PDA

View Full Version : It always comes back to turnovers


steelerchad
10-02-2011, 05:41 PM
Below is our year end turnover ratio for the last 10 years. This team is a -10 so far this year and the D has only forced 1 turnover in 4 games. This D has lived by forcing picks and fumbles in years past. We've been to the AFC championship game 5 of the last 10 years. Those 5 trips to the AFC title game were also the top 5 seasons in turnover ratio on this list for us.

2011 -10
2010 17
2009 -3
2008 4
2007 3
2006 -8
2005 7
2004 11
2003 -3
2002 0
2001 7


Our D looks bad our O-line looks bad, but I think we'd be surpised how much better they'd look with 2 additional posessions for the offense and 2 less for the defense each game. They have to get this turnover issue corrected or they are toast. They won a game last week against the Colts where they lost the turnover battle 3-1. Teams that lose the turnover battle by -2 or more lose 98% of the time. This can't continue.

SteelCityMom
10-02-2011, 05:48 PM
Below is our year end turnover ratio for the last 10 years. This team is a -10 so far this year and the D has only forced 1 turnover in 4 games. This D has lived by forcing picks and fumbles in years past. We've been to the AFC championship game 5 of the last 10 years. Those 5 trips to the AFC title game were also the top 5 seasons in turnover ratio on this list for us.

2011 -10
2010 17
2009 -3
2008 4
2007 3
2006 -8
2005 7
2004 11
2003 -3
2002 0
2001 7


Our D looks bad our O-line looks bad, but I think we'd be surpised how much better they'd look with 2 additional posessions for the offense and 2 less for the defense each game. They have to get this turnover issue corrected or they are toast. They won a game last week against the Colts where they lost the turnover battle 3-1. Teams that lose the turnover battle by -2 or more lose 98% of the time. This can't continue.

They probably are toast on the turnovers issue...but I see 6 positives and 1 even to 4 negatives.

No, it cant' continue on a regular basis...but you make this post like this happens on a regular basis. It doesn't. Things need fixed. Maybe I'm a homer in thinking that they will be fixed, but history hasn't exactly proven me wrong, ya know?

steelerchad
10-02-2011, 06:06 PM
They probably are toast on the turnovers issue...but I see 6 positives and 1 even to 4 negatives.

No, it cant' continue on a regular basis...but you make this post like this happens on a regular basis. It doesn't. Things need fixed. Maybe I'm a homer in thinking that they will be fixed, but history hasn't exactly proven me wrong, ya know?

I don't think you got my point. My point was in years where we are good with turnover margin we are good. Of the 6 positive years, we've made it to at least the AFC Championship game in 5 of those seasons. In the years we've been negative we haven't made the playoffs at all. What I meant is they need to turn this around quickly, for this season.

SteelCityMom
10-02-2011, 06:11 PM
I don't think you got my point. My point was in years where we are good with turnover margin we are good. Of the 6 positive years, we've made it to at least the AFC Championship game in 5 of those seasons. In the years we've been negative we haven't made the playoffs at all. What I meant is they need to turn this around quickly, for this season.

Ok, but that's just stating the obvious. Of course the Steelers are going to do better in years where they have a greater TO ratio.

And of course if they want to turn the season around, and to do that they need to turn TO ratio around. That's just common sense though. What point are you trying to make?

DanRooney
10-02-2011, 06:30 PM
The turnover ratio is down because we aren't getting to the quarterback. We have had VERY little pressure in 4 games. I have no idea what's going on with our front 7.

steelerchad
10-02-2011, 06:31 PM
Ok, but that's just stating the obvious. Of course the Steelers are going to do better in years where they have a greater TO ratio.

And of course if they want to turn the season around, and to do that they need to turn TO ratio around. That's just common sense though. What point are you trying to make?

Whatever. Guess it's too obvious, since by your statement you didn't even get my original point as you thought I was saying the Steelers were terrible with turnovers for the last 10 years?

The point I'm making is that everyone is complaining about line play on both sides of the ball, but if our D forced a turnover today and set up the O with a short field once or twice we may be singing a different tune. This D has always been opportunistic, but forcing 1 turnover in 4 games isn't going to cut it. They used to give up the short stuff and dare teams to try to put together a 12 play drive without making a mistake. And it used to work, because someone would eventually make a play, but not this year so far.

SteeleReign
10-02-2011, 07:11 PM
Whatever. Guess it's too obvious, since by your statement you didn't even get my original point as you thought I was saying the Steelers were terrible with turnovers for the last 10 years?

The point I'm making is that everyone is complaining about line play on both sides of the ball, but if our D forced a turnover today and set up the O with a short field once or twice we may be singing a different tune. This D has always been opportunistic, but forcing 1 turnover in 4 games isn't going to cut it. They used to give up the short stuff and dare teams to try to put together a 12 play drive without making a mistake. And it used to work, because someone would eventually make a play, but not this year so far.

475lb Vince Wilfork has twice as many take-aways as our entire defense. Kyle Arrington, a DB for New England, has 3 take-aways. And both of these guys play for the 32nd ranked defense in the league.

What has happened to our D?

SteelCityMom
10-02-2011, 07:15 PM
Whatever. Guess it's too obvious, since by your statement you didn't even get my original point as you thought I was saying the Steelers were terrible with turnovers for the last 10 years?

The point I'm making is that everyone is complaining about line play on both sides of the ball, but if our D forced a turnover today and set up the O with a short field once or twice we may be singing a different tune. This D has always been opportunistic, but forcing 1 turnover in 4 games isn't going to cut it. They used to give up the short stuff and dare teams to try to put together a 12 play drive without making a mistake. And it used to work, because someone would eventually make a play, but not this year so far.

No, I get your point, and it wasn't that I thought you meant they were terrible with turnoveors. ...they're better when they have more TO's. What's the mystery in that?

The point is, the D shouldn't HAVE to always force TO's to win games. Yes, it helps (duh...obvious), but you have to have a working offense to have it make any difference at all.

Right now, the whole team is in (somewhat) disarray. Do you REALLY think a TO would have won this game? Do you even think with a TO the Steelers deserved to win this game?

Why are you looking for the D to bail out the offense (again)?

cloppbeast
10-02-2011, 07:27 PM
The point I'm making is that everyone is complaining about line play on both sides of the ball, but if our D forced a turnover today and set up the O with a short field once or twice we may be singing a different tune. This D has always been opportunistic, but forcing 1 turnover in 4 games isn't going to cut it. They used to give up the short stuff and dare teams to try to put together a 12 play drive without making a mistake. And it used to work, because someone would eventually make a play, but not this year so far.

I believe we make mistakes because we aren't a good team. Our opponents put pressure which causes mistakes. We haven't put as much pressure on our opponents to encourage mistakes. Turnovers are often misdiagnosed as a cause rather than a result. I believe sometimes the are just a result of getting your ass kicked rather than the cause of getting your ass kicked. Sometimes.

I recall many of turnovers we've given have come as a result of getting man-handled, not necessarily and isolated mistake.

Wallabeast17
10-02-2011, 08:13 PM
The turnover ratio is down because we aren't getting to the quarterback. We have had VERY little pressure in 4 games. I have no idea what's going on with our front 7.

Either does the coaching staff apperaently

Steeler4life1972
10-02-2011, 08:48 PM
The turnover ratio is down because we aren't getting to the quarterback. We have had VERY little pressure in 4 games. I have no idea what's going on with our front 7.
i will tell you exactly whats going on with our front 7 and defense...OC's and QB's are doing more quick passes against our D. Even with the 5-7 step passes mixed work because our defense are on their heels and a step slow. Other teams are mixing it up well against us! Our offense needs to do the same with the mixing up play calling!! Its catching up to us now!

NoFieldFive
10-02-2011, 09:05 PM
the secret is out on how to beat the D. time for a game plan change. we may beat some bad teams but not the better teams. Patriots and Packers wrote the game plan on beating this D

steelerchad
10-02-2011, 09:30 PM
No, I get your point, and it wasn't that I thought you meant they were terrible with turnoveors. ...they're better when they have more TO's. What's the mystery in that?

The point is, the D shouldn't HAVE to always force TO's to win games. Yes, it helps (duh...obvious), but you have to have a working offense to have it make any difference at all.

Right now, the whole team is in (somewhat) disarray. Do you REALLY think a TO would have won this game? Do you even think with a TO the Steelers deserved to win this game?

Why are you looking for the D to bail out the offense (again)?

Deserved to win? Maybe not. The Texans owned us in the first half, but we took the game over in the 3rd and had pulled even. If our D gets a turnover instead of giving up a 4 play TD, you better believe I think we win that game. We had turned the momentum and instead of the D getting pumped up like the D of old and making something happen they gave up an easy score.
1 TO in 4 games is ridiculously bad. Especially for a D who prides themselves on being dominant. It was just last year that no one could run on this D. It was just last year that this D was considered an all time great run stopping D at about 60 yds a game. Now they can't stop anybody. Curtis Painter and the Colts drive down for a late game tying TD.

Did the offense suck too, sure they did. But I've gotten used to hot and cold play from them.

Kanata-Steeler
10-03-2011, 11:08 AM
...agreed,

Turnovers', hands down, do the absolute most damage, much more than a bunch of penalties could ever do.
-they completely deflate an Offense and Defense, of the same team.
- Turnovers, ALWAYS cost the game. !!!
- Turnovers (against your own team) are CAUSED by your teams "O" (and NOT your "D")

Obviously, if Ben (and the O-Line) had NOT commited any turnovers in the Texans, or Raven's games,..., I believe we could have atleast tied the game,
and with a good momentum won it.

The "D" has nothing to do with the above costly Turnovers.
basically, it's just football 101 right?
And therefore, (especially) Tomlin. Ariens, Ben, and the O-Line are to blame, and always in that order.

palasport
10-03-2011, 10:18 PM
It may come back to turn overs,but the turn overs come back to the offensive line and you can't argue that. Ben needs time to throw the ball he always ends up scrambling and getting hit.which causes fumbles and interceptions.

ricardisimo
10-03-2011, 11:03 PM
We're talking about the Steelers' turnovers as though it's really a team issue. It's not. It's Ben, almost 100%. He's playing like he did his motorcycle accident/appendectomy year, which is to say very badly. Fumbles and interceptions, over and over and over.

If I were some sort of super-genius offensive coordinator or head coach, I'd think about deemphasizing Ben from the game plan until his head was on straight. Maybe I'd consider running the ball a little bit more than a third of the time. Maybe I'd practice running and run-blocking a bit more during the week. Maybe I'd actually call those same running plays that were practiced during the games on Sunday. Crazy shit like that, you know?

tony hipchest
10-03-2011, 11:11 PM
If I were some sort of super-genius offensive coordinator or head coach, I'd think about deemphasizing Ben from the game plan until his head was on straight. Maybe I'd consider running the ball a little bit more than a third of the time. Maybe I'd practice running and run-blocking a bit more during the week. Maybe I'd actually call those same running plays that were practiced during the games on Sunday. Crazy shit like that, you know?

ha! totally agree. but were just 2 wild and crazy guys. didnt you know its a passing league now? we'll never get things back to how it used to be.

TvGxDmO9Ggo