Relax on the turnover thing, Mike

[Conn]

Looks like Grossman at least read your thread, OF.

[Koala]

Youve watched a whole season of Rex Grossman, and you still dont grasp how turnovers can cause losing?

Turning the ball over often IS poor play, not an effect of it, it is an example it. Sometimes Rex turns it over becuase of a bad play by his teammates (i.e offensive line), but a lot times he just turns it over because h'es some sort of an idiot that STILL fails to understand the important of protecting the ball. Its not because of poor play, it IS poor play by Rex.

As I speak Rex just threw another INT. I dont think he was confused about the play, the line protected, everyone was playing well, except Rex just decided to chuck it up. Poor play by Rex. Like most turnovers.

[Bang]

Turnovers hurt when they prevent potential scores, like when we have an INT in the red zone.

That can't be denied, and that is the hardest thing about turnovers.

But, as has been evident today, many turnovers can be overcome by good defense. Both of Rex's picks today were long distance.. outside of scoring position. The defense was up to the challenge handed to them, the giants were not given game or even momentum turning field position, and both turnovers were washed out by the defense.

And as I write this Josh Wilson has picked Eli in the end zone.

THOSE turnovers are KILLERS.

~Bang

[Oldfan]

thesubmittedone - This argument is entirely based on one gigantic assumption that by Shanahan focusing on the effect, he doesn't know the cause or is missing the reasons that generated the effect.

The premise, as I said, is that he is confusing cause and effect, a common flaw in reasoning.

That is as big as an assumption as I've ever seen, OF. Do you think, say, if a reporter asked him "what do you think causes the turnovers?", he'll just stare blindly in the air without an answer?

A better question would be: why doesn't he offer causes instead of saying:

"If you look at the playoffs, the teams that don't turn the ball over, they usually win the Super Bowl...If you look at the turnover ratio, if you look at the teams that get into the playoffs, usually there will be only two or three that aren't [among the best in the league]."

This quote suggests that turnovers have an extraordinary impact on wins and losses that can't be quantified. It suggests that turnovers have a value beyond big plays, converting in the red zone, far beyond field goals, and maybe even greater than the TD ratio.

---------- Post added December-18th-2011 at 04:17 PM ----------

Youve watched a whole season of Rex Grossman, and you still dont grasp how turnovers can cause losing? .

I said that the average turnover is worth four points. How did you decide that four point plays were worthless?

---------- Post added December-18th-2011 at 04:20 PM ----------

Turnovers hurt when they prevent potential scores, like when we have an INT in the red zone.

That can't be denied, and that is the hardest thing about turnovers.

Turnovers are worth four points on average, but a turnover close to the goaline is worth six while the average turnover at midfield is worth about three.

[JerseyGator]

Playermakers erase turnovers on real teams. If Eli throws one INT in his next two games, this will be the SIXTH season he has averaged at least one INT per game. No one seems to notice it with Eli because he usually has playmakers galore to throw to over the years. Meanwhile the Skins leading receiver today, Gaffney, was cut by the Eagles a few years ago.

The Skins today really didn't have playmakers at TE or WR. The running game was good enough thanks to the defense but the team has major OL issues too.

[BigRedskinDaddy]

You are forgetting that practice time has a limit.

Let all practice time equal 100%. If too much time is spent on the turnover factor, the coach, by logical deduction, has less than enough time to spend on the other factors.

Disagree. That's what position coaches are for. We all know a HC is more administrator than hands-on teacher these days, so the only way the emphasis gets misplaced is if he is so focused on it he actually steers practice toward it. I don't think that's happening even with all the interview references Shanny has made about it.

Youve watched a whole season of Rex Grossman, and you still dont grasp how turnovers can cause losing?...REST OF MISSED-THE-POINT QUOTE HERE

Uhh, I think you might have failed to grasp what OF was driving at. I am certain you probably called out a guy who, as you put it, "grasps" a great deal about the game of football. Much more than I do, I know that much.

How bout yer own self?

---------- Post added December-18th-2011 at 02:06 PM ----------

Wait ..... yers all have CONTRACTS! :yikes:

Those mod *******! They sold me on me giving my valuable time and thoughts for free to be rewarded in the knowledge that y'all appreciated me.

Well Hell, now I'ma pissed. And to think I even gave out free cookies to everyone that joined the Backers of Bradford a few years back. HUMPH!

Hail.

You?!?r

Don't feel so bad, GHH. I actually had to guarantee ES a nominal fee just to post here.....and it's their contract year...

[Oldfan]

Disagree. That's what position coaches are for. We all know a HC is more administrator than hands-on teacher these days, so the only way the emphasis gets misplaced is if he is so focused on it he actually steers practice toward it. I don't think that's happening even with all the interview references Shanny has made about it..

I wasn't referring to the HC's time. I was referring to practice time. You can't over-emphasize one aspect of the game in practice without cutting other aspects short.

From the importance Mike says he places on turnovers, it would surprise me if he didn't give the same emphasis in practice.

Just as an example, let's suppose a lot of practice time for the defense goes into aggressively going for INTs and this practice results in three more INTs per season. But suppose there consequently is less practice emphasis on preventing the big play, and the over-aggressive strategy results in three more big plays per season. Even though the turnover ratio looks better, the net result is no gain:

Three big plays (- 12 points)

Three takeaways (+12 points)

---------- Post added December-18th-2011 at 05:57 PM ----------

Playermakers erase turnovers on real teams. If Eli throws one INT in his next two games, this will be the SIXTH season he has averaged at least one INT per game. No one seems to notice it with Eli because he usually has playmakers galore to throw to over the years. Meanwhile the Skins leading receiver today, Gaffney, was cut by the Eagles a few years ago.

The Skins today really didn't have playmakers at TE or WR. The running game was good enough thanks to the defense but the team has major OL issues too.

Your observation is supported by the values I offered in the OP. A turnover is worth four points on the average and a big play (40+ yards or more) is worth the same. So, if Eli averages one INT per game and his playmakers help him make one big play average per game, the turnover disadvantage is erased.

[UK Redskins Fan]

I think you are over-analysing Shanahan's statement. Any coach of a team with a -14 turnover is going to feel pretty much obliged to emphasize to the press what steps the team are taking to rectify the situation. It doesn't follow that they are over-emphsizing tuneovers in practice and the fact that we have such a bad turnover differential in the first place suggests the opposite.

[Warhead36]

That's a great point OP. I agree. People overhype turnovers as if they must be avoided like the plague. Obviously turnovers are bad but if you have a good team, they won't hinder you that badly.

[Oldfan]

I think you are over-analysing Shanahan's statement. Any coach of a team with a -14 turnover is going to feel pretty much obliged to emphasize to the press what steps the team are taking to rectify the situation. It doesn't follow that they are over-emphsizing tuneovers in practice and the fact that we have such a bad turnover differential in the first place suggests the opposite.

But Mike's statement doesn't tell us what steps the team is taking to rectify the situation (as you suggest). It is a statement which implies that the turnover ratio is super-important to winning. It is consistent with nonsensical turnover comments made by coaches and regurgitated by the media for years. Broadcasters: "The turnover battle will be the key to the game, Mort" "Absolutely, Chuckie, the team that wins the turnover battle, wins 83.7% of all games."

Now, the truth is that a big play (also worth four points on the average) will cancel out a turnover for the offense and giving up a big play (40+ yards) on defense is just as costly to the team as a turnover on offense. Settling for a FG in the RZ is as costly as a turnover, and...

the touchdown battle is the key to most games because TDs are usually worth seven points.

---------- Post added December-18th-2011 at 06:39 PM ----------

That's a great point OP. I agree. People overhype turnovers as if they must be avoided like the plague. Obviously turnovers are bad but if you have a good team, they won't hinder you that badly.

You've got it. Obviously, you don't want to give up plays that are worth four points on the average, but let's not treat turnovers like they are all you need to know about the game.

[Hitman21ST]

Just as an example, let's suppose a lot of practice time for the defense goes into aggressively going for INTs and this practice results in three more INTs per season. But suppose there consequently is less practice emphasis on preventing the big play, and the over-aggressive strategy results in three more big plays per season. Even though the turnover ratio looks better, the net result is no gain:

Three big plays (- 12 points)

Three takeaways (+12 points)

Where do you get that a big play is worth (-4) points? I must have missed that explanation, can you give it again?

Also, the turnover aspect of practice is secondary. Even with an emphasis on it, practicing turnovers takes no time away from other things. They get integrated into position drills, 7 on 7s, or full squad scrimmages. You tell the DBs to make aggressive plays on the ball. When you do that, though, you also preach helping out - "Hall, you break on the ball for INTs. Gomes/Atogwe, that means you need to help out over top." You're putting an emphasis on the turnover with minimal time taken away from practice, and teaching how to help when you do that. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation.

[Skinsinparadise]

Shanny by most accounts and by his own acknowledgment is a risk taker, for example he likes going for it on 4th down, like today he will even go for a long TD on 4th and 1, etc. So I am guessing Shanny isn't preoccupied with turnovers. Just watching the context of his interviews, i always took it as a message to Rex -- which is to clean that part up of his game if possible. But the style of how the offense is run, doesn't lead me to think that Shanny is too preoccupied with turnovers. Rex tends to have some bad turnovers like the one against NE in our own end zone. The two INTS today were relatively harmless, we were deep in our own territory -- Rex took risks and the Giants recovered in their own territory -- no big deal. The interception against the Rams that almost lost us the game was IMO a big deal. Losing the ball by holding it carelessly against the Cowboys in Dallas in that last drive was a big deal IMO.

This avoid turnovers thing is mostly a recent thing that Shanny has talked about. What I hear a ton of emphasis on turnovers is from the defense, Haslett has talked about it from day one, Shanny too that they want a defense that creates pressure and turnovers. The pressure has been good this year. The turnovers came last year but not this one

[Koala]

Uhh, I think you might have failed to grasp what OF was driving at. I am certain you probably called out a guy who, as you put it, "grasps" a great deal about the game of football. Much more than I do, I know that much.

How bout yer own self?

I grasp his point fine, what are you his bff? I have no idea what Oldfan grasps about the game,, but believe me, argue with OF long enough and you'll end up arguing about what the definition of 'is' is.

Oldfans argument rests on a pretty big assumption, and I can grasp that fine. I dont need to know a lick about football in order to see the fallacies in his argument

1) At no point in time, did Mike Shanahan every actually say or intimate that turnovers are the single most important aspect of the game. Furthermore, nowhere does he even compare turnovers importance to the importance of other aspects of the game, such as redzone offense, running the ball, stopping the run, special teams, pass efficiency, and all the other things that coaches usually feel are important aspects of good football teams. Unless the question posed to Shanahan was, "What do you think is the most important aspect of winning?", then this quote cannot be used to surmise precisely how much Shanny emphasizes TO battle..

All he did was point out that all the great teams seem to win the TO battle. Just because a coach points out that a certain aspect of the game is associated with winning, does not mean he thinks its the only important part of the game or the most important.

2) I bet you if you take 5 minutes, you could find a similar quote from every other coach in the league. Not sure why OF is picking on Shanny here

3) I bet if you take 4 mintues, you could find a similar quote FROM SHANAHAN about ANOTHER aspect of the game. I.e., "You look at at good team that win the SB, and youll see most of them can stop the run / score in the red zone / whatever else is bugging the coach at the moment." I think he had that exact quote about running the ball or stopping the run, I forget which, earlier this year.

4) Therefore, since noone, Oldfan included, actually knows just how much emphasis that Shanny is putting on turnovers, then how can the possibly surmise that he is over-emphasizing it? How much time does Shanny spend in practice on running drills focused on turnoversl? Dont know? Then, again, how on earth can you possibly surmise how much emphasis Shanny is putting on it, unless you make an assumption based upon a cliched quote that every coach says. .

5) Im fine with the emphasis. Protecting the ball is not a passive skill, it does not just 'happen' to good teams. Its something that good players/team are cognizant of and make conscious effort to achieve, especially at critical junctures of the football game, whether its via playcalling (ala conservative coaches going into a shell to protect a lead and avoid turnovers), or the players altering their game (ala a smart QB just throwing the ball away rather than risk it), etc. .

6) I repeat, Rex Grossman is his QB. Thats all you need to know in order to explain that quote.

7) If a turnover is 'worth' 4 points, then you conceed that turnovers are not just an effect of being a losing team, but can be a cause of losing/winning. And at 4 points, it would mean TO is the sinlge most important play in football besides a TD.

[JerseyGator]

One item I don't hear mentioned regarding turnovers in the number of QB hits.. Skins are currently second in the league in total number of hits allowed, but first in the league in number of hits allowed that weren't sacks: 64 over 14 games. This in part could explain the high number of INTs this year.

[Koala]

That's a great point OP. I agree. People overhype turnovers as if they must be avoided like the plague. Obviously turnovers are bad but if you have a good team, they won't hinder you that badly.

It might not hinder you that badly, if you are clearly superior to the team you're playing on a given night. However, in the playoffs, where you will likely run up against teams of equal or greater talent, the TO battle often becomes critical.

[Skinsinparadise]

Therefore, since noone, Oldfan included, actually knows just how much emphasis that Shanny is putting on turnovers, then how can the possibly surmise that he is over-emphasizing it? How much time does Shanny spend in practice on running drills focused on turnoversl? Dont know? Then, again, how on earth can you possibly surmise how much emphasis Shanny is putting on it, unless you make an assumption based upon a cliched quote that every coach says.

To this point, I notice Shanny mostly responds to an interview question when it comes to him talking about turnovers. I heard him today respond to -- your team is ranked last in the NFL in turnover differential, how important is that to today's game?.... One thing he said in response which I found interesting is that he can't recall being a part of a team that gives up this many turnovers. So yeah on this issue, it could simply be Shanny saying this is getting insane (until today) they have lost the turnover battle every game and often by a nice gap. But left to his own devices when he talks offense two things he tends to say a lot:

1. Red zone offense -- you need touchdowns not field goals. He tends to bring that up unsolicited.

2. Supporting cast of the Qb -- he tends to focus on whether they are doing their end of the job and tends to defend the Qb accordingly. He said before the season in an interview that his #1 worry for his QBs is whether they have a good enough supporting cast.

Shanny has also hinted that this off season their focus will be to upgrade that supporting cast.

[BigRedskinDaddy]

Just as an example, let's suppose a lot of practice time for the defense goes into aggressively going for INTs and this practice results in three more INTs per season. But suppose there consequently is less practice emphasis on preventing the big play, and the over-aggressive strategy results in three more big plays per season. Even though the turnover ratio looks better, the net result is no gain:

Three big plays (- 12 points)

Three takeaways (+12 points)...

Ah, I see. Good point, my friend. Once again I find myself acceding in the face of your flawless logic.

darn it.

I grasp his point fine, what are you his bff? I have no idea what Oldfan grasps about the game,, but believe me, argue with OF long enough and you'll end up arguing about what the definition of 'is' is...

I stand corrected. I wasn't deliberately trying to impugn your intellect, fooball or otherwise. My apologies if I offended you brother.

And no, I am not Oldfan's BFF lol .

Merely his road dog.

Or crimey, if you will...

[REDSKINS8181]

Are turnovers a good thing to have? No they are not-therefore they are bad.

End of discussion.

[Warhead36]

I don't like the "turnover battle" phrase. It implies that all you have to do is not turn it over, hope to get a takeaway or two on D, and win.

Today we turned the ball over twice early, but still jumped out to a big lead.

Turnovers are NOT the end all be all that people claim they are. But if you're average to mediocre and playing with a thin margin of error, which we generally have been, then yes they can really impact you.

The goal is to be a good enough team to where you can outright beat opponents and not just hope to linger around enough to hope that they screw up and lose the game.

[Skinsinparadise]

Doesn't sound here like Shanny is that overly worried about turnovers

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/gunslinging-grossman-has-his-day-for-redskins/2011/12/18/gIQAbwKI3O_story_1.html

Asked to expand on that later, Grossman used more colorful language to describe the way the Bears would sometimes go into an offensive shell after he made his first mistake of a game. “You can understand it,” he said. “But it’s hard to break out of that.” As a Redskin, he’s been allowed, actually ordered, to keep firing, his first chance to be the pure passer he’s always believed himself to be. Has that been wise?

[Oldfan]

Where do you get that a big play is worth (-4) points? I must have missed that explanation, can you give it again?

I didn't pick that number out of the air, but I can't find the study now. Sorry.

Here ya go. Read "Big play margin" http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/category/football/page/2/

Also, the turnover aspect of practice is secondary. Even with an emphasis on it, practicing turnovers takes no time away from other things. They get integrated into position drills, 7 on 7s, or full squad scrimmages. You tell the DBs to make aggressive plays on the ball. When you do that, though, you also preach helping out - "Hall, you break on the ball for INTs. Gomes/Atogwe, that means you need to help out over top." You're putting an emphasis on the turnover with minimal time taken away from practice, and teaching how to help when you do that. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation.

Disagree. Since they are mutually exclusive, you can't practice being aggressive on defense in creating takeaways and practice being passive in preventing big plays at the same time.

---------- Post added December-19th-2011 at 01:00 AM ----------

I grasp his point fine...

So, was your first post, which distorted my position, a deliberate strawman then?

At no point in time, did Mike Shanahan every actually say or intimate that turnovers are the single most important aspect of the game.

At no point in time did I say he did.

Unless the question posed to Shanahan was, "What do you think is the most important aspect of winning?", then this quote cannot be used to surmise precisely how much Shanny emphasizes TO battle..

Absurd. You are straining to find fault with the OP.

I bet you if you take 5 minutes, you could find a similar quote from every other coach in the league. Not sure why OF is picking on Shanny here

I'll concede that many coaches support the myth of the dreaded turnover, but I picked on Shanny because he coaches our team.

I bet if you take 4 mintues, you could find a similar quote FROM SHANAHAN about ANOTHER aspect of the game. I.e., "You look at at good team that win the SB, and youll see most of them can stop the run / score in the red zone / whatever else is bugging the coach at the moment." I think he had that exact quote about running the ball or stopping the run, I forget which, earlier this year.

I'll bet you can't find one. Take as long as you like.

Therefore, since noone, Oldfan included, actually knows just how much emphasis that Shanny is putting on turnovers, then how can the possibly surmise that he is over-emphasizing it?

One can reasonably draw this deduction: (From the OP) I read this statement [on turnovers] as evidence of weak reasoning which could lead to poor coaching decisions.

The foregoing is the claim I made which you have avoided attacking because you can't. You have instead tried to distort my position every which way to create a position easier to attack.

---------- Post added December-19th-2011 at 01:10 AM ----------

Doesn't sound here like Shanny is that overly worried about turnovers

Coincidentally, I heard only two minutes of Mike's postgame press conference this evening. He was in the middle of talking about the importance of winning the turnover battle.

[Jumbo]

Here ya go, OF:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2003/how-many-points-turnover-worth

How many points is a turnover worth? If it is returned for a touchdown, clearly the answer is six, right? But what if it isn't returned for a touchdown? And even if it is returned for a touchdown, what about taking into account how many points the offense would have scored if they had not turned the ball over?

You would expect that a turnover is worth more the closer you are to the goal line. After all, give the other team the ball closer to your own goal line, and it is easier for them to score. Lose the ball closer to the opposing goal line, and you've squandered a chance to score yourself.

In Hidden Game of Football, Pete Palmer and Bob Carroll propose the theory that this seemingly common sense belief is wrong. According to them, a turnover is always worth -4 points. How did they figure this out? Well, they ran a number of seasons worth of data to determine the answer to this question: "If I'm on yard line X, what will be the next score in the game, on average." It didn't matter whether this score took place on the current drive, or the next drive, or in the next quarter. They only plays they didn't count were those when halftime or the end of the game came before the next score.

[Oldfan]

Here ya go, OF:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2003/how-many-points-turnover-worth

Thanks, but I had that one in the OP. It's the four-point value for the big play (40+ yards or more) that I can't find.

[Jumbo]

Thanks, but I had that one in the OP. It's the four-point value for the big play (40+ yards or more) that I can't find.

Crap--egg on my face.

[Hitman21ST]

I didn't pick that number out of the air, but I can't find the study now. Sorry.

No worries. I trust it's accurate, I had just never heard that before and was curious.

Disagree. Since they are mutually exclusive, you can't practice being aggressive on defense in creating takeaways and practice being passive in preventing big plays at the same time.

Sure you can. Unless you're preaching aggressiveness for every position, then I agree. You can, however, tell your corners to be aggressive and go for the turnover, but tell your safeties to provide the coverage over top to prevent big plays. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. You can mix coverages, zone blitzes, etc, that allows corners to play aggressively while preventing big plays over top.

Dropping safeties doesn't mean you're playing a passive defense, nor are you practicing passiveness by doing it.

If you have an Ed Reed (or Sean Taylor R.I.P.) playing safety, a player that can cover absurd amounts of distance in minimal time, it frees your corners to play the ball more aggressively.