Skill v. Luck: why FSU should abandon the fumble drill
by Bud Elliott on May 26, 2009 7:00 AM EDT
in FSU Football
43 comments
As football fans, we want to believe that everything is within the control of our team. Ideally, the final result would be a perfect net of the competitor's efforts. Unfortunately, not everything in football is skill. Like in life, football incorporates a certain amount of random events out of the control of either team.
In looking to improve your team then, it becomes very important to identify what events are within the dominion and control of your team, and what events are not. If a team had unlimited practice time, that might not matter, but any good coach will tell you that practice time is his most precious resource. In addition to plays and scrimmaging, teams practice various skills during their practice time, and one of the things they practice is recovering fumbles. But this is a problem, because recovering fumbles isn't a repeatable skill.
If you're the kid who ran down and recovered that fumble on the wet field in 1982, you probably disagree, but I challenge you to find any evidence that recovering fumbles is a repeatable skill. And if you're a football coach, chances are you spend some time every week doing the fumble recovery drill. Good news, you can eliminate that drill and work on something that will improve your team's chances of winning.
The experts at FootballOutsiders.com have done some serious research on this subject and well, I'll just let them tell it...
Stripping the ball is a skill. Holding onto the ball is a skill. Pouncing on the ball as it is bouncing all over the place is not a skill. There is no correlation whatsoever between the percentage of fumbles recovered by a team in one year and the percentage they recover in the next year...
Fumble recovery is a major reason why the general public overestimates or underestimates certain teams. Fumbles are huge, turning-point plays that dramatically impact wins and losses in the past, while fumble recovery percentage says absolutely nothing about a team's chances of winning games in the future...
...[T]hey have no value whatsoever for predicting future performance or gauging the true ability of a team
I hate this. Football is a game of such limited sample set (as opposed to baseball with its 600 at bats and 162 games, not to mention their 7 game playoff series). I hate the finality of football. Too often the best teams do not get to play for the championship, and for what, a few bounces not going their way? Football would be much more equitable if the ball was round and not oblong. The bounces would be truer.
But football is played with an oblong ball, and that's unlikely to change any time soon. But fumbles can have a dramatic effect on a team's season! So with that in mind, let's look at which teams recieved those lucky bounces, and which team's did not; remembering that nothing suggests they will get those bounces in the coming season.
Offensive Fumbles
Let's start with a look at fumbles by the offense. As per usual, these numbers come from conference play.
| Name | Fumbles | Lost | Fumble Lost % | ACC Record |
| North Carolina State | 15 | 2 | 13% | 4-4 |
| Duke | 11 | 4 | 36% | 1-7 |
| Miami (Florida) | 8 | 3 | 38% | 4-4 |
| Wake Forest | 12 | 5 | 42% | 4-4 |
| Clemson | 16 | 8 | 50% | 4-4 |
| Florida State | 15 | 8 | 53% | 5-3 |
| Virginia | 12 | 7 | 58% | 3-5 |
| North Carolina | 15 | 9 | 60% | 4-4 |
| Boston College | 23 | 14 | 61% | 5-4 |
| Georgia Tech | 22 | 14 | 64% | 5-3 |
| Virginia Tech | 10 | 7 | 70% | 6-3 |
| Maryland | 10 | 8 | 80% | 4-4 |
NC State was darn near the luckiest team in the nation when it comes to recovering fumbles. 13% is quite insane, and I think this might reflect the type of fumble the pack suffered (I'll speculate about this at the end of the article).
Meanwhile, Maryland lost 8 of their 10 offensive fumbles in conference play. That's a rate that would put them in the 100's nationally. Florida State was about average here, recovering just over 50% of their own fumbles. I sure wish the Seminoles could have recovered that Antone Smith or Preston Parker fumble against Boston College. Or that Marcus Sims fumble..., but for every one we complain about, there were some they fell on that could have been disastrous, like Bert Reed's fumble against NCST right before half.
Does anyone find it odd that this category didn't really correlate to winning? I do, but I also believe some of it has to do with being unable to differentiate 10 teams who went 4-4 or 5-3 in their 8 game ACC seasons.
Let's now have a look at Defensive Fumble Recoveries.
| Name | Opponent Fumbles | Recovered | Opponent's Fumbles Recovered % | ACC Record |
| Florida State | 13 | 10 | 77% | 5-3 |
| Virginia | 11 | 8 | 73% | 3-5 |
| Wake Forest | 16 | 11 | 69% | 4-4 |
| North Carolina State | 11 | 7 | 64% | 4-4 |
| Clemson | 10 | 6 | 60% | 4-4 |
| Boston College | 12 | 7 | 58% | 5-4 |
| Duke | 13 | 7 | 54% | 1-7 |
| Virginia Tech | 19 | 10 | 53% | 6-3 |
| Georgia Tech | 15 | 6 | 40% | 5-3 |
| Miami (Florida) | 18 | 7 | 39% | 4-4 |
| North Carolina | 13 | 4 | 31% | 4-4 |
| Maryland | 17 | 5 | 29% | 4-4 |
Well hello there, Florida State. Recovering 10 of 13 fumbles really made this defense seem much better than it was. Let's reminisce:
In the Virginia Tech game, the Hokies were having one of their better days offensively despite using a tight end at quarterback after losing their first two. With Tech up 10-7, the Hokies fumble at their own 46 and FSU recovers it on the Tech 46, kicks a field goal to tie the game at 10. Then, with FSU up 24-13, the Noles kick off and VT fumbles on their own 26, FSU takes over and they get a field goal to go up 10 and effectively ice the game.
And sometimes, as against Boston College, fumble recoveries can mask poor defense. Boston College had drives of 47 yards (9 plays) and 54 yards (5 plays) erased by FSU fumble recoveries. In fact, because many people blame only the offense for the BC loss, I want to point out BC's last 5 drives of the game:
9 plays, 47 yards
14 plays, 65 yards
7 plays, 71 yards
5 plays, 54 yards
16 plays, 67 yards
And I'll remind you that BC had one of the worst offenses any of us have seen in a long time. Two of those drives ended in fumbles for Boston College, and had the ball not bounced fortuitously for FSU, this game could have been a much bigger loss than it was.
The other game that really sticks out to me, as an FSU fan, was Maryland. Maryland's first two drives were 7+ plays and 35+ yards. They were running well on FSU. But then "Da'Rel Scott rush, fumbled, recovered by FlaSt Derek Nicholson at the Mary 22, Derek Nicholson for 22 yards, to the Mary 0 for a TOUCHDOWN." FSU would recover one more Maryland fumble late in the game, but at that point it was already over.
I'll venture a guess that UVA would have had a duke-like record had they not recovered 73% of their opponent's fumbles. Wake always seems fortuitous in this area, but the numbers say they don't possess some special ability to recover fumbles that the other 119 teams do not. (Their specialty is interceptions).
Finally, UNC played phenomenal defense for most of the year, yet the couldn't get the ball to bounce their way. Ditto Maryland (discussed below).
Now let's combine the two
| Name | Total Fumbles (by and against) | Total Recovered | Total Recovery % | ACC Record |
| North Carolina State | 26 | 20 | 77% | 4-4 |
| Wake Forest | 28 | 18 | 64% | 4-4 |
| Florida State | 28 | 17 | 61% | 5-3 |
| Duke | 24 | 14 | 58% | 1-7 |
| Virginia | 23 | 13 | 57% | 3-5 |
| Clemson | 26 | 14 | 54% | 4-4 |
| Miami (Florida) | 26 | 12 | 46% | 4-4 |
| Boston College | 35 | 16 | 46% | 5-4 |
| Virginia Tech | 29 | 13 | 45% | 6-3 |
| Georgia Tech | 37 | 14 | 38% | 5-3 |
| North Carolina | 28 | 10 | 36% | 4-4 |
| Maryland | 27 | 7 | 26% | 4-4 |
Florida State was slightly above average overall in fumble recovery, or "FLuck" (Fumble Luck), but let's look at two of the countries extreme outliers.
I've done the review, and everyone else is correct in their research: nobody is able to recover a greater percentage of fumbles from year to year. It really is luck, and that makes sense because of how the ball bounces. Here's a photo of the SEC's 2007 data:
Something very interesting here: nobody had higher than 63% or lower than 42%. Wildly, 5 of the 7 ACC teams had a percentage outside that range! Here's the
2007 data from the ACC
| Name | Total Fumbles (by and against) | Total Recovered | Total Recover % | ACC Record |
| Miami (Florida) | 25 | 15 | 60% | 2-6 |
| Wake Forest | 22 | 13 | 59% | 5-3 |
| Virginia Tech |
33 |
19 | 58% | 7-1 |
| Virginia | 28 | 16 | 57% | 6-2 |
| Duke | 26 | 14 | 54% | 0-8 |
| North Carolina | 26 | 14 | 54% | 3-5 |
| Boston College | 27 | 14 | 52% | 6-2 |
| Clemson | 20 | 9 | 45% | 5-3 |
| Georgia Tech | 34 | 15 | 44% | 4-4 |
| Florida State | 30 | 13 | 43% | 4-4 |
| Maryland | 23 | 8 | 35% | 3-5 |
| North Carolina State | 16 | 5 | 31% | 3-5 |
2007 was a much more reasonable year.
The two 2008 extremes
Maryland was just ridiculously unlucky. Recovering only 7 of the 27 available fumbles in 8 games is like akin to having someone steal your credit card, destroy your credit, and then having your car repossessed (okay, I'm running low on examples). I've never seen anything like Maryland's fumble luck. They might have won the Atlantic division had they had even normal bounces of the ball.
North Carolina State, on the other hand, is on the exact opposite end of the spectrum. 77%?!!? That is even crazier than Maryland's 26% NC State did get a lot better as the season wore on, but some of that is absolutely attributable to their fumble luck. BC thoroughly outplayed the pack in their house, but NC State kept it close by recovering some of their own fumbles. Further, the Pack housed UNC while recovering three UNC fumbles and losing none of their own! Such was the crazy variance of the ACC in 2008.
No Consistency from year to year.
This has been covered in the linked precursors to this piece, but the same idea holds true. Recovering fumbles is not a skill. No team is able to consistently recover a higher percentage of fumbles than any other from year to year. Teaching the technique of fumble recovery is a waste of time because the outcome is simply too dependent on the bounce of the ball. Now, if a coach had some way to determine how the ball will bounce and could teach their players to make that split second determination, they'd have something. Unfortunately, no coach has discovered this method.
If you compare the 2007 percentages to the 2008 percentages, you'll see wild swings.
| Name | Total Recovery % 2007 | Total Recovery % 2008 | 2007 Rank/ 2008 Rank |
| Boston College | 52% | 46% | 7th/ 8th |
| Clemson | 45% | 54% | 8th/ 6th |
| Duke | 54% | 58% | 5th/ 4th |
| Florida State | 43% | 61% | 10th/ 3rd |
| Georgia Tech | 44% | 38% | 9th/ 10th |
| Maryland | 35% | 26% | 11th/ 12th |
| Miami (Florida) | 60% | 46% | 1st/ 7th |
| North Carolina | 54% | 36% | 6th/ 11th |
| North Carolina State | 31% | 77% | Last/ 1st |
| Virginia | 57% | 57% | 4th/ 5th |
| Virginia Tech | 58% | 45% | 3rd/ 9th |
| Wake Forest | 59% | 64% | 2nd/ 2nd |
NC State makes our case for us. From worst to first, from sitting home in December to playing in a bowl game.
In thinking about this, I was initially skeptical. It seems to me that there are still problems with this and they relate to scorekeeping. Scorer's just don't keep detailed enough information for us to be able to separate things like fumbled snaps, from other types of fumbles. I'd be very interested to see how often a QB recovers a snap under center versus a snap from the shotgun versus another type of fumble. I'm betting there would be differences.
Another issue I'd like to look at but am sure it won't happen because of the lack of available data is the type of defensive being played. Does a zone defense have a greater chance of receovering a fumble than a man defense? In a zone defense, everyone is looking at the ball, and it's concieveable that all 11 defensive players could see the fumble and only one offensive player (the fumbler) would know of or see the fumble. This might be a benefit on forced fumbles, but a zone might hurt the defense on unforced fumbles as the defender would probably be farther away from the fumble.
Editor's Note: I have to give a lot of credit to author OutsideTheLines at the fabulous Alabama blog, RollBamaRoll.com for his piece on this very subject. I've read others elsewhere but can't remember the links.
I can only hope that the 'Noles keep up their 2008 pace, but realistically, they have just as good of a chance to regress to their 2007 level or lead the conference. Such is life when dealing with FLuck.
Go Noles!
Become a fan of us on facebook!
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/TomahawkNationcom/63264950770
Follow us on Twitter! https://twitter.com/TomahawkNation
0 recs |
43 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
This is a great piece
Excellent work, and it leaves me wanting to know more about the types of fumbles vs. a recovery percentage.
One question though, should coaches at least mention times to recover the ball by pouncing on it vs. trying to pick it up and run, or is it totally useless?
"May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't." - General George S. Patton
That’s probably coach preference. Even pouncing on the ball is fairly unpredictable. It can easily squirt out. Often, I think we look at the guy who has just misplayed the ball trying to pick it up and think “what an idiot, he should have just fell on the ball”, but how much of that is because he looks more goofy trying to capture the ball standing up than falling on it. Is falling on the ball really more effective? I’m not so sure.
While reading this article a few points come to mind.
1. As NoleCC and FSUn have mentioned, how many times have we seen a defensive player try to scoop up the ball and return it for glory instead of wrapping it up in the fetal position, only to lose control by dropping it, kicking it, getting stripped from behind, etc…, and the offensive team wind up back in possession.
2. There appears to be no target number (50% or otherwise) that seem to have a direct relation with a W-L record. Although logic dictates, and as stated by all of the authors, the higher percentage of recoveries should proportionately increase your odds of winning.
3. Marcus Sims fumble against GT was the ball buster of last season and still eats at me. If we could have recovered that one fumble, it would have had a dramatic effect on the outcome and the way the 08 campaign is viewed.
4. A fumble by the QB, either in the shotgun or behind center, is usually recovered by the offensive team. So I agree, while impossible to do, it would be nice to have those fumbles not included in these numbers because it skews the results in both directions.
5. Maryland sure seems to be unlucky in FLUCK during 07 and 08. I also wonder what, if any, factors contribute to this.
6. While you may have said it in jest, I feel the fumble drill is something that needs to continue to be practiced, maybe even expanded. As TFCPSU mentions it need to be a cognitive action/reaction drill so the players act with instinct. This could be likened to Pavlov’s dog, and when a player recovers a fumble he is rewarded with a Scooby treat when he reaches the sideline.
Frank D
3. Marcus Sims fumble against GT was the ball buster of last season and still eats at me. If we could have recovered that one fumble, it would have had a dramatic effect on the outcome and the way the 08 campaign is viewed.
This point is very interesting because that tackle is practice very hard in spring ball. Coach Schianno at Rutgers refers to that as biting the ball and thats exactly what the player from G.T. did. This, even though it doesn’t seem it, is a turnover drill. You work on angle tackling and biting the football to knock it out.
Interesting.
I also always heard the one about making your helmet kiss the ball.
>-----:----:------>Spear 'em then Scalp 'em
Still worth the time.
I’m not a behavioralist, but this is how I’d understand the drill if I was…
The drill, like a loose-ball drill in basketball, trains players to react to a fumble in a certain manner. It’s an attempt to match a behavioral set with a cognitive process. So, the hope is that given specific circumstances players will learn to almost instinctively jump on a fumble. The drill isn’t aimed to make sure that players can effectively pick up a fumble every time it falls, or even to be better at doing so than the opponent. The idea is that players will react more quickly than the opponent should the situation arise. A second dimension is added to the cognitive/behavioral process if a player can be drilled to quickly identify situations in which 1) picking up and trying to run, 2) falling on the ball, or 3) knocking the ball out of bounds would be appropriate.
Basically, all the statistics in the world on fumbles don’t really matter. It’s whether the coach values the cognitive/behavioral value of the reaction patterned by the drill.
I didn’t play football growing up, but my experience from high school basketball would support this. Our team got a ton of loose balls, not because we had a better physical skill set for doing so, but because our reaction to a loose ball had been patterned through drills so that we’d almost instinctively hit the floor.
Its like a act now ask later.
when they see the ball come out if they practice the fumble drills they react fasters or are supost to. If you dont do the drills they might stop to think how to react and then it could be to late. I say keep it but make the drill a fast past drill or put it into other things like tackle drills or others like it. I think you need to add the element of suprise to the drill and do it when players have no clue when it happenes. Train as you fight thats how the Army tries to do it.
Why is the sky blue? Because, God Loves the Infantry
Interesting
I don’t think players stop and think about it. It’s just see ball get ball. If these drills were really effective, wouldn’t the better coaches see better results? Might the better players get better results? What we do know is that fumble recovery is random.
Does the fumble drill really improve reaction time? Maybe so, but I’m not sure other drills don’t as well.
I’m really unsure ho the drill would help players in their attempt to gauge whether to run with the ball, fall on the ball, or knock it out of bounds. At the simplest level, coaches handle this by telling their linemen to fall on the ball and allowing their skill guys to pick it up and run.
Coaches value a lot of things that don’t help (or even sometimes hurt) their chance of winning. They often pander to the media and make the flat out wrong choice (punting in football in many situations, bunting in baseball) because it’s been viewed traditionally as the right thing to do. I’m not sure what behavioral pattern you can develop in response to what is a random bounce. Players diving on the ground risk injuries, specifically to the wrist.
It makes some sense in basketball in that the ball bounces ina fairly predictable fashion, since it is round. If you can actually predict the way the ball will bounce, the game changes.
by Bud Elliott on May 26, 2009 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions
but there is something you can teach.
You can teach posetion. When do you fall on the ball when do you knock it out when do you pick it up. But this can tie into other things like 2 min drills. when to step out of bounds when to fall short of the first down or TD to run the clock out. There are so many things that others to tie in. I dont think we need to run 15 min a day on this thats 15 more min we can use for pass-pro or the Def can get assignment.
Why is the sky blue? Because, God Loves the Infantry
drill
I don’t think they should abandon the fumble drill. I think the drill in itself can only help a player with reaction time/hand-eye coordination. In reference to whether they should run with the ball, fall on it or knock it out of bounds depends on the situation/game. If the player is smart and well prepared/coached, he’ll know what to do when the time comes. IMO, when we have the ball on offense, I would expect our guys to either fall on the ball or knock it out of bounds when fumbled (in order to keep possession). On defense… it could go either way. If it’s in their backfield, I say pick the dadgum ball up and run with it (if possible). If you’re in the trenches trying to recover the fumble on D, falling on it would probably be the wise thing to do.
I also agree that linemen should do their best in trying to fall on the ball to gain possession and have our more skilled/mobile guys scoop it up and run.
practicing...
Most coaches today instead of spending too much time on working fumble recoveries will incorporate this aspect into the end of drills. I know alot of agility drills and drills of this sort a coach will throw a ball out at the end and the defensive player will work on recovering. Just a good way to work on it and not have to spend a whole practice segment doing it.
I agree alot with TFCPSU, turnover drills are all about reaction. Coaches know that you never know how the ball will bounce but you do not want a player freezing cause he’s never been in that situation. Turnovers are the most important thing to defensive coaches and they are something all good coaches incorporate into their drills.
I like the idea of using them as a throw-in on the end of a general agility or reaction drill
but this concerns me:
Turnovers are the most important thing to defensive coaches and they are something all good coaches incorporate into their drills.
Turnovers are the result of playing good defense and forcing the opponent into negative leverage situations where they then turn the ball over. I think far too many coaches are overly focused on turnovers. Turnovers are a result. Focusing on forcing them at the expense of playing sound defense is risky and probably foolish. I’m all for the strip and jumping routes, but when the defense gets this mindset of “turnover, turnover”, they lose sight of what actually causes turnovers, and that’s typically situations created by some combination of defense and offense.
Further, a defense that is generating a lot of turnovers yet allowing a lot of yards per snap has a problem, and a team down the road will be all too eager to expose that problem. We saw that with FSU some this past year.
- When you see a team allowing a lot of yards per play and generating turnovers, that defense is due to get gashed.
- When you see a team allowing few yards per play yet not generating turnovers, that team is almost a lock to have been unlucky so far. The turnovers will come as long as this team continues to play sound defense.
by Bud Elliott on May 26, 2009 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions
fsucensored...
Obviously getting stops is the most important thing, but all good defensive coaches want their players to be aggressive and take chances at the appropriate times to try and force a turnover or know how to recover a fumble when the balls on the ground.
Turnovers are a mindset that coaches try to instill in their players heads (not freezing when the balls on the ground and taking chances on routes). It is about a kid understanding that if I do what I’m supposed to and am in the right position then I will be able to create an extra possession for my team. Now the problem becomes is that players start hacking at the ball instead of tackling or jumping routes instead of playing fundamentals. As an offensive coach, when I have a back that fumbles alot I never talk to him about actually fumbling the ball, I will always reference it in a round about way because I don’t want him thinking about it. It works the same on defense, you want that to be in their minds while they play.
hmmm very good.....
If you throw NC State out there’s some hidden consistency though…WF was at the top both years #2, and Maryland was at the bottom both years. I wonder if there is a big difference in how these 2 schools approach the fumble drill.
However, NCSU proves the complete unpredictability of fumble recovery.
We can go back and look at 2006 or 2005
I just didn’t because Footballoutsiders has done it over 15+ years and found no consistency.
by Bud Elliott on May 26, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Could it be that NC State improved from last to first...
because it was Tom O’Brien’s second year as head coach? Where was NC State ranked the prior (CTC) years?
That was part of my thinking...If coaching can impact it that much, then the drills
do have some value.
However, there’s is off the chart improvement which probably leans to FSUn’s “Luck” theory.
Not my theory. Footballoutsiders came up with it, and it's really not a theory anymore.
They went back something like 15 years and couldn’t find any pattern.
Wait a minute.... Are you advocating college football going to a round ball?!?
You people at Tomahawk Nation never cease to amaze me. But seriously, great work as always.
Falling on fumbles
It all depends on who is trying to pick up the ball and run with it. Most times it is better to just fall on it however how many would advocate say a Deion Sanders simply falling on the ball?
I am for a drill called let’s win the (&&^&^%^&&*()()( game!
Ever try to pass a round ball mroe than 20 yards?
Ever try to pass an old school football?
The you’ll know why Knute Rockney revolutionized the game of football one summer while working as a life guard at Cedar Point (which, btw, is my favorite amusement park). He and his teammate perfected something no one else was doing— a forward pass.
Good thing you’re becoming a lawyer and not a physicist! :0
Fumbles
I think FSU has had enough practice in the games falling on their won fumbles.
Seriously I think players breaking and spraining their shoulders and wrists on such drills might make them hesistant after awhile, possibly during a game. Just tell them hey when you see a ball loose dive on it!
Seems like
with the limited time available for practicing a team should crap less effective drills (based on luck here), and devote most of the time to, say, shedding blockers or what have you.
Last time I checked coaches weren’t complaining about all the time they had and nothing to do in practice.
I doubt very many football players freeze when they see a fumble…. almost all of them have been playing since Junior league right?
" And He drank the world's sin so He could carry you in, and give you life"
seems like...
The fumble recovery drills are done after working on shedding blocks and particular skill drills. For example a drill I see all the time, mostly in spring ball, is coaches will work on avoiding cut blocks. LB’s will work on shuffling and the coach will roll a big plyo ball at them and they will have to bend their knees and keep the ball out of their legs. After that a GA or somebody will throw a football out there for that particular player to scoop and score or fall on, it takes two extra seconds and these things can be added to all drills.
I doubt it takes two seconds
" And He drank the world's sin so He could carry you in, and give you life"
FSUvaFan
I promise you it only takes about 2 seconds if they are going full speed. If they are dogging it, well thats a whole nother story. I think it needs to be clarified that there is no specific “fumble drill”. Coaches do not do any of this stuff during the regular season, this is all done in spring ball and summer camp.
I think the point of the article is being lost due to the headline
I more so meant it to emphasize the point that fumble recovery isn’t a skill, we know it’s pretty random, and that it’s often an underlying cause for a team’s success or lackthereof?
by Bud Elliott on May 27, 2009 7:22 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
true
The title threw me off when I was reading the article. I was expecting something about drill work but it never came. Fumbles are alot of the time about luck, interceptions mostly are forced errors on the quarterback, wrong route by the receiver or great play on the ball by defensive player. I just thought I’d add some insight on the actual drilling of turnovers.
We coaches sometimes lose sight of whats important. Instead of making adjustments, we preach turnovers. Football really is an odd game.
And it's much appreciated
since FSU’s practives are closed, we don’t know what drills they run. I struggle to write headlines some times.
When I get home, I’ll send the GT tape. Painful in spots, but good in others.
Check your e-mail in the next 24 hours. I think I just got the GT game tape, in full, commercial free.
as a flex guy, you’ll love it. Do I smell a special to TNation?
by Bud Elliott on May 26, 2009 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions
SWEET!!!!!!!!
I’ll be all over that tape, CPJ just out-formationed us the entire game.
Special? What do you have in mind? I’ve got a great site for you if you are interested in learning more about the flexbone.
Random, but can anyone remember back to FSU-Miami '92 (Wide Right II)...
…when a young Derrick Brooks (I believe – caffiene’s not kicking in today) fell on the ball after a blocked Miami field goal in the first quarter, when he was all alone in the Canes’ backfield (change of possession was all but certain) and he could have easily scooped it up and run for what would have been a game-changing (and history-altering) touchdown? Why do I do this to you, right?
I'd venture a guess that DB remembers it.
Seems like he looked to score every time he touched the ball in Tampa.
Riley Skinner's fumble
Let’s not forget Skinner’s fumble near the goal line in 2nd quarter last year. It was either Mangum or Jamie Robinson’s helmet that caused that fumble and stifled a nearly certain TD drive. That LUCKY play actually bailed out the offense, allowing them to stay within striking distance until late in the 4th.
Marcus Sims’ fumble only goes to show the true randomness of a bouncing oblong ball. I’ve watched the play 30 times (a few more times than “The Life Aquatic”), and the recovery is more painful than the fumble. It seemed like Caz and Christian’s simultaneous collision created a random event allowing the defender to wind up with the football. If even the slightest different series of physical events takes place, Christian winds up with the ball in his lap and a place in FSU folklore. Seriously, Ponder recovering that ball leads to a 10-point bump in his QB approval ratings.
I’ve seen the play enough times to conclude that even Greg Carr did about all he could to help recover it. Just flat-out bad Fluck.
I agree with DocHoliday’s assessment of the injury risk of the drill. I know you can’t approach practice with fear of injury in mind, but fumble drills seem like a potential trap. Few things are more dangerous that random collisions involving the ground, limbs, extremities, and large bodies out of control.
Going along with FSUncensored’s point, you can’t teach random oblong bouncing ball skills.
—Remember Nigel Bradham’s near scoop and score of an MRG kickoff fumble against GTech? (it was later ruled that MRG stepped out of bounds). Nothing done in practice would’ve helped Nigel learn to snag a ball in mid-stride and keep truckin’.
—You Either Got It Or You Don’t:
-The 2000 Championship against VTech has 2 extreme examples of “good Fluck” resulting from good athletes with even better desire.
1) Corey Simon’s early game-changing recovery of Mike Vick fumble on our goal line. That was a giant, nimble, hungry bear who wanted to ball and flung himself towards it with a “MINE, MINE, MINE” attitude. Can’t teach what Corey had.
2) Jeff Chaney’s scoop-and-score of the blocked punt. Like many, I’m a huge fan of what Jeff Chaney quietly did at Florida State. The fumble recovery for a TD was his grand Opus and microcosm of a solid career. He exhibited impeccable instinct and top-notch body control on that play. Other players may have hoped to fall on that ball, accidentally punched it out of bounds, or just flat screwed it up. Not Jeff Chaney. His agility-instinct combo was something you can’t teach in a drill. Timmons had it, too.
by The K-Man on May 27, 2009 6:26 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Wow, yes, a great read.
TRM fave, The K-Man, even loves Jeff Chaney, one of my all-time favorite Noles. I really didn’t mean to offend the Seminole faithful around me everytime I yelled, “Get Travis Minor out of there!” Watch a ’99 highlight video and see how many times #23 #24 saved the day for the Garnet and Gold.
P.S. I’ve watched the Marcus Sims fumble at Ga. Tech exactly once. You’re taking years off your life, man.
Chaney is cult classic for underground Nole fans
Jeff’s plays are impossible to quantify, but the complete body works leaves a lasting impression. I also preferred Jeff over Travis once the difference was clear. The real question is whether #24 could’ve held up with as many touches as Travis got. Minor was built well and reliable as heck, just didn’t make the moves or break the tackles or find the sticks like Jeff. Man, that dude could find the sticks.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
