| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Abe56
Joined: 21 Nov 2005
Posts: 13007
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:33 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
So he only has 7.5 sacks? There goes DPOY.
_________________
Jets, Warriors-Knicks, Buckeyes |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
phinmun
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 2230
Location: South Carolina
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
That was a designed run to Reggie Bush, no doubt about it.
That's a sack if you count touching a guy who's given himself up on the ground as a sack.
In that case, my 3 year old niece could have done what JJ Watt did.
If you want to make a case that JJ Watt is a great player because of stuff like that then you spend too much time on the internet arguing about crap you shouldn't be even thinking about. I'm shouldn't even be writing this. I'm done writing this!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheKillerNacho
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 15116
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| phinmun wrote: | That was a designed run to Reggie Bush, no doubt about it.
That's a sack if you count touching a guy who's given himself up on the ground as a sack.
In that case, my 3 year old niece could have done what JJ Watt did.
If you want to make a case that JJ Watt is a great player because of stuff like that then you spend too much time on the internet arguing about crap you shouldn't be even thinking about. I'm shouldn't even be writing this. I'm done writing this! |
For me it has nothing to do with whether or not JJ Watt "deserved" a sack there. It has to do with the simplification of a stat.
Following this logic... what's next? Should we start taking away interceptions for tipped balls? No... that's ridiculous. If a QB is tackled behind the LOS, its a sack, period. Making these distinctions based on "intent" is flawed on more than one level.
_________________
With much cheese,
Nacho Simulation Football League |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phinmun
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 2230
Location: South Carolina
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TheKillerNacho wrote: | | phinmun wrote: | That was a designed run to Reggie Bush, no doubt about it.
That's a sack if you count touching a guy who's given himself up on the ground as a sack.
In that case, my 3 year old niece could have done what JJ Watt did.
If you want to make a case that JJ Watt is a great player because of stuff like that then you spend too much time on the internet arguing about crap you shouldn't be even thinking about. I'm shouldn't even be writing this. I'm done writing this! |
For me it has nothing to do with whether or not JJ Watt "deserved" a sack there. It has to do with the simplification of a stat.
Following this logic... what's next? Should we start taking away interceptions for tipped balls? No... that's ridiculous. If a QB is tackled behind the LOS, its a sack, period. Making these distinctions based on "intent" is flawed on more than one level. |
It belittles the statistic to include these types of 'play-enders.'
This wasn't football, this was JJ Watt having to touch a player 'down' because Ryan Tannehill did the smart thing and simply covered up when he knew the play had blown up.
Oh, cry me a river, JJ Watt is so ripped off here!
If you get credit for stuff like that, fine, live with it, but don't be up in arms when your favorite player--or any player--doesn't get credit because he had to make physical contact with a guy who was given up. Ryan Tannehill would've stayed down long enough for JJ Watt to circle the stadium twice and come back onto the field.
This was no exceptional effort so there's nothing to defend. If you don't think it's fair then I suggest to question why we use statistics in the 1st place. What good is a sack record at all if it includes bogus stuff.
...yeah, yeah, yeah...someone show the Strahan-Favre clip. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Smoodiver
Joined: 03 Jan 2010
Posts: 19
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Tackle for loss is just as good as a sack, people get waaaaaaay too caught up in sack numbers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bohlmann20
Joined: 22 Mar 2012
Posts: 5138
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Ray Smoodiver wrote: | | Tackle for loss is just as good as a sack, people get waaaaaaay too caught up in sack numbers |
Maybe in a literal sense, but sacks definitely get a defense more psyched up than a TFL does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogfeet
Joined: 12 Apr 2011
Posts: 504
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Hmm... not sure about this one. I don't know if they really should have changed it from what it was. If it was their intention to run, their intention failed before the tackle, and after the handoff fails I don't see how you can classify it as a run, as Tannenhill may well have thrown it away. I think they should have let this one stand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheKillerNacho
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 15116
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| phinmun wrote: | | TheKillerNacho wrote: | | phinmun wrote: | That was a designed run to Reggie Bush, no doubt about it.
That's a sack if you count touching a guy who's given himself up on the ground as a sack.
In that case, my 3 year old niece could have done what JJ Watt did.
If you want to make a case that JJ Watt is a great player because of stuff like that then you spend too much time on the internet arguing about crap you shouldn't be even thinking about. I'm shouldn't even be writing this. I'm done writing this! |
For me it has nothing to do with whether or not JJ Watt "deserved" a sack there. It has to do with the simplification of a stat.
Following this logic... what's next? Should we start taking away interceptions for tipped balls? No... that's ridiculous. If a QB is tackled behind the LOS, its a sack, period. Making these distinctions based on "intent" is flawed on more than one level. |
It belittles the statistic to include these types of 'play-enders.'
This wasn't football, this was JJ Watt having to touch a player 'down' because Ryan Tannehill did the smart thing and simply covered up when he knew the play had blown up.
Oh, cry me a river, JJ Watt is so ripped off here!
If you get credit for stuff like that, fine, live with it, but don't be up in arms when your favorite player--or any player--doesn't get credit because he had to make physical contact with a guy who was given up. Ryan Tannehill would've stayed down long enough for JJ Watt to circle the stadium twice and come back onto the field.
This was no exceptional effort so there's nothing to defend. If you don't think it's fair then I suggest to question why we use statistics in the 1st place. What good is a sack record at all if it includes bogus stuff.
...yeah, yeah, yeah...someone show the Strahan-Favre clip. |
Lol @ the assumptions made in this post.
I don't give two [inappropriate/removed] about JJ Watt, I'm a Dolphins fan. But making a stat based on intent is silly. BTW, watch the play. JJ Watt completely shut down that play and tackled the QB. It was a sack in my eyes.
_________________
With much cheese,
Nacho Simulation Football League |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EliteTexan80
Joined: 30 Apr 2007
Posts: 38732
Location: Three time Mr. fanTASTic!
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Yes, NFL...yes. Make Watt angry. 
_________________
| vike daddy wrote: | | EliteTexan80 wrote: | | I wanna be a mod. |
vastly over rated. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RuskieTitan
Joined: 29 Apr 2007
Posts: 43935
Location: Front lines of Titania
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Can he appeal this decision?
_________________
^^El ramster^^
FF Hunger Games I Winner
#JDI
| FootballProdiG wrote: | | Cant spell choke without OKC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fretgod99
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 19894
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Players don't get credit for a sack on an intentional grounding do they? That's one that always bugged me.
_________________
| MrDrew wrote: | | Can somebody give me a good reason there's not a giant statue to fret somewhere? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jaytrajik
Joined: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 13900
Location: Houston
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| phinmun wrote: | | TheKillerNacho wrote: | | phinmun wrote: | That was a designed run to Reggie Bush, no doubt about it.
That's a sack if you count touching a guy who's given himself up on the ground as a sack.
In that case, my 3 year old niece could have done what JJ Watt did.
If you want to make a case that JJ Watt is a great player because of stuff like that then you spend too much time on the internet arguing about crap you shouldn't be even thinking about. I'm shouldn't even be writing this. I'm done writing this! |
For me it has nothing to do with whether or not JJ Watt "deserved" a sack there. It has to do with the simplification of a stat.
Following this logic... what's next? Should we start taking away interceptions for tipped balls? No... that's ridiculous. If a QB is tackled behind the LOS, its a sack, period. Making these distinctions based on "intent" is flawed on more than one level. |
It belittles the statistic to include these types of 'play-enders.'
This wasn't football, this was JJ Watt having to touch a player 'down' because Ryan Tannehill did the smart thing and simply covered up when he knew the play had blown up.
Oh, cry me a river, JJ Watt is so ripped off here!
If you get credit for stuff like that, fine, live with it, but don't be up in arms when your favorite player--or any player--doesn't get credit because he had to make physical contact with a guy who was given up. Ryan Tannehill would've stayed down long enough for JJ Watt to circle the stadium twice and come back onto the field.
This was no exceptional effort so there's nothing to defend. If you don't think it's fair then I suggest to question why we use statistics in the 1st place. What good is a sack record at all if it includes bogus stuff.
...yeah, yeah, yeah...someone show the Strahan-Favre clip. |
why are you so angry? 
_________________
life is one huge game that infinite awareness has with itself |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jacobys Homey
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 12017
Location: No
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Ray Smoodiver wrote: | | Tackle for loss is just as good as a sack, people get waaaaaaay too caught up in sack numbers |
When is the last time you saw a 7 yard TFL?
Sacks have a much higher average loss.
_________________
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost
Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DavidatMIZZOU
Joined: 09 Apr 2009
Posts: 16101
Location: The ZOU
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Not a big deal. He plays the Packers this week, and our line is nice enough to let him get at least 3 more.
_________________
GO PACK GO!
| mistakebytehlak wrote: |
My god it must be so terrible to have three teams that consistently make the playoffs |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theJ
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 23192
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Dogfeet wrote: | | Hmm... not sure about this one. I don't know if they really should have changed it from what it was. If it was their intention to run, their intention failed before the tackle, and after the handoff fails I don't see how you can classify it as a run, as Tannenhill may well have thrown it away. I think they should have let this one stand. |
If he had, it would have been a penalty for illegal lineman downfield.
_________________
If you're not in over your head, how do you know how tall you are?
~T.S. Eliot |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
