So in the presser yesterday, when asked what he can take away from the Chicago and GB games, Dan said the tape was significantly more encouraging than he expected, and that it really just came down to giving the ball away and not generating any takeaways.

Whats interesting about this point, is that they way Dan talked about this, he really seems to believe protecting the football and getting a take away or two is enough to bring us back to form. He seemed to think that our downturn really boiled down to this. Do you think its really this simple, or are there larger concerns outside of turnover differential?

For me, playcalling on both sides of the ball feels suspect. I’ve been surprised with how often I’m scratching my head at what our offense is doing, and I’m growing increasingly frustrated with the lack of designed blitzes and soft coverage we show every week. But to Dan’s point, our turnover margin is hilariously bad and these games have only been decided by one score. As such, I’m torn on whether my issues with playcalling are as bad as I think they are, or if the turnovers are amplifying an issue that isnt really as bad as I make it out to be.

What are your thoughts?

edit: for clarity’s sake, we have a -6 turnover differential over the last two games (1:4 against Chi, 0:3 against GB), and are -5 on the season (12:17)

  • mattcojo2B
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Absolutely. The turnovers force the defense to play for longer than it should and puts the other team in great field position.

    This also applies to the 4th down calls and such as well. You can’t keep giving the other team great field position like that.

    The defense hasn’t been particularly good since the ravens game, but it’s hard for me to blame them that badly when the offense has had too many instances of going 3 and out quickly (like in Baltimore), coughing up the ball, or not converting on 4th down. You’re setting them up to fail when you do that.