+ Reply to Thread
Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 1018192021 LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 205
  1. #191
    Quote 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.

  2. #192
    All-Pro Rudyy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In your kitchen.
    Posts
    33,012
    Quote 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.

    Please support.

  3. #193
    All-Pro B&RWarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Posts
    7,892
    Quote 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.
    In the tough times we find out who we are.

  4. #194
    All-Pro gmen46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    6,028
    Quote 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).

  5. #195
    All-Pro B&RWarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Posts
    7,892
    Quote 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.
    In the tough times we find out who we are.

  6. #196
    All-Pro Morehead State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Westfield, MA
    Posts
    44,284
    .........and I thought I argued about stupid stuff......
    "Phil Simms is the greatest QB in Giants history" ........Mahatma Gandhi

  7. #197
    All-Pro Rudyy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In your kitchen.
    Posts
    33,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Morehead State View Post
    .........and I thought I argued about stupid stuff......
    Don't worry, you do.

    Please support.

  8. #198
    All-Pro Drez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    13,983
    Quote 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.

  9. #199
    All-Pro gmen46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    6,028
    Quote 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.

  10. #200
    All-Pro gmen46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    6,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Morehead State View Post
    .........and I thought I argued about stupid stuff......

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts