Turnovers

Frosty

Bigdog24
Messages
3,960
Reaction score
2,257
The lack of takeaways is the single biggest reason we're not winning games while compromised at QB. Which is why it's a fairly common topic. So, yes Id agree with that part of your thread.

I don't consider it a failure of coaching though. I consider our defense to be well coached and I know we put a huge emphasis on takeaways.

Have to beg to differ.....Scoring Touchdowns instead of Field Goals is the biggest reason this team is not winning right now. The HC settles for FG's....what happened when Hardy got the turnover....nothing but a FG... I hear what your saying...turnovers will help and are an important stat....But the offense has to score TDs not FGs to Win games.
 

conner01

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,960
Reaction score
26,604
If we don't start getting some turnovers we can't win
That's really the bottom line
I do think the ineffectiveness of the offense is hurting the defense
Teams can play very conservative and know they don't need to score much
But no matter the reason we have to get turnovers to win
 

GimmeTheBall!

Junior College Transfer
Messages
37,675
Reaction score
18,031
A lot of it really is luck. We had many, many more takeaways in 2010 with Kitna at QB then we had in the 10 or so games with Romo before or since.

But of course, the takeaways are just a part of the problem, and depending on them would never be confused for a winning strategy.

but let us not remember to forget, a team who depend on luck and turnovers cant be all that good.
 

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
Every team should depend on turnovers, let's have a look at this.

http://www.advancedfootballanalytic...ch/general/79-examining-luck-in-nfl-turnovers
The point of that article is that turnover differential has slightly more to do with luck than with talent. You don't want your team reduced to depending on something as random and volatile as turnover differential, but that's essentially where this team is when the starting QB doesn't play. That doesn't say much for the rest of the team/organization.
 

Reality

Staff member
Messages
31,230
Reaction score
72,704
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Our players need to get some turnovers!!

turnover2.jpg
 

Idgit

Fattening up
Staff member
Messages
58,971
Reaction score
60,826
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
The point of that article is that turnover differential has slightly more to do with luck than with talent. You don't want your team reduced to depending on something as random and volatile as turnover differential, but that's essentially where this team is when the starting QB doesn't play. That doesn't say much for the rest of the team/organization.

There's a difference between relying on turnovers and understanding the reality that -8 in turnover differential/4 total takeaways to start the season is going to explain 2-5. If a complete drought of takeaways coincides with losing one of the most effective passers in the league, most good teams are going to lose those games.

The question, really, is whether the lack of takeaways is related to the personnel, to something or things the team is doing with Tony out, or if it's just a really unfortunately coincidence. If it's the personnel, we're in trouble with Tony back, too. If it's something we're doing with Tony out (eg, being too aggressive with downfield passes, holding the ball too long for WRs not named Dez to uncover, playing too much man coverage on defense), then it's on the coaching staff. If it's just a really unfortunate coincidence, then it just really sucks.

Personally, I think part of it has been personnel, but we've now got our DL pressure back. My other concerns are with the S play, where Jones is picking up reps fairly dramatically. There's probably been a coaching element to it, too, since there usually is, but for the most part, we've been trying to be conservative with the ball on offense, and I don't really believe takeaways aren't an emphasis on defense. Primarily, though, we've just had a string of really bad takeaway luck. DBs who've just missed interceptions, strips that were a quarter second too late, bad bounces on strip sacks, penalties calling clean picks back. Balls bouncing off of a combination of the turf and a foot. It's compounded the compromised passing game, and the combination has cost four games (3, if you don't count ATL) where the team was in position to win each one.
 

mattjames2010

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,835
Reaction score
20,690
The point of that article is that turnover differential has slightly more to do with luck than with talent. You don't want your team reduced to depending on something as random and volatile as turnover differential, but that's essentially where this team is when the starting QB doesn't play. That doesn't say much for the rest of the team/organization.

Turnovers aren't just "random".
 

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
Turnovers aren't just "random".
According to the article that you posted, just over half of seasonal turnover differential can be attributed to luck. It makes sense, because although the best QB will throw fewer interceptions, that's just one team (of the two teams involved in turnover differential), and that's just interceptions, not fumbles.
 

mattjames2010

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,835
Reaction score
20,690
According to the article that you posted, just over half of seasonal turnover differential can be attributed to luck. It makes sense, because although the best QB will throw fewer interceptions, that's just one team (of the two teams involved in turnover differential), and that's just interceptions, not fumbles.

Which is true, luck is a part of turnovers; however, "just over half" for a statistic that proves the higher it is in a game the more chance of winning is something every team should be striving for. It's so important that Marinelli has already stated it's priority #1.

Chicago Bears in 2012 wasn't getting turnovers by luck, they were getting them due to the emphasis the defensive scheme put on turnovers. I would say the best defenses in the league get a high turnover rate due to being well-coached and always attacking the ball.

Can we win games when Romo gets back if we lose the turnover battle? Yes, we won against the Giants in a miraculous way after turning the ball over 3 times. But again, this is why Romo is a franchise QB, he beats the odds and plays consistently well. That is not Cassle.

If we don't get turnovers in the next two games, we either have to play clean football on offense ourselves or we won't win a game before Romo gets back.
 

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
Which is true, luck is a part of turnovers; however, "just over half" for a statistic that proves the higher it is in a game the more chance of winning is something every team should be striving for.
Every team strives to win, too. But winning is a goal, not a strategy. Luck may or may not play a part in winning, but plays no part at all in strategy.
 

xwalker

Well-Known Member
Messages
57,193
Reaction score
64,699
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Which is true, luck is a part of turnovers; however, "just over half" for a statistic that proves the higher it is in a game the more chance of winning is something every team should be striving for. It's so important that Marinelli has already stated it's priority #1.

Chicago Bears in 2012 wasn't getting turnovers by luck, they were getting them due to the emphasis the defensive scheme put on turnovers. I would say the best defenses in the league get a high turnover rate due to being well-coached and always attacking the ball.

Can we win games when Romo gets back if we lose the turnover battle? Yes, we won against the Giants in a miraculous way after turning the ball over 3 times. But again, this is why Romo is a franchise QB, he beats the odds and plays consistently well. That is not Cassle.

If we don't get turnovers in the next two games, we either have to play clean football on offense ourselves or we won't win a game before Romo gets back.

Marinelli was the DC of that 2012 Bears defense.
 

mattjames2010

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,835
Reaction score
20,690
Marinelli was the DC of that 2012 Bears defense.

Yes, he was. But again, his past doesn't validate present failures.

We brought him in to do what he did with his past teams. In the 3 years that Marinelli has been here, we've had a historically bad defense, a somewhat overachieving defense in 2013, and a team that can't get a turnover to save their life in 2014 that is hurting us in the win column.

I gave him a pass when our players were dropping like flies earlier in the year, we have talent on defense now. I commend him for the bend but don't break, but I'm not giving him a pass for the failure in every other category.
 

xwalker

Well-Known Member
Messages
57,193
Reaction score
64,699
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
According to the article that you posted, just over half of seasonal turnover differential can be attributed to luck. It makes sense, because although the best QB will throw fewer interceptions, that's just one team (of the two teams involved in turnover differential), and that's just interceptions, not fumbles.

A team could operate like the Cowboys did early in games with Weed at QB and would rarely have a turnover. They still wouldn't win many games.
 
Top