whatdrought

I mean, ideally he'll just get rid of PPP altogether, but if he has to he'll gentrify it. He's a true hero.

Interesting. Okay. Thanks for the correction.

I'm not overly honed in on Presidential history so just some thoughts: - Reagen is obvious. - Grover Cleveland is amazing just cause of the separate terms thing. (literally only that reason) - Teddy is the man. (literally - he might be in the dictionary under "man") - Part of me feels like the guy who didn't wear a coat and died should get some love... You know there was some idiot chief of staff telling him he needed to project strength by not wearing a coat.

This is good. I watched part of the Broncos game, but have no real idea who the titans are other than my suspicion that they aren't much like last years late season team...

My understanding is that it's all about testing and following protocols. They shut down the Vikings for like 1 day until they could confirm they had no positives, but then after that it was just testing. If we keep testing negative we should be fine to continue as normal.

No, it's more than likely from today. Either way, doesn't change the reality that the precedent says nothing will come out of this.

Did you mean to say continent? Either way, he’s not.

Well I tried...

Because there’s no reason whatsoever to believe he did until we have more information. If he did, then it’ll be worrisome.

Quick! Everyone panic!

My big question is this: How the heck is this Delta when we had a Laura? did someone at the NWS forget their alphabet?

But there does exist luck when a QB throws a ball in the direction of the DB who drops it... That's what I'm saying. I'm not excusing non-lost fumbles or saying they aren't a problem. I'm saying that to truly track turnovers you have to look at one key thing -- did the ball get turned over. A fumble is a potential turnover and you're absolutely right, it's a negative stat towards the QB and it's all a matter of luck from then forward as to whether or not it becomes a TO. But we don't say "QB A has 20 turnovers compared to QB B's 6" when 15 of those are fumbles that the offense recovered - just like we wouldn't say that about passes that bounce off the DB's chest. From the outcome perspective the luck has been factored in and we count TO's as the true comparison grid. Could you further explain this? Not sure I get what you're saying.

MVP race through the first 1/4 summarized in one chart.

Right, and both a bad pass and a fumble are bad things - no question about it. The difference is when looking at the outcome. Statistics are based on outcomes. When a WR drops a pass you say "Josh completed 20 0f 25 passes for 301 yards, but the recievers dropped the ball 3 times." The implication is that the outcome could have been different (in this case, better) but we can't determine what it was. We don't say "because of where those drops occured, we can add 75 yards to his passing total." It's all about outcome. So we can say "He fumbled twice, and lost one for one turnover." Which places him on the same level as the QB who threw one interception. The outcome (the turnover) is the important part.

So you’re saying that firing the ball into the chest of a DB only to have it drop to the ground is not a loss of control of the ball by the QB? He was in control of the ball at that time?

That's not my argument at all. My stance is that when a team has losses you have to justify why they're ahead of teams that don't... The justification for the Ravens is as follows: "They beat the socks off a bi-polar Browns team, they beat a broken, horrible texans team, they got taken apart by the Chiefs, and they beat the Team that is horrible." It just doesn't jive. If you look at this season alone, there's no reason they're to be considered better than the Seahawks and us.

Seems like they are badly hit at DL. Is Fulton starting for them at CB? Does his absence hurt them?

What?

You're obviously not wrong... QB's that fumble a lot (or any player for that matter) are problematic and need to be addressed... The difference is when it comes to evaluating what a QB does or doesn't do (and especially when it's in regards to ranking) it's not fair to use non-turnovers/potential turnovers unless you're going to use potential interceptions as well. Dak had like 5 balls bounce off the Browns hands the other day but only threw one interception. When we look at his stat line we see one turnover. Allen might fumble three times, but when we look at his stat line, the important thing for comparing the two is how many turnovers there are. Then, on monday in the QB room we address the issue of the ball being on the carpet three times.

Bills are the #8 Rush defense in the league right now... Hopefully we can. I do think that's a bit deceptive, as we've been pressuring teams with our dynamic offense (someone pinch me) and our pass defense has been bad so teams haven't been forced to run against us. Hopefully we will be able to keep him in check.

A fumble is always a fumble, yes. But it’s not always a turnover. A bad pass into the belly of a DB is always a bad pass, but it isn’t always a turnover.

It’s hard to judge fumbles because there’s so much luck involved. It’s easy to say a fumble is a fumble is a fumble, and that they are all negative and should be counted as much, and there’s probably truth to that- the problem, i think, is that then you have to start looking at potential interceptions- DB drops a ball, isn’t an interception, but might as well have been. Interception called back cause of personal foul on the dlineman that didn’t affect the throw at all, that doesn’t show on the stats. At that point I think you start getting too far down the rabbit hole and if you’re not careful you might run into PFF down there.

Hanzus at NFL.com has: Chiefs Packers Ravens Bills I just don’t get how you can justify putting the 3-1 ravens ahead of us, the Seahawks, and the undefeated titans and Steelers. They lost to the one bonafide good team they played....

What happens if you shave off that “interception” also, any points added for a passing TD vs. rushing? Cause he definitely had 3 passing TD’s Sunday. I also question how sack’s can be evenly judged... obviously some of that is on the QB, but sometimes it’s the Oline... not sure how one would go about creating a distinction there. Last thought- I think Darnold is ranked too high here. 😜 Either way- great work!

I don't think Rodgers has an edge over Allen at all: Allen | Rodgers Comp% -- 70.9% > 70.5% PYRDS -- 1,326 > 1,214 PTD's -- 12 < 13 INT's -- 1 > 0 YPA -- 8.7 < 9 YPC -- 12.6 > 12.4 RYRDS -- 83 > 31 RTDS -- 3 > 0 GWD -- 2 > 1 It's close, no doubt, but Allen has the edge here. Especially when you consider that the INT, and one less passing TD is a direct result of ref screw jobs... Obviously those happen, so it's not worth much, but it changes how these numbers are viewed (though I couldn't swear that Rodgers hasn't had similar things happen to him). It's also worth noting, that while Allen has better pass catchers, he actually has more drops than Rodgers (10 to AR's 7) which really is the metric for how the receivers are helping, I think. Furthermore, Rodgers has the #4 rushing attack in the league on his side compared to Allen's #28. The last really interesting thing comparing the two is On target % according to pro football reference: Allen 85.4% >> Rodgers 57.5% I personally don't put too much stock in stats like that, but there it is for what that's worth. Sources - Allen: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AlleJo02.htm Rodgers: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RodgAa00.htm