Ball Security Analysis

[Tepper's Chest Hair]

33 minutes ago, SBiii said:

So mentally you were unable able to add context and draw some conclusions? 

Just sitting there waiting on someone else to tell you what to think?

Are you able to participate in this conversation?  

I am not asking anyone to tell me what to think.  If you have nothing to add other than trolling and trying to low key insult me, just get on with it already.  Because I am just going to move on if you can't deliver some sort of worthwhile response to this discussion that is at least on a middle school reading level.

[SBiii]

1 minute ago, Tepper's Chest Hair said:

Are you able to participate in this conversation?  

I am not asking anyone to tell me what to think.  If you have nothing to add other than trolling and trying to low key insult me, just get on with it already.  Because I am just going to move on if you can't deliver some sort of worthwhile response to this discussion that is at least on a middle school reading level.

So I should take that as a no....

....you were not able to think logically, add a little context, and arrive at the obvious conclusion the numbers were illustrating?

(the analysis if you will, which I thought was obvious)

[Tepper's Chest Hair]

1 minute ago, SBiii said:

o I should take that as a no....

....you were not able to think logically, add a little context, and arrive at the obvious conclusion the numbers were illustrating?

(the analysis if you will, which I thought was obvious)

I would love to hear your analysis.  

[Varking]

13 minutes ago, SBiii said:

So I should take that as a no....

....you were not able to think logically, add a little context, and arrive at the obvious conclusion the numbers were illustrating?

(the analysis if you will, which I thought was obvious)

The OP has already said this was just raw data without analysis. Another poster said thank you OP for the analysis. The guy you are replying to asked where/what the analysis was. Instead of pointing him to where the analysis was ( there wasn't any ) you are just trying to insult the guy asking. Here are the steps of conflict:

1) OP posts raw data WITHOUT ANY ANALYSIS.

2) Other poster says thank you OP for the thread an analysis.

3) A third poster asks where is the analysis.

4) You start to troll.

5) OP chimes in and says no analysis. Just raw data. I REPEAT. THE OP SAYS THERE WAS NO ANALYSIS. Its just raw data.

6) You skip all the above information just to take little jabs at the guy who asked where the analysis was. 

You look for conflict in most of the threads on here. Let it go my dude. 

[SBiii]

21 minutes ago, Tepper's Chest Hair said:

I would love to hear your analysis.  

It's logical to think Allen will start throwing some INT's.  It's also logical to think he will fumble less.  Assuming the two offset and he continues aggregate turnovers at his current pace he will have 48 turnovers after 2 seasons (32 reg season games).

The data provided by Mr. Scot illustrates that this is squarely in the middle of the normal range NFL QB's over their first 2 seasons.....

....the kid is right on track.

What remains to be seen is which direction he goes later in his career....let's say in years 7 & 8.  Some get a LOT better.  Some get a LOT worse.  Some go a little bit one direction or the other.

PS...don't you be whining about "trolling", you need to take a look in the mirror pal.

[Tepper's Chest Hair]

Just now, SBiii said:

It's logical to think Allen will start throwing some INT's.  It's also logical to think he will fumble less.  Assuming the two offset and he continues aggregate turnovers at his current pace he will have 48 turnovers after 2 seasons (32 reg season games).

I was specifically told not to project any numbers concerning Allen, as it was faulty.  That means your entire "analysis" is faulty, which to me makes it useless.

 

 

[SBiii]

Just now, Tepper's Chest Hair said:

I was specifically told not to project any numbers concerning Allen, as it was faulty.  That means your entire "analysis" is faulty, which to me makes it useless.

You probably can't get across the street to church without a cop either.

For your review, whiner:

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, Tepper's Chest Hair said:

I was specifically told not to project any numbers concerning Allen, as it was faulty.  That means your entire "analysis" is faulty, which to me makes it useless.

You're going a little overboard with that.

As to the thread, I've mentioned before that I prefer to put a topic out there and let people put their own spin on it. 

I know it's pretty common for guys to post "this is my opinion, deal with it" threads, but that's not how I prefer to operate.

[Tepper's Chest Hair]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

You're going a little overboard with that.

As to the thread, I've mentioned before that I prefer to put a topic out there and let people put their own spin on it. 

I know it's pretty common for guys to post "this is my opinion, deal with it" threads, but that's not how I prefer to operate

I guess I was thrown off by the title, which literally states an opinion will be given.

That being said, I don't know what spin we can put on it.  Are we trying to say there is a chance Allen gets better in 5 years?  I mean.  Ok.  

I just strongly feel that there is a specific narrative attempted to be pushed, hiding behind plausible deniability of "I didn't actually say that".  So I am just trying to cut through the red tape to find out exactly what we are supposed to be discussing.

If the entire point of this thread is "Allen might get better, if we give him enough years".  I guess, you got me.  I can see how that could happen and I don't see what is worth discussing.  As that seems like a pretty no-brainer idea.

People that are having issues with Allen's fumbles aren't complaining because they think in 5 years Allen won't be a suitable QB.  Its squarely to combat the people saying Cam Newton should remain benched when he comes back completely healthy in a couple of weeks.

Discussing how Allens miscues aren't that bad over a 2 year period doesn't effect any talk from anyone concerning his miscues this season, and how Cam Newton may or may not be a better option to end the season and (hopefully) push into the playoffs.

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, Tepper's Chest Hair said:

I guess I was thrown off by the title, which literally states an opinion will be given.

That being said, I don't know what spin we can put on it.  Are we trying to say there is a chance Allen gets better in 5 years?  I mean.  Ok.  

I just strongly feel that there is a specific narrative attempted to be pushed, hiding behind plausible deniability of "I didn't actually say that".  So I am just trying to cut through the red tape to find out exactly what we are supposed to be discussing.

If the entire point of this thread is "Allen might get better, if we give him enough years".  I guess, you got me.  I can see how that could happen and I don't see what is worth discussing.  As that seems like a pretty no-brainer idea.

People that are having issues with Allen's fumbles aren't complaining because they think in 5 years Allen won't be a suitable QB.  Its squarely to combat the people saying Cam Newton should remain benched when he comes back completely healthy in a couple of weeks.

Discussing how Allens miscues aren't that bad over a 2 year period doesn't effect any talk from anyone concerning his miscues this season, and how Cam Newton may or may not be a better option to end the season and (hopefully) push into the playoffs.

If you really want to believe there's a narrative, I'm sure you'll find one whether there actually is or not. That's typically how paranoia works.

In reality though, there isn't one.That's why the opening post says "What does it mean? You tell me."

I did the research for the same reason I do just about any research, I was curious. In this case, my particular curiosity had to do with the ball security of rookie and second year quarterbacks. I used examples with a broad range of success level for balance.

That's pretty much all there is to it.

[Mr. Scot]

While I'm at it, one quick observation crossed my mind regarding fumbles that I've been meaning to mention but keep forgetting...

You know what one of the most common types of fumble is among young quarterbacks?

Center snap fumbles.

It's pretty common to see young guys making their first start fumble a snap within their first few plays, sometimes two or three within the first game.

If Allen has fumbled a snap, even in preseason, I don't remember it.

Now maybe that's just my faulty memory, so if anybody else remembers seeing him do it. remind me when it happened.

[Snake]

6 hours ago, Varking said:

Hoping Little can come back and play well. 

Two kos in one year isn't really a good sign. 

 

[Snake]

4 hours ago, thefuzz said:

Says almost every team in the NFL.

We are not so quietly heading toward a MAJOR O line problem/shortage in the NFL.

Either the QB's/Coaches are going to have to adapt to a quick fire, boring pass game, or it's going to get harder and harder out there.  Also, this is precisely why you need to draft an offensive lineman every single draft.

College has really caused this. Not many traditional offenses anymore. 

[Moo Daeng]

I think the main difference is that the biggest strongest and most athletic generally would prefer defensive line