Rogers Ready to Move On

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

I don't like Hall beyond what is necessary. However, Hall's riverboat gambling can be mitigated by strengthening the pass rush and thus when he does make a gamble, the pass rush would force a poor throw that he can get his hands on.

With Rogers, you can give him Suh, Sapp, Reggie White, and Lawrence Taylor, and he'll still drop 70+% of the picks he could grab and then some.

Why is everyone so obsessed with Rogers dropping the ball? He's a freakin' corner, not a wr. Jeez....I know it's pathetic but his job is to cover first.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Why is everyone so obsessed with Rogers dropping the ball? He's a freakin' corner, not a wr. Jeez....I know it's pathetic but his job is to cover first.

Creating turnovers is just as vital of a role for a CB as coverage. Think of it this way, how many lost opportunities and probably games have Rogers' drops caused? In this league, you can't give opponents second chances. That's what Carlos does. The real problem is not that he drops interceptions, it's how he drops EASY interceptions that hit him in the hands, chest, facemask...a professional football player should not be doing this, that often.

It has become a liability that really detracts from his decent coverage skills.



If not for Orakpo actually getting a rare holding call, that blunder would have cost of the game.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

If not for Orakpo actually getting a rare holding call, that blunder would have cost of the game.

...never mind that Hall gave up 1 TD already and the go ahead TD that could have won the game for the Cowboys. YET, you want to blame that blunder on "costing" the game. This is the exact shit I'm talking about. It's sad they key this as the blunder to cost the game, but give Hall a pass because he picked up a lucky bounce on a fumble for a TD, but still gave up TWO touchdowns (1 called back) in that game. Amazing.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

...never mind that Hall gave up 1 TD already and the go ahead TD that could have won the game for the Cowboys. YET, you want to blame that blunder on "costing" the game. This is the exact shit I'm talking about. It's sad they key this as the blunder to cost the game, but give Hall a pass because he picked up a lucky bounce on a fumble for a TD, but still gave up TWO touchdowns (1 called back) in that game. Amazing.

Really? Lucky bounce? He FORCED THE DAMN FUMBLE and then he picked it up and scored.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by jdlea

Really? Lucky bounce? He FORCED THE DAMN FUMBLE and then he picked it up and scored.

Recovering a fumble is pure luck. The act of stripping it is skill. Don't confuse the two. Like I said, he picked up a lucky bounce. What if he stripped the ball, the ball bounced out of bounds, no score for the Skins. We lose that game. The fact the ball stayed in bounds and bounced/rolled in a fashion he could easily scoop up is luck.


FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | Football Outsiders Basics (a.k.a. "Pregame Show&quot

Recovery of a fumble, despite being the product of hard work, is almost entirely random.

Stripping the ball is a skill. Holding onto the ball is a skill. Pouncing on the ball as it is bouncing all over the place is not a skill. There is no correlation whatsoever between the percentage of fumbles recovered by a team in one year and the percentage they recover in the next year. The odds of recovery are based solely on the type of play involved, not the teams or any of their players.

Fans like to insist that specific coaches can teach their teams to recover more fumbles by swarming to the ball. Chicago's Lovie Smith, in particular, is supposed to have this ability. However, since Smith took over the Bears, their rate of fumble recovery on defense went from a league-best 76 percent to a league-worst 33 percent in 2005, then back to 67 percent in 2006. Last year, they recovered 57 percent of fumbles, close to the league average.

Fumble recovery is equally erratic on offense. In 2008, the Bears fumbled 12 times on offense and recovered only three of them. In 2009, the Bears fumbled 18 times on offense, but recovered 13 of them.

Fumble recovery is a major reason why the general public overestimates or underestimates certain teams. Fumbles are huge, turning-point plays that dramatically impact wins and losses in the past, while fumble recovery percentage says absolutely nothing about a team's chances of winning games in the future. With this in mind, Football Outsiders stats treat all fumbles as equal, penalizing them based on the likelihood of each type of fumble (run, pass, sack, etc.) being recovered by the defense.

Other plays that qualify as "non-predictive events" include blocked kicks and touchdowns during turnover returns. These plays are not "lucky," per se, but they have no value whatsoever for predicting future performance.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Recovering a fumble is pure luck. The act of stripping it is skill. Don't confuse the two. Like I said, he picked up a lucky bounce. What if he stripped the ball, the ball bounced out of bounds, no score for the Skins. We lose that game. The fact the ball stayed in bounds and bounced/rolled in a fashion he could easily scoop up is luck.


FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | Football Outsiders Basics (a.k.a. "Pregame Show&quot

Sooo your taking an opinionated article and using their definition of "fumble recovery" as "luck"?

Nice.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Sooo your taking an opinionated article and using their definition of "fumble recovery" as "luck"?

Nice.

Apparently you didn't read what I said, nor the article for that matter.


Act of stripping = skill

Way ball bounces = luck


The actual recovery of a fumble is pure luck. Hence, the first part of that play against the cowboys was skill, the second part resulted from luck. It's not that hard to understand.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Recovering a fumble is pure luck. The act of stripping it is skill. Don't confuse the two. Like I said, he picked up a lucky bounce. What if he stripped the ball, the ball bounced out of bounds, no score for the Skins. We lose that game. The fact the ball stayed in bounds and bounced/rolled in a fashion he could easily scoop up is luck.


FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | Football Outsiders Basics (a.k.a. "Pregame Show&quot

First off, the quoted article doesn't really apply to the play where he scored. The crux of it is right here:

Stripping the ball is a skill. Holding onto the ball is a skill. Pouncing on the ball as it is bouncing all over the place is not a skill. There is no correlation whatsoever between the percentage of fumbles recovered by a team in one year and the percentage they recover in the next year. The odds of recovery are based solely on the type of play involved, not the teams or any of their players.

This article is really talking about the ability to predict who is more likely to recover a fumble based on the players involved more than saying, "when a football hits the ground, the following events are totally random and based on luck." You are correct that it was lucky the ball didn't bounce out of bounds and that it continued to roll/bounce backwards, however, picking up a bouncing football while running full speed is not easy and he did it while on his way to scoring the touchdown that ended up being the difference in that game. So, his strip and scoop were skillful, the luck came in the football going in the direction he pulled it and not taking an odd hop after hitting the ground.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by jdlea

First off, the quoted article doesn't really apply to the play where he scored. The crux of it is right here:



This article is really talking about the ability to predict who is more likely to recover a fumble based on the players involved more than saying, "when a football hits the ground, the following events are totally random and based on luck." You are correct that it was lucky the ball didn't bounce out of bounds and that it continued to roll/bounce backwards, however, picking up a bouncing football while running full speed is not easy and he did it while on his way to scoring the touchdown that ended up being the difference in that game. So, his strip and scoop were skillful, the luck came in the football going in the direction he pulled it and not taking an odd hop after hitting the ground.

You are trying hard my man, but it still comes down to how that ball bounced. It's really all luck or chance if you will. Sure, the holding onto the ball and stripping are skills, but that bounce is a huge factor in all of this. I've seen guys do the same thing, but right when they are about to snatch it up, the ball bounces in a completely different way and they miss it completely. You want to talk about skill, those two TDs (1 called back) he gave up was skill (or lack thereof). :P

Originally Posted by SBXVII

and? Carlos never got owned? Ok.

...not like that. By a bum of a QB to seal the game? ...lol

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

Creating turnovers is just as vital of a role for a CB as coverage. Think of it this way, how many lost opportunities and probably games have Rogers' drops caused? In this league, you can't give opponents second chances. That's what Carlos does. The real problem is not that he drops interceptions, it's how he drops EASY interceptions that hit him in the hands, chest, facemask...a professional football player should not be doing this, that often.

It has become a liability that really detracts from his decent coverage skills.



If not for Orakpo actually getting a rare holding call, that blunder would have cost of the game.

I still remember what Cris Collinsworth said during the game, that "Carlos Rogers would be in the pro bowl every year if he could catch."

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Why is everyone so obsessed with Rogers dropping the ball? He's a freakin' corner, not a wr. Jeez....I know it's pathetic but his job is to cover first.

Which is why I said it all depends on what Rogers roll was in each of the defenses; GW, Blache, and Haslett. It's easy to say his job is to cover first, thats what all CB are supposed to do. They are supposed to cover the WR. But I think it all depends on whether they are playing zone or man-to-man, or if his job is to rush the QB. I don't need to explain it but man-to-man is easy... he's to cover the WR. In zone he's supposed to watch and area and at some point from the LOS he has to release the WR to the safety. Sometimes I think Rogers released too soon and the safety was not in a position to take over the responsibility which led to a TD or 1st down. In man-to-man he bites hard on the first move sometimes. Which is why teams quickly figured out that if their WR did a stop and go they had a better chance of making the play.