Originally Posted by kccrow:
If one fumble every 100 touches ends your season, you did a lot of other things wrong.
QBs fumble at a relatively high rate as well, and you don't see people bitching about QB fumbles.
Mahomes had 10 on 1137 plays last year, 0.8% which isn't THAT bad but he was still among the more fumble-prone QBs in the NFL.
but for comparison, look at Dak Prescott... he had like 15 at a 1.3% clip and nobody says a word. They'll bitch about this RB though.
I listed other "top tier" RBs with an equally unimpressive fumble rate but nobody's talking about their fumbles and making videos about it.
It's fans bitching about something based on an overall bad team result more so than the statistic being THAT relevant and you guys are jumping aboard and blowing it entirely out of proportion.
Yes, but you're missing the point. You deal with a QB fumbling because of two things:
1. He isn't supposed to get hit in the first place
2. The reward for dropping back to pass infinitely outweighs the risk of a fumble.
The WHOLE POINT of having a running back is that you lower your reward potential while greatly reducing your risk. If Gordon was getting 20-40 yard runs on the regular, then his reward would outweigh his risk. But as it stands he doesn't offer you the security that makes a RB worth it.
Bold prediction: he never plays a snap for KC [Reply]
Originally Posted by kccrow:
If one fumble every 100 touches ends your season, you did a lot of other things wrong.
QBs fumble at a relatively high rate as well, and you don't see people bitching about QB fumbles.
Mahomes had 10 on 1137 plays last year, 0.8% which isn't THAT bad but he was still among the more fumble-prone QBs in the NFL.
but for comparison, look at Dak Prescott... he had like 15 at a 1.3% clip and nobody says a word. They'll bitch about this RB though.
I listed other "top tier" RBs with an equally unimpressive fumble rate but nobody's talking about their fumbles and making videos about it.
It's fans bitching about something based on an overall bad team result more so than the statistic being THAT relevant and you guys are jumping aboard and blowing it entirely out of proportion.
The risk/reward knob is just askew, that's all.
I don't think it's instructive to look at QB fumbles as much as it is to look at QB interceptions. If a QB throws 15 interceptions in 600 pass attempts, that's what, a 2.5% int rate? A little high but not considered unreasonably so.
Now in those 600 pass attempts, a good QB will throw for, what, 4,500 yards?
That's one turnover for every 300 yards or so of offense, right? Okay - I can live with a 1,200 yard RB fumbling 4 times.
Is Melvin Gordon a 1,200 yard RB at this point of his career? I'd say he probably isn't. And if he's an 800 yard RB and suddenly you're turning the ball over for every 200 yards of offense, your risk/reward knob is turned too far in the wrong direction.
I think that's why people get so annoyed by RB fumbles. Because the production of a RB just isn't going to be enough to justify the turnovers. [Reply]
Originally Posted by saphojunkie:
Yes, but you're missing the point. You deal with a QB fumbling because of two things:
1. He isn't supposed to get hit in the first place
2. The reward for dropping back to pass infinitely outweighs the risk of a fumble.
The WHOLE POINT of having a running back is that you lower your reward potential while greatly reducing your risk. If Gordon was getting 20-40 yard runs on the regular, then his reward would outweigh his risk. But as it stands he doesn't offer you the security that makes a RB worth it.
Bold prediction: he never plays a snap for KC
As soon as he remotely understands the playbook he'll move ahead of Jones so I wouldn't go that far. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Sure - like I said, fumbles seem to come in bunches and your hope is that his fumble rate is more of a Small N problem than it is a new level of fumble-itis.
In which case he could regress to the mean over a smaller sample size and be fine for us.
This year seems way worse then previous years. Wonder if some of it is passive aggressive and being upset with Denver's staff and usage. Last year he looked pretty darn good splitting touches with Williams. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kccrow:
If one fumble every 100 touches ends your season, you did a lot of other things wrong.
QBs fumble at a relatively high rate as well, and you don't see people bitching about QB fumbles.
Mahomes had 10 on 1137 plays last year, 0.8% which isn't THAT bad but he was still among the more fumble-prone QBs in the NFL.
but for comparison, look at Dak Prescott... he had like 15 at a 1.3% clip and nobody says a word. They'll bitch about this RB though.
I listed other "top tier" RBs with an equally unimpressive fumble rate but nobody's talking about their fumbles and making videos about it.
It's fans bitching about something based on an overall bad team result more so than the statistic being THAT relevant and you guys are jumping aboard and blowing it entirely out of proportion.
No, that's not remotely accurate in this sense. You're leaving out the probability that everything else could happen, and you could survive them, but the one thing that could stop you, is the one thing that does. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
The risk/reward knob is just askew, that's all.
I don't think it's instructive to look at QB fumbles as much as it is to look at QB interceptions. If a QB throws 15 interceptions in 600 pass attempts, that's what, a 2.5% int rate? A little high but not considered unreasonably so.
Now in those 600 pass attempts, a good QB will throw for, what, 4,500 yards?
That's one turnover for every 300 yards or so of offense, right? Okay - I can live with a 1,200 yard RB fumbling 4 times.
Is Melvin Gordon a 1,200 yard RB at this point of his career? I'd say he probably isn't. And if he's an 800 yard RB and suddenly you're turning the ball over for every 200 yards of offense, your risk/reward knob is turned too far in the wrong direction.
I think that's why people get so annoyed by RB fumbles. Because the production of a RB just isn't going to be enough to justify the turnovers.
I do agree with some of this, but I do think he's still an 1100 yard/10 TD capable back because he was the last 2 seasons. He didn't hit the wall yet, at least from what I can tell.
As for the turnover argument, sure, you can argue one way for the QBs but you need to look at combined turnovers. If a QB has 15 picks and 10 fumbles, he's got 25 turnovers per your 4500 yards of offense. That skews the numbers significantly compared to what you presented and moves that needle to around 180 yards per turnover.
Just an example (not calling out Mahomie), PMII had 5,220 yards of production last year and 22 turnovers or 237 yards per TO.
Now if you want to compare that to a RB, Gordon had 1131 yards of production and 3 turnovers last year or 377 yards per TO. He had 286 per TO the year before. His career average is 343 yards per TO.
The only really good argument is that Gordon's issue is having a really bad 2022 season with 541 yards and 5 TOs. Now, if he can hold onto the ball the rest of the year and produce another 500 yards, he approaches his mean.
I stand on my point, you guys are blowing this out of proportion. [Reply]
It’s not just that he fumbles a lot, but he seems to fumble at the worst possible moments in close games. This is the last thing we need to worry about going into the postseason. [Reply]
Been a while since we had a RB with this kind of talent. Red zone, screen/receiver, vision, still gets to the edge, power and speed combo. Melvin will be motivated and protecting the ball at all cost. This, Toney and Williams. Burt is making it rain. https://youtu.be/GIn_zDN6MYA [Reply]