Excellent video breakdown of the Bills poor production on offense vs. Houston

[Success]

22 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

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 right there on that hill w/ you.

 

The line had their worst day of the year. He had no time.  Receivers were NOT getting open. And they had very key drops.

 

We're so used to Allen being Superman - and he still kind of was.  He ran the ball great, and his throws looked fine to me.  Kincaid should have had 2 big ones for 1st downs - right on the hands.  The long Hollins throw could have been better, but it was catchable if he read it right.  The long pass to Cook was perfect and he just missed getting his elbow in.

 

[Sweats]

1 minute ago, Einstein said:

 

Do some research. You will see that what I wrote is founded in actual cognitive studies.

 

 

Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong......i'm just saying I have no words here, other than i just puked a bit in my mouth........again.

[Einstein]

Just now, Success said:

 

I'm right there on that hill w/ you.

 

The line had their worst day of the year. He had no time.  Receivers were NOT getting open. And they had very key drops.

 

We're so used to Allen being Superman - and he still kind of was.  He ran the ball great, and his throws looked fine to me.  Kincaid should have had 2 big ones for 1st downs - right on the hands.  The long Hollins throw could have been better, but it was catchable if he read it right.  The long pass to Cook was perfect and he just missed getting his elbow in.

 

 

Great post.

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

[MJS]

25 minutes ago, Einstein said:

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.

Why is everyone trying to die on hills about these things? Just stay alive, brother.

[machine gun kelly]

1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:

We absolutely need to start taking more shots downfield, especially with Kincaid.  He is able to beat linebackers down the seam and we aren't doing it enough.

Royale, if you remember Samuel in Carolina was a downfield threat.  Now, go get us Adams or at least Cooper amd we’ll have separation so Josh will stop getting hammered.  The line can’t hold on forever, and Josh needs someone to throw to on a regular basis.  No one is getting separation which makes our offense anemic.

[Jauronimo]

Bailing from relatively clean pockets, poor ball placement, and going deep to Mack Hollins when all you need is a first down are hallmarks of good QB play.

[pigpen65]

12 minutes ago, MJS said:

That's all speculation. It's not like Allen hasn't played bad before. He doesn't have a concussion every time he plays badly.

That he slammed his head on the ground and didn't move right after two weeks in a row isn't speculation. It definitely happened. 

[Royale with Cheese]

7 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Great post.

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

 

You know those who are correct are often in the majority too.

[Jauronimo]

Just now, pigpen65 said:

That he slammed his head on the ground and didn't move right after two weeks in a row isn't speculation. It definitely happened. 

He was kicking his feet up and down.  That is movement.

[TrentEdwardsCheckDownOn4th]

1 hour ago, BuffaloBill said:

A combination of factors at play:

 

1) Mostly lack of production & execution  from key skill players

2) Bills inability to threaten down the field

3) Brady does not have the scheme to beat the defensive tendencies emerging 

4) Offensive line was not good

 

These are not simply opinions - the film shows the issues.

 

 

Watching this video makes me realize more than anything else that our "offensive weapons" create no separation.  Even go back to the jags game where allen was making perfect throw after perfect throw,  his QBR was a top 20 game of all time. It was honestly all him, the receivers weren't creating separation he was just playing perfect.  

 

I cant believe Beane and McDermott thought they did enough this off season for allen. 

[Mango]

30 minutes ago, MJS said:

That's all speculation. It's not like Allen hasn't played bad before. He doesn't have a concussion every time he plays badly.

 

This is an internet football fan forum. Nearly 100% of every post is pure speculation and opinion. 

That is literally the entire point. 

[MJS]

5 minutes ago, Mango said:

 

This is an internet football fan forum. Nearly 100% of every post is pure speculation and opinion. 

That is literally the entire point. 

He asked why I didn't agree with him. That is the reason why. Anyone is free to speculate, but it doesn't mean I have to agree.

[JohnNord]

1 hour ago, BuffaloBill said:

A combination of factors at play:

 

1) Mostly lack of production & execution  from key skill players

2) Bills inability to threaten down the field

3) Brady does not have the scheme to beat the defensive tendencies emerging 

4) Offensive line was not good

 

These are not simply opinions - the film shows the issues.

 

 

This was a solid breakdown.   I think Josh, play calling and the line play can get better.  Shakir will help and Coleman should slowly improve.  
 

The big concern for me is the lack of talent at WR.   If they don’t trade for someone, I guess the best option is to find a way to get the ball to Kincaid and Samuel…maybe even Knox
 

 

[Augie]

That was about as much fun to watch as I expected……

 

The little voice in my head asked why I would want to subject myself to that again. I should have listened. 

[Einstein]

18 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

You know those who are correct are often in the majority too.

 

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.

 

 

[ImpactCorey]

Wow, there really WAS nobody open.

[QB Bills]

2 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

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.

 

 

You're trying too hard here pal. Allen was not good on Sunday. It's okay to say it.

 

Joe Brady did him no favours though, that much is certain.

[SoonerBillsFan]

2 hours ago, pigpen65 said:

I thought Allen looked like he got knocked out on the trick play vs Baltimore, but they said he wasn't so, you would think they would know. The Houston game was the worst game he's played as a pro, IMO. I commented in the Houston game thread in the first half he just seemed completely confused by everything. Definitely not himself. 100% positive he got knocked out vs Houston. I don't give a ***** what anybody says, we have a Tua situation on our hands. He's not being protected by whoever put him right back into that game. And looking back I don't know if he even should have been playing in the Houston game. He definitely shouldn't be playing right now. 

You are right but fans hang on "because he said he is ok" as gospel. "But the Bills staff..." that is what the independent neuro team is for. I agree with the one article calling for an independent MRI and evaluation. I want the kid for years, Screw a few games this year.

[Royale with Cheese]

37 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

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.

 

 

 

This is an example of why people don't actually believe you're a "genius".  Talk about an example of trying too hard.

37 minutes ago, QB Bills said:

You're trying too hard here pal. Allen was not good on Sunday. It's okay to say it.

 

Joe Brady did him no favours though, that much is certain.

 

Yep.  He's entertaining at least.

[Einstein]

10 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

This is an example of why people don't actually believe you're a "genius".  Talk about an example of trying too hard.

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.