Get one thing straight, Franco Harris was a fumbler. It was one of his biggest flaws, as was Dorsett. Harris, Dorsett, and Walter Peyton are in the top 5 for most fumbles by NON-QBs in the history of the NFL. The reason they have so many is because they did others things well. And Archer does nothing else well? I would suggest the OTHER things is the reason he was drafted Harris was a 230-pound runningback with speed and pretty good hands in an era where 230-pound runningbacks were rare. Dorsett was a 200-pound runningback with good hands and electric moves. Both are two of the greatest runningbacks in the history of the NFL. Are you really comparing the game of Archer and Dorsett/Harris? Of course not. Archer hasn't done a thing in the NFL. The point I was trying to make is that MOST RBs can have issues w fumbles once in a while. Barry Sanders had 10 his first season then never got higher than 6. It's an ebb and flow kind of stat (like Interceptions w QBs) Maybe his most productive season where he amassed more than 60% of ALL of his college carries is the norm. (2 fumbles) Maybe it's not. BUT ALL KO and Punt returners have higher averages for fumbles because they can fumble w/out taking possession. I just don't see enough "consistency" in his fumbling to call it one way or another. Or, do you simply want to state that other players have fumbled so it should be a non-issue, well, until he starts fumbling at a high rate in the NFL and gets benched. They benched Mendenhall and Redman for fumbles. Mendenhall had 13 in over 1000 touches (same number of fumbles as Archer, twice the touches). Redman had 8 in 333 touches, or a fumble every 41 touches, much less than Archer. Richard Huntley was once thought to have the skills of a feature back. He averaged 5.3 yards per carry in Pittsburgh and 4.7 over his career. He could catch. He could pass block. What killed him? Fumbles, 12 in 448 touches. You can find all the HOF backs you want that fumbled, but they all have other characteristics that put them in the hall of fame and those characteristics outweigh the flaws, which was fumbling. If Archer was 6'1"-230 pounds with great feet and flypaper hands, maybe. He is not.
It is kind of like andrewjosh's weak *** effort to show Archer has speed/quickness by comparing him to Wallace, Parker, and others. Everyone wants to forget that Parker also had a great ability to cut and make guys miss, he could also run through tackles, he used vision and feel to get through holes and could drop his pads and power through tackles. Wallace had height and the ability to run routes well enough, especially deeper routes, where he could burn the DBs AND go up and fight for the pass. Wallace was a known "one trick pony", you know this. He never fought back to the ball, never fought for a ball in the air and could not run a route if it had more than a slight hitch in it. Really? But, bring that up, he states no one is comparing the players, although he is damn sure ready to compare speed/quickness. If speed and quickness alone made the NFL, they would not watch film, just go to the nearest track meet and hire guys. If Archer was a speed only guy, he would be Wallace. He is not. He makes guys turn with his moves...then they rarely lay a hand on him (when he is in space). He is a liability when he is trapped BUT how long did it take Rocky to finally catch that damn chicken?
But hey, I get it, I see how this comparison thing works, Emmett Smith played RB, Archer plays RB, so Archer should break the all-time rushing record. It only took me bashing my head about 100 times with a hammer to see the light.
