Who is willing to accept 40 turnovers by the QB this year?

[Stautner]

Sounds as if your trying to convince yourself of something. As I said earlier, everybody has heard what you have to say. Anybody can compare the QBs if they wish to. I'm not all that worried about what will be found. Would actually be a positive thing IMO.

Wow - in the face of overwhelming evidence (the comparisons have already been made, despite your head being stuck in the sand) ....... and despite the fact that every single poster on this subject besides you has agreed that your statements are false and misleading, you STILL are convinced that you are right and everyone agrees with you but me.

I guess it's a nice world to live in ........

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

More smoke screen.

Discussions do turn, but that's not what was happening.

You were trying to dispute what I and others had been saying ........

and you did it by pointing to a fragment of your comments about sacks which was irrelevent to the discussion ......

you tried to prove that you didn't make ANY false statements by pointing to the fragment of your comments that was never in dispute to begin with.

I don't agree with this statement. Review the post. I think you'll find that I did not agree with the fact that he would commite 40 TOs this year. My first post states that his career average, per season is 19.46. I go on to say that over the last three seasons, his average has increased to 22.66. I did not include this season in any of these figures because the season for obvious reasons. I go on to discuss +/- ratios and point out that there are other QBs who have simular or even worse ratios at this point in there careers. This is what is discussed in my post. I can not see how you can construe this otherwise. So far as I can see, you have not proven that I have made any false statements, to this point. That is simply you trying to win a preceived argument as opposed to wanting to discuss intelligently and leaving the other BS aside IMO.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Wow - in the face of overwhelming evidence (the comparisons have already been made, despite your head being stuck in the sand) ....... and despite the fact that every single poster on this subject besides you has agreed that your statements are false and misleading, you STILL are convinced that you are right and everyone agrees with you but me.

I guess it's a nice world to live in ........

I don't view it as such. In fact, I don't see where you have provided any evidence at all in regards to the subject I understood this thread to be about, which is Turn Overs, not Interception Ratio.

I would not be so ignorant as to say that everybody agrees with me because that's unrealistic. You see, I am not affraid of posters looking at this subject and actually evaluating it with good discussion. This is the reason I joined this board to begin with. Discussion such as the one I'm having now is the single biggest draw back from what is otherwise a very ejoyable experience for me as part of this community. It is OK if people disagree with me. Even everybody at times. That too has happened on occasion. It's OK if it does.

Finally, your last comment. I toyed with the idea of providing an inflamitory response but then thought better of it. Safice to say that we all live in the same world and it is not always pleasent but there are times when it is more pleasent then others.

Have a good day Ernie.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

..... and despite the fact that every single poster on this subject besides you has agreed that your statements are false and misleading,......

Don't talk for others because you are incorrect. His statements are verifiable facts and are only misleading to those with the IQ of an artichoke.

Fact: Bledsoe's only a few seasons away from becoming the all time leader in times sacked.

Fact: Bledsoe produces fewer TDs per Turnover than almost any other QB in history with a fairly long career.

What is so hard to understand or be "mislead" about?

 

[Stautner]

I don't agree with this statement. Review the post. I think you'll find that I did not agree with the fact that he would commite 40 TOs this year. My first post states that his career average, per season is 19.46. I go on to say that over the last three seasons, his average has increased to 22.66. I did not include this season in any of these figures because the season for obvious reasons. I go on to discuss +/- ratios and point out that there are other QBs who have simular or even worse ratios at this point in there careers. This is what is discussed in my post. I can not see how you can construe this otherwise. So far as I can see, you have not proven that I have made any false statements, to this point. That is simply you trying to win a preceived argument as opposed to wanting to discuss intelligently and leaving the other BS aside IMO.

Your FIRST post stated that his career average was 19.46 TO's per season - are you sure .....?

Even so, without the numbers of other QB's what does 19.46 turnovers per season mean .......? You have to provide points of comparison - and not George Blanda who was strictly a FG kicker for a large portion of his career.

But here's an example, Brett Favre has averaged 22.2 turnovers per season (I left out his first year when he didn't play and didn't include 2006 - but you left out Bledsoe's injury season and 2006).

Besides, turnovers per season is a false indicator - all players don't start or play in the same number of games or the same number of snaps every year, they all have a different number of opportunities to handle the ball, some throw a lot more which provides the biggest opportunities for turnovers, while others are on run oriented teams .........

By that criteria a guy that throws 15 interceptions in 200 passing attempts is better at protecting the ball than a QB who throws 16 interceptions in 400 passing attempts.

Also by that criteria it's hard to factor in all average, poor and really bad QB's because they were never good enough to start year to year - or even play consistently for much of their career. REMEMBER - you said, ALL TIME ........

you've never once addressed that - you tend to ignore that ALL TIME includes the multitude of Quincy Carters and Babe Laufenbergs and Chad Hutchinsons and Ryan Leafs of the world - and hundreds more like them.

 

[Stautner]

Don't talk for others because you are incorrect. His statements are verifiable facts and are only misleading to those with the IQ of an artichoke.

Fact: Bledsoe's only a few seasons away from becoming the all time leader in times sacked.

Fact: Bledsoe produces fewer TDs per Turnover than almost any other QB in history with a fairly long career.

What is so hard to understand or be "mislead" about?

FACT: he said Bledsoe's turnover RATIO was among the highest of all time - which is what I was disputing.

Obviously if a QB plays as long as Bledsoe he will have high turnover TOTALS - which is why guys like Favre and Elway are high in those categories.

FACT: TD's per turnover was not the issue - turnovers were .....

FACT: The "fairly long career" was never mentioned - he said ALL TIME .....he's changed the criteria about 4-5 times and now you are doing the same.

You are letting him influence you with his smokescreens ....... you aren't even talking about the original dispute at all.


OH - AND BY THE WAY - you are the one who caught his bogus numbers about Blanda and not factoring in how much playing time people got and 14 game seasons vs. 16 games (btw, much of Blanda's career was in 12 game seasons) ........ you even caught him in obvious *** covering ......

 

[StanleySpadowski]

FACT: he said Bledsoe's turnover RATIO was among the highest of all time - which is what I was disputing.

Obviously if a QB plays as long as Bledsoe he will have high turnover TOTALS - which is why guys like Favre and Elway are high in those categories.

FACT: TD's per turnover was not the issue - turnovers were .....

FACT: The "fairly long career" was never mentioned - he said ALL TIME .....he's changed the criteria about 4-5 times and now you are doing the same.

You are letting him influence you with his smokescreens ....... you aren't even talking about the original dispute at all.


OH - AND BY THE WAY - you are the one who caught his bogus numbers about Blanda and not factoring in how much playing time people got and 14 game seasons vs. 16 games (btw, much of Blanda's career was in 12 game seasons) ........ you even caught him in obvious *** covering ......

I added "fairly long career" because I wasn't going to waste my time verifying his research by looking at the Clint Longely's and Drew Henson's of the world. Do you realize how many QBs have thrown a pass in NFL history?


The original "dispute" was was his contention that Bledsoe could be the all time loser in the sack category and TD/TO ratio category.

And I didn't "catch" him at anything. I was merely attempting to discuss something with a knowledgeble poster in an intelligent manner. Somethig that you obviously need to learn about.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Your FIRST post stated that his career average was 19.46 TO's per season - are you sure .....?

Even so, without providing numbers of other QB's what the heck does 19.46 turnovers per season mean .......? You have to provide points of comparison - and not George Blanda who was strictly a FG kicker for a large portion of his career.

But here's an example, Brett Favre has averaged 22.2 turnovers per season (I left out his first year when he didn't play and didn't include 2006 - but you left out Bledsoe's injury season and 2006).

Besides, turnovers per season is a false indicator - all players don't start or play in the same number of games or the same number of snaps every year, they all have a different number of opportunities to handle the ball, some throw a lot more which provides the biggest opportunities for turnovers, while others are on run oriented teams .........

By that criteria a guy that throws 15 interceptions in 200 passing attempts is better at protecting the ball than a QB who throws 16 interceptions in 400 passing attempts.

Also by that criteria it's hard to factor in all average, poor and really bad QB's because they were never good enough to start year to year - or even play consistently for much of their career. REMEMBER - you said, ALL TIME ........

you've never once addressed that - you tend to ignore that ALL TIME includes the multitude of Quincy Carters and Babe Laufenbergs and Chad Hutchinsons and Ryan Leafs of the world - and hundreds more like them.

I guess I just don't understand why I have to continually repeat myself for you.

Believe me, just cause you say something over and over does not make it a fact.

I discussed Brett Favre and his TO ratios. I included all of his seasons, even the one in Atlanta because it speaks to the body of work. Most QBs will have a certain amount of time, that they do not play. I actually included the seasons that Bledsoe did not play in my calculation. This only helps the ratio but if you like, I will calculate it without the seasons he acutally played. It will be higher.

Including all seasons played (except the current season), Bledsoe's TO average, per season, for his career is 19.46. Favre's is 20.86 for his career. If you take out the seasons that both players didn't play, the ratios look like this.

Favre 23.92 per season. Total INT/FMBL-current season and intitial season.

Bledsoe 21.08 per season. Total INT/FMBL - current and 2001 season.

However, the telling tale here is Plus/Minus. While Favre is averaging more TOs per season, he's also averaging more TDs.

Bledsoe is negative in this respect. For his entire career, he is -9. Favre is +95. Yeah, he commites more total TOs but his ratio is much higher. Even if you take out the seasons they didn't play, Bledsoe's per season ratio, in this respect is -0.69 per season while Favre is +6.33 per season. If you subtract the seasons they didn't play, the ratios get even more favorable for Favre. Bledsoe is then at -1 for 13 seasons played, and -.076 per season (a bit better) while Farve is at +97 for 12 seasons played with a ratio of 8.08 per season.

 

[Stautner]

I calculated in the fumbles of other QBs. Bledsoe's ratio is very high for his career and going up. I didn't use pass attempts because that tells half the story. If you read my reply to Stan, you will see that I've already acknowledge that the best way to do this was to take all offensive plays any given QB has played in a career and use that as the dinominator. However, I don't have that info so again, I used seasons played. In reality, I explained all of this very early on in my posts. I encourage you to factor in the fumbles. I think you'll find that it doesn't help Bledsoe at all. How could it. I'm fine with comparing him to all others but again, I'm not using pass attempts as the standard. I've repeatedly said this.


Do the calculation and see where he's at. I asked you to do this earlier and you said I was full of crap. Fine, that's why I asked you to do it. See for yourself.

It's really a production comparison I'm trying to reach. You continue to accuse of back peddling and all this sort of stuff but in the end, the numbers are still telling a story. Say what you want about me but do that comparisons. Compare total number of Turn Overs against total number of TDs. See what the plus minus looks like.

You've calculated the numbers, well ..................... waiting ....................

And you keep talking about TD's - that was not your issue - it was turnover ratio - not turnover to TD ratio. You are changing the criteria like you have 4-5 times.

And I gave many examples - you give one. And that example is arguably the best QB of all time (at least among them) - what about all the average and below average QB;s that make up the list of ALL TIME QB's?

And you never account for the fact that seasonal info is flawed in that it doesn't take into account how many opportunities a player has to turn the ball over ........

As I said before, your criteria would rate a QB with 15 INT's in 200 attempts as being better than a QB with 16 INT's in 400 attempts.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You've calculated the numbers, well ..................... waiting ....................

With my limited experience in dealing with you, I'd hazard a guess that this is what will be engraved on your tombstone.

You've basically called me a liar and disputed all the examples I've given you. I suggest you do these calculations your self so that you can be sure I am not trying to provide you with false information.

However, I will say that I compared all the players you mentioned previously. I suggest you do the same. I think it might be a good comparison.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

At some point, Bledsoe is going to have to connect 2 to 3 games including a great game against a great opponent together, or even the stubborn Bill will have to make a move.

Clove, did you change your sig??

I seem to remember it saying changing sigs til we are in the super bowl, not playoffs, am I right??

No saying the change isn't waranteed given Bledsoe and the OL's play, lol.

BTW, yes, this is unacceptable, but I don't know what we will do at this point. BP is in deep with Bledsoe, all we can do is watch and see. The problem is we have some easier games coming up, and Bledsoe could look good enough to keep his job. It would create a mirage that Bledsoe has somehow changed. We just have to make sure not to lose our memory.

 

[Stautner]

With my limited experience in dealing with you, I'd hazard a guess that this is what will be engraved on your tombstone.

You've basically called me a liar and disputed all the examples I've given you. I suggest you do these calculations your self so that you can be sure I am not trying to provide you with false information.

However, I will say that I compared all the players you mentioned previously. I suggest you do the same. I think it might be a good comparison.

Buddy - the burden of proof is on YOU to back up what YOU say.

YOU made the claim - YOU have to live with the facts.

Heck, I could say the moon was made of cheese - should I expect others to blindly accept it or should I expect to be questioned?

Even with the multitude of times you have backpeddled and changed the criteria to make it easier to prove your case you fall short.

The ONLY criteria where you "may" have a point is turnover to TD ratio, and even then:

(A) turnover to TD ratio was never the topic anyway - you only backpeddled and turned to that criteria after multiple failed attempts to prop up your original claim, and

(B) Bledsoe isn't among the worst of ALL TIME - although by that criteria he doesn't rate so high compared to guys with similar tenures.

ALL TIME covers a lot of QB's .......

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Buddy - the burden of proof is on YOU to back up what YOU say.

YOU made the claim - YOU have to live with the facts.

Heck, I could say the moon was made of cheese - should I expect others to blindly accept it or should I expect to be questioned?

Even with the multitude of times you have backpeddled and changed the criteria to make it easier to prove your case you fall short.

The ONLY criteria where you "may" have a point is turnover to TD ratio, and even then:

(A) turnover to TD ratio was never the topic anyway - you only backpeddled and turned to that criteria after multiple failed attempts to prop up your original claim, and

(B) Bledsoe isn't among the worst of ALL TIME - although by that criteria he doesn't rate so high compared to guys with similar tenures.

Ernie, I'm not your Buddy. You have made that perfectly clear and I am OK with that.

Secondly, there is no burden of proof to be on anybody here. That went out the window when you elected to go away from intelligent discussion. You don't believe what it is I'm saying, that's fine. You don't have to.

I do not care if you say the moon is made of cheese or not. As in many cases, I have come to understand that your interest here is not in discussion but in something else entirely. I simply am not interested in going down that path. It is a wasted effort.

The numbers do not lie. Anybody can check them out for themselves. Make your claims, I'm good with whatever.

Your just going to have to live with the fact that you do not rank high enough on the chain to deserve any more of my time. Everybody, including me, is tired of this rediculous display. I will excuse myself from this stupidity and bid you good day Ernie.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

Buddy - the burden of proof is on YOU to back up what YOU say.

YOU made the claim - YOU have to live with the facts.

Heck, I could say the moon was made of cheese - should I expect others to blindly accept it or should I expect to be questioned?

Even with the multitude of times you have backpeddled and changed the criteria to make it easier to prove your case you fall short.

The ONLY criteria where you "may" have a point is turnover to TD ratio, and even then:

(A) turnover to TD ratio was never the topic anyway - you only backpeddled and turned to that criteria after multiple failed attempts to prop up your original claim, and

(B) Bledsoe isn't among the worst of ALL TIME - although by that criteria he doesn't rate so high compared to guys with similar tenures.

ALL TIME covers a lot of QB's .......

Ernie, I'm not your Buddy. You have made that perfectly clear and I am OK with that.

Secondly, there is no burden of proof to be on anybody here. That went out the window when you elected to go away from intelligent discussion. You don't believe what it is I'm saying, that's fine. You don't have to.

I do not care if you say the moon is made of cheese or not. As in many cases, I have come to understand that your interest here is not in discussion but in something else entirely. I simply am not interested in going down that path. It is a wasted effort.

The numbers do not lie. Anybody can check them out for themselves. Make your claims, I'm good with whatever.

Your just going to have to live with the fact that you do not rank high enough on the chain to deserve any more of my time. Everybody, including me, is tired of this rediculous display. I will excuse myself from this stupidity and bid you good day Ernie.

Guys, I can see what you are saying, and understand it, as you know I would. My problem isn't all the stats you guys are talking about for his career, those really don't matter to me. What does bother me is his play presently.

So he has had some bad games recently, are they the begining of a new trend of bad play?? Will that play continue from here on out?? You guys are throwing out some good stats of the distant past, but really, right now, all I care about is what he has done with the star on his helmet.

Right now, that is what I'm unhappy with. Guess I need a crystal ball, lol, but I just wonder if I can trust Bledsoe in a tough situation. Can I trust him in a game that will test him. Right now, I'm not too confident at all.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Guys, I can see what you are saying, and understand it, as you know I would. My problem isn't all the stats you guys are talking about for his career, those really don't matter to me. What does bother me is his play presently.

So he has had some bad games recently, are they the begining of a new trend of bad play?? Will that play continue from here on out?? You guys are throwing out some good stats of the distant past, but really, right now, all I care about is what he has done with the star on his helmet.

Right now, that is what I'm unhappy with. Guess I need a crystal ball, lol, but I just wonder if I can trust Bledsoe in a tough situation. Can I trust him in a game that will test him. Right now, I'm not too confident at all.

I think your part of a fairly large club there. I think many of us share your concerns. Sucks but that's the way it is.

 

[superpunk]

I don't know, but someone ought to try to prove something at some time.

All I've seen over about the past 20 posts is

"You prove your point."

"No, you prove my point."

"No way. I'm not proving anything til you prove something."

I think this argument has been proved pointless.

 

[Stautner]

Ernie, I'm not your Buddy. You have made that perfectly clear and I am OK with that.

Secondly, there is no burden of proof to be on anybody here. That went out the window when you elected to go away from intelligent discussion. You don't believe what it is I'm saying, that's fine. You don't have to.

I do not care if you say the moon is made of cheese or not. As in many cases, I have come to understand that your interest here is not in discussion but in something else entirely. I simply am not interested in going down that path. It is a wasted effort.

The numbers do not lie. Anybody can check them out for themselves. Make your claims, I'm good with whatever.

Your just going to have to live with the fact that you do not rank high enough on the chain to deserve any more of my time. Everybody, including me, is tired of this rediculous display. I will excuse myself from this stupidity and bid you good day Ernie.

Any possible intelligent discussion went out the window when you started trying to cover your false claims with irrelevent points - like claiming that the fact that Bledsoe is high on the alltime sack list somehow proved you didn't make false statements about his turnover ratio.

Apparently intelligent discussion for you means responses from people who are too stupid to see that sacks and turnovers are not the same thing.

All this would have been avoided and slipped into nothingness had you been able to back up your claim or accepted that it was an exxageration, but you stubbornly kept on and on and on changing the criteria and discussing points that had nothing to do with the topic to cover your tracks.

But you have your out now - you've decided I'm just not important enough to care about ........

That gets you off the hook - you can make any baseless statement at all and just fall back on that line if anyone questions it.

So, now that we know the rules, I'm going to inform you that I know I'm right because I'm the Official NFL Statistician - and if you think I'm lying it doesn't matter - you aren't important enough for me to care about.

WOW - that does work ...... I might decide to be Peyton Manning next - that would be fun......

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't know, but someone ought to try to prove something at some time.

All I've seen over about the past 20 posts is

"You prove your point."

"No, you prove my point."

"No way. I'm not proving anything til you prove something."

I think this argument has been proved pointless.

LOL.....


I think you should prove both our points SP. That should take about another 20 pages.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Any possible intelligent discussion went out the window when you started trying to cover your false claims with irrelevent points - like claiming that the fact that Bledsoe is high on the alltime sack list somehow proved you didn't make false statements about his turnover ratio.

Apparently intelligent discussion for you means responses from people who are too stupid to see that sacks and turnovers are not the same thing.

All this would have been avoided and quickly slipped into nothingness had you been able to back up or claim or accepted that it was an exxageration, but instead you kept on and on and on trying to cover your statements by changing the criteria and discussing points that had nothing to do with the topic.

But you have your out now - you've decided I'm just not important enough to care about ........

That gets you off the hook - you can make any baseless statement at all and just fall back on that line if anyone questions it.

So, now that we know the rules, I'm going to inform you that I know I'm right because I'm the Official NFL Statistician - and if you think I'm lying it doesn't matter - you aren't important enough for me to care about.

Do you feel better now? Should I get you more Valium?

 

[bewareofdware]

bill parcells but jerry jones will have had enough of it and will cut either bledsoe and/or parcells if he doesn't start romo