Why do we all think Good Defense = Turnovers?

[PortisForPresident]

I am wary of starting new threads, but I've seen comments like this in several others, so I thought maybe it deserves its own discussion.

Our defense is stifling. Denver had trouble getting any first downs at all, and at one point went 3-and-out 5 times in a row. While I would like to see more turnovers, I'm not sure that I blame our defense for failing to produce them. I'm wary of the tendency to blame our offense for every time we turn the ball over and our defense every time the other team doesn't. With the possible exception of fumbles, few turnovers are really "forced," and even fumbles land a running back on the bench.

Could we make it a little easier for opposing offenses to turn the ball over? I'm sure we could. However, I'm concerned that it could cause our defense to give up more first downs in general, and more big plays.

We talk in so many different threads about how we need a bigger pass rush, or a pass rushing tight end, but we don't mention in the same context that Philip Daniels got caught too far upfield and gave up a 34 yd. touchdown run to Tatum Bell. I understand that that was 4th and 1 and not 3rd and 9, but my point is that an agressive defense can give up the big play as well as make it.

Turnovers come in bunches. Frustrate an offense enough and you're likely to see some, and it's frankly surprising that we haven't seen any yet. I will mention that ST caused what I thought was a fumble in the Cowgirls game that was labeled incomplete, and I will mention that the tuck rule eliminated a safety.

A final point is that we have been behind for most of this year. It's significantly harder to force turnovers when you are behind because the other teams offense is trying harder to simply not give the ball up.

I see a lack of turnovers. I don't see a terribly huge problem. AND I will predict that we start to see more.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I agree. Our lack of turnovers is directly related to not getting to the QB. When you pressure the QB you caused fumbles and force INTs.

However, we still have a very good defense that usually gets the opposition off the field in 3 plays!

[Leonard Washington]

i guess a better way of saying it is that getting turnovers isn't the only thing a good defense does. we do alot of the things a good defense does except get turnovers and sacks. there are bad defenses that get turnovers and sacks but not stop the run or confuse qbs.

[Bang]

I have to think Arrington could get to the QB and cause them to make mistakes. I don't care if he's a freelancer,, then fine,, put him in purely on passing downs with no other job than to go get the QB.

But damn man, we have no pass rush, and he can provide it... but not from the bench.

~Bang

[RDSKNfaithfull]

We are a good defense but not GREAT. Get some turnovers and pressure and we will be GREAT.

[APBT]

I am wary of starting new threads, but I've seen comments like this in several others, so I thought maybe it deserves its own discussion.

Our defense is stifling. Denver had trouble getting any first downs at all, and at one point went 3-and-out 5 times in a row. While I would like to see more turnovers, I'm not sure that I blame our defense for failing to produce them. I'm wary of the tendency to blame our offense for every time we turn the ball over and our defense every time the other team doesn't. With the possible exception of fumbles, few turnovers are really "forced," and even fumbles land a running back on the bench.

Could we make it a little easier for opposing offenses to turn the ball over? I'm sure we could. However, I'm concerned that it could cause our defense to give up more first downs in general, and more big plays.

We talk in so many different threads about how we need a bigger pass rush, or a pass rushing tight end, but we don't mention in the same context that Philip Daniels got caught too far upfield and gave up a 34 yd. touchdown run to Tatum Bell. I understand that that was 4th and 1 and not 3rd and 9, but my point is that an agressive defense can give up the big play as well as make it.

Turnovers come in bunches. Frustrate an offense enough and you're likely to see some, and it's frankly surprising that we haven't seen any yet. I will mention that ST caused what I thought was a fumble in the Cowgirls game that was labeled incomplete, and I will mention that the tuck rule eliminated a safety.

A final point is that we have been behind for most of this year. It's significantly harder to force turnovers when you are behind because the other teams offense is trying harder to simply not give the ball up.

I see a lack of turnovers. I don't see a terribly huge problem. AND I will predict that we start to see more.

Because no team other than the Packers has gone to the playoffs with a negative Turnover ratio.

Correct me if I am wrong.

[skinstzar]

We are not even a good defense right now. We are middle of the pack. We rank so high in defense because most of that is based on yardage. Unfortunately they don't tally up the yards at the end of a game and give the win to the team that allowed the least yards. We give up big plays and we average 17 points against in the last three games. Good defenses give up two touchdowns and great ones allow less than 10 points a game. The only great defense in the league right now is Indy. The good ones are Tampa, Pittsburgh, Jacksonville. We are on the high end of all the rest. If you look at our defense we have one strength, one mediocre unit and one gaping deficiency. Our line is stellar, our linebackers are average and our secondary is pretty banged up. If it stays like this all year we will probably finish around 8-8. IMHO.

[asnpcwiz]

I have to think Arrington could get to the QB and cause them to make mistakes. I don't care if he's a freelancer,, then fine,, put him in purely on passing downs with no other job than to go get the QB.

But damn man, we have no pass rush, and he can provide it... but not from the bench.

~Bang

I'd love to see Arrington go in there and attack the pocket. But I'm not nearly good enough to question Greg William's defensive strategy. The man's a genious. GW's got a system, and if it means no freelancers, than it means no freelancer's for me.

[KevinthePRF]

Bad weather AND Jake Plummer? How many intangibles do you need for a defense to generate turnovers?

[jbooma]

I agree. Our lack of turnovers is directly related to not getting to the QB. When you pressure the QB you caused fumbles and force INTs.

However, we still have a very good defense that usually gets the opposition off the field in 3 plays!

We have a very good defense, but to be great we need to pressure the QB without blitzing and cause turnovers.

[FBChick]

Because no team other than the Packers has gone to the playoffs with a negative Turnover ratio.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Ahh.. but it has been done. Who is to say we don't add our name to the list! Usually not being able to create turnover is a sign to bigger problems within the Defense. In our case it actually is not. But I do think we will start getting the turnovers as well. We came close about 4 times last night.

[bubba9497]

Good Defense = 3 and out

[jivelikenice]

Good defenses does not = Causing turnovers BUT Great defenses cause turnovers....

Two turnovers in 4 games is not that impressive and I think a lot stems from our lack of pass rush. If we could generate a bigger rush off of the egde we could sneak more guys into coverage enabling more takeaways.

[APBT]

Ahh.. but it has been done. Who is to say we don't add our name to the list! Usually not being able to create turnover is a sign to bigger problems within the Defense. In our case it actually is not. But I do think we will start getting the turnovers as well. We came close about 4 times last night.

Cant argue with that. I will have to go through some blogs and stats but I think they (Packers) got blown out by 48 points the next game.

I am with you though.

[dfbovey]

We have a good defense... just not as good as it could be because it's not a complete defense. We need a pass rush desperately.

[PortisForPresident]

Because no team other than the Packers has gone to the playoffs with a negative Turnover ratio.

Correct me if I am wrong.

My point is that there are two parts to a ratio. You could cause 1 turnover all year and have a positive turnover ratio if you don't give up any, so that stat alone isn't really a good measure of how important causing turnovers is to the overall defensive scheme.

[APBT]

My point is that there are two parts to a ratio. You could cause 1 turnover all year and have a positive turnover ratio if you don't give up any, so that stat alone isn't really a good measure of how important causing turnovers is to the overall defensive scheme.

HUH?? Without even breaking it down to you. A negative turnover ratio is a negative turnover ratio whether one team is -1, -2, or minus -14 it is a neagative and no other team in NFL history has gone to the playoffs with a negative on their belts other than GB. Dont argue with facts.

My point is history hasnt been kind to teams with a negative ratio.

[PortisForPresident]

We are not even a good defense right now. We are middle of the pack. We rank so high in defense because most of that is based on yardage. Unfortunately they don't tally up the yards at the end of a game and give the win to the team that allowed the least yards. We give up big plays and we average 17 points against in the last three games. Good defenses give up two touchdowns and great ones allow less than 10 points a game. The only great defense in the league right now is Indy. The good ones are Tampa, Pittsburgh, Jacksonville. We are on the high end of all the rest. If you look at our defense we have one strength, one mediocre unit and one gaping deficiency. Our line is stellar, our linebackers are average and our secondary is pretty banged up. If it stays like this all year we will probably finish around 8-8. IMHO.

We don't even give up an average of 15 points a game. 59/4 = 14.75, so by your own definition I'd say we are a good defense. If you want to talk only about touchdowns, you could say we give up 2.25 per game, so again by your own definition I think we have a good defense. To say that a GREAT defense allows less than 10 points a game might be a little harsh, since the famous Super Bowl-shuffling bears 46 defense gave up 12+ points per game in the regular season in 1985. The number does fall to just above 10 if you add in their 10 points allowed in 3 playoff victories, but still not less than 10 points per game.

Even so here, I don't know that this addresses my overall point. If we give up 1 or 2 big plays a game, I don't see how our defense improves by taking the ball away once or twice more. In fact, I see that causing us to give up maybe one more big play a game. Missing tackles every now and then is our problem (or getting blocked in the back) if you think we have a problem, not so much our lack of turnovers on defense.

[PortisForPresident]

HUH?? Without even breaking it down to you. A negative turnover ratio is a negative turnover ratio whether one team is -1, -2, or minus -14 it is a neagative and no other team in NFL history has gone to the playoffs with a negative on their belts other than GB. Dont argue with facts.

My point is history hasnt been kind to teams with a negative ratio.

I am talking about DEFENSES CAUSING TURNOVERS. A negative turnover ratio could mean that your offense turns the ball over too much, so it is not a good measure of how important it is for a defense to "cause turnovers." It is a good measure merely of how important it is for your team to not give the game away more often than you take it.

If your point is that 2 or 3 offensive turnovers are unavoidable in a game, than looking at the turnover ratio makes more sense, but I don't think that Coach Gibbs would agree that his offense can't avoid turning the ball over. I don't think Gibbs goes to Williams and says "we need you to intercept 2 passes and cause one fumble if we're going to win today." I think he says "we need to get 3 and outs, and we need to NOT turn the ball over."

Not arguing the facts, just saying that I don't think they're relavent to my discussion.

[SamSneed36]

Good defense is what we have, GREAT defense, CHAMPIONSHIP defense means getting turnovers, and it also means the defense scoring once in awhile. I think we are one good pass rushing end away from that.

[DeanCollins]

It is true, take a look back at the SB Bucs and the previous couple years under Dungy. Nearly half thier points on the board came from the defence.

With that said, it wasn't by accident. How can you argue with points on the board. We aren't putting enough of them up on offence, so yes it's something

we need to train for. Oh and our special teams are killing us

[PleaseBlitz]

If your offense commits NO turnovers, yet your defenses causes NO turnovers, you still dont have a positive turnover ratio. In order for a defense to be considered one of the best in the league, THEY MUST TAKE THE BALL AWAY.

Turnovers decide games, ill give you an example:

The Redskins OFFENSE outgained Denvers by almost 200 yards. Washington was -1 in turnover margin. The final score was Denver 21, Skins 19.

[PortisForPresident]

If your offense commits NO turnovers, yet your defenses causes NO turnovers, you still dont have a positive turnover ratio. In order for a defense to be considered one of the best in the league, THEY MUST TAKE THE BALL AWAY.

Turnovers decide games, ill give you an example:

The Redskins OFFENSE outgained Denvers by almost 200 yards. Washington was -1 in turnover margin. The final score was Denver 21, Skins 19.

I think that illustrates my point perfectly though. While it is true that the turnover ratio is in their favor, and we lost, it is NOT necessarily true that our defense didn't do enough in the turnover department to win the game. For example, if we didn't miss two tackles, we win 19-7 even with the turnover.

OR

If we don't fumble that ball we kick a field goal at least and we win. But the defense can't necessarily be blamed for "not causing turnovers."

I've liked some of the posts that have looked at Bucs under Dungy and Ravens and talked about how half their points came from defense, but I don't think our offense is as inept as either of those. If you want to define a championship caliber defense as a defense that can win a championship when the offense scores an average of zero points a game then fine we don't have one, but we don't need one.

I still say good defense doesn't have to equal turnovers.

[DCMONEY]

I agree. Our lack of turnovers is directly related to not getting to the QB. When you pressure the QB you caused fumbles and force INTs.

However, we still have a very good defense that usually gets the opposition off the field in 3 plays!

I disagree with the being behind theory. The Redskins defense forced more turnovers with Kurt Shottenheimer, Ray Rhodes and Marvin Lewis. Thos were losing team also yet they got turnovers. The Skins don't even get alot of sacks.

[hail2skins]

I honestly don't know how you can expect any defense to generate many turnovers with the rules these days tilted so much toward the offense. The QB brings his arm forward but loses the ball as he's bringing it back? No, not a turnover but an incomplete pass. A receiver catches the ball, has both feet down, takes a few steps, then gets popped and loses possession? Why, obviously an incomplete pass of course! A player is on his way down and the ball comes out at the same time as the player's shim hits the ground? No, not a fumble......he was down. Finally, god forbid you hit the QB at all.......personal foul, baby!!

What a joke.