His YPA this season is much high than in the first two years. All of the first three games YPA are better than every game in his first two seasons except three. If you cannot see the difference in depth of passes and how much he is attacking the defense, you are just not paying attention.
He was supposed to speak to the NFLPA investigators about recent events yesterday, so he must be coherent enough to do that. Haven’t heard how it went yet. https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...o-nfl-nflpa-as-part-of-ongoing-investigation/
Game One was not good. Game two was bad for 3 quarters. His overall rating out ypa is meaningless, to me, when the offense couldn't score points.
Yeah statistically we really need to wait until an absolute minimum 150 passing attempts. However, it does say something that after 115 passing attempts Tua is #1 in passer rating among starting QBs (109.9 rating), and #2 in Y/A (9.0). He'd have to really bomb for those numbers to get back down to last year's averages. Just to give you an idea of how far it has to drop to get to last year's 90.1 rating, most scenarios require a rating less than 40 for the next 35 attempts lol. One standard deviation above the mean is now around 101, and to get down to that he'd most likely need a low 70's rating. So what you're seeing is pretty impressive even if it's not yet statistically significant. That is, I wouldn't just dismiss this as being one quarter great football etc. It's pretty hard to lead the league in passer rating and be 2nd in Y/A after even 115 attempts. Hopefully he comes back soon to show he can do this for more games.
Here are Tua's stats by quarter. You claim that he was blah in game 1, and game 2 up to the 4th quarter, then good in game 3. Since he got hurt in the 2nd quarter of game 4, the stats should show poor numbers on the season for Q3. He has a 114.2 passer rating in the 3rd quarter. How did this happen if only one of the three 3rd quarters was any good? In fact he has only been bad in Q1.
It's like you only read part of my post. We scored TEN COMBINED POINTS in those three quarters. They scored ZERO in the third against Buffalo. Who cares how high his passer rating is?
AND, this is me not going back through those games to pull out all the rookie mistakes he kept making. Listen, you gotta understand, I was dumbfounded that the 4th quarter ever happened. That was what brought me back on board a little bit. But don't get twisted and act like Tua was leading this awesome offense up until that 4th quarter.
It's like you have no idea how the games are playing out. The Bills had the ball for approximately 12 of the 15 minutes of the 3rd quarter. Being on the bench tends to diminish the number of points you score.
Unathletic…. Lol Isn’t he an NFL starter, there are more arguments to be made, but I feel like this one makes it for me.
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/tua-tagovailoa-retire-nfl-concussion-doctor-says Dr. who discovered CTE says Tua received permanent long term brain damage and should retire from football.
Holy crap. That is one of the worst reporting I've seen. Fox News blatantly lying about who discovered CTE: CTE was discovered 40 years before Omalu was born (Omalu was born in 1968). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32777841/
Forget The Who discovered what argument. That’s irrelevant. What IS relevant is someone who hasn’t examined Tagovailoa at all is making such a bold statement. if his statement is just based on an in general observation, then wouldn’t he have to, in all fairness, call for the retirement of DOZENS of NFL players who have suffered concussions?
I was walking to the car from my office and responded to the wrong person somehow. I was actually in support of your opinion. Apparently walking and texting isnt a strength of mine, cause there's also quite a few typos Sorry.
How can a doctor who hasn’t examined Tua make such an observation and diagnosis? If every player who suffered a concussion was made to retire, rosters would have to be expanded because there would be players retiring every week.
The first part of your comment is what has ticked me off the most regarding this incident. All of the sudden every doctor, former NFL player, fan, social media moron, tv "analyst" have medical degrees now and are passing off their opinions on the situation as fact without having seen any of the medical reports on the matter. IF you want to stand up on whatever platform it is you have and say IN MY OPINION... he had a concussion the week before. That's fine; that's your opinion. The big problem to me is that everyone seems to just be content with saying "we now know he had a concussion before too" or something to that effect. But.. no. No you don't know that as a fact. Is it likely? Maybe. That's the problem though with media nowadays, opinions are passed off as fact far too often especially in the social media world. It is surprising to see a doctor though come out and say what he has; especially the CTE doctor that he is. Again, I understand he can have that opinion based on what he saw on TV, but until he's been someone that has viewed the medical evidence and facts... it's only an opinion, but that sure isn't how its being presented. Its irresponsible IMO.
https://www.mediaite.com/sports/joe...ive-been-hit-and-forgot-the-rest-of-the-game/ Well, I believe Joe Burrow should retire and the Bengals organization investigated as well.
Yes it is. It's a blatant lie. They say he discovered it when he didn't. It would have been easy to say he was the first to point it out in American football. But under no reading would a person interpret it that way. That's not just misleading, which the media is famous for, that's a blatant lie. And no I won't relax about that. Making up fake facts like that is unacceptable. Too much of it goes on in the media. And you shouldn't be defending it either.
Reading the article on the Burrow interview on Cowherd’s program shows that concussions have been around the league…forever, and even with the protocols initially put into place in 2009 (?), it shows they are still being largely ignored even to this day. Tagovailoa isn’t the first and unless the league and the union institute draconian measures, he and Burrow and Higgins and so many recent players aren’t going to be the last. As I stated earlier, I’d the league wasn’t so obsessed with chasing the Almighty dollar, Thursday night games wouldn’t exist and there would be less risk to players’ health.
Then 7 more and won the game. They ran only 39 plays and scored 21 points. Again, consider the fact that the Dolphins defense was bend but don't break all game and allowed 41 minutes time of possession and 92 plays. They were efficient on offense and 3 for 3 in the red zone. That is why they won the game. The idea that the QB gets no credit is ridiculous.
Yeah, but when you see a pattern in what the media censors and twists to their purpose, then I think it's more likely someone in the editorial room said "discovered" could in the most technical of senses be construed to apply to a specific context, even though no one will know that context when reading it. It's like saying a student repeating an experiment performed many times "discovered" the phenomenon in question, even though no one would ever think of that context while reading it. This isn't the first time you see this kind of stuff. The media leaves out context in the most egregious of ways to try to present a narrative that isn't even remotely accurate. Let's not kid ourselves here. Someone at these media organizations does do "fact checking". So it's not like they aren't taking into account such information when publishing stuff. The one exception is when they retract a story or publish a modified version of it with a disclaimer saying something was inaccurate in the previous version. That usually happens quickly though. Not here.
I think you're kinda playing semantics. When it comes to America and football, Omalu was the guy bringing it to the forefront. Call it lazy reporting, but calling it a lie is more than a little disingenuous, and seems more motivated by their political stances. I can't stand Fox News, ftr, and never watch it.
Maybe because you posted this: They scored ZERO in the third against Buffalo. Who cares how high his passer rating is?
If they knowingly stated something false then it's a lie. And yes they do fact checking. We've seen this pattern many times before, and not just by Fox News, though it's worth noting that Fox News is being sued for precisely spreading "lies" (i.e., use of that specific word instead of just lazy or misleading reporting) about voting machine fraud. That one is still in the court system. Again, it's a pattern. One has to do enormous amounts of extra work nowadays to see if what is being reported is accurate. Oh, and the worst is the implicit censorship. The stuff they get "outraged" about is often nothing outrageous, but they don't tell you what was said/happened and instead cover only the reaction to it. Really pisses me off. Yes it's a lie. They know exactly what they're doing.
Isn't stating something as a fact (e.g. "They lied") without any proof a lie, no matter how strongly you feel about or whether you are somehow proven correct?
Oh to be clear it's a strong opinion of mine, but the evidence is definitely in favor of something deliberate being done here when you see it happening over and over again with a clear benefit to the party making the claim.
