Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 65

Thread: Jim Brown

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    122,404
    Quote Originally Posted by flgatorsandjags View Post
    Its funny the thread you made the other day about which player do you think of when you think about a NFL team and more people said MJD than Taylor. Just showed you who the younger posters on the board are.
    Eh, probably true but it's what FIRST comes to mind. Not "who most represents, etc"

    I said a ton of trash/recent players. I think that's human nature. I mean if someone says think of a IDK cop movie, first one that comes to mind. It'll be something recent most likely. Doesn't mean it's better than something a decade ago or what have you.

    People took too much offense in there (not saying you did) to OMG why did you say this guy who's not as good as so and so. When the point is to be just a random fun time wasting thing. Not something where ya really think. Hell I think I put Gabbert for JAX lol
    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    Boobs. I was eating *** one time and she farted

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    122,404
    Quote Originally Posted by flgatorsandjags View Post
    Yeah, Charles is just half way to his 2500 carries and is injured often, Not sure if he will make it to the 2500. Peterson is the only guy right now that is most likely a lock to join Fred and Barry.
    Every year I swear Charles will get hurt and every year he doesn't. I finally gave it up. (Lately anyways)

    I thought Charles was a lot closer too, so maybe he won't get there now th at I think of it. In fact, I bet he doesn't.

    Gore is at 2400 and 4.5. If somehow being used less can get him like a 5 average with a decent bunch of carries, he has a shot.

    But you're right, right now there's nobody else but AP and maybe Gore...maybe. That can have it. It's kind of ...idk arbitrary in a way. But still impressive, production+longevity.

    I went and looked quick, I was surprised so few guys had over 4.5 YPC.

    OJ was less than a hundred carries away too. Only 23 guys had over 2500 carries. Taylor only had 23 over according to PFR.

    Both of those things seem damn difficult. haha
    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    Boobs. I was eating *** one time and she farted

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Lionel20 View Post
    lol this seems like yet another failing attempt to challenge the objectivity of my assessment on Brown.

    On the second page of this thread we had a conversation in which I said that I chose not to translate rushing stats. If I translate rushing stats for the category of fumbles, for consistency, I would have to translate the fact that RB's in Brown's day had more opportunities to run the football. If I recall, teams ran the ball about 15-20% more in Brown's era. I'd have to fully translate Browns stats across the board. His output, including fumbles would decline. I can do that.. I just felt like the changes would be somewhat trivial compare to the evolution of the passing game.

    The other thing, I think your opinion as to why fumbles are lower now is exaggerated. You know it was common back then for RBs in Brown's playing career to also return kicks and Punts. Matson did, Moore did, Bobby Mitchell did, Gifford did, McDonald did, etc... Brown returned Kicks only, and not as much as the players mentioned. How many of Bobby Mitchell's fumbles occurred of Kickoffs/Punts? Are the Kickoff/Punt touches included in your Kickoff/Punt ratio?
    Actually while the running game had more carries, running backs had fewer as teams chose to share carries with their backs until Jim Brown changed that. But lets ignore basic stuff right?

    But it amazes me you are saying that running back efficiency jumping 400% in ball protection due to rule changes carries no weight, but QB throwing efficiency jumping 25% due to rule changes must be accounted for.

    good point on the kicks/punts... Which is why I used touches for those top 50 guys and the HOF crew not rushes+receptions for those players. IE. Brown in his rookie year had 202 rushes, 16 receptions, and 6 kick returns... or 224 touches.

    Lets put it this way. Lets say all of college football switches to the spread option. Before the spread.

    RB1 averages 15 carries a game
    RB2 averages 5 carries a game
    QB averages 5 carries a game

    25 carries a game.

    Then with the shift to the spread option offense

    RB1 carries 10 times a game
    QB1 carries 12 times a game
    RB2 carries 5 times a game.

    27 carries a game.

    So now you are running more often right? So you should increase your running back 8% because teams run more? You believe if you add Michael Vick on your team and he runs 150 times, that means your RB now has 150 more opportunities? because instead of 300 carries your team now has 450. Boom lets crank up what the RB should be doing??? No, of course not, your running game isn't your running back. Why not? How the game is played, which you miss again and again. But you are sitting there ignoring basic facts and pretending it's just the same. It's the blind mans method there isn't it? Having no clue what the change meant to the league, just digging at the numbers whether they are realistic or not?

    Look, this is why your projections just make everyone shake their head. You are literally taking one of the most sure handed backs of his era, and saying "rule changes have ZERO impact" even though you see a HUGE impact with them... 400%.. hell since 1977 TD rates have climbed 12%... That's huge. but 400% gets ignored? Why?? The only guess I can come up with is because your football knowledge is awful, and you are pretending that this monster change isn't really a big deal so you don't have to admit your knowledge is so lacking your numbers are all but useless.

    How am I supposed to buy into your numbers when you say if there was a new rule next year that you have to use brand new footballs inflated to 18 psi and QB fumbles jumps 400%... That fans are sitting there after 2015 going "hey Russell Wilson fumbled 3 times a game this season. that's an improvement over last year" and they are right based on the league change, and you give that change ZERO adjustment because "I choose not to"???

    That is why your subjectivity is all that matters with your breakdowns, and there is nothing objective with your projections... I really question why someone's subjective numbers should be looked at when they just fail on basic football knowledge over and over again.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    San Diego, California, United States
    Posts
    8,224
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    Once again, your hypothesis is not supported by empirical observations.
    Care to substantiate?

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,577
    Quote Originally Posted by slashsnake View Post
    Actually while the running game had more carries, running backs had fewer as teams chose to share carries with their backs until Jim Brown changed that. But lets ignore basic stuff right?

    But it amazes me you are saying that running back efficiency jumping 400% in ball protection due to rule changes carries no weight, but QB throwing efficiency jumping 25% due to rule changes must be accounted for.

    good point on the kicks/punts... Which is why I used touches for those top 50 guys and the HOF crew not rushes+receptions for those players. IE. Brown in his rookie year had 202 rushes, 16 receptions, and 6 kick returns... or 224 touches.

    Lets put it this way. Lets say all of college football switches to the spread option. Before the spread.

    RB1 averages 15 carries a game
    RB2 averages 5 carries a game
    QB averages 5 carries a game

    25 carries a game.

    Then with the shift to the spread option offense

    RB1 carries 10 times a game
    QB1 carries 12 times a game
    RB2 carries 5 times a game.

    27 carries a game.

    So now you are running more often right? So you should increase your running back 8% because teams run more? You believe if you add Michael Vick on your team and he runs 150 times, that means your RB now has 150 more opportunities? because instead of 300 carries your team now has 450. Boom lets crank up what the RB should be doing??? No, of course not, your running game isn't your running back. Why not? How the game is played, which you miss again and again. But you are sitting there ignoring basic facts and pretending it's just the same. It's the blind mans method there isn't it? Having no clue what the change meant to the league, just digging at the numbers whether they are realistic or not?

    Look, this is why your projections just make everyone shake their head. You are literally taking one of the most sure handed backs of his era, and saying "rule changes have ZERO impact" even though you see a HUGE impact with them... 400%.. hell since 1977 TD rates have climbed 12%... That's huge. but 400% gets ignored? Why?? The only guess I can come up with is because your football knowledge is awful, and you are pretending that this monster change isn't really a big deal so you don't have to admit your knowledge is so lacking your numbers are all but useless.

    How am I supposed to buy into your numbers when you say if there was a new rule next year that you have to use brand new footballs inflated to 18 psi and QB fumbles jumps 400%... That fans are sitting there after 2015 going "hey Russell Wilson fumbled 3 times a game this season. that's an improvement over last year" and they are right based on the league change, and you give that change ZERO adjustment because "I choose not to"???

    That is why your subjectivity is all that matters with your breakdowns, and there is nothing objective with your projections... I really question why someone's subjective numbers should be looked at when they just fail on basic football knowledge over and over again.
    You're still not answering my question. How many of Bobby Mitchell's fumbles were on KR/PR? So you're comparing Jim Brown's fumble rate to Bobby Mitchell without considering that Mitchell returned 142 more Kick & Punt returns. I believe that you don't know football if you don't understand how that can make a player more susceptible to fumbles ... especially in 50s & 60s gameplay. It figures that you misunderstand how "objective" my numbers are. I didn't translate the rushing numbers at all. I've showed how that can both benefit and hurt Browns career numbers... so where's this subjectivity that you're talking about?

  6. #51
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    [emoji288]
    Posts
    11,871
    Quote Originally Posted by WadeKobe View Post
    Care to substantiate?
    I haven't seen Lionel's purported fondness for constructive criticism. He downplays flaws in his formulas as minor bugs and thinks he's "owning" people who bring forth such criticism. It also doesn't matter what people think of his rankings, even when they don't measure up to reality, because his "numbers don't lie".
    Last edited by QB_Eagles; 07-03-2015 at 11:26 AM.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Lionel20 View Post
    You're still not answering my question. How many of Bobby Mitchell's fumbles were on KR/PR? So you're comparing Jim Brown's fumble rate to Bobby Mitchell without considering that Mitchell returned 142 more Kick & Punt returns. I believe that you don't know football if you don't understand how that can make a player more susceptible to fumbles ... especially in 50s & 60s gameplay. It figures that you misunderstand how "objective" my numbers are. I didn't translate the rushing numbers at all. I've showed how that can both benefit and hurt Browns career numbers... so where's this subjectivity that you're talking about?
    I was holding back answering that question because it might be the biggest showing of your lack of knowledge possible. But here goes. IF Bobby Mitchell fumbled once every 7 returns you'd be able to make a point that per touch rush/receiving was the same as today. Now granted the last two years of Brown's career his return men almost solely did returns, 1964 their top two return men brought back 68 returns with only 7 offensive touches, and fumbled once combined. The year before (more running and receiving) once every 36.

    AND...

    Bobby Mitchell's first four years 18% of his touches were returns... His fumble rate... Once every 48 touches.
    Bobby Mitchell's rest of his career 9% of his touches were returns... his fumble rate... Once every 29 touches..

    So your question is that Bobby Mitchell fumbling more often the more he runs and catches and less often the more he returns kicks and punts is some sort of proof kicks and punts cause more fumbles?

    Are you just assuming things and pretending them to be a truth with no idea here? Come on, that's pretty lazy if you ask me. Back up your argument with something, don't just throw out these wild assumptions...




    If Jim Brown fumbled on 100% of his career returns he would STILL be an outlier at that rate as one of the biggest fumblers just as a running back in today's NFL. Don't try to convince me that Jim Brown fumbled on 100% of his kick returns and they STILL year after year put him back after the first 5. Really, that is your argument???


    So your belief is returns drive up offensive players fumble rates. Easy to check even more into that. We know 1 every 28 touches is the average.. So we should see guys who have a much higher percentage of their touches being returns to be MUCH more often, and those with few returns like Jim Brown to be much less often right?

    Here... I'll do your stuff for you. It's simple. Look at the guys who were primarily return men. Are there's a lot higher than the average??? So pulling Jim Browns era for most kick returns and pulling the ones with the fewest runs and receptions.

    Dick James had a much higher return vs. offense touch rate... 1 fumble every 27 touches

    Al Carmichael, majorly a return guy, 1 every 28... DEAD ON AVERAGE.

    Bo Roberson... Once every 52.

    Tom Watkins Once every 31.

    Joe Arenas Once every 26.

    Woodley Lewis, once every 45.

    Those were the top 6 high number of return guys with the highest rate of returns vs. rush/receptions.

    And the flip side.

    Gifford never returned anything during Brown's career. 1 every 26.

    Lenny Moore, 6 returns in that time, 1 every 35.

    John Henry Johnson 1 return total.. 1 every 32.

    Billy Ray Barnes 6 returns in 1100+ touches once every 28

    Mel Triplett 570 touches, only 9 were returns... Once every 22 touches.

    Jerry Hill every 27

    Curtis McClinton every 23.

    Joe Perry every 37...

    These are the guys who were not returning. And around that 400- 500% more likely to fumble than todays guys. HMMM





    This is simple to look up Lionel.

    Either you are spouting wrong opinions with no knowledge of the situation and no desire to educate yourself on a topic out of laziness...

    OR.

    You did fact check some of this before talking about it, realized the results were in direct opposition to your numbers or what you want your numbers to say, but choose to ignore that and hope nobody else notices.


    To me either one of those is a pretty good reason to once again say your numeric proofs are just worthless and saying you are objective is very hard for me to buy when you continue to do that.
    Last edited by slashsnake; 07-03-2015 at 10:43 PM.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,577
    @Slash you just don't comprehend well... I'm going to be concise and to the point.

    This is your statement that provoked my response:

    there were 243 non-QB fumbles in 1957 when Jim Brown came into the league. 12 teams, 12 game seasons.

    Code:
    There was 182 last year with 32 teams playing 16 game seasons. 
    
    1.69 non QB fumbles a game becomes .36 today. Why? you can't crush guys multiple times. You stop them and start to rip out the ball, that play is dead today. That's a 470% higher rate of fumbles then... And I bet with the pace of today's game you have more plays run in a game, making that rate even higher.
    ^
    This is wrong.. or incomplete at best.

    1.) You're taking non-QB fumbles and dividing it by games played. You're failing to take into consideration that RBs carried the ball 15 - 20% more during Browns day... although I keep repeating it. How does 15 - 20% less carries not factor in to the overall non - QB fumbles that you're dividing by GP?

    2.) The RBs in Brown's day were also much more likely to field Punt/Kick Returns. That's factored into your non-QB fumbles whether you know it or not. If you're converting those RBs over to 2014, they would not be fielding Punts or Kicks. So you'd have to make some sort of adjustment to your 1957 non-QB fumbles total before you divide it by the GP.

    3.) The Al Carmichael factor, since you brought him up. If you find a consistent average of RB% of non-QB fumbles, which you haven't, then compare Brown's day to 2014 by fumbles per Rush Attempts/Receptions. But then you run into the Al Carmichael instances, in '56 fumbled 6 times, he returned more Kicks/Punts than he had Rushes/Receptions, safe to say a majority of those fumbles occurred on special teams. If you run his fumbles per Rush Attempt/Receptions in '56, you overlook that the majority of his fumbles likely occurred on Special Teams, somewhere a RB like Brown, if playing today, would rarely, if ever be. The Carmichael factor, was not unique. In fact, all you have to do is look at the leaderboards through Jim Brown's career, the majority of Kick/Punt returners (I'm confident to say upwards of 80%) were RBs. Guess what, modern leaderboards show, less than 20%, maybe even lower like - 10%.

    4.) I have plenty data showing me that RBs that split there touches between Special Teams/Scrimmage fumble 2 to 3 times more per touch (Returns, Rush, Reception) than RBs that only run from scrimmage. But I'll let you research that... you're the one either too lazy or absent-minded regarding football to know this.


    My point is still, that you have "greatly" over-exaggerated the rate difference, then and now, of RB fumbles... almost to comical levels.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,413
    Al carmichael.. I give you the top 6 guys in ruch vs. Returns and vice versa with no discernable difference.. you give me a single guy who the year he had the fewest offensive touches... didn't fumble. His 2nd fewest offensive touches.. 2ND lowest fumbles of his career. Really? That's proof? That the more offensive touches he gets... the more he fumbles?

    Thanks for proving my point yet again..

    So if fumbles really only spike on returns....

    WHY DID RUNNING BACKS WHO DIDN'T RETURN PUNTS AND KICKS FUMBLE RIGHT ALONG AT THE SAME RATE AS EVERYONE ELSE???????? You avoid the easy one to prove if you were right and focus on one guy... who had no discernable difference to what he did.. except the year he didn't run or catch he didn't fumble.

    Sure more rbs returned... if that was the cause then the ones who didn't return wouldn't fumble right? That 20% that i showed you would have MUCH lower rates. 470% lower... You say you believe that they don't fumble more.. THEY DID.

    It's just hilarious how you can try and avoid the easiest thing proven here.. brb that didn't return... fumbled... a LOT.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,413
    Ok… last time, and I am done here too. I am not calling you a moronic imbecille, but a projection in this thread. I went for the top 100 pure RB seasons of Jim Browns era. The top 100 seasons where a back had the most carries and fewer than 2 kick returns and fewer than 2 punt returns. I ended up with 99 seasons (fitting it to 1 page) of backs where they had 18985 touches… of which 26 were returns. Ok.. that works out for the brain dead to

    99.916% of their touches were as a RB, not returning..


    And of that 18985 touches there were 490 fumbles… A fumble every 38.7449 touches.

    Then I did the same for the past 9 years.

    99.99% of their touches were not returns..

    And we have a fumble return every 100.59 touches..

    So we have an increase on pure running backs of… 260%... That’s saying if I mistook Aaron Rodgers TD rate last year by just 260% when I said he threw 100 touchdowns last year. That’s not a little screwup. That’s insanity for me to believe that to be true.

    This isn’t your usual “oh look at this outlier guy" with 25 rushes this year. This is over 50,000 NFL touches, where over 99.9% of them were NOT special teams returns.

    Here’s where I give you an inch. Yes, fumbling on returns was higher..

    Now here’s where you either stick to your guns on the moronic idea that running backs didn’t fumble more, that 0% is a reasonable choice. or give a ****ing football field.

    So we Take Jim Brown and pull off the fumble rate for his returns and he has 53 fumbles in 2801 non-return touches… aka 1 every 52.85 touches. Vs. the league average for a RB not returning of fumbles of 38.74. He fumbled at 73.30% of the rate of the average NON RETURNING running back. Today @ 73.3% of every 100.59 touches, that is once every 137.2 touches. Now your projections say he fumbled 73 times on 3831 touches. At a rate of every 137.2 that is 27.92 fumbles. Why are you saying he fumbled another 45+ ****ing times? Why are you saying that a guy who fumbled at an extremely less rate, now is this insane outlier of fumbling like crazy that is unheard of today? Again, that projection is based on 50,000 plus touches with a 99.9% rush/reception rate. HOW MUCH MORE DO YOU EFFING NEED?

    Wow, breaking that down, now we have you closer to 400% off considering his rate vs. his peers vs. what today is... Wow.. Right were I picked him days ago... How about that??? This is... whoops… mistook DeMarco Murrays YPC by just 400% when I said he ran for 7,500 yards last season. How can you try and pretend this is a little bit off? Where is that close?

    Whoops, I was just 400% off on Justin Houstons sack rate.. he didn’t have 88 of them last year.

    Whoops I was just 400% off on Randy Moss’s touchdown catch rate in 2007. He didn’t set the single season record with 92 touchdown catches.

    Whoops my mistake on Tim Duncan's win percentage... he isn't the losingest NBA player to every play the game.

    Whoops just 400% off on Tiger Woods shot per hole rate. He didn't average an 18 per round at the Masters.

    Whoops, my mistake on being 400% off on Dale JR's average miles per hour at Daytona, he didn't break the sound barried.

    Whoops my mistake on being 400% off on Chris Johnson's projected feet per second. He can't run a 40 yard dash in 1 second.

    Whoops I was just 400% off on Michael Jordans made shot rate, he didn’t average 120 points a game for his career.

    Whoops I was 400% off on Brady’s SB win rate, he doesn’t have 16 rings.

    Whoops I was just 400% off on Barry Bonds home run record, he didn’t hit 240 of them.

    Think that will work anywhere else? "sorry bank, I misjudge my mortgage on my budget by 400%. I only am able to pay you 1/4 of it "whoops misjudged the cooking instructions. It said an hour at 450 and I cooked it for 4 hours at 1800 degrees. Enjoy! Oh wow.. sorry officer I thought the speed limit was 300 miles per hour, not 75".

    I am sorry Lionel, you don’t get a pass on that, no matter how much I wish you could. A LOT of your idea's start out great. I even agree with a huge chunk of what you say.

    But if you are 400% off on something you are as completely wrong as wrong can be. Tell me, if I bought a car from you for $1,000 and you had a friend meet me to sell it, and I only had a cashiers check for 40,000. If he had access to your bank account and cashed it and accidently gave me 400% more change than I deserved from your account... you are out $119,000 bucks. Do you really think that's ok... it's just an acceptable difference? Is that just ehhh? And to be able to try and defend a stance that far off, that is that much of an outlier where you look at it and go "really???" And tell me, if he does that... are you still using him as a go between? If you can be 400% off why should anyone put any belief into the rest of your "projections".

    Seriously… if I was 400% wrong on something I’d hope someone would just slap me. If I fought for days on the fact that Peyton Manning throws for 560 yards a game, I’d hope someone would call me a moron with the football knowledge of a carrot. And I'd only be HALF AS WRONG AS YOU!!!!

    This is why the numbers you I see are just absolutely idiotic, fairy tale based nonsense. And then you get stuck trying to defend yourself yet again vs. this. 100 guys who returned less than 0.1% of their 50,000+ touches and you try to argue a number that is just not based in reality and CLEARLY obvious to ANYONE who has ANY knowledge of the game. You know how big of a reach that is to say that is just luck? Run a standard deviation on that stat there Lionel. I use a little standard deviation program for margin of error and probabilities at work. This is a tough one to grab, but based on sample size and how far off the rate is, you are 6-7 standard deviations from zero. You'd probably have a better shot getting hit by lightning while being attacked by a shark, while finishing up your perfect NCAA bracket, as you read out the right powerball numbers than be right here and that big of a sample size is just an outlier Lionel.

    Again… not saying you are a moron. I can't speak a word of Chinese. That doesn't make me dumb, it just means I have no knowledge whatsoever of Chinese. But this would be like me mumbling jibberiesh and expecting it to be fluent Chinese. This isn’t some little whoopsie with your “projections” This is a clusterfk that defies the human evolutionary trait to think logically. This is you trying to pawn off a belief that Jamarcus Russell is better than Tom Brady by your projections. Sorry throw that entire thing away, burn it, and scatter it's ashes to the four corners of the empire. Your end result may be right, but your calculations had absolutely zero to do with that.

    Again not an attack on you Lionel. I have no idea what your issue is there why you latch on to beliefs like this, and are locked on to it like a pit bull. Just the number you like to throw out are so obscenely bad. I don't think you even still recognize just how bad they truly are. Those comparisons I made weren't exaggerations.
    Last edited by slashsnake; 07-06-2015 at 03:25 AM.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,577
    Quote Originally Posted by slashsnake View Post
    Ok… last time, and I am done here too. I am not calling you a moronic imbecille, but a projection in this thread. I went for the top 100 pure RB seasons of Jim Browns era. The top 100 seasons where a back had the most carries and fewer than 2 kick returns and fewer than 2 punt returns. I ended up with 99 seasons (fitting it to 1 page) of backs where they had 18985 touches… of which 26 were returns. Ok.. that works out for the brain dead to

    99.916% of their touches were as a RB, not returning..


    And of that 18985 touches there were 490 fumbles… A fumble every 38.7449 touches.

    Then I did the same for the past 9 years.

    99.99% of their touches were not returns..

    And we have a fumble return every 100.59 touches..

    So we have an increase on pure running backs of… 260%... That’s saying if I mistook Aaron Rodgers TD rate last year by just 260% when I said he threw 100 touchdowns last year. That’s not a little screwup. That’s insanity for me to believe that to be true.

    This isn’t your usual “oh look at this outlier guy" with 25 rushes this year. This is over 50,000 NFL touches, where over 99.9% of them were NOT special teams returns.

    Here’s where I give you an inch. Yes, fumbling on returns was higher..

    Now here’s where you either stick to your guns on the moronic idea that running backs didn’t fumble more, that 0% is a reasonable choice. or give a ****ing football field.

    So we Take Jim Brown and pull off the fumble rate for his returns and he has 53 fumbles in 2801 non-return touches… aka 1 every 52.85 touches. Vs. the league average for a RB not returning of fumbles of 38.74. He fumbled at 73.30% of the rate of the average NON RETURNING running back. Today @ 73.3% of every 100.59 touches, that is once every 137.2 touches. Now your projections say he fumbled 73 times on 3831 touches. At a rate of every 137.2 that is 27.92 fumbles. Why are you saying he fumbled another 45+ ****ing times? Why are you saying that a guy who fumbled at an extremely less rate, now is this insane outlier of fumbling like crazy that is unheard of today? Again, that projection is based on 50,000 plus touches with a 99.9% rush/reception rate. HOW MUCH MORE DO YOU EFFING NEED?

    Wow, breaking that down, now we have you closer to 400% off considering his rate vs. his peers vs. what today is... Wow.. Right were I picked him days ago... How about that??? This is... whoops… mistook DeMarco Murrays YPC by just 400% when I said he ran for 7,500 yards last season. How can you try and pretend this is a little bit off? Where is that close?

    Whoops, I was just 400% off on Justin Houstons sack rate.. he didn’t have 88 of them last year.

    Whoops I was just 400% off on Randy Moss’s touchdown catch rate in 2007. He didn’t set the single season record with 92 touchdown catches.

    Whoops my mistake on Tim Duncan's win percentage... he isn't the losingest NBA player to every play the game.

    Whoops just 400% off on Tiger Woods shot per hole rate. He didn't average an 18 per round at the Masters.

    Whoops, my mistake on being 400% off on Dale JR's average miles per hour at Daytona, he didn't break the sound barried.

    Whoops my mistake on being 400% off on Chris Johnson's projected feet per second. He can't run a 40 yard dash in 1 second.

    Whoops I was just 400% off on Michael Jordans made shot rate, he didn’t average 120 points a game for his career.

    Whoops I was 400% off on Brady’s SB win rate, he doesn’t have 16 rings.

    Whoops I was just 400% off on Barry Bonds home run record, he didn’t hit 240 of them.

    Think that will work anywhere else? "sorry bank, I misjudge my mortgage on my budget by 400%. I only am able to pay you 1/4 of it "whoops misjudged the cooking instructions. It said an hour at 450 and I cooked it for 4 hours at 1800 degrees. Enjoy! Oh wow.. sorry officer I thought the speed limit was 300 miles per hour, not 75".

    I am sorry Lionel, you don’t get a pass on that, no matter how much I wish you could. A LOT of your idea's start out great. I even agree with a huge chunk of what you say.

    But if you are 400% off on something you are as completely wrong as wrong can be. Tell me, if I bought a car from you for $1,000 and you had a friend meet me to sell it, and I only had a cashiers check for 40,000. If he had access to your bank account and cashed it and accidently gave me 400% more change than I deserved from your account... you are out $119,000 bucks. Do you really think that's ok... it's just an acceptable difference? Is that just ehhh? And to be able to try and defend a stance that far off, that is that much of an outlier where you look at it and go "really???" And tell me, if he does that... are you still using him as a go between? If you can be 400% off why should anyone put any belief into the rest of your "projections".

    Seriously… if I was 400% wrong on something I’d hope someone would just slap me. If I fought for days on the fact that Peyton Manning throws for 560 yards a game, I’d hope someone would call me a moron with the football knowledge of a carrot. And I'd only be HALF AS WRONG AS YOU!!!!

    This is why the numbers you I see are just absolutely idiotic, fairy tale based nonsense. And then you get stuck trying to defend yourself yet again vs. this. 100 guys who returned less than 0.1% of their 50,000+ touches and you try to argue a number that is just not based in reality and CLEARLY obvious to ANYONE who has ANY knowledge of the game. You know how big of a reach that is to say that is just luck? Run a standard deviation on that stat there Lionel. I use a little standard deviation program for margin of error and probabilities at work. This is a tough one to grab, but based on sample size and how far off the rate is, you are 6-7 standard deviations from zero. You'd probably have a better shot getting hit by lightning while being attacked by a shark, while finishing up your perfect NCAA bracket, as you read out the right powerball numbers than be right here and that big of a sample size is just an outlier Lionel.

    Again… not saying you are a moron. I can't speak a word of Chinese. That doesn't make me dumb, it just means I have no knowledge whatsoever of Chinese. But this would be like me mumbling jibberiesh and expecting it to be fluent Chinese. This isn’t some little whoopsie with your “projections” This is a clusterfk that defies the human evolutionary trait to think logically. This is you trying to pawn off a belief that Jamarcus Russell is better than Tom Brady by your projections. Sorry throw that entire thing away, burn it, and scatter it's ashes to the four corners of the empire. Your end result may be right, but your calculations had absolutely zero to do with that.

    Again not an attack on you Lionel. I have no idea what your issue is there why you latch on to beliefs like this, and are locked on to it like a pit bull. Just the number you like to throw out are so obscenely bad. I don't think you even still recognize just how bad they truly are. Those comparisons I made weren't exaggerations.
    This is really unbelievable...

    First, anyone reading this thread can look at my last post and see that you refused to counter 75% of it, especially on your juvenile math regarding non-QB fumbles... guessing that's an acknowledgment that my point rides.

    But let's get into the one area that for some reason you feel like you're making a point. Rushers that return kicks/punts don't fumble at a higher frequency than scrimmage rushers. Going back to the year you've highlighted (although I can examine any year), 1957.

    Roughly, 80% of Special Teams returns are by RBs.

    But here's why your 400% number is just laughable. I should make you do the work for this.. But I'm actually going to post my work, so you see how ridiculous that number is.

    Here are the 1957 results, believe me I can do ANY year:

    RBs returning kicks (3370 touches) = 5% FUM/Touch
    RBs 100% Scrimmage (2895 touches) = 1% FUM/Touch

    That correlation is undeniable. Even in the 70s with the rise of 100% Scrimmage RB, the RB Returners Fumble rate is higher.

    Your work needs some work... its far too anecdotal.

    If you deduct this Return% impact from your already bloated 400% number, you'll have a less exaggerated figure.

    Here man, all I have time for right now.. do an analysis for yourself lol, no shame in my g... Your numbers are exaggerated"." Review my small '57 RB database, or go on FB-Ref for yourself.

    *T = touches

    Code:
    	         Att	Rec	KR 	PR	T	%Ret  Fmb Fmb/Touches
    Rick Casares*	204	25		1	230	0%	2	1%
    Jim Brown*+	202	16		6	224	3%	7	3%
    Billy Wells	154	14	21	12	201	16%	8	4%
    Don Bosseler	167	19			186	0%	3	2%
    Frank Gifford*+	136	41			177	0%	9	5%
    Ollie Matson*+	134	20	10	7	171	10%	6	4%
    Alex Webster	135	30			165	0%	5	3%
    B Ray Barnes*	143	19			162	0%	8	5%
    Alan Ameche*	144	15			159	0%	3	2%
    H McElhenny*	102	37	10		149	7%	8	5%
    J Henry Johnson	129	20			149	0%	9	6%
    Tommy Wilson*	127	7	1	11	146	8%	6	4%
    Jim Podoley*	114	27		3	144	2%	5	3%
    Willie Galimore	127	15			142	0%	6	4%
    Clarence Peaks	125	11		5	141	4%	5	4%
    Lenny Moore	98	40	2	0	140	1%	6	4%
    Chet Hanulak	125	3	11		139	8%	1	1%
    Jon Arnett*	86	18	14	18	136	24%	5	4%
    L.G. Dupre	101	32			133	0%	1	1%
    Don McIlhenny	100	18		14	132	11%	4	3%
    Gene Babb	102	20			122	0%	4	3%
    Joe Marconi	104	16			120	0%	1	1%
    Joe Perry	97	15			112	0%	3	3%
    Ed Sutton	108	2		1	111	1%	6	5%
    H Cassady	73	25		10	108	9%	3	3%
    Al Carmichael	37	13	25	31	106	53%	3	3%
    Tank Younger	96	8			104	0%	2	2%
    Lew Carpenter	83	5		1	89	1%	3	3%
    Fran Rogel	68	20		1	89	1%	1	1%
    J Olszewski	83	3			86	0%	5	6%
    Ken Keller	57	4	9	15	85	28%	3	4%
    Gene Gedman	67	10		6	83	7%	1	1%
    Ron Waller	48	5	16	13	82	35%	4	5%
    Howie Ferguson	59	15			74	0%	2	3%
    Bobby Epps	63	8			71	0%	1	1%
    Gene Filipski	22	1	20	26	69	67%	2	3%
    Paul Hornung	60	6			66	0%	2	3%
    Mel Triplett	61	4			65	0%	1	2%
    Fred Cone	53	4		5	62	8%	2	3%
    Billy Reynolds	29	1	24	7	61	51%	2	3%
    Dick Young	56	4	1		61	2%	1	2%
    Bobby Watkins	57	3			60	0%	2	3%
    Tommy McDonald	12	9	26	11	58	64%	5	9%
    Joe Arenas	5	1	25	24	55	89%	3	5%
    Jack Call	33	4		14	51	27%	0	0%
    Joe Childress	41	10			51	0%	3	6%
    Leo Elter	45	6			51	0%	2	4%
    Neil Worden	42	1		4	47	9%	0	0%
    Billy Howton*+	4	38			42	0%	1	2%
    Ron Drzewiecki	5	1	22	13	41	85%	0	0%
    Bill Bowman	28	11			39	0%	2	5%
    Dean Derby	18	4	9	6	37	41%	3	8%
    Tommy Runnels	20	1	10	2	33	36%	3	9%
    Mal Hammack	30	1		2	33	6%	1	3%
    Elroy Hirsch	1	32			33	0%	0	0%
    Dave Mann	22	8	1	1	32	6%	1	3%
    Jimmy Sears	17	5	1	8	31	29%	2	6%
    Dick James	7		11	12	30	77%	1	3%
    P Carpenter	3	27			30	0%	2	7%
    Bert Zagers			14	15	29	100%	1	3%
    Kyle Rote	1	25			26	0%	0	0%
    Babe Parilli	24				24	0%	3	13%
    Leon Clarke	1	23			24	0%	0	0%
    Joe Scudero	9	2	9	3	23	52%	0	0%
    Harlon Hill	2	21			23	0%	1	4%
    Jug Girard	2	21			23	0%	1	4%
    Ray Renfro*	2	21			23	0%	0	0%
    Tom Tracy	16	6			22	0%	1	5%
    Larry Barnes	20	1			21	0%	2	10%
    Milt Campbell	7	1		11	19	58%	0	0%
    Terry Barr			9	9	18	100%	1	6%
    Dick Nyers	1			17	18	94%	1	6%
    Ray Mathews	3	15			18	0%	3	17%
    Perry Jeter	10	2	2	3	17	29%	2	12%
    Ed Modzelewski	10			5	15	33%	0	0%
    Sid Watson	12	3			15	0%	2	13%
    Royce Womble	7	7			14	0%	0	0%
    Joe Johnson	2	7	4		13	31%	0	0%
    J.C. Caroline	1	1	6	4	12	83%	0	0%
    Zeke Bratkowski	12				12	0%	3	25%
    Marv Brown	2		3	6	11	82%	0	0%
    Dicky Moegle	9				9	0%	0	0%
    Frank Purnell	5	2			7	0%	1	14%
    Ray Gene Smith	1	3	2		6	33%	1	17%
    Jerry Norton*	2		1	2	5	60%	0	0%
    Frank Bernardi	1	1	2		4	50%	0	0%
    Dick Hughes	2		1		3	33%	1	33%
    Billy Pricer	2				2	0%	1	50%
    Joe Fortunato	2				2	0%	1	50%
    Don Chandler	1				1	0%	0	0%
    Last edited by Lionel20; 07-06-2015 at 10:43 AM.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1
    When you want the best tickets, as well as the opportunity to discover the schedule and which teams they are playing, you can do so by going to an online site.
    The Florida Gators play football games each year against other teams in the SEC Eastern Division. These include Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Kentucky and Vanderbilt.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    122,404
    Quote Originally Posted by cherrypaul99 View Post
    When you want the best tickets, as well as the opportunity to discover the schedule and which teams they are playing, you can do so by going to an online site.
    ? Lol

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    9,030
    Quote Originally Posted by cherrypaul99 View Post
    When you want the best tickets, as well as the opportunity to discover the schedule and which teams they are playing, you can do so by going to an online site.
    Hahahahahaha

    Plus your sig. I'm dying

  15. #60
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    [emoji288]
    Posts
    11,871
    Quote Originally Posted by cherrypaul99 View Post
    When you want the best tickets, as well as the opportunity to discover the schedule and which teams they are playing, you can do so by going to an online site.
    Norm, I don't think it was necessary to create a sock puppet only to tell Lionel that he should watch more football.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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