The Dude Abides...Why More Than One Turnover Is Really Bad For Your Head Coach
Don't make the same mistake twice.
You've heard this nugget of wisdom a hundred times.
In the NFL, it's literally true. For if you turn the ball over twice, your chances of winning go way down. Not quite as far as the Raiders' playoff chances in November, but very far nonetheless.
We know that turnovers are the single biggest reason for winning and losing in the NFL. It's estimated that the team that wins the turnover battle in an individual game ends up winning the game about 80% of the time.
But how do the number of turnovers a team commits in a game affect winning? Do teams that commit 0 turnovers win more often than teams that commit 1? Or how about 1 turnover versus 2 turnovers? Does it even matter when we compare 4 turnovers to 5 turnovers?
Intuitively we can all agree that if Jay Cutler throws 1 interception this upcoming week, it's much better than if he throws 2 picks (notice I didn't say zero, because it always happens). Why? Well, simply, the Bears lose a scoring opportunity, while the Bengals gain one. It's so simple, they're even considering this question for the Oakland GED test.
But just how much more costly is that 2nd interception? We can get a pretty good idea by looking at all of last season's data and the first six weeks of this season. For starters consider:
- In 2008, there were 256 total games played
- So far in 2009, there have been 90 games played
- The total games for this time period have been 346
- Given that two teams play in a game (you can look it up, Black Hole ticket holders), that's 692 opportunities for a team to commit between 0 and 12 (the NFL record) turnovers in an individual game.
Given this, it's simply a matter of going back through the data of each game, extrapolating the number of turnovers, and correlating these numbers to wins:
As you can see (given this sample size):
- When a team doesn't turn the ball over at all, its winning percentage is 74.67%!
- When a team turns the ball over once in a game, its winning percentage is 58.67%
- When a team turns the ball over twice a game, the winning percentage drops to 39.88%
- Turn the ball over 3 times, a team's winning percentage drops to 28.41%
- 4 turnovers in a game will win you 20.45% of your games in the NFL
- If a teams finds itself turning the ball over 5 or more times in a game, it's extremely rare that it will win.
Remember, these percentages are independent of actually winning the turnover battle, they are just a straight up analysis of the number of turnovers in a game and whether or not a team wins. So this includes games that are 0-0 in turnovers in which one team wins and the other loses.
As you can see, that 2nd turnover is a real beast, because it takes you below .500. We can do a simple thought experiment to drive this point home. Imagine 3 different teams. Team Zero plays every game with 0 turnovers. Team One plays every game with 1 turnover. Lastly, Team Two plays each game with 2 turnovers. And let's assume these same percentages hold true. At the end of a hypothetically season:
- Team Zero's Record: 12-4 (In the playoffs, a division winner, perhaps home field advantage)
- Team One's Record: 9-7 (Likely wild card in most years, in the hunt in all years)
- Team Two's Record: 6-10 (Never in the playoffs, and a top ten draft pick)
Now it becomes clear why that 2nd turnover is going to get your coach fired after just a few seasons. He's never in the playoffs and your team is only making news once a year in the draft. Clearly, this is a hypothetical example, but it certainly rings true. Turnovers make a huge difference, and just having one more turnover in your box score is extremely costly. You can hope your defense goes out and gets more than you give up (in which case, your winning percentage is very high), but on those days in which it can't, you should just take care of the ball.
Now, if you are a Bronco fan, you should have a giant grin on your face right now, and not just because the Broncos are going into the bye week 6-0. It's because you should have suddenly realized (if you haven't already) why Pat Bowlen hired Josh McDaniels and, in addition, why Josh McDaniels traded for Kyle Orton. You see it, right? Are you sure?
No? Okay, it's fine. We'll quickly break it down. First, the entire football philosophy of Josh McDaniels is built around turnovers--getting them (see Nolan, Mike) and not giving them up. His offense is built around short, high percentage passes that sustain drives and, at least in theory, do not result in many turnovers. In short, he's trying like hell to coach a team that is like our Team Zero example.
You might be tempted to say, "Everyone is." Yes, this is true, all coaches say this. But are their offensive philosophies and personnel congruent with this goal? Not always. A perfect example (and my favorite team to mock) is the Oakland Raiders. When your whole offensive philosophy is built around stretching the field vertically in a league where safeties are as fast as corners, you are going to put up a lot of high risk passes. Unless you have the personnel to pull this off (few teams do), you are in for a lot of problems. High risk passes result in more turnovers, which, as we can see from our data, result in few wins. It's really that simple.
Which brings us to Kyle Orton. I think you are getting it now. While strong arm QBs are very interesting (and high maintenance), they are going to continue to want to use their talents to sling the ball around the field and stretch teams vertically. All high risk strategies. Kyle Orton isn't like this. Either he's looked at these percentages (like McDaniels) or he simply realizes that high risk strategies, while they are needed when you are down with two minutes on the clock, are a losing proposition when it comes to winning football games. In short, he's a low risk QB in an offense that asks--no, demands--its leader to make low risk decisions.
It really shouldn't be a surprise that Kyle Orton has a 66% percent winning percentage. What will be more of a surprise is that he's going to have an opportunity to push it up to 75% with McDaniels--year in and year out.
Go Broncos!
This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR
37 recs |
62 comments
Comments
BB, thanks for readin' em. I will come out with more. Thanks!
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 24, 2009 12:33 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really Great Post,Rec
During this bye week we all need as many of these kind of posts as possible.Thanks alot.
Signed,
Starving for Broncos Reading Material
by Broncolorado on Oct 24, 2009 6:59 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not much residual there
That’s a pretty straight line LB. Great work man. Nailed it.
"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."
"It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes" Douglas Adams
by orange&blue_aussie on Oct 24, 2009 8:23 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
OBA
Mate, Apreciated. Respect to you also.
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 24, 2009 12:33 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude! Great work and mindnumbing data.
The only turnovers I like are theirs or the kind that come from the oven with apples.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. A. Einstein
by Ponderosa on Oct 24, 2009 8:39 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Pondersa
….I like seeing Dumervil “turn” Rivers “over” on his ass quite a bit as well.
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 24, 2009 12:32 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Prescription for the weekend:
Take one KaptainKistatin and one Lebowskycin and call me on Monday.
Terrific read. The simple philosophies seem to have the greatest impact.
by dr.mort on Oct 24, 2009 8:42 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
ROFL
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
by KaptainKirk on Oct 24, 2009 9:48 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey Doc, Thank you!!!
One of the areas I work in is financial modeling, and I’ve noticed that the more details you put into the model, the more variables you have to account for, and the less accurate it is. I am sure it’s this way in your profession too.
Most often, the clear explanations are the right ones.
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 24, 2009 12:32 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also known as...
Occam’s Razor. To wit, the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one.
by Ace O'Dale on Oct 24, 2009 12:57 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
"In complex systems adding complexity leads to erroneous conclusions."
Imagination is more important than knowledge. A. Einstein
by Ponderosa on Oct 24, 2009 2:44 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks Dude!
I’ve never seen that graph before. The correlation of turnovers to wins/losses seems intuitive, but it’s cool to see it spelled out. Hope we can keep the ball discipline up!
by NedBronco on Oct 24, 2009 8:43 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks NB, thanks for taking the time to be a "stats" guy!
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 24, 2009 12:30 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another great post Dude
I especially like the fact that you took 3 shots at the faders, I look for them in all of your posts and noticed there were none in your last post, I thought you might be slipping
by BigskyBronco on Oct 24, 2009 8:59 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
by KaptainKirk on Oct 24, 2009 9:48 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was remissss!!!!! Never again!!! Thanks for reading BsB
Even if Al Davis tried to pay me to blog for the Raiders, I would still put them in…
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 24, 2009 12:29 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great post and should be on the front page dude.
Heck we shouldn’t even been 8-8 last year the way we threw interceptions, injuries and such.
by bfree2bronc on Oct 24, 2009 9:19 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. Not sure it will make it to the front, though. We all know how John feels about stats.
Great post lebowski. I love the graph.
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
by kentuckybronco on Oct 24, 2009 9:23 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks KB, I wish I could get the graphs to look at little better when I do this
…still trying to figure this out.
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 24, 2009 12:25 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're doing fine. Graphs are there to make information look more clear. You have accomplished that.
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
by kentuckybronco on Oct 24, 2009 12:39 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bfree
We were extremely fortunate to win the NO game last year. It is one of the only 2 games I have looked at in the last 2 years in which one team won all four categories of stats, and still lost. Amazing, but true.
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 24, 2009 12:29 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
What were we? -17 in turnovers last year? That's enough right there to drive ya nuts.
I don’t see us doing that badly this year, at least let’s hope not.
by bfree2bronc on Oct 24, 2009 3:09 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude...as always, enjoyed the read! rec'd bro
Verbose in style, dispersion of thought, procrastination in life.
The guy formerly known as ZAPPA
by Tim Lynch on Oct 24, 2009 9:51 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Zappa, thanks!
Back at you.
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 24, 2009 12:23 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
DOOOOOOD!
If you extrapolated the total turnover percentages in the turnover battle for each game, that would be a tremendous amount of work, and probably unworthy to us mortals.
Once again I applaud and thoroughly admire your “Commitment To Excellent” bashing of our favorite team to abhor. I’m saving up a few for raider week and licking my chops. I bet you’re good at Sudoku too. Rec’d.
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
by KaptainKirk on Oct 24, 2009 9:55 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Kap you mean not only what I do now in Stats that Don't Lie, but what I did here with the wining percentages by number of turnovers?
If that is what you mean, consider it done.
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 24, 2009 12:24 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
statistics can be misleading
Thank you for reporting on this. It is very helpful and informative.
However, I disagree with your conclusions (except regarding the (lack of) intelligence of followers of Al Davis team). Sure, turnovers are important – both on offense and defense. Some are very important (like Dumervil’s sack/fumble at SD); some are not (like Moss’s interception against Orton on the last play of the half against NE).
More significantly, I believe your reported percentages overstate the important of turnovers. Your percentages are for full games. Teams that are behind are more likely to take chances; they are also more likely to lose, since they are behind. So teams that are more likely to lose (because they are behind) take more chances and will statistically have a higher turnover ratio than teams that are ahead.
Also, when turnovers occur is probably significant. Turnovers on 1st or 2nd down should be more valuable than turnovers on 3rd or 4th down. Fumble turnovers, where you get field position, should be more valuable than long pass interception turnovers, which are not much different than stopping a team and forcing them to punt.
I agree turnovers are important. But it would be a mistake to play too conservatively and focus too much on not having any turnovers. A team that focused too much on running and short passes, to minimize turnovers, would be making a mistake. Not only because you need to open up the field, but also because turnovers from fumbles and short passes are more costly than interceptions on long passes (in general).
I wish I had the time to compile statistics on the type of turmovers (down, fumble/short pass vs long pass, etc) but I do not. So again, thank you for the informative statistics.
by cohiker on Oct 24, 2009 10:57 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Hey, Hiker, Thanks for this post
I agree with most of what you say here. I am going to look into these things also. Everything you say here is on the money. In addition to this piece, I would say you are correct. I am going to look at all of this in due time. My weekly series The Stats That Don’t Lie is one piece. This has been another. And as people here get more comfortable with stats, I will look at all of this. One day, I am even going to whip out a Monte Carlo simulation.
I hope I didn’t give you the impression I was talking about running up the gut on 3 consecutive plays (although it worked well for Marty’s Chiefs for more than a decade). The entire offense that Josh McDaniels runs is premised on a low risk, short passing game and Orton making the right read, getting the ball into the hands of a skill player quickly, and making long plays out of short passes. He has repeatedly said that trying to throw the ball 25 to 30 yards downfield into 2 deep safety coverage is a losing proposition in today’s NFL. There are a few articles that I thought make these points.
Here is one:
http://www.wikio.com/article/132812118
There are two quotes from this article that are very interesting:
Orton doesn’t have the powerful arm or the lofty passing statistics of his predecessor, whom former coach Mike Shanahan used to encourage to take chances downfield, reasoning that an interception on a deep third-and-long pass was just as good as a punt, so why worry?
Sounds like you and Shanny were in agreement with Cutler on those 3rd down interceptions being like punts.
The other is this one:
While Cutler gives the Bears (2-1) their first franchise quarterback since Sid Luckman in the 1940s and hope for a Super Bowl, Orton has given the Broncos (3-0) steady play that includes a lot of low-risk passes and quick throwaways when he’s in trouble.
I personally think McDaniels it for sure leaning towards the lower risk stuff . So you count me in on the side of minimizing risk and playing the percentages, even if it means doing everything possible to avoid a turnover. It worked pretty well for Parcels and Bellichick and now McDaniels, all three of which have run some form of the Erhardt-Perkins system.
At any rate, I’ll be looking later at the stuff you are talking about and look forward to bringing you that data, my friend.
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 24, 2009 12:19 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
more stats
That would be great. We can learn a lot from statistics, but we need to use them with care and common sense.
I think the Pats throw more long passes than we have been doing. I think they are an important part of the game. I am hoping to see more from the Broncos, as opportunities arise and our players get better executing McDaniels complex offense. Ultimately, if we can hit more long passes, that will make running and the short passing game more effective.
by cohiker on Oct 25, 2009 1:48 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
These are good points
I would just add that Will Carrol in his book about the hidden game of football makes the point that teams that have a wide open passing attack are better able to recover from a turn over because they can capitalize on their scoring chances better. I wouldn’t mind a nice look at how turn overs affect different teams and specifically different systems.
by Fan in Exile on Oct 25, 2009 8:01 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fan
That book is awesome. I’ve been meaning to get my very own copy someday.
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 25, 2009 11:45 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you for making the turnover issue so clear.
I have a follow up question. What is the percentage increase in risk as passes get longer, not the run after the pass, but the QB to receiver distance. Is there a sweet spot for longer passes beyond which it is too risky or what? It’s just an impression, but it seems to me that McDaniels has slowly been increasing the distance that Orton throws, like a kind of training progression. Has anyone else noticed this? Again, thanks for abiding.
Was ain't Is.
by oncobronco on Oct 24, 2009 12:12 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Onco, I don't know off the top of my head
But you just gave me another good project to work out. I am curious as well about this. I will be back with another post, on just this issue. Thank you for the idea.
I suspect that there is a % risk that we can extrapolate. And I intend of finding out what that is!
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 24, 2009 12:20 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
And then there are risk issues
on the other end of the pass – the QB. Longer passes require more time to set up. Does it matter whether the pass came from the pocket of off of a scramble or rollout? Many long passes are thrown just as the QB gets hit, so in a sense you are risking the quarterback. Also I assumed in my question that shorter passes were less risky. That may not be true. A fast pass from very short range is hard to catch. Throwing short passes under pressure like Orton did in Chicago also looks a bit risky.
Was ain't Is.
by oncobronco on Oct 24, 2009 1:10 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure have onco
and i believe it isn’t going to be very long off. He missed with Marshall a few times and they weren’t by very much. Marshall could have caught the one in cincy that was high and last week was the pass that was intended for marshall that he batted down a bad pass or was BMarsh out of position?
by bfree2bronc on Oct 24, 2009 1:09 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
man, raiders fans are dumb
This article highlighted that issue in particular for me. As always, you make a tremendous case for just how dumb raiders and raiders fans are. Once again, I leave your post a better man.
Precision in thought, concision in style, decision in life.
"That's MR.Styg..."
by Jeremy Bolander on Oct 24, 2009 3:24 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Styg
Always glad to educate people on the Raiders, you know. ha
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 25, 2009 11:43 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Awesome write up Lebowski
Hilarious line here:
It’s so simple, they’re even considering this question for the Oakland GED test.
John Clayton is the head Dean at Fail University (known as F.U. in short)
by Joe Medina on Oct 24, 2009 6:27 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks , CJ
That’s just what I heard. :-)
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 25, 2009 11:44 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we all might be selling McDaniels offense a ittle short
While it’s true McD runs a low risk offense, I think he would be the first to disagree that is based solely on short high-percentage passing. The philosophy as I understand it is for the quarterback to go thru his reads and take what the defense gives him. if this is short passes then fine. But not all of the play are designed to be like that.
I subscribed to NFL’s game rewind and am working back thru all the games and there are a TON of verticle plays not only called but completed by Denver. The key is for the QB only to throw those ball if they are open and yo throw the ball where only the receiver can get it.
Saying Denver runs a dink and dunk offense would be offensive to McDaniels and saying Kyle Orton can’t make the long or hard throws is inaccurate too. What the offensive philosophy boils down to is take care of the ball and don’t force it where it doesn’t belong. It has nothing to do with intentionally throwing the ball short all the time. That is why Jay Cutler was a terrible fit for the scheme. He would always throw to the deepest guy even if he was covered. That made for some amazing plays and plenty of turnovers.
Orton is a better fit and its not about his arm, it’s about his head. Watching Kyle progress thru his reads and make the right choice is a thing of beauty. Even when he throws it away. If he can be taught better pocket presence, the league better watch out.
by Rain on Oct 24, 2009 7:42 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
You aren't going to get much argument around here, Rain
Lots of us break down the game film, and nearly all of us are seeing the same things that you are. Good to hear from you!
Moreno/Buckhalter in '09
by Emmett Smith on Oct 24, 2009 10:51 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rain
Don’t mean to sell it short. Just pointing out the philosophy really.
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 25, 2009 11:44 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think the words "high perentage pass" and "short yardage pass" are synonymous
If the defense gives us one on one coverage for the deep ball and the QB has time, I’d call that a high percentage option. I bet McDaniels would agree. The problem is in today’s NFL, those situations are rare. Either the safties help out with coverage for the deep ball or they are blitzing which hinders the QB’s ability to throw it deep. Therefore, the majority of the time the shortage pass is the highest percentage throw.
by rollinthunder on Oct 26, 2009 11:26 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about turn over on downs?
Thanks for the writeup Lebo, very informative. How does TOOD count? Coaches seem like they are going for it more on fourth lately.
At sea level, but I'll always be a mile high.
by DaytonaBronco on Oct 24, 2009 9:33 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Daytona
Don’t know, but I’ll have to take a look.
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 25, 2009 11:44 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Down, Distance, Defense
The interception rate, seems to me, would vary depending on those three Ds. And which leads to a w or l more? Especially distance. 1st and long, 2nd and long, 3rd and long means you’re pushed back, usually into your own backyard. Which means the defense has an extra nickel back or more back there, int probability goes up and hurts more because it then gives their offense a short field, resulting in 7 or 3 points. There’s another project for ya lebow (as if you need one – thanks for all you do!), but how many of those ints turn into points? And which side of the 50 does more damage (probably another Oakland GED question)? Is the damage worse when you throw an interception in their territory (points relinquished) or worse when you throw one in your territory (points given up)? I wonder how that might relate to McD’s play calling too. More conservative on our side? But what I love about hearing from him over and over…we don’t want to be predictable. Anyway, is there a stat handy which would correlate which side of the 50 an interception might hurt worse for wins?
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime.
"Losing stinks" - Josh McDaniels
by azbroncomaniac on Oct 25, 2009 8:05 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
it all averages out
On average, you’re probably going to see that most teams’ starting position after a turnover is within a range, centered near mid-field. It’s not about one individual turnover, but rather the effects of averaging one to two turnovers a game. Yes, an INT like Orton had against New England has little to no effect on the outcome, but that’s just one data point. It’s also why you don’t lose 100% of your games if you turn it over twice.
by BroncosBassist on Oct 26, 2009 10:59 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
great post!
i don’t think we’ve lost the turnover battle all year right? except against the pats but orton’s int was a hail mary at the end of the half so we won’t count that :D so lets call that game a push.
at the same time, i think that game is a prime example of what you’re trying to say here: if we had not evened up the turnover battle, aka vonnie holliday not forcing the brady fumble, who knows what brady could’ve done with the minute or so he had left.
excellent insight!
by march20 on Oct 25, 2009 9:03 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
finally had a moment to catch up on reading
great post Dude, rec’d
I knew turnovers had an impact, just never knew that they had quite the impact you’ve shown here.
"The best defense is a good offense. Or is it the other way around." Wolverine
Pray for the best, prepare for the worst, and know you will come down somewhere between the two.
Livin' in La La Land and Lovin' It
by BShrout on Oct 25, 2009 10:31 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks Shrout
I plan on emailing you soon to work on that JOINT MSM project….cool?
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 27, 2009 1:14 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll bet there's a strong correlation with turnover MARGIN
Dude, can you work up a similar table illustrating wins vs. turnover margin instead? I’d be willing to bet the best way to offset the negative effects of turning the ball over once or twice is to force one or two of your own. I’d be interested to see, but I’ll bet the graph looks remarkably similar.
Sorry if this was discussed in the comments already. I didn’t have time to read them all… Work beckons. :)
by BroncosBassist on Oct 26, 2009 11:01 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
What, you mean like the NYJ-Bills game?
NYJ turned it over 5 times I believe. The Bills still turned it over 3 times if memory serves, but the problem is that there are only 2 teams on this field that can win the game. Who else can get a W? The refs for having to pretend this game should even continue? Or the fans for sitting through that abortion of a football game? It’s like the Cleveland-Buffalo game, did anybody deserve to win? No. Unfortunately, neither defense was worthy of a tie either.
by RaRaDonk89 on Oct 26, 2009 12:28 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
hahaha "abortion of a football game"
That literally made me laugh out loud at my computer.
Those games were so bad, not even their mother wanted them…….
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
by kentuckybronco on Oct 26, 2009 1:30 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I will give it a shot, BB, once I get my STDL done for week 7 I am going to look at this.
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 27, 2009 1:13 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
It would be interesting to see how big of a factor the field position of the turnover is
One would expect it to play a fairly large role, but I’m curious to see if that’s really true. For instance, recovering a turnover and getting bad field position still eats up clock, even if you can’t score on the drive.
by rollinthunder on Oct 26, 2009 11:30 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
anywhere sucks
If you are deep in your own territory, you give up points. If you are deep in enemy territory, you don’t score points you should have. If it’s around mid-field, you’re still helping the other team’s average starting field position. Other than things like Kyle Orton’s hail mary, I’d expect that almost all turnovers are almost equally bad.
by BroncosBassist on Oct 26, 2009 3:13 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
plan on looking at this RT
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 27, 2009 1:13 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Dude certainly Abides.....
another great read Lebowski. Very hard to argue the affect turnovers have an a game. The Cards and Giants sure proved that last night. When the Giants were winning in turnovers they were winning as soon as the Cards picked Manning twice it gve them the edge and the win.
by bchiper on Oct 26, 2009 12:23 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
As they did in the Minnesota-Pittsburgh game
no 4th quarter turnovers = Minnesota wins that game.
"The best defense is a good offense. Or is it the other way around." Wolverine
Pray for the best, prepare for the worst, and know you will come down somewhere between the two.
Livin' in La La Land and Lovin' It
by BShrout on Oct 26, 2009 1:16 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
meant to add
but that’s not the way it fell.
"The best defense is a good offense. Or is it the other way around." Wolverine
Pray for the best, prepare for the worst, and know you will come down somewhere between the two.
Livin' in La La Land and Lovin' It
by BShrout on Oct 26, 2009 1:17 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chiper, you are saying exactly what I was going to say in my stats post for this week!
You got it on the money.
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 27, 2009 1:14 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 























