Fumbles

by SSreporters on Sep 22, 2009 8:34 PM PDT Comment 14 comments

I played around with ESPN's statistics page this morning. That Shaun Hill fumble we somehow didn't get bothered me. To me that was a massive blow to our chances of coming back. Based on memory I've had way too many bad sights of the Seahawks refusing to recover fumbles, but maybe I'm only selecting the bad things. Forced fumbles and recoveries are a microcosm of a defensive play. It requires a lot of luck via bouncy oblong ball and some quick thinking is involved. I present to you our forced fumbles (including special teams) and recoveries from our SB season to now. Stats are all regular season and from 2007-2009 there are also some tidbits on how we did on ensuing drives.

2005 - 18 forced fumbles (t-16th), 11 recoveries (t-17th), 1 touchdown (wasn't it Lofa Tatupu that got the touchdown against the Eagles on Monday Night?), 61.1% recovery rate.

2006 - 17 forced fumbles (t-12th), 14 recoveries (t-8th), 1 touchdown (pretty sure it was the Kelly Herndon TD against the Chiefs on a botched FG), 82.3% recovery rate.

2007 - 26 forced fumbles (3rd), 14 recoveries (t-10th), 1 touchdown (Leroy Hill against the Ravens), 53.8% recovery rate. 4 field goals and 1 offensive touchdown from ensuing drives and one kneel down.

2008 - 23 forced fumbles (t-2nd), 11 recoveries (t-13th), 2 touchdowns (Craig Terrill against the 49ers, Babs against the Rams), 47.8% recovery rate. 6 of the remaining recovered fumbles led to offensive scores on the ensuing drive (all touchdowns).

2009 - 2 forced fumbles, 1 recovery, 50% recovery rate. The recovery went to waste when Hasselbeck threw into double coverage and got picked off. That remains our only takeaway on the season.

TOTAL: 68 forced fumbles, 40 recoveries, 4 returned for touchdown, 58.8% recovery rate in 4.125 seasons.

I'm willing to let the lack of FF in 2005 slide because for the most part we had the ball for a long time and the defense was hardly out there thanks to our effective, points-producing, clock-killing offensive drives when Matt Hasselbeck was healthy, Joe Jurevicius was my favorite receiver, and Shaun Alexander wasn't getting tackled by the turf.

Those last two complete seasons bother me. For 2007 it was a combination of not recovering enough and not capitalizing on a turnover. Granted in 2007 we were interception gods but in the first 49ers game they fumbled 5 times and we recovered once. Seattle punted on the next drive. But Trent Dilfer was picked off twice and we got points out of it both times. The most painful failure had to be the Saints game where we were down 7-0 thanks to Boone Klutz, David Patten coughed it up, 3 or 4 Seahawks were there and none of them fell on the ball. Eric Johnson recovered for a first down when it should've been Seahawk football.

The 2008 season was bad in every form imaginable. Recovering less than half of the fumbles you force is inexcusable. JT O'Sullivan fumbles by himself and we can't recover it.

Sunday's Shaun Hill fumble that Patrick Kerney tried to pick up and score instead of fall on it that deep in SF territory down only 10 was a backbreaker and one of the most important and overlooked plays of the game. Even more than the 2nd Frank Gore TD. If Kerney doesn't go for glory then we get the ball at the 23 yard line. Instead on the next possession Seneca Wallace threw an interception that sealed our hopes. Our win probability went from 20% on the fumble to 10% in a few plays. Whether we win the game or not after that (or even score) fumble recovery that wasn't is obviously debatable but it would've changed the gameplans for both teams and who knows what happens there.

To be honest there wasn't much point in this fanpost other than some statistics I brushed upon without breaking down every little detail. There are way too many variables involved to do some serious statistical analysis. Not every fumble is going to be recoverable for the defense. It's all a matter of some luck, reaction, hands that can actually recover a fumble, and Brian Russell Hustle (two recovered fumbles in his Seahawks career!!!!!) to get that crucial turnover. You don't have to score every single time as a result, but eventually letting the other team off the hook that many times is going to cost you in the long run. Yesterday that could've been the difference between an ugly loss and a tough, gritty, brutal, ugly, but vital divisional road win.

A place to bury strangers.

1 recs | Comment 14 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Nice post

Last year the Cards recovered 17 of the 20 fumbles they forced. This underscores how lucky they were. Last year we were actually tied for SECOND in the league in FF’s and we recovered less than half of them. Injuries were a big part of our collapse in 08, but being unlucky on the field was also an issue.

I agree with you about that missed opportunity in the SF game, that would have been a huge turnaround. They will come to us, don’t worry about it.

by michaelfox99 on Sep 23, 2009 6:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

These things have a way of working themselves out.

It’s come around.

by Jo-Jo on Sep 23, 2009 7:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Hopefully we'll be extremely healthy for the next few years then.

by LantermanC on Sep 23, 2009 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Seems like '07 and '08 were regressing to the mean

…after unsustainable high recovery rates the previous two years. Could be wrong on this, but IIRC with a large enough sample size fumble recovery rates approach 50%…in other words, it’s all luck.

by thebyron on Sep 23, 2009 8:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't know...

while I admit that luck is involved, in some ways you also make your own luck.

Kerney made SF’s luck, not ours. So now we’re below the 50% margin, but is that really “luck” or bad decision making???

Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.

by whiskey chainsaw on Sep 23, 2009 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

1 for 2 is not "below the 50% margin"

And statistics like that are not significant with such a low population size. If the trend continues after 10-12 then it may mean something. Not yet though.

It is always a little risky to try and return a fumble, but the reward is so huge, that it is sometimes worth the risk. When there is nothing between you and the end zone, then it’s usually worth a try. If the fumble is on the other side of the scrum then just fall on it.

Is it against any rules to kick or advance the football backwards when attempting to recover a fumble? I wonder why that doesn’t happen. Hit the ball or kick it back a little to get more separation from the other players, then if THEY recover, it’s a LONGER down and distance.

by StonerHawks on Sep 23, 2009 5:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure you can kick it

But if it’s unintentional then by all means there you go.

Sorry but Kerney should’ve fallen on the ball. There were 49ers there to stop him and even a FG would’ve gotten us within 1 score. It’s a glory-hunting play when all he needed to do was make a big play in itself by recovering.

May the Forsett be with you.

by SSreporters on Sep 23, 2009 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We were 0-1

on THAT fumble, which is the one there was power to control the outcome of.

If, for instance, Kerney tried to fall on it and missed it, then I think it goes into the “luck/whatever” category.

But when you actually try to pick it up on the run to maximize the value of the recovery but you miss the ball, you get a huge negation from your overall +/- on fumble recoveries. (Particularly assuming 50% is the expectation— then the loss of an equal opportunity puts you in the negative. You DO have control over whether you “go for it” in running it back (higher risk/reward) or if you simply fall on it.

It is against the rules to kick the ball forward intentionally in order to pick it up. I’m not sure about backward though…

Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.

by whiskey chainsaw on Sep 24, 2009 1:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would have to agree with this.

Fumble recoveries are almost entirely extraordinary amounts of luck. I don’t think some teams can just be ‘better’ at recovering them than others.

"I wish the Seahawks were back in the AFCW so we didn’t have to face Willis and Gore twice a year."

by Fearless Frog on Sep 23, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice Post! We can't give at team extra outs!

I was yelling at the TV when Kerney couldn’t pick up the fumble. But the worse thing was the lack of awarness by the other D-lineman for not hustling to the ball. I went balistic.

Your stats remind me of when a pitcher strikes out a batter with a pitch in the dirt and the catcher let’s it get by while the batter ends up safe at first after striking out. (I know that was long, sorry)…. But you just know the next batter up is going to hit home run. And instead of being out of the inning with the score 0-0, your now down 2-0.

Seattle’s D does not seem opportunistic enough when it comes to recovering fumbles or catching tipped balls by our D- line that float for hours in the secondary. I think it’s more mental then physical. We don’t seem like a ball hawking defense. Teams like the Bears, Ravens, or the Giants always seem to take advantage of these same opportunities. I honestly think the more aggressive a defense is the more of these breaks fall your way. If your playing back on your heels all the time (like a John Marshall coached D) then maybe your just not as quick to react to those opportunities. Who knows…nice post though, I right with you on that.

by Mr. Blache III on Sep 23, 2009 10:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The not picking up the fumble was bad

But to even think about picking it up is worse.

You don’t have to scoop and score every time the ball is loose. Kerney should’ve just fallen on the football and hang on for dear life.

May the Forsett be with you.

by SSreporters on Sep 23, 2009 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rule of thumb

I heard it said one time that there’s a rule of thumb re scoop and run vs. fall on it. It had something to do with the position and/or size of the player doing the scooping/falling. Something like if your number is higher than 60, you should fall on it. I suppose the rationale is that the greater runback potential of a DB or LB tilts the odds enough in favor of scooping and going for the really big play. Also, (and probably more importantly) I guess LBs and especially DBs should have better ball skills and would be more likely to be able to snatch up the ball.

Anyone remember the actual “rule”?

by jeager on Sep 23, 2009 4:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs