+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (https://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Cincinnati Bengals / NFL (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: JUNGLE NOISE (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-2.html)
+--- Thread: What Vegas and the National Media is not talking about (/thread-32856.html)
RE: What Vegas and the National Media is not talking about - Nate (formerly eliminate08) - 08-30-2022
(08-30-2022, 12:01 PM)Synric Wrote: Again it's not about every 3rd and 25+ it's only that one play. Your argument is a false equivalency. You are suggesting every 3rd and 25+ are exactly the same.
Its 3rd and 27. Game is tied at 31 with 3 minutes left on the clock. The Bengals are on the 41. The Chiefs aren't just trying to stop a 1st down they are zero blitz because they want to keep the Bengals from getting the 6ish yards from field goal range. Joe Burrow sees the zero blitz the 1 on 1 man coverage vs Chase and throws a great ball.
266 yards on the DEY for Ja'Marr. That's a team record for receiving yards in a game.
— Cincinnati Bengals (@Bengals) January 2, 2022
Watch on CBS pic.twitter.com/s7clFfPQEY
Football is situational. Because the Chiefs were trying to force the Bengals out of field goal range it kept them from playing a normal 3rd and long defense. Because of that opportunity the Bengals were able to capitalize because they were prepared for that defense.
Luck is what happens with preperation meets opportunity.
Nicely done Synric. Perfectly said on all points and even have the vid to back it up. Just a great throw from Burrow and
adjustment from Chase, great execution against what the Defense was showing and made it look easy. That ain't no fluke!
RE: What Vegas and the National Media is not talking about - fredtoast - 08-30-2022
(08-30-2022, 01:35 PM)PhilHos Wrote: More lies. You have never mentioned "Marck" Sanchez, Kyle Orton, Donald Hollis, etc anywhere at any post directed towards me. But, keep trying to obfuscate the point while maintaining the notion you are not trolling that absolutely no one but you believes.
I was editing my post while you responded.
(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
So obviously it is about skill, and luck has nothing to do with it.
RE: What Vegas and the National Media is not talking about - PhilHos - 08-30-2022
(08-30-2022, 01:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Now who is trolling?
Not a single person who was calling me a troll is willing to stand behind their position and answer a simple question.
If the Bengals face 3rd-and-25 ten times this year how many times will they convert?
If you need to qualify your answer with different variables, feel free. All I want is an honest answer from anyone who called me a troll.
Yeah, doesn't it suck when you ask a question and someone doesn't answer it?
I've wanted an honest answer from you every time I asked a question. Think maybe I've gotten one, if that?
So, here I'll answer your obviously not loaded question:
If the Bengals face 3rd-and-25 ten times this year how many times will they convert?
Doesn't matter. You will refuse to acknowledge any skill was involved and the conversion(s) were the result of luck. Meanwhile, if luck was indeed involved in any or all of them, I would acknowledge said luck and even point it out in a video clip of the conversion.
RE: What Vegas and the National Media is not talking about - PhilHos - 08-30-2022
(08-30-2022, 01:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I was editing my post while you responded.
I edited my post.
RE: What Vegas and the National Media is not talking about - fredtoast - 08-30-2022
(08-30-2022, 01:33 PM)PhilHos Wrote: First off, you never posted a video.
More importantly, this is just another falsehood created by you. I am the one that has constantly been asking you to point out the luck in an actual video clip that I posted.
For someone so adamant that the 3rd-and-27 play was the result of luck, you sure go through an awful lot of effort to refuse to point out the luck in the video.
Okay Phil. Here is the discussion using the quote function. It still shows your completely circular argument.
1. You ask me to point out "luck" in a video"
2. I prove that you can't point to "luck" in a video of a kid making a full court basketball shot.
3. You say that does not matter because a kid making a full court basketball shot is rare.
4. I point out how rare it is to convert ANY 3rd-and-25.
5. You circle back and claim rarity does not prove luck.
(08-29-2022, 11:21 AM)PhilHos Wrote: I'm still waiting on you to point out where in the video I posted on the 3rd-and-27 play the fluke you claim was responsible for the conversion occurs.
(08-29-2022, 11:39 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I can show you a video of a guy making a basketball shot from the top of a thousand foot building. Just from the video you would not be able to point to one single thing that proves it is lucky, yet he had to try it hundreds of times before he did it once. Do you agree that what he did was "lucky" or will you claim it was all skill just because you can't point to anything "lucky" in the video?
(08-29-2022, 01:19 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I doubt there are any kids that can routinely make full court shots, so when one actually makes 1 full court shot, its lucky.
(08-29-2022, 02:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The numbers prove I am correct.
Over the last 4 years NFL QBs have completed 3841 passes for 25+ yards. Only one has been on 3rd-and-25+. 13 different QBs have 100 or more completions for 25+ yards. Not a single one of them has done it on 3rd-and 25+.
Actually the reason I can't point to luck is the exact same reason that you can't point to luck in a video of a ten year old making a full court shot. And that reason is that just showing a video of something happening doesn't prove ANYTHING about how lucky it was. That entire argument was a logical failure.
(08-29-2022, 03:52 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Rarity does not equal luck.
Except that everyone knows making a full court shot is a rarity
(08-29-2022, 06:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually "rarity" is the best way to identify luck when you have a large sample set of equal factors. I say that if the most skilled players in the world can accomplish a feat less than one in a hundred times then luck has more to do with it than just skill.
How do you define/identify "luck"? Say I show you a video of a 10 year old kid making a full court shot. What do you look for in that video to detrmin if it was based on luck or skill?
(08-30-2022, 11:18 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Except I posted the video and asked for you to show where the luck was. You refuse to do so and instead rely solely on the 3rd-and-27 fact. The only one ignoring reality is you.
The reason you are stuck in this circular argument is that you refuse to acknowledge what every NFL fan knows and what the numbers I posted prove. It is EXTREMELY rare to convert ANY 3rd-and-25.
All you do is keep ignoring the numbers I post. Apparently, you are trying to claim that some 3rd-and-25 conversions are not rare, but you never explain which ones these are.
But to shut you up about this vide I will REPEAT my original answer (which you claimed I never made). You can't point out "luck" on a video of a kid making a full court basketball shot. Therefore you can't base your argument on my inability to point out "luck" in the video of the play in question. And i have posted PROOF of how rare it is to convert a 3rd-and-25. Less than one out of a hundred. So if you are goig to claim that some third-and-25 conversions are NOT rare then please tell me which ones.
RE: What Vegas and the National Media is not talking about - Bengalholic - 08-30-2022
(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
So obviously it is about skill, and luck has nothing to do with it.
The problem with these generic numbers you keep throwing around is that they don't offer situational breakdowns. Where did each instance occur on the field? At what point in the game? What was the score? How had the offense and opposing defense been playing up to that point? How many came close to converting? How many didn't make a real effort?
Without knowing those details...the numbers don't really mean anything because there's absolutely no context for for how the situation affected the approach and the outcome.
RE: What Vegas and the National Media is not talking about - fredtoast - 08-30-2022
(08-30-2022, 01:40 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I've wanted an honest answer from you every time I asked a question. Think maybe I've gotten one, if that?
yes you have gotten an honest answer from me everytime you have asked me a question in this thread.
If you want to continue calling me a liar than I suggest you quote the post to prove it.
(08-30-2022, 01:40 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So, here I'll answer your obviously not loaded question:
If the Bengals face 3rd-and-25 ten times this year how many times will they convert?
Doesn't matter. You will refuse to acknowledge any skill was involved and the conversion(s) were the result of luck. Meanwhile, if luck was indeed involved in any or all of them, I would acknowledge said luck and even point it out in a video clip of the conversion.
This is a refusal to answer a question.
The question has nothing to do with who will admit what. It is just a simple question that you refuse to answer because you know the Bengals would be lucky to convert even one out of ten. The history of the NFL proves I am correct but you refuse to acknowledge it.
And please STFU about pointing out "luck" on a video when you have already admitted that it is impossible for you to do it. You acknowledge multiple times that you would not be able to point to "luck" in a video of a kid hitting a half court shot. Then that starts you chasing your tail in a circle again about how rare it is for a kid to hit a half court shot while at the same time insisting that "rarity does not equal luck"
RE: What Vegas and the National Media is not talking about - Frank Booth - 08-30-2022
why are you guys giving Fred what he wants? He just wants to argue. Thats it
RE: What Vegas and the National Media is not talking about - fredtoast - 08-30-2022
(08-30-2022, 02:10 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: The problem with these generic numbers you keep throwing around is that they don't offer situational breakdowns. Where did each instance occur on the field? At what point in the game? What was the score? How had the offense and opposing defense been playing up to that point? How many came close to converting? How many didn't make a real effort?
Without knowing those details...the numbers don't really mean anything because there's absolutely no context for for how the situation affected the approach and the outcome.
When the number is ZERO (as in 0-137) then the burden is on YOU to show which situations would have taken "luck" out of the equation.
So why don't you post all those examples of teams converting 3rd-and-25 and show the context to prove which ones did not involve any luck.
RE: What Vegas and the National Media is not talking about - Synric - 08-30-2022
(08-30-2022, 02:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The question has nothing to do with who will admit what. It is just a simple question that you refuse to answer because you know the Bengals would be lucky to convert even one out of ten. The history of the NFL proves I am correct but you refuse to acknowledge it.
Your question and arguement is irrelevant.
You are trying to call 1 play a fluke or luck by saying that 100+ more failed. You are ignoring the actual play and what happened trying to force feed a blanket stat without breaking down the play.
The conversion was not luck or a fluke it was capitalizing on the opportunity the defense presented. It's that simple.
RE: What Vegas and the National Media is not talking about - fredtoast - 08-30-2022
(08-30-2022, 02:23 PM)Synric Wrote: Your question and arguement is irrelevant.
You are trying to call 1 play a fluke or luck by saying that 100+ more failed. You are ignoring the actual play and what happened trying to force feed a blanket stat without breaking down the play.
The conversion was not luck or a fluke it was capitalizing on the opportunity the defense presented. It's that simple.
My argument is not irrelevant at all.
Say you see a kid make a full court basketball shot. You tell him that was just luck because you know that a kid is going to make less than one percent of those type shots. But the kid says "That was just a perfect shot on my part. Doesn't matter that I miss the shot 99.9% of the time. You can't consider all those other misses. There was no luck involved in the shot I just made."
Is the kid right?
RE: What Vegas and the National Media is not talking about - PhilHos - 08-30-2022
(08-30-2022, 02:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The reason you are stuck in this circular argument is that you refuse to acknowledge what every NFL fan knows and what the numbers I posted prove. It is EXTREMELY rare to convert ANY 3rd-and-25.
Please, just once, stop lying in a post. I've acknowledged that converting 3rd-and-25+ is rare. You know, part of the whole "rarity does not equal luck" part of my argument? You even mention it a couple times.
Just goes to prove my other point about you trolling.
(08-30-2022, 02:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: All you do is keep ignoring the numbers I post.
Continuing to lie, I see. Again, I accept your numbers as fact without question til the end when all I asked for was the source. I know you use stats and I know you generally have a source. I wanted to see your source. Still haven't provided it, btw.
(08-30-2022, 02:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Apparently, you are trying to claim that some 3rd-and-25 conversions are not rare, but you never explain which ones these are.
No, I'm claiming that some 3rd-and-25+ conversions are not the result of luck - specifically the Bengals 3rd-and-27 in the Chiefs game - but I acknowledge that some may be. If you'd like to me confirm which ones are the result of luck, please post the video and I will do so.
(08-30-2022, 02:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You can't point out "luck" on a video of a kid making a full court basketball shot. Therefore you can't base your argument on my inability to point out "luck" in the video of the play in question.
Yes, I can. We're not talking about a kid making a full court basketball shot. We're talking about professional football players completing a pass they've completed many times before and will complete many times in the years to come. The only thing about this play that is different is the fact that it occurred on 3rd and 27.
Your argument fails because you're attempting to comparing 2 different things; you're attempting to compare an orange to when an apple was picked off the tree. The luck part of the kid making the shot is the kid making the shot. Not when he made the shot. You're trying to compare an action to the time of an action. I'm comparing 2 actions. The kid making the shot is lucky because unless it's a shot he routinely makes, then it's clearly due mainly to luck. The action of the professional football players is the completion of the pass. A pass they've done many times over the course of last season. Ergo, it's the result of skill not luck.
RE: What Vegas and the National Media is not talking about - Synric - 08-30-2022
(08-30-2022, 02:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: My argument is not irrelevant at all.
Say you see a kid make a full court basketball shot. You tell him that was just luck because you know that a kid is going to make less than one percent of those type shots. But the kid says "That was just a perfect shot on my part. Doesn't matter that I miss the shot 99.9% of the time. You can't consider all those other misses. There was no luck involved in the shot I just made."
Is the kid right?
What does a kid shooting a basketball at half court have to do with the KC vs Bengals 3rd and 27 conversion? Nothing. What does the other 100+ 3rd and 25+ oppurtonities have to do with the KC vs Bengals 3rd and 27 conversion.... Nothing.
You are using a blanket stat and ignoring the football. Football is situational and if you go back I described the situation the play and the outcome. It was not luck or a fluke.
RE: What Vegas and the National Media is not talking about - PhilHos - 08-30-2022
(08-30-2022, 02:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is a refusal to answer a question.
Wrong. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean I've not answered the question.
(08-30-2022, 02:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And please STFU about pointing out "luck" on a video when you have already admitted that it is impossible for you to do it.
I have not. If luck was involved in the play, it'd be easy to point it out: a defender fell down, the ball was tipped right to a receiver, Burrow threw the pass with his eyes open or with the wrong hand, etc.
There's a reason you insist on trying to compare a pass play from a professional sport made by professional players to a kid making an extremely difficult shot in a completely different sport is that you know I'm right, but you enjoy trolling and are probably enjoying this as much as I am and so you refuse to acknowledge that you are wrong.
RE: What Vegas and the National Media is not talking about - fredtoast - 08-30-2022
(08-30-2022, 02:42 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Wrong. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean I've not answered the question.
Yes it does.
I asked for a percentage.
What was your answer?
RE: What Vegas and the National Media is not talking about - PhilHos - 08-30-2022
(08-30-2022, 02:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When the number is ZERO (as in 0-137) then the burden is on YOU to show which situations would have taken "luck" out of the equation.
So why don't you post all those examples of teams converting 3rd-and-25 and show the context to prove which ones did not involve any luck.
Allow me to answer for Benghalholic: when the Bengals completed a 30 yard pass on 3rd and 27 against the Chiefs. Burrow made a great adjustment based on the defense he saw, then proceeded to make a great throw and Chase made a great catch and even gained more yards than was needed to convert the 3rd down.
If you look earlier in this thread, I posted a video clip of said play.
RE: What Vegas and the National Media is not talking about - rfaulk34 - 08-30-2022
(08-30-2022, 02:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The reason you are stuck in this circular argument is that you refuse to acknowledge what every NFL fan knows and what the numbers I posted prove. It is EXTREMELY rare to convert ANY 3rd-and-25.
All you do is keep ignoring the numbers I post. Apparently, you are trying to claim that some 3rd-and-25 conversions are not rare, but you never explain which ones these are.
But to shut you up about this vide I will REPEAT my original answer (which you claimed I never made). You can't point out "luck" on a video of a kid making a full court basketball shot. Therefore you can't base your argument on my inability to point out "luck" in the video of the play in question. And i have posted PROOF of how rare it is to convert a 3rd-and-25. Less than one out of a hundred. So if you are goig to claim that some third-and-25 conversions are NOT rare then please tell me which ones.
Fred...
I doubt anyone would disagree with this. I don't.
Your "luck" and "fluke" designation is where the argument comes in.
And to quote you from post #113.
(08-25-2022, 01:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Good to know we can now have the skill and coaching to convert a 3rd and 27 anytime we want to.
I look forward to us taking advantage of that a lot this year.
That's just silly and one instance of why i accused you of making stuff up. You need to stay outta the rabbit hole, man.
RE: What Vegas and the National Media is not talking about - PhilHos - 08-30-2022
(08-30-2022, 02:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes it does.
I asked for a percentage.
What was your answer?
I gave you my answer. It doesn't matter because you will attribute them all to luck regardless of what happens.
RE: What Vegas and the National Media is not talking about - fredtoast - 08-30-2022
(08-30-2022, 02:38 PM)Synric Wrote: What does a kid shooting a basketball at half court have to do with the KC vs Bengals 3rd and 27 conversion? Nothing. What does the other 100+ 3rd and 25+ oppurtonities have to do with the KC vs Bengals 3rd and 27 conversion.... Nothing.
They are both extremely rare.
Everyone agrees that rarity alone is enough to prove luck in a kid making a half court shot.
But then they all spin around and claim "rarity does not prove luck" whne it comes to converting a 3rd-and-25.
So I use these two examples to show the contradiction built into you argument.
Get it now?
RE: What Vegas and the National Media is not talking about - Nate (formerly eliminate08) - 08-30-2022
(08-30-2022, 02:44 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Fred...
I doubt anyone would disagree with this. I don't.
Your "luck" and "fluke" designation is where the argument comes in.
And to quote you from post #113.
That's just silly and one instance of why i accused you of making stuff up. You need to stay outta the rabbit hole, man.
Or the peyote...