What's Nesbitt's fumble-per-play ratio currently?

[Techbert]

Just one minor point. If that's really part of what's going through JN's head he's in the wrong place. And by that I don't mean Tech, I mean playing QB at the major college level. FWIW I don't think that has anything to do with anything. I doubt any of our players are that immature.

Actually I understand that players at big-time schools have to isolate themselves into a surprisingly tight community and shut out the world around them.

Sad that they have to.

I was just pointing to behavior with zero upside and possible downside. Why would anyone do something with zero upside and possible downside?

Yet plenty around here do.

 

[JTS]

Granted, although I'd hazard to guess all of his fumbles so far have been on run plays, which take the receivers out of the equation.

I'm not harshing the guy, but I would like to see the number. It'd be a salient point to bring up in future "WHY AREN'T WE PLAYING NESBITT MORE?!!?!1" threads, which we all know are en-route.

Oh yes, I am waiting for the "we would have beaten UVA and Maryland with JN in there" posts. Or maybe JN has played just a little too much for that to be credible so they will go with Booker.

 

[Techbert]

I'm not harshing the guy, but I would like to see the number. It'd be a salient point to bring up in future "WHY AREN'T WE PLAYING NESBITT MORE?!!?!1" threads, which we all know are en-route.

The reality is that the level of criticism is fairly independent of the underlying performance.

The chorus of wannabe bus drivers will always have something. It is impossible to logically refute every charge, as they will just go to the next charge.

We should have played JN more or less. We should have played JD more or less. We should have run more or less. We should have run inside more or less.

Cox should block more. Cox should carry more. Cox should catch more. We should not play JJ. We should play more 5-wr sets. We should burn a redshirt. We should preserve a redshirt.

I actually believe that JN's fumble ratio is irrelevant to when he plays next and for how long. What matters is what his fumble ratio will be when he goes in next, particularly against UGA.

While past performance is some indication of future performance, we can't know based on stats when the light bulb goes off and when the "don't fumble" lesson is truly learned.

You have to observe him in practice, and talk to him to have any idea when that happens, and even then you can't be sure. So yeah, sucks that you have to trust the coaches on who is ready and who is not, but that is the reality. Unless you room with the guy and watch his every snap in practice.

 

[TampaJacket]

Well said, Techbert.

 

[GTRules]

Your sig line says you were banned from everywhere except Stingtalk. I guess that's what confused me.

 

[beej67]

I actually believe that JN's fumble ratio is irrelevant to when he plays next and for how long.

I believe JN's fumble to snap ratio is a statistic, and fail to see why talking about that statistic is any different than talking about any other statistic.


Hate to grace the derailment, but just to be clear...

Your sig line says you were banned from everywhere except Stingtalk. I guess that's what confused me.

I got banned from The Hive for admitting something, and banned from BO for disagreeing with a moderator about Chan Gailey. Neither ban was for being offensive, although I will admit to occasionally offending people online.

 

[thwg]

I actually believe that JN's fumble ratio is irrelevant to when he plays next and for how long. What matters is what his fumble ratio will be when he goes in next, particularly against UGA.

While past performance is some indication of future performance, we can't know based on stats when the light bulb goes off and when the "don't fumble" lesson is truly learned.

So, which is it? Is past performance an indicator or not? What we know right now is that JN fumbles a lot more than anyone else on the team or anyone else who has ever played for CG. My hunch is he won't keep playing much at all if he doesn't quit fumbling. JN's fumble ratio may be irrelevant to you but to the coahces whom you seem to respect so much it matters a lot.

If JN wants to keep playing, he better stop fumbling or risk-averse Gailey won't play him. So, it better become relevant to him.

 

[Techbert]

So, which is it? Is past performance an indicator or not?

I'll type slower.

JN is a true freshman learning the college game and the game speed. It is a dynamic situation, which should improve with practice reps and self-confidence and comfort. He is ready for some situations but not so ready for other situations. As time passes, he should be ready for more situations running more plays with more success.

Chan knows that. He has spoken on it with some sophistication. It is the Chan caricature used as a straw man by critics that doesn't get it. But the critics don't really get it either.

Ever take a math course where you were tested at the beginning of the course on what you were expected to learn during the course? Probably didn't do well. But the expectation was that you would do better by finals time.

 

[beej67]

Yeah, umm, I never said he wouldn't get better. I'm just wondering how bad he is currently.

:P

 

[Techbert]

I believe JN's fumble to snap ratio is a statistic, and fail to see why talking about that statistic is any different than talking about any other statistic.

It's not. I don't talk about statistics that much because they are often misleading. This is particularly true for a young quarterback just learning the college game.

Goose Godsey completed 42% of his passes in 1998 and 38% in 1999. Meant nothing. He turned into a 64% passer after that. So I did not talk about Goose's stats when he was a soph. Some did, but they were the ones that didn't understand football.

Learning curves are all different. Coach thinks JN has a fast learning curve. But fast is different from instant.

Now if your point, which I think it is, is that JN is not ready to shoulder more responsibility from TB, that is obvious and the fumbles are just one indicator. But if the fact that JN is not currently ready for more is not obvious to someone, you cannot type enough words to convince them.

 

[Bogey]

I would have JN warming up by taking snaps/playing catch on the sideline way before he went in the game to give him confidence and help get rid of the jitters. He is going to be fine and is our best chance to beat teams with talented defenses like VT and UGA.

 

[thwg]

I'll type slower.

JN is a true freshman learning the college game and the game speed. It is a dynamic situation, which should improve with practice reps and self-confidence and comfort. He is ready for some situations but not so ready for other situations. As time passes, he should be ready for more situations running more plays with more success.

Chan knows that. He has spoken on it with some sophistication. It is the Chan caricature used as a straw man by critics that doesn't get it. But the critics don't really get it either.

Ever take a math course where you were tested at the beginning of the course on what you were expected to learn during the course? Probably didn't do well. But the expectation was that you would do better by finals time.

Thanks for typing slower; I could tell a difference in your consistency when you do so.

I agree with the perhaps unfair characterizations of CG based on his demeanor, accent, introversion, etc. Unfortunately, he has made some in-game decisions this year that failed the incoming exam after a lifetime of coaching which gives credence to those who question chan's intelligence.

All that being said, you originally stated his fumble ratio was irrelevant ( and I think used Godsey's completion % as an example). You then in the next paragraph say that past performce is an indicator of future results so I'm assuming you don't truly believe they are irrelevant.

Not completing passes in mop-up duty with 2nd and 3rd string receivers and 2nd and 3rd string linemen is a very poor example to use and is not comparing apples to apples. Godsey was taking the entrance exam and the first few quizzes for two years. JN is now half way through the semester.

He is being asked to win (and not lose) football games right now. So, his fumble ratio matters much because it has the strong potential to determine the outcome of a game whereas GG had no ability to determine the outcome of a game his first two years. the variables were night and day in difference between the two.

If JN doesn't want to sit the pine like GG did until mop-up duty, then he will need to drastically reduce his fumble ratio now. If GG did not want to sit the pine for his career, he needed to start completing passes in his Jr. year at a much higher rate than he did his first two years. Why? Because his performance now had a dramatic impact on the end result. If you fail the test too many times, you get demoted to a different class.

 

[beej67]

Now if your point, which I think it is, is that JN is not ready to shoulder more responsibility from TB, that is obvious and the fumbles are just one indicator.

Actually, my point was to get someone else to do the math on what his fumble-per-snap percentage is, so I could have it as a tool in a later conversation.

This conversation:

But if the fact that JN is not currently ready for more is not obvious to someone, you cannot type enough words to convince them.

I think you greatly underestimate the power of statistics.


It's pretty clear after 4 pages that nobody's going to do my math for me, so here goes. In 6 games, Nesbitt has 27 carries and 4 pass attempts, for a total of 31 snaps. I'm positive he fumbled once in the Army game (lost) and once in the Clemson game, (he fell on it) and I think he's fumbled one more time, but I'm not sure. Say 3 fumbles.

So now when someone comes by on Stingtalk after VT and posts "STUPID CHAN GAILEY WHY DIDN'T WE PLAY NESBITT MORE?!?!!!?!1111" I can respond "Because he fumbles every ten plays."

That's all I was looking for out of this thread.

 

[thwg]

Actually, my point was to get someone else to do the math on what his fumble-per-snap percentage is, so I could have it as a tool in a later conversation.

This conversation:
I think you greatly underestimate the power of statistics.


It's pretty clear after 4 pages that nobody's going to do my math for me, so here goes. In 6 games, Nesbitt has 27 carries and 4 pass attempts, for a total of 31 snaps. I'm positive he fumbled once in the Army game (lost) and once in the Clemson game, (he fell on it) and I think he's fumbled one more time, but I'm not sure. Say 3 fumbles.

So now when someone comes by on Stingtalk after VT and posts "STUPID CHAN GAILEY WHY DIDN'T WE PLAY NESBITT MORE?!?!!!?!1111" I can respond "Because he fumbles every ten plays."

That's all I was looking for out of this thread.

He fumbled vs. MIA also. I thought he had four fumbles but I'm totally going by memory. I was thinking the ratio was like 1:8 when you asked. coincidentally, how many first downs had he led the team to? I think he might have more fumbles than first downs.

 

[lonestarjacket]

So now when someone comes by on Stingtalk after VT and posts "STUPID CHAN GAILEY WHY DIDN'T WE PLAY NESBITT MORE?!?!!!?!1111" I can respond "Because he fumbles every ten plays."

That's all I was looking for out of this thread.

To be fair, some of those preaching that we should play Nesbitt more have done so because they are defeatists who have already written off this season. The logic is this season doesn't matter so why not use the time to give Nesbitt more experience as he is the future.

I disagree with that philosophy from two perspectives. 1) It is not fair to the fans watching the games for the coaches to do anything other than play those who they feel maximize our potential to win at any given point. 2) It is not fair to the player who waited his turn to turn over a job when he is still the best option and best player at the position.

I am sure I am in very TINY minority that thinks CG is guilty of #2 when he didn't give Suggs a second chance after Reggie faltered (even though he looked like a genius in Reggie's first few games.) Play the best guy at any given point in the season.

As for Nesbitt, I think the coaches would play him more if he had more than a small bag of tricks at this point. They aren't doing anything different than LSU who regularly sits a much more accomplished QB in Matt Flynn in to change things up with Perrilou. Sometimes it looks stupid when the starter is doing great and the backup screws up, but when it works it throws off the defense plus gives the backup QB some "quality time." Texas did it with Vince Young before he became the starter.

If you have two talented QBs with different styles then I think you take advantage of that. Others think you should always stick with the hot hand. More experienced football analysts are on both sides of those philosophies.

 

[MatatoGT]

We should run some sort of fake fumbled snap play with Nesbit. Who wouldn't bite on that?

So in reality, maybe CCG has been telling Nesbitt to fumble on purpose, to set up some great fake fumble play against the mutts! It's all in the master scheming.