Analysis of Emmanual Sanders Film (Athletic, Joe B)

[BADOLBILZ]

3 hours ago, Mat68 said:

Having someone outside other than Diggs who can get open will help alot.  When you send Diggs and he is doubled the play goes down hill fast.  Diggs has been the most productive deep wr since he entered the league.  Having the ability to use him at all levels will open the offense and make him and the offense harder to handle.  Brown couldnt win consistently.  Sanders is more polished.  

 

I think you meant to say he's NOT been the most productive deep WR since he entered the league.    He had one season where he barely averaged a Jarvis Landry-like 10 yards per catch on 100 catches.

 

But he is capable of getting deep......as evidenced by 2019 in a drop back, play action-offense that lent itself to scheming up deep shots.

 

But he is the best at short to intermediate routes and in a spread offense that is the best use of HIS talents.

 

 

[Mat68]

2 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

I think you meant to say he's NOT been the most productive deep WR since he entered the league.    He had one season where he barely averaged a Jarvis Landry-like 10 yards per catch on 100 catches.

 

But he is capable of getting deep......as evidenced by 2019 in a drop back, play action-offense that lent itself to scheming up deep shots.

 

But he is the best at short to intermediate routes and in a spread offense that is the best use of HIS talents.

 

 

No  he has.

 

https://billswire.usatoday.com/2020/06/12/pro-football-focus-stefon-diggs-nfl-best-deep-ball-catchers-josh-allen/

[BADOLBILZ]

5 hours ago, Mat68 said:

No  he has.

 

https://billswire.usatoday.com/2020/06/12/pro-football-focus-stefon-diggs-nfl-best-deep-ball-catchers-josh-allen/

 

 

Here's your quote:

 

"Diggs has been the most productive deep wr since he entered the league."

 

Again, no he hasn't.

 

He had a HUGE production year of big ypr in 2019........in a play-action heavy offense that is more scheme friendly for long throws.

 

But he's also had two seasons where his ypr was a under 11.......which is very low.      

 

His 2018 season where he averaged just 10 yards per catch on 100 catches was a near historic season of nickel and dime grabs.

 

He's a great WR........yes he can get deep.........but his bread and butter is short to intermediate throws which works well in a spread offense.........hence his low career ypr.

 

[Thurman#1]

On 4/4/2021 at 12:37 AM, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Nobody has guessed because you went into a filibuster.........you've run out of real estate.

 

What's even more distasteful is that you are trying to look witty doing it..........remember.........brevity is the soul of wit.

 

 

 

 

You're dead right. I went on too long.

 

It's just that there were so many things that were so very very wrong and ridiculous about your post. I'm terribly sorry about that.

 

Should have broken up your post and my replies into shorter more digestible posts.

[Doc]

17 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

In the Arizona game one long completion won them a game...........it was a hail mary........but it was also a perfectly thrown ball and it was as well defensed as those players could........they just couldn't out jump a guy with an elite catch radius.

 

The Bills offense took a big lead in that game and then went like 6 possessions in a row without a score.......allowing Arizona back into the game.    On paper, one more score would have been the difference.   In reality one more score may have been a dagger that halted Arizona's momentum and it may never have been a close game.    

 

In the first Chiefs game they were inches away from Zimmer's forced fumble counting and the Bills having the ball late down one score.

 

The Pats were just yards away from beating the Bills in Buffalo when Zimmer forced a fumble.   

 

Games obviously are frequently enough decided by one play that this shouldn't be a point of contention.........playing it off like having 5-6 more huge pass plays in a season is insignificant is a case of someone REALLY being too far removed from the actual season to remember how slim the margin for error can be.

 

The Hail Mary (or Murray, as it was in that case) is called that for a reason: it's a prayer.  I couldn't find statistics but I'd surmise it gets completed at best once in 40 (that's a 2.5% completion percentage for the math impaired) tries.  And no it wasn't defended properly at all, from the way the DE played it to Poyer coming in like a missile and knocking the other 2 defenders off of Hopkins.  And the Cardinals tried another Hail Murray a few games later and failed so it's not like a play they'll have in their arsenal unless they're desperate.

 

And sure, big plays can help win game.  But they're far from the reason teams lose games and again, they're attempted just a handful of times a game and have a low completion rate, for a reason.  The bread and butter plays are what wins you games.

Edited April 6, 2021 by Doc

[Thurman#1]

On 4/5/2021 at 1:21 AM, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Again:

 

Passes over 25 yards in 2020:

 

Aaron Rodgers 47%

Russell Wilson  41%

Josh Allen 33%

 

 

I've already answered this, but apparently you didn't get it. Shouldn't surprise me a bit.

 

So again, when you compare all passes over 25 yards, you are comparing one guy's 25 yard passes to another guy's 50 yarders.

 

It's idiocy, absolute idiocy. Again, combining a bunch of specific categories into one extremely general category. is simply dumb. You make the comparisons virtually useless. To repeat:

 

For example, say a backup QB comes in and plays a few snaps and throws one pass between 30 and 40 yards, it's a 30 yard TD. And that's his only throw of 30 - 40 yards for the season. Who's number one in your category based on percentages? That guy is. He's a 100% passer between 30 and 40 yards. He's number one, baby. According to your numbers that guy's more accurate than Josh, Mahomes, Russell Wilson and Aaron Rodgers. 

 

Now, say the same guy in his sixteen attempts throws two passes between 40 and 50 yards, one complete for 42 yards, the other out of bounds. Who's more accurate on long balls, him or Josh Allen, Mahomes, Russell Wilson and Aaron Rodgers. Well, your buttheaded system puts him first on the list. 50% from 40 - 50 yards. Clearly this guy is more accurate than those four, according to your system.

 

Now, let's give that imaginary guy a name, say ... oh, Matt Barkley. Oh, wow, what a coincidence, the real Matt actually did do just what I said. 1 for 1 and a touchdown between 30 and 40 yards and 1 for 2 between 40 and 50 yards.  

 

Just check the charts on nextgenstats.nfl.com

 

So, according to you, Matt Barkley, who completed 2 for 3 over 30 yards, is thus proven a better long ball guy, better than Josh Allen, and better than Mahomes, Rodgers and Russell Wilson.

 

Your slowcoach of a system puts Barkley (and probably many others) ahead of the big four QBs there. It's pure dumb-osity.

 

 

On 4/5/2021 at 1:21 AM, BADOLBILZ said:

 

Leaving just those 5-6 very big passing plays on the table is a lot.........in the same way as the difference between 5 sacks or TD's versus 10-11 is a lot........it's a league full of small stats that are very impactful.

 

And for all the talk about completion %..........that doesn't even tell the whole story.

 

Go back and watch the Cover 1 youtube review of the game at NYJ as a good example............Allen had a busted coverage throw to a wide open Kroft that was caught but it came in so hot that Kroft lost his balance after the catch.........he also tucked the ball on some wide open deep shots in that game that a QB like Aaron Rodgers (whose level Allen aspires to) throws every time.

 

Missed big plays and more wear and tear.

 

 

That's nonsense. Assuming that Aaron Rodgers sees and throws to every wide open deep receiver every time ... is great evidence of your prejudice and willingness to use wild and obviously wrong generalizations. He undoubtedly missed open receivers, same as Allen did. Comes from being human.

 

To find an example, I did something really difficult, I googled it. Took me around one minute, clicking on the second article to find an example of a play where Rodgers didn't throw to Lazard wide open deep with no safety coming. That was only the first example. The article has three or four examples of missing open guys.

 

https://footballfilmroom.com/2019/12/11/aaron-rodgers-needs-to-play-better/

 

As usual, you're wrong.

 

And wrong precisely about the main point. Hitting deep throws isn't easy. It's really difficult. That's why these four guys don't do it a large percentage of the time. It's why even the Aaron Rodgers misses long ball opportunities and long ball throws a lot of the time.

 

Thought I could probably find an example just by watching the conference championship 2nd half, and yup, I found two in the 3rd quarter before I stopped.

 

10:31 Rodgers bails to the left, gets a moment or two outside, has a man open by a step or two at the back of the end zone about 35 yards beyond the LOS, he's slightly to the right of midfield and he cuts left. Beaten his guy. Rodgers has a moment. Hops left. Hops left again. Hops left again. Can't find anyone. See the guy finally, but only as the rushers finally reach him. He throws toward the guy, who has now gotten close to the sideline. As he throws, a rusher is right in his face and he lets it go ... and misses long and left. Possibly because of the rusher, but the guy was open all the way across the end zone. Rodgers had rolled left and only had to look at half the field. And he just missed his guy till too late. Poor play.

 

5:09. It's a 7 yard completion to Tonyan, thrown as a safety vale. But #13 is a step or two open long and Rodgers is looking left, has him, doesn't take it.

 

Buttheaded idea, that there's anyone out there who sees it and does it every time. They all have problems. Josh included, but Rodgers also.

 

[Thurman#1]

On 4/3/2021 at 9:39 AM, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I find this difficult to interpret.  It mentions NextGenStats, which defines a completed pass of >20 yds as a deep ball.  It's not clear to me whether NextGenStats are using air yards, or total yards for these passes (I hope the former).

 

However, in a bit of digging, I found "The 2020-2021 Deep Ball Project" which ranks every QB by deep ball accuracy (they are making judgements as to whether a ball was on target and catchable, but not caught).

 

Part 1 explains their methodology.  They use air yards and break down passes by different distance ranges.  They calculate both completion % and accuracy %.

https://brickwallblitz.com/2021/02/16/the-2020-21-deep-ball-project-part-1-3/

Allen's stats are found in Part 3 where he ranks 7 out of 32 out of accuracy %, an improvement from 2019-2020 where he ranked 29th out of 32. 

https://brickwallblitz.com/2021/02/16/the-2020-21-deep-ball-project-part-3-3/

One can also go through and look at the specific completion percentage for each distance range, as well as the accuracy percentage for each distance range and rank there.

 

Enjoy.

 

 

 

Hap, very interesting. I didn't see this post till now.

 

I look forward to going more in-depth.

 

7th, hunh? One stat that combines them all and he comes in 7th.

 

I'm betting that suddenly some will stop wanting to consider all longer throws together and will suddenly start dicing things up fine ... even when previously their emphasis has been on looking at all 25+ throws together. I'll check that tomorrow.

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

Hap, very interesting. I didn't see this post till now.

 

I look forward to going more in-depth.

 

7th, hunh? One stat that combines them all and he comes in 7th.

 

I'm betting that suddenly some will stop wanting to consider all longer throws together and will suddenly start dicing things up fine ... even when previously their emphasis has been on looking at all 25+ throws together. I'll check that tomorrow.

 

The argument was pretty much over when Hap put up that link (and my previous "Josh is 8th in the NFL" was oh so close).  If Josh can improve on the deeper passes, great.  Does he need it to be successful or for the Bills to win game?  Obviously not.

[BADOLBILZ]

22 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Maybe you're right, but I don't think so.   It wasn't like the Bills were attacking defenses with a bunch of 4.7 second 40 guys.  Diggs is 4.42, Beasley, 4.49, John Brown 4.34, Isaiah McKenzie 4.42.   The reason the Bills weren't getting deep is that teams weren't threatened by the run - that's what teams saw on film, so they could play a safety deep or play cover 2.  

 

That's where "on paper" offseason rationale doesn't match up with on field reality, IMO.

 

They need to improve their running game but running 10 and 11 personnel from a spread offense with your QB in shotgun does not provide the natural structure and timing to scheme field stretching pass plays as easily.    

 

12 personnel with Diggs and Beasley OR Sanders on the field is an invitation to squat on the rest of your passing game..........defenses might sweat Sanders and Beasley underneath..........but they will take their chances with those guys deep because that is not their game..........they are small catch radius guys who do not have that extra gear.    Davis is a big catch radius guy but he's not fast.......nearly any CB2 is going to be able to turn and run with him in 12p.

 

I like Sanders........if something happens to Diggs he and Allen can still probably bang out 3-4 of those 8 yard chain movers every game.........which would be a significant loss to their game otherwise.

 

But I still think they need to add elite speed and or a big catch radius, sub 4.4 deep threat to balance the WR corps..........especially in the spread where you simply need to be faster to get the same field stretching results as you can scheme up in a power, under center, play action style offense.

 

[Shaw66]

33 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

But I still think they need to add elite speed and or a big catch radius, sub 4.4 deep threat to balance the WR corps..........especially in the spread where you simply need to be faster to get the same field stretching results as you can scheme up in a power, under center, play action style offense.

 

Where do you get that guy?   As I said, Fuller may have been the only one available.  

 

The Chiefs have one quality deep threat - Hill.   The other guy has speed, but isn't a great receiver.   McKenzie can do what he can do.  

 

There are two reasons the Chiefs offense is more effective than the Bills.   One is Kelce.   The other is that they have an effective running game.  They force the defense to respect the run, especially the speed in their running game.  

 

They don't create downfield opportunities by having two great deep threats - they do it with one and with speed.

 

Sanders will give the Bills what the Chiefs have - a great receiving corps that can get deep.   What the Bills need  is to come up with a better running game

 

 

[BADOLBILZ]

3 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Where do you get that guy?   As I said, Fuller may have been the only one available.  

 

The Chiefs have one quality deep threat - Hill.   The other guy has speed, but isn't a great receiver.   McKenzie can do what he can do.  

 

There are two reasons the Chiefs offense is more effective than the Bills.   One is Kelce.   The other is that they have an effective running game.  They force the defense to respect the run, especially the speed in their running game.  

 

They don't create downfield opportunities by having two great deep threats - they do it with one and with speed.

 

Sanders will give the Bills what the Chiefs have - a great receiving corps that can get deep.   What the Bills need  is to come up with a better running game

 

 

 

I don't agree with your assessment of the Chiefs.

 

The Chiefs attack the entire field..........the weakest aspect is their running game.    CEH was basically Devin Singletary 2.0 last year.

 

Hill is the most feared receiver in the NFL.........Kelce is a great player who draws equal attention..........Hardman is an elite speed threat.......he tore the Bills up.........they are very different than the Bills.......much more big play ability.

 

It's NOT because of the run game. 

 

Sanders is not going to add ANY of the aspects of Hill, Kelce or even Hardman.    What he gives the Bills is something similar to what Watkins gave the Chiefs when healthy.    The Bills still lack overall speed at the position and that "other" guy in the Hill/Kelce class. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:

The Chiefs attack the entire field..........the weakest aspect is their running game.    CEH was basically Devin Singletary 2.0 last year.

 

 

Now whether he was used more to the point of gaining 44% more YPG than Singletary because he could "take it" where Singletary can't, or because he was seen as able to be effective in more games against a wider range of OLs, or because other aspects of the Chiefs offensive game made him more effective - can't tell you.  But most people would look at that and say he was a more productive offensive player for the Chiefs than Singletary was for the Bills last year

 

The Chiefs were also 11th in the league for YPA vs 19th for the Bills, 16th in rushing yards vs 20th for the Bills (the Bills got 428 yds rushing from Allen vs 308 from Mahomes, so that difference might be bigger with QB rushing yards subtracted), 403 rush attempts vs 411 attempts for the Bills.    Most people would argue that a difference of 8 or even 4 slots in rank is significant - in fact I could be mistaken, but I think elsewhere I saw you argue that a relatively small difference in rank was significant?

 

I think these point to rushing being a more effective aspect of the Chiefs game - not all the time, the Chiefs like the Bills had 7 games with two-digit rushing yards - but when they needed it to be.    The use of Hill in the screen and the reverse/jet sweep plays which some regard as an extension of the run game is, of course also a factor - he is a threat to take those to the house in a way most players are not.  But overall....

 

Quote

Hill is the most feared receiver in the NFL

 

Huh.  I guess I'd like to hear the arguments for that.  I'm not sure DC's around the league would entirely agree.

 

If your point is that Kelce >>> any TE on the Bills roster and Hill more of a deep and/or homerun threat than anyone on the Bills roster, well yes, sure, but while I'm sure the Bills would love to acquire their own Kelce or Hill I'm not sure what the strategy is towards that.  Who did you want them to sign?

 

[BADOLBILZ]

4 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

 

Now whether he was used more to the point of gaining 44% more YPG than Singletary because he could "take it" where Singletary can't, or because he was seen as able to be effective in more games against a wider range of OLs, or because other aspects of the Chiefs offensive game made him more effective - can't tell you.  But most people would look at that and say he was a more productive offensive player for the Chiefs than Singletary was for the Bills last year

 

The Chiefs were also 11th in the league for YPA vs 19th for the Bills, 16th in rushing yards vs 20th for the Bills (the Bills got 428 yds rushing from Allen vs 308 from Mahomes, so that difference might be bigger with QB rushing yards subtracted), 403 rush attempts vs 411 attempts for the Bills.    Most people would argue that a difference of 8 or even 4 slots in rank is significant - in fact I could be mistaken, but I think elsewhere I saw you argue that a relatively small difference in rank was significant?

 

I think these point to rushing being a more effective aspect of the Chiefs game - not all the time, the Chiefs like the Bills had 7 games with two-digit rushing yards - but when they needed it to be.    The use of Hill in the screen and the reverse/jet sweep plays which some regard as an extension of the run game is, of course also a factor - he is a threat to take those to the house in a way most players are not.  But overall....

 

 

Huh.  I guess I'd like to hear the arguments for that.  I'm not sure DC's around the league would entirely agree.

 

If your point is that Kelce >>> any TE on the Bills roster and Hill more of a deep and/or homerun threat than anyone on the Bills roster, well yes, sure, but while I'm sure the Bills would love to acquire their own Kelce or Hill I'm not sure what the strategy is towards that.  Who did you want them to sign?

 

 

 

1)

Devin Singletary 4.4 ypc

Clyde Edwards-Helaire 4.4 ypc

 

I never said the Chiefs were terrible running the ball.........they were 16th in rushing yards and 1st in passing yards..........their offense was dominant because of the passing game.

 

2)

Yes, I am saying that Hill is the most feared WR in the league.   

And Kelce is more than just better than any TE on the Bills roster............if I didn't know better I would say that was an attempt to downplay what he brings to the table.........like when the Bills were historically bad on offense in the first half of 2018 and McD would open up with "would we like to score 50 points per game?..... sure......". 

 

Shifting the goal posts from "we don't need another playmaker" to "well there was nobody to sign" is an eye roller. 

 

Will Fuller and Curtis Samuel come to mind IMMEDIATELY.    Samuel can play slot, outside, RB all while bringing elite speed.    Fuller is just an outstanding deep threat.

 

But I don't mind the Sanders signing............anyone who followed the Patriots offense for years should know that the receiving targets take a beating with all the underneath throws and downhill tackles they take..........Edelman and Gronk were constantly getting clobbered.........the Bills WR corps was not surprisingly pretty beaten up by the AFCCG..........they probably should plan on having 7 playable WR's if the intend to run it back without a lot less 10/11 personnel.

 

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:

1) Devin Singletary 4.4 ypc

Clyde Edwards-Helaire 4.4 ypc

 

Yes, that's correct, but the point stands that for whatever reason - despite having a killer passing attack, and despite having multiple games with minimal rushing yards, Edwards-Helaire was 44% more productive offensively (YPG).  So it's worth asking why is that?

 

1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:

Yes, I am saying that Hill is the most feared WR in the league.  

 

I understand that's what you're saying.  What I said was "Huh.  I guess I'd like to hear the arguments for that.  I'm not sure DC's around the league would entirely agree."  In case that was insufficently clear, let me clarify:  "Bilz, I understand you claim Hill is the most feared WR in the league.  What are your arguments and evidence supporting that claim?"

 

1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:

Shifting the goal posts from "we don't need another playmaker" to "well there was nobody to sign" is an eye roller. 

 

No one that I'm reading here has said "we don't need another playmaker" OR "well there was nobody to sign".

 

What was said in the post to which you're responding is "while I'm sure the Bills would love to acquire their own Kelce or Hill I'm not sure what the strategy is towards that.  Who did you want them to sign?"

 

In case that was insufficiently clear, let me clarify: "Bilz, I understand that you feel the Bills need WR with different skill sets more than they needed the Sanders signing.  Tell me, who did you want the Bills to sign?"

 

1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:

But I don't mind the Sanders signing...........

 

Then I'm a little puzzled as to your point, as in numerous posts in several threads you appear to be criticizing it....or arguing that it will not materially improve the Bills offensively, which as the major FA addition of this offseason seems like a criticism from here.  Stuff like:

"12 personnel with Diggs and Beasley ORSanders on the field is an invitation to squat on the rest of your passing game"

"Sanders is not going to add ANY of the aspects of Hill, Kelce or even Hardma"

".I likeSanders but at some pointSanders is gonna' hit the wall. 34 is old for a WR. I already think he's become less impactful than his stats indicate. It would be a shame if it happens in a year when the Bills are considered one of the conference favorites."

"Sanders game is redundant. I've seen enough football to know that this is the exact thing that turns into an in-season lament."

 

I'm not arguing for or against any of these statements, just pointing out that they seem inconsistent with "I don't mind the Sanders signing".  With the Bills limited cap $$ and reluctance to shift contract dollars into the future until they have Allen's contract renegotiated, it seems if you feel Sanders is redundant, doesn't add any of the offensive aspects the Bills saw to devastating effect in the AFCCG, etc etc - that's criticizing it.

 

Be that as it may, you must have an idea what you think the Bills should have done as a solution that would not be redundant and would add aspects.  So I'm asking you what that idea or ideas are. 

 

Other than "trade for DK Metcalf" that is.

[Arm of Harm]

On 4/3/2021 at 10:49 AM, Thurman#1 said:

Aaron Rodgers 2020: 

30 - 40 yards: 6/16, 37.5%, 1 TD

40 - 50 yards: 5/12, 41.6%, 2 TDs

50+ yards: 1/4, 25%, 1 TD . . .

 

Josh Allen 2020:

30 - 40 yards: 6/20, 30%, 2 TDs, 1 INT

40 - 50 yards: 3/9, 33.3%, 1 TD

50+ yards: 0/1

 

 

 

As I've noted earlier, I don't have a horse in this race. I have a high opinion of both you and Badolbilz as posters, and I don't have a strongly formed opinion about Josh Allen's level of deep ball accuracy. I've bestowed likes upon posts in both sides of this debate. All that being said, the data from your own post give some support to Badolbilz's argument. The completion percentages for Aaron Rodgers from 30 - 40 yards and from 40 yards - 50 yards are noticeably higher than those for Josh Allen.

 

On the other hand, you make a good point that the difference is almost certainly not statistically significant. That doesn't mean that Rodgers and Allen are the same at throwing the deep ball--merely that we lack sufficient data to know if they are the same or different.

 

You implied that Badolbilz deliberately sought out this small sample size, and use the example of Matt Barkley's success on a (very limited) number of deep ball attempts to make that point. However, it is not the fault of Badolbilz that the sample size is limited, and the examples he gave were of starting quarterbacks. He has done nothing to artificially reduce sample size.

 

On the other hand, he lumped several yardage categories together, and I agree with you that it would have been better to keep those yardage categories separate, as you have done in the above-quoted text. Obviously the longer the yardage the lower the percentage the throw, so lumping yardage categories together artificially and wrongly penalizes QBs who gravitate toward longer distance pass attempts. The argument in favor of lumping different yardage pass attempts together is that it addresses the problem of small sample size. I'm not agreeing with his decision there, just pointing out an argument in its favor.

 

I take issue with all comments from either side which would tend to raise the emotional temperature of this debate. The goal of the conversation can either be a) to follow wherever the data lead, or b) to establish dominance. There is no "both" option, because the two objectives are incompatible.

 

I'd add that the completion percentages are affected by factors outside the two quarterbacks' control, such as whether a pass gets dropped, as well as (in the case of an Allen pass attempt) atrocious officiating. These factors add noise and (potentially) bias to the data, making the problem of small sample size even worse.

 

The bottom line for me is that the data hint that Josh Allen might have been worse at deep balls than Rodgers in 2020, but we simply don't have the data to know for sure.

 

[Doc]

10 minutes ago, Arm of Harm said:

 

As I've noted earlier, I don't have a horse in this race. I have a high opinion of both you and Badolbilz as posters, and I don't have a strongly formed opinion about Josh Allen's level of deep ball accuracy. I've bestowed likes upon posts in both sides of this debate. All that being said, the data from your own post give some support to Badolbilz's argument. The completion percentages for Aaron Rodgers from 30 - 40 yards and from 40 yards - 50 yards are noticeably higher than those for Josh Allen.

 

On the other hand, you make a good point that the difference is almost certainly not statistically significant. That doesn't mean that Rodgers and Allen are the same at throwing the deep ball--merely that we lack sufficient data to know if they are the same or different.

 

You implied that Badolbilz deliberately sought out this small sample size, and use the example of Matt Barkley's success on a (very limited) number of deep ball attempts to make that point. However, it is not the fault of Badolbilz that the sample size is limited, and the examples he gave were of starting quarterbacks. He has done nothing to artificially reduce sample size.

 

On the other hand, he lumped several yardage categories together, and I agree with you that it would have been better to keep those yardage categories separate, as you have done in the above-quoted text. Obviously the longer the yardage the lower the percentage the throw, so lumping yardage categories together artificially and wrongly penalizes QBs who gravitate toward longer distance pass attempts. The argument in favor of lumping different yardage pass attempts together is that it addresses the problem of small sample size. I'm not agreeing with his decision there, just pointing out an argument in its favor.

 

I take issue with all comments from either side which would tend to raise the emotional temperature of this debate. The goal of the conversation can either be a) to follow wherever the data lead, or b) to establish dominance. There is no "both" option, because the two objectives are incompatible.

 

I'd add that the completion percentages are affected by factors outside the two quarterbacks' control, such as whether a pass gets dropped, as well as (in the case of an Allen pass attempt) atrocious officiating. These factors add noise and (potentially) bias to the data, making the problem of small sample size even worse.

 

The bottom line for me is that the data hint that Josh Allen might have been worse at deep balls than Rodgers in 2020, but we simply don't have the data to know for sure.

 

I mentioned earlier that Josh's true stats for 30-40 yards was 7/20 (35%), which was almost identical to Rodgers.  And from 40-50 was the difference between completing one more pass (of 9 Josh threw or 1 more complete pass to get him to 40%).  A thorough analysis would look at whether those deep ball incompletions happened in the losses, what was the reason for the incompletions and whether it would have led to a win.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

11 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

I've already answered this, but apparently you didn't get it. Shouldn't surprise me a bit.

 

So again, when you compare all passes over 25 yards, you are comparing one guy's 25 yard passes to another guy's 50 yarders.

 

It's idiocy, absolute idiocy. Again, combining a bunch of specific categories into one extremely general category. is simply dumb. You make the comparisons virtually useless. To repeat:

 

For example, say a backup QB comes in and plays a few snaps and throws one pass between 30 and 40 yards, it's a 30 yard TD. And that's his only throw of 30 - 40 yards for the season. Who's number one in your category based on percentages? That guy is. He's a 100% passer between 30 and 40 yards. He's number one, baby. According to your numbers that guy's more accurate than Josh, Mahomes, Russell Wilson and Aaron Rodgers. 

 

Now, say the same guy in his sixteen attempts throws two passes between 40 and 50 yards, one complete for 42 yards, the other out of bounds. Who's more accurate on long balls, him or Josh Allen, Mahomes, Russell Wilson and Aaron Rodgers. Well, your buttheaded system puts him first on the list. 50% from 40 - 50 yards. Clearly this guy is more accurate than those four, according to your system.

 

Now, let's give that imaginary guy a name, say ... oh, Matt Barkley. Oh, wow, what a coincidence, the real Matt actually did do just what I said. 1 for 1 and a touchdown between 30 and 40 yards and 1 for 2 between 40 and 50 yards.  

 

Just check the charts on nextgenstats.nfl.com

 

So, according to you, Matt Barkley, who completed 2 for 3 over 30 yards, is thus proven a better long ball guy, better than Josh Allen, and better than Mahomes, Rodgers and Russell Wilson.

 

Your slowcoach of a system puts Barkley (and probably many others) ahead of the big four QBs there. It's pure dumb-osity.

 

 

 

That's nonsense. Assuming that Aaron Rodgers sees and throws to every wide open deep receiver every time ... is great evidence of your prejudice and willingness to use wild and obviously wrong generalizations. He undoubtedly missed open receivers, same as Allen did. Comes from being human.

 

To find an example, I did something really difficult, I googled it. Took me around one minute, clicking on the second article to find an example of a play where Rodgers didn't throw to Lazard wide open deep with no safety coming. That was only the first example. The article has three or four examples of missing open guys.

 

https://footballfilmroom.com/2019/12/11/aaron-rodgers-needs-to-play-better/

 

As usual, you're wrong.

 

And wrong precisely about the main point. Hitting deep throws isn't easy. It's really difficult. That's why these four guys don't do it a large percentage of the time. It's why even the Aaron Rodgers misses long ball opportunities and long ball throws a lot of the time.

 

Thought I could probably find an example just by watching the conference championship 2nd half, and yup, I found two in the 3rd quarter before I stopped.

 

10:31 Rodgers bails to the left, gets a moment or two outside, has a man open by a step or two at the back of the end zone about 35 yards beyond the LOS, he's slightly to the right of midfield and he cuts left. Beaten his guy. Rodgers has a moment. Hops left. Hops left again. Hops left again. Can't find anyone. See the guy finally, but only as the rushers finally reach him. He throws toward the guy, who has now gotten close to the sideline. As he throws, a rusher is right in his face and he lets it go ... and misses long and left. Possibly because of the rusher, but the guy was open all the way across the end zone. Rodgers had rolled left and only had to look at half the field. And he just missed his guy till too late. Poor play.

 

5:09. It's a 7 yard completion to Tonyan, thrown as a safety vale. But #13 is a step or two open long and Rodgers is looking left, has him, doesn't take it.

 

Buttheaded idea, that there's anyone out there who sees it and does it every time. They all have problems. Josh included, but Rodgers also.

 

Good points, Thurm. Good points

[BADOLBILZ]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Yes, that's correct, but the point stands that for whatever reason - despite having a killer passing attack, and despite having multiple games with minimal rushing yards, Edwards-Helaire was 44% more productive offensively (YPG).  So it's worth asking why is that?

 

 

I understand that's what you're saying.  What I said was "Huh.  I guess I'd like to hear the arguments for that.  I'm not sure DC's around the league would entirely agree."  In case that was insufficently clear, let me clarify:  "Bilz, I understand you claim Hill is the most feared WR in the league.  What are your arguments and evidence supporting that claim?"

 

 

No one that I'm reading here has said "we don't need another playmaker" OR "well there was nobody to sign".

 

What was said in the post to which you're responding is "while I'm sure the Bills would love to acquire their own Kelce or Hill I'm not sure what the strategy is towards that.  Who did you want them to sign?"

 

In case that was insufficiently clear, let me clarify: "Bilz, I understand that you feel the Bills need WR with different skill sets more than they needed the Sanders signing.  Tell me, who did you want the Bills to sign?"

 

 

Then I'm a little puzzled as to your point, as in numerous posts in several threads you appear to be criticizing it....or arguing that it will not materially improve the Bills offensively, which as the major FA addition of this offseason seems like a criticism from here.  Stuff like:

"12 personnel with Diggs and Beasley ORSanders on the field is an invitation to squat on the rest of your passing game"

"Sanders is not going to add ANY of the aspects of Hill, Kelce or even Hardma"

".I likeSanders but at some pointSanders is gonna' hit the wall. 34 is old for a WR. I already think he's become less impactful than his stats indicate. It would be a shame if it happens in a year when the Bills are considered one of the conference favorites."

"Sanders game is redundant. I've seen enough football to know that this is the exact thing that turns into an in-season lament."

 

I'm not arguing for or against any of these statements, just pointing out that they seem inconsistent with "I don't mind the Sanders signing".  With the Bills limited cap $$ and reluctance to shift contract dollars into the future until they have Allen's contract renegotiated, it seems if you feel Sanders is redundant, doesn't add any of the offensive aspects the Bills saw to devastating effect in the AFCCG, etc etc - that's criticizing it.

 

Be that as it may, you must have an idea what you think the Bills should have done as a solution that would not be redundant and would add aspects.  So I'm asking you what that idea or ideas are. 

 

Other than "trade for DK Metcalf" that is.

 

 

 

1) CEH was only more productive because he had more carries.    On a per carry basis their production was identical.    After Williams opted out the Chiefs didn't have much depth at RB so they fed the 1st rounder until he got hurt.   CEH had 181 carries and DS had 156........it's not like CEH was a 20 carry per game workhorse.   The Bills had 3rd rounder Zach Moss to split the load........and he excelled on zone blocked runs(4.8 ypr) and in pass pro.  The Chiefs did outbid the Bills for LeVeon Bell but he was mediocre in his limited chances.

 

2) Curtis Samuel was my top free agent target for reasons already given.    That dude ran a 4.31 at the combine......not just some pro day #.   That is elite speed and even in this great WR draft you are not likely to find a guy who can be an explosive RB, a dynamic slot and an excellent deep ball receiver.   Will Fuller would have been a great complement as well.    Kenny Golladay would have been great but he was the one great deep threat WR who was looking at a huge WR1 contract.   There were some stud deep threat options available.    

 

3) My issue isn't the signing.........it's the notion that Sanders is all they need or that it necessarily improves their starting lineup even.   His skill set is redundant.   They already have 2 starting WR who do the majority of their work in the short to intermediate range.........as well as McKenzie who is also just a short-range, slot WR, gadget type.     Davis is a promising player but I think his rookie numbers were inflated by a bunch of blown coverages and being able to operate against lesser DB's because of the Bills spread.......much in the same way that Singletary's rookie numbers(which were amazing) were inflated by an inexplicably high % of his carries against 6 man boxes.  

 

I'm optimistic that they will invest a couple picks into the WR position in what may be the deepest WR class ever.   It's far and away the deepest position in this draft. 

 

 

[Thurman#1]

7 hours ago, Arm of Harm said:

 

As I've noted earlier, I don't have a horse in this race. I have a high opinion of both you and Badolbilz as posters, and I don't have a strongly formed opinion about Josh Allen's level of deep ball accuracy. I've bestowed likes upon posts in both sides of this debate. All that being said, the data from your own post give some support to Badolbilz's argument. The completion percentages for Aaron Rodgers from 30 - 40 yards and from 40 yards - 50 yards are noticeably higher than those for Josh Allen.

 

On the other hand, you make a good point that the difference is almost certainly not statistically significant. That doesn't mean that Rodgers and Allen are the same at throwing the deep ball--merely that we lack sufficient data to know if they are the same or different.

 

You implied that Badolbilz deliberately sought out this small sample size, and use the example of Matt Barkley's success on a (very limited) number of deep ball attempts to make that point. However, it is not the fault of Badolbilz that the sample size is limited, and the examples he gave were of starting quarterbacks. He has done nothing to artificially reduce sample size.

 

On the other hand, he lumped several yardage categories together, and I agree with you that it would have been better to keep those yardage categories separate, as you have done in the above-quoted text. Obviously the longer the yardage the lower the percentage the throw, so lumping yardage categories together artificially and wrongly penalizes QBs who gravitate toward longer distance pass attempts. The argument in favor of lumping different yardage pass attempts together is that it addresses the problem of small sample size. I'm not agreeing with his decision there, just pointing out an argument in its favor.

 

I take issue with all comments from either side which would tend to raise the emotional temperature of this debate. The goal of the conversation can either be a) to follow wherever the data lead, or b) to establish dominance. There is no "both" option, because the two objectives are incompatible.

 

I'd add that the completion percentages are affected by factors outside the two quarterbacks' control, such as whether a pass gets dropped, as well as (in the case of an Allen pass attempt) atrocious officiating. These factors add noise and (potentially) bias to the data, making the problem of small sample size even worse.

 

The bottom line for me is that the data hint that Josh Allen might have been worse at deep balls than Rodgers in 2020, but we simply don't have the data to know for sure.

 

 

 

Thoughtful post.

 

As for your point that my numbers seem to show that Rodgers is a bit higher than Allen's ... I agree.Rodgers won the MVP for good reason, he had a terrific year and if you want to use my numbers to say Rodgers was a bit better than Allen as far as those numbers go, I'm there with you. But it's a small difference. Rodgers is 6 for 16 (37.5%) and Allen 6/20 (34.6%). The difference between 34.6% and 37.5%, when we're talking about such very low numbers of attempts is absolutely miniscule.

 

For 40 - 50 yards, it's a slightly larger difference, but only slightly. Rodgers was 5 for 12 (41.6%) and Allen was 3 for 9 (33.3%). If Allen had maintained the same percentage and thrown as many passes as Rodgers did, Allen would have gone 4 for 12 compared to Rodgers' 5 for 12.

 

There isn't a statistician in the world who will tell you the differences in those numbers are statistically significant. You're dead on, and in complete agreement with me on this. Rodgers is slightly ahead. The slight difference has zero statistical significance.

 

But I also posted numbers for Russell Wilson, and for Mahomes. And all told what those numbers for all four guys say is three or four things:

 

1) They're all fairly close together. Which would not be so if Allen were not one of the better deep ball throwers in the league. These are four great QBs, all pretty good at deep balls.

 

2) Allen and Russell Wilson are extremely close.

 

3) Mahomes' percentage between 30 and 40 yards is well below Allen's. His percentage between 40 and 50 is higher. They're not far different. If you're going to draw conclusions from numbers this small, the conclusion you should draw is that Mahomes, Allen and Russell Wilson are really close.

 

4) Nobody is terrific at deep ball throws. They're hard for the QB and for the WR. That's why nobody has very high numbers.

 

Your argument that many other factors affect completion percentages is also on target. Certainly the 42 yarder Allen threw to Kroft that Kroft caught and came out of the collison with, which was somehow called an INT, is a terrific example of this.

 

And if you want to look instead at the accuracy stats from BrickWallBlitz that Hapless posted, they tell the same kind of story, that Allen was 7th overall in deep ball accuracy. Accuracy is much more in the QB's control.

[Arm of Harm]

On 4/7/2021 at 4:34 AM, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Thoughtful post.

 

As for your point that my numbers seem to show that Rodgers is a bit higher than Allen's ... I agree.Rodgers won the MVP for good reason, he had a terrific year and if you want to use my numbers to say Rodgers was a bit better than Allen as far as those numbers go, I'm there with you. But it's a small difference. Rodgers is 6 for 16 (37.5%) and Allen 6/20 (34.6%). The difference between 34.6% and 37.5%, when we're talking about such very low numbers of attempts is absolutely miniscule.

 

For 40 - 50 yards, it's a slightly larger difference, but only slightly. Rodgers was 5 for 12 (41.6%) and Allen was 3 for 9 (33.3%). If Allen had maintained the same percentage and thrown as many passes as Rodgers did, Allen would have gone 4 for 12 compared to Rodgers' 5 for 12.

 

There isn't a statistician in the world who will tell you the differences in those numbers are statistically significant. You're dead on, and in complete agreement with me on this. Rodgers is slightly ahead. The slight difference has zero statistical significance.

 

But I also posted numbers for Russell Wilson, and for Mahomes. And all told what those numbers for all four guys say is three or four things:

 

1) They're all fairly close together. Which would not be so if Allen were not one of the better deep ball throwers in the league. These are four great QBs, all pretty good at deep balls.

 

2) Allen and Russell Wilson are extremely close.

 

3) Mahomes' percentage between 30 and 40 yards is well below Allen's. His percentage between 40 and 50 is higher. They're not far different. If you're going to draw conclusions from numbers this small, the conclusion you should draw is that Mahomes, Allen and Russell Wilson are really close.

 

4) Nobody is terrific at deep ball throws. They're hard for the QB and for the WR. That's why nobody has very high numbers.

 

Your argument that many other factors affect completion percentages is also on target. Certainly the 42 yarder Allen threw to Kroft that Kroft caught and came out of the collison with, which was somehow called an INT, is a terrific example of this.

 

And if you want to look instead at the accuracy stats from BrickWallBlitz that Hapless posted, they tell the same kind of story, that Allen was 7th overall in deep ball accuracy. Accuracy is much more in the QB's control.

 

I agree with everything you've written. Very good post. Just to add to the discussion I'll say this:

 

I'm not good enough at baseball to deserve a spot on a high school team, let alone a major league team. So let's say for some reason the Yankees gave me two at bats. I strike out both times. Then they bring Babe Ruth back from the dead and give him two at bats also. He strikes out once and hits one home run. Is the difference between my performance and Babe Ruth's statistically significant? I haven't done the calculations on that, but eyeballing it I'd say no way is that statistically significant. Does that absence of statistical significance mean that Babe Ruth and I are the same level of baseball player? No, it absolutely does not mean that! Babe Ruth is far and away the better player. Just because you don't have the data to prove two things are unequal, does not make them equal. It merely means you don't have the data to know, one way or the other, whether they are equal or not. At least, that's true whenever sample size is small. As sample size grows, a failure to find a statistically significant difference between two data sets would normally indicate that the difference between the two data sets may be small in comparison to standard deviation.

 

In this case, as you've pointed out, the data sample is limited. This means the data cannot be used to conclude any of the following: a) that Allen's deep ball performance was better than the other three QBs, b) that his deep ball performance was worse than the other three QBs, or c) that his deep ball performance was the same as the other three QBs. There simply aren't enough data to support any of these conclusions. At least, I don't believe there are enough data, though I have not tested anything for statistical significance or for power.

Edited April 9, 2021 by Arm of Harm