- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,163
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 29,246
- Liked Posts:
- 25,229
- Location:
- USA
If you can understand his post, he meant from a FF perspective based on position.
Tillman has about twice as many FFs as Woodson which is his closest competitor from a position standpoint.........
- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,163
Again, it becoming an official stat or not won't make me any more or less impressed by the number. It's kind of a trivial factoid even now that it's being tracked. It still will never be as important as INTs or Fumbles recovered. I'd argue it's not even as important as sacks.
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 41,603
- Liked Posts:
- 39,820
FT why you h8ing on Tillman.... he was the GOATest of all time GOAT Cover-2 CB
- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,163
Ronde Barber
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 41,603
- Liked Posts:
- 39,820
Nah, Tillman has more FF.... its the GOATest of all time GOAT Cover-2 CB stat, where u been breh?
- Joined:
- Apr 11, 2009
- Posts:
- 23,367
- Liked Posts:
- 7,408
My favorite teams
Quit hating on Peanut! GOATest of all time GOAT Cover 2 CB!
PEANUT PUNCH FOREVER!
PEANUT PUNCH FOREVER!
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 41,603
- Liked Posts:
- 39,820
This guy gets it....
didshereallysaythat
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 14, 2011
- Posts:
- 20,413
- Liked Posts:
- 9,990
Why do you think it is trivial? Do you find it is more a product of being opportunistic due to bad running?
I don't think it is one of the most important stats, but I think it does hold some value.
- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,163
Because it's entirely outcome dependent. It's not really a clean number. If it doesn't generate a turnover a forced fumble is pretty meaningless.
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 29,246
- Liked Posts:
- 25,229
- Location:
- USA
I would argue the individual fumble recovered stat is more luck than actually forcing the fumble in the first place. The fumble only happens because of the forced fumble.
Fumble recovery is more luck than anything else. There are too many factors on how the ball bounces after it hits the ground. I believe there have been some number studies that showed the pure randomness of recovery.
However, there is an interesting article here which type of forced fumbles are more important. Down the field forced fumbles have a much higher, documented tendency to go towards the defense which is where the lion's share of Tillman's forced fumbles probably were.
- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,163
Ok..but the fumble recovery is more important.
That's all that was said.
Cool story. It's still more important than the forced fumble.
Cool story. How many of Tillman's fumbles were turnovers?
didshereallysaythat
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 14, 2011
- Posts:
- 20,413
- Liked Posts:
- 9,990
I get that. It's one of those attributes that is nice to have. The more you can force, the more turnovers you should make for your team.
I thought that the 44 forced fumbles Tillman had were recovered by the defense. I was wrong but I wonder how many of those led to turnovers? Roughly half most likely? So if he had 22 leading to turnovers and 12 recoveries, he could have had as many as 34 turnovers from fumbles (although probably less as some of those would be him recovering his own forced fumble).
It's an impressive stat, nonetheless.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TillCh20.htm
- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,163
What are you basing this on?
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 29,246
- Liked Posts:
- 25,229
- Location:
- USA
so what you are saying is that if player A hits someone or sticks his hand in and forces the ball out and it happens to hit the ground at the right angle at the feet of some random player B you are going to credit the player that happened to get lucky....
Player B doesn't recover the fumble unless Player A makes it happen. The ball is up for grabs but none of it happens without the player forcing the fumble.
I think you are being intellectually disingenuous. It is ok to recognize just how good Tillman was and how lucky another player, Major Wright for example, was at being at the right place at the right time.
I don't think many people here are arguing for Tillman's Hall appointment.
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 29,246
- Liked Posts:
- 25,229
- Location:
- USA
A. I disagree on an individual effort that the recovery is more important than the act of causing the fumble, which has been the crux of this discussion.
B. I don't have the stats on that as fumble recovery, as I have pointed out, is more luck than skill.
- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,163
OMG, you're dense. No, what I'm saying is the actual act of getting the turnover is more important than creating a possible chance at a turnover.
I'm not advocating for the NFL leader in fumble recoveries to go into the HOF, but talking about it from a strictly on the field "value" point.
I think you're being intellectually bankrupt.
- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,163
Then you're football Special person.
Getting a turnover over>>>>>>>>Not getting a turnover.
Ok cool, then shut up.
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 29,246
- Liked Posts:
- 25,229
- Location:
- USA
If want to discuss what it means from a team standpoint sure turnovers are king, however the whole discussion has been around individual effort and the Hall of Fame. Stop pretending it hasn't.
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 29,246
- Liked Posts:
- 25,229
- Location:
- USA
Since you have lost the argument on individual effort which was the point of this, I see you are trying to change the argument to your dumb-assed comment....
Its ok to admit you were wrong.
