(08-30-2022, 02:58 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: But how much of it will be luck? 

The only fair answer to the question is, it's not very likely to happen unless you have the perfect storm, which the Bengals happened to have on that single play. 

The "perfect storm" is a lucky occurrence if it happens less than 1% of the time.

(08-30-2022, 03:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But this is absolutely correct.

If in the entire criminal justice system 99% of trials ended in conviction then I would agree that there is some luck involved in an acquittal.  I would have no problem with that.

If you claim that the 99% result is due to the "situation" then there is luck involved in being in that 1% of "situations".

If every case is different, as in situations in football, then the 1 would have circumstances that dicated an acquittal. 

Unless you're saying the CJS isn't fair and unbiased. 


Regardless, it's not the same because the conviction or acquittal is determined by 12 people and what they're going through at that time. That's an extra factor and reliant on what each of those 12 are going through at the time and their thoughts on a myriad of subjects, as well as other's influence on them. It's chance, not luck. 

(08-30-2022, 03:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But this is absolutely correct.

If in the entire criminal justice system 99% of trials ended in conviction then I would agree that there is some luck involved in an acquittal.  I would have no problem with that.

If you claim that the 99% result is due to the "situation" then there is luck involved in being in that 1% of "situations".

That is not luck at all wow...

That's using the evidence in each case that proves innocent because you know they were not guilty not because they were lucky to be acquitted.

It's not about the other cases just like it's not about that the other 3rd and 25+ it's about that 1 case and that 1 play. It's all situational.

(08-30-2022, 02:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How the hell does my opinion of your answer make it impossible for you to answer?  Where do you even come up with something like this?

The fact is that you know the truth but you won't admit it.  The Bengals would be lucky to convert even one of ten 3rd-and-25 situations.  NFL history proves that I am correct.

Fred, you really need to use a more universal definition of lucky. You use the definition of rarity. The Oxford English Dictionary uses the definition of "successful through causes other than one's own action or merit."

You are defining the term lucky in a way to make your argument, by equating it with rarity. But most would not use the definition that you are using. Most consider the term lucky as signifying something independent of one's own action or merit. Such as a lucky bounce of a fumbled football. Not a practiced play that is successful.

(08-30-2022, 03:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The "perfect storm" is a lucky occurrence if it happens less than 1% of the time.

Luck isn't tangible. 

Chance is. It's math, not magic. 

More than anything, i think people don't like the word "luck" because it implies no skill needed. 

(08-30-2022, 03:19 PM)Nepa Wrote: Fred, you really need to use a more universal definition of lucky. You use the definition of rarity. The Oxford English Dictionary uses the definition of "successful through causes other than one's own action or merit."

Yeah, I've already posted the definition of 'lucky' but fred has decided to change the definition of lucky to mean rare to avoid admitting he was wrong.

(08-30-2022, 03:19 PM)Synric Wrote: That is not luck at all wow...

It is luck if there is a 99% conviction rate.  And we have to assume those numbers if we are comparing it to converting a 3rd-and-25.

(08-30-2022, 03:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is luck if there is a 99% conviction rate.  

It is luck only if you redefine the word 'luck'

(08-30-2022, 03:19 PM)Nepa Wrote: Fred, you really need to use a more universal definition of lucky. You use the definition of rarity. The Oxford English Dictionary uses the definition of "successful through causes other than one's own action or merit."

(08-30-2022, 03:21 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Yeah, I've already posted the definition of 'lucky' but fred has decided to change the definition of lucky to mean rare to avoid admitting he was wrong.

I never changed anything.  Instead I posted these stats to prove that converting a 3rd-and-25 has very little to do with the QBs "action and merit"

(08-30-2022, 12:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I can only go back to 1994 but I can tell you that Tom Brady did it once in 17 attempts, but Trent Dilfer did it twice in just 6 attempts.

Peyton Manning,  Aaron Rodgers, Kurt Warner, and Drew Brees did it ZERO times in FIFTY-FIVE combined attempts, but Mark Sanchez, Donald Hollis, Kyle Orton, Matt Moore, Jay Fiedler, and Gale Gilbert did it 6 times in just 21 attempts

If it is all about "merit" then how do you explain these numbers.

(08-30-2022, 03:27 PM)PhilHos Wrote: It is luck only if you redefine the word 'luck'

I never had to change the definition of "luck"

The numbers I posted about terrible QBs converting a lot more often than the best QBs in history proves that converting a 3rd-and-25+ is more about "chance" that "merit".

(08-30-2022, 03:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I never changed anything.  Instead I posted these stats to prove that converting a 3rd-and-25 has very little to do with the QBs "action and merit"

If it is all about "merit" then how do you explain these numbers.

Because a football team is playing against another football team. The defense's action and merit overcame the offense's action and merit. Doesn't mean the defenses got lucky because they stopped a 3rd-and-25.

Still no one that called me a troll has been willing to give me an answer to my simple question.

I'll even add the qualifier "with no luck involved".

How many times will the Bengals convert 3rd-and-25 if they have ten chances this year?

(08-30-2022, 03:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Still no one that called me a troll has been willing to give me an answer to my simple question.

I'll even add the qualifier "with no luck involved".

How many times will the Bengals convert 3rd-and-25 if they have ten chances this year?

Where exactly on the 3rd and 27 play did the luck occur? 

(08-30-2022, 03:35 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Because a football team is playing against another football team. The defense's action and merit overcame the offense's action and merit. Doesn't mean the defenses got lucky because they stopped a 3rd-and-25.

So you don't see any difference in the "skill and merit" of Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, and Kurt Warner when compared to Mark Sanchez, Jay Fiedler, Matt Moores, Trent Dilfer, Donald Hollis, Kyle Orton, and Gale Gilbert?

Doen't one of those groups seem extremely more skilled than the other?  So why are the more skilled QBs so much worse than the crappy ones when converting 3rd-and-25?  Shouldn't it be the other way around if converting a 3rd-and-25 is all about skill?

(08-30-2022, 03:41 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Where exactly on the 3rd and 27 play did the luck occur? 

The "perfect execution" under those circumstances is so rare that the entire play was good fortune.  NFL history proves that I am correct.

You are trying to use two different definitions for luck.  With a kid hitting a long shot you admit that it is due to luck because it is so rare.  You admit that it is impossible to point to the luck.  But then you claim that unless you can point to some extraneous visible cause in a football game there is no luck involved.

You can't use both.  Pick one. 

A lot of teams on 3rd and 25 do a screen pass so the QB doesn't get killed. And to gain some yards for an easier punt.

I wonder what percentage actually try to throw the ball 25+ yards in the air?

(08-30-2022, 03:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Still no one that called me a troll has been willing to give me an answer to my simple question.

I'll even add the qualifier "with no luck involved".

How many times will the Bengals convert 3rd-and-25 if they have ten chances this year?

There is no point in answering that question because its irrelevant we aren't talking about future 3rd and 25+ we are discussing 1 play you are calling only luck or a fluke.

We know converting 3rd and 25+ is rare but we also know converting that one wasn't luck or a fluke because of the situation surrounding that one play that's what you don't seem to understand.

(08-30-2022, 03:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you don't see any difference in the "skill and merit" of Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, and Kurt Warner when compared to Mark Sanchez, Jay Fiedler, Matt Moores, Trent Dilfer, Donald Hollis, Kyle Orton, and Gale Gilbert?

Doen't one of those groups seem extremely more skilled than the other?  So why are the more skilled QBs so much worse than the crappy ones when converting 3rd-and-25?  Shouldn't it be the other way around if converting a 3rd-and-25 is all about skill?

Because I don't define how good a QB is by whether or not they have converted a 3rd-and-25. Plus converting a 3rd-and-25 is not just on the QB: the playcaller needs to call the right play, everyone needs to know their assignments, the OL has to block, the receivers needs to run their route correctly, the targeted receiver needs to make the catch, etc. etc.

Do you not know how the game is played?

(08-30-2022, 03:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are trying to use two different definitions for luck.  With a kid hitting a long shot you admit that it is due to luck because it is so rare.  You admit that it is impossible to point to the luck.  But then you claim that unless you can point to some extraneous visible cause in a football game there is no luck involved.

No, I'm saying a kid hitting a long shot is lucky because KIDS don't have the physical tools to be able to use their "actions and merit" to hit a long court shot. 

(08-30-2022, 03:47 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: A lot of teams on 3rd and 25 do a screen pass so the QB doesn't get killed. And to gain some yards for an easier punt.

I wonder what percentage actually try to throw the ball 25+ yards in the air?

I've asked that multiple times but fred keeps ignoring it because it hurts his argument.