There is no such thing as a "lucky" turnover

[Rockport]

It wasn't, because if our guys weren't aware enough to pounce on the ball, there is no turnover.

oooooookay.

 

[Doomsday101]

The harder we work at it, the luckier we seem to get. I'll take em.

Yep. And some of those things like the over throws Dallas was putting good pressure on Manning and while at time he made some great throws there were other times the pressure forced him to throw it poorly. I know for sure guys who stand around without a clue do not fall on many loose balls, with this bunch and this staff if the ball hits the turf they are on it and let the offical determine afterwards if it was or wasn't a fumble.

 

[SDCowboy]

oooooookay.

I'm still going to assume this is a joke thread and we're being trolled right now. At least I hope so.

 

[Rockport]

I'm still going to assume this is a joke thread and we're being trolled right now. At least I hope so.

That's really the only thing that makes sense.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

That's really the only thing that makes sense.

I'm sorry neither of you can come up with an actual intelligent counter-argument.

 

[SDCowboy]

I'm sorry neither of you can come up with an actual intelligent counter-argument.

We have. You seem to either not know how turnovers work or what luck is.

 

[Rockport]

I'm sorry neither of you can come up with an actual intelligent counter-argument.

How can you counter someone who says there are no such things as lucky turnovers? You taking the Clinton approach to the debate is telling.

 

[SDCowboy]

You can force a fumble, for example, but it is complete luck which direction the ball goes. Said fumble is only a turnover if the opposite team comes up with it. Who the ball bounced to, on said fumble, is complete luck. Put the pieces together. It's not that tough. There is more to a turnover than what caused the other team to lose the ball.

Still waiting for him to refute this...

 

[TheRomoSexual]

We have. You seem to either not know how turnovers work or what luck is.

No, you seem to be under the impression that my argument is that luck plays no part in turnovers, which is so off base it's almost amusing.

No, my argument is that ALL turnovers are due to luck to some degree and NO turnover is only due to luck, so creating a distinction because of "luck" is silly. Honestly, I'm stunned that neither of you can follow such a simple position.

 

[SDCowboy]

No, you seem to be under the impression that my argument is that luck plays no part in turnovers, which is so off base it's almost amusing.

No, my argument is that ALL turnovers are due to luck to some degree and NO turnover is only due to luck, so creating a distinction because of "luck" is silly. Honestly, I'm stunned that neither of you can follow such a simple position.

All turnovers ARE partially due to luck. It takes skill and awareness to act on that luck, but it's still luck. Take the Carr INT at the end of the game...it took skill for Carr to be aware of the ball coming his way and acting on it, but the ball coming his way, in and of itself, is LUCK. If the ball doesn't come him way, he can't make the INT.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

All turnovers ARE partially due to luck. It takes skill and awareness to act on that luck, but it's still luck. Take the Carr INT at the end of the game...it took skill for Carr to be aware of the ball coming his way, but the ball coming his way, in and of itself, is LUCK. If the ball doesn't come him way, he can't make the INT.

Haha, wow, you just made my argument for me. Thank you. So you admit that NO turnover is due ENTIRELY to luck, right?

 

[SDCowboy]

Haha, wow, you just made my argument for me. Thank you. So you admit that NO turnover is due ENTIRELY to luck, right?

I never said it was. All my point was, is all turnovers include luck.

 

[Doomsday101]

All turnovers ARE partially due to luck. It takes skill and awareness to act on that luck, but it's still luck. Take the Carr INT at the end of the game...it took skill for Carr to be aware of the ball coming his way and acting on it, but the ball coming his way, in and of itself, is LUCK. If the ball doesn't come him way, he can't make the INT.

True but then if Lee does not change the call at the line of scrimmage is Carr then in the position to make the int? I agree some luck is involved but I have also noticed over the years the better teams tend to be the so called luckiest teams. Does the ball bounce their way or do they just hustle and keep their head in the games and that is why they manage to come up with the loose ball or the over thrown ball?

 

[SDCowboy]

True but then if Lee does not change the call at the line of scrimmage is Carr then in the position to make the int? I agree some luck is involved but I have also noticed over the years the better teams tend to be the so called luckiest teams. Does the ball bounce their way or do they just hustle and keep their head in the games and that is why they manage to come up with the loose ball or the over thrown ball?

Right. There's no doubt there's skill involved. Typically lots of it. But luck is still part of every turnover unless the QB just walks up to a defender and hands him the football. lol

 

[TheRomoSexual]

I never said it was. All my point was, is all turnovers include luck.

Honestly, are you even reading what I'm writing? I've admitted that luck is a part of every turnover -- in fact, that's my exact point. Since every turnover is partially due to luck and none are due entirely to luck, creating a black and white distinction based on luck is idiotic.

 

[Rockport]

Again, I'm not saying luck isn't part of the game, and if you got that from my post you need to read again. I'm saying there is no such thing as a lucky turnover.[/quote]

When you say things like this, you open yourself up for ridicule.

 

[SDCowboy]

Honestly, are you even reading what I'm writing. I've admitted that luck is a part of every turnover -- in fact, that's my exact point. Since every turnover is partially due to luck and none are due entirely to luck, creating a black and white distinction based on luck is idiotic.

I don't know...if it's one of those turnovers where the QB just throws it right into a defender's gut, I don't factor much skill into the equation there, but I see your point.

 

[Doomsday101]

Right. There's no doubt there's skill involved. Typically lots of it. But luck is still part of every turnover unless the QB just walks up to a defender and hands him the football. lol

True but then teams go a long way in making their own luck because they do hustle, they do swarm to the ball they play through the whistle. There is a reason Marinelli works on this with his players and not an accident that his teams have always create a lot of turnovers.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

Trust me AmberBeer, I'm not too concerned about ridicule from someone who can't follow an argument and can't figure out how to use the quote function.

 

[SDCowboy]

True but then teams go a long way in making their own luck because they do hustle, they do swarm to the ball they play through the whistle. There is a reason Marinelli works on this with his players and not an accident that his teams have always create a lot of turnovers.

Agreed completely. It's about putting yourself in situations to take advantage of that luck or to increase the odds of it.