PFF takes analytics to a new level

[LABILLBACKER]

Collinworthless.....says it all

[Billsfan1972]

44 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

19 turnover worthy plays doesn't seem like a high number for Allen. He's fumbled the ball 7 times and most were just poor ball security. He's thrown 8 INTs. 1-2 were definitely not bad throws off the top of my head. 

 

I wouldn't get too worked up over this stat, but it seems pretty accurate. 

I see a whole lot with more Ints. then Allen.  I guess their's however were not "Turnover Worthy"?

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/stats/player/_/table/passing/sort/interceptions/dir/desc

 

I can also think 2 right off the top Diggs (who ran the wrong route) and Isaiah McKenzie vs. Tenn (off his chest) that weren't Josh's fault.  Sure there were others.

 

Shall we check Fumbles too?

 

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/player-stat/fumbles

 

Very quick Wilson, Goff, Jackson, Cousins, Brady & Murray are all ahead of Allen.....  Where are they on the list????🙄

 

 

Edited December 12, 2020 by Billsfan1972

[JGMcD2]

12 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

And continue to find (make up) stats to trash Allen 

 

 

 

 

It's almost parody at this point 

19 actually makes sense... it’s what I’d expect from Josh, really. It’s the type of player he is... the fumbles that he recovers on sacks go into this. 
 

I’d like to see the rest of the list... I’d be surprised if there aren’t a bunch of QBs right around there at 17 or 16. 

[Cruiserplayer]

2 hours ago, TH3 said:

PFF...meh...JA and Mahomes are 1-2 in ability to make something good to unbelievable  happen at anytime....JA's TD throw with 40 seconds left at AZ says it all...2-3 qb's can make that throw at that time

 

Score that!

Being only a couple guys can make that throw it counts as turnover worthy.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

4 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

So, it's bad, and it's about Allen, so it must be wrong. I see how this works. Makes total sense.

Excellent arguments, all around, on this thread. Not one person has addressed the substance, yet panties are bunched.

 

I mean, no offense intended, but isn't this the same in reverse from you?  It's not like you're addressing the substance either

 

Quote

To be fair, I loved this comment:

"Does he get one less for the LAR Kroft catch?"

Fair point. Wonder how that was graded.

 

It wasn't graded as an "interceptable ball" because it was an actual interception.  Same with the NE game where Diggs acknowledges it was "on him" because he didn't do what Josh expected in that

 

Look, here's the crux of problem:  Want to address the substance?  OK....Wait, I can't.

I have no idea how, in practice, PFF defines an "interceptable ball".  None of us do, unless we're former PFF graders.  The details of the grading definitions they use are proprietary. 

 

There are some throws that I doubt any of us would have a problem calling "interceptable".  They may have been actually IN the DB's hands, and dropped.  There were something like 3 of these in the Cardinals game and maybe a couple in the Jets.   On the other hand, there are throws where (like Collinsworth said last year) "that should have been an interception" where we're all like "huh?" because we know Josh can get that ball in there well before the DB arrives.  The ball was never in "harm's way".  It's either caught or OOB.

Let's look at the plays they're calling "interceptable" - game, time, down and distance, and decide how many of those we agree with.  Oh, Wait, we can't do that either - that list isn't public.

 

So let's summarize.  PFF has a stat, "interceptable balls" which Allen is poor at, but we can't address the substance because neither the specific criteria nor the actual throws in question are available to the public.

 

I have a problem with that, and it doesn't involve "bunched panties", it involves the idea that statistics should represent objective criteria that are transparent to all how they're derived, ie "showing your work" (or the lack thereof)

 

Quote

Allen's been terrific. PFF acknowledges that. Playing well can sometimes be accompanied by a bad stat here or there.

 

It's not a statistic, is my point.  It's one of these made up pseudo-objective analytical numbers with opaque criteria.

 

1 hour ago, Billsfan1972 said:

I see a whole lot with more Ints. then Allen.  I guess their's however were not "Turnover Worthy"?

https://www.espn.com/nfl/stats/player/_/table/passing/sort/interceptions/dir/desc

 

No, they're not - the whole point PFF is trying to capture is whether a QB is regularly "putting the ball in harm's way" and being bailed out by the bad hands of DBs.  So actual interceptions don't count as "interceptable balls"

 

That's just one of my whole problems with the thing.  Once we start looking at (and grading) plays that didn't actually occur, what else do you look at?  Do we adjust the actual interceptions lower for "catchable balls" like the Kroft catch that was inexplicably ruled an INT, or the ricochet off Roberts that wasn't a perfect throw, but coulda been caught?  Do we adjust for acknowledged route miscues, where the WR and QB aren't on the same page and the WR says "on me", like the NE pick?

 

How about adjusting the QB's completion percentage for "catchable balls"  where the receiver dropped 'em?  Do we do that?  Do we adjust for where the receiver could have made a simple route adjustment, like Smith could have sat on his route across the back of the endzone there as Allen motioned him to, and been in position to catch the ball?

 

Once you start to create numerical criteria around events which actually didn't occur, but could have, maybe even should have - where do you stop?

 

To me, you stop with what actually happened.

 

Quote

I can also think 2 right off the top Diggs (who ran the wrong route) and Isaiah McKenzie vs. Tenn (off his chest) that weren't Josh's fault.

 

That was Andre Roberts, not 'Lil Dirty.

[Billsfan1972]

Of course someone will point out that these are on top of the turnovers already made.

 

Please I'd like to see each one and would be curious about other QB's and plays that were not turnover worthy.

 

Again 11th week 2 and 6th week 13 says it all.....

 

Week 13 was almost perfect and want to understand how he was so low.

[The Wiz]

3 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

It’s just totally obvious that Josh Allen has broken PFF’s matrix system and they don’t know what to do about it

[Buffalo_Stampede]

1 hour ago, Billsfan1972 said:

I see a whole lot with more Ints. then Allen.  I guess their's however were not "Turnover Worthy"?

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/stats/player/_/table/passing/sort/interceptions/dir/desc

 

I can also think 2 right off the top Diggs (who ran the wrong route) and Isaiah McKenzie vs. Tenn (off his chest) that weren't Josh's fault.  Sure there were others.

 

Shall we check Fumbles too?

 

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/player-stat/fumbles

 

Very quick Wilson, Goff, Jackson, Cousins, Brady & Murray are all ahead of Allen.....  Where are they on the list????🙄

 

 

Its a subjective stat. No need to get worked up over it. Looking at Allen alone the number looks pretty close to what I would guess. 

 

But like I said earlier Allen handles the football more than most QB's because he runs and throws a lot. He has passed or run nearly 200 more times than Lock. Lock is by far worse than Allen in this stat but the way its ranked makes Allen look worse. 

[Weatherman]

I wonder how many “Turnover Worthy Plays” HOF QB Brett Favre averaged during his career.  PFF = The Onion of the NFL

[Mr. K]

13 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

And continue to find (make up) stats to trash Allen 

 

 

 

 

It's almost parody at this point 

F*** em

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, LABILLBACKER said:

Collinworthless.....says it all

 

Oh, Come.

 

He seems like a nice enough guy if you overlook his long-ago creepy and cringe-worthy comments about liking underage teens who aren't too smart and his fixation on PFF.  I enjoyed his comment about meeting Allen for the first time to interview him before the Steelers last year, and how Allen "slid" into the doorway imitating how Collinsworth slides into SNF and Allen was giggling and Collinsworth was "I See That...get your butt in here" (about 19:30)

 

He said "in some weird way, Daboll reminds me of Allen..." which I thought was funny but potentially insightful...said that they both have an upbeat personality and they enjoy what they're doing, and that they now have a symbiotic relationship.

 

2 hours ago, JGMcD2 said:

19 actually makes sense... it’s what I’d expect from Josh, really. It’s the type of player he is... the fumbles that he recovers on sacks go into this. 
 

I’d like to see the rest of the list... I’d be surprised if there aren’t a bunch of QBs right around there at 17 or 16. 

 

There are a couple guys here who subscribe to PFF -  maybe they'll help a bro

[JGMcD2]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

That was Andre Roberts, not 'Lil Dirty.

Haha I love that ‘Lil Dirty is public knowledge now... cracks me up. 

[Don Otreply]

7 hours ago, hemma said:

Almost time for New Year's resolutions.

 

I have decided I will not click anything that could, in any way, improve Chris Collinsworth's net worth.

Welcome to the club, 👍 “now there’s a guy”  I will not support! 
 

I haven’t clicked on that trash in well over a year, they offer nothing I can’t get from many other sports programs, without all the make believe nonsense. 
 

Go Bills!!!

[C.Biscuit97]

It’s so weird how so many of you hate PFF yet constantly make threads about it.  

[Billsfan1972]

56 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

It’s so weird how so many of you hate PFF yet constantly make threads about it.  

It's not hating PFF, it's laughing at their made up metrics.

 

If someone can pleas explain how Josh Allen was 6th week 13 by PFF, I'd like to hear it and see the measurments/scoring (and no Moss fumbled the ball and was benched because of it).

[Don Otreply]

10 hours ago, jeremy2020 said:

 

How do you not get this by now? PFF's goal isn't 'accurate statistics'... it's attention. Guess what they get with people getting their britches in a knot every time they say so and so isn't good? 

 

You literally did their job for them. So guess what you will get more of? More of them saying Allen is bad because fools will rush to post that **** all over the internet every single time they say it. 

Only helps them if ya click on their crap, no click, no revenue, 

[ColoradoBills]

This seals it for me.  I'm not even going to watch the Sunday Night game!

[Milanos Milano]

10 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

It’s just totally obvious that Josh Allen has broken PFF’s matrix system and they don’t know what to do about it

Well let’s hope he’s our Neo. 

[HardyBoy]

17 hours ago, TUBSTER said:

Le Batard and Bomani Jones are two of the most arrogant guys when it comes to talking about Josh.  I remember the words they used were "Allen should apologize to us for making us think he was that bad.  It's not our fault he didn't play well."  If you can't make a good prediction about someone, at least man up to your mistake.

 

You don't get the show

[Malazan]

2 hours ago, Don Otreply said:

Only helps them if ya click on their crap, no click, no revenue, 

 

What do you think happens when someone gets their panties in a knot and runs to post their latest article for the outrage? People click on it. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

6 hours ago, JGMcD2 said:

Haha I love that ‘Lil Dirty is public knowledge now... cracks me up. 

 

Are you saying that you knew the backstory, and when some of us asked you were 🦗🦗?

 

 

For those who missed it, McKenzie explains

[GreggTX]

I don't think this is so far off. Josh has come such a long way, but he simply MUST get his fumblitis under control. He's getting better, but he can do even better still. I'd like his INT% to come down a bit too. We'll see. I think he will. He continues to improve and I think this remains his last big challenge.

[JGMcD2]

17 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Are you saying that you knew the backstory, and when some of us asked you were 🦗🦗?

 

 

For those who missed it, McKenzie explains

Haha my bad... I must have missed the back and forth on the origins story!

 

If I saw I would’ve chimed in. 

[Thurman#1]

9 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

It wasn't graded as an "interceptable ball" because it was an actual interception.  Same with the NE game where Diggs acknowledges it was "on him" because he didn't do what Josh expected in that...

 

 

 

No, Hap. It's perfectly possible for passes PFF terms "turnover worthy" throws to be intercepted. In fact, that's precisely what a near-majority of INTs are ... they're the result of turnover-worthy passes. A pass that's tipped up into the air and INT'd is not turnover-worthy. A pass that is thrown short into the hands of an LB and INT'd absolutely is considered turnover-worthy by PFF. INTs absolutely can be turnover-worthy.

 

If you'll look at this, you'll see they even have a chart where they look at how many of their various kinds of turnover-worthy throws actually were intercepted.

 

https://www.pff.com/news/pro-pff-qb-grading-most-effective-tool-there-is

 

And a quick explanation, from the same article, written on the PFF site:

 

 

"Not all turnover-worthy plays become turnovers

 

"As the previous chart shows us, not all turnover-worthy plays will become turnovers. Using 2017 data, throws graded -1.0 were intercepted 34.7 percent of time, throws graded -1.5 were intercepted 58.3 percent of the time, and throws graded -2.0 were intercepted 83.3 percent of the time. They all fit into the turnover-worthy category despite different levels of interception probability, but there is a clear difference between the turnover-worthy throws and the throws graded -0.5 that result in an interception only 2.4 percent of the time. Therefore, it’s fair to put turnover-worthy throws in their own category, despite 48.2 percent of all turnover-worthy throws resulting in interceptions."

 

 

 

They divide turnover-worthy throws into categories of horribleness. The -/-/- are the worst throws, and they list 83.3% of them as having produced INTs, for instance.

 

In my post which you replied to, I wondered what they have that INT that was entirely created by the refs graded. You say since it was INT's, it isn't turnover-worthy. So, no, that's wrong. My guess is they either have that INT graded as not turnover-worthy or as the least bad form of turnover-worthy, the -1.0, also called in their chart the "-", as opposed to the "-/-" or the "-/-/-".

 

I'd like to know which it was but unless they tell us about that plays specifically, we'll have to guess. On most plays it's reasonably easy to tell, but all rubrics have grey areas, and that play IMO falls into one.

Edited December 13, 2020 by Thurman#1

[Hapless Bills Fan]

24 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

No, Hap. It's perfectly possible for a "turnover worthy" throw to be intercepted. In fact, that's precisely what the largest percentage of INTs are ... they're the result of turnover-worthy passes.

 

If you'll look at this, you'll see they even have a chart where they look at how many of their various kinds of turnover-worthy throws actually were intercepted.

 

https://www.pff.com/news/pro-pff-qb-grading-most-effective-tool-there-is

 

OK, good to know that interceptions count as "turnover worthy"....that's less outlandish then.  Slightly.  Though I don't see data showing that the largest percentage of "turnover worthy" passes actually are intercepted...

 

But the whole thing reading at that link still grues me out.  For example:

"We can rely on our 2017 quarterback data to know that downgradable throws from the quarterback that are not considered turnover-worthy were intercepted 2.4 percent of the time, so while the quarterback gets his proper deduction, it’s not in that turnover-worthy category if it happens to be picked."

  on the other hand

"There’s a difference between a pass that is late and allows a defender a clean break on the ball versus the clear misread that is thrown right to a defender to the even more egregious pass right to a defender that is the easiest of catchable interceptions."

 

So they claim they can take a situation where really, only the OC, QB, and receiver know what really happened (example: Allen INT to Diggs in the Pats game) which was thrown "right to a defender" - but which is acknowledged to be a mistake between QB expecting one thing and WR doing something else - and grade it to assign responsibility correctly; they can decide when a ball was intercepted that really shouldn't have been or wasn't intercepted that really should have been, and grade it to assign responsibility correctly. 

 

Then they get into stuff like grading blocking when they don't know the assignments, and trying to separate out the RB's contribution from his blockers ditto and it gets hairier and hairier.

 

I think that would be a huge challenge for a group of scouts and former players who really know the game, but my understanding is that's not who's doing their grading, it's ordinary Jills and Joes they hire and train (I could be wrong on that too, of course).

 

I just don't buy it (literally or figuratively), whether they have my QB at #26 or #6

[Thurman#1]

 

9 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I mean, no offense intended, but isn't this the same in reverse from you?  It's not like you're addressing the substance either

 

 

Right.

 

It was a crappy OP, and nobody had posted a single thing with substance. I pointed that out. I suppose I could have brought substance to it, but didn't feel I needed to, what with the level at the time.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

22 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

And Brady???  For real?

 

My list (so absolute authority lol)

 

Mahomes 

Rodgers 

Watson 

Allen 

Wilson

 

 

 

Yeah, I find it difficult to perceive Brady as belonging at #3 on a list of the season's top QB from the play I've seen 🤷‍♂️

And I find it also difficult to perceive how Brees and Tannehill don't belong up at the top of this season's list of top QBs

[Thurman#1]

16 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

OK, good to know....that's less outlandish then.  Slightly.

 

But the whole thing reading at that link still grues me out.  For example:

"We can rely on our 2017 quarterback data to know that downgradable throws from the quarterback that are not considered turnover-worthy were intercepted 2.4 percent of the time, so while the quarterback gets his proper deduction, it’s not in that turnover-worthy category if it happens to be picked."

  on the other hand

"There’s a difference between a pass that is late and allows a defender a clean break on the ball versus the clear misread that is thrown right to a defender to the even more egregious pass right to a defender that is the easiest of catchable interceptions."

 

So they claim they can take a situation where really, only the OC, QB, and receiver know what really happened (example: Allen INT to Diggs in the Pats game) which was thrown "right to a defender" - but which is acknowledged to be a mistake between QB expecting one thing and WR doing something else - and grade it to assign responsibility correctly; they can decide when a ball was intercepted that really shouldn't have been or wasn't intercepted that really should have been, and grade it to assign responsibility correctly. 

 

Then they get into stuff like grading blocking when they don't know the assignments, and trying to separate out the RB's contribution from his blockers ditto and it gets hairier and hairier.

 

I think that would be a huge challenge for a group of scouts and former players who really know the game, but my understanding is that's not who's doing their grading, it's ordinary Jills and Joes they hire and train (I could be wrong on that too, of course).

 

I just don't buy it (literally or figuratively), whether they have my QB at #26 or #6

 

 

Oh, please. This whole "only the players and coaches know what's happening" thing is utter nonsense. If it were true, nobody would bother watching tape, including the teams.

 

On probably 98% of all plays it's very very obvious what happened. Hell, it's obvious to us on TV what happened most of the time with less than 40 seconds to look at it. Yes, there are occasional plays where it's not certain. When the receiver goes left and the QB throws right, there was a miscommunication, and that leaves a legitimate question for those outside the locker room for who made the mistake. But how often does that happen? It's not even close to one out of ten times, not even on the worst offenses in history. It's rare.

 

It's one of PFF's founding principles, very very clearly stated on their site, that if they're not certain who's at fault, they don't downgrade guys. 

 

Honestly, if it grues you out, that's on you. 

 

How often are you on here dissecting a play and saying what happened? A lot. How come? You weren't in the locker room. The coaches haven't called you and told you what was supposed to happen. We all do this all the time because because nearly always it's very very obvious what happened. With the benefit of hindsight and slo-mo video, extremely obvious on a massive majority of plays.

Edited December 13, 2020 by Thurman#1

[folz]

To me, the thing with PFF is that beyond any metrics, analytics, or math that they may discuss or use, at the end of the day, their info is completely subjective---based on the people who are evaluating each game. Many of their stats are judgement call stats (i.e., it was a catchable pass/not a catchable pass; a dangerous throw/a great throw, etc.)

 

They have individuals with varying degrees of football acumen and biases (let's face it, we all have biases and sometimes even when you're trying to be objective, the bias is still there subconsciously), evaluating the games and making judgement calls. Plus, they don't know what the team is running, what each player's assignment is, etc. And I'm not sure that they take their evaluations in context. For instance, say a team loses its Center and Left Tackle to injury...I guarantee you (unless the team has great backups) that the Left Guard for that team is going to be evaluated poorly in his next game (because he is probably trying to help cover for the guys around him, or he gets a demerit because the other player made the mistake, but because they don't know the assignments, they guess wrong on who messed up).

 

I can see how their information can be useful for certain things, and especially over a full season, where things start to average out. But I can also see why they so often seem to miss the mark, especially when talking about an individual game or week (player vs. player). Because ultimately, it is subjective. I do give them credit for at least trying to do it though. Especially since there is no real means for fans to evaluate players for which real stats can't give you an assessment on (like offensive linemen, D Tackles, etc.), except the eyeball test of course. But, I would never hang my hat on any of their stats personally.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

13 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

On probably 98% of all plays it's very very obvious what happened. Hell, it's obvious to us on TV what happened most of the time with less than 40 seconds to look at it.

 

Now come on.  Think about this a moment and you'll realize it's not true, when you're getting down to the level of deciding if that throw is off by 2 feet because the QB didn't throw it correctly, or because the receiver didn't sit down on his route like he should have with the linebacker there.

 

That's why we have long discussions on here about some plays.

 

Quote

Yes, there are occasional plays where it's not certain. When the receiver goes left and the QB throws right, there was a miscommunication, and that leaves a legitimate question for those outside the locker room for who made the mistake. But how often does that happen?

Quote

It's not even close to one out of ten times, not even on the worst offenses in history. It's rare.

 

Nonsense.  At the level where PFF is trying to grade "is that a perfect throw and did the WR need to reach for it because he slowed down on his route, or was that throw wide?" on every play, it happens WAY more than one out of ten times. 

 

At the level where the question is "did he catch the ball?" or "was he out of bounds?" sure - but that's NOT what we're talking about here.

 

Quote

Honestly, if it grues you out, that's on you. 

 

*shrug* if you can look at PFF's grades, and tell me they pass the test of assessing which critical players (QB etc) are doing the thing that counts - playing at a level that actually is helping their team win, that's on you.

 

Quote

How often are you on here dissecting a play and saying what happened? A lot.

 

You're skating over a critical difference.  I'm a fan.  I'm giving my opinion of what happened.  As a fan.  Sometimes bolstered with watching videos and screen caps, but still - as a fan.  An opinion.

 

I am not trying to distill my opinion into a numerical evaluation that assigns responsibility at the decimal point level for each player on each play, and then pretend that it's an objective statistic like completion percentage or interceptions or YAC.

 

Big difference there.  Don't try to skate over it.  We're fans here, to talk about football.  That's WAY different than boiling up observations into numerical values and pretending they're objective.

 

Quote

How come? You weren't in the locker room. The coaches haven't called you and told you what was supposed to happen.

 

Which is why you usually won't see me saying stuff like "Winters just totally missed that block and that's why Barkley got plastered" when for all I know, that shoulda been Morse's guy.

[Thurman#1]

 

39 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Now come on.  Think about this a moment and you'll realize it's not true, when you're getting down to the level of deciding if that throw is off by 2 feet because the QB didn't throw it correctly, or because the receiver didn't sit down on his route like he should have with the linebacker there.

 

That's why we have long discussions on here about some plays.

 

 

Nonsense.  At the level where PFF is trying to grade "is that a perfect throw and did the WR need to reach for it because he slowed down on his route, or was that throw wide?" on every play, it happens WAY more than one out of ten times. 

 

At the level where the question is "did he catch the ball?" or "was he out of bounds?" sure - but that's NOT what we're talking about here.

 

 

*shrug* if you can look at PFF's grades, and tell me they pass the test of assessing which critical players (QB etc) are doing the thing that counts - playing at a level that actually is helping their team win, that's on you.

 

 

You're skating over a critical difference.  I'm a fan.  I'm giving my opinion of what happened.  As a fan.  Sometimes bolstered with watching videos and screen caps, but still - as a fan.  An opinion.

 

I am not trying to distill my opinion into a numerical evaluation that assigns responsibility at the decimal point level for each player on each play, and then pretend that it's an objective statistic like completion percentage or interceptions or YAC.

 

Big difference there.  Don't try to skate over it.  We're fans here, to talk about football.  That's WAY different than boiling up observations into numerical values and pretending they're objective.

 

 

Which is why you usually won't see me saying stuff like "Winters just totally missed that block and that's why Barkley got plastered" when for all I know, that shoulda been Morse's guy.

 

 

Oh, please. this is all ridiculous.

 

Again let's point out the thing that you people who hate PFF want to avoid. Pretty much every NFL team buys their stuff. If they weren't excellent at what they do, these teams would not do that. And yet they do. PFF is very good at what they do. Chip Kelly is on record as having thought they were full of crap. PFF challenged him and they graded the same game. Kelly was shocked to find almost 100% complete agreement. They know what they are doing. So if it grues you, but not the NFL, no, sorry dude, that's on you.

 

And of course we know whether it's Morse's guy or Winters' guy on 98% of the plays. If Morse is on one guy and Winters is trying to block but failing on another guy, it's not as if it's hard to figure it out. Yeah, if a guy runs between two OLs neither of whom is engaged, yeah, you don't know who had the problem. But that kind of play is pretty unusual and again, PFF does not mark down anyone if it's not clear whose fault it is.

 

The fact that you're not putting a grade on those plays you talk about is irrelevant. When you say "bad throw" or "great throw," or "Oh, he got beaten, you're just saying with words what they're saying with numbers. No, you don't have a specific rubric as they do, but you're grading every play as well, but in words and without the painstaking watch-every-play-over-and-over level of thoroughness that they have committed to.

 

We do indeed have long long discussions on here about some plays. Those are the other 2%. In every game there are 11 Bills working on doing their jobs for around 120 plays. That's roughly 1320 player-plays per game. Take 2% of that and the answer will be far far more than the number of plays that we have large arguments about each week. 98% of what happens is very obvious. I certainly do agree that there are the 2%. That's why I said 98% rather than 100%.

 

And as for your "2 feet" off-target on the pass thing, when you can slow down and stop the video, it's pathetically easy to tell whether the guy put it on the mark or two feet behind allowing the defensive player to get a hand in. It's so easy I can do it, and I'm no genius.. It's so easy the commentators do it within about ten seconds of the play, having looked at in real time and very possibly not having had the chance to look at it again. And if they did look at it again, they didn't have time to use slo-mo or coaches film or all the wheels and gizmos available after the games. 

 

It's not that difficult for anyone. And they are extremely good at it. If they weren't, the NFL teams simply would not buy their stuff.

 

 

 

Edited December 13, 2020 by Thurman#1

[cage]

On 12/12/2020 at 1:15 AM, Big Blitz said:

And Brady???  For real?

 

My list (so absolute authority lol)

 

Mahomes 

Rodgers 

Watson 

Allen 

Wilson

 

 

 

Amazingly, the Bills could have had 4 of 5 of these, but glad we have Allen now.  In 2017, we traded out of Mahomes spot with Watson selected two picks later.  In 2012, we trade UP to take TJ Graham, when several on this board thought we would be moving up to take Wilson.

Edited December 13, 2020 by cage

[Thurman#1]

3 hours ago, cage said:

 

Amazingly, the Bills could have had 4 of 5 of these, but glad we have Allen now.  In 2017, we traded out of Mahomes spot with Watson selected two picks later.  In 2012, we trade UP to take TJ Graham, when several on this board thought we would be moving up to take Wilson.

 

 

I didn't put that together till you said that. Interesting.

 

With Allen on the roster, that hurts an awful lot less, doesn't it?

[Don Otreply]

9 hours ago, jeremy2020 said:

 

What do you think happens when someone gets their panties in a knot and runs to post their latest article for the outrage? People click on it. 

I suspect many like me don’t click on their site, and just see their absurd takes here. 
 

it is true that ya can’t teach some folk to not support an organization they find lacking in credibility, there I cannot help you...

[4merper4mer]

On 12/12/2020 at 12:44 AM, Big Blitz said:

And continue to find (make up) stats to trash Allen 

 

 

 

 

It's almost parody at this point 

Where’s Baker?  I see five ridiculous plays per week and that’s just watching RedZone.

[TUBSTER]

14 hours ago, HardyBoy said:

 

You don't get the show

No, I do.  But when you continually say something obviously wrong because you don't like a guy... what's the point.  Probably why Bomani lost his own show in the first place lol.  

4 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

I didn't put that together till you said that. Interesting.

 

With Allen on the roster, that hurts an awful lot less, doesn't it?

Would hurt a lot more if we had taken Rosen, Darnold, or Mayfield.  Tre White and Allen for Mahomes is a trade that looks like it might be working out well for both teams as of right now.

[Fleezoid]

 

"And if you need me, just think 'Johnny Wishbone' and I come running. Lutz and Biddle, it's like Kibbles n' Bits, but different."

 

- Johnny Wishbone