Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

nothing is impossible... David Wilson

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by speedman View Post
    Wilson had 3 fumbles all lost. How many fumbles did Tiki have with 1 lost. To me it's total fumbles because maybe you get a lucky bounce on the ones you don't lose.
    That's how I view it. Losing possession of the ball is losing possession of the ball, regardless of whether or not yourself or a teammate regained control of it.

    Comment


    • It's funny how people are trying to justify his fumbles. He's a fumbler. TC has worked with him for two years and he still carries the ball too far away from his body. Just watch all his carries, you will see it. Whether the other team recovers the fumble is meaningless when discussing Wilson's ability to carry the ball properly.

      And while you are at it, watch his pass blocking. It's just as bad.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by gmen46 View Post
        He lost 1. That's what counts.

        What is misleading is when the total fumbles is interchanged with lost fumbles in order to make a point. Happens all the time on this board, not directing this at you per se.

        Wilson lost 3 fumbles in 121 touches (2.5%) his first 2 yrs.

        Tiki lost 1 fumble in 264 touches (0.38%) his first 2 yrs

        That was the point being made in response to the poster who asked how many fumbles Tiki had his first 2 yrs, while obviously attempting to mitigate the high fumble percentage by Wilson so far. Apples to apples. You're inadvertently introducing oranges into the comparison.
        We are talking about player evaluation. "X" players ability to protect the football within his own grasp. Tiki had awful Ball security early in his career. He created a lot of turnover opportunities by fumbling the football and that cant be ignored when evaluating a player. So Youre doing the same thing you just mentioned. manipulating the stats to prove a point.

        It would be a different story if we were talking about "New York Giants fumble recovery success rate, between "X" and "Y" time periods."
        Last edited by PaulAnthony; 03-22-2014, 08:41 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by moosedrool View Post
          It's funny how people are trying to justify his fumbles. He's a fumbler. TC has worked with him for two years and he still carries the ball too far away from his body. Just watch all his carries, you will see it. Whether the other team recovers the fumble is meaningless when discussing Wilson's ability to carry the ball properly.

          And while you are at it, watch his pass blocking. It's just as bad.
          If TC would have just played him more as a rookie, this would all be behind him. TC simply refuses to play rookies and as long as he does we will have guys like Wilson who never get a chance to bloom. (deep dark red)
          No one remembers who came in second.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by moosedrool View Post
            It's funny how people are trying to justify his fumbles. He's a fumbler. TC has worked with him for two years and he still carries the ball too far away from his body. Just watch all his carries, you will see it. Whether the other team recovers the fumble is meaningless when discussing Wilson's ability to carry the ball properly.

            And while you are at it, watch his pass blocking. It's just as bad.
            I strongly doubt that Tom Coughlin has coached Wilson directly in any way...except to bench him.
            This notion that TC fixed Tiki's problems is a myth. He had position coaches for that as does Wilson.
            Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter accusations.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Morehead State View Post
              I strongly doubt that Tom Coughlin has coached Wilson directly in any way...except to bench him.
              This notion that TC fixed Tiki's problems is a myth. He had position coaches for that as does Wilson.
              You are wrong. In his book, Tiki credits TC with solving his fumbling problems.

              http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3003699

              Comment


              • Originally posted by moosedrool View Post
                You are wrong. In his book, Tiki credits TC with solving his fumbling problems.

                http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3003699
                Jerald Ingram worked with Tiki and suggested using the "high and tight" technique to carry the ball as one of the many things they were trying out to solve that issue for him.

                Tiki found it worked for him and he stuck with it.

                TC didn't do much directly for Tiki other than make not fumbling a priority for Giants' RBs, which lead to Ingram focusing on it, and Tiki buying in so he could get on the field:

                "When Coughlin became the Giants’ new head coach, he made it clear that the fumbles would not be tolerated. "He said to me, 'If you're going to put the ball on the ground, you're not going to play,'" Barber told Newsday."

                Not directly responsible for the new technique.
                Last edited by TE88; 03-22-2014, 10:43 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by TooEasy2 View Post
                  Jerald Ingram worked with Tiki and suggested using the "high and tight" technique to carry the ball as one of the many things they were trying out to solve that issue for him.

                  Tiki found it worked for him and he stuck with it.

                  TC didn't do much directly for Tiki other than make not fumbling a priority for Giants' RBs, which lead to Ingram focusing on it, and Tiki buying in so he could get on the field:

                  "When Coughlin became the Giants’ new head coach, he made it clear that the fumbles would not be tolerated. "He said to me, 'If you're going to put the ball on the ground, you're not going to play,'" Barber told Newsday."

                  Not directly responsible for the new technique.
                  Then why does Tiki credit TC and not Ingram in his book?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Flip Empty View Post
                    That's how I view it. Losing possession of the ball is losing possession of the ball, regardless of whether or not yourself or a teammate regained control of it.
                    That makes no sense.

                    If a fumble is not turned over ("lost fumble"), it's not losing possession.

                    You wouldn't say an incomplete pass is the same as an interception, would you? Yet both are passes that fail to progress the ball forward for the offense. One does not harm the offense, it just ends the play. The other turns the ball over to the opponent, ie, loss of possession.

                    Likewise, a fumble that is recovered by the offense does not turn the ball over to the opponent, it simply fails to progress the ball further down the field. It ends that specific play. Of course, a tackle of the RB would accomplish the same thing.

                    A fumble that is not lost is not a turnover. Turnovers are the point of this whole discussion, imo. Turnovers are what defined the 2013 Giants. Turnovers cost us games and are what arguably cost us the season.

                    If Wilson had simply fumbled the ball twice vs Dallas in Week One, but had them recovered by a team mate, would we have lost that game? Had we won that first game, would the season have developed differently for the Giants? Who knows? But recovering a fumble is definitely not the same as losing a fumble, not by any standard.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by gmen46 View Post
                      That makes no sense.

                      If a fumble is not turned over ("lost fumble"), it's not losing possession.

                      You wouldn't say an incomplete pass is the same as an interception, would you? Yet both are passes that fail to progress the ball forward for the offense. One does not harm the offense, it just ends the play. The other turns the ball over to the opponent, ie, loss of possession.

                      Likewise, a fumble that is recovered by the offense does not turn the ball over to the opponent, it simply fails to progress the ball further down the field. It ends that specific play. Of course, a tackle of the RB would accomplish the same thing.

                      A fumble that is not lost is not a turnover. Turnovers are the point of this whole discussion, imo. Turnovers are what defined the 2013 Giants. Turnovers cost us games and are what arguably cost us the season.

                      If Wilson had simply fumbled the ball twice vs Dallas in Week One, but had them recovered by a team mate, would we have lost that game? Had we won that first game, would the season have developed differently for the Giants? Who knows? But recovering a fumble is definitely not the same as losing a fumble, not by any standard.
                      Fumbling the ball is bad, whether or not your team recovers it or not. There's a lot of random chance that happens in recovering the fumble, from the bounce of the ball to how many times it might change possession at the bottom of the pile.

                      It is in no way congruous to your incomplete pass/interception analogy.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Drez View Post
                        Fumbling the ball is bad, whether or not your team recovers it or not. There's a lot of random chance that happens in recovering the fumble, from the bounce of the ball to how many times it might change possession at the bottom of the pile.

                        It is in no way congruous to your incomplete pass/interception analogy.
                        It's the lost ones that count.

                        And you're right, it's not congruous. It's analogous. In pass plays, one is a down spent with no forward progress, the other is a turnover to the opponent. In run plays, one (fumble that is recovered by the offense) is a stop of forward progress, the other (lost fumble) is a turnover to the opponent. Pretty simple, really.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by moosedrool View Post
                          Then why does Tiki credit TC and not Ingram in his book?
                          Perhaps he credits TC for putting it in his(Tiki's) head that if he continues to fumble, he wont see the field.

                          Football actually has a huge mental element to it that most people dont realize, unless they've played the game at some level.
                          The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd - Bertrand Russell

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by gmen46 View Post
                            That makes no sense.

                            If a fumble is not turned over ("lost fumble"), it's not losing possession.

                            You wouldn't say an incomplete pass is the same as an interception, would you? Yet both are passes that fail to progress the ball forward for the offense. One does not harm the offense, it just ends the play. The other turns the ball over to the opponent, ie, loss of possession.

                            Likewise, a fumble that is recovered by the offense does not turn the ball over to the opponent, it simply fails to progress the ball further down the field. It ends that specific play. Of course, a tackle of the RB would accomplish the same thing.

                            A fumble that is not lost is not a turnover. Turnovers are the point of this whole discussion, imo. Turnovers are what defined the 2013 Giants. Turnovers cost us games and are what arguably cost us the season.

                            If Wilson had simply fumbled the ball twice vs Dallas in Week One, but had them recovered by a team mate, would we have lost that game? Had we won that first game, would the season have developed differently for the Giants? Who knows? But recovering a fumble is definitely not the same as losing a fumble, not by any standard.
                            Your point is a guy who fumbles 10 times and he or his teammates recover 9 of them is not a fumbler?
                            Engage brain before speaking.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by moosedrool View Post
                              You are wrong. In his book, Tiki credits TC with solving his fumbling problems.

                              http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3003699
                              Well I saw that the reporter says it but i see no quote from Tiki that TC solved his fumbling problems.
                              Not saying you're not right. But this article doesn't say that.
                              Last edited by Morehead State; 03-23-2014, 09:18 AM.
                              Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter accusations.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by gmen46 View Post
                                That makes no sense.

                                If a fumble is not turned over ("lost fumble"), it's not losing possession.

                                You wouldn't say an incomplete pass is the same as an interception, would you? Yet both are passes that fail to progress the ball forward for the offense. One does not harm the offense, it just ends the play. The other turns the ball over to the opponent, ie, loss of possession.

                                Likewise, a fumble that is recovered by the offense does not turn the ball over to the opponent, it simply fails to progress the ball further down the field. It ends that specific play. Of course, a tackle of the RB would accomplish the same thing.

                                A fumble that is not lost is not a turnover. Turnovers are the point of this whole discussion, imo. Turnovers are what defined the 2013 Giants. Turnovers cost us games and are what arguably cost us the season.

                                If Wilson had simply fumbled the ball twice vs Dallas in Week One, but had them recovered by a team mate, would we have lost that game? Had we won that first game, would the season have developed differently for the Giants? Who knows? But recovering a fumble is definitely not the same as losing a fumble, not by any standard.
                                Fumbling the ball is bad, no matter what.

                                The problem is, Wilson gets an unhealthy amount of focus on his fumbling, when Andre Brown fumbled just as much as Wilson in 2013...
                                Wilson: 5 starts: 2 fumbles
                                Brown: 8 starts: 3 fumbles (and one against Dallas that was called back by an unrelated defensive holding call).

                                I'm Commander Shepard, and this is my favorite team in the NFL.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X