Peter Kings picks Dolphins to finish Last in the AFC East

[ckparrothead]

CK, I appreciate your work on Finheaven. You and Slimm, Jr are this site's best analysts and talent evaluators, in my opinion. But to lump a turnover on downs with an interception or fumble is a bit egregious. Circumstances, probablility of success, and assumed risk are all part of the decision making of a play that may become a turnover on downs. In the preseason, as a time for experimentation, it is not very useful in evaluating efficacy (unless the circumstance was 4th and one. I don't remember the play.) Interceptions and fumbles are unanticipated occurances usually due to lack of awareness and poor technique. Turnovers on downs are never statistically creditted as a turnover. Turnover has such a negative connotation, and rightfully so. This qualification of failed 4th down attempt seems to be "piling on".

I fully disagree with you. A turnover on downs functions just like a fumble or an interception in that it gives the opposing offense a short field. Furthermore, the decision to go for it on a short yardage 4th down in that area of the field is very common, and the fact that the Dolphins showed that they could go for it in that situation and come up short is very concerning, because it means there's a high likelihood of turning the ball over on downs during the regular season, and once again those turnovers on downs function EXACTLY like a fumble or an interception.

So you say that lumping a turnover on downs in as a tunrover (as if the name doesn't imply as much) is "piling on", but rather I see trying to separate them from one another as "excuse making".

 

[Mr. Magoo]

I fully disagree with you. A turnover on downs functions just like a fumble or an interception in that it gives the opposing offense a short field. Furthermore, the decision to go for it on a short yardage 4th down in that area of the field is very common, and the fact that the Dolphins showed that they could go for it in that situation and come up short is very concerning, because it means there's a high likelihood of turning the ball over on downs during the regular season, and once again those turnovers on downs function EXACTLY like a fumble or an interception.

So you say that lumping a turnover on downs in as a tunrover (as if the name doesn't imply as much) is "piling on", but rather I see trying to separate them from one another as "excuse making".

I think the consistency of language in this instance is more important than consistency of circumstances. A turnover on downs might function similarly to a fumble or an interception in terms of what happens right afterwards, but I don't think that's a reason to change the accepted terminology. If a quarterback throws an INT 45 yards down the field on third down, that might work out very similarly to a punt, but it's not a punt. A shanked punt that goes out of bounds after five yards might work similarly to a fumble or an interception, but it's not those things, either.

For better or for worse, they're separate, and I don't think it's particularly appropriate to accuse anyone of wanting to keep turnovers and turnovers on down separate as being guilty of "excuse making," anymore than I think it's appropriate to accuse someone who does lump them together of "piling on."

 

[Mile High Fin]

I think the consistency of language in this instance is more important than consistency of circumstances. A turnover on downs might function similarly to a fumble or an interception in terms of what happens right afterwards, but I don't think that's a reason to change the accepted terminology. If a quarterback throws an INT 45 yards down the field on third down, that might work out very similarly to a punt, but it's not a punt. A shanked punt that goes out of bounds after five yards might work similarly to a fumble or an interception, but it's not those things, either.

For better or for worse, they're separate, and I don't think it's particularly appropriate to accuse anyone of wanting to keep turnovers and turnovers on down separate as being guilty of "excuse making," anymore than I think it's appropriate to accuse someone who does lump them together of "piling on."

Very well said.
I've read both sides (CK & yours) and I believe you make the better/stronger case in this instance.

 

[DuderinoN703]

FAIL (at least on the Steelers half)

Packers-Ravens was the hot pick last year. The consensus was that the Roethlisberger suspension was going to derail Pittsburgh's season. I've been looking around and cannot find even 1 person that picked the Steelers to even be in the Super Bowl last year. (I think I remember Matt Williamson picking them, but he's from Pittsburgh and admits his bias. Williamson and Bucky Brooks from NFL.com were the only 2 that even picked Pittsburgh to win the AFC North).

ESPN Predictions

USA Today Season Preview

NFL.com Season Preview

Also, I don't know how you can call King a Dolphin hater when he had this to say in his preview last year:



He had you as the 6th best team in the league last year. What a hater. He never says anything positive about the Dolphins. I found this particularly funny because Jets fans always accuse him of being a Pats homer, but he picked the Pats to finish 3rd last year. Peter King takes a lot of flak, but I like him.

He has you in 4th because he thinks the Bills can win 7 games. How many of you would be shocked if the Dolphins went 6-10? Is that so unreasonable?

Peter King has Pittsburgh beating Green Bay last year. He specifically mentioned Dennis Dixon of the Steelers to guide the team to a 2-2 record upon B-Roth's return.

 

[JB1089]

Peter King has Pittsburgh beating Green Bay last year. He specifically mentioned Dennis Dixon of the Steelers to guide the team to a 2-2 record upon B-Roth's return.

I know this, I was talking about people other than King. One of the posters on here claimed that Steelers-Packers was a "hot" pick last year, so it didn't mean anything that King correctly predicted it, that he was just one of many on the bandwagon. He wasn't on the bandwagon, he was out there pretty much by himself on the Steelers half of the pick. I'm trying to give him credit.

 

[JB1089]

What a hater!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He doesn't know ****!!!!!!!!!




In fairness, you played two good teams and there's a long way to go. But it does show that Peter King was not an "idiot" or a "hater" for picking the Dolphins to finish in last. The Bills look like a much improved team.