Rogers Ready to Move On

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

...never mind that Hall gave up 1 TD already and the go ahead TD that could have won the game for the Cowboys. YET, you want to blame that blunder on "costing" the game. This is the exact shit I'm talking about. It's sad they key this as the blunder to cost the game, but give Hall a pass because he picked up a lucky bounce on a fumble for a TD, but still gave up TWO touchdowns (1 called back) in that game. Amazing.

Really? Lucky bounce? He FORCED THE DAMN FUMBLE and then he picked it up and scored.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by jdlea

Really? Lucky bounce? He FORCED THE DAMN FUMBLE and then he picked it up and scored.

Recovering a fumble is pure luck. The act of stripping it is skill. Don't confuse the two. Like I said, he picked up a lucky bounce. What if he stripped the ball, the ball bounced out of bounds, no score for the Skins. We lose that game. The fact the ball stayed in bounds and bounced/rolled in a fashion he could easily scoop up is luck.


FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | Football Outsiders Basics (a.k.a. "Pregame Show&quot

Recovery of a fumble, despite being the product of hard work, is almost entirely random.

Stripping the ball is a skill. Holding onto the ball is a skill. Pouncing on the ball as it is bouncing all over the place is not a skill. There is no correlation whatsoever between the percentage of fumbles recovered by a team in one year and the percentage they recover in the next year. The odds of recovery are based solely on the type of play involved, not the teams or any of their players.

Fans like to insist that specific coaches can teach their teams to recover more fumbles by swarming to the ball. Chicago's Lovie Smith, in particular, is supposed to have this ability. However, since Smith took over the Bears, their rate of fumble recovery on defense went from a league-best 76 percent to a league-worst 33 percent in 2005, then back to 67 percent in 2006. Last year, they recovered 57 percent of fumbles, close to the league average.

Fumble recovery is equally erratic on offense. In 2008, the Bears fumbled 12 times on offense and recovered only three of them. In 2009, the Bears fumbled 18 times on offense, but recovered 13 of them.

Fumble recovery is a major reason why the general public overestimates or underestimates certain teams. Fumbles are huge, turning-point plays that dramatically impact wins and losses in the past, while fumble recovery percentage says absolutely nothing about a team's chances of winning games in the future. With this in mind, Football Outsiders stats treat all fumbles as equal, penalizing them based on the likelihood of each type of fumble (run, pass, sack, etc.) being recovered by the defense.

Other plays that qualify as "non-predictive events" include blocked kicks and touchdowns during turnover returns. These plays are not "lucky," per se, but they have no value whatsoever for predicting future performance.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Recovering a fumble is pure luck. The act of stripping it is skill. Don't confuse the two. Like I said, he picked up a lucky bounce. What if he stripped the ball, the ball bounced out of bounds, no score for the Skins. We lose that game. The fact the ball stayed in bounds and bounced/rolled in a fashion he could easily scoop up is luck.


FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | Football Outsiders Basics (a.k.a. "Pregame Show&quot

Sooo your taking an opinionated article and using their definition of "fumble recovery" as "luck"?

Nice.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Sooo your taking an opinionated article and using their definition of "fumble recovery" as "luck"?

Nice.

Apparently you didn't read what I said, nor the article for that matter.


Act of stripping = skill

Way ball bounces = luck


The actual recovery of a fumble is pure luck. Hence, the first part of that play against the cowboys was skill, the second part resulted from luck. It's not that hard to understand.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Apparently you didn't read what I said, nor the article for that matter.


Act of stripping = skill

Way ball bounces = luck


The actual recovery of a fumble is pure luck. Hence, the first part of that play against the cowboys was skill, the second part resulted from luck. It's not that hard to understand.

Your right I must have missed something.....

the article was written by Aaron Schatz. Could you explain who he is and what makes his statement in his article fact? I'm betting you could ask a ton of other people and get a different answer each time.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Your right I must have missed something.....

the article was written by Aaron Schatz. Could you explain who he is and what makes his statement in his article fact? I'm betting you could ask a ton of other people and get a different answer each time.

Can you prove his article is wrong? So if a author is unknown, that makes his writings invalid? Is that your whole argument?

I'm betting if I ask a ton of people that if a recovering a bouncing ball is luck and any of them said "no", than chances are I've found a bunch of idiots.


What isn't luck is this. Stripping the ball. Fighting for the ball in a pile. Those are things that can help you out in the recovery of a ball, but it still all boils down to how that brown ball bounces.


So let's move on. Carlos sucks and so does D. Hall.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Can you prove his article is wrong? So if a author is unknown, that makes his writings invalid? Is that your whole argument?

I'm betting if I ask a ton of people that if a recovering a bouncing ball is luck and any of them said "no", than chances are I've found a bunch of idiots.


What isn't luck is this. Stripping the ball. Fighting for the ball in a pile. Those are things that can help you out in the recovery of a ball, but it still all boils down to how that brown ball bounces.


So let's move on. Carlos sucks and so does D. Hall.

Picking up a bouncing ball isn't luck...having the ball bounce so that it can be picked up is luck.

I N C E P T I O N

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Recovering a fumble is pure luck. The act of stripping it is skill. Don't confuse the two. Like I said, he picked up a lucky bounce. What if he stripped the ball, the ball bounced out of bounds, no score for the Skins. We lose that game. The fact the ball stayed in bounds and bounced/rolled in a fashion he could easily scoop up is luck.


FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | Football Outsiders Basics (a.k.a. "Pregame Show&quot

First off, the quoted article doesn't really apply to the play where he scored. The crux of it is right here:

Stripping the ball is a skill. Holding onto the ball is a skill. Pouncing on the ball as it is bouncing all over the place is not a skill. There is no correlation whatsoever between the percentage of fumbles recovered by a team in one year and the percentage they recover in the next year. The odds of recovery are based solely on the type of play involved, not the teams or any of their players.

This article is really talking about the ability to predict who is more likely to recover a fumble based on the players involved more than saying, "when a football hits the ground, the following events are totally random and based on luck." You are correct that it was lucky the ball didn't bounce out of bounds and that it continued to roll/bounce backwards, however, picking up a bouncing football while running full speed is not easy and he did it while on his way to scoring the touchdown that ended up being the difference in that game. So, his strip and scoop were skillful, the luck came in the football going in the direction he pulled it and not taking an odd hop after hitting the ground.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by jdlea

First off, the quoted article doesn't really apply to the play where he scored. The crux of it is right here:



This article is really talking about the ability to predict who is more likely to recover a fumble based on the players involved more than saying, "when a football hits the ground, the following events are totally random and based on luck." You are correct that it was lucky the ball didn't bounce out of bounds and that it continued to roll/bounce backwards, however, picking up a bouncing football while running full speed is not easy and he did it while on his way to scoring the touchdown that ended up being the difference in that game. So, his strip and scoop were skillful, the luck came in the football going in the direction he pulled it and not taking an odd hop after hitting the ground.

You are trying hard my man, but it still comes down to how that ball bounced. It's really all luck or chance if you will. Sure, the holding onto the ball and stripping are skills, but that bounce is a huge factor in all of this. I've seen guys do the same thing, but right when they are about to snatch it up, the ball bounces in a completely different way and they miss it completely. You want to talk about skill, those two TDs (1 called back) he gave up was skill (or lack thereof). :P

Originally Posted by SBXVII

and? Carlos never got owned? Ok.

...not like that. By a bum of a QB to seal the game? ...lol

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

You are trying hard my man, but it still comes down to how that ball bounced. It's really all luck or chance if you will. Sure, the holding onto the ball and stripping are skills, but that bounce is a huge factor in all of this. I've seen guys do the same thing, but right when they are about to snatch it up, the ball bounces in a completely different way and they miss it completely. You want to talk about skill, those two TDs (1 called back) he gave up was skill (or lack thereof). :P

I'm not really trying hard, some of what I said is pretty much straight from the article you brought into the thread. I'm not going to continue to argue this point, I already said that I believed the ball not bouncing out of bounds had to do with luck, but you're completely ignoring plenty of other things that were involved.

Honestly, I just don't care enough to belabor a point about a guy who made one hell of an INDIVIDUAL play. I mean, really, if we're arguing that a bouncing ball is luck, technically pretty much everything is luck. Football's aren't random and that's pretty how you're presenting it.

If Carlos ever hangs onto another pick in his career I'll make sure to point how lucky he was that the ball wasn't struck by a falling blimp for about 10 pages of a thread just to piss you off.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by jdlea

Honestly, I just don't care enough to belabor a point about a guy who made one hell of an INDIVIDUAL play. I mean, really, if we're arguing that a bouncing ball is luck, technically pretty much everything is luck. Football's aren't random and that's pretty how you're presenting it.

No, I think we both agreed. You are just putting too much priority emphasizes on the play itself when in fact the play may have never occurred had it not been for a lucky bounce. So that sole "spectacular individual play" relied on pure luck.


Here is another example of some incredible luck.




To say that "technically pretty much everything is luck" is beyond false. It does take a lot of luck (with injuries/ball bouncing/etc) to win the Super Bowl, and I've heard countless coaches even say so. Better to be lucky than not.


This goes back to what SS says about people dissing Rogers because he drops INTs. Fans only care about the ESPN highlights, and many judge a players abilities by those highlights to. I think we are done here.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

No, I think we both agreed. You are just putting too much priority emphasizes on the play itself when in fact the play may have never occurred had it not been for a lucky bounce. So that sole "spectacular individual play" relied on pure luck.

To say that "technically pretty much everything is luck" is beyond false. It does take a lot of luck (with injuries/ball bouncing/etc) to win the Super Bowl, and I've heard countless coaches even say so. Better to be lucky than not.


This goes back to what SS says about people dissing Rogers because he drops INTs. Fans only care about the ESPN highlights, and many judge a players abilities by those highlights to. I think we are done here.

One thing I will say: that ball probably wasn't staying in bounds forever so, he made his own luck by running it down: hustle isn't luck.

Also, I really could make the case that everything is luck, it's not beyond false. The Redskins are lucky DeAngelo Hall wasn't hurt before that game (luck, by your definition) or he would have never been there to make that play. There; now the entire play is based on the fact that Hall wasn't unlucky enough to be injured...lol