Peter Nguyen

[rimrockgriz]

PR is right on this one. i remember a study in the nfl a few years ago where they broke down fumbles and their conclusion seems to be in line with player's. although i think they combined rushing and receiving fumbles and compared them to punt and kick return fumbles. but the percentages weren't real close. something like 1% of all touches running and receiving were fumbled and it was as high as 6 or 7% on all touches kick and punt returning were fumbled.

makes sense when you think about it. basically you got 11 guys trying to kill you every time you return a punt or kick. well...10 and a half considering the kicker. there would be a lot more fumbles if every running back faced 11 man fronts.

"I think you should let your "husband" post once in a while... :roll:

 

[rimrockgriz]

Nguyen lost fewer fumbles per touch as a running back and receiver than Moore did per touch as a running back and receiver.

That's great. But his "lost" rate was significantly higher than the norm on return touches. You can't just discount that because it makes his overall number look worse.

The chances of fumbling punts and kickoffs are higher than fumbling as a running back or receiver. That's just a fact. Nguyen fumbled too many punts/kickoffs, but these stats show that he fumbled fewer times as a running back and receiver than Moore did. That too is a fact.

Do you have some link that backs up that "fact"? Anything other than a sample set of Peter Nguyen?

This thread was rolling along about the comparison between NFL baller Danny Woodhead and Peter N. The posts starting piling up about subject B being a fumbler and PR inserted Dan Moore to defend Peter Fumbler(I'll bet you wear a caped crusader outfit while sitting in front of your computer :lol: ) Listen..I'm sure he's one hell of a human being and a I hear a stellar student... but he "ain't"no Danny Woodhead. :egriz:

 

[Griz2k]

Last I checked, Peter doesn't have any eligibility left. Time to move on folks....nothing to see here.

 

[poorgriz]

PR is right on this one. i remember a study in the nfl a few years ago where they broke down fumbles and their conclusion seems to be in line with player's. although i think they combined rushing and receiving fumbles and compared them to punt and kick return fumbles. but the percentages weren't real close. something like 1% of all touches running and receiving were fumbled and it was as high as 6 or 7% on all touches kick and punt returning were fumbled.

makes sense when you think about it. basically you got 11 guys trying to kill you every time you return a punt or kick. well...10 and a half considering the kicker. there would be a lot more fumbles if every running back faced 11 man fronts.

All I asked him for was a source. A link. ANYTHING. Instead, he foams at the mouth and throws around insults. Hell, there are times I disagree with him JUST TO SEE his reaction... :lol:

Asking for an link for such an obvious fact, i.e. that fumbles on returns are more likely to occur than on run/pass catches, is pretty funny in and of itself. 6 or 7 more times likely, and you can't see that? Even if you never played the game, do you not even watch what's going on? My god, no wonder it's so hard to discuss football with some of you guys.

True... and maybe another reason it's hard sometimes is because people don't like to talk about how successful or unsuccessful a season was, based on the number of games that you... "almost won". LOL

 

[ilovethecats]

PR is right on this one. i remember a study in the nfl a few years ago where they broke down fumbles and their conclusion seems to be in line with player's. although i think they combined rushing and receiving fumbles and compared them to punt and kick return fumbles. but the percentages weren't real close. something like 1% of all touches running and receiving were fumbled and it was as high as 6 or 7% on all touches kick and punt returning were fumbled.

makes sense when you think about it. basically you got 11 guys trying to kill you every time you return a punt or kick. well...10 and a half considering the kicker. there would be a lot more fumbles if every running back faced 11 man fronts.

"I think you should let your "husband" post once in a while... :roll:

what does that mean? :?

 

[PlayerRep]

PR is right on this one. i remember a study in the nfl a few years ago where they broke down fumbles and their conclusion seems to be in line with player's. although i think they combined rushing and receiving fumbles and compared them to punt and kick return fumbles. but the percentages weren't real close. something like 1% of all touches running and receiving were fumbled and it was as high as 6 or 7% on all touches kick and punt returning were fumbled.

makes sense when you think about it. basically you got 11 guys trying to kill you every time you return a punt or kick. well...10 and a half considering the kicker. there would be a lot more fumbles if every running back faced 11 man fronts.

All I asked him for was a source. A link. ANYTHING. Instead, he foams at the mouth and throws around insults. Hell, there are times I disagree with him JUST TO SEE his reaction... :lol:

Asking for an link for such an obvious fact, i.e. that fumbles on returns are more likely to occur than on run/pass catches, is pretty funny in and of itself. 6 or 7 more times likely, and you can't see that? Even if you never played the game, do you not even watch what's going on? My god, no wonder it's so hard to discuss football with some of you guys.

True... and maybe another reason it's hard sometimes is because people don't like to talk about how successful or unsuccessful a season was, based on the number of games that you... "almost won". LOL

For the record, I said that to judge the quality of UM's team last year (not the success of the season), it would be better to look at how they played in the losses (all of which were close) as opposed to just looking at the quality of the teams they beat. Do you actually disagree with that? Picking between only those 2 factors, which do you think would more accurately assess the quality of the team. I agree wins/losses is the biggest factor in judging the success of a season.

 

[AZGrizFan]

PR is right on this one. i remember a study in the nfl a few years ago where they broke down fumbles and their conclusion seems to be in line with player's. although i think they combined rushing and receiving fumbles and compared them to punt and kick return fumbles. but the percentages weren't real close. something like 1% of all touches running and receiving were fumbled and it was as high as 6 or 7% on all touches kick and punt returning were fumbled.

makes sense when you think about it. basically you got 11 guys trying to kill you every time you return a punt or kick. well...10 and a half considering the kicker. there would be a lot more fumbles if every running back faced 11 man fronts.

All I asked him for was a source. A link. ANYTHING. Instead, he foams at the mouth and throws around insults. Hell, there are times I disagree with him JUST TO SEE his reaction... :lol:

Asking for an link for such an obvious fact, i.e. that fumbles on returns are more likely to occur than on run/pass catches, is pretty funny in and of itself. 6 or 7 more times likely, and you can't see that? Even if you never played the game, do you not even watch what's going on? My god, no wonder it's so hard to discuss football with some of you guys.

you never fail to disappoint, PR. :thumb:

 

[kemajic]

PR is right on this one. i remember a study in the nfl a few years ago where they broke down fumbles and their conclusion seems to be in line with player's. although i think they combined rushing and receiving fumbles and compared them to punt and kick return fumbles. but the percentages weren't real close. something like 1% of all touches running and receiving were fumbled and it was as high as 6 or 7% on all touches kick and punt returning were fumbled.

makes sense when you think about it. basically you got 11 guys trying to kill you every time you return a punt or kick. well...10 and a half considering the kicker. there would be a lot more fumbles if every running back faced 11 man fronts.

Helps explains Dan Moore's fumbling problems; he tried to hit all 11 of them every time he had the ball in his hands.

 

[AZGrizFan]

PR is right on this one. i remember a study in the nfl a few years ago where they broke down fumbles and their conclusion seems to be in line with player's. although i think they combined rushing and receiving fumbles and compared them to punt and kick return fumbles. but the percentages weren't real close. something like 1% of all touches running and receiving were fumbled and it was as high as 6 or 7% on all touches kick and punt returning were fumbled.

makes sense when you think about it. basically you got 11 guys trying to kill you every time you return a punt or kick. well...10 and a half considering the kicker. there would be a lot more fumbles if every running back faced 11 man fronts.

And somehow, the fact that I didn't read that report makes me an idiot incapable of discussing football with the football Einsteins of the world like PR. :roll:

 

[PTGrizzly]

Wrong. He's not MORE prone...just because Nguyen had more touches or was a returner doesn't make his numbers more relevant. Moore fumbled less than Nguyen....not MUCH less, but less, nonetheless....

Nguyen lost fewer fumbles per touch as a running back and receiver than Moore did per touch as a running back and receiver.

That's great. But his "lost" rate was significantly higher than the norm on return touches. You can't just discount that because it makes his overall number look worse.

The chances of fumbling punts and kickoffs are higher than fumbling as a running back or receiver. That's just a fact. Nguyen fumbled too many punts/kickoffs, but these stats show that he fumbled fewer times as a running back and receiver than Moore did. That too is a fact.

Some of Moore's fumbles came when he was injured/recovering from an injury and still rusty. Obviously those should be discounted, because players that aren't fully healthy are more prone to fumbling. Everybody should know that. Sometimes I wonder how people even discuss football with idiots like yourself.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Nguyen lost fewer fumbles per touch as a running back and receiver than Moore did per touch as a running back and receiver.

That's great. But his "lost" rate was significantly higher than the norm on return touches. You can't just discount that because it makes his overall number look worse.

The chances of fumbling punts and kickoffs are higher than fumbling as a running back or receiver. That's just a fact. Nguyen fumbled too many punts/kickoffs, but these stats show that he fumbled fewer times as a running back and receiver than Moore did. That too is a fact.

Some of Moore's fumbles came when he was injured/recovering from an injury and still rusty. Obviously those should be discounted, because players that aren't fully healthy are more prone to fumbling. Everybody should know that. Sometimes I wonder how people even discuss football with idiots like yourself.

No, that just makes you an idiot who can't discuss football rationally with geniuses like PR. :lol:

 

[PlayerRep]

Nguyen lost fewer fumbles per touch as a running back and receiver than Moore did per touch as a running back and receiver.

That's great. But his "lost" rate was significantly higher than the norm on return touches. You can't just discount that because it makes his overall number look worse.

The chances of fumbling punts and kickoffs are higher than fumbling as a running back or receiver. That's just a fact. Nguyen fumbled too many punts/kickoffs, but these stats show that he fumbled fewer times as a running back and receiver than Moore did. That too is a fact.

Some of Moore's fumbles came when he was injured/recovering from an injury and still rusty. Obviously those should be discounted, because players that aren't fully healthy are more prone to fumbling. Everybody should know that. Sometimes I wonder how people even discuss football with idiots like yourself.

I agree. I have no problem with any fumble Moore ever made, nor any he will ever make. Moore was an outstanding player for UM, and I loved watching him play. He's a Griz hero, in my book.

 

[AZGrizFan]

That's great. But his "lost" rate was significantly higher than the norm on return touches. You can't just discount that because it makes his overall number look worse.

The chances of fumbling punts and kickoffs are higher than fumbling as a running back or receiver. That's just a fact. Nguyen fumbled too many punts/kickoffs, but these stats show that he fumbled fewer times as a running back and receiver than Moore did. That too is a fact.

Some of Moore's fumbles came when he was injured/recovering from an injury and still rusty. Obviously those should be discounted, because players that aren't fully healthy are more prone to fumbling. Everybody should know that. Sometimes I wonder how people even discuss football with idiots like yourself.

I agree. I have no problem with any fumble Moore ever made, nor any he will ever make. Moore was an outstanding player for UM, and I loved watching him play. He's a Griz hero, in my book.

And what's funny about that is I feel the same way about Moore, AND Nguyen. But that can't be, because I know nothing about football, right? :|

 

[PlayerRep]

The chances of fumbling punts and kickoffs are higher than fumbling as a running back or receiver. That's just a fact. Nguyen fumbled too many punts/kickoffs, but these stats show that he fumbled fewer times as a running back and receiver than Moore did. That too is a fact.

Some of Moore's fumbles came when he was injured/recovering from an injury and still rusty. Obviously those should be discounted, because players that aren't fully healthy are more prone to fumbling. Everybody should know that. Sometimes I wonder how people even discuss football with idiots like yourself.

I agree. I have no problem with any fumble Moore ever made, nor any he will ever make. Moore was an outstanding player for UM, and I loved watching him play. He's a Griz hero, in my book.

And what's funny about that is I feel the same way about Moore, AND Nguyen. But that can't be, because I know nothing about football, right? :|

I don't think you are a bad guy or stupid, but your acknowledgement of not knowing returns are more likely to have fumbles than runs shows you don't understand the game. If you hadn't been jumping me, I wouldn't have pointed it out. But since you did, I did. Stick with what you know.

 

[PTGrizzly]

That's great. But his "lost" rate was significantly higher than the norm on return touches. You can't just discount that because it makes his overall number look worse.

The chances of fumbling punts and kickoffs are higher than fumbling as a running back or receiver. That's just a fact. Nguyen fumbled too many punts/kickoffs, but these stats show that he fumbled fewer times as a running back and receiver than Moore did. That too is a fact.

Some of Moore's fumbles came when he was injured/recovering from an injury and still rusty. Obviously those should be discounted, because players that aren't fully healthy are more prone to fumbling. Everybody should know that. Sometimes I wonder how people even discuss football with idiots like yourself.

I agree. I have no problem with any fumble Moore ever made, nor any he will ever make. Moore was an outstanding player for UM, and I loved watching him play. He's a Griz hero, in my book.

Yeah, I don't think you get what I was doing there. Typical.

 

[PlayerRep]

The chances of fumbling punts and kickoffs are higher than fumbling as a running back or receiver. That's just a fact. Nguyen fumbled too many punts/kickoffs, but these stats show that he fumbled fewer times as a running back and receiver than Moore did. That too is a fact.

Some of Moore's fumbles came when he was injured/recovering from an injury and still rusty. Obviously those should be discounted, because players that aren't fully healthy are more prone to fumbling. Everybody should know that. Sometimes I wonder how people even discuss football with idiots like yourself.

I agree. I have no problem with any fumble Moore ever made, nor any he will ever make. Moore was an outstanding player for UM, and I loved watching him play. He's a Griz hero, in my book.

Yeah, I don't think you get what I was doing there. Typical.

You really don't have a clue. And you are a Bobcat pretending to be a Griz.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Some of Moore's fumbles came when he was injured/recovering from an injury and still rusty. Obviously those should be discounted, because players that aren't fully healthy are more prone to fumbling. Everybody should know that. Sometimes I wonder how people even discuss football with idiots like yourself.

I agree. I have no problem with any fumble Moore ever made, nor any he will ever make. Moore was an outstanding player for UM, and I loved watching him play. He's a Griz hero, in my book.

And what's funny about that is I feel the same way about Moore, AND Nguyen. But that can't be, because I know nothing about football, right? :|

I don't think you are a bad guy or stupid, but your acknowledgement of not knowing returns are more likely to have fumbles than runs shows you don't understand the game. If you hadn't been jumping me, I wouldn't have pointed it out. But since you did, I did. Stick with what you know.

So by asking for a link that's "jumping" you? :lol: :lol:

You're a bit sensitive there, aren't you?

 

[PlayerRep]

I agree. I have no problem with any fumble Moore ever made, nor any he will ever make. Moore was an outstanding player for UM, and I loved watching him play. He's a Griz hero, in my book.

And what's funny about that is I feel the same way about Moore, AND Nguyen. But that can't be, because I know nothing about football, right? :|

I don't think you are a bad guy or stupid, but your acknowledgement of not knowing returns are more likely to have fumbles than runs shows you don't understand the game. If you hadn't been jumping me, I wouldn't have pointed it out. But since you did, I did. Stick with what you know.

So by asking for a link that's "jumping" you? :lol: :lol:

You're a bit sensitive there, aren't you?

The below earlier post of yours was not "asking for a link".

"And somehow, the fact that I didn't read that report makes me an idiot incapable of discussing football with the football Einsteins of the world like PR."

 

[grizindabox]

You really don't have a clue. And you are a Bobcat pretending to be a Griz.

Is this going to be the standard reply when someone disagrees with you, or states something negative about UM Griz football?

 

[PlayerRep]

You really don't have a clue. And you are a Bobcat pretending to be a Griz.

Is this going to be the standard reply when someone disagrees with you, or states something negative about UM Griz football?

My posts/responses rarely have anything to do with whether I agree with someone or they disagree with me. My responses like the one above are generally directed at people who repeatedly say wrong or ridiculous things, or are dicks or acting like dicks. For example. you are sometimes in one or both categories.