billsfan1959

I think, as a general rule, the more balanced a team is, the better their chances of being a playoff team. The only exceptions I would add are those teams with HOF caliber QBs. As I stated above, of the top 14 most balanced teams, 8 made the playoffs, including 6 of the 8 most balanced teams. Of the bottom 18 teams in passing/rushing balance, only four made the playoffs: New England, Green Bay, New Orleans, and Kansas City.

Right. As does Tenn, Minn, Seattle, Hou and Buff. 8 of 12 playoff teams are in the top half of the league in smallest differential between passing and rushing attempts (including 6 of the top 8).

Baltimore clearly ran the ball more than any other team and their offense is specifically designed to utilize Lamar Jackson's running ability. However, they would not be the number one seed without Jacksons' passing. He had a career year TD percentage of 9%. (rounded up from .089). To put that in perspective, in the last 20 years, there have only been 6 QB TD% performances over 8 - and only two of them were over 9 (Peyton Manning in 2004 and Aaron Rodgers in 2010). The league average is 4.6% and no passer in the modern era has a career TD Percent higher than 6%. Last year, Jacksons' TD percent was 3.4% The difference between 9% and 3.4% for Jackson this year would be 22 TDs (36 TDs at 9% vs 14 TDs at 3.4%). If he had a TD% this year of the league average of 4.6%, he would have thrown for 18 TDs instead of 36. Even if he had thrown for 6% (the highest career average of any QB since 1970), he would have thrown for 24 TDS instead of 36. Baltimore runs more than they pass; however, IMHO, they would not be where they are right now without the passing production. Just look at the Bills' game. They pretty much shut down the run and the pass, in terms of yards. However, Jackson had 3 TD passes on 25 attempts and 101 total passing yards. It will be interesting to see if Jackson ever comes close to that TD% again. Edit: Also interesting is the fact that Alex Smith, Colin Kaepernick, and Tyrod Taylor all had their best year, in regard to TD%, under Greg Roman.

You literally said, "Bills offense scored 14, 9 (Left at the end of the 3rd down 14-9 to Miami with injury), 13, and 6. Let's hear why it wasn't his fault." Let me try this: Maybe it would have been better if you started a thread just simply asking people to give a reason, based on Williams' play, as to why they think he should play against Houston? Or maybe you could have asked that question in the other Duke Williams threads that exist?

I don't care if he starts or not. I trust the coaching staff to make the right decisions. My point was this: If you are going to start a thread stating that Williams was the reason for the lack of offensive points, then at least attempt to give some supporting reasons why. Especially if you then challenge everyone to prove you wrong - when you have done nothing to prove yourself right..

Because it is a ridiculous premise. You simply listed the points scored for the games Williams played in and then stated he is the reason the offense didn't score more points - with no supporting facts - and then told the rest of us to prove why it wasn't... ....when you made no attempt to prove why it was.

This post didn't make any sense to me until I saw that you listed your location, under your avatar, as "Elementary School". Now I understand...

Sports Illustrated did an article on this back in October: "The Declining Interception Rate in the NFL" https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/10/02/nfl-interception-rate-decline

I work for myself and my boss is a Bills fan...so, I'm good to go.

There were 14 teams with a + point differential and 11 made the playoffs. There were 18 teams with a - point differential and only 1 made the playoffs (Houston with a -7 - and they had a + differential until resting their starters in the last game).

In the end, point differential is what really matters. It doesn't really matter how you get there. There were 14 teams with a + point differential and 11 made the playoffs. There were 18 teams with a - point differential and only 1 made the playoffs (Houston with a -7 - and they had a + differential until resting their starters in the last game). There were only 3 out of 12 playoff teams that were not in the top 15 in both offensive points scored and defensive points allowed: Seattle, Buffalo, and Houston. Although, Seattle and Buffalo were both in the top 15 in point differential.

Absolutely right. He was a very good OC in San Francisco and Buffalo - and still is in Baltimore.

The Bills deserve to go on more than this thread does...

One of the primary differences, in points, I see with Rodgers this year (and last year) is his TD%. He had a five year stretch (in full 16 game seasons) where he averaged 38 TDs per year and an average TD% of 7. Last year his TD% dropped to 4.2% with 25 TDs, and this year his TD% is 4.7 with 24 TDs. Interestingly enough, Lamar Jackson's TD% this year is at 9, which is phenominal and not likely to be duplicated by him again (last year his TD% was 3.4). From 2000 through this last week (top 32 QBs per year over that time = 650 combined QB yearly performances), there have been only 7 QB performances with a TD% over 8 (1.08% of all performances), and only 2 of those were over 9 (Rodgers in 2011 and Peyton Manning in 2004). Since 1970, there hasn't been a QB with a career TD% over 6.

There are a lot of factors that go into completion % and shorter throws (screens, dump offs, etc.) is certainly one. Allen is currently 5th in intended air yards per attempt (AY/A), whereas Newton was 28th in AY/A last season. Allen has certainly been inaccurate at times, missing on what should have been an easy completions. However, some other factors contributing to his inaccuracy include (but not all inclusive): Percentage of plays in which the ball is thrown away (Allen is 3rd) Percentage of plays in which the ball is spiked (Allen is 6th) Percentage of plays in which the pass is dropped by a receiver (Allen is 1st) Percentage of plays in which the ball is tipped/ batted (Allen is 15th) Distance of throw per attempt (Allen is 5th) Percentage of passing plays blitzed/pressured (Allen is 2nd) Amount of time between snap and pressure on passing downs (Allen is tied for 1st) Small amount of separation by receivers at catch (Allen is 10th in least amount of sep by rec at catch) Allen's average ranking in just those 8 areas is 5.88 Just as a reference, here are the other QB average rankings across those 8 areas: Allen certainly has a lot of room for improvement; however, there are other areas of the team's play where improvement would help him as well.

Right, and, as a team, Allen's top receivers are 22nd in the NFL in distance of separation at the time of the catch.

I think that is true, at least with 40 or less attempts. The numbers suggest that the winning % decreases steadily over 40 attempts , even accounting for losses to an opposing 300 yard passer. I went back and ran the numbers on 300 passing yard games since 2000. I haven't yet broken out the losses by non-300 yd opposing QBs vs. 300 yd opposing QBs, because I have to look at each game individually for that. However, just going straight up wins and losses, you are going to win over 70% of the time with a 300 yard passer on attempts of 40 or less. Anyway, this is what I found overall:

Actually I was wrong. Allen is #2 in being blitzed. I corrected my post. Russell Wilson is #1 in being blitzed, so, I guess the league doesn't believe he can make decisions quickly enough either....

This article is full of cherry picked stats and superficial analyses. Let's just take the accuracy issue. He states completion % isn’t the best measure for accuracy; however, it was the very first thing he used anyway (and continued to use). He then goes on to say Allen also ranks poorly in the accuracy metrics that measure accuracy and only lists one: On target %, which he simply states, "Allen ranks poorly." Allen ranks 22nd (19th for QBs with at least 200 attempts for the season) in on target %. Clearly there are throws that Allen has missed. But, here are some stats he failed to mention that also might affect Allen' accuracy: #1 in percentage of plays in which the ball is thrown away, spiked, dropped by a receiver, or tipped/ batted at 15.7% #5 in distance of throw per attempt #1 in percentage of passes dropped at 7.2% #2 in being blitzed (43% of pass plays) #1 (tied) for the smallest amount of time, when blitzed, between snap and the throw/when the pocket collapses at 2.3 seconds There are more; but, I think the point is made. Allen certainly has a lot of room to grow; however, this article felt like someone who made up his mind about Allen and went looking for evidence to support it.

So, that's what the kids are calling it these days

A method that has no relevance, whatsoever, to supporting your thoughts is the same as having no method at all. You are offering nothing more than an opinion, which, like I said, is probably as likely to be wrong as your previous ones. To offer an opinion that you think Allen has reached his potential or close to it - which is what you said, is just that, an opinion. To say it is based on data is to show a complete ignorance on the analyses of data. You showed up on this site the day after the 2017 draft ended. I doubt that was a coincidence. The likely bet is that you were a "pseudo" Bills fan prior to the draft, got upset when they failed to draft Mahomes, and then switched allegiances. That alone should be enough for everyone on this board to ignore you. You trolled this board after that draft and after the Bills drafted Allen. You may have engaged in actual football discussions here and there; however, to come on this board and announce to everyone that you feel Allen has pretty much reached his potential and that there is a possibility he may regress, and claim it is based on some actual data, is nothing more than trolling, and really speaks less about wanting to engage in legitimate discussions and more about trying to meet your own psychological needs - as pathetic as they may be.

Amen, brother.

I trimmed your post to what was most important. First, you, self admittedly, are not very good at prognostications and were wrong about Allen. It does beg the question, "If you you were wrong about him before, why in the world should anyone think you would be right about your new prediction of his demise?" Second: A little food for thought on making predictions from statistics: When you look at a group of QBs and chart group statistics, you get group results, which will always give you numbers that somewhat apply to "most" QBs in that group - but not all. Which is why all you end up with is phrases such as what you used, "most guys," "some guys'" "a few guys," "a ton of dudes,"... It is a pure actuarial method that is good for predicting probabilities along group lines, much like what insurance companies do. However, it provides no useful data for predicting probabilites at an individual level. For example, actuarial statistics might say that men in the US have a life expectancy of 76.1 years. It does not mean that you, individually, have a life expectancy of 76.1 years. Your life expectancy is based on variables unique to you. I could explain it in much more detail; however, the point is that you can run all the numbers you want on every QB that has ever played the game and it will provide you with absolutely no relevant information as to how successful Josh Allen may or may not be. None. The level of success he attains will rest soley on variables unique to him. So, why don't you stop coming on this site to keep telling us how bad Allen is going to be, because it is based on nothing but your opinion - which, I hate to give any credibility to at all by responding to it. However, I could not allow you to go on telling everyone that your conclusions are based on actual data, when they are not. They are merely opinions and likely to be as wrong as your previous ones.

Both are winners, IMHO.