Busting the Turnover Myth

[SkinsFTW]

That was my point. It would be considered completely obvious, and unworthy of mention, that winning the seven-point TD battle was important. And yet, the importance of winning the mysteriously-valued turnover battle is offered by broadcasters as a sage observation, the key to the game.

Not every team has a Tom Brady who gets touchdowns almost every time in the redzone. But every football player who touches the football on all teams have hands and can take care of the football.

Besides, gunslinger QB's have won how many SB's recently? Brady is 3-0 in the conservative role, and 0-1 as the gunslinger. Manning relied on a more balanced offense and good defense in the post season in 06 after getting nowhere before when he threw it all over the place, besides that, they've all been non gunslingers all the way back to Elway using Davis. Hell, Favre wasn't gunslinging much in 1996 either, no 300 yard 3TD games in the post season.

OK, so Warner in 1999 with probably the best OL and skill position players at most positions in the league that year.

Who else? So what is more important than turnovers again?

Getting the best players in the league at at least 6-7 of the 11 starting positions on the O?

[Oldfan]

SkinsFTW: Not every team has a Tom Brady who gets touchdowns almost every time in the redzone. But every football player who touches the football on all teams have hands and can take care of the football.

Okay, but what's your point?

Besides, gunslinger QB's have won how many SB's recently? Brady is 3-0 in the conservative role, and 0-1 as the gunslinger.

Hold up. I can't let you redefine all the terms to make your argument.

The way I understand the terms, a game manager QB is at one extreme and the gunslinger is at the other. In between, most of the QBs in the league do not fit either label. Furthermore, the label does not change from game to game. It's a career label.

Tom Brady is not a game manager because his job is to win games, not to avoid losing them. He's not a gunslinger either. He doesn't force things like Favre would do.

As another poster pointed out earlier in this thread, turnovers MUST have a value that can be expressed in points. The source I quoted has it at four. I've seen a study that had it at 3.8. If you think it's worth more, how much more and how did you arrive at it?

Right now, you are supporting a vague claim that the turnover has some great mysterious value to change the course of football games. Tell us first what you're talking about. How much value does a turnover have?

[DCSaints_fan]

How about those Hokies.

Forced 5 turnovers against BC, while only giving up 1.

And they still lost.