Your initial post was that people were mistaking bad offense for good defense, and you did not qualify that comment by saying you only meant it relative to the turnover, so you actually did indicate good defense was not involved.
But you're backpedaling now, and trying to change the context.
Of course, even if you had limited your comment to the fumble, it still baffles me how you think covering receivers so the QB had nobody to throw to, attacking the QB so he wasn't comfortable and able to take his time, hitting the QB and recovering the fumble all had nothing to do with the turnover.
The fact the QB could have done more to be safe with the ball doesn't change the fact that coverage forced a change in the course of the play, attacking the QB forced the action, knocking the ball out of the QB's hands forced the fumble, and recovering the fumble forced the opponent to relinquish the football.
The QB didn't just drop the ball with no influences from the defense.
