There is no such thing as a "lucky" turnover

[Rockport]

Again, I'm not saying luck isn't part of the game, and if you got that from my post you need to read again. I'm saying there is no such thing as a lucky turnover.

So are turnovers lucky or is there no luck involved? I can't tell because you've indicated both.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

True but then teams go a long way in making their own luck because they do hustle, they do swarm to the ball they play through the whistle. There is a reason Marinelli works on this with his players and not an accident that his teams have always create a lot of turnovers.

Exactly, great post. Everything in football is interrelated to some degree, and so it is ridiculous to downplay a football event due to a singular factor when that factor is by no means the sole predicting cause of the event.

 

[Rockport]

Trust me AmberBeer, I'm not too concerned about ridicule from someone who can't follow an argument and can't figure out how to use the quote function.

And I can't take anyone's opinion as serious who says "There's no such thing as a lucky turnover"

 

[TheRomoSexual]

So are turnovers lucky or is there no luck involved? I can't tell because you've indicated both.

Neither. Luck is merely an arbitrary, constant factor, but never the sole factor.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

And I can't take anyone's opinion as serious who says "There's no such thing as a lucky turnover"

You can't take it serious because you can't understand the point, so I'm done responding to you. You obviously just don't get it.

 

[Rockport]

You can't take it serious because you can't understand the point, so I'm done responding to you. You obviously just don't get it.

You don't get it if you believe there's no such thing as a lucky turnover. Your words, not mine.

 

[Hoods]

Luck is part of the game, but to say we "got lucky" in creating so many turnovers is discrediting the players and coaches. Our defense did not just suddenly get lucky during preseason and in our last game.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

Neither. Luck is merely an arbitrary, constant factor, but never the sole factor.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap2000000082931/Andrew-Luck-fumble

 

[TheRomoSexual]

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap2000000082931/Andrew-Luck-fumble

Haha took me a second.

 

[Rockport]

Luck is part of the game, but to say we "got lucky" in creating so many turnovers is discrediting the players and coaches. Our defense did not just suddenly get lucky during preseason and in our last game.

I, nor anyone, said we got lucky creating turnovers. All the hard work the team put it to creating turnovers is paying off. My issue with the OP is his statement that there are no such things as lucky turnovers. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

I, nor anyone, said we got lucky creating turnovers. All the hard work the team put it to creating turnovers is paying off. My issue with the OP is his statement that there are no such things as lucky turnovers. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.

Seems as though everyone understands the point but you. Enjoy your island.

 

[Doomsday101]

Luck is part of the game, but to say we "got lucky" in creating so many turnovers is discrediting the players and coaches. Our defense did not just suddenly get lucky during preseason and in our last game.

Exactly, I guess Marinelli must be the luckest coach out there after all his units have been consistent about getting turnovers. So either it is luck or preperation and getting his players to do as I mentioned to hustle, to swarm the ball carrier to get on the ball anytime it hits the ground. After all it is only "Luck" if the team recovers it, if all they are doing is standing around assuming a play is over then luck tends not to happen.

 

[visionary]

Neither. Luck is merely an arbitrary, constant factor, but never the sole factor.

does that argument only apply to turnovers or to how teams perform overall as well?

i.e. is our 17 years with one playoff win a function of poor personnel/coaching or bad luck?

i am asking because many knowledgeable football people on this very board have made the argument that "we are just snake-bit" and just cant get "the ball to bounce our way" and "it is an up and down league and we are in a down cycle"

i am curious to see if this luck being "an arbitrary, constant factor" thing just applies to turnovers in your estimation or to other football stuff as well

 

[Rockport]

Seems as though everyone understands the point but you. Enjoy your island.

The Island of Common Sense and Reality.

 

[Tom [Giants fan]]

The Giants definitely did not play well and were at fault for their own mistakes. But, the Cowboys put themselves in situations to create those turnovers. David Wilson obviously isn't that strong if they can rip the ball from him. Bradshaw didn't fumble because someone ripped it from him. That first pick was because Eli didn't see the defender but the Cowboys put their defensive guys into position to create that turnover.

It was both the Giants making bad decisions and the Cowboys making good ones. There was nothing lucky about those turnovers. The Cowboys did what they didn't do last year and that netted them a W. The Giants need to fix that and hopefully it was a fluke game.

 

[Common Sense]

So, you're saying all turnovers require some degree of luck, but no turnovers are by definition "lucky?"

Good luck with that.

 

[ShiningStar]

This phrase should be eliminated from the board's lexicon immediately. I'm alway stunned when people downplay a turnover because (according to some) a turnover that is a result of another's mistake is somehow not as impressive. Well, this argument is bunk because EVERY turnover is a result of another's mistake and there is a mistake on every possession. Turnovers are the result of awareness and proper positioning to capitalize on mistakes.

Take Eli's last turnover -- some say it was a "fluke" turnover, but again, there is no such thing. The int was the result of Hatcher's pressure and Carr's awareness around Eli's premature throw. Without either of those factors, you only have a mistake, NOT a turnover.

the one that bounced off wittens foot for the giants, a few years ago LUCKY!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[arglebargle]

"Luck favors the well prepared."

 

[fanfromvirginia]

Luck creates opportunities, NOT turnovers. This really isn't hard to understand.

Luck -- the opportunity for a turnover.

Turnover -- the culmination of creating a situation that results in a "lucky" opportunity and the having the awareness to seize the same.

This is one part semantic silliness and one part wisdom, IMO, but I'm mostly with you. Of course luck is involved. Some turnovers are basically gifts and some are essentially forced. At the same time, and I agree here heartily, some teams are much better at taking advantage of luck-derived opportunities. We had lots of opportunities under RR but very few turnovers. I remember many occasions where members of the secondary turned an interception into a dropped ball.

What's important to me is that our six takeaways involved both plays closer to the 'gift' end of the spectrum and plays closer to the 'forced' end of the spectrum. I think we're better under Kiffin at both A) accepting gifts and B) creating forced turnovers.

 

[birdwells1]

lol there are tons of lucky turnovers. Heck, ALL of them are to some extent. If a ball is fumbled, it has to bounce one direction or another. If a ball is tipped, it has to fly one direction or another, etc.

I agree that's why I'm happy for they win but the methods in which we got the win (to's) is not sustainable. The defensive coordinator does stress stripping the ball but if a team's not giving it up (or if we're unlucky) then we can't consistently give up 500+ yards a game and expect a victory. Hopefully we've gotten all the kinks out of our pass coverage for this weeks game.