Double Standard...Interceptions vs Fumbles (1 Viewer)

[Ministry of Pain]

How come a QB can stink it up week in and week out and never lose their jobs? Maybe it's because of the money involved in QBs vs RBs. Perhaps it's the fact that rarely is the back up QB actually better than who is in front of them and maybe RBs on some teams are closer in skill set.

Slaton has had some fumbles and he gets benched. Cutler can throw pick after pick(he's on pace for 30) and you never hear that he is beng sat down or taken out of the ball game.

Why do coaches look at fumbles so much harsher than they do interceptions?

 

[The Comedian]

Because there are far fewer competent QB's than RB's. There aren't even 32. This is not a hard one.

 

[Riffraff]

Fumbles are always attributed to "not holding onto the ball." Although I think a few direct hits between opponent helmet and the ball can be understandable.

INTs could be attributed to bad judgement, bouncing off a teammate, and end of a half hail marys. Sometimes that means it's not the QB's fault, but a receivers or a coaches decision.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

You're really just looking at two individual situations and applying it where it doesn't necessarily fit. Lots of quarterbacks have been benched for interceptions. Likewise, lots of running backs have had fumbling problems and kept their jobs (Adrian Peterson, Tiki Barber, Ahman Green to name a few).

 

[Tex Goldstein]

How come a QB can stink it up week in and week out and never lose their jobs? Maybe it's because of the money involved in QBs vs RBs. Perhaps it's the fact that rarely is the back up QB actually better than who is in front of them and maybe RBs on some teams are closer in skill set. Slaton has had some fumbles and he gets benched. Cutler can throw pick after pick(he's on pace for 30) and you never hear that he is beng sat down or taken out of the ball game. Why do coaches look at fumbles so much harsher than they do interceptions?

more variables for INTs as the other guys above said. Could be a carom or a tipped ball caused the INT. Could be a receiver fell down (like Hester did tonite vs SF). Could be the QB was being hit as he threw the ball.Fumbles - the ball is already in the playerse' hands/arms and secured. If the ball is carried poorly (see early tiki Barber or Slaton in the first half of this season) it can be stripped by defensive players. Ball secuirty is on the ball carrier - proper technique/positioning makes it hard to strip out the ball (not impossible, but less likely).

 

[Mr. Retukes]

Why do coaches look at fumbles so much harsher than they do interceptions?

Maybe because interceptions are much more common?

 

[jurb26]

Fumbles are always attributed to "not holding onto the ball." Although I think a few direct hits between opponent helmet and the ball can be understandable.INTs could be attributed to bad judgement, bouncing off a teammate, and end of a half hail marys. Sometimes that means it's not the QB's fault, but a receivers or a coaches decision.

This. An INT could be the fault of several individuals. A fumble is always the fault of that one individual.

 

[fatness]

Fumbles are always attributed to "not holding onto the ball." Although I think a few direct hits between opponent helmet and the ball can be understandable.INTs could be attributed to bad judgement, bouncing off a teammate, and end of a half hail marys. Sometimes that means it's not the QB's fault, but a receivers or a coaches decision.

This. An INT could be the fault of several individuals. A fumble is always the fault of that one individual.

The guy that missed the block?

 

[FUBAR]

Fumbles are always attributed to "not holding onto the ball." Although I think a few direct hits between opponent helmet and the ball can be understandable.

INTs could be attributed to bad judgement, bouncing off a teammate, and end of a half hail marys. Sometimes that means it's not the QB's fault, but a receivers or a coaches decision.

This. An INT could be the fault of several individuals. A fumble is always the fault of that one individual.

not really, not always.There are 255 INTs this year vs. 186 fumbles lost. Roughly 1 INT per game per team vs. 0.7 fumbles lost per game per team. So it's not really all that more common to throw an INT vs. lose a fumble.

How many Running Backs have lost their job because of fumbles?

It's more disruptive to change QBs during the year although sometimes it turns into a spark (GO TITANS), changing out a RB doesn't have near the effect.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Fumbles are always attributed to "not holding onto the ball." Although I think a few direct hits between opponent helmet and the ball can be understandable.

INTs could be attributed to bad judgement, bouncing off a teammate, and end of a half hail marys. Sometimes that means it's not the QB's fault, but a receivers or a coaches decision.

This. An INT could be the fault of several individuals. A fumble is always the fault of that one individual.

not really, not always.There are 255 INTs this year vs. 186 fumbles lost. Roughly 1 INT per game per team vs. 0.7 fumbles lost per game per team. So it's not really all that more common to throw an INT vs. lose a fumble.

How many Running Backs have lost their job because of fumbles?

It's more disruptive to change QBs during the year although sometimes it turns into a spark (GO TITANS), changing out a RB doesn't have near the effect.

A lot of those fumbles are lost by QBs and returners, not on rushing plays.

 

[Chase Stuart]

You're really just looking at two individual situations and applying it where it doesn't necessarily fit. Lots of quarterbacks have been benched for interceptions. Likewise, lots of running backs have had fumbling problems and kept their jobs (Adrian Peterson, Tiki Barber, Ahman Green to name a few).

 

[Chase Stuart]

How come a QB can stink it up week in and week out and never lose their jobs? Maybe it's because of the money involved in QBs vs RBs. Perhaps it's the fact that rarely is the back up QB actually better than who is in front of them and maybe RBs on some teams are closer in skill set. Slaton has had some fumbles and he gets benched. Cutler can throw pick after pick(he's on pace for 30) and you never hear that he is beng sat down or taken out of the ball game. Why do coaches look at fumbles so much harsher than they do interceptions?

Interceptions are essentially random, but I certainly don't expect NFL coaches to think like statisticians. OTOH, coaches are way too timid to bench QBs due to "confidence" issues, which makes little sense but coaches adhere to as if it was the 11th commandment. Usually the biggest explanation for any coaching decision is job security, and that fits as well here as any other reason. When you bench a RB, people think "hey, smart coach, that RB was costing us games." When you bench your QB -- presumably for a worse QB -- you're much more likely to get second guessed, and if you lose, people will say "well the coach never should have benched that QB."

 

[Lord Lucan]

Two other factors also need to be considered.

Firstly, once a RB starts fumbling, opposing defenses key in on it and go out of their way to try and force further fumbles, and the knowledge of this may prey more on an RB's mind than recent interceptions does on a QB's.

Secondly, when a RB fumbles it's nearly always a significant turnover in terms of field position as usually it's not far from the line of scrimmage. Interceptions, on the other hand, often take place well down the field and provided there isn't a significant return, sometimes their overall effect on the game is minimal - the impact of an interception with no return 40 yards down the field is little different to that of an incomplete pass on third down.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

How come a QB can stink it up week in and week out and never lose their jobs? Maybe it's because of the money involved in QBs vs RBs. Perhaps it's the fact that rarely is the back up QB actually better than who is in front of them and maybe RBs on some teams are closer in skill set. Slaton has had some fumbles and he gets benched. Cutler can throw pick after pick(he's on pace for 30) and you never hear that he is beng sat down or taken out of the ball game. Why do coaches look at fumbles so much harsher than they do interceptions?

Interceptions are essentially random, but I certainly don't expect NFL coaches to think like statisticians. OTOH, coaches are way too timid to bench QBs due to "confidence" issues, which makes little sense but coaches adhere to as if it was the 11th commandment. Usually the biggest explanation for any coaching decision is job security, and that fits as well here as any other reason. When you bench a RB, people think "hey, smart coach, that RB was costing us games." When you bench your QB -- presumably for a worse QB -- you're much more likely to get second guessed, and if you lose, people will say "well the coach never should have benched that QB."

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Perhaps it's the fact that rarely is the back up QB actually better than who is in front of them and maybe RBs on some teams are closer in skill set.

This is your answer right here. RB is a much more fungible position. Generally any RB with a decent skill set can be succsessful in the NFL under the right circumstances. QB is a very different animal as evidenced by the fact that its so hard for many teams to find a franchise guy.

 

[ATC1]

Perhaps it's the fact that rarely is the back up QB actually better than who is in front of them and maybe RBs on some teams are closer in skill set.

This is your answer right here. RB is a much more fungible position. Generally any RB with a decent skill set can be succsessful in the NFL under the right circumstances. QB is a very different animal as evidenced by the fact that its so hard for many teams to find a franchise guy.

To go along with this.QBs spend more time with the head coach, a lot more attention is spent reading coverages, game planning, and is usually the leader of the team. They require more reps at practice and is in the game for every play. Teams usually invest more in their QBs as well.

Whereas RBs are getting spelled more often, rely more on athletic ability, and only really needs to study/focus on vision and cutting into the holes. If a RB can not do that, they should be benched.

 

[FUBAR]

How come a QB can stink it up week in and week out and never lose their jobs? Maybe it's because of the money involved in QBs vs RBs. Perhaps it's the fact that rarely is the back up QB actually better than who is in front of them and maybe RBs on some teams are closer in skill set.

Slaton has had some fumbles and he gets benched. Cutler can throw pick after pick(he's on pace for 30) and you never hear that he is beng sat down or taken out of the ball game.

Why do coaches look at fumbles so much harsher than they do interceptions?

Interceptions are essentially random, but I certainly don't expect NFL coaches to think like statisticians. OTOH, coaches are way too timid to bench QBs due to "confidence" issues, which makes little sense but coaches adhere to as if it was the 11th commandment. Usually the biggest explanation for any coaching decision is job security, and that fits as well here as any other reason. When you bench a RB, people think "hey, smart coach, that RB was costing us games." When you bench your QB -- presumably for a worse QB -- you're much more likely to get second guessed, and if you lose, people will say "well the coach never should have benched that QB."

I'd like to see your statistical analysis on this, I'm guessing you've done it. Maybe it just seems that some QBs throw more INTs than others and some defenses get more INTs than others. I always thought it was a combination of talent (O and D), offense game plan, score, and defensive game plan.

 

[Jason Wood]

Because there are far fewer competent QB's than RB's. There aren't even 32. This is not a hard one.

You're really just looking at two individual situations and applying it where it doesn't necessarily fit. Lots of quarterbacks have been benched for interceptions. Likewise, lots of running backs have had fumbling problems and kept their jobs (Adrian Peterson, Tiki Barber, Ahman Green to name a few).

These posts just about sum it up.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

How come a QB can stink it up week in and week out and never lose their jobs? Maybe it's because of the money involved in QBs vs RBs. Perhaps it's the fact that rarely is the back up QB actually better than who is in front of them and maybe RBs on some teams are closer in skill set. Slaton has had some fumbles and he gets benched. Cutler can throw pick after pick(he's on pace for 30) and you never hear that he is beng sat down or taken out of the ball game. Why do coaches look at fumbles so much harsher than they do interceptions?

Frankly it's because fumbles are almost avoidable with proper technique, whereas there are often many factors that are outside of a qbs control (like last night for a perfect example) where the Ints aren't necessarily a QBs fault. If you carry the ball correctly, you won't fumble on 95% of the plays. You can make the right read and right throw, and still an int happens due to a slip, bobble, pop up, ref bump etc.Edit to add: For proof that will better articulate my point, I'm gonna go search for a video that I saw on ESPN in the last year or 2. It was on "fumbling" and the force necessary to cause a fumble. It really is amazing how proper technique (and a basic understanding of physics/science, could make all the difference in the world. Actually this might be deserving of it's own thread, for the coaches/players on this board. It was that good.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

How come a QB can stink it up week in and week out and never lose their jobs? Maybe it's because of the money involved in QBs vs RBs. Perhaps it's the fact that rarely is the back up QB actually better than who is in front of them and maybe RBs on some teams are closer in skill set. Slaton has had some fumbles and he gets benched. Cutler can throw pick after pick(he's on pace for 30) and you never hear that he is beng sat down or taken out of the ball game. Why do coaches look at fumbles so much harsher than they do interceptions?

Frankly it's because fumbles are almost avoidable with proper technique, whereas there are often many factors that are outside of a qbs control (like last night for a perfect example) where the Ints aren't necessarily a QBs fault. If you carry the ball correctly, you won't fumble on 95% of the plays. You can make the right read and right throw, and still an int happens due to a slip, bobble, pop up, ref bump etc.Edit to add: For proof that will better articulate my point, I'm gonna go search for a video that I saw on ESPN in the last year or 2. It was on "fumbling" and the force necessary to cause a fumble. It really is amazing how proper technique (and a basic understanding of physics/science, could make all the difference in the world. Actually this might be deserving of it's own thread, for the coaches/players on this board. It was that good.

Maybe it's the combination of exhaustion/tamiflu/cold meds, but I can't find it searching. Maybe someone else saw it, or can google better than I. But it was an episode i *THINK* on ESPN (though could have been fox) That broke down the physics/science of sports. I forget the running back they used. May have involved a LB. IIRC the people causing the fumbles for the example were MMA guys. It was VERY informative and will illustrate what I aver above.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

I *think it might be this http://videostore.rr.com/tvepisodedetail?c...5898&tab=tv

The Most Dangerous Experiment

Release Date: 2009

Series: Sport Science

Season: 2

Episode: 2

Rating: TV-14

Average Customer Rating/Rate Title:

12345

(0 ratings)

Synopsis:

NFL superstar Ray Lewis takes on a real life SWAT team battering ram to determine which hits harder, Stephon Marbury tries to actually break ankles with his killer crossover, a stunt man attempts to recreate the Fan Man flying stunt at the Holyfield-Riddick fight and in the most extreme experiment we've ever done, we shoot an MMA fighter up with natural adrenaline and see if it makes him punch harder.

Cast: John Brenkus

Copyright: 2009 Base Productions. All Rights Reserved.

No. I don't think it is. (but this one was way cool). But is the right show IIRC.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

might be this, and maybe they were more focused on the "punch" than the fumble.

Hardest HitsRelease Date: 2007Series: Sport ScienceSeason: 1Episode: 2Rating: TV-14Average Customer Rating/Rate Title:12345(0 ratings)Synopsis:The age-old debate: who hits harder? Hardest? In this episode of Sport Science we literally go head to head and inside some of the greatest collisions in the world of sports. Breaking down the impacts of a hockey check, an open field rugby 'hospital pass,' sumo wrestling, a tooth-rattling NFL tackle, a World Champion Mixed Martial artist's punch, and we reveal the hardest hit in sports.Cast: John BrenkusCopyright: 2007 Base Productions. All Rights Reserved.

 

[FavreCo]

Because there are far fewer competent QB's than RB's. There aren't even 32. This is not a hard one.

Expanding on this, Moats showed that he can get it done. There is almost always a 2nd RB that can do the job. If the first one is not named Frank Gore, then the fumbles should get the RB benched.Now, who the hell is the backup QB in Chicago?

 

[Bankerguy]

How come a QB can stink it up week in and week out and never lose their jobs? Maybe it's because of the money involved in QBs vs RBs. Perhaps it's the fact that rarely is the back up QB actually better than who is in front of them and maybe RBs on some teams are closer in skill set. Slaton has had some fumbles and he gets benched. Cutler can throw pick after pick(he's on pace for 30) and you never hear that he is beng sat down or taken out of the ball game. Why do coaches look at fumbles so much harsher than they do interceptions?

Not one of your better posts MOP.

 

[Chase Stuart]

How come a QB can stink it up week in and week out and never lose their jobs? Maybe it's because of the money involved in QBs vs RBs. Perhaps it's the fact that rarely is the back up QB actually better than who is in front of them and maybe RBs on some teams are closer in skill set.

Slaton has had some fumbles and he gets benched. Cutler can throw pick after pick(he's on pace for 30) and you never hear that he is beng sat down or taken out of the ball game.

Why do coaches look at fumbles so much harsher than they do interceptions?

Interceptions are essentially random, but I certainly don't expect NFL coaches to think like statisticians. OTOH, coaches are way too timid to bench QBs due to "confidence" issues, which makes little sense but coaches adhere to as if it was the 11th commandment. Usually the biggest explanation for any coaching decision is job security, and that fits as well here as any other reason. When you bench a RB, people think "hey, smart coach, that RB was costing us games." When you bench your QB -- presumably for a worse QB -- you're much more likely to get second guessed, and if you lose, people will say "well the coach never should have benched that QB."

I'd like to see your statistical analysis on this, I'm guessing you've done it. Maybe it just seems that some QBs throw more INTs than others and some defenses get more INTs than others. I always thought it was a combination of talent (O and D), offense game plan, score, and defensive game plan.

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2009/0..._qbintrates.php

 

[TWP]

Adding to the coaching mentality angle, if you bench a RB and the backup is sucking you can always go back to the starter. Slaton played in the game Moats started. That is typical, because RBs are always splitting carries. If you bench your starting QB, though, you can't really go "Oh wait that was a bad idea, I'm going back to the starter" in the middle of the game without having fans, pundits, radio shows, etc. saying "WTF is this dude doing" all week.

 

[renesauz]

The average pass is good for how many yards?

The average rush is good for how many yards?

QB's routinely throw for 200+

RB's are considered studly if they average better then 80 yards.

Most interceptions happen 10+ yards downfield, many happen 20 yards+. Most fumbles happen at or near the LOS

A dozen things can go wrong in a pass attempt (receiver can fall down, wind gusts, arm gets hit as QB throws, receiver can knock it airborne instead of catching it, etc.)

A RB can...well....if he doesn't get a clean handoff, they charge it to the QB...a RB can.....get stood up and not have the ref blow it dead in a reasonable amount of time...yeah there's ONE for you at least.

.

Seriously...this was not a very good question, and I'm surprised considering the pedigree of the OP. A RB fumble is looked at worse then an interception because IT IS WORSE!

 

[strong]

interceptions are more frequent

the 255 ints per year can only occur on pass attempts (roughly half of the offensive plays)

while the 180+ fumbles can occur on every play of the game

also, like they say in poker with bluffing: if you never get called, you're not bluffing enough

to be a successful qb in the league, you have to take some chances. sometimes they don't pay off... and sometimes they result in interceptions.

i don't see the same need for a rb to hold the ball away from his body and risk a fumble. there's not much of a payoff there...

 

[Red Apples]

umm... in one case your are throwing the ball some distance to another player as defenders try for the ball while it flows freely in the air. this ball is literally out of your possession, by definition... you are passing it to someone.

in the other situation the ball is firmly in your hands as you run.

so which one these seems more likely that would end up in a turnover.

holding the ball tightly w/ two hands against your body or throwing it up in the air?

 

[skiking08]

The basic assumption of this question seems wrong to me. How many QBs have lost their jobs at one point this season due to INTs (Quinn AND Anderson, Jamarcus would have on any other team, Kerry Collins)? How many Running backs (Slaton...) It seems to me that MORE QBs lose their jobs over INTs than RBs over fumbles.

That being said the comments about the skill differential between most starting QBs and their backups and most starting RBs and their backups seem to be spot on.

Also, and this has been touched upon too, an INT is often not the fault of the QB. With the complex passing plays being run, I'd be willing to wager that 25% of the time an INT could be blamed on the WR being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe another 25% of the time its just a great play by the defense (they're on the field too ya know) making an athletic play or tipping a pass or pressure on the QB.