Gaughan: Analysis: Josh Allen Has More Short Completions for the Taking

[transplantbillsfan]

5 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

If you are going to use Transplants' system, how close does a throw have to get to be accurate?

 

A WR's window would be different for different guys on different routes and yadda yadda yadda. But you'd have to start with an NFL-average WR armspan. The combine shows that NFL WRs tend to fall between 70 and 80 inches, though last year the 5'8" and change Braxton Berrios came in at 68.25. Jaleel Scott was 81.25. A few TEs were also over 80. But on average that puts it at about 75 inches, which is 6 feet, 3 inches. If you dive forward you probably stretch that forward by a couple of feet forward and if you jam on the brakes and throw yourself back you probably stretch it backwards by a couple of feet.

 

So by Transplant's measure, hitting a window that's somewhere in the neighborhood of ten feet wide makes you "accurate." Drew Brees is somewhere cracking up with disbelieving laughter.

 

Now you're just being obstinate.

 

The way I determined catchable vs. uncatchable was by watching the play and seeing if the ball hits or could reasonably hit the palm of one of the WR's outstretched hands.  If it could, I labelled it catchable because you see guys make one-handed catches all the time.  If a guy doesn't turn his head for the pass and therefore doesn't stretch his hands out or if he falls while the ball is mid-air, then I admittedly had to make judgment calls, which is part of the reason I was hoping extreme skeptics like you would give this a try.

 

If the ball, instead, hits a WR's outstretched fingertips, it was labelled uncatchable.

 

 

There were judgment calls on my part, for sure, but a lot fewer than you'd think and those judgment calls are usually relatively easy to make.

[Thurman#1]

On 2/20/2019 at 8:58 AM, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Now you're just being obstinate.

 

The way I determined catchable vs. uncatchable was by watching the play and seeing if the ball hits or could reasonably hit the palm of one of the WR's outstretched hands.  If it could, I labelled it catchable because you see guys make one-handed catches all the time.  If a guy doesn't turn his head for the pass and therefore doesn't stretch his hands out or if he falls while the ball is mid-air, then I admittedly had to make judgment calls, which is part of the reason I was hoping extreme skeptics like you would give this a try.

 

If the ball, instead, hits a WR's outstretched fingertips, it was labelled uncatchable.

 

 

There were judgment calls on my part, for sure, but a lot fewer than you'd think and those judgment calls are usually relatively easy to make.

 

 

Yeah, um ... OK.

 

What you said there has nothing to do with what I said, but OK. Repeat something obvious and irrelevant if you must.

 

In the meantime, though, that throwing a catchable ball in most cases means hitting a ten foot window. Yeah, the QB might catch the absolute tip of it and the receiver makes a one-handed catch. But NFL WR wingspans are mostly around 75 inches, give or take three or four. And receivers can dive to either side, increasing that.

 

Throwing a ball that's catchable for an NFL wide receiver means you've hit a very large target. The idea that throwing a ball that's catchable means the throw is accurate ... it's ridiculous.

 

Throwing a catchable ball isn't any more congruent with accuracy than is completion percentage. The reason you like it more is two-fold. First, it's easily countable and you're biased towards numbers that are countable with work so you can build a project around it. And second and more important, it is always going to yield a much higher percentage, as it's much easier, and a higher number makes Josh Allen look better, and is thus ipso facto a better thing.

[Thurman#1]

On 2/20/2019 at 4:26 AM, transplantbillsfan said:

 

No.  Your previous complaint about my catchable vs. uncatchable pass % for Allen and the other 2019 rookies when you said 

 

If you'd broken it down, giving totals for each game for instance, it would've been easy for someone on these boards to check a game or two and see if your per game totals were on target. But as is your method, you don't provide details - no gross numbers, no game by game breakdowns, no nothing except your percentage conclusions - making checks all but impossible.

 

Thanks for the effort. If you'd given a reasonable chance to check, I'd have done so. But you never do, though I've asked before and it wouldn't have required much extra effort. It's not surprising you're not now.

 

Which leaves no choice but to point out that as you yourself point out, you're a huge Josh Allen fan and you're disagreeing with everyone else who did the work. Their work is just more believable, as they don't much care how the tallies come out.

 

I genuinely thought you'd give it a try.  Since then, I've added Watson and Wentz Allen remains #2 out of 7 other QBs in terms of throwing passes that are catchable after you exclude throwaways.

 

 

So ... you were writing about something I said before? Everything but the first line of your post is an old post of mine.

 

And you, what, expect me to comment on my old comments?

 

Your stuff is generally Kool-Aid saturated but at least understandable. So, one more time, what are you talking about?

 

 

On 2/20/2019 at 4:26 AM, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Tyrod?  What the hell are you bringing Tyrod up for?

 

You obsessed with him or something?

 

You write like 4 paragraphs on the original topic of accuracy, all of which I was disagreeing with and it had been talked to death in the thread I referred to right above, which was why I responded with a simple "nope."

 

Yet, you assume I'm referring to the 7 irrelevant words you throw in at the end?

 

 

 

You obsessed with Tyrod or something...?

 

 

Nope, the one obsessed with Tyrod was you.

 

You spent three years believing that if you put together enough dumb research projects and simply refused to stop saying the same things over and over in different words about how terrific Tyrod was ... that they'd somehow magically come true. Now the name of the Bills QB has changed but method and belief is identical.

 

That's your MO about Bills QBs. I'm just reminding people about your little obsessions.

Edited February 22, 2019 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

 

On 2/17/2019 at 9:48 PM, oldmanfan said:

You can google anyone of a number of sites that will tell you they are not the same.  Here's one just as an example:  https://www.mathsisfun.com/accuracy-precision.

 

 

Statistically accuracy is how close a value is to a given value, precision is how close different measured values are to each other.  They are very different, especially in lab setting (I run one, so I know) and other scientific fields.  let's say our blood pressure is really 200 systolic, but your at home pressure indicators consistently says it's 120.  Very precise, but horribly inaccurate.   Or you take ten measures that range from 180-220, but the mean is around 200.  Horribly imprecise, but pretty accurate.  Confusing accuracy and precision in medicine can get you killed.

 

Now, take it to football.  What transplantbillsfan says is actually correct, in that he has taken a measure of accuracy (i.e. catchable vs. not) and applied it not only to Allen but many other young QBs in another thread.  And he is as accurate as any.  I did the same with his last couple games. Now, if you want to define accuracy as, say, only hitting a guy right between the two numbers on his uniform, then you are using an extremely narrow interpretation of accurate, so much so that it would then equal precision, in that he has to hit a very specific spot time after time.

 

In looking at the value of accuracy vs. precision in QB play, it comes down to things like fitting a ball into a tight  window, or putting it exactly where a WR can make a play but a CB right on him can't.  That involves both great accuracy AND great precision, as the dartboard analogy above shows.  The great QBs are both accurate AND precise.  Allen is pretty accurate as transplant has shown; he needs to e more precise on his ball placement.  And to be fair, more accurate on certain throws like his short ones to the flat. 

 

Your posting Wikipedia definitions of accuracy and precision show you have not really ever worked in a field where an understanding of them are both mandatory and critical.

 

 

On 2/20/2019 at 8:33 AM, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Very well said 

 

 

I'm sure it must go over huge with the pocket protector and filthy lab coat set, but it's off-point.

 

Again, you can't find a dictionary that doesn't list "accuracy" and "precision" as synonyms, I'm betting. There may be one out there but the first seven or so I checked all had them, every one. More, in I believe two cases, the word "precision" was actually used in the dictionary definition of "accuracy."

 

There are small subsets of situations where the differences become important. Essentially it's when physics geeks get together.

 

Football fans are using them interchangeably. In the dictionaries you find those listed as secondary or tertiary definitions, all labeled "scientific meaning" or "technical meaning." Precisely. It's not what football fans mean when they use these words. The fact that science weenies want to say, "Well, well ... when we use the words we have different meanings in mind entirely," has nothing to do with a football discussion.

 

As I look through, it's obvious that nobody but you two are saying anything positive about this. Everyone else is ignoring this point, and from here on, so will I.

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure it must go over huge with the pocket protector and filthy lab coat set, but it's off-point.

 

Again, you can't find a dictionary that doesn't list "accuracy" and "precision" as synonyms, I'm betting. There may be one out there but the first seven or so I checked all had them, every one. More, in I believe two cases, the word "precision" was actually used in the dictionary definition of "accuracy."

 

There are small subsets of situations where the differences become important. Essentially it's when physics geeks get together.

 

Football fans are using them interchangeably. In the dictionaries you find those listed as secondary or tertiary definitions, all labeled "scientific meaning" or "technical meaning." Precisely. It's not what football fans mean when they use these words. The fact that science weenies want to say, "Well, well ... when we use the words we have different meanings in mind entirely," has nothing to do with a football discussion.

 

As I look through, it's obvious that nobody but you two are saying anything positive about this. Everyone else is ignoring this point, and from here on, so will I.

Well, you are of course wrong as shown by the dartboard analogy, which is throwing an object at a target, just as is throwing a football.  But your ego won't allow you to admit that so you can wallow in ignorance, I suppose.

[transplantbillsfan]

12 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Yeah, um ... OK.

 

What you said there has nothing to do with what I said, but OK. Repeat something obvious and irrelevant if you must.

 

In the meantime, though, that throwing a catchable ball in most cases means hitting a ten foot window. Yeah, the QB might catch the absolute tip of it and the receiver makes a one-handed catch. But NFL WR wingspans are mostly around 75 inches, give or take three or four. And receivers can dive to either side, increasing that.

 

Throwing a ball that's catchable for an NFL wide receiver means you've hit a very large target. The idea that throwing a ball that's catchable means the throw is accurate ... it's ridiculous.

 

Throwing a catchable ball isn't any more congruent with accuracy than is completion percentage. The reason you like it more is two-fold. First, it's easily countable and you're biased towards numbers that are countable with work so you can build a project around it. And second and more important, it is always going to yield a much higher percentage, as it's much easier, and a higher number makes Josh Allen look better, and is thus ipso facto a better thing.

 

Whatever size window you think it is,--10 feet is just getting ridiculous... I can tell you absolutely that my windows as I watched were smaller than 10 feet and were essentially just the wingspan of the players along with factoring whatever momentum they have moving in whatever direction--your criticism of my method disregards one very important factor:

 

I used the same method for 6 other QBs and Allen threw a higher percentage of catchable passes after excluding Throwaways and Spikes than Mayfield, Jackson, Rosen and the rookie versions of Watson and Wentz.

 

So, if you want to laugh at equating a catchable ball as accurate, fine.

 

But can we call an uncatchable inaccurate?

 

Would there be a single reason to dispute that?

 

And so if we were to say that Allen is very much within the rest of the rookie pack as far as throwing uncatchable passes--which he is--that he is not, therefore, more inaccurate than those other guys?

 

And the very title of my thread stated that Allen is not inaccurate unless the rest of those guys are, too, 

 

 

And yes, the reason I did catchable vs. uncatchable was because it's easily countable.  That was the point.

[Warcodered]

On ‎2‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 11:02 AM, Thurman#1 said:

If you are going to use Transplants' system, how close does a throw have to get to be accurate?

 

A WR's window would be different for different guys on different routes and yadda yadda yadda. But you'd have to start with an NFL-average WR armspan. The combine shows that NFL WRs tend to fall between 70 and 80 inches, though last year the 5'8" and change Braxton Berrios came in at 68.25. Jaleel Scott was 81.25. A few TEs were also over 80. But on average that puts it at about 75 inches, which is 6 feet, 3 inches. If you dive forward you probably stretch that forward by a couple of feet forward and if you jam on the brakes and throw yourself back you probably stretch it backwards by a couple of feet.

 

So by Transplant's measure, hitting a window that's somewhere in the neighborhood of ten feet wide makes you "accurate." Drew Brees is somewhere cracking up with disbelieving laughter.

So this basically comes down to you thinking Transplant wasn't able to be subjective enough for his observation to be solid?

[oldmanfan]

11 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

So this basically comes down to you thinking Transplant wasn't able to be subjective enough for his observation to be solid?

That's the thing I've tried to emphasize here.  In any judgment of accuracy, you have to define what you consider accurate vs. not.  Again accuracy is defined as how close a value is to a given value, or using the dartboard explanation - how close your dart throw comes to the bulls eye.  Not whether you hit the bulls eye, but how close.  Two people could have different definitions, for example one could say anything within the triple score ring, some might say it has to be just a hair off the bulls eye.  The latter is more a measure of precision, the ability to hit a specific spot repeatedly. 

 

Measuring how accurate a throw with an NFL QB is more complex than a dartboard in that you don't really know what the QBs true target is when he throws the ball and because the target is not stationary.  The latter brings into the equation how a receiver ran his route.  So when reading different accounts of whether a guy is accurate or not you have to take those things into account, and you have to define your terms.  Transplant does it as catchable vs. not.  I think his is too broad for accuracy measurement (when I did this for the last couple games I used catch radius as best as I could tell from film) but the key is that transplant used the same grading system for several different  QBs.  That would tend to decrease bias.  It would still be best to have a second observer repeat the measures using his same criteria to see if there is agreement, but I give the guy credit for doing a lot of work.  The differences he gets with other published stuff is likely due to different definitions of accuracy.

 

I have tried to explain the difference might also be - Confusion of what accuracy is vs. precision and I think when some say Allen is inaccurate they really mean he is imprecise.  Some point to dictionary definitions using the two words as synonyms, but when looking at things through a statistical glass that is simply wrong, as shown by the classic dartboard example.  Precision is hitting the same spot with a pass consistently.  So one can be very precise throwing a football, but if you consistently throw it two feet below where you're aiming you're precise but not accurate.  And you don't have much of an NFL future.  Conversely if you throw the ball where it's on the border of a guy's catch radius all the time, you're accurate but not really precise, and the issue there comes down to whether you give a receiver the ability to make a catch vs. make a catch in a position where you can make significant YAC.    And again you may not have a bright NFL future.  

 

What you really want in your QB is both high accuracy and high precision.  When announcers talk about putting a ball where only a receiver could cart him it, or about fitting a ball into a tight window, that's really being both very accurate and precise.  If you want to equate the terms fine, but the only way to really do that is to restrict your definition of accuracy down to such a narrow window that you're really measuring precision.  

 

I think Allen needs to be more precise overall, and on shorter throws he needs more of both.

[WhyteDwarf]

On 2/11/2019 at 7:57 AM, Ramza86 said:

Ball placement within 5 yards is not a strong suit for him right now.

 

Right now?  Has it ever been?  Will it ever be?

[VW82]

While I agree with oldmanfan and appreciate transplant's effort in going through all that tape, I still think we have to put significant weight on the analyses performed by PFF and ESPN Stats & Info on this subject. I don't believe they're confusing accuracy and precision. Nothing that I've read would suggest that's the case. Also, they're very likely using computer programs designed to calculate distance from the target, so they're much more likely to produce a result which limits errors than someone who's guesstimating based on eye test. Both of their studies pinned Allen as the most frequently off target passer in the league. It had nothing to do with completion percentage. 

 

I will acknowledge it's entirely possible that transplant was able to remove any bias in favour of Allen, and perform a fair study. Perhaps his threshold for an off target throw was just higher than the public sites which do this type of thing for a living.

 

In any event, there's a preponderance of evidence, both qualitative and quantitative, which would suggest Allen had difficulty hitting the target compared to his peers, especially on short routes as Gaughan suggested. I'm hopeful we'll see improvement in that area in year two. 

 

 

[oldmanfan]

2 minutes ago, VW82 said:

While I agree with oldmanfan and appreciate transplant's effort in going through all that tape, I still think we have to put significant weight on the analyses performed by PFF and ESPN Stats & Info on this subject. I don't believe they're confusing accuracy and precision. Nothing that I've read would suggest that's the case. Also, they're very likely using computer programs designed to calculate distance from the target, so they're much more likely to produce a result which limits errors than someone who's guesstimating based on eye test. Both of their studies pinned Allen as the most frequently off target passer in the league. It had nothing to do with completion percentage. 

 

I will acknowledge it's entirely possible that transplant was able to remove any bias in favour of Allen, and perform a fair study. Perhaps his threshold for an off target throw was just higher than the public sites which do this type of thing for a living.

 

In any event, there's a preponderance of evidence, both qualitative and quantitative, which would suggest Allen had difficulty hitting the target compared to his peers, especially on short routes as Gaughan suggested. I'm hopeful we'll see improvement in that area in year two. 

 

 

I appreciate the input.  Ultimately as I said above it comes down to your definitions of accuracy and that will be a subjective call.  I would agree he needs more accuracy in his short throws.  But I'm thinking this may have as much if not more to do with his pre-snap reads and protection than his mechanics.  When he set up in the pocket and got good protection, when I watched closely he was very accurate and precise on many throws especially more downfield.  But we all saw him miss some short ones by a relative mile and my impression was that he rushed those throws because of pressure and because he made late decisions.  

 

I don't think there is anyone out there who doesn't see a need for improvement.  

[VW82]

26 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I appreciate the input.  Ultimately as I said above it comes down to your definitions of accuracy and that will be a subjective call.  I would agree he needs more accuracy in his short throws.  But I'm thinking this may have as much if not more to do with his pre-snap reads and protection than his mechanics.  When he set up in the pocket and got good protection, when I watched closely he was very accurate and precise on many throws especially more downfield.  But we all saw him miss some short ones by a relative mile and my impression was that he rushed those throws because of pressure and because he made late decisions.  

 

I don't think there is anyone out there who doesn't see a need for improvement.  

 

For sure better pre-snap reads will help. You only have to watch Brady and Brees so many times for this to become obvious. They make the easy throws before the defense can adjust, and so they complete a tonne of them. 

 

One of my theories, and I hope someone does this analysis at some point, is that Josh really struggles with moving targets. It's a big reason why he occasionally misses the RB leaking out of the back field. It's also part of the reason, I think, why he throws so hard on intermediate crossing routes. He's subconsciously trying to narrow the gap in time lag between release of the football and when it reaches the target so he doesn't have to adjust as much for distance covered by the receiver. Further, many of his best passes on the year were either straight back comeback routes or when the receiver was able to sit down in an open zone. Simple pitch and catch.

Edited February 22, 2019 by VW82

[oldmanfan]

24 minutes ago, VW82 said:

 

For sure better pre-snap reads will help. You only have to watch Brady and Brees so many times for this to become obvious. They make the easy throws before the defense can adjust, and so they complete a tonne of them. 

 

One of my theories, and I hope someone does this analysis at some point, is that Josh really struggles with moving targets. It's a big reason why he occasionally misses the RB leaking out of the back field. It's also part of the reason, I think, why he throws so hard on intermediate crossing routes. He's subconsciously trying to narrow the gap in time lag between release of the football and when it reaches the target so he doesn't have to adjust as much for distance covered by the receiver. Further, many of his best passes on the year were either straight back comeback routes or when the receiver was able to sit down in an open zone. Simple pitch and catch.

Interesting thought.  I bet transplant may have that in his data.  He does have work to do on touch I think.

[transplantbillsfan]

On 2/22/2019 at 11:35 AM, oldmanfan said:

That's the thing I've tried to emphasize here.  In any judgment of accuracy, you have to define what you consider accurate vs. not.  Again accuracy is defined as how close a value is to a given value, or using the dartboard explanation - how close your dart throw comes to the bulls eye.  Not whether you hit the bulls eye, but how close.  Two people could have different definitions, for example one could say anything within the triple score ring, some might say it has to be just a hair off the bulls eye.  The latter is more a measure of precision, the ability to hit a specific spot repeatedly. 

 

Measuring how accurate a throw with an NFL QB is more complex than a dartboard in that you don't really know what the QBs true target is when he throws the ball and because the target is not stationary.  The latter brings into the equation how a receiver ran his route.  So when reading different accounts of whether a guy is accurate or not you have to take those things into account, and you have to define your terms.  Transplant does it as catchable vs. not.  I think his is too broad for accuracy measurement (when I did this for the last couple games I used catch radius as best as I could tell from film) but the key is that transplant used the same grading system for several different  QBs.  That would tend to decrease bias.  It would still be best to have a second observer repeat the measures using his same criteria to see if there is agreement, but I give the guy credit for doing a lot of work.  The differences he gets with other published stuff is likely due to different definitions of accuracy.

 

I have tried to explain the difference might also be - Confusion of what accuracy is vs. precision and I think when some say Allen is inaccurate they really mean he is imprecise.  Some point to dictionary definitions using the two words as synonyms, but when looking at things through a statistical glass that is simply wrong, as shown by the classic dartboard example.  Precision is hitting the same spot with a pass consistently.  So one can be very precise throwing a football, but if you consistently throw it two feet below where you're aiming you're precise but not accurate.  And you don't have much of an NFL future.  Conversely if you throw the ball where it's on the border of a guy's catch radius all the time, you're accurate but not really precise, and the issue there comes down to whether you give a receiver the ability to make a catch vs. make a catch in a position where you can make significant YAC.    And again you may not have a bright NFL future.  

 

What you really want in your QB is both high accuracy and high precision.  When announcers talk about putting a ball where only a receiver could cart him it, or about fitting a ball into a tight window, that's really being both very accurate and precise.  If you want to equate the terms fine, but the only way to really do that is to restrict your definition of accuracy down to such a narrow window that you're really measuring precision.  

 

I think Allen needs to be more precise overall, and on shorter throws he needs more of both.

 

I've really been seriously trying to get someone, anyone--including posters like Thurm and Foxx who seem to strongly disagree with me on just about everything--to do the same exercise to cross-check my numbers.

 

So far racketmaster has done some, but it's clear we're using different criteria.

 

I would really love someone to just watch Allen and then go back and watch Wentz's rookie season, which is like a tale of 2 seasons: 1st 4 games vs last 12 games.

[transplantbillsfan]

On 2/22/2019 at 12:36 PM, VW82 said:

While I agree with oldmanfan and appreciate transplant's effort in going through all that tape, I still think we have to put significant weight on the analyses performed by PFF and ESPN Stats & Info on this subject. I don't believe they're confusing accuracy and precision. Nothing that I've read would suggest that's the case. Also, they're very likely using computer programs designed to calculate distance from the target, so they're much more likely to produce a result which limits errors than someone who's guesstimating based on eye test. Both of their studies pinned Allen as the most frequently off target passer in the league. It had nothing to do with completion percentage. 

 

I will acknowledge it's entirely possible that transplant was able to remove any bias in favour of Allen, and perform a fair study. Perhaps his threshold for an off target throw was just higher than the public sites which do this type of thing for a living.

 

In any event, there's a preponderance of evidence, both qualitative and quantitative, which would suggest Allen had difficulty hitting the target compared to his peers, especially on short routes as Gaughan suggested. I'm hopeful we'll see improvement in that area in year two. 

 

 

 

Look at those images.

 

It's pretty clear they're talking about precision. And that image is problematic to me because it's highly highly subjective. They even put value weighting on ball location, which is even more subjective.

 

And have you read up on how PFF does its work? 

 

Last I checked, it was people who did the film work, not a computer model.

[Bing Bong]

On 2/17/2019 at 6:04 AM, Foxx said:

will you guys claiming that accuracy and precision means two different things just stop already. i pointed out in the other thread that they were the same so, now we will burst your bubble a little more.

le

 

 

in case you don't understand what synonym means either....

 

Thank God can we just put this to rest and assume when Allen is criticized over "accuracy" by the layman football fan.. they mean physics accuracy AND precision aka a consistently thrown ball right where the WR wants it with the exact touch the WR needs to get YAC or make a tough grab.

 

Basically any throw that ups your completion %. It's an important stat. Always has been. It's unreasonable to expect a completion on the perfect ball when Zay Jones is determined to drop it no matter what.. but on aggregate, over time, completion % is pretty darn indicative over a large enough sample size and accounting for your WR abilities.

 

This is football not an undergrad physics course.

Edited February 24, 2019 by BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P

[Bing Bong]

On 2/22/2019 at 5:35 PM, oldmanfan said:

Interesting thought.  I bet transplant may have that in his data.  He does have work to do on touch I think.

Absolutely. The harder he throws the less he has to lead his WR. I think touch is the biggest factor for his drops. Not that WRs shouldn't still be able to catch these but those head scratcher bullets he throws to Clay on a short crossing route aren't going to help get completions.

 

His throws need a variety. I want to see some more arc to his deep passes and touch in his short throwing game. Whenever you have a man open put a little less mustard on it Josh. Make it easier for your crappy WRs when ya can.

Edited February 24, 2019 by BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P

[Foxx]

i honestly think that the collective Bills fan base's mind has melted. 19 years of suckitude has devolved into a discussion of the merits of accuracy versus precision, in the game of football. yes, that's right, football. where we measure things in yards.

 

words of wisdom for y'all, they are synonyms, in the game of, football. they are interchangeable, they mean the same exact damn thing.

 

when the hell is the combine?? the draft??

oye........

[oldmanfan]

41 minutes ago, Foxx said:

i honestly think that the collective Bills fan base's mind has melted. 19 years of suckitude has devolved into a discussion of the merits of accuracy versus precision, in the game of football. yes, that's right, football. where we measure things in yards.

 

words of wisdom for y'all, they are synonyms, in the game of, football. they are interchangeable, they mean the same exact damn thing.

 

when the hell is the combine?? the draft??

oye........

When you have to put the ball on an exact spot for a receiver to catch it vs a DB, it's not a game of yards.  Words of wisdom from one who understands statistics.

 

Enough though.  When a diagram of throwing something shows you in black and white the difference between terms and you refuse to accept it then you just choose to be ignorant on the subject.  Can't change that I guess

[JaCrispy]

The argument about the terms “accuracy” and “precision” reminds me of the debate as to whether the Bills gave up 2 first round picks for Sammy Watkins.