Rocky Landing

Sounds like that kid splattered a lot of perfectly good cantaloupes. Should've been fired... In another fable, I heard a Firebough kid named Josh Allen (who grew up on a cotton farm) could not throw a cotton ball even ten yards with any accuracy, because, you know... cotton...

To the bolded: clearly. I already mentioned the Late Nate Peterman vs. Chargers game. But, if I were willing to really get into the weeds (I'm not) I'm quite sure I could find plenty of QB performances above 17.0 that were worse than Allen's, given context. Which only means that we disagree on the efficacy of the passer rating as a single-game stat. It's really no big deal.

He's always played with so much passion, that I always forgave him his occasional unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. A fierce competitor, always. He was also a member of what I consider to be a legendary front four: the '14 D-line of Williams, Williams, Darius, and Hughes, which recorded 40 sacks with the fewest number of blitzes by any team that season. (Hughes had 10). (Which reminds me: in the not-unlikely event we lose Leslie Frazier during the offseason, I would love to see a return of Jim Schwarz as DC. He fits, imo.)

The Covid has a hard time surviving in all that alcohol.

"Hung up?" I have no idea what that even means. We disagree on the efficacy of the passer rating as a single-game stat. I rewatched the game, and don't agree that Allen had a bottom-floor, Nate-Peterman-bad, career-worst day passing, as his PR would reflect. And seriously, to "exclude all his bad plays, he didn't play all that bad lol." is a lot different than applying context to Allen's performance, but I'm pretty sure you know that. Let's just agree to disagree.

Woah, dude, you're kinda hitting a sore spot with me, here. I was at that game in Los Angeles. And, after spending a lot of money to watch historically bad football (from the 14th row by the 40 yard line, no less!) I have consistently maintained that those five interceptions only told half the story of how bad Late Nate was in that game. ..anyway... I can't keep going back and forth disagreeing with you, when we're really not that far apart in the first place. I don't want to argue, just for the sake of arguing. It is a fair point on how hard Allen was throwing the football. But, I have to say that in that first quarter, Motor's drop wasn't a rifle at all-- just a drop. Diggs' drop in the end zone absolutely should have been pulled in (from the slo-mo, looked more like a question of hand-placement-- certainly uncharacteristic of Diggs). The throw to Beasley was a cannon shot. But, that was the underneath route Beasley was running. It's a throw they've completed a thousand times, and the route required it. Beasley knew what was coming. We're really not in a huge disagreement here. And I never said, or implied that Allen had a great day passing. And I'm obviously aware that Joe Bus was looking at his whole game, and "would likely have given a much lower ranking if he were only looking at the passing game." But, Thurman, two things: one, if he were only looking at the passing game, he still likely wouldn't have given him an "F" (a 17.0 would certainly imply an "F"!). And two, to say that Joe Bus was "looking at his whole game," is really implying that he was applying context to Allen's performance. And that has been my point this entire discussion. As has been pointed out, all stats lack context, sure. But the passer rating is a collection of stats that eschews context. There are too many things the stat ignores (strength of pass rush, drops, throw-aways, situational awareness, check-downs, ability to avoid a sack, third, and fourth down conversions, length of pass, etc) to make it useful as a single game stat. Allen had a ton of these contextual variables in this game. Over the course of the season, I assume these variables average out between QBs, but for one game? That "career-worst single-game passer rating" does not come close to denoting his worst game passing.

Not the entire game, no. But, I'll say this, I rewatched just the first quarter, and for the duration of that quarter, yes, Allen was the better passer. Ryan had a much better completion percentage, but all of his completions were on short throws, most behind the LOS. And Ryan threw incomplete on both of their third downs. Allen threw for more yards, had longer completions, and converted all of the Bills' third downs (three) through the air. And regarding his incompletions, he had to throw the ball away twice, and had five throws hit his receivers right in their hands. Matt Ryan also got sacked twice on passing downs. That is just the first quarter, sure. I'm not going to go back and scrutinize the rest of the QB play in that game, but suffice to say that in my opinion, Allen was the better passer for at least a good portion of that game. And listen, a couple days ago, Joe B. of the Athletic gave Allen a grade "B" in that game. Would he have given him that grade if his passing was a solid, low "F" ? I don't think so. I mean, come on, how enlightening do you guys really think that number 17.0 is?

Important qualification: Applicants must be championship caliber shovelers, per Harrison Phillips.

More football is better, no matter how you slice it. Although, they cut a week of preseason ball, so it's really the same amount of football. It's just that one of the crappy, meaningless games has been replaced by a meaningful game, in which we will hopefully win the division, playing a division rival, at home. I'm sorry, what is it we're complaining about again...?

Of course I read your post. I just don't happen to agree with it. And let's be clear-- you were responding to me, not the other way around. "...small differences in passer rating, say the difference between an 85 and a 95, are not signficant" In the Pats* game I referenced, Allen, with a lesser passer rating, was actually a significantly better passer than Mac Jones. And in a game where Matt Ryan had a much better passer rating than Allen, Ryan struggled to convert on third down, whereas Allen converted, through the air, several times, as well as a fourth down conversion, and a two point conversion. Those are just a few examples of context missing from the PR stat. In fact, with the exception of Allen's three INTs, which all happened over the course of four consecutive plays, I submit that Allen was the better passer for most of the game. Here's another comparison: in Nate Peterman's horrendous 5 INT game vs the Chargers back in 2017, he had a passer rating of 17.9. Think that and Allen's performances were of similar caliber? Not even remotely. My takeaway? The passer rating as an average over the course of an entire season is useful. For use in evaluating a QB for a single game? It's worthy of being ignored.

At some point this week, time permitting (I have a number of high-level business meeting to attend) I want to rewatch the condensed game on GamePass, and put a little context into it. I suspect that if you remove the drops, the egregious hold on Beasley, and the balls thrown away, and look at the throws that he made, and the situational awareness he exhibited in his throws, he had a much better game than he is being credited with, even as just a passer. And INTs notwithstanding, I'll say that Allen was a more effective QB than Matt Ryan. Of course he was-- he ran for two TDs, and converted on clutch 3rd, and 4th down plays. Noticeably, those throws for third, and fourth down conversions (as well as the two point conversion) are not weighted into his PR. As to the bolded, I'm certainly not going to play that game. What, do you expect me to scour other QB's stat lines looking for some anecdotal example of a reasonably decent game with a poor passer rating? No thanks. I will say this, however: In the Bills' first game with the Pats*, Mac & Cheese had an 84.0 passer rating. Josh had a passer rating of 75.0. So, we should assume that Mac & Cheese was the better QB that day? He threw the ball a grand total of three times for 19 yards, and zero TDs. That 84.0 is a pretty silly number without context.

DC- Jim Schwartz.

He really didn't. Even ignoring Allen's ability to extend plays, and some uncharacteristic drops, Allen was good on third, and fourth down conversion (although I haven't found those specific numbers, so I could be wrong-- I don't think I am).

Nowhere near as bad as the number would indicate. Not even close. 17 is Nate Peterman bad.

We are the better team, and Allen is the better QB, clearly. But... My wife is from Boston, I have numerous family members, as well as co-workers who are Pats* fans. Just on the chance, regardless of how slim, that the Pats* beat us, the smarmy gloating that I would have to endure would be unpleasant, indeed.

As an average over the course of an entire season, it's useful. For use in evaluating a QB for a single game? It's worthy of being ignored.

IMO, really all this does is highlight what a useless stat passer rating is. And for those who don't know, the formula for PR is: PR = ((a + b + c + d)/6) x 100 where: a = (COMP/ATT - .3) x 5 b = (YARDS/ATT - 3) x 0.25 c = (TD/ATT) x 20 d = 2.375 - (INT/ATT x 25? ATT = Number of passing attempts COMP = Number of completions YDS = Passing yards TD = Touchdown passes INT = Interceptions What's missing from all of this? Any context whatsoever. The passer rating does not take numerous things into consideration, like strength of opponent, ability of WRs, difficulty of passes, whether the ball is being thrown away, dropped, or just poorly thrown, or anything else beyond just the basic numbers listed above. In my opinion, far more important than the useless PR stat, is the fact that Allen did not get rattled after any of these interceptions. His game was simply not anywhere near as bad as that PR number would suggest.

Motor/Moss. These guys are becoming an effective one-two punch with barely mediocre (if that) blocking from the O-line. And Moss is spectacular in pass-pro. Horrible Harry. He is looking like the legit one tech we all wanted him to be. Ed Oliver. He’s hitting it. No more “bust” talk. D-line rotation. The hallmark of the McD/Frazier defense is working the way it’s supposed to. O-line. It’s impressive that these guys maintain the chemistry they do, while getting subbed, and moved around so much. Their run game, while somewhat improved, still sucks. But, they’ve been keeping Allen upright. No sacks today.

Cheap shot on Diggs. He'll be out next week after that hit, I fear.

Moss looking really good running the ball. But, on that deep shot to Diggs, it was Moss who gave Allen so much time. Great pass-pro by Moss.

Minor complaint, but Moss shouldn't have tackled him in the end zone.

5 for 6 on 3rd down so far. That ain't bad.

Does Stevenson need glasses, or something?

In the past couple season's, I've almost felt like they've kept Harrison on the team more for his presence off the field, than on. Glad he's still a Bill.

Davis is SO reliable.