Fighting for yards vs not fighting for yards

[hail2skins]

What side are you on?

Several of our turnovers occurred when players were fighting for extra yards. Moss lost the ball stretching for yards, Portis gets hit hard from behind fighting to keep from going down.

Where are you on this issue?

[CNYSkinFan]

it's ok to fight for extra yards, but you need to secure the ball while doing so.

Look at the bears game and Adrian PEterson last night. He was always fighting for yards (and winning) but he did so with two hands on the ball

[Red Bear]

it's ok to fight for extra yards, but you need to secure the ball while doing so.

Look at the bears game and Adrian PEterson last night. He was always fighting for yards (and winning) but he did so with two hands on the ball

portis had two hands on the ball on his second fumble when he got banged around by 3 or 4 buccaneers like he was a pinball, portis's problem there was not holding the ball high and tight. anyways i say continue to fight for yards, even tho there are times when its best just to go down and take what you got out of the play like on santanas fumble yesterday...

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Definitely fight for yards.

[redskin_rich]

If it's for a 1st down or TD, then yes, fight for it.
If it's just for an additional yard that serves no other purpose, then no, just go down and don't risk blowing the play for a useless extra yard.

[akhhorus]

This happened in the South Carolina game a couple times where a freshman WR would catch the ball and fight for another 10+ yards 5-6 times, and he fumbled the ball twice. Frankly, I would rather see them fight for the yards, rather than go down. Also, Tampa headed into this game, was one of the best teams in the NFL at causing fumbles(18 in 11 games), I wonder how much is the Skins' "fumblitis" and how much is the Bucs' Def.

[CNYSkinFan]

This happened in the South Carolina game a couple times where a freshman WR would catch the ball and fight for another 10+ yards 5-6 times, and he fumbled the ball twice. Frankly, I would rather see them fight for the yards, rather than go down. Also, Tampa headed into this game, was one of the best teams in the NFL at causing fumbles(18 in 11 games), I wonder how much is the Skins' "fumblitis" and how much is the Bucs' Def.
that is a fair point because in each of the plays the Bucs were going for the fumble....none of them were caused by mere contact but by the Bucs poking at the ball

[SkinsKY]

Fighting for yards is the right thing to do. But, you have to put a higher premium on protecting the football than the extra yards.

[hail2skins]

If it's for a 1st down or TD, then yes, fight for it.
If it's just for an additional yard that serves no other purpose, then no, just go down and don't risk blowing the play for a useless extra yard.
does this go against the mentality of a football player?

[RedskinsDave]

Fighting for yards and not fumbling aren't mutually exclusive. I prefer they do both.

[redskin_rich]

does this go against the mentality of a football player?

Yes, especially at the amateur level, where you are coached to always fight for every inch. I think more and more coaches at the pro level though, are coaching the players to get down once their progress is stopped and avoid the big hit or getting stripped. If they're not, they should be.

[hail2skins]

Fighting for yards and not fumbling aren't mutually exclusive. I prefer they do both.That's a good point but it does happen. Portis had two hands on the ball when he got hit from the back.

[RedskinsDave]

That's a good point but it does happen. Portis had two hands on the ball when he got hit from the back.

Clinton is a special kind of fumbler. He finds new ways to put the ball on the ground every week.

[hail2skins]

Clinton is a special kind of fumbler. He finds new ways to put the ball on the ground every week.LMAO, is it going to be one of those days for you?

<<Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome back the master of comedy RedskinsDave?>>

[RedskinsDave]

LMAO, is it going to be one of those days for you?

<<Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome back the master of comedy RedskinsDave?>>

Nothing inspires sarcasm like watching our team give another one away. I wish someone at the Elias Sports Bureau can tell us if a team has ever not converted a first down in the second half and won a game before. I would doubt it.

[Meatsnack]

Riggins reached outt he ball all the time and surely fought for extra yards after contact. And, he almost never fumbled. So, they are not mutually exclusive and can even happen for players in our uniform. I think Ladell and Clinton have a side bet as to who will have the most backbreaking and creative fumble each week. So far they are tied 2 to 2 for game killers. I look for one of them to shoot the ball out the trailing end of his alimentary canal any week now in an atempt to get extra degree of difficulty points from the Russian judge.

[redwolf1218]

that is a fair point because in each of the plays the Bucs were going for the fumble....none of them were caused by mere contact but by the Bucs poking at the ball

i think they must coach that, and work on it. it can bite back if you are so intent on poking at the ball that you forget to wrap the guy up and make the tackle (Stanley Richards come to mind). unfortunately, once you get the rep as a fumbler, more teams will go after it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=rush&sort=yds&league=nfl&season=2&year=2007

Portis and Reggie Bush have the most fumbles of all the leaders on that list.

[give_portis_the_rock]

Fighting for yards and not fumbling aren't mutually exclusive. I prefer they do both.

But fighting for extra yardage increases the chances of a fumble. Is it worth the risk?

I say yes. People were trashing Clinton in the game thread because of his fumbles, but the honest truth is that an average running back would have had maybe 30-40 rushing yards yesterday with the lack of push against the Bucs DL. Clinton fought for every one of those 68 yards, and the fumbles were because of that.

[dj_stouty]

But fighting for extra yardage increases the chances of a fumble. Is it worth the risk?.

If that is the case...then can't the same be said about running the ball 30 times a game; or an increased chance of throwing an INT if you throw the ball 40+ times a game? Bottom line: You don't worry about it. You run the play...make the play...get as many yards as possible and hold onto the ball.

Out of the blue, you can't start telling your players to squirrel up every time they are approached by defenders. If so, you start losing yards and in the end, your yards/carry goes down.

[rskinsfan10]

Fighting for yards and not fumbling aren't mutually exclusive. I prefer they do both.My thinking as well.

[The_Sonny_Of_Sammy]

Moss fumbled the ball in Green Bay just like in Tampa Bay. Looked like he was trying some type of crab walk to stay off the ground with the intention of springing up for a gainer. Problem is, ball is exposed and he is in no position to defend himself.

[shane88]

Fight for every inch, but you must also make a concerted effort at protecting the ball at all times. It's just the risk that goes with reward. Most times you win, some times you lose.

[guinness4health]

i think that it is ok in most circumstances for running backs to fight for extra yards.....

however when you got to put a hand down to fight for a couple of inches you are asking for trouble (see L. Betts fumble a couple of weeks ago)....he was no where near the first down marker and it there was no benefit is fighting for a couple of inches....

it is just stupid to put yourself out there like that when so very little can be gained and so many bad things can happen....i.e. game changing fumbles

but in the case of a guy like moss (especially considering how niched up he has been) just go down....

with santana's size and shiftiness guys look for opportunities to beat him up any chance they can get, I would much rather him just take the positive yards and live to fight another play....

[jtovb2005]

Fighting for yards and not fumbling aren't mutually exclusive. I prefer they do both.

Bingo. Fighting for yards should not result in the turnovers we seem to suffer while doing this.

[Aurej]

I'm all for fighting for yards but not when they extend their arms putting the ball in easy strip spot.

[Hr fan]

What side are you on?

Several of our turnovers occurred when players were fighting for extra yards. Moss lost the ball stretching for yards, Portis gets hit hard from behind fighting to keep from going down.

Where are you on this issue?

If you are fighting for yards when other players are fighting to rip the ball away, go down. If you are being single tackled try for the extra yard. IMO neither of these circumstances relate to Moss and Portis this week. Moss went down pretty much on contact and lost the ball on the way down. On at least his first fumble Portis was carrying a loaf of bread in heavy traffic. So the answer given is unfortunately theoretical since Portis, Moss (remember GB - eerily similar, isn't it), and JC have shown over at least this season the ability to repeat their problems ad nauseum.