oldmanfan

If your definition of a coach is that he or she has to work or have worked for a professional team, then you need to lay off the weed for a while.

I don't think you have any concept of coaching. Or teaching.

They put in plates or screws to ensure proper realignment, and to give more strength to the repair. If I recall it's his fibula, which doesn't bear much weight, but if broken near where it articulates with the ankle could be more problematic.gives

You made the claim that they are correlated. You make the claim, then provide the data to back up your claim. And the reason I brought up correlation vs. causation is because you are clueless what correlation actually means. Correlation describes the size and direction (i.e. positive or negative) of a relationship between two variables. Correlation DOES NOT equal causation. A classic example is that there is a correlation between high school test scores and the amount of ice cream that students eat in a given year. Pretty strong positive correlation, with a correlation coefficient of around 0.6. In your view of stats, you would claim that eating ice cream increased kid's test scores. But you would be wrong. Because eating ice cream does not CAUSe higher test scores. What it really means is they have parents that have more disposable income to take kid's out for ice cream, and they also have more disposable income for things like getting kids help in test preparation. Correlation has no real bearing on cause. You claim there is a correlation between accuracy and completion percentage. First, you don't define how you measure accuracy. If you're doing so based on completion percentage then you're basically comparing the same set of data against itself. Which would be really dumb. And then you make the fatal mistake so many make. Even if there is a positive correlation, that has nothing to do with cause. The causes of lowered completion percentage involves many variables, the accuracy of a given pass to be sure, but also defensive aspects, play of the receivers, and many others. But you just go ahead and call those who have a much more comprehensive understanding of things statistical idiots if it will make you feel better. All it does it make you look silly.

Amazing , isn't it?

I wish some folks here would have been around to see the old AFL guys. There were a lot of really talented players on that team.

No, you make an outlandish statement and then can't back it up. I work with statistics every day. You want to claim correlation, show the data. Sow us how strongly they're correlated. Your issue is you don't understand what you're talking about. Read up on the difference between correlation and causation.

Childish. No one is saying that. What we are saying is that accuracy and completion percentage are not related. You claim they're correlated, what's the correlation coefficient? There are a whole host of variables that affect completion percentage that have nothing to do with accuracy. Plus what you seem to be confusing is correlation with causation. Causation would mean there is a direct link to inaccuracy with an incompletion. For individual passes that can be true. As it can be also true that it is because a received dropped a pass, or because the defense made a good play, or because the QB had to throw the ball away. Allen has work to do like most young QBs. He needs to improve his touch on throws. Needs to continue learning to read defenses. But as the OPs exhaustive analysis of each of his games and throws showed, his accuracy is overblown and similar to the other young QBs.

Define what a coach is in your mind.

You nailed it

Really? What's the correlation coefficient? What variables affect completion percentage than have no effect whatsoever on accuracy? The answer to the latter: a lot.

Not a fan. We're OK with Allen and Barkley.

Because there are multiple variables that affect that, and not just the QB. As a team stat is maybe important. As a stat to assess QB play it doesn't mean much. Accuracy and completion percentage are not the same. This has been explained countless times on this board, but you continue to think the sky is purple.

It is not an important stat. Math, not homerism. Grow up.

You are acting like someone who claims the sky is purple. Countless numbers of people give you solid explanations as to why the sky is blue, and you just keep saying the sky is purple no matter what. I'll give you the same data I've given you before. You throw thirty passes in a game about two completions change you from 52% to 60%. So take away one throwaway and one drop and there you are. Doesn't matter if other QBs have these as well. Doesn't matter at all what other QBs do past or present. All that matters to you is Allen increasing his percent. If you're going to continue to cling to this completion percentage thing, and continue to ignore that accuracy and completion percentage are not equivalent, all that matters is two passes a game. Give him a couple receivers that don't drop easy catches or make tough ones, and voila- you have your magic number. Yes Allen can get better. Yes he is already working to do so. But drop this nonsense about completion percentage. Enough already.

Has anyone realized yet the OP has four Bills players in it but talks about trading three? Who gets traded?

Let's say with this upcoming # 9 pick you have a guy at edge rusher you see as a perennial all Pro type, and a LT you see as a solid player for years. You'd be nuts to take the LT over the Edge guy. Talent wins.

I agree. Let's do what's right. Our difference is I want the government open right now, and then negotiate. You don't, and I presume because you think the president would then no longer have negotiating power. Here's the thing I would say to those who take the latter view. Opening he government gives you the high ground. Polls indicate the president is being blamed (and since he said he'd take the blame that seems appropriate). I don't think the American people are dumb; if they see someone say on TV they'll take the blame, then that's where they'll place the blame. But you open things up, you look like the guy wanting to get things done. The Democrats then don't want to negotiate in good faith, they are the ones that look bad politically. You open the government today, then Pelosi refuses to negotiate, you have the political and moral high ground. The precedent that cannot be set in my view is to allow the Executive branch to have so much more power than the Legislative branch, regardless of what party holds each part of government at any time. If a precedent is set where a president can shut down government for weeks or months at a time just because he or she does not like one part of an appropriations bill, then our country's government cannot function.

Add something constructive. This is just more garbage from you.

I have already said I think she was wrong to say that.

How would I do it? Simple. Tell the Senate majority leader to allow the House bill (the one the Senate approved in December) to come to a vote and pass. Then sign it. Then negotiate. is there blame on both sides? Yes, Pelosi should not have said no money at all for a wall. But that does not put her in charge , or blame, or whatever, of the shut down. The president said it would be on him. He was right.

Yes they can. The Senate should vote today, pass the bill the House sent them that the Senateapprovrd overwhelmingly in December and send it to the president. If he vetoes then decide to override or not.

Correct. The president can veto bills. We all understand that.

Congressn passes budgetary bills but the president has to sign off, correct? You're correct. So he needs to take the blame. Because he said he would.

That is a risk for Pelosi. As I said earlier I hope every one in government right now gets voted out of office as soon as possible. We deserve better than what we're getting.