Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

nothing is impossible... David Wilson

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

  • Originally posted by Morehead State View Post
    And ultimately that seems to be what he is......a complimentary back who can make some plays.
    I think if folks stay healthy we will see Jennings as our workhorse back with Wilson as a change of pace back. That is of course if he learns to pass protect.
    I think they will split carries. He's got a toughness about his running style. I think he will get more touches than you think. I'm not sold on Jennings. When I watched his highlight tapes I saw a guy running through some big holes with the Raiders. He's a strong runner that is hard to bring down and is a good receiver, but he's not elusive, and he doesn't have great speed. He seems a shade better than Hillis, but not by much.
    Because of all of the effort and examination being poured into these predictions, the draft is a robust market that, in the aggregate, does a good job of sorting prospects from top to bottom.1 Yet despite so many people trying to “beat the market,” no single actor can do it consistently. Abnormal returns are likely due to luck, not skill. But that hasn’t stopped NFL executives from behaving with the confidence of traders.

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...eat-the-draft/

    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.
      Im sorry, that is nonsense and you know it. You tried to mislead by making a silly comparison.

      By your logic, Tiki shouldn't have been held accountable for his fumbles because they happened to bounce to his teammates? Conversely, Wilson should be benched because his teammates didn't do a good enough job recovering his fumbles. Who recovers the fumble isn't the Rbs responsibility. His responsibility is to not fumble or limit them.



      Da'Rel Scott was benched his rookie year and never really got back on the field because he fumbled 2 times in 5 carries( the second 1 was incorrectly ruled down and not challenged by the opponent because of down and distance) Despite it not being ruled a fumble and no turnover officially occurring it was still good enough for TC to bench him...basically forever.

      Furthermore, it was widely reported that Tiki had problems holding onto the football in practice too. Lets not revise history and try to make it like Tiki's fumble problem wasn't that bad simply because his teammates saved his behind by recovering his fumbles.
      sigpic

      Comment


      • We're going to have 3, maybe 4 new o-lineman next year and your saying it was Wilsons fault he was getting hit in the back field? And its ok to give certain backs 10-15 carries before he "gets started". I don't think Wilson got 10-15 carries all of last year. [dont give me stats] Point is you can't teach speed. Give him the ball next year.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by B&RWarrior View Post
          I think they will split carries. He's got a toughness about his running style. I think he will get more touches than you think. I'm not sold on Jennings. When I watched his highlight tapes I saw a guy running through some big holes with the Raiders. He's a strong runner that is hard to bring down and is a good receiver, but he's not elusive, and he doesn't have great speed. He seems a shade better than Hillis, but not by much.
          I see 1200 yards from Jennings. and maybe 300 more in the passing game.
          He's a better back than people think.
          Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter accusations.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by speedman View Post
            Your point is a guy who fumbles 10 times and he or his teammates recover 9 of them is not a fumbler?
            My point is that a runner who fumbles 3 times and loses all 3 to the opponent is 3 times worse than one who fumbles 10 times but has 9 of them recovered by his offense, yes.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by gmen46 View Post
              My point is that a runner who fumbles 3 times and loses all 3 to the opponent is 3 times worse than one who fumbles 10 times but has 9 of them recovered by his offense, yes.
              Unbelievable. Good thing you're not a talent evaluator. Your logic is so flawed.
              Engage brain before speaking.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BlueSanta View Post
                Im sorry, that is nonsense and you know it. You tried to mislead by making a silly comparison.

                By your logic, Tiki shouldn't have been held accountable for his fumbles because they happened to bounce to his teammates? Conversely, Wilson should be benched because his teammates didn't do a good enough job recovering his fumbles. Who recovers the fumble isn't the Rbs responsibility. His responsibility is to not fumble or limit them.



                Da'Rel Scott was benched his rookie year and never really got back on the field because he fumbled 2 times in 5 carries( the second 1 was incorrectly ruled down and not challenged by the opponent because of down and distance) Despite it not being ruled a fumble and no turnover officially occurring it was still good enough for TC to bench him...basically forever.

                Furthermore, it was widely reported that Tiki had problems holding onto the football in practice too. Lets not revise history and try to make it like Tiki's fumble problem wasn't that bad simply because his teammates saved his behind by recovering his fumbles.
                What "silly comparison" are you talking about?

                My points about Tiki and his (lack of) fumble problem was in response to someone who asked about his first 2 years. His first 3 years, actually, Tiki did not have a "fumble problem".

                It was his next 4 years, the exact middle of his 10 yr career, which were the 4 years preceding Coughlin's arrival in 2004, that Barber had his problems. The following 3 years--first 3 of Coughlin and the 3 yrs of his career he had the most carries and yds ea. of the 3 yrs----he fumbled the ball a total of 9 times with 4 lost. In 3 years. In just the year before Coughlin he fumbled 9 times and lost 6.

                Scott didn't make it, in the end, because he contributed little-to-nothing in the run game and the return game. The couple fumbles didn't help, but that's not why he was cut. You're the one "revising history" here.
                Last edited by gmen46; 03-23-2014, 03:41 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by speedman View Post
                  Unbelievable. Good thing you're not a talent evaluator. Your logic is so flawed.
                  Really. My logic doesn't align with yours, so it's automatically "flawed".

                  A non-turnover equals a turnover, and that's your idea of "logic". OK

                  I miss the old signature of Roanoke Fan

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by gmen46 View Post
                    Really. My logic doesn't align with yours, so it's automatically "flawed".

                    A non-turnover equals a turnover, and that's your idea of "logic". OK

                    I miss the old signature of Roanoke Fan
                    Not talking about turnovers everyone was talking about fumbles. I don't think there are many people that would agree that someone who fumbles 3 times and loses all 3 is 3 times worse than someone who fumbles 10 times and is lucky enough to only lose 1.
                    Engage brain before speaking.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by gmen46 View Post
                      My point is that a runner who fumbles 3 times and loses all 3 to the opponent is 3 times worse than one who fumbles 10 times but has 9 of them recovered by his offense, yes.
                      So the key to limiting turnovers is not having a running back that doesn't fumble, but surrounding the running back with good fumble recoverers. Okay Gmen46. So clearly Wilson shouldn't have been benched at all, we should have benched the players around him that did not recover the fumbles.

                      You're a good poster, but this argument is surprisingly flawed.
                      Because of all of the effort and examination being poured into these predictions, the draft is a robust market that, in the aggregate, does a good job of sorting prospects from top to bottom.1 Yet despite so many people trying to “beat the market,” no single actor can do it consistently. Abnormal returns are likely due to luck, not skill. But that hasn’t stopped NFL executives from behaving with the confidence of traders.

                      http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...eat-the-draft/

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by speedman View Post
                        Not talking about turnovers everyone was talking about fumbles. I don't think there are many people that would agree that someone who fumbles 3 times and loses all 3 is 3 times worse than someone who fumbles 10 times and is lucky enough to only lose 1.
                        totally agreed. the fumble itself is the RB's fault, after that who recovers it should be irrelevant in grading the RB in regards to ball security.

                        once that ball is out who recovers it has to do with some luck in the way it bounces, how many of which team's players are nearby, etc,etc..... all of which have no relevancy to grading the RB's ball security skills.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by idiotekniQues View Post
                          totally agreed. the fumble itself is the RB's fault, after that who recovers it should be irrelevant in grading the RB in regards to ball security.

                          once that ball is out who recovers it has to do with some luck in the way it bounces, how many of which team's players are nearby, etc,etc..... all of which have no relevancy to grading the RB's ball security skills.
                          Yeah..the RB has no control over which way the ball bounces.
                          Mood: WOOF!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Rudyy View Post
                            Yeah..the RB has no control over which way the ball bounces.
                            Tiki puts a spin on the ball when he fumbles that makes the ball bounce toward Giants players.
                            Because of all of the effort and examination being poured into these predictions, the draft is a robust market that, in the aggregate, does a good job of sorting prospects from top to bottom.1 Yet despite so many people trying to “beat the market,” no single actor can do it consistently. Abnormal returns are likely due to luck, not skill. But that hasn’t stopped NFL executives from behaving with the confidence of traders.

                            http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...eat-the-draft/

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by B&RWarrior View Post
                              So the key to limiting turnovers is not having a running back that doesn't fumble, but surrounding the running back with good fumble recoverers. Okay Gmen46. So clearly Wilson shouldn't have been benched at all, we should have benched the players around him that did not recover the fumbles.

                              You're a good poster, but this argument is surprisingly flawed.
                              Cmon, BR, now you're being deliberately silly. What you posit here is a common tactic I see in debates: False Equivalency.

                              It's not a question of "either" THIS player should have been benched "or" THAT/THOSE player(s) should be benched.

                              (Not to mention there are those in this thread who argue Wilson should not have been benched at all, regardless of whose "fault" the lost fumble was.)

                              It's a question of what HURTS the team in any given game. A turnover hurts the team. A non-turnover does not hurt the team.

                              BTW, teams (and presumably Giants are one of them) DO have the occasional fumble recovery drill in practice, so there actually is some accountability for players (defensive and offensive) on how well they perform in real time game situations. Of course, I'm not implying anything as silly as benching an entire unit whenever a fumble is lost. But it is something worked on at times, certainly by good teams, just like they practice all types of situations (2 minute drills, 4th and inches, goal line stances, sideline receptions, etc).

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by gmen46 View Post
                                Cmon, BR, now you're being deliberately silly. What you posit here is a common tactic I see in debates: False Equivalency.

                                It's not a question of "either" THIS player should have been benched "or" THAT/THOSE player(s) should be benched.

                                (Not to mention there are those in this thread who argue Wilson should not have been benched at all, regardless of whose "fault" the lost fumble was.)

                                It's a question of what HURTS the team in any given game. A turnover hurts the team. A non-turnover does not hurt the team.

                                BTW, teams (and presumably Giants are one of them) DO have the occasional fumble recovery drill in practice, so there actually is some accountability for players (defensive and offensive) on how well they perform in real time game situations. Of course, I'm not implying anything as silly as benching an entire unit whenever a fumble is lost. But it is something worked on at times, certainly by good teams, just like they practice all types of situations (2 minute drills, 4th and inches, goal line stances, sideline receptions, etc).
                                Did you just bring up the fumble drill as a justification of this awful argument? Whose being silly? I'm pointing out the obvious hole in your argument which everybody that has read any of your absurd defenses for your stance has saw. It's a debate technique made famous by Frederic Bastiat whereby the debator uses extreme examples to point out the flaw in a line of thinking.

                                If a player is an incessant fumbler he will eventually will lose some of those fumbles. It is inevitable. This is a fact. Tiki Barber is evidence of this fact. He only lost one of his 3 fumbles in his first year and kept fumbling, and eventually lost many more fumbles before his fumbling problem was corrected.

                                I pointed this out in a previous thread, but obviously it went right over your head, a running back's fumbles can hurt the team even when they are recovered by a teammate. If you fumble in the backfield and the ball is recovered for a loss of yardage it is a bad play. Remember the goal is to make positive yardage and eventually get in the endzone.

                                If you fumble when the play could have gained 10, 15, 20, or more, but instead recover the fumble for 5 yards then again the team is hurt as they left yards that should have been gained out on the field.

                                You can not fumble a football forward. The ball will be marked back at the spot of the fumble. The rules make it an impossibility to have a positive play from a fumble, unless another player picks up the fumble and runs for a gain.

                                Clearly you should see how all fumbles are seen in a negative light, regardless of who recovered them.
                                Because of all of the effort and examination being poured into these predictions, the draft is a robust market that, in the aggregate, does a good job of sorting prospects from top to bottom.1 Yet despite so many people trying to “beat the market,” no single actor can do it consistently. Abnormal returns are likely due to luck, not skill. But that hasn’t stopped NFL executives from behaving with the confidence of traders.

                                http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...eat-the-draft/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X