Emo Andy Dalton after a trip to Sephora on Groundhog Day (Carr thread)
-
RaiderandBulldog
- Posts: 16,319
- Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 3:18 pm
- Location: Fresno Ca
- Has given High Fives: 207 times
- Received High Fives: 436 times
-
Willmark
- Posts: 14,792
- Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 2:27 pm
- Location: Keeper of THE COIN!
- Has given High Fives: 1084 times
- Received High Fives: 995 times
[quote=16 to 88 post_id=1086612]You didn't answer my question.
The blame is going to go directly on the OL because he missed his assignment which cause the QB to fumble. Statistically, it's going to go down on the QB. I felt the RB/QB comparison valid but it confused you? A RB could be standing back there with the ball in the get ready position to throw and it's likely even a RB that practices job security much more then a QB is going to fumble that ball.[/quote]I did answer it, you just didn’t like my answer.
The blame is going to go directly on the OL because he missed his assignment which cause the QB to fumble. Statistically, it's going to go down on the QB. I felt the RB/QB comparison valid but it confused you? A RB could be standing back there with the ball in the get ready position to throw and it's likely even a RB that practices job security much more then a QB is going to fumble that ball.[/quote]I did answer it, you just didn’t like my answer.
-
16 to 88
- Posts: 19,160
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 10:23 pm
- Location: Dog House
- Has given High Fives: 412 times
- Received High Fives: 284 times
[quote=Willmark post_id=1086613]I did answer it, you just didn’t like my answer.[/quote]Not true you side stepped it.
A HC is not going to say "it doesn't matter". It does matter.
A HC is not going to say "it doesn't matter". It does matter.
-
Attyla
- Posts: 52,595
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:31 pm
- Has given High Fives: 1239 times
- Received High Fives: 2978 times
[quote=16 to 88 post_id=1086614]Not true you side stepped it.
A HC is not going to say "it doesn't matter". It does matter.[/quote]but you keep moving the goalposts. Now you are seeking to assign blame. You gave a scenario for one fumble. We are not talking about one. We are talking about a total. Thus you are creating an outlier. You started out saying you did not like talking about fumbles as a stat for a QB and now you are trying to defuse the notion that blame exists at all with a QB. You did not do this with INTs. The QB gets the INT whether he throws it directly at a defender or if one of his guys tips the ball into a defenders hands. Nobody goes back at looks at the totals and says, he had 100 INTs but 2 of them are not his fault. This is participation trophy stuff.
A HC is not going to say "it doesn't matter". It does matter.[/quote]but you keep moving the goalposts. Now you are seeking to assign blame. You gave a scenario for one fumble. We are not talking about one. We are talking about a total. Thus you are creating an outlier. You started out saying you did not like talking about fumbles as a stat for a QB and now you are trying to defuse the notion that blame exists at all with a QB. You did not do this with INTs. The QB gets the INT whether he throws it directly at a defender or if one of his guys tips the ball into a defenders hands. Nobody goes back at looks at the totals and says, he had 100 INTs but 2 of them are not his fault. This is participation trophy stuff.
-
srv5490
- Posts: 3,471
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 10:14 pm
- Location: Returning Videotapes
- Has given High Fives: 46 times
- Received High Fives: 172 times
[quote=16 to 88 post_id=1086598]Any QB is standing in the pocket after the snap, said OL mis-reads his assignment, whiffs on his block or misses a blitzer, whatever. DE/DT/LB/DB you name it comes right in the QB never sees him strips the ball from behind QB is face down in the ground, ball is loose, defense recovers.
Who is the coach going to be mad at?
Is he going to holler at the OL or the QB?
It's going to be the OL for almost getting Tom Brady killed and causing the fumble. I've written this so many times it's ad nauseam by now. The fumble goes down statistically on the QB but he got blind sided by the rush. He's not a RB. He doesn't spend the majority of his time on ball security and in this case which is frequent he's not going to have the ball secure to begin with.
[/quote]Since you brought up Brady, let's compare:
Since 2014 Brady has been sacked 200 times and fumbled 40 times. That is a rate of 0.200 fumbles per sack.
In that same time, Carr has been sacked 237 times and fumbled 76 times. That is a rate of 0.321 fumbles per sack.
Carr's rate of fumbles per sack is more than 50% greater than Brady's is. That is statistically significant. Anecdotally, I have never seen Brady drop the ball to break his fall, but I have seen Carr do it several times.
Sorry, but that's pretty much game over for your argument.
Who is the coach going to be mad at?
Is he going to holler at the OL or the QB?
It's going to be the OL for almost getting Tom Brady killed and causing the fumble. I've written this so many times it's ad nauseam by now. The fumble goes down statistically on the QB but he got blind sided by the rush. He's not a RB. He doesn't spend the majority of his time on ball security and in this case which is frequent he's not going to have the ball secure to begin with.
[/quote]Since you brought up Brady, let's compare:
Since 2014 Brady has been sacked 200 times and fumbled 40 times. That is a rate of 0.200 fumbles per sack.
In that same time, Carr has been sacked 237 times and fumbled 76 times. That is a rate of 0.321 fumbles per sack.
Carr's rate of fumbles per sack is more than 50% greater than Brady's is. That is statistically significant. Anecdotally, I have never seen Brady drop the ball to break his fall, but I have seen Carr do it several times.
Sorry, but that's pretty much game over for your argument.
-
NumbersForTheBreak
- Posts: 380
- Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 4:42 pm
Not even addressing the fumbles. The stats speak for themselves (hint: OL isn’t doing half bad).
-22nd in QBR
-25th in completion percentage
-25th in percentage of on-target throws, excluding spikes/throwaways
-3rd highest percentage of bad throws, excluding spikes/throwaways
-38% completion rate inside the 20 yard line.
-30% completion rate inside the 10 yard line.
-9th HIGHEST time with a clean pocket before pressured
-24th in percentage of times pressured per dropback
-Averaging 5.90 yards per drop back. Lowest since 2014.
-3 for 14 with 2 INT on throws of 20+ air yards.
-14th in TDs
-9th in ints
-9th in yards
Definitions:
-Bad Throw: throws that weren't catchable with normal effort
-On-target Throw: throws that would have hit the intended receiving target
-Clean Pocket Time: Number of seconds the quarterback was in the pocket between the snap of the ball and a pass or the collapse of the pocket
-Pressures: QB pressures (hurries + knockdowns + sack plays)
-Air Yards: How far the football travels in the air
-22nd in QBR
-25th in completion percentage
-25th in percentage of on-target throws, excluding spikes/throwaways
-3rd highest percentage of bad throws, excluding spikes/throwaways
-38% completion rate inside the 20 yard line.
-30% completion rate inside the 10 yard line.
-9th HIGHEST time with a clean pocket before pressured
-24th in percentage of times pressured per dropback
-Averaging 5.90 yards per drop back. Lowest since 2014.
-3 for 14 with 2 INT on throws of 20+ air yards.
-14th in TDs
-9th in ints
-9th in yards
Definitions:
-Bad Throw: throws that weren't catchable with normal effort
-On-target Throw: throws that would have hit the intended receiving target
-Clean Pocket Time: Number of seconds the quarterback was in the pocket between the snap of the ball and a pass or the collapse of the pocket
-Pressures: QB pressures (hurries + knockdowns + sack plays)
-Air Yards: How far the football travels in the air
-
16 to 88
- Posts: 19,160
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 10:23 pm
- Location: Dog House
- Has given High Fives: 412 times
- Received High Fives: 284 times
[quote=srv5490 post_id=1086654]Since you brought up Brady, let's compare:
Since 2014 Brady has been sacked 200 times and fumbled 40 times. That is a rate of 0.200 fumbles per sack.
In that same time, Carr has been sacked 237 times and fumbled 76 times. That is a rate of 0.321 fumbles per sack.
Carr's rate of fumbles per sack is more than 50% greater than Brady's is. That is statistically significant. Anecdotally, I have never seen Brady drop the ball to break his fall, but I have seen Carr do it several times.
Sorry, but that's pretty much game over for your argument.[/quote]Game over what?
I'm not attempting to win an argument. lol. I'm not the burning the bush. I'm simply pointing something out that is a fact. TD-INT-FUMBLE is not used as a statistical metric.
Do me a favor and go back to my original response. I have never stated that fumbles aren't real and that it is taboo to bring them up. lol!!!
All I did is point out there is no statistical metric TD-INT-FUMBLE ratio. There never has been one to my knowledge since the dawn of professional football. It's TD-INT ratio. Even Attyla already agreed to this.
Since 2014 Brady has been sacked 200 times and fumbled 40 times. That is a rate of 0.200 fumbles per sack.
In that same time, Carr has been sacked 237 times and fumbled 76 times. That is a rate of 0.321 fumbles per sack.
Carr's rate of fumbles per sack is more than 50% greater than Brady's is. That is statistically significant. Anecdotally, I have never seen Brady drop the ball to break his fall, but I have seen Carr do it several times.
Sorry, but that's pretty much game over for your argument.[/quote]Game over what?
I'm not attempting to win an argument. lol. I'm not the burning the bush. I'm simply pointing something out that is a fact. TD-INT-FUMBLE is not used as a statistical metric.
Do me a favor and go back to my original response. I have never stated that fumbles aren't real and that it is taboo to bring them up. lol!!!
All I did is point out there is no statistical metric TD-INT-FUMBLE ratio. There never has been one to my knowledge since the dawn of professional football. It's TD-INT ratio. Even Attyla already agreed to this.
-
Sold My Soul
- Posts: 17,838
- Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 9:08 pm
- Location: Somewhere In Time
- Has given High Fives: 170 times
- Received High Fives: 412 times
[quote=srv5490 post_id=1086654]Since you brought up Brady, let's compare:
Since 2014 Brady has been sacked 200 times and fumbled 40 times. That is a rate of 0.200 fumbles per sack.
In that same time, Carr has been sacked 237 times and fumbled 76 times. That is a rate of 0.321 fumbles per sack.
Carr's rate of fumbles per sack is more than 50% greater than Brady's is. That is statistically significant. Anecdotally, I have never seen Brady drop the ball to break his fall, but I have seen Carr do it several times.
Sorry, but that's pretty much game over for your argument.[/quote]https://www.sportscasting.com/wp-conten ... rady-1.jpg
I really like you.
You know I'm getting a divorce and switching teams don't you.
Since 2014 Brady has been sacked 200 times and fumbled 40 times. That is a rate of 0.200 fumbles per sack.
In that same time, Carr has been sacked 237 times and fumbled 76 times. That is a rate of 0.321 fumbles per sack.
Carr's rate of fumbles per sack is more than 50% greater than Brady's is. That is statistically significant. Anecdotally, I have never seen Brady drop the ball to break his fall, but I have seen Carr do it several times.
Sorry, but that's pretty much game over for your argument.[/quote]https://www.sportscasting.com/wp-conten ... rady-1.jpg
I really like you.
You know I'm getting a divorce and switching teams don't you.
-
Attyla
- Posts: 52,595
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:31 pm
- Has given High Fives: 1239 times
- Received High Fives: 2978 times
if someone is not trying to win an argument but tries to defeat your argument and then mirrors back "game over" are they really not trying to win an argument? My college debate coach might disagree
-
srv5490
- Posts: 3,471
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 10:14 pm
- Location: Returning Videotapes
- Has given High Fives: 46 times
- Received High Fives: 172 times
[quote=16 to 88 post_id=1086664]Game over what?
Do me a favor and go back to my original response. I have never stated that fumbles aren't a real and that it is taboo to bring them up. lol!!!
All I did is point out there is no statistical metric TD-INT-FUMBLE ratio. There never has been one to my knowledge since the dawn of professional football. It's TD-INT ratio. Attyla already agreed to this.[/quote]I don't really need to go back and look at your original post, I was refuting the post that I quoted in which you asserted that QB fumbles are a consequence of the OL allowing sacks. You used Tom Brady specifically as an example, so I used him as an example to demonstrate that not all QBs fumble at the same rate per sack.
But, since you asked for the favor, and I'm a nice guy, I will go back to your original response:
[quote=16 to 88 post_id=1086476]I'm not a fan of using the fumble statistic from any QB in the league and it really needs to be put into perspective. Quarterbacks are not running backs by any stretch of the imagination and though ball security is something that they teach no doubt it's something that is engrained into a running back.
The other issue is a QB will be standing there in the pocket not knowing his OL lost a battle with the DL or missed an assignment with a blitz and said player comes up behind him and POW! Think about it. Even a RB would likely lose the ball in that situation much less a QB.
If we are going to start counting those types of fumbles then it is a very slippery slope we are going down. I see it posted on here a lot and of course it's the Carr detractors that bring it up ad nauseam but this is the only place that i'm aware of that includes a QB fumbles into the equation. Everywhere else it's just TD to INT ratio.[/quote]So, you really didn't simply point out that there is "no statistical metric TD-INT-FUMBLE ratio", you argued that it is of little merit for consideration. In large part, your argument was exactly what you stated in the subsequent post that I responded to - QB fumbles are a reflection of OL failures, not the QBs. I provided data that demonstrates that Carr fumbles at a 50% greater rate than your example, Brady, under the same circumstances.
Do me a favor and go back to my original response. I have never stated that fumbles aren't a real and that it is taboo to bring them up. lol!!!
All I did is point out there is no statistical metric TD-INT-FUMBLE ratio. There never has been one to my knowledge since the dawn of professional football. It's TD-INT ratio. Attyla already agreed to this.[/quote]I don't really need to go back and look at your original post, I was refuting the post that I quoted in which you asserted that QB fumbles are a consequence of the OL allowing sacks. You used Tom Brady specifically as an example, so I used him as an example to demonstrate that not all QBs fumble at the same rate per sack.
But, since you asked for the favor, and I'm a nice guy, I will go back to your original response:
[quote=16 to 88 post_id=1086476]I'm not a fan of using the fumble statistic from any QB in the league and it really needs to be put into perspective. Quarterbacks are not running backs by any stretch of the imagination and though ball security is something that they teach no doubt it's something that is engrained into a running back.
The other issue is a QB will be standing there in the pocket not knowing his OL lost a battle with the DL or missed an assignment with a blitz and said player comes up behind him and POW! Think about it. Even a RB would likely lose the ball in that situation much less a QB.
If we are going to start counting those types of fumbles then it is a very slippery slope we are going down. I see it posted on here a lot and of course it's the Carr detractors that bring it up ad nauseam but this is the only place that i'm aware of that includes a QB fumbles into the equation. Everywhere else it's just TD to INT ratio.[/quote]So, you really didn't simply point out that there is "no statistical metric TD-INT-FUMBLE ratio", you argued that it is of little merit for consideration. In large part, your argument was exactly what you stated in the subsequent post that I responded to - QB fumbles are a reflection of OL failures, not the QBs. I provided data that demonstrates that Carr fumbles at a 50% greater rate than your example, Brady, under the same circumstances.
-
16 to 88
- Posts: 19,160
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 10:23 pm
- Location: Dog House
- Has given High Fives: 412 times
- Received High Fives: 284 times
[quote=srv5490 post_id=1086673]So, you really didn't simply point out that there is "no statistical metric TD-INT-FUMBLE ratio"[/quote]From the very post you back quoted me on and supposedly read/comprehended?
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
[quote=16 to 88 post_id=1086476]but this is the only place that i'm aware of that includes a QB fumbles into the equation. Everywhere else it's just TD to INT ratio.[/quote]Plus of course the other ones in this thread...
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
[quote=16 to 88 post_id=1086476]but this is the only place that i'm aware of that includes a QB fumbles into the equation. Everywhere else it's just TD to INT ratio.[/quote]Plus of course the other ones in this thread...
-
live.B.A.raida
- Posts: 5,461
- Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 9:12 am
- Location: Oakland, born and raised
Pretty sure during a game this season the broadcast team put up a stat about Carr’s turnovers including fumbles… but yeah they don’t matter when discussing Carr…
-
Hellbound
- Posts: 6,715
- Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 11:21 am
- Has given High Fives: 614 times
- Received High Fives: 1024 times
[quote=live.B.A.raida post_id=1086678]Pretty sure during a game this season the broadcast team put up a stat about Carr’s turnovers including fumbles… but yeah they don’t matter when discussing Carr…[/quote]Neither does the w/l record
-
srv5490
- Posts: 3,471
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 10:14 pm
- Location: Returning Videotapes
- Has given High Fives: 46 times
- Received High Fives: 172 times
This will be my last post on this subject. It was already ridiculous before I entered the conversation, and you have taken it somewhere south of absurdity.
But please don't insult my reading comprehension. You said:
[quote=16 to 88 post_id=1086664]Do me a favor and go back to my original response.
All I did is point out there is no statistical metric TD-INT-FUMBLE ratio. [/quote]To which I replied (and quoted your entire post):
[quote=srv5490 post_id=1086673]So, you really didn't simply point out that there is "no statistical metric TD-INT-FUMBLE ratio", you argued that it is of little merit for consideration.[/quote]Quoting yourself and editing out the parts where you made the point I was addressing to pretend you never made it isn't just disingenuous, or even straight out lying, it is truly absurd.
But please don't insult my reading comprehension. You said:
[quote=16 to 88 post_id=1086664]Do me a favor and go back to my original response.
All I did is point out there is no statistical metric TD-INT-FUMBLE ratio. [/quote]To which I replied (and quoted your entire post):
[quote=srv5490 post_id=1086673]So, you really didn't simply point out that there is "no statistical metric TD-INT-FUMBLE ratio", you argued that it is of little merit for consideration.[/quote]Quoting yourself and editing out the parts where you made the point I was addressing to pretend you never made it isn't just disingenuous, or even straight out lying, it is truly absurd.
-
16 to 88
- Posts: 19,160
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 10:23 pm
- Location: Dog House
- Has given High Fives: 412 times
- Received High Fives: 284 times
[quote=srv5490 post_id=1086681]This will be my last post on this subject. It was already ridiculous before I entered the conversation, and you have taken it somewhere south of absurdity.
But please don't insult my reading comprehension. You said:
To which I replied (and quoted your entire post):
Quoting yourself and editing out the parts where you made the point I was addressing to pretend you never made it isn't just disingenuous, or even straight out lying, it is truly absurd.[/quote]Sorry, I hurt your feelings.
But I must insist that in my original post I wrote that very thing.
Here it is again in silver and black for ya.
VVVVVVVVVVVV
[quote=16 to 88 post_id=1086476]this is the only place that i'm aware of that includes a QB fumbles into the equation. Everywhere else it's just TD to INT ratio.[/quote]As for the editing part I did it to point out to you the exact place I stated that and that you are in error here. It's quite clear. You just missed that part and now you are mad about it.
I know I stated to you to go back to my original post but i'm under the impression you have seen the many others were I have stated the same thing? :) Sorry, but it is TD-INT not TD-INT-FUMBLE. Never has been and likely never will be. And that's a fact.
Oh! And just so we are straight, again, I didn't state that anyone on this board can't bring up fumbles, that would be absurd. I've brought up his fumbles as well.
But please don't insult my reading comprehension. You said:
To which I replied (and quoted your entire post):
Quoting yourself and editing out the parts where you made the point I was addressing to pretend you never made it isn't just disingenuous, or even straight out lying, it is truly absurd.[/quote]Sorry, I hurt your feelings.
But I must insist that in my original post I wrote that very thing.
Here it is again in silver and black for ya.
VVVVVVVVVVVV
[quote=16 to 88 post_id=1086476]this is the only place that i'm aware of that includes a QB fumbles into the equation. Everywhere else it's just TD to INT ratio.[/quote]As for the editing part I did it to point out to you the exact place I stated that and that you are in error here. It's quite clear. You just missed that part and now you are mad about it.
I know I stated to you to go back to my original post but i'm under the impression you have seen the many others were I have stated the same thing? :) Sorry, but it is TD-INT not TD-INT-FUMBLE. Never has been and likely never will be. And that's a fact.
Oh! And just so we are straight, again, I didn't state that anyone on this board can't bring up fumbles, that would be absurd. I've brought up his fumbles as well.
