PDA

View Full Version : Causing fumbles


Malloy
09-03-2009, 05:57 AM
Were chilling out to NFL Total Access and noticed one of the rolling texts mentioning that Houston is tied for 1st in caused fumbles in pre-season by 4.

I'm thinking that's a good sign, and hopefully the result of the so-called aggressive defense :)

whiskeyrbl
09-03-2009, 06:26 AM
Were chilling out to NFL Total Access and noticed one of the rolling texts mentioning that Houston is tied for 1st in caused fumbles in pre-season by 4.

I'm thinking that's a good sign, and hopefully the result of the so-called aggressive defense :)

Hopefully that ranking will hold true throughout the year.

Insideop
09-03-2009, 08:47 AM
Were chilling out to NFL Total Access and noticed one of the rolling texts mentioning that Houston is tied for 1st in caused fumbles in pre-season by 4.

I'm thinking that's a good sign, and hopefully the result of the so-called aggressive defense :)

I didn't know that, and you're right, that is a good sign! I didn't get to see the game against the Vikes (working). Did we cause many fumbles in that game?

Blake
09-03-2009, 08:51 AM
That is great. That means our guys are activly looking to strip/knock the ball loose and shows promise towards a great turover ratio for the season. Lets hope they keep up the drills or whatever they are doing, and hope its not a fluke.

Malloy
09-03-2009, 08:55 AM
Ofcourse we need to take that number with a grain of salt, it's pre-season after all and... well... not alot of statistical data to base it on. But I'll rather be tied first in pre-season that be #32 :)

Blake
09-03-2009, 08:58 AM
Ofcourse we need to take that number with a grain of salt, it's pre-season after all and... well... not alot of statistical data to base it on. But I'll rather be tied first in pre-season that be #32 :)

Amen to that!

Pantherstang84
09-03-2009, 09:00 AM
Ofcourse we need to take that number with a grain of salt, it's pre-season after all and... well... not alot of statistical data to base it on. But I'll rather be tied first in pre-season that be #32 :)

Wait a minute! It's only preseason? Then why are so many running around here like their hair is on fire?

Malloy
09-03-2009, 09:01 AM
Wait a minute! It's only preseason? Then why are so many running around here like their hair is on fire?

Those two things do not not exclude the other :)

Pantherstang84
09-03-2009, 09:03 AM
Those two things do not not exclude the other :)

Point taken.:splits:

HOU-TEX
09-03-2009, 11:29 AM
Meh, all 4 were against the Chiefs. We only recovered 2 of those fumbles.

OTOH, we've fumbled 7 times, only losing 1.

In the end, this stat means diddly.

Cjeremy635
09-03-2009, 11:43 AM
Meh, all 4 were against the Chiefs. We only recovered 2 of those fumbles.

OTOH, we've fumbled 7 times, only losing 1.

In the end, this stat means diddly.

Thanks Negative Nancy.....:bat:

barrett
09-03-2009, 11:46 AM
I think we're also leading the leauge in fumbles that are ruled down. "heart attack fumbles".

Yankee_In_TX
09-03-2009, 11:47 AM
Meh, all 4 were against the Chiefs. We only recovered 2 of those fumbles.

OTOH, we've fumbled 7 times, only losing 1.

In the end, this stat means diddly.

Well pee in my cornflakes.

But the first post didn't seem to sit right, and that's why, lol.

TimeKiller
09-03-2009, 11:57 AM
Wait a minute! It's only preseason? Then why are so many running around here like their hair is on fire?

Not enough guys on the field are doing the same?

HOU-TEX
09-03-2009, 12:08 PM
:spit: Sorry, I just promised myself I wasn't going to drink the Kool-aid this season until I began to see the results on the field. There have been a few positive things to look at, but the negative things have outweighed them by far. As of right now, this team is not ready for the regular season.

El Tejano
09-03-2009, 12:18 PM
Thanks Negative Nancy.....:bat:

That's not negative. That's fact. I thought the same thing when I saw the stat scroll across. Two of those fumbles were not caused by us but more like the weather there in KC.

OTOH Mario caused a fumble against The Saints.:d:

HOU-TEX
09-03-2009, 12:20 PM
That's not negative. That's fact. I thought the same thing when I saw the stat scroll across. Two of those fumbles were not caused by us but more like the weather there in KC.

OTOH Mario caused a fumble against The Saints.:d:

He did cause it, but it was ruled incomplete due to the "tuck rule". No fumble

badboy
09-03-2009, 12:35 PM
I will take a fumble but really, really do not want to give up one.

El Tejano
09-03-2009, 02:53 PM
He did cause it, but it was ruled incomplete due to the "tuck rule". No fumble

I know. I just forgot why it was called back.

HOU-TEX
09-03-2009, 02:57 PM
I know. I just forgot why it was called back.

Trust me, it should've been a fumble. That stupid tuck rule!! Freakin Brady!!

hadaad
09-03-2009, 03:23 PM
Before we are confident in our abilities as a proper tackling team, we shouldn't be patting ourselves on the back about our ability to strip the ball. I seem to remember Cris Dishman consistently giving up 10 or more extra yards because he wasn't tackling, he was trying to strip the ball. After the last two games, where the Saints and Adrian Peterson (and Chester Taylor) have run through our terrible tackling efforts, we should be more concerned with making the stop the first time. 3 and outs get us the ball back just as well as a fumble recovery (presuming JJ holds on to the ball).

jlam
09-03-2009, 05:37 PM
He did cause it, but it was ruled incomplete due to the "tuck rule". No fumble

I actually think the reason we challenged that play was because we thought Brees' knee was down before the ball came out of his hand. Of course, once under the hood, all aspects of the play are open to review and the official went with the "tuck rule" call instead.

It was really close though, could have gone either way on whether the knee was down. I tend to think that since the call on the field was a fumble they likely would have kept it that way.