Fumbling and RB position

[Hawgdriver]

Do I need to make a strong case that ball security is the most vital attribute of a modern running back? Or are we already there. I can't read y'all's mind. MO? Jaded?

I'm not even sure I'm right.

Talk to me.

[underrated29]

Hmmmmmm.....

I think turnover battle is the single biggest teller of winning and losing. Regardless of position.


Having said that, when a players production vastly outweighs another turnovers cannot be the deciding factor.



We all want Watson here. If we do, we will see more sacks than with Drew. Buuuut Watsons play and production are increased so much more that its still easily worth it. Easily.

[atwater27]

Yeah the fumble ratio has to be weighed against big play ability and amount of production and especially scoring production. The way the runner is separated from the ball should have some thing to do with it too. Is their upper body strength suspect? Do they have small hands? Are they practicing solid ball handling habits? Do they get stood up a lot so half the defense can get a stab? Or are they just the victims of bad luck helmet to ball missiles? There are a lot of fumbles I have seen lately that I don’t know if anyone could have avoided. But if a runner is constantly double arming the rock with their head down, their explosiveness suffers badly. They gotta be quick and consistent at changing their posture, switching the ball when necessary. Definitely a skill a runner needs to stay on the field and out of the doghouse.

[FanInAZ]

When Dan Reeves was our HC in from '81-'92, he made eliminated fumbles a high priority. Not only did he have Vance Johnson fair catch every single punt he fielded, no matter how much room he had to return, but he also had a stable of RBs who couldn't convert a 3rd & 1 to save their lives. There are RBs that can move the chains & hold on to the ball, but most of the time you need to decide which is the higher priority, and how much you are willing to sacrifice 1 to improve upon the other.

[Hawgdriver]

I think there is some NFL "alpha" (to borrow the CAPM term) in this idea. I think you could use maths and make a good case. This is my gut feel. I should look into it--but I need access to good stat databases.

My proposition is this:


The optimal NFL roster uses replacement level running backs with elite ball security.

What evidence would prove this?

[aberdien]

My instinct tells me that prioritizing a ball security back who is less talented over a more talented back who has a higher chance of fumbling is equivalent to taking a knee with time in the 4th quarter in the playoffs at home to go to OT instead of trying to win the game.

[MOtorboat]

Can’t fumble. Can’t do it.

[Hawgdriver]

Can’t fumble. Can’t do it.

This is what my gut says--you can't build a roster around players who are scoring own-goals.

[underrated29]

This is what my gut says--you can't build a roster around players who are scoring own-goals.

Yes

but then no.

Every player fumbles/ints. Lindsay is extremely RARE in this regard.

[atwater27]

Yes

but then no.

Every player fumbles/ints. Lindsay is extremely RARE in this regard.
Especially impressive considering his size

[Hawgdriver]

Every player fumbles/ints. Lindsay is extremely RARE in this regard.

What if...it could be shown--with SCIENCE--that running backs have a *stable* trait called 'ball security' (aka fumble rate)?

What if it was also shown that this trait followed a generic distribution among ALL NFL running back candidates?

18342

What if it was then shown that it was the single most important trait in winning games? (NOT saying other traits are unimportant. They are.)

At this point, one might conclude that if NFL teams prized an explosive, average-fumbling 4.3 40 yard dash in a 220# body but neglected a non-fumbling 4.6 40 yard dash in a 220# body (ie, UDFA), they should scoop the freebie and devote scarce draft and FA resources toward other assets.

This isn't Lindsay vs. Freeman, exactly, but it applies. You could make a case that durability (so damned difficult to measure and harder to predict) is another one of these sneaky important traits.

But fumble rate seems to track from college to the pros, and it seems to conform to a generic distribution (like a 40 time might).

[NightTrainLayne]

What if...it could be shown--with SCIENCE--that running backs have a *stable* trait called 'ball security' (aka fumble rate)?

What if it was also shown that this trait followed a generic distribution among ALL NFL running back candidates?

18342

What if it was then shown that it was the single most important trait in winning games? (NOT saying other traits are unimportant. They are.)

At this point, one might conclude that if NFL teams prized an explosive, average-fumbling 4.3 40 yard dash in a 220# body but neglected a non-fumbling 4.6 40 yard dash in a 220# body (ie, UDFA), they should scoop the freebie and devote scarce draft and FA resources toward other assets.

This isn't Lindsay vs. Freeman, exactly, but it applies. You could make a case that durability (so damned difficult to measure and harder to predict) is another one of these sneaky important traits.

But fumble rate seems to track from college to the pros, and it seems to conform to a generic distribution (like a 40 time might).


You're not trying to apply analytics to football are you?

Going with the gut feeling is better. Pick the running back with the prettiest girlfriend.

[Softskull]

What if...it could be shown--with SCIENCE--that running backs have a *stable* trait called 'ball security' (aka fumble rate)?

What if it was also shown that this trait followed a generic distribution among ALL NFL running back candidates?

18342

What if it was then shown that it was the single most important trait in winning games? (NOT saying other traits are unimportant. They are.)

At this point, one might conclude that if NFL teams prized an explosive, average-fumbling 4.3 40 yard dash in a 220# body but neglected a non-fumbling 4.6 40 yard dash in a 220# body (ie, UDFA), they should scoop the freebie and devote scarce draft and FA resources toward other assets.

This isn't Lindsay vs. Freeman, exactly, but it applies. You could make a case that durability (so damned difficult to measure and harder to predict) is another one of these sneaky important traits.

But fumble rate seems to track from college to the pros, and it seems to conform to a generic distribution (like a 40 time might).

So show it.
I'm going with the "it depends" cop out.
I'll take a Barry Sanders' rookie year, 1500ish yards, 14 tds and coughed it up 10 times. Walter Payton dropped the rock 86 times, plus 4 times in the playoffs.
Sometimes freakish running skills (and hot girlfriends) override the "hold the damn ball" rule.
Melvin Gordon does not have freakish skills or a hot girlfriend.

[Softskull]

So show it.
I'm going with the "it depends" cop out.
I'll take a Barry Sanders' rookie year, 1500ish yards, 14 tds and coughed it up 10 times. Walter Payton dropped the rock 86 times, plus 4 times in the playoffs.
Sometimes freakish running skills (and hot girlfriends) override the "hold the damn ball" rule.
Melvin Gordon does not have freakish skills or a hot girlfriend.

I was completely wrong. Gordon's wife is gorgeous. He makes he team.

[Hawgdriver]

It's a project unlikely to fetch a reward worth the time spent.

[underrated29]

It's a project unlikely to fetch a reward worth the time spent.

So you concede Gordon is the rb we need?

[Hawgdriver]

So you concede Gordon is the rb we need?

We don't need own goals.

[underrated29]

We don't need own goals.

Lindsay contributed what 12 points net?
Gordon contributed what 54 points net?


We don't need stagnant. Dionte Spencer contributed 1 td less than Lindsay. Scoring points wins games. We are not the '85 bears. 54 is almost 5x more net points scored. Maybe we should bring Driscoll in to play qb again? He didn't score many own goals. He also didn't score points for us, and we lost every game he played in.

[atwater27]

Lindsay contributed what 12 points net?
Gordon contributed what 54 points net?


We don't need stagnant. Dionte Spencer contributed 1 td less than Lindsay. Scoring points wins games. We are not the '85 bears. 54 is almost 5x more net points scored. Maybe we should bring Driscoll in to play qb again? He didn't score many own goals. He also didn't score points for us, and we lost every game he played in.

The new oc misused him that’s what he was trying to tell us.

[BroncoWave]

Lindsay contributed what 12 points net?
Gordon contributed what 54 points net?


We don't need stagnant. Dionte Spencer contributed 1 td less than Lindsay. Scoring points wins games. We are not the '85 bears. 54 is almost 5x more net points scored. Maybe we should bring Driscoll in to play qb again? He didn't score many own goals. He also didn't score points for us, and we lost every game he played in.

This seems like an overly simplistic way of looking at it. I'm more curious how Gordon did from more of a WAR type standpoint. How many of his TDs could have been scored by a replacement level player if given the same chances? He tended to get all the goal line carries, which will boost your TD numbers. Was he making great plays on those goal line carries, or were they well designed/blocked plays in which whatever RB was given the carry would have scored.

Just saying "well he scored TDs and scoring is good" isn't really a convincing argument to me.

[underrated29]

This seems like an overly simplistic way of looking at it. I'm more curious how Gordon did from more of a WAR type standpoint. How many of his TDs could have been scored by a replacement level player if given the same chances? He tended to get all the goal line carries, which will boost your TD numbers. Was he making great plays on those goal line carries, or were they well designed/blocked plays in which whatever RB was given the carry would have scored.

Just saying "well he scored TDs and scoring is good" isn't really a convincing argument to me.

Lindsey had goal line carries. He didn't score on a single one of them. Not once. I dont think that makes him replacement level. It also shuts down that argument. Same coukd be said for short yardage...Lindsey sucked ass. Gordon didn't.

One vastly contributed to the team in every single way. The other vastly did not.


Literally anyone saying otherwise is lying to themselves or is being the ex girlfriend when you find someone new. Butt hurt that someone came in and did lindseys jobs better. If they're actually objective there is no argument. None.

[BroncoWave]

Lindsey had goal line carries. He didn't score on a single one of them. Not once. I dont think that makes him replacement level. It also shuts down that argument. Same coukd be said for short yardage...Lindsey sucked ass. Gordon didn't.

One vastly contributed to the team in every single way. The other vastly did not.


Literally anyone saying otherwise is lying to themselves or is being the ex girlfriend when you find someone new. Butt hurt that someone came in and did lindseys jobs better. If they're actually objective there is no argument. None.

In comparison to Lindsay you might be right, but in terms of justifying his salary over a cheaper RB we could possibly obtain, I'm not sure his TD numbers fully convince me.

[underrated29]

In comparison to Lindsay you might be right, but in terms of justifying his salary over a cheaper RB we could possibly obtain, I'm not sure his TD numbers fully convince me.

Ahhhh but that's not the topic. And that is what people keep trying to do. Move the goalposts back. Move them back again until they can find something that made Lindsey better. Keep moving the goal posts you know.


It went from. Lindsey is better. To not really. To no way. To not even close to. Gordon was simply better in every single aspect. To well Gordon fumbles more. But still w fumbles Gordon is 2x better (even more) to then salary and everything else.

There is no argument. Gordon is the bar none better player.

[Buff]

I think the average football fan underestimates just how small of a sample the 16 game regular season is - how vital every possession is - and how little room for error there is in the NFL.

Thus I'm with you that you can't simply shrug your shoulders at Melvin Gordon's ball control problems, because his fumbles are so catastrophic, it basically invalidates every other thing he does well...

It's why I was so down on Bolles for so long - you can't just overlook his holding no matter how many people he's mauling in the run game. Jeudy can't get credit for all of his tremendous route running if he doesn't catch the damn ball. Everything matters - it all adds up to a winning or losing organization.

[Hawgdriver]

I bet there are MIT analysts that have determined that Dickerson's legendary 2105 yard season was one of the all time worst seasons by a running back...14 fumbles...

Ok, I'm going to try something if I can scrape the data easily.

[BroncoWave]

Ahhhh but that's not the topic. And that is what people keep trying to do. Move the goalposts back. Move them back again until they can find something that made Lindsey better. Keep moving the goal posts you know.


It went from. Lindsey is better. To not really. To no way. To not even close to. Gordon was simply better in every single aspect. To well Gordon fumbles more. But still w fumbles Gordon is 2x better (even more) to then salary and everything else.

There is no argument. Gordon is the bar none better player.

People were saying the day we signed Gordon that he was overpaid and not worth that money, so I'm not sure you can say that's goalpost moving.

As to fumbles vs TDs, I'm still just not buying that one makes up for the other. A TD takes a lot of people doing their job right to occur. The coach has to call the right play, the QB has to make the right pre-snap reads, the line has to block, and if it's a long TD you usually need good blocking downfield by the WRs or TEs. The run is only a part of that equation.

A fumble, on the other hand, is completely the fault of the guy who fumbled. Unless it was a botched handoff, it's no one else's fault. You just can't have a guy fumble at the rate he does and just shrug it off because touchdowns.

[BroncoJoe]

This didn't help either! :)

https://twitter.com/NFL/status/1320489715213107201?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1320489715213107201%7Ctwgr% 5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kansascity.com%2Fsports% 2Fspt-columns-blogs%2Ffor-petes-sake%2Farticle246713101.html

[Hawgdriver]

It's not free to scrape the data I need, so my argument will be superficial and piecemeal.

18355

[Hawgdriver]

It is clear that limiting turnovers is critical to winning. Teams that lose fumbles or throw picks more than their opponent lose about 80% of their games.

Unfortunately, being in the process of losing a contest also leads to more turnovers (late game interceptions), so this evidence isn't as strong as I'd like. But it's still something.

[underrated29]

I think the average football fan underestimates just how small of a sample the 16 game regular season is - how vital every possession is - and how little room for error there is in the NFL.

Thus I'm with you that you can't simply shrug your shoulders at Melvin Gordon's ball control problems, because his fumbles are so catastrophic, it basically invalidates every other thing he does well...

It's why I was so down on Bolles for so long - you can't just overlook his holding no matter how many people he's mauling in the run game. Jeudy can't get credit for all of his tremendous route running if he doesn't catch the damn ball. Everything matters - it all adds up to a winning or losing organization.



Buff, I love you, but what a load of crap!


It Basically does not. It basically does nothing. You are not dumb enough to say 4 fumbles 100% completely wipes out 10+ tds. Basically wipes out game winning drives and points. Basically wipes out amazing 1 handed catch on 4th down- to get the first so we can go win the game.




All of you arguments are Basically Crap. Correction, all of your arguments are crap.


Basically Gordon is the best thing to happen to all of you since your mother giving you birth. Now go build him a shrine!!

[BroncoWave]

Buff, I love you, but what a load of crap!


It Basically does not. It basically does nothing. You are not dumb enough to say 4 fumbles 100% completely wipes out 10+ tds. Basically wipes out game winning drives and points. Basically wipes out amazing 1 handed catch on 4th down- to get the first so we can go win the game.




All of you arguments are Basically Crap. Correction, all of your arguments are crap.


Basically Gordon is the best thing to happen to all of you since your mother giving you birth. Now go build him a shrine!!

My mom giving birth to me might be the worst thing that ever happened to me since that means now I have to be alive to read your posts!

[underrated29]

My mom giving birth to me might be the worst thing that ever happened to me since that means now I have to be alive to read your posts!

:lol::lol::lol:

[Hawgdriver]

Ok I spent too much energy looking at this issue with too little to show for it. All the same, I'll share what I think is useful.

First off, I grabbed a bunch of data from Pro Football Reference related to the 2020 season--all of it team data. Team offense, defense, passing, etc.

18359

I am severely hampered in exploring the most meaningful 'cruxes of the issue' because I don't have great data. For example, I'd really like to focus on stats from the first 3 quarters of the game, since so much nonsense happens in the 4th quarter once the outcome is all but decided.

Oh well.

The first thing I wanted to check is the relationship between fumbles and wins.

Well. It's not so easy. The thing is, fumbles, as a team statistic, is not that indicative of RB fumbles. Most of a team's fumbles are from the QB position. Many more are from wide receivers. For example, the Broncos has 23 fumbles on the season: the 4 from MG3 that have been beat to death, 8 from Lock, 2 from KJ, 2 from Jeudy, 2 from Diontae Spencer (!!), and 3 more from others.

Many of those fumbles are not ball-security, but are the result of a sack.

So let's shift our focus instead to the idea that "offensive turnovers of any variety are very damaging to championship hopes."

I mean, they are. Duh. No one needs this frickin thesis for that. But still, here's some charts...

[Hawgdriver]

18360

This chart is a scatterplot of a bunch of coordinates. The X-axis is TEAM WINS (and will be for all of these that follow). The Y-axis is % of plays that ended in a fumble or interception.

Note: many of these fumbles were recovered.

The strength of the simple linear relationship between these two variables is related to the "R squared" or R² number...in this case, a meager 0.11. That is saying 'yeah, there's a positive relationship, but it's tenuous at best'.

But how about this--what if we just consider the fumbles that were actually lost? What if we bring pure luck into the fold and see how much that determines if a team wins a game?

18361

Well...the R² value goes up to .28, which is a significant bump.

It's kind of like saying..."Offensive fumbles and interceptions explain 11% of winning football games. But fumbles LOST and interceptions explain 28% of winning football games."

That's kind of wild when you think about it--that the arbitrary results from fumble recoveries determine so much of a team's fortune.

[Hawgdriver]

Some teams were lucky, and they recovered a LOT of their fumbles--more than 2 out of 3. Others were less fortunate. How many games do you think this spread accounts for?

18362

[Hawgdriver]

Well, in any event, there's a lot more to winning and losing games than just offensive turnovers.

There are also...DEFENSIVE turnovers. Yes...what percent of the time did the defense end an opponent's drive with a turnover? We would expect the contribution of this aspect of a team's performance to be similarly important.

It turns out, it was slightly more important (at least the numbers work that way).

18363

The Y-axis is the percentage of drives that ended in a defensive turnover.

Oh, btw, as an aside, the Broncos led the league in 2020 with the WORST offensive turnover rate--17% of drives ended in a turnover. Blech.

Ok, back to our regular broadcast.

What we see here is that 39% of NFL season wins are explained by how often a team's defense creates a turnover. (the R² value)

If we combine offensive and defensive turnovers, the relationship to overall winning becomes even stronger.

18364

The .55 R² is a decent indication that there is a strong relationship.

Again, this is a correlation, not a directional causation. Winning games also generates turnovers if you think about it.

The Y-axis in this chart is the percentage of defensive drives that end in a turnover minus the percentage of offensive drives that end in a turnover. It is probably about the same chart you'd see if we just used 'turnover differential' rather than as a percentage of drives ending that way (if not exactly the same).

[Hawgdriver]

Ok, but there's more than just turnovers. There are also...PENALTIES... :lol:

Ok, there's a million other things, and trying to gnat's ass how it all works is complicated af.

So let's stick with big picture stuff.

How about offensive execution? Super important. How about we look at NY/A (net yards per passing attempt--basically yards gained per pass play including the negative effect of sacks) vs wins?

18365

31% of wins explained by passing efficiency...that squares with common sense.

I should note, these R² values will not add up to 100% because there are inter-relationships between these variables--they are not strictly independent of each other.

[Hawgdriver]

You can run down a bunch of these variables to see what matters, but there's always some little detail that makes it hard to put in a clean, tidy package.

I'll hit the highlights:

I created a model that uses only these variables to explain/predict 2020 W/L totals and also point differential. What was the most important? In order, it was:

Defensive TO creation
NY/A
Luck (fumbles that bounce in a team's favor)
Y/A (rushing yards per attempt)
Offensive TO
Penalties
Strength of Schedule

That's what I used. I could have used other stuff, but it's a pretty arbitrary division no matter what you choose--and there will be a lot of overlap if you aren't careful. Some stuff (special teams, QB pressures, coach mismanagement, etc.) was completely omitted. For example, at one point I used field position and points per drive--but they made some of the parameters completely useless because they were SOOO outcome-determinative. That makes sense--points per drive is almost the combination of all of these factors--Def TO, Off TO, NY/A, Y/A, Field Position. Yeah, points per drive was too OP.

[Hawgdriver]

I could run this on 2019 and see how stable the results are. I'd expect some fluctuation. But so what? Is there a good takeaway?

I think so. Turnovers and luck are hugely outcome-determinative. And while winning games (through execution and strong NY/A and Y/A) kind of creates extra turnovers once the game goes into the 4th quarter, it's still such a strong relationship it deserves crucial attention.

There's a lot to the game, and all the details add up.

For my next dig, I'd like to look if any teams have been built based on the offensive turnover-minimization idea, and how they have fared. But that's enough for now.

Damn you, UR.

[atwater27]

Wow you are diving deep into this my man. Impressive

[Buff]

I am way lazier than Hawg - and would love to be able to quantify this even further, but I think it really comes down to this:


Over the past five regular seasons, teams that have won the turnover battle have won their games 76.8 percent of the time and covered the spread 76 percent.

https://www.sportsline.com/nfl/news/nfl-teams-with-turnover-edge-in-games-win-and-cover-the-spread-nearly-80-percent-of-time/

We know the turnover margin matters. We know there are a lot of variables that go into turnovers -- but for a RB it's pretty simple - don't ******* fumble. Ever.

[underrated29]

I am way lazier than Hawg - and would love to be able to quantify this even further, but I think it really comes down to this:



https://www.sportsline.com/nfl/news/nfl-teams-with-turnover-edge-in-games-win-and-cover-the-spread-nearly-80-percent-of-time/

We know the turnover margin matters. We know there are a lot of variables that go into turnovers -- but for a RB it's pretty simple - don't ******* fumble. Ever.


Yes, and without looking it up- how many RBs have not fumbled ever- RBs with at least 50 carries. You already know 1, Phil. Name 4 more. How many of those (if you can name off without looking up) are in the top 15 of RBs either of the last 2 years.

And the entire premise is the same for all offensive skill positions. WR, TE, RB- and IMO moreso QB. QBs are the ones that should not turn the ball over ever!

[underrated29]

Hawg, Great work sir!

It gave you something to do. It gave the rest of us a pointer to watch you get all nerdy!

[Softskull]

Ok, but there's more than just turnovers. There are also...PENALTIES... :lol:

Ok, there's a million other things, and trying to gnat's ass how it all works is complicated af.

So let's stick with big picture stuff.

How about offensive execution? Super important. How about we look at NY/A (net yards per passing attempt--basically yards gained per pass play including the negative effect of sacks) vs wins?

18365

31% of wins explained by passing efficiency...that squares with common sense.

I should note, these R² values will not add up to 100% because there are inter-relationships between these variables--they are not strictly independent of each other.

Well done my Bronco A-type brother!

[Hawgdriver]

Well done my Bronco A-type brother!

Thx.

I feel like I could hit it out of the park with better data. Maybe start a consulting side hustle. Maybe I will...

I love this ish.

[underrated29]

Thx.

I feel like I could hit it out of the park with better data. Maybe start a consulting side hustle. Maybe I will...

I love this ish.

You really need to get on clubhouse hawg.

[BroncoWave]

You really need to get on clubhouse hawg.

I don't understand the appeal of clubhouse. Why tf would I want to have voice chats withb complete randos?

[underrated29]

I don't understand the appeal of clubhouse. Why tf would I want to have voice chats withb complete randos?


If you think its the audio version of this forum then that is why you do not understand the appeal.


For someone that is a business person or waning to be, etc. It is changing the world. I have a deal in place with tyrese gibson (dude from fast and furious), I had a conversation with paris hilton- we did not colab on anything but the door is now open. Les brown, tony robbins, grant cardone people pay thousands to be a part of their masterminds. Ive been a part of them for free. I have signed a deal with Barry Osborne Matrix and Lord of RIngs- 20 mil.- no I am not going to be in the film. No I did not make 20 mil. I have about 50 new leads every day. I have been on it for 5 weeks now- 1 week I was in Jamaica and I have 2k followers. That is a lot. That is good and easy to monetize. So on and so forth. Rachel Starr is a porn star- she follows me because I gave her great advise and I will be selling her and hopefully her peeps on things when Covid goes away. I just got back from Vegas 3 days ago closing a deal with some heavy hitters.

SR knows not what he speaks- Clubhouse is the single biggest game changer- ever. Without a doubt. Hands down. If you work for someone else or something then it may not be for you. If you like learning or improving yourself then it may be. I cannot tell you how much free stuff I have gotten from it too. People sending me Shirts, masks, handle of rum and some fireball, these things on the back of phones, food. So on and so forth.

[Hawgdriver]

And the entire premise is the same for all offensive skill positions. WR, TE, RB- and IMO moreso QB. QBs are the ones that should not turn the ball over ever!

QB fumble rate is worth a lot of investigation. Like you say, they are all important.

One thing that makes a RB fumble a bit more of a sore spot is the idea that a running play is a game-control play. You are ok with no gain. You are pissed about a TFL but oh well. You expect to keep the chains moving. And the clock. You da boss. It's a close game, or it's a game you are winning by 10 points. Just need to salt it away.

Get mah drift? You tend to have a high running play % when the game is within a score or so. Or when well ahead. You trust your defense, just want to keep on keepin on.

Remember Kub in '16? Those games were close, like in '15. Dude just wanted to keep shit close, keep the score close.

He did.

But when the team got behind, damn if it didn't all fall apart--the pass rush became way less valuable, it forced a weaker QB to push for a win, etc.

So in that context, when the game is close in the 2d quarter and you have a RB fumble (that is lost as often recovered)...that might be the straw to break the back. (but hey, like you say, same can be said for a QB sack/fumble and WR fumble...fumble is fumble..just that you especially expect the RB in that sitch to keep the rock...and damn if a lot of these games are decided by 7 points or less)

....

(food for thought)

...

Ultimately, you'd like to have a conversion chart that tells you that a RB fumble-per-touch is worth -X._ yards-per-touch. Then you compare RB1 with 5.0 ypc and RB2 with 4.0 ypc and conclude that RB2 is the better back. That's my hunch.

[atwater27]

Thx.

I feel like I could hit it out of the park with better data. Maybe start a consulting side hustle. Maybe I will...

I love this ish.or give pro football focus or pro football outsiders a call.

[BroncoWave]

If you think its the audio version of this forum then that is why you do not understand the appeal.


For someone that is a business person or waning to be, etc. It is changing the world. I have a deal in place with tyrese gibson (dude from fast and furious), I had a conversation with paris hilton- we did not colab on anything but the door is now open. Les brown, tony robbins, grant cardone people pay thousands to be a part of their masterminds. Ive been a part of them for free. I have signed a deal with Barry Osborne Matrix and Lord of RIngs- 20 mil.- no I am not going to be in the film. No I did not make 20 mil. I have about 50 new leads every day. I have been on it for 5 weeks now- 1 week I was in Jamaica and I have 2k followers. That is a lot. That is good and easy to monetize. So on and so forth. Rachel Starr is a porn star- she follows me because I gave her great advise and I will be selling her and hopefully her peeps on things when Covid goes away. I just got back from Vegas 3 days ago closing a deal with some heavy hitters.

SR knows not what he speaks- Clubhouse is the single biggest game changer- ever. Without a doubt. Hands down. If you work for someone else or something then it may not be for you. If you like learning or improving yourself then it may be. I cannot tell you how much free stuff I have gotten from it too. People sending me Shirts, masks, handle of rum and some fireball, these things on the back of phones, food. So on and so forth.

I guess that seems cool for your line of work. Probably just a matter of time before trolls ruin/overrun it like with the rest of social media though.

[underrated29]

I guess that seems cool for your line of work. Probably just a matter of time before trolls ruin/overrun it like with the rest of social media though.

They try. They get an automatic ban and the person who invited them gets an automatic ban too. They get sorted quickly. I had a convo with 5 billionaires last night. Five. Billion w a B!

I dont care what line of work someone is in, thats a cool thing, a lot to be learned. No where else have I been able to chat with billionaire and ask them and learn from them and get the time of day even.

[Simple Jaded]

Geeks rule!

[BroncoWave]

Geeks rule!

Especially PFF amirite?!?

[Simple Jaded]

This didn't help either! :)

https://twitter.com/NFL/status/1320489715213107201?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1320489715213107201%7Ctwgr% 5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kansascity.com%2Fsports% 2Fspt-columns-blogs%2Ffor-petes-sake%2Farticle246713101.html

This is a RB’s version of the Buttfumble.

[Simple Jaded]

Do I need to make a strong case that ball security is the most vital attribute of a modern running back? Or are we already there. I can't read y'all's mind. MO? Jaded?

I'm not even sure I'm right.

Talk to me.

You’re wrong.

This opinion is all theoretical, of course, but I believe my math is sound.

[Hawgdriver]

Well done my Bronco A-type brother!


Well done my Bronco A-type brother!

We Bronco A-types need to stick together!

[Hawgdriver]

Follow up thoughts.

Henry (Titans) and Kamara (Saints) are two good examples of average fumble rates--about 1 per 130 touches. Over a heavy usage, 400 touch season, that will be about 3 fumbles. 50 percent will be turnovers. The turnover will happen on the field in proportion to where RBs touch the ball, that is, more often in the middle 50 because that is where teams usually are. Considering a punt as the worst case, a lost fumble gives up 40 yards of field position. Counting the likely additional 15-20 yards any team will gain (average drive of 30-40 yards, but could be 1st, 2d, or 3d down, so average expected gain is halfish of that 35 or so), plus any defensive fumble return yardage.. it's about 60 yards of field lost with a lost RB fumble. Let's call it an automatic field goal--3 pts. Could be more, factoring in that some turnovers will lead to TDs, and some to nothing, but the instant, standalone point cost of a RB fumble lost is roughly 3 points.

So a 130 per touch RB will, on average, give up 4.5 points over the season.

Some RB fumble at higher (Gordon, 1 per 70, Cook, 1 per 75) or lower (Lindsay, 0 per 650, Hunt, 1 per 200) rates.

A RB that fumbles at twice the rate of an 'average' RB will cost his team twice the points. So instead of 4.5 pts, it would be 9 points. A RB that fumbles twice less often, well, 2.25 points vs 4.5 points.

Maybe that 7 point (over a season) difference doesn't seem like much. But in a 300 point season, that's 2 percent of your scoring offense. And some games will come down to that 3 point giveaway when the final score is close.

[underrated29]

Would not the RBs TDs scored and overall production (total yards) not factor into this?


Extremem example but if there was a RB that scored guaranteed at least 2 tds per game (there was LT) and lets just say that he fumbled 1x per game as well (lost and returned for a TD). The RBs net is still a positive 7 points.


As you mentioned when games can be won or lost on 3 points. If the points are positive should they not outweigh or be factored in.


(Its about time for Melvin to fumble. I have a feeling 2 of them may be on deck sadly)

[FanInAZ]

Would not the RBs TDs scored and overall production (total yards) not factor into this?


Extremem example but if there was a RB that scored guaranteed at least 2 tds per game (there was LT) and lets just say that he fumbled 1x per game as well (lost and returned for a TD). The RBs net is still a positive 7 points.


As you mentioned when games can be won or lost on 3 points. If the points are positive should they not outweigh or be factored in.


(Its about time for Melvin to fumble. I have a feeling 2 of them may be on deck sadly)

My reply to your last post in the Week 3 - News & Notes - Jets at Broncos:


It’s always been my position that every TO negates the benefits of a TD. Of course an excessively ridged application of this principle would assume that all TOs have an equal impact on a game no matter where they occur on the field and at what point in the game. I wouldn’t take my position to that extent.

[Hawgdriver]

Would not the RBs TDs scored and overall production (total yards) not factor into this?


Extremem example but if there was a RB that scored guaranteed at least 2 tds per game (there was LT) and lets just say that he fumbled 1x per game as well (lost and returned for a TD). The RBs net is still a positive 7 points.


As you mentioned when games can be won or lost on 3 points. If the points are positive should they not outweigh or be factored in.


(Its about time for Melvin to fumble. I have a feeling 2 of them may be on deck sadly)

Sure, a RB can add value with all the other stuff they do, but it should be compared to a sort of 'replacement level' or league average. As far as I know, there's no such thing as a 'nose for the end zone', so I don't think actual TD production matters that much. But maybe.

But yeah, if a RB's production is well above average, that goes in the plus column. Pass protection, etc. Heck, good pass pro might stop a strip sack and so on, and that should matter.

I'm not saying I have any clear answers, except that we should factor in ball security traits probably more than we realize.

[King87]

Considering that RB's should be strong enough and disciplined enough to fumble rarely, it's a precursor.

Look at Tiki Barber's career.