Turnovers

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from wmasschilly. Show wmasschilly's posts

    Turnovers

    I know it has been mentioned a little, but what has happened? The D (or ST for that matter) has not iinduced a turnover for three straight games

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Turnovers

    In response to wmasschilly's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I know it has been mentioned a little, but what has happened? The D (or ST for that matter) has not iinduced a turnover for three straight games

    [/QUOTE]

    What I have noticed...   the tackling efforts of the defense lacks the pop, it appears, to get those turnovers like we have seen in the past.  Also, we are seeing fewer INTs because the receivers of the opponent are more wide open with not a defender in the same zip code to tip the ball or even make a stab at an INT. 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Turnovers

    In response to agcsbill's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wmasschilly's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I know it has been mentioned a little, but what has happened? The D (or ST for that matter) has not iinduced a turnover for three straight games

    [/QUOTE]

    What I have noticed...   the tackling efforts of the defense lacks the pop, it appears, to get those turnovers like we have seen in the past.  Also, we are seeing fewer INTs because the receivers of the opponent are more wide open with not a defender in the same zip code to tip the ball or even make a stab at an INT. 

    [/QUOTE]


    What has happened is through the years this Defense has achieved most of it's turn overs, riding on the back of an offense that consistently gives them a huge lead.

    It's no secret that a lot of turn overs happen when teams are throwing to try and catch up and that makes it easier on the D.

    The problem is that the D has not had these huge leads this season or in either SB's.

    They only have about half the interceptions they had last year.

    It's very obvious.

    Blame it on the offense for not scoring 55 points every game.Yell

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from wmasschilly. Show wmasschilly's posts

    Re: Turnovers

    Right--from I've seen the closest they've come to an INT the last few games have been tipped balls that haven't stayed in the air long enough to pick---although Ryan almost came up with what would have a nice grab on Miami's last drive of the 1st half

    not even an opportunity for a fumble recovery lately tho, unless you count the botched FG attempt yesterday

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from CHAMPSXLVIII. Show CHAMPSXLVIII's posts

    Re: Turnovers

    The defense looks  like 2011 all over again. If the offense was 2011 that would be okay

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Turnovers

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:


    What has happened is through the years this Defense has achieved most of it's turn overs, riding on the back of an offense that consistently gives them a huge lead.

    It's no secret that a lot of turn overs happen when teams are throwing to try and catch up and that makes it easier on the D.

    The problem is that the D has not had these huge leads this season or in either SB's.

    They only have about half the interceptions they had last year.

    It's very obvious.

    Blame it on the offense for not scoring 55 points every game.Yell



    The Patriots forced 42 fumbles last season.  This season they have only forced 19.  INTs are down on a per game basis, but not nearly as much as fumbles are.  Care to explain how that is a result of big leads?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Turnovers

    In addition it was demonstrated last season that the Patriots D forced most of their turnovers in situations where the team was losing or had under a double digit lead.  This narrative that previous defenses forced TOs because of big leads is fiction.  They just aren't doing it this year for whatever reason.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Turnovers

    In response to PhatVirgin's comment:

    in 2012, the pats had 21 fumbles to this year's 15. 



    15?  Where are you getting this number?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Turnovers

    In response to PhatVirgin's comment:

    got a link? how did you make that assessment w/o working out numbers broken down game by game/play by play.



    I will have to go dig up a thread I posted it in.  I looked at every play by play and demonstrated that even if you removed turnovers where the D had a double digit lead they still would have led the NFL in turnovers.  It was an old thread where I was body slamming the Jets troll.  I'll see if I can find  it.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Turnovers

    IMO, the D has more injured players in key positions than they've had in the past.  Both starting tackles and one of the team's best LBs on IR and a ban_ged up starting secondary that hasn't played healthy since perhaps week 5.  This has got to have had an impact on turnover production.

    Can't really get my head around the notion that it's somehow on the O that defensive turnovers are down.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Turnovers

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In addition it was demonstrated last season that the Patriots D forced most of their turnoves in situations where the team was losing or had under a double digit lead.  This narrative that previous defenses forced TOs because of big leads is fiction.  They just aren't doing it this year for whatever reason.

    [/QUOTE]


    demonstrate that for me again, would ya?  Must have missed that.

    No big leads in the SB's produced no T/o's

    No big leads this year='s less t/O's.

    Fumble are a result of being in the right place at the right time and luck.  A coin toss.  Teams can take chances with leads.  Even if you force a fumble there's no guarantee you recover it.

    The odd's are 50/50. Maybe better if you actually have players in position.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Turnovers

    And now I have to ask:  Why is posting ban_ged without the underscore such an egregious offense?  Apparently, it's much important to ban such a totally harmless word than it is to deal some of the wild-a$$ sh_it that appers on this board.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcherbrook. Show Fletcherbrook's posts

    Re: Turnovers

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     


    What has happened is through the years this Defense has achieved most of it's turn overs, riding on the back of an offense that consistently gives them a huge lead.

    It's no secret that a lot of turn overs happen when teams are throwing to try and catch up and that makes it easier on the D.

    The problem is that the D has not had these huge leads this season or in either SB's.

    They only have about half the interceptions they had last year.

    It's very obvious.

    Blame it on the offense for not scoring 55 points every game.Yell

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The Patriots forced 42 fumbles last season.  This season they have only forced 19.  INTs are down on a per game basis, but not nearly as much as fumbles are.  Care to explain how that is a result of big leads?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Pats can't force a fumble because they can't tackle. It's like wrapping a couple of wet noodles around a raging rhino and expecting him to be disrupted.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Salcon. Show Salcon's posts

    Re: Turnovers

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    IMO, the D has more injured players in key positions than they've had in the past.  Both starting tackles and one of the team's best LBs on IR and a ban_ged up starting secondary that hasn't played healthy since perhaps week 5.  This has got to have had an impact on turnover production.

    Can't really get my head around the notion that it's somehow on the O that defensive turnovers are down.

    [/QUOTE]

    Totally agree with this.  The secondary hasn't been right for weeks.  Dennard, Talib and McCourty just don't look like the same players.  Is it because of nagging injuries?  I say yes.  Will they get better by playing through the injuries?  Who knows?  It seems like the defense is being held together with glue and duct tape.

    There hasn't been any real continuity back there because of all the different player thrown into the mix.  Talib out for a few weeks here and there.  Same with Dennard and Gregory.  Injury-wise this team can't catch a break.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Turnovers

    So I can't find that thread I was referring to so I'll try and replicate what I found previously.  In 2012 the Patriots defense forced 41 turnovers.  21 fumbles recovered and 20 INTs.  Here are the turnovers that were forced with the Patriots either losing, tied or with a lead that was 10 points or less.

    Game 1: Interception with Patriots down 3-0.  Fumble with Patriots leading 7-3. 

    Game 2: Fumble with game tied at 6.  Fumble with patriots down 20-18.

    Game 3: Interception with Patriots up 3-0. 

    Game 4: Interception with Patriots up 7-0.  Interception with Patriots up 7-0.  Fumble with Patriots down 14-7.  Fumble with game tied at 21.   Fumble with Patriots up 28-21.

    Game 5: Fumble with game tied at 0.  Fumble with Patriots up 31-21.

    Game 6: Fumble with Patriots up 14-10.  Fumble with Patriots up 20-10.

    Game 7: Interception with Patriots leading 16-7.  Fumble with Patriots leading 29-26.

    Game 8: None

    Game 9: Fumble with Patriots leading 3-0.  Fumble with Patriots leading 34-24.  Interception with Patriots leading 37-31. 

    Game 10: Interception with game tied at 14. 

    Game 11: Interception with game tied at 0.  Fumble with Patriots leading 7-0. 

    Game 12: None

    Game 13: Interception with Patriots leading 7-0.

    Game 14: Fumble with Patriots down 7-0.  Interception with Patriots down 17-3. 

    Game 15: Interception with Patriots leading 16-13.  Interception with Patriots leading 23-16.  Interception with Patriots leading 23-16.

    Game 16: Interception with game tied at 0. 

    That is 29 takeaways when the D did not have more than a 10 point lead.  That would still have led the AFC and been top top 5 in the NFL even if you didn't make any adjustments for other teams getting turnovers with big leads.  The Patriots were just flat out good at forcing turnovers last year.  End of story.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeadowlandMike. Show MeadowlandMike's posts

    Re: Turnovers

    I noticed that that D forced another fumble yesterday on the Dolphins FG attempt.  

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Turnovers

    In response to MeadowlandMike's comment:

    I noticed that that D forced another fumble yesterday on the Dolphins FG attempt.  




    I  noticed Geno SmINT threw another pick 6 yesterday.  Is he going for some kind of record?  LMAO.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeadowlandMike. Show MeadowlandMike's posts

    Re: Turnovers

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MeadowlandMike's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I noticed that that D forced another fumble yesterday on the Dolphins FG attempt.  

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I  noticed Geno SmINT threw another pick 6 yesterday.  Is he going for some kind of record?  LMAO.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, but what does that have to do with the Pats D sucking worse without a big lead (actually, just plain sucking)?

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from magicalhobo. Show magicalhobo's posts

    Re: Turnovers

    You will see different numbers when almost all of your defensive starters are injured. Our DTs are all undrafted rookies or castoffs from other teams. Losing Wilfork and Kelly means that the holes aren't plugged up as much, which means that the runners have more room to get around the line. Also, QBs aren't pushed out of the pocket as much. On top of that, you have your pro-bowl linebacker who knows the defense inside and out on IR. Then you have Talib with a nagging injury and Gregory coming back and missing tackles.

    On top of all that, you have an offense starting third string O-linemen, 5th and 6th string WRs, scrub TEs, and a shaky RB corps. The offense isn't scoring as much so the opposing offense isn't as pressured. 

    There is a lot to it.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from CatfishHunter. Show CatfishHunter's posts

    Re: Turnovers

    It starts with no pressure up front.

    Then, if they commit more men to the rush they get gashed by the pass.

    The Bend-but-Don't-Break defense requires the defense to eventually cause one of the following:

    •  Turnover
    •  3-and-out
    •  FG

    At critical stages the defense is bending and breaking.

    It's not a coincidence that the last 3 playoff losses saw ZERO forced turnovers.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeadowlandMike. Show MeadowlandMike's posts

    Re: Turnovers

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MeadowlandMike's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I noticed that that D forced another fumble yesterday on the Dolphins FG attempt.  

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I  noticed Geno SmINT threw another pick 6 yesterday.  Is he going for some kind of record?  LMAO.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    How many does he have on the year? 10?  What a bust.  He's Akili Smith.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, a second round pick thrown into the starting role from day 1 is the same thing as the number three pick in the draft... what an idiot you are.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeadowlandMike. Show MeadowlandMike's posts

    Re: Turnovers

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So I can't find that thread I was referring to so I'll try and replicate what I found previously.  In 2012 the Patriots defense forced 41 turnovers.  21 fumbles recovered and 20 INTs.  Here are the turnovers that were forced with the Patriots either losing, tied or with a lead that was 10 points or less.

    Game 1: Interception with Patriots down 3-0.  Fumble with Patriots leading 7-3. 

    Game 2: Fumble with game tied at 6.  Fumble with patriots down 20-18.

    Game 3: Interception with Patriots up 3-0. 

    Game 4: Interception with Patriots up 7-0.  Interception with Patriots up 7-0.  Fumble with Patriots down 14-7.  Fumble with game tied at 21.   Fumble with Patriots up 28-21.

    Game 5: Fumble with game tied at 0.  Fumble with Patriots up 31-21.

    Game 6: Fumble with Patriots up 14-10.  Fumble with Patriots up 20-10.

    Game 7: Interception with Patriots leading 16-7.  Fumble with Patriots leading 29-26.

    Game 8: None

    Game 9: Fumble with Patriots leading 3-0.  Fumble with Patriots leading 34-24.  Interception with Patriots leading 37-31. 

    Game 10: Interception with game tied at 14. 

    Game 11: Interception with game tied at 0.  Fumble with Patriots leading 7-0. 

    Game 12: None

    Game 13: Interception with Patriots leading 7-0.

    Game 14: Fumble with Patriots down 7-0.  Interception with Patriots down 17-3. 

    Game 15: Interception with Patriots leading 16-13.  Interception with Patriots leading 23-16.  Interception with Patriots leading 23-16.

    Game 16: Interception with game tied at 0. 

    That is 29 takeaways when the D did not have more than a 10 point lead.  That would still have led the AFC and been top top 5 in the NFL even if you didn't make any adjustments for other teams getting turnovers with big leads.  The Patriots were just flat out good at forcing turnovers last year.  End of story.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Led the NFL from 2010-2012 and set an NFL record for consecutive games with at least one, which ended in the Carolina game.

    Finished 2nd to Chicago and were first in the AFC for the 3rd straight year. Kind of sad people go looking for the whys when the D is decimated.

    I just like how they don't get blown out and allow 6 or 7 points by halftime waiting for a talented offense to take it over.  Didn't happen yesterday.

    They're capable, but if they're getting sacks and holds with good field position shifts, that's still good, too.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Given the best GM in the history of the cap era, why is there such a drop off on a team built with such incredible depth?

     

Share