Turnovers: A Tale of Two Teams

[Agent of Orange]

Int Fumbles Lost/Rec Turnovers
Offense *Carolina 25 28 29
Offense Denver 7 27 16

Defense Carolina 11 10 11
Defense *Denver 30 24 30


When hearing about how John Fox is able to generate turnovers, I automatically knew that it was something Denver was bad at. I also then thought about how Carolina's QB play was less than stellar this year. So, I did some analysis by comparing the two teams. It's kind of interesting that Denver and Carolina are photo negatives of each other where turnovers are concerned. Carolina was solid at generating turnovers but awful about turning over the ball. Denver was solid at not turning over the ball, but was awful at creating turnovers.

As I look at this, I think about how Tebow has been really good during his career at taking care of the ball. If Fox can get the defense to turn the other team over more, that could go a long way.

[camdisco24]

Very good points there.
I've said it a few times already, but I really think the Tebow/Fox pairing could be a very very good thing.

[Juriga72]

How about "John Fox's scoring offense is terrible"....
UNLESS he can get our defense to hold the other team to 3 pts each game.....

[BroncoJoe]

Is it just me, or do those numbers not make sense? It almost looks like the opposite as what you're saying, unless the * means something not explained.

[Agent of Orange]

Is it just me, or do those numbers not make sense? It almost looks like the opposite as what you're saying, unless the * means something not explained.

It means the Broncos were 4-12 due in large part to not generating turnovers on defense. This is what the * was calling attention to. Conversely, the Panthers were a bad team, due in large part to turning the ball over, which is what the * indicated for them.

I don't see what's so hard to understand.

[shank]

then numbers in the chart are not representative of the relationship your post is based on, so sayeth joe and so agreeeth shank.

[Juriga72]

It means the Broncos were 4-12 due in large part to not generating turnovers on defense. This is what the * was calling attention to. Conversely, the Panthers were a bad team, due in large part to turning the ball over, which is what the * indicated for them.

I don't see what's so hard to understand.

The Panthers were 2-14 because they were the 32nd ranked scoring offense.
JUST like in 4 out of the last 5 years they were near the bottom of the NFl in scoring.....

As for INT's, would you believe that the INT are just ONE worse than 2009 when he went 8-8?

[Agent of Orange]

The Panthers were 2-14 because they were the 32nd ranked scoring offense.
JUST like in 4 out of the last 5 years they were near the bottom of the NFl in scoring.....

Yeah, I saw you harp on that before. I left it alone because it's hard to score when you're turning the ball over. I didn't really think it was necessary to point that out. Apparently I was wrong.

[BroncoJoe]

It means the Broncos were 4-12 due in large part to not generating turnovers on defense. This is what the * was calling attention to. Conversely, the Panthers were a bad team, due in large part to turning the ball over, which is what the * indicated for them.

I don't see what's so hard to understand.

They don't make sense the way you're presenting them. Makes it look like we had less turnovers on offense (which you stated) but it also make it look like our defense created more turnovers, which is not the case.

[shank]

They don't make sense the way you're presenting them. Makes it look like we had less turnovers on offense (which you stated) but it also make it look like our defense created more turnovers, which is not the case.

^this. i don't see what's so hard to understand.

[Agent of Orange]

They don't make sense the way you're presenting them. Makes it look like we had less turnovers on offense (which you stated) but it also make it look like our defense created more turnovers, which is not the case.

Indicating that Denver was ranked 30th in generating turnovers makes it look like it created more turnoves? Again, I really don't see what you're complaining about.

[BroncoJoe]

Indicating that Denver was ranked 30th in generating turnovers makes it look like it created more turnoves? Again, I really don't see what you're complaining about.

Well, now that makes sense. You didn't specify that the "Turnovers" category was the rank. All it says is Turnovers, and leads the reader to believe it represents a total, not a rank.

I really don't see why you're getting all pissy about it. A simple explanation like the one above would have sufficed from the beginning.

[Agent of Orange]

Well, now that makes sense. You didn't specify that the "Turnovers" category was the rank. All it says is Turnovers.

I really don't see why you're getting all pissy about it. A simple explanation like the one above would have sufficed from the beginning.

I still don't see why it was confusing. It's not like the defense loses the ball on fumbles or interceptions.

[BroncoWave]

I still don't see why it was confusing. It's not like the defense loses the ball on fumbles or interceptions.

It was confusing because you didn't state you were posting the team ranks. You made it look like you were posting the total amount of turnovers.

[Agent of Orange]

It was confusing because you didn't state you were posting the team ranks. You made it look like you were posting the total amount of turnovers.

If it were not a ranking, the numbers would have added up going across.

[BroncoJoe]

If it were not a ranking, the numbers would have added up going across.

Good gosh, dude. Just admit what you posted was confusing. All I was asking was clarification.

[Agent of Orange]

Good gosh, dude. Just admit what you posted was confusing. All I was asking was clarification.

Sorry. I still don't see why it was confusing. It should have been obvious that it was a ranking based on the fact that the numbers didnt add across. Also, you would have had to believe that Denver had almost 30 lost fumbles and only 7 INTs all year.

[BroncoJoe]

Sorry. I still don't see why it was confusing. It should have been obvious that it was a ranking based on the fact that the numbers didnt add across. Also, you would have had to believe that Denver had almost 30 lost fumbles and only 7 INTs all year.

:click: