PDA

View Full Version : Steelers' lack of turnovers the reason for reduced scoring?



hawaiiansteel
01-22-2012, 04:08 PM
Turnovers play huge role in NFL

By Mark Kaboly, PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, January 22, 2012


Only four teams that had a positive turnover ratio this year finished the season with a losing record. Conversely, only two teams had a negative turnover ratio and finished with a winning record. The Steelers were one of them.

Steelers owner Art Rooney wondered aloud recently about the lack of production from his team's defense this season.

"The thing that stuck out were the lack of turnovers," Rooney said.

Coming off a Super Bowl season in which they were second in the NFL with a plus-17 turnover ratio, the Steelers finished this season with their worst turnover differential since the 1970 merger. Their minus-13 included only 15 takeaways.

Turnovers figure to play a prominent role today in determining who advances to Super Bowl XLVI in Indianapolis.

So far in the playoffs, teams that have won turnover battle are 4-1, matching a winning percentage from the regular season. Over the past five years, only once -- in 2010 -- have playoff teams with a better turnover differential not overwhelmingly been winners.

"It's the No. 1 stat in football," ESPN analyst and former New England linebacker Tedy Bruschi said. "It is talked about weekly. It is all that is taught to these defensive players. It is just a major factor in winning games, and teams know that."

Two Super Bowl favorites -- the Green Bay Packers and New Orleans Saints, who combined for a 28-4 record this regular season -- lost in the divisional round of the playoffs largely because of turnovers. The Packers turned it over four times against the New York Giants and the Saints five times against San Francisco.

The Steelers were able to overcome a lack of forced turnovers to be just one of two teams this season to manage a winning record despite coming up on the minus side of giveaways-takeaways.

"Turnovers. Doesn't every game come down to that?" Baltimore coach John Harbaugh said, whose team will play the New England Patriots today in the AFC Championship Game.

The Packers were plus-24 during their 15-1 regular season, and the Saints hadn't turned over the ball since Week 12. The winning teams in the divisional round last weekend were a combined plus-10 in turnover margin.

"The mantra of don't beat yourself never rings more true than in the playoffs," ESPN analyst and former NFL quarterback Trent Dilfer said.

But in reality, that's true whether talking about the regular season or postseason.

Over the past five years, about 4 in 5 teams that won the turnover battle during the regular season won the game. In the playoffs over that span, the statistic was nearly the same at 80 percent.

"That stat is the best correlation to wins and losses that you'll get," said New England linebacker Jerod Mayo.

It's not a coincidence that the four teams left in the playoffs are a combined plus-64. Of the 12 teams that qualified for the playoffs, 10 were in the Top 10 in their respective conference.

In the AFC, New England, Houston and Baltimore held three of the top four spots. In the NFC, San Francisco, Green Bay, Detroit and Atlanta were ranked first through fourth.

"We always say that if we get turnovers, our offense will probably score," Mayo said "We've been thriving off that all year. We always feel like if we can steal a possession for our offense, there's a pretty good chance they'll score a touchdown."

Then there were the Steelers.

They turned the ball over little but created even fewer turnovers. Still, they were successful. The Steelers were 5-4 when losing the turnover differential, 4-0 when winning it and 3-0 when the differential was even.

During the Super Bowl years of 2005, '08 and '10, the Steelers were plus-7, plus-4 and plus-17, respectively. They were minus-8, minus-3, plus-1 and minus-13 in 2006, '07, '09 and '11, respectively.

"You are stealing possessions," Bruschi said. "That is even more critical in today's NFL because of some of the offensive systems you are playing against. When you steal possessions and limit opportunities to score, it gives you a great chance to win."

Dilfer's perspective is a little different.

The Steelers' offense was less productive than expected this year, and that could be related to the defense not providing occasional short fields.

"When you give an offense a short field, you're basically giving it a head start," Dilfer said. "You're allowing them to now only have to run six, seven, eight plays consecutively instead of 12, 13, 14, and the odds of scoring points for your average offense go way up. There are only a handful of offenses that are built to go 80 yards."

The 49ers aren't one of them. They have used their defense to provide offensive opportunities that didn't exist last year. San Francisco tied an NFL record by turning it over just 10 times to go along with 38 takeaways. They were minus-1 in turnover differential in 2010.

That formula led to a 13-3 regular season and turned the 49ers from also-rans to possible NFC champs in one year.

"The 49ers aren't going to go 80 yards very often and score touchdowns," Dilfer said. "But they are going to capitalize on short fields."

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu ... z1kDQMAb71 (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/steelers/s_777859.html#ixzz1kDQMAb71)

DukieBoy
01-22-2012, 04:31 PM
Dilfer's perspective is a little different.

The Steelers' offense was less productive than expected this year, and that could be related to the defense not providing occasional short fields.

"When you give an offense a short field, you're basically giving it a head start," Dilfer said. "You're allowing them to now only have to run six, seven, eight plays consecutively instead of 12, 13, 14, and the odds of scoring points for your average offense go way up. There are only a handful of offenses that are built to go 80 yards."


Our offence pathetically sucked in the Red Zone. How could turnovers have helped overcome that?

Turnovers would have helped more to deny opponents possessions which may have led to their scoring opporunities, but I doubt it helps our offense much at all, may have made the Red Zone stats even more pathetic.

feltdizz
01-22-2012, 04:36 PM
Dilfer's perspective is a little different.

The Steelers' offense was less productive than expected this year, and that could be related to the defense not providing occasional short fields.

"When you give an offense a short field, you're basically giving it a head start," Dilfer said. "You're allowing them to now only have to run six, seven, eight plays consecutively instead of 12, 13, 14, and the odds of scoring points for your average offense go way up. There are only a handful of offenses that are built to go 80 yards."


Our offence pathetically sucked in the Red Zone. How could turnovers have helped overcome that?

Turnovers would have helped more to deny opponents possessions which may have led to their scoring opporunities, but I doubt it helps our offense much at all, may have made the Red Zone stats even more pathetic.

maybe... but history shows more TO's leads to more points.

SteelCrazy
01-22-2012, 04:43 PM
Yes, defensive turnovers will cause the offense to score more points, but you cant rely on that. Plus, the red zone O would have only gotten 3, 9 out of 10 times.

DukieBoy
01-22-2012, 04:46 PM
Dilfer's perspective is a little different.

The Steelers' offense was less productive than expected this year, and that could be related to the defense not providing occasional short fields.

"When you give an offense a short field, you're basically giving it a head start," Dilfer said. "You're allowing them to now only have to run six, seven, eight plays consecutively instead of 12, 13, 14, and the odds of scoring points for your average offense go way up. There are only a handful of offenses that are built to go 80 yards."


Our offence pathetically sucked in the Red Zone. How could turnovers have helped overcome that?

Turnovers would have helped more to deny opponents possessions which may have led to their scoring opporunities, but I doubt it helps our offense much at all, may have made the Red Zone stats even more pathetic.

maybe... but history shows more TO's leads to more points.


Maybe ... a few more 50-50% chances of a 3-pointer here-or-there by Suisham. But our Red Zone stats for TD's stands as a major shortcoming of our offense. You've got to put up the TD's from the RZ, not 3-point attempts.

feltdizz
01-22-2012, 05:15 PM
Dilfer's perspective is a little different.

The Steelers' offense was less productive than expected this year, and that could be related to the defense not providing occasional short fields.

"When you give an offense a short field, you're basically giving it a head start," Dilfer said. "You're allowing them to now only have to run six, seven, eight plays consecutively instead of 12, 13, 14, and the odds of scoring points for your average offense go way up. There are only a handful of offenses that are built to go 80 yards."


Our offence pathetically sucked in the Red Zone. How could turnovers have helped overcome that?

Turnovers would have helped more to deny opponents possessions which may have led to their scoring opporunities, but I doubt it helps our offense much at all, may have made the Red Zone stats even more pathetic.

maybe... but history shows more TO's leads to more points.


Maybe ... a few more 50-50% chances of a 3-pointer here-or-there by Suisham. But our Red Zone stats for TD's stands as a major shortcoming of our offense. You've got to put up the TD's from the RZ, not 3-point attempts.

More TO's give you more chances to score 3 or 7. Practice makes perfect.

SteelCrazy
01-22-2012, 05:28 PM
Dilfer's perspective is a little different.

The Steelers' offense was less productive than expected this year, and that could be related to the defense not providing occasional short fields.

"When you give an offense a short field, you're basically giving it a head start," Dilfer said. "You're allowing them to now only have to run six, seven, eight plays consecutively instead of 12, 13, 14, and the odds of scoring points for your average offense go way up. There are only a handful of offenses that are built to go 80 yards."


Our offence pathetically sucked in the Red Zone. How could turnovers have helped overcome that?

Turnovers would have helped more to deny opponents possessions which may have led to their scoring opporunities, but I doubt it helps our offense much at all, may have made the Red Zone stats even more pathetic.

maybe... but history shows more TO's leads to more points.


Maybe ... a few more 50-50% chances of a 3-pointer here-or-there by Suisham. But our Red Zone stats for TD's stands as a major shortcoming of our offense. You've got to put up the TD's from the RZ, not 3-point attempts.

More TO's give you more chances to score 3 or 7. Practice makes perfect.

Practice is to be accomplished in practice. Red Zone efficiency is on the offense to succeed, not on the defense to create turnovers.

feltdizz
01-22-2012, 08:56 PM
Nice... But TO's are part of the game and when a #1 D is last in TO's or close to it... That doesn't help the offense.

Too much money invested on our D to give them a pass on the TO ratio.