Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Must read..TD's vs. Int's.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wpr" data-source="post: 72795" data-attributes="member: 198"><p>First of all I haven't read the whole article nor everyone's posts yet.</p><p></p><p>And I will say that I have on many occassions yelled at the TV when Brett threw a dumb int. But it seems to me that the novella that Rick Cina wrote leaves out 2 important facts. </p><p>1. sometimes the interceptions are the receivers fault and not the qb. </p><p>2. if a team is losing the game, qb is going to press a lot more to try and get back into the game and more ints are a part of it. when the qb finally gets the ball back he has to press even harder which will result in even more ints. so of course the winning % is going to be lower in games with mutiple ints. looking at the winning % based soley on ints is not an accurate measurement. the team was more than likely were going to lose the game anyway and the qb was just tring to get his team back into the game.</p><p>what Rick Cina needs to do (since he has way too much time on his hands) is to then break down games based on other factors as well. if GB has out rushed and basicly out preformed the other team except for the ints it is safe to say that the ints were a factor in the loss. but if Gb was man handled in every phase of the game then it wasn't due to the ints (as much).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wpr, post: 72795, member: 198"] First of all I haven't read the whole article nor everyone's posts yet. And I will say that I have on many occassions yelled at the TV when Brett threw a dumb int. But it seems to me that the novella that Rick Cina wrote leaves out 2 important facts. 1. sometimes the interceptions are the receivers fault and not the qb. 2. if a team is losing the game, qb is going to press a lot more to try and get back into the game and more ints are a part of it. when the qb finally gets the ball back he has to press even harder which will result in even more ints. so of course the winning % is going to be lower in games with mutiple ints. looking at the winning % based soley on ints is not an accurate measurement. the team was more than likely were going to lose the game anyway and the qb was just tring to get his team back into the game. what Rick Cina needs to do (since he has way too much time on his hands) is to then break down games based on other factors as well. if GB has out rushed and basicly out preformed the other team except for the ints it is safe to say that the ints were a factor in the loss. but if Gb was man handled in every phase of the game then it wasn't due to the ints (as much). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
Pkrjones
milani
Latest posts
Bucks v. Pacers
Latest: Voyageur
31 minutes ago
Milwaukee Bucks Forum
Transfer portal and NIL Money, how they have changed college sports".
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 8:24 AM
College Sports
Kentucky Derby Day!
Latest: Poppa San
Today at 8:12 AM
All Other Sports
H
29th pick.. Eric stokes db
Latest: Heyjoe4
Today at 6:23 AM
Draft Talk
H
Assessing the Draft Class (2024)
Latest: Heyjoe4
Today at 6:19 AM
Draft Talk
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Must read..TD's vs. Int's.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top