Brady On Decline? Scout Matt Williamson Says So

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattC05. Show MattC05's posts

    Re: Brady On Decline? Scout Matt Williamson Says So

    In response to TFB12's comment:

     

    Ridley has not rushed for 1500 yards in a season unless you are counting regular and post season and still that would only be 1400 yards.

    If Ridley is to be counted on more he needs to hang onto the ball.  He fumbles 1 out of 73 carries.  That would be 2nd highest fumbles per carry out of the top 15 rushers in the league.  Jamaal Charles fumbles 1 out of every 57 carries. 

    The best would be... (AVE for Regular Season)

    Steven Jackson 0 fumbles out of 257 carries.

    Doug Martin fumbled 1 out of every 319 carries.

    Ray Rice fumbled 1 out of every 257 carries.

    Frank Gore fumbled 1 out of every 129 carries.

    Matt Forte fumbled 1 out of every 124 carries.

    Arian Foster fumbled 1 out of every 117 carries

    Adrian Peterson fumbled 1 out of every 116 carries.

    CJ Spiller fumbled 1 out of every 104 carries.

    Ben Jarvus Green Ellis fumbled 1 out of every 93 carries.

    Chris Johnson fumbled 1 out of every 92 carries.

    Shonn Green fumbled 1 out of every 92 carries.

    Alfred Morris fumbled 1 out of every 84 carries.

    Marshawn Lynch fumbled 1 out of every 79 carries.

    Steven Ridley fumbled 1 out of every 73 carries.

    Jamaal Charles fumbled 1 out of every 57 carries.

     

    ---------------------------------------------

    check out my Patriots photoshops @ patsfanfotoshop.tumblr.com for some good laughs.


    Photobucket


     




    "2nd highest out of the top 15 rushers in the league"

     

    Really?  That is... an odd delineation to make.  It reeks of twisting statistics to fit an agenda.

    He fumbles at a rate of approximately 4 times over a 300-carry season.  The #4 player on your list fumbles approximately 2.5 times over a 300-carry season.  In other words, there is no appreciable difference between the #4 and #14 players on your list.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Brady On Decline? Scout Matt Williamson Says So

    In response to MattC05's comment:

    In response to TFB12's comment:

     

    Ridley has not rushed for 1500 yards in a season unless you are counting regular and post season and still that would only be 1400 yards.

    If Ridley is to be counted on more he needs to hang onto the ball.  He fumbles 1 out of 73 carries.  That would be 2nd highest fumbles per carry out of the top 15 rushers in the league.  Jamaal Charles fumbles 1 out of every 57 carries. 

    The best would be... (AVE for Regular Season)

    Steven Jackson 0 fumbles out of 257 carries.

    Doug Martin fumbled 1 out of every 319 carries.

    Ray Rice fumbled 1 out of every 257 carries.

    Frank Gore fumbled 1 out of every 129 carries.

    Matt Forte fumbled 1 out of every 124 carries.

    Arian Foster fumbled 1 out of every 117 carries

    Adrian Peterson fumbled 1 out of every 116 carries.

    CJ Spiller fumbled 1 out of every 104 carries.

    Ben Jarvus Green Ellis fumbled 1 out of every 93 carries.

    Chris Johnson fumbled 1 out of every 92 carries.

    Shonn Green fumbled 1 out of every 92 carries.

    Alfred Morris fumbled 1 out of every 84 carries.

    Marshawn Lynch fumbled 1 out of every 79 carries.

    Steven Ridley fumbled 1 out of every 73 carries.

    Jamaal Charles fumbled 1 out of every 57 carries.

     

    ---------------------------------------------

    check out my Patriots photoshops @ patsfanfotoshop.tumblr.com for some good laughs.


    Photobucket


     




    "2nd highest out of the top 15 rushers in the league"

     

    Really?  That is... an odd delineation to make.  It reeks of twisting statistics to fit an agenda.

    He fumbles at a rate of approximately 4 times over a 300-carry season.  The #4 player on your list fumbles approximately 2.5 times over a 300-carry season.  In other words, there is no appreciable difference between the #4 and #14 players on your list.




    Not really Matt.

    It is such a comparatively small number but the difference is, Ridley fumbles in 1/4 games and the #4 fumbles in 1/6.5 games.  When you look at it that was, there is a vast difference.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattC05. Show MattC05's posts

    Re: Brady On Decline? Scout Matt Williamson Says So

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:


    Not really Matt.

     

    It is such a comparatively small number but the difference is, Ridley fumbles in 1/4 games and the #4 fumbles in 1/6.5 games.  When you look at it that was, there is a vast difference.



    No... that's not really a large difference at all.  And yes, it is a very small sample size, small enough that it's impossible to tell if this will be his career average, or if it's an outlier above or below where he will end up.

    For now, his fumble rate is pretty close to the league-wide average for running backs.  Close enough that you can say, yes, I'd like him to work on holding onto the ball, but it's not so bad that I would consider it an "issue" as so many on this board seem to think.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Brady On Decline? Scout Matt Williamson Says So

    I disagree Matt.  While the numbers are small, ball security is big.  Is there a difference between these RB numbers and QB's int to pass attempt numbers? 

    If Peyton Manning is allowing only 1 int per 53 pass attempts compared to Tony Romo's 1 int per 34 pass attempts who do you trust more with the ball?  Same goes for running backs.  Are you going to trust Ridley more with the ball over Rice or Gore? or even Foster?  I don't think so.  Gotta protect that ball.  And if the Pats want to give Ridley more touches, he is going to need to decrease his fumble %, IMO.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: Brady On Decline? Scout Matt Williamson Says So

     

    I still wish we had grabbed Steven Jackson for a couple years. That guy has to be hungry to play on a winning team. He's going to be stellar for Atlanta. Back to subject, if Brady is in decline then I fully expect bb to put in mallet or any other back up in junk time this year. I was a little disassapointed mallet never really got a shot last year. All I remember is one pass that his receiver botched and the ball was intercepted. I'd like to see him get in a rhythm.  

     


    Now you got the easy part done telling me about it.

    Does that handshaped bruise on your back hurt?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Brady On Decline? Scout Matt Williamson Says So

    Sorry Matt but I'm in agreement that is a bigger difference. We've seen that 1 fumble can cost you a game. We've also seen that 1 game can cost you a playoff spot (see 08'). So, while it could be minor it could also be a back breaker. It all depends when and where the fumble occurs. Now this can happen with any fumble but the higher the chance of fumble the higher chance that it will come at a critical moment. Thankfully I do think it is something correctable but it is something that should concerned all involved until he corrects it


    I swear by lil 10 pound bearded baby Jesus

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Brady On Decline? Scout Matt Williamson Says So

     

    In a way, a fumble or an interception should be no different.  Both are turnovers.  But I think BB seems to worry about fumbles more than interceptions because he sees running as a lower risk / lower reward strategy, while he sees passing as a higher risk / higher reward strategy.  Running is like a bond investment, while passing is like a stock investment. You tolerate some big losses in stocks because you know that's where the bigger gains are too.  If bonds start to get as risky as stocks, though, why would you invest in them?  Similarly, if running is going to be as risky as passing, why run?

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Brady On Decline? Scout Matt Williamson Says So

    In response to Philskiw1's comment:

     

    I still wish we had grabbed Steven Jackson for a couple years. That guy has to be hungry to play on a winning team. He's going to be stellar for Atlanta. Back to subject, if Brady is in decline then I fully expect bb to put in mallet or any other back up in junk time this year. I was a little disassapointed mallet never really got a shot last year. All I remember is one pass that his receiver botched and the ball was intercepted. I'd like to see him get in a rhythm.  

     


    Now you got the easy part done telling me about it.

    Does that handshaped bruise on your back hurt?




    Yes, I would have liked to see Jackson as a Patriot also.  And I agree, I believe he is going to do very well in Atlanta too.  And good for him, I was floored when I heard an interview with him and he said in all his years in the NFL he never had a winning season.  The best he has done was 8-8 (twice).

    I also agree with you on Mallet.  I was disappointed he didn't get more time last season when the Pats were up in the games.  Take Brady out when the game is all wrapped up andf let Mallet get some good reps in.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Brady On Decline? Scout Matt Williamson Says So

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In a way, a fumble or an interception should be no different.  Both are turnovers.  But I think BB seems to worry about fumbles more than interceptions because he sees running as a lower risk / lower reward strategy, while he sees passing as a higher risk / higher reward strategy.  Running is like a bond investment, while passing is like a stock investment. You tolerate some big losses in stocks because you know that's where the bigger gains are too.  If bonds start to get as risky as stocks, though, why would you invest in them?  Similarly, if running is going to be as risky as passing, why run?



    That's a pretty good analogy. If you think about it, a portion of ints usually come on 3rd downs and are semi longer passes. 3rd down long int's are often considered short punts with higher payoff risk while most running fumbles are on 1st and 2nds down and give better field position to the opponent than most int's. So in a way I would agree with BB that not all turnovers are equal. Because of down and field position considerations I would say fumbles are the worse turnover

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from crazyworldoftroybrown. Show crazyworldoftroybrown's posts

    Re: Brady On Decline? Scout Matt Williamson Says So


    Both are bad. But, when it happens in the Red Zone, or down your end of the Field, doesn't matter INT's or Fumbles. Turnovers that lead to  EASY points, or preventing you from scoring is the difference.
    Bottom line win the Turnover battle during the game, especially if your team doesn't turn it over, very, very, good chance you'll win the game.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattC05. Show MattC05's posts

    Re: Brady On Decline? Scout Matt Williamson Says So

    In response to TFB12's comment:

    I disagree Matt.  While the numbers are small, ball security is big.  Is there a difference between these RB numbers and QB's int to pass attempt numbers? 

    If Peyton Manning is allowing only 1 int per 53 pass attempts compared to Tony Romo's 1 int per 34 pass attempts who do you trust more with the ball?  Same goes for running backs.  Are you going to trust Ridley more with the ball over Rice or Gore? or even Foster?  I don't think so.  Gotta protect that ball.  And if the Pats want to give Ridley more touches, he is going to need to decrease his fumble %, IMO.



    Are we now comparing Ridley to 3 of the best RBs in the game?  I'd take Rice, Gore or Foster for reasons completely unrelated to fumbles.

    The reason a small sample size is important is because it's not an accurate representation of his actual proclivity for fumbling.  Unfortunately with Ridley, we only have 1 season of data to go by; all those other guys, though, we have career numbers for.  Frank Gore, through his first 6 years, fumbled once every 62 carries.  Foster in 2011 fumbled once every 69.  Both of those guys posted career-best fumble percentages in 2012.  Rice has always had good hands... until you get to the postseason, where he puts the ball on the ground once every 38 touches.  Adrian Peterson, through his first 3 years, fumbled once every 50 touches.  

    The fact is, Ridley playing one season and fumbling at a league-average rate is not indicative of a fumbling problem.  Comparing Ridley's one full year in the league to a number of backs who posted career-best fumbling percentages is intellectually dishonest.  Especially when his numbers aren't really that far off.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattC05. Show MattC05's posts

    Re: Brady On Decline? Scout Matt Williamson Says So

    In response to Bunker Spreckles' comment:

    Anyone know why this thread/first post was deleted?



    I'm pretty sure when an account is banned, all posts are deleted.  If you were banned for something else, this post gets automatically deleted.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Brady On Decline? Scout Matt Williamson Says So

    In response to MattC05's comment:

     

    Are we now comparing Ridley to 3 of the best RBs in the game?  I'd take Rice, Gore or Foster for reasons completely unrelated to fumbles.

     

    The reason a small sample size is important is because it's not an accurate representation of his actual proclivity for fumbling.  Unfortunately with Ridley, we only have 1 season of data to go by; all those other guys, though, we have career numbers for.  Frank Gore, through his first 6 years, fumbled once every 62 carries.  Foster in 2011 fumbled once every 69.  Both of those guys posted career-best fumble percentages in 2012.  Rice has always had good hands... until you get to the postseason, where he puts the ball on the ground once every 38 touches.  Adrian Peterson, through his first 3 years, fumbled once every 50 touches.  

    The fact is, Ridley playing one season and fumbling at a league-average rate is not indicative of a fumbling problem.  Comparing Ridley's one full year in the league to a number of backs who posted career-best fumbling percentages is intellectually dishonest.  Especially when his numbers aren't really that far off.



    Okay, how about Matt Forte 1 fumble per 124 carries compared to Ridley 1 fumble to 73 carries.  Doug Martin, Steven Jackson also have outstanding ball security.  And we haven't even touched TD's per fumble.  Martin ave 11 td's per fumble, Rice 9 td's per fumble, Foster 5 td's per fumble.  Ridley 3 td's per fumble.  Any way you want to slice it Ridley has to have better ball security if we want him getting the ball more.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattC05. Show MattC05's posts

    Re: Brady On Decline? Scout Matt Williamson Says So

    In response to TFB12's comment:


    Okay, how about Matt Forte 1 fumble per 124 carries compared to Ridley 1 fumble to 73 carries.  Doug Martin, Steven Jackson also have outstanding ball security.  And we haven't even touched TD's per fumble.  Martin ave 11 td's per fumble, Rice 9 td's per fumble, Foster 5 td's per fumble.  Ridley 3 td's per fumble.  Any way you want to slice it Ridley has to have better ball security if we want him getting the ball more.



    What on earth is "TDs per fumble"?  Are we just making up statistics that are completely pointless now?  Hell, Ridley has the best "fumbles per letter D in his last name" of any of those guys.

    Which part of Ridley had a league average season in terms of fumbling don't you understand?  When you're talking about a statistic like fumbles, which occur so very rarely, a single season's worth of data is pointless.  24 of the top 30 running backs in the league in terms of attempts had between 2 and 5 fumbles.  In terms of fumbles lost (you know, actual turnovers?), the number is 0 and 4 (Ridley had 2).  Frankly, no running back this season had what I consider a really bad year fumbling the ball.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Salcon. Show Salcon's posts

    Re: Brady On Decline? Scout Matt Williamson Says So

    In response to Bunker Spreckles' comment:

    Anyone know why this thread/first post was deleted?



    They banned you.  What do you not understand about that?

    Just because you start a new account or resurrect an old one of your many older ones dosen't mean you get to start over with a clean slate.

    They obviously know who you are as we all do and know your other many alter egos and are deleting you where ever you go because you're BANNED.  

    Banned means you're not supposed to come back here in any incarnation I believe.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Brady On Decline? Scout Matt Williamson Says So

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In a way, a fumble or an interception should be no different.  Both are turnovers.  But I think BB seems to worry about fumbles more than interceptions because he sees running as a lower risk / lower reward strategy, while he sees passing as a higher risk / higher reward strategy.  Running is like a bond investment, while passing is like a stock investment. You tolerate some big losses in stocks because you know that's where the bigger gains are too.  If bonds start to get as risky as stocks, though, why would you invest in them?  Similarly, if running is going to be as risky as passing, why run?

     



    That's a pretty good analogy. If you think about it, a portion of ints usually come on 3rd downs and are semi longer passes. 3rd down long int's are often considered short punts with higher payoff risk while most running fumbles are on 1st and 2nds down and give better field position to the opponent than most int's. So in a way I would agree with BB that not all turnovers are equal. Because of down and field position considerations I would say fumbles are the worse turnover

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's a good point too Eng (the fact that some third down interceptions aren't much different than punts).  The one thing that might weigh in the other direction (if the stats, which I don't have, bear it out) is that interceptions may be more likely to be returned for longer gains or scores than fumbles, since interceptions tend to occur in space while fumbles tend to occur in tight quarters.

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Brady On Decline? Scout Matt Williamson Says So

    Brady at an advanced age, if healthy, is more dangerous than Brady at 21 or 23.

    The Patriot's offense hasn't been consistent (tough) in the postseason like those units of old, but that may change this year with another season of strong running (important) and bigger, stronger receivers.  Our tightends and fullbacks add a lot of toughness to this unit.

    The Pats have been so good, for so long that other teams bring their best every time they play us, that's why we haven't won, not because of any single player.  "Fans" who expect championships every single year, that expect every draft pick to land, every free agent to work out are unrealistic.  It's not easy to win a championship, every year there are 31 teams that don't.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Brady On Decline? Scout Matt Williamson Says So

     

     Sort of off topic, but does anyone know how the censoring of posts or outright banning of posters occurs? Is there really a person (or group of people) moderating the thread or is it automated so that posts get deleted if they are reported as abusive by enough people and posters get banned if enough of their comments are reported as abusive?

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Brady On Decline? Scout Matt Williamson Says So


    it most likely has something to do with his antics over on the Bruins board as well...as he continuously gets bludgeoned over there, he starts his usual antics and gets banned. if he is banned over there, he is banned on the Pats board as well....I thought his whippings on the Pats board were hard on him, but those Bruins fans kill him...

    its down right comical he draws the conclusion that it is a vendetta or personal with the mods...ESPN = anti BB agenda. BDC mods = anti Rusty agenda

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: Brady On Decline? Scout Matt Williamson Says So

    Theres no way to rate the importance of when a fumble occurs.  For example a fumble on 3rd down in the 4th qtr could be more important then a fumble when your up 21 in the 2nd. When Ridley got knocked out the game turned. i agree with who ever posted it that if a team tends to fumble when they run they tend not to run. 

     


    Now you got the easy part done telling me about it.

    Does that handshaped bruise on your back hurt?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share