|
|
#831
10-27-2007, 11:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: f;hgghsfsgdgjfdityrehvfadksbjv
[ QUOTE ]
This is one of those times where its really fun to be a 3rd party bystander observing an argument. [/ QUOTE ] How would you know? You aren't one, here. [ QUOTE ] Its blatantly obvious how wrong one person is yet they'll never admit it or realize it and just make completely irrational arguments to dig the hole deeper. [/ QUOTE ] You just want to pretend to be a bystander so that you don't have to come up with a successful percentage number. Seriously...think about it, how often would it have to be successful. I never said Fulmer was right. I said that if it ices Succop more than about 5% of the time, he was right. What do you think the breakeven point is? hd 
|
|
#833
10-27-2007, 11:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: f;hgghsfsgdgjfdityrehvfadksbjv
[ QUOTE ]
Again I ask....to those who say it is bad, how often do you think the icing needs to be successful for Fulmer to be correct? [/ QUOTE ] way more than than it would ever realistically be
|
|
#834
10-27-2007, 11:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: f;hgghsfsgdgjfdityrehvfadksbjv
[ QUOTE ]
False start penalty should be declinable. No question. [/ QUOTE ] I think they may be. They're dead ball fouls so there would be no play anyway. I don't see how you could really let the play happen with a false start. The D would take some serious chances I would think and you could have a lot of injuries.
|
|
#837
10-27-2007, 11:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: f;hgghsfsgdgjfdityrehvfadksbjv
[ QUOTE ]
Again I ask....to those who say it is bad, how often do you think the icing needs to be successful for Fulmer to be correct? If you can't answer that question, you can't have a meaningful discussion. [/ QUOTE ] What is of greater value Kicker's FG % - Kicker's FG% after being iced A Timeout with 1:30 left in the game on a winning drive durrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
|
|
#838
10-27-2007, 11:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: f;hgghsfsgdgjfdityrehvfadksbjv
"
I never said Fulmer was right. I said that if it ices Succop more than about 5% of the time, he was right. " 1. We do know that icing doesn't work, you're trying to insert a step. 2. If you don't think he was right your entire series of posts is pointless 3. Don't act like you derived the 5% by carefully evaluating the chances of a sack, you just made that [censored] up. I'll play along, though, my answer is 8.3%. What now?
|
|
#839
10-27-2007, 11:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: f;hgghsfsgdgjfdityrehvfadksbjv
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Again I ask....to those who say it is bad, how often do you think the icing needs to be successful for Fulmer to be correct? [/ QUOTE ] way more than than it would ever realistically be [/ QUOTE ] Well, the breakeven point would essentially be (caveat....I'm doing this just to think aloud, not trying to make any argument) how often you need that timeout. That drive was wretched....penalties that made the game tying FG longer than necessary, WRs tackled short of a first down, a sack (worst possible thing!), etc. And they still didn't need that TO. I mean, Ainge has been sacked, announcers said, 3 times this year. So, he'll get sacked on what, 5% of the drives? And even then, it didn't hurt them. So, I really think that the breakeven point is going to be close to 5% (CLOSE TO, not exactly equal to). And, for a 49 yard field goal, I think that icing is effective about 5% of the time (depending on the kicker, block unit, etc). So, I think it was close. It is obviously closer than many make it out to be on here. hd
|
|
#840
10-27-2007, 11:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: f;hgghsfsgdgjfdityrehvfadksbjv
"And even then, it didn't hurt them."
You are aware that they had to spike the ball on 3rd down, right? Wait, you aren't seriously arguing that it didn't hurt them because they ended up winning, are you?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
