syhuang

To be fair, the start of this conversation is you brought up 3-step punt and you said he had at least two blocked punt. However, the first “blocked” punt in this game is officially counted as a 27 yard punt and the play is disrupted by an unblocked rusher. See the video I just posted.

and forget to block an Utah State player again…… here is the first “blocked” punt though officially it’s recorded as a 27 yard punt. I don’t think 3-step punt has anything to do with this play.

to be fair, the first one was a partial block and the ball still travelled 27 yards (forward)

he did have one punt blocked last season against Utah State, not sure why it doesn’t show up in his stats at this site. It’s not completely his fault, ie. the 3-step punt the other poster brought up, consider the snap was high. (He had a rough day that game and had a FG blocked too) https://dknation.draftkings.com/2021/12/4/22817666/matt-araiza-blocked-punt-personal-foul-video-peoples-heisman-san-diego-state-punter

I never said Samuel's YAC production was all schemed, don't make up lies just to cover yourself. The very first post I made in this thread is here and all ensuing posts never have something like "Samuel's YAC production was all schemed". You probably remember someone else, if so, I'm waiting for your apology. I guess you have made up your mind and won't even acknowledge other data people show you including play-by-play, target chart, and videos. You already form your opinion by few stats and a highlight video. The funny thing is that, even in this highlight video you posted and emphasized, only 50% of the plays are non-screen passes while 20% are screen passes and other 30% are his rush plays and one trick play, a pass TD from him (not receiption). It's okay to admit his YAC stat benefits from 49ers' offense calling. Admitting that doesn't take away anything from him as a player, his season, and his YAC ability. Majority of the people agree that his is a great player and good at YAC, what others trying to tell you is that the large YAC discrepancy you posted should take the systems these players are in into account. Again, no one is arguing Samuel is better at YAC, but the point I and others try to tell you is that offense scheme and design are big part of YAC, one player alone may not make a major difference. BTW, I have said the sentence you quoted several times. Even I edited some of the posts, the time stamp clearly showed it's edited soon afterward, not today like you accused.

You mean 49ers often calling WR screen is false even though there are multiple examples listed from play-by-play, target chart, or even the highlight video you posted yourself? If after all of these you still refuse to acknowledge that, I guess nothing others can do. Just to be clear, I'm not saying Samuel's YAC are all or mostly from WR screen. The reason I brought up 49ers' play calling is that Samuel's YAC benefits from 49ers' offense and offense scheme matters. Anyway, no one is arguing Samuel is better at YAC, but the point is that offense scheme and design are big part of YAC, one player alone may not make a major difference.

You know highlights usually do not include WR screens that do not result in touchdowns or big gain. Didn't I already give you some examples from play-by-play regarding his YAC from WR screens? On the other hand, this highlight actually includes the two touchdown plays in his week 4 target chart I posted earlier where one is a WR screen and one touchdown is a blown coverage having nothing to do with his YAC ability. Nevertheless, both plays contribute to his YAC stat. It's interesting that you said this highlight video looks nothing like I described when in fact it includes the touchdown plays in the week 4 target chart I posted and described earlier today. Here is another example of his WR screen (83 yards gain): Again, Samuel is definitely shifty and hard to bring down, but the point is that offense scheme and design are big part of YAC, one player alone may not make a major difference.

You know these are averages, right? It doesn't mean Samuel's YAC often comes from the 8~9 yard receptions. WR screens inflates his YAC numbers. In the meantime, WR screens also reduces his average reception depth. In other words, his non-WR-screen average receiving depth is actually higher than 8.3. Don't get me wrong, Samuel is definitely shifty and hard to bring down, but his wonderful 10 average yard after catch does benefit from 49ers' play calling and good blocking in general. Also, your reply regarding McKenzie is exactly my point. Buffalo probably could have increased their YAC last year by calling more WR screens but, unlike 49ers' offense, that's likely not for the best for Bills' offense. Anyway, the point is that offense scheme and design are big part of YAC, one player alone may not make a major difference.

While it has been discussed Bills' worst YAC has something to do with offense design, it's also important to remember 49ers' play design contributes to Deebo's wonderful YAC stat. Deebo definitely is shifty, he plays like a RB and is used as a RB often. 49ers' offense often calls WR screens for Deebo and let him gain yards like a RB. I don't recall Bills called that many WR screens, definitely in much lower rate than 49ers and Deebo. Many of Deebo's YAC comes from WR screens. If you check his game logs, you can easily find plays like below: ------------------- 1st & 10 at SF 34 (0:33 - 2nd) (Shotgun) J.Garoppolo pass short left to B.Aiyuk to SF 32 for -2 yards. Lateral to D.Samuel pushed ob at SF 42 for 10 yards (J.Ramsey). 12-YAC ------------------- 2nd & 10 at SF 26 (1:45 - 2nd) (Shotgun) T.Lance pass short left to D.Samuel to SF 27 for 1 yard (D.King; J.Greenard). Caught SF 19. 8-YAC ------------------- (9:04 - 1st) (Shotgun) J.Garoppolo pass short left to D.Samuel to IND 16 for no gain (B.Okereke). Caught at IND 20. 4-YAC ------------------- 2nd & 2 at SEA 49 (12:03 - 1st) (Shotgun) J.Garoppolo pass short left to D.Samuel to SEA 28 for 21 yards (D.Reed). PENALTY on SF-T.Sherfield, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at SEA 44. Caught at SF 49. 23-YAC ------------------- (13:01 - 3rd) 10-J.Garoppolo at QB. (Shotgun) J.Garoppolo pass short left to D.Samuel to SF 47 for 19 yards (A.Amos, D.Campbell). Caught at SF 25. 22-YAC ------------------- 1st & 10 at GB 25 (10:12 - 3rd) (Shotgun) J.Garoppolo pass short middle to D.Samuel to GB 24 for 1 yard (D.Campbell). Caught at GB 30. 6-YAC ------------------- This chart below is Deebo's week 4 target chart where he gets 88 YAC among his 156 total rec yards. On the surface, he is great at YAC. However, we can see majority of his YAC comes from two WR screens to the left and one long touchdown on the right sideline, which is a blown coverage and has nothing to do with his YAC ability. Of course, this is from one game and we can easily find plays showing Deebo breaking tackles, having quick acceleration, or changing direction to have a good YAC gain. However, just keep in mind YAC has a lot to do with both Bills' and 49ers' offense design. It doesn't take away Deebo's ability but once we take offense into account, the YAC differential isn't likely to be fixed by one player alone like Deebo. Calling more WR screens to Mckenzie probably would have improved Bills' YAC quite a bit last season, but that might not be for the best of Bills offense.

But if you use an arbitrary threshold of 65%, that would make his catch rate look better.😉

not exactly, he says high rate and scores a lot of TDs, not just catch%. the stat I replied to is "There were 15 TE's who caught 0ver 70% of their targets last year. Knox wasn't one of them." which is brought up by you. Anyway, the point is that stats are easy to manipulate to make the point people want to make.

The stat I replied to is definitely the one you brought up. In case you forgot, the stat I responded to is this one you wrote: "There were 15 TE's who caught 0ver 70% of their targets last year. Knox wasn't one of them." Anyway, the point is that stats are easy to manipulate to make the point people want to make.

Do you know who also wasn't one of them? Mark Andrews and Travis Kelce. Or we can manipulate stats further, how many of these TEs over 70% catch/target with more than 20 catches also have higher yard per catch than Know? only 2, Kittle and Goedert. The point? stats are easy to manipulate to make the point people want to make.

So we do agree on the criminal charge lawsuit part and, for whether all civil lawsuit will be 100% tossed out, we will agree to disagree.

I answered you that there are people making strange lawsuit for whatever reasons they can find, either they have too much time or they try to make a name of themselves. For example, the 6 billion lawsuit against Jets and Giants for using "New York" or a 5 million lawsuit again NFL from a Saints season ticker holder for “expecting the Saints would be capable of competitively fielding a contending team comprised of the finest athletes, and the best coaches, under contract...or available to them through normal trades and draft choices, without dictatorial, unreasonable, vindictive, and unfounded, interference.” Someone can easily do similar things to file a lawsuit against Ross like claiming something like the above Saints fan lawsuit or claiming suspicious betting line, etc. I already say this kind of lawsuit has low chance but I wouldn't go ahead to say all of this kind of lawsuits will be 100% dismissed. Hey, there is no 100% guarantee in court even if you're the best of the best. Anyway, it's good that we finally agree on the criminal charge lawsuit part and for whether all civil lawsuit will be 100% tossed out, we will agree to disagree.

We already went through this and we're in a loop now. In the end, you said Ross has better lawyers and will get any civil lawsuit dismissed. While I agree the chance of civil lawsuit is low, I wouldn't claim 100% any lawsuit will be tossed out. No need to repeat the whole thing again, you can go through the posts yesterday. Anyway, glad we agree on the criminal charge lawsuit part and agree to disagree on whether all civil lawsuit will be 100% tossed out.

Okay, but glad we agree on the criminal charge lawsuit part and agree to disagree on whether all civil lawsuit will be 100% tossed out.

Glad we iron out the part that there is a ground for a (criminal case) lawsuit against Ross and that's probably the only way to find out the detail of the supposed bribery.

A criminal charge is still a lawsuit. Basically a criminal case is a lawsuit brought by the state, usually filed by the district attorney, which represents the state. This is getting into semantics territory. It looks like when you say "lawsuit", you only refer to "civil lawsuit" and exclude criminal charge. Let's just agree there is definitely a ground for criminal charge. We can then agree to disagree whether a criminal charge is a lawsuit. As for whether civil lawsuits get a chance, I'd say the chance is low, but can't definitely say there is 0 chance. Again, let's just agree to disagree on that. The point still remains, that there is a ground for a (criminal case) lawsuit against Ross and that's probably the only way to find out the detail of the supposed bribery.

A criminal case is definitely more likely if that happens. On the other hand, anyone with too much money and/or time can bring up a lawsuit against Ross by whatever reason he can think of like claiming loss from betting lines/odds. These days people can sue others by any kind of reasons if they like. It may not stand after all but doesn't stop those ridiculous suits. But anyway, the point is that there is a ground for a lawsuit against Ross (and yes, a criminal case is more likely) and that's probably the only way to find out the detail of the supposed bribery.

Yes, public against Ross is a possiblity. Again, it doesn't need any game outcome was actually affected or any one actually suffered any loss as long as Ross indeed attempted it. Read the following again especially the "attempt" keyword highlighted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- §224. Bribery in sporting contests (a) Whoever carries into effect, attempts to carry into effect, or conspires with any other person to carry into effect any scheme in commerce to influence, in any way, by bribery any sporting contest, with knowledge that the purpose of such scheme is to influence by bribery that contest, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. (b) This section shall not be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to occupy the field in which this section operates to the exclusion of a law of any State, territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the United States, and no law of any State, territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the United States, which would be valid in the absence of the section shall be declared invalid, and no local authorities shall be deprived of any jurisdiction over any offense over which they would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section. (c) As used in this section- (1) The term "scheme in commerce" means any scheme effectuated in whole or in part through the use in interstate or foreign commerce of any facility for transportation or communication; (2) The term "sporting contest" means any contest in any sport, between individual contestants or teams of contestants (without regard to the amateur or professional status of the contestants therein), the occurrence of which is publicly announced before its occurrence; (3) The term "person" means any individual and any partnership, corporation, association, or other entity.

The post you questioned says "could come from a public suit that hasn't yet been filed regarding the NFL/Ross's ties to gambling and impacting game outcomes." You questioned game outcomes aren't impacted since Flores turned down alleged bonuses. I then replied to you to mention that a public suit doesn't need any game outcome being actually impacted as long as Ross indeed "attempted" to do so.

It doesn't matter whether any game outcome is indeed affected. As long as Ross does "attempt" to do so, he is in trouble. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I-CRIMES, CHAPTER 11-BRIBERY, GRAFT, AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST §224. Bribery in sporting contests (a) Whoever carries into effect, attempts to carry into effect, or conspires with any other person to carry into effect any scheme in commerce to influence, in any way, by bribery any sporting contest, with knowledge that the purpose of such scheme is to influence by bribery that contest, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. (b) This section shall not be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to occupy the field in which this section operates to the exclusion of a law of any State, territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the United States, and no law of any State, territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the United States, which would be valid in the absence of the section shall be declared invalid, and no local authorities shall be deprived of any jurisdiction over any offense over which they would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section. (c) As used in this section- (1) The term "scheme in commerce" means any scheme effectuated in whole or in part through the use in interstate or foreign commerce of any facility for transportation or communication; (2) The term "sporting contest" means any contest in any sport, between individual contestants or teams of contestants (without regard to the amateur or professional status of the contestants therein), the occurrence of which is publicly announced before its occurrence; (3) The term "person" means any individual and any partnership, corporation, association, or other entity.