Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

nothing is impossible... David Wilson

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

  • .........and I thought I argued about stupid stuff......
    Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter accusations.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Morehead State View Post
      .........and I thought I argued about stupid stuff......
      Don't worry, you do.
      Mood: WOOF!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by gmen46 View Post
        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.
        It's neither. Putting the ball on the carpet is much more dangerous than an incomplete pass, due to the random nature of ball bounces. So, while the ones lost don't count as turnovers, they certainly don't count as just a stop of forward progress.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by B&RWarrior View Post
          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.
          What's extreme about "a turnover hurts the team", and "a non-turnover does not hurt the team"? I thought that was pretty basic, to be honest.

          Your argument for all fumbles being equal seems to be about what MIGHT happen any time a fumble occurs, and how many yards MIGHT have been gained if a fumble had not occurred. My god, you can say exactly the same thing about when a runner is tackled (how many more yards he could have gained, if that damned LB hadn't tackled him first!!)

          And a ball CAN be fumbled forward. A player cannot kick it forward or deliberately push or tip the ball forward in an attempt to recover or prevent an opponent from recovering the fumble. Accidental forward progress occurs fairly frequently in scrambles to recover a fumble. Or a ball is stripped or punched forward out of a carrier's grasp and is downed wherever the ball is eventually recovered and blown dead. Happens all the time.

          I'm not saying any fumble is GOOD, per se, just like it's not good to have your RB tackled for a short gain or a loss. I'm stating what I thought was the profoundly obvious--that the only fumble that actually hurts a team is the fumble that is lost to the other team. And as such, that's the fumble that matters--that counts, for all intents and purposes-- in any given game.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Morehead State View Post
            .........and I thought I argued about stupid stuff......

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Morehead State View Post
              .........and I thought I argued about stupid stuff......
              It'a a message board dedicated to a sport that none of us get paid to play, watch or discuss. It's built and thrives on frivolous debate.
              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
                It'a a message board dedicated to a sport that none of us get paid to play, watch or discuss. It's built and thrives on frivolous debate.
                Well then let me ask this "frivolous" question......

                What do we worry about more?........ A couple fumbles or 27 interception?

                Seems like a few fumbles are a meaningless thing in this context.
                Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter accusations.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by gmen46 View Post
                  What's extreme about "a turnover hurts the team", and "a non-turnover does not hurt the team"? I thought that was pretty basic, to be honest.

                  Your argument for all fumbles being equal seems to be about what MIGHT happen any time a fumble occurs, and how many yards MIGHT have been gained if a fumble had not occurred. My god, you can say exactly the same thing about when a runner is tackled (how many more yards he could have gained, if that damned LB hadn't tackled him first!!)

                  And a ball CAN be fumbled forward. A player cannot kick it forward or deliberately push or tip the ball forward in an attempt to recover or prevent an opponent from recovering the fumble. Accidental forward progress occurs fairly frequently in scrambles to recover a fumble. Or a ball is stripped or punched forward out of a carrier's grasp and is downed wherever the ball is eventually recovered and blown dead. Happens all the time.

                  I'm not saying any fumble is GOOD, per se, just like it's not good to have your RB tackled for a short gain or a loss. I'm stating what I thought was the profoundly obvious--that the only fumble that actually hurts a team is the fumble that is lost to the other team. And as such, that's the fumble that matters--that counts, for all intents and purposes-- in any given game.
                  The extreme points I made were in earlier posts when I asked should other players be benched because the RB fumbled and they did not recover it.

                  To this latest ridiculous post all I can say is, "Are you serious?" Let's keep it simple. If a running back fumbles the ball and it's recovered for an 8 yard loss by the LT did that fumble hurt or help the team? If a player fumbles the ball without contact and had a clear path to the end zone, but the ball is instead recovered by a teammate short of the endzone did the fumble help or hurt the team?

                  The bigger issue was that Tiki Barber came into the league with ball security issues and when his touches increased his fumbles shot through the roof. Mostly, I'm guessing because the word got out that he was a fumbler, so where in the first 3 years he fumbled only occasionally (9 times)as an unknown RB, once his touches increased by year 4 every time he touched the ball defenders where trying to strip him due to his reputation as a fumbler.

                  To bring this full circle, Tiki Barber fumbled 45 times from 1999-2004, never did he receive an extended benching. Compare that to Wilson fumbling in his first game as rookie and then being benched for the majority of the season. It's a joke that TC would try to hold up this high standard for TOs as the reason.
                  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 Morehead State View Post
                    Well then let me ask this "frivolous" question......

                    What do we worry about more?........ A couple fumbles or 27 interception?

                    Seems like a few fumbles are a meaningless thing in this context.
                    Ha! You are preaching to the quire. I just think players should have a fair shot before we write them off. 126 touches seems like too small a sample to decide if a RB that has made some plays playing behind a decidedly porous line is the real deal or not; that's just me though.

                    As for Eli, I was definitely disappointed in his effort last year. Our most important player was our worst performing player, and it was totally unexpected.
                    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
                      The extreme points I made were in earlier posts when I asked should other players be benched because the RB fumbled and they did not recover it.

                      To this latest ridiculous post all I can say is, "Are you serious?" Let's keep it simple. If a running back fumbles the ball and it's recovered for an 8 yard loss by the LT did that fumble hurt or help the team? If a player fumbles the ball without contact and had a clear path to the end zone, but the ball is instead recovered by a teammate short of the endzone did the fumble help or hurt the team?

                      The bigger issue was that Tiki Barber came into the league with ball security issues and when his touches increased his fumbles shot through the roof. Mostly, I'm guessing because the word got out that he was a fumbler, so where in the first 3 years he fumbled only occasionally (9 times)as an unknown RB, once his touches increased by year 4 every time he touched the ball defenders where trying to strip him due to his reputation as a fumbler.

                      To bring this full circle, Tiki Barber fumbled 45 times from 1999-2004, never did he receive an extended benching. Compare that to Wilson fumbling in his first game as rookie and then being benched for the majority of the season. It's a joke that TC would try to hold up this high standard for TOs as the reason.
                      Same as a tackle for an 8 yard loss. Same as a tackle right before the end zone.

                      As to Tiki, he'd already established himself as a game breaker that could make game changing plays by the time his fumbles increased as his load increased in 2000. His years of 2000-2003 were when he fumbled the most times, 9 (lost 3), 8 (lost 2), 9 (lost 6), and 9 (lost 6), respectively. Those were all under Fassel. Obviously, his coaching approach was different (and more forgiving) than is Coughlin's. Turns out that Coughlin's approach worked quite well for Tiki (and for subsequent RBs), despite his bellyaching.

                      On the other hand, Coughlin did not have Wilson "in the dog house" his rookie season as much as many would have us believe. He did have Wilson return kick offs the entire season (maybe 1 game was excluded, I don't remember). That skill requires the returner to catch and protect the ball before running, with all 11 guys running full tilt boogie at him and him alone. That, to me, showed Coughlin did have trust in him, in spite of his first play/fumble of the year at RB.

                      The "it's Coughlin and Gilbride's fault" for Wilson's unimpressive 1 and 1/3 seasons as RB is overwrought and overstated, in my view. The fumble argument concerning Wilson's rushing talents is a side issue, as Morehead, you, and a couple others have indicated. It truly is only in the minds of some fans as a reason for not giving him more touches than he's had so far, but there is no evidence that confirms that belief.

                      However, a player of his perceived talent, who was drafted in first round because of the perception, absolutely MUST make the most of his limited playing time early in his first year. Entering year 3, and he has yet to prove he should be the primary RB on this team.
                      Last edited by gmen46; 03-23-2014, 11:31 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X