Jump to content
transplantbillsfan

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

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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/
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 by BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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/
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by oldmanfan
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by MJS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...