- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,105
Tillman's only real comparison is Charles Woodson.
:aj:
Holy shit.
Tillman's only real comparison is Charles Woodson.
:aj:
Holy shit.
You might not be impressed, but it is becoming more relevant with the media and stat tracking. As I mentioned, Elias really holds the key and people who vote on the Hall of Fame. FFs weren't really talked about much until Tillman. He really helped put the stat on the map. It isn't enough, as it stands, to get him into the Hall however.
FT why you h8ing on Tillman.... he was the GOATest of all time GOAT Cover-2 CB
Ronde Barber
Quit hating on Peanut! GOATest of all time GOAT Cover 2 CB!
PEANUT PUNCH FOREVER!
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.
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.Why do you think it is trivial?
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.
Ok..but the fumble recovery is more important.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.
Cool story. It's still more important than the forced fumble.Fumble recovery is more luck than anything else.
Cool story. How many of Tillman's fumbles were turnovers?, documented tendency to go towards the defense which is where the lion's share of Tillman's forced fumbles probably were.
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.
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?
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.
Cool story. It's still more important than the forced fumble.
Cool story. How many of Tillman's fumbles were turnovers?
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....
I think you're being intellectually bankrupt.I think you are being intellectually disingenuous.
Then you're football Special person.A. I disagree on an individual effort that the recovery is more important than the act of causing the fumble,
Ok cool, then shut up.B. I don't have the stats on that as fumble recovery.
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.
Then you're football Special person.
Getting a turnover over>>>>>>>>Not getting a turnover.
Ok cool, then shut up.