Beerball Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Obviously gotta fix that, obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 How many wins did that cost us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 16, 2014 Author Share Posted June 16, 2014 How many wins did that cost us? I don't know, how many? Are you now going to tell me that turnovers don't matter & we shouldn't be concerned about whether we lead the league in fumbles in 2014? That's the only conclusion I can draw from your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramblin' Rob Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 How many wins did that cost us? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Since 1972 Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 2 Damn! we could have hit that ever elusive 8-8 mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowery4 Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 I don't know, how many? Are you now going to tell me that turnovers don't matter & we shouldn't be concerned about whether we lead the league in fumbles in 2014? That's the only conclusion I can draw from your post. Obviously, if you consider that the two teams in the Super Bowl were in the top 5 (I know #4 had 4 teams but..) and they each had just 5 and 6 less than us, what conclusion should we reach? I am not trying to say fumbles don't cost games but they apparently don't really have to. Obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 I don't know, how many? Are you now going to tell me that turnovers don't matter & we shouldn't be concerned about whether we lead the league in fumbles in 2014? That's the only conclusion I can draw from your post. Seruosly, beerball? That's the only conclusion you come up with? How about "Yes, fumbles are a huge problem, which likely cost us 2-3 wins"? Which, by the way, was what I was inferring when I said "how many wins did that cost us?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris heff Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Two of those fumbles cost us a win twice in the same game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Here's to greater emphasis on ball security this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Here's to greater emphasis on ball security this season. Amen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Dammit, I can't believe EJ Manuel fumbled 32 times. What an !@#$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fan_in_tx Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Amazing! Our CB tied for the team lead in fumbles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffalothruMyVeins Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 When Jim Schwartz was an assistant under Belichek in Cleveland, he did a study and conluded that lack of interceptions thrown and quantity of ints forced was conducive to team skill (if you get more, or throw less, it's probably because you're better), but he concluded that there was NO such similar correlation to forced fumble and fumble recoveries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JESSEFEFFER Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) The Bills only lost 12 which is not bad and probably closer to middle of the pack. 7 of the 32 were credited to Leodis which seems to indicate that they are counting a muffed punt as a fumble, (of which he only lost 1.) I don't recall him having a problem handling the ball but, then again, I wouldn't think much of a mishandled punt that he dropped at his own feet, picked up and made a return. Edited June 16, 2014 by JESSEFEFFER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 16, 2014 Author Share Posted June 16, 2014 Seruosly, beerball? That's the only conclusion you come up with? How about "Yes, fumbles are a huge problem, which likely cost us 2-3 wins"? Which, by the way, was what I was inferring when I said "how many wins did that cost us?" My apologies, sarcasm detector is on the fritz today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) Not a surprise that the Broncos and Seahawks are both in the top 5. Manning throws the ball a lot and Russell Wilson has a really high fumble rate. It doesn't make that much of a difference because the Broncos can outscore you, and nobody can score on the Seahawks. The Bills are in #1 because of Thad Lewis. Edited June 16, 2014 by Fingon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 When Jim Schwartz was an assistant under Belichek in Cleveland, he did a study and conluded that lack of interceptions thrown and quantity of ints forced was conducive to team skill (if you get more, or throw less, it's probably because you're better), but he concluded that there was NO such similar correlation to forced fumble and fumble recoveries. I recall this also, but there has to be something to be said when a particular player has a propensity to fumble, don't you think? It can't just be random that a guy like Emmitt Smith absolutely never put the ball on the ground, but Tiki Barber early in his career was a fumble waiting to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffalothruMyVeins Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 I recall this also, but there has to be something to be said when a particular player has a propensity to fumble, don't you think? It can't just be random that a guy like Emmitt Smith absolutely never put the ball on the ground, but Tiki Barber early in his career was a fumble waiting to happen. In all honesty, and this may negate my original statement, if I recall correctly, the study was based on a defense's ability to force fumbles vs forcing interceptions, and how a forced fumble is mostly flukey. Yes, a player with propensity for putting the ball on the ground is more likely to fumble every time he rushes vs a sure handed player, but Schwartz maintains that as far as the defense goes, over the course of the season and all of the fumble prone to sure handed players that every team shares exposure to, that FORCING the fumble is moreso random instead of seen as an actual overwhelmement of defensive skill. It's an interesting paradox between offense and defense, because there has to be a reliable repeatibiliity of a fumbling player to repeat, but conversely a particular defensive set, play call, or even PERSONNEL does not effect freqency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountryCletus Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Stevie's departure should reduce those numbers.... Although Bruce Brown has a propensity to put the ball on the turf.... We shall see... Those stats change from year to year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts