Einstein

Why? I ask that genuinely. You’re not alone in that sentiment but I can’t figure out why people like him. All I ever see when he runs is slow, plodding, poor field vision. Very limited sample but what i’ve seen has been meh. I think the Bills agree, as his snaps have been dwindling over the past few games. He went from 14 snaps in week 2, to 12 in week 3, to 10 in week 4, to only 2 in week 5.

That nightmare is on pace for 60-some receptions this year.

In this particular thread, you’re right. I apologize. I’ll bow out and allow the thread to get back on topic.

You and I were having a cordial conversation about correctness. As a rule. Not on one topic, but in general. In fact, you specifically mentioned that there are many times when being in the majority means you are on the correct side. By definition, that means that you were including other situations about non-subjective topics - otherwise, how could you have decided that being in the majority side was right? I then took our conversation and made a quick model of it. Based on *your* guidelines in the conversation. You then had some sort of trouble with my reply, so you started insulting me, stating I was trying too hard, bringing up posts from years ago, and claiming that I think i’m a genius after posting basic calculus(!?!?). Certainly caught me off guard, because I thought we were just having a nice conversation. And that leads to here and now. You could have just apologized for acting as you did, but instead you chose to dig your heels in. Which I suspect you will continue to do.

Sorry for the confusion. I’m using normal bell-curve distribution as a model to represent the distribution of people’s beliefs or judgments about correctness. Aka, not on whether a player played well. μ represents the average opinion or belief about a topic (like Allen’s performance), while the standard deviation (σ) measures how spread out those opinions are. This doesn’t find how many standard deviations from the mean a player is. It shows how the majority’s opinion might cluster around an average belief, regardless of its correctness. Thus, probability of being correct in a majority. Now, as you may be wisely picking up on, and as I mentioned in the original post when I posted the model, one of the problem with it is the assumption of correctness being inversely related to the density of the distribution. It’s a good starting point though, if you’d like to improve on it.

Proven wrong... runs and hides behind "trying too hard". I wish it wasn't so transparent. I've also never professed to be a genius. If basic mathematical models feel "genius" level to you, that's a whole new can of worms that we don't have time to unwrap.

Because it was thrown away (outside) from where the safety was when Allen started his wind up (which is different from where the safety is when the ball arrives). Also, Allen doesn’t typically miss laterally on long throws. He just typically throws them too short or too long. QB’s throw well before the receiver is actually open. Thats why being in position is so important. Passers throw to a spot where you’re supposed to be. This isn’t backyard football, throwing when you see your uncle open to the spot he is at the moment.

Suppose it depends on your definition of “often”. If often is “sometimes”, then yes. But logically, for the majority to be right, they must have a large number of people with the right opinion within it. And by virtue of it being the majority, this means that most people are intelligent enough to be on the “right” side. I think I can even model this mathematically… Let X be a variable representing correctness (or in my opinion, being on the “Allen played well” side of the equation). Well, X follows a normal distribution with mean μ and variance σ^2. The probability density of X would be f(x) = (1 / (σ * sqrt(2π))) * exp(-(x - μ)^2 / (2σ^2)). To find the probability that an opinion falls within a majority range defined as [μ - kσ, μ + kσ], we can calculate P(μ - kσ ≤ X ≤ μ + kσ) = integral from (μ - kσ) to (μ + kσ) of f(x) dx. We can also define C(x) as inversely related to the density function, meaning C(x) is proportional to 1 / f(x). Long story short, the probability that the majority would be wrong can be approximated (with my model anyway) by Rate of error = 1 - integral from (μ - kσ) to (μ + kσ) of (1 / f(x)) dx. This model would imply that majority skews toward the wrong side of the correctness scale. The problem is that the inverse relation of C(x) is problematic and there are assumptions here. But I think you get where i’m coming from anyway.

Great post. Welcome to the hill. Population is small, but those who are correct are often in the minority.

You’re right. And the reason some can’t see it comes down to cognitive neuroscience (aka, it’s not their fault). The human brain often struggles to separate individual performance from the broader context, especially in high-stakes situations. This phenomenon is tied to a cognitive bias known as the fundamental attribution error where people tend to attribute outcomes to a player’s actions rather than understanding how external factors forced the play of the individual. You see it in this very thread. For example: “Allen was 9 of 30” is used as a basis to say he played poorly. The brain sees this fact and has trouble differentiating between parts of a whole in order to see faulty sections and attribute properly. Look up the gestalt perception. But others have differently wired brains and are able to differentiate parts of a puzzle. In this case, some are able to differentiate between Allen’s apparent mistakes and attribute them to the result of factors beyond his control like breakdowns in offensive line protection, receivers running the wrong routes, or dropped passes. The brain in large parts of the population tend to lump these issues together, leading people to unfairly pin the blame on players when the real problem lies with the team’s execution as a whole.

I’ll die on this hill: Allen did not play poorly. It only looked bad because of a mixture of horrible offensive line play, numerous drops, no-one getting separation, and missed blocks by Kincaid. there isn’t a quarterback in NFL history that would’ve looked good with that team. We put out there on Sunday.

i’m confused. Before you said that Alan threw it to the wrong spot. Now you’re saying that why would I expect Allen to admit that you threw the right spot? Nico ran the right route. Thus the ball was on target. I don’t think Hollins ran to the right spot.

According to whom? Did Brady or Allen say this?

There are human beings on this forum blaming the QB for this not being complete. Mind boggling.

I have a home in the St Pete area. The homes near the water are already a mess. This is very unfortunate.

This is who I want. Make the trade. Guy is a freak athlete:

Coleman may end up being the better WR and it would still have been stupid to trade KC that pick. I truly can’t believe Beane did that.

I know you didn’t. I was leading you to water. If he has never needed more than 2, and has only used 2 in 0.02 games. Why would anyone be worried about him using 1?

There ya go. Now how many times has he challenged 3? (Meaning won 2 and used the 3rd)?

Bingo. This is one of those IQ test threads… Its telling.

Posting this should be a bannable offense. And this should be a criminal charges pending offense.

McDermott has coached over 100 games. Take a guess how many times he has challenged twice in one game.

It actually didn’t move at all as he went out of bounds. It shifted when he hit the turf. Either way, probably not getting overturned. Speaking of Kincaid, he kinda sucks. Woofta that feels good to finally let that out. I’ve bottled that up for a year now. He is super underwhelming as a first round pick. He has dropped or bobbled multiple balls that hit his hands, and he sucks major donkey cahones as a blocker. Multiple times we have plays set up that would go for big gains, but Kincaid gets beat. On this play, Cook has a legitimate chance of scoring if Kincaid doesn’t get suplexed. He would have had to make 1 defender miss. And here is another screen where Allen gets sacked because Kincaid gets beat so bad that Curtis Samuel would have been crushed if Allen threw it. Lucky he didn’t get called for holding to boot.

And that’s OK. This is a point that many people miss. It is okay to challenge a call pivotal call in the first half when your offense is reeling even if you think you’ll lose it. Why? It’s simple logic. The upside is that you get a key first down in field goal territory. The downside is you might lose a timeout that you didn’t use (we had 3 timeouts left with only a few minutes remaining in the half). It’s OK to take that risk there.

because you don’t rebuild with a top 3 QB. Patriots never did it under Brady. Chiefs haven’t done it under Mahomes.