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)

  • MikeyNgBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    In the NFL, teams with a +3 differential win 90% of the time.

    Turnovers (esp if they’re pick sixes) have an outlying effect on the game. So he’s right in that regard.

    The issue is that turnovers are also very random. It’s really hard to FORCE a fumble. Think of how many “Peanut Punches” you’ve seen and how many times that forces a fumble. The last player who led the league more than once in forced fumbles was Robert Mathis in 2013. And once you do force a fumble, that football is so weirdly shaped that fumble RECOVERY is basically a coin toss.

    INTs are a little bit more controllable. There are some QBs/styles that simply produce more INTs. Stafford has 178 INTs in 201 GP (0.885 INT/GP). Goff has 78 INTs in 111 GP (0.703 INT/GP). Not surprising there. And some defenses/secondaries generate more INTs than others.

    But at the end of the day, it’s still really random and you don’t have THAT much control over it.