019 by BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P

[oldmanfan]

59 minutes ago, BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P said:

Yea idk why I blew up, sorry. Not worth arguing it is semantics. I wouldn't tell you how to interpret a throw so long as you're measuring the distinction.. but at what point are we just describing that JA needs to be more consistent (accuracy) and accurate (precision). I'd just recommend y'all translate others' use of sports terms to how you like to think about it because neither is wrong.. we're just using synonyms between science and sports terminology. 

 

It's like describing a player's "jerk" when it's lumped into acceleration or as best as some people describe it "ability to shift gears". Arguably a 40 time and shuttle at the combine measure jerk more than anything but acceleration is a perfectly fine way to describe the measurement.

 

I mean is it fair to say you also mean consistency? That's all I'm saying. When someone says JA is inaccurate I guarantee they mean precision. And it sounds like you are describing consistency in his precision as Transplant likely debunked the problem is partly precision not accuracy as demonstrated he throws so hard anything not consistently on the money are difficult catches yet accurately still in the catch radius

 

And I'm being a smart *** here: but I'm pretty sure the terms make no sense in the context of sports. The dartboard analogy is.. just that, and analogy to relate an easy to understand sports chart to the measurement of testing and the results. Quarterbacks know they want to hit the middle.. and aim for it. I can't think of a single quarterback that wouldn't be considered highly accurate in this sense as these are professional throwers intentionally aiming at a spot. Some dude building a machine to throw darts would use the terms. Not that I'd know but I highly doubt professional darts enthusiasts use these terms.. but maybe a scientist testing a dart throwing machine would.

I would equate precision with the football term "ball placement".  Putting it on a specific spot with each throw.  I did a mini-Transplant analysis for two of Allen's games last year.  And there were a few throws that were just God awful- way off target.  Most were certainly catchable, but if the ball had been put a little farther out front, or a little closer to the sideline, it would have resulted in more success.  I've seen Allen quoted this offseason on having to improve his ball placement and I would concur.

 

You used the word consistency, and I certainly agree there.  What I'm hoping to see is for him to make quicker reads, find the open guy faster and get the ball there faster.  Little more touch on his short throws.  Mostly what young QBs generally go through.

Edited July 10, 2019 by oldmanfan

[MJS]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

I would equate precision with the football term "ball placement".  Putting it on a specific spot with each throw.  I did a mini-Transplant analysis for two of Allen's games last year.  And there were a few throws that were just God awful- way off target.  Most were certainly catchable, but if the ball had been put a little farther out front, or a little closer to the sideline, it would have resulted in more success.  I've seen Allen quoted this offseason on having to improve his ball placement and I would concur.

 

You used the word consistency, and I certainly agree there.  What I'm hoping to see is for him to make quicker reads, find the open guy faster and get the ball there faster.  Little more touch on his short throws.  Mostly what young QBs generally go through.

So where is the threshold where it isn't accuracy anymore and is now precision? Within 2 feet? Do you do something different when working on accuracy vs precision? I don't think so. It's all the same.

 

If you watch a play and see an amazing throw, you could say "that was a super accurate throw" or "that was a super precise throw" and it means the same thing.

 

In fact look up either term in a thesaurus and you'll see that they are synonymous.

 

EDIT: And I apologize arguing right after I said it isn't worth arguing. My bad. I will no longer argue about this.

Edited July 10, 2019 by MJS

[oldmanfan]

20 minutes ago, MJS said:

So where is the threshold where it isn't accuracy anymore and is now precision? Within 2 feet? Do you do something different when working on accuracy vs precision? I don't think so. It's all the same.

 

If you watch a play and see an amazing throw, you could say "that was a super accurate throw" or "that was a super precise throw" and it means the same thing.

 

In fact look up either term in a thesaurus and you'll see that they are synonymous.

 

EDIT: And I apologize arguing right after I said it isn't worth arguing. My bad. I will no longer argue about this.

I said above it is a nuanced thing.  Accuracy is how close you are to a target,  precision is how well you can consistently hit a given spot.  The dartboard analogy.  They can overlap if you narrow down what your definition of accuracy is to a very small area.  I think it was the pff guys that did the analysis and basically defined accuracy as hitting a guy in the numbers.  That's a very small window, and at that point being accurate and precise are pretty much the same.  I would say having it within the catch radius is accurate, and having the QB hit a spot exactly where he wants it each time (or ball placement as I mentioned above) is being both accurate and precise.  Which, to me, is what the greats can do.    

[transplantbillsfan]

19 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

I actually saw plenty of passes that were put out in front of pass catcher's......sure there were some that were not like any other qb...I have actually seen (gasp) Tom Brady throw a bad pass or two

 

What I do know is the better quality of pass catcher's you have...the more of those slightly overthrown/underthrown balls find their way into the hands of the intended pass catcher....AND they actually do something with it afterwords.......

 

Allen threw plenty of passes last year that had excellent ball placement just like Brady threw a number of passes with bad ball placement.

 

We just need to see a lot more consistency from Allen.

[reddogblitz]

We just need him to throw better.

[transplantbillsfan]

Looks pretty accurate to me

 

[transplantbillsfan]

Here are some pretty good indicators of a dropping completion percentage considering longer passes are inherently lower percentage passes:

 

[colin]

watching allen make sick bombs shows me he is an accurate passer, but him airing out over guys or putting a rocket into a guy 8 yards away tells me he just has some consistency problems.

 

I'd say his mechanics breakdown (sometimes necessitated by the hero ball he had to play last year) and decision making are the biggest issues, followed (and not closely) by a need to maybe make some very small adjustments in how or when he actually throws the ball.

 

IMO all of this is well coachable, but being big, fast, strong, swagged out, and having an arm rocket can't be taught, so i like what we have with him.

[transplantbillsfan]

 

[Bing Bong]

On 7/18/2019 at 7:20 AM, colin said:

watching allen make sick bombs shows me he is an accurate passer, but him airing out over guys or putting a rocket into a guy 8 yards away tells me he just has some consistency problems.

 

I'd say his mechanics breakdown (sometimes necessitated by the hero ball he had to play last year) and decision making are the biggest issues, followed (and not closely) by a need to maybe make some very small adjustments in how or when he actually throws the ball.

 

IMO all of this is well coachable, but being big, fast, strong, swagged out, and having an arm rocket can't be taught, so i like what we have with him.

Concentration, situational awareness, consistency, football IQ, all those good things. A guy can be very accurate, but getting to know your pass catchers.. needlessly throwing rockets to Charles Clay on crossing routes.. these are things that can improve your chance of getting a catch. I mean sure, a quarterback can throw a bullet to his FB 5 yards in the flat right on the money and see it dropped and he and all of us on the board can throw our hands up in the air and say it's not his fault.

 

It's not the quarterback's fault on a play like that but he certainly didn't make it easier for anyone. He can still be BETTER. And that's certainly a rookie curve they need to learn in the NFL is knowing the pass catcher's ability. On 3rd and short when your primarily blocking TE3 is wide open, hips angled where he wants to catch the ball, you throw him a softball exactly where he wants it. That's what Drew Brees does for his less talented catchers.. he makes the tough throws for Michael Thomas if he doesn't see a guy that has a better chance of beating his man. Or another example, this reminds me of that missed TD throw to Zay Jones against a cover 0 in Miami.. I think everyone was on the same page that yes, Zay's route was supposed to have him slow down to catch the ball between the 2 safety zones.. but with no safeties and a man running behind Zay, I imagine Zay purposefully kept running making a hot route for an easier grab while JA bullets the ball behind him.

 

Cam Newton probably threw 10 would-be TD passes in his MVP year that got dropped by Ted Ginn Jr., but he was aware of Ted's limitations, and kept throwing to him knowing his ability to get open was his strength and Cam's job was to make the catch as easy as possible for Ted. Ted finished with 10. Had his best year. Cam had his best year. The reason being that Cam adjusted to Ted's game.

 

Probably the biggest reason for the completion % IMO. a) The receivers were mostly bad, and b) Josh Allen didn't always pay attention to his WR's abilities. I think it's a thing he will improve on, both with better receivers and more experience for Josh Allen. Especially the passes in the flats: the throws looked like really difficult grabs to even catch and get YAC. I know the common reply is just "these guys are paid to catch the ball they should catch it".. but no, they really aren't.. some made it in the NFL with exceptional skills in blocking, running, getting open.. not necessarily catching (I expected Zay to be exactly that though: a possession WR). Get to know your WRs.

Edited July 22, 2019 by BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P