Turnovers - The Bills Achilles Heel (Statistical Overview)

[Perry Turtle]

19 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:

Not really mind bending. The Bills are 29-26 when the turnover battle is even or negative and 31-2 when it's positive since 2019. 

Meh, causation vs correlation.

[Mikie2times]

Just now, Perry Turtle said:

Meh, causation vs correlation.

Keep believing in your fairy dust

[Perry Turtle]

18 minutes ago, Rockinon said:

The problem with thinking the Bill's can simply keep on throwing 50 passes a game has nothing to do with Josh. Defenses have great pass rushes and great defensive backfields now. It's madness to continue playing the same way. Whether you like it or not, Josh does have to be a game manager. It's his job. Defenses are excelling at taking away the pass all across the league. You do have to take the quick dumpoffs, and run the ball to keep defenses from dictating the game. That doesn't mean he can't take his shots downfield. It just means a reduction in pass attempts will likely help the team.

The Bills rarely throw 50 times a game these days unless they need to (Daboll would game plan 50 throws a game back in the day).

 

Problem isn't so simple to address.  Take the Chargers game.  On two passes, Allen dropped back, felt pressure, rolled to his right, and launched the ball almost 50 yards downfield.  One pass, to Diggs, was intercepted.  The other, to Davis was a TD.  How do you coach Allen on these two passes?  Do you give him a mental checklist to process through (I'm convinced Dorsey did this) that slows him down and sows doubt.  Do you tell him not to throw against his body, even though he has thrown a ton of TDs against his body.  Do you tell him to take the check-down and not throw risky passes deep (he did complete another deep pass to Davis in the game).

 

Or do you trust the guy who has won 60+ games over his career with his arm and legs and coach him to let it rip?

 

At this point in his career, I'm in the camp to let Josh be Josh.  This team best chance to win a championship is on Allen's arm.  The running game shows up every so often, and the defense is like 75% reliable, but the best way to win is to let Allen loose (when the game calls for it).

 

 

14 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:

Keep believing in your fairy dust

Keep generalizing and ignoring the actual details.

 

 

 

[oldmanfan]

36 minutes ago, Perry Turtle said:

The Bills rarely throw 50 times a game these days unless they need to (Daboll would game plan 50 throws a game back in the day).

 

Problem isn't so simple to address.  Take the Chargers game.  On two passes, Allen dropped back, felt pressure, rolled to his right, and launched the ball almost 50 yards downfield.  One pass, to Diggs, was intercepted.  The other, to Davis was a TD.  How do you coach Allen on these two passes?  Do you give him a mental checklist to process through (I'm convinced Dorsey did this) that slows him down and sows doubt.  Do you tell him not to throw against his body, even though he has thrown a ton of TDs against his body.  Do you tell him to take the check-down and not throw risky passes deep (he did complete another deep pass to Davis in the game).

 

Or do you trust the guy who has won 60+ games over his career with his arm and legs and coach him to let it rip?

 

At this point in his career, I'm in the camp to let Josh be Josh.  This team best chance to win a championship is on Allen's arm.  The running game shows up every so often, and the defense is like 75% reliable, but the best way to win is to let Allen loose (when the game calls for it).

 

 

Keep generalizing and ignoring the actual details.

 

 

 

The difference is exactly as you state:  throwing back across the field into the center risks an interception because in general you are throwing back into more coverage, whereas throwing down the sideline does not to the same extent.

 

I have trouble understanding why some don’t think Josh can become an even better QB by thinking a bit more and by taking safer throws.  There is no real argument against wanting a QB to turn the ball over less when the data on effect of turnovers on outcome of games is pretty clear.

[Perry Turtle]

23 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

The difference is exactly as you state:  throwing back across the field into the center risks an interception because in general you are throwing back into more coverage, whereas throwing down the sideline does not to the same extent.

 

I have trouble understanding why some don’t think Josh can become an even better QB by thinking a bit more and by taking safer throws.  There is no real argument against wanting a QB to turn the ball over less when the data on effect of turnovers on outcome of games is pretty clear.

Allen has thrown a bunch of TDs across his body.  Big TDs too.  Do you really want to coach that our of his game?  I don't.  There's risk, but it's greatly outweighed by the reward.

 

The data isn't clear.  Turnovers are sometimes the cause of a win, but sometimes they are the result of other factors.

 

Consider the Buffalo/New England playoff game.  The Bills won the turnover battle 2-0.  Did they win that game because of the turnovers, or did they win because they kicked NE's ass all over the field, and the turnovers were a result of that ass kicking.

 

In 2021, the Bills lost to the Colts 41-15.  They lost the turnover battle 0-2.  Did they lose the game because of turnovers or because Jonathon Taylor ran for 185 yards and 4 TDs?  

 

The Bills lost the turnover battle 1-0 in last year's playoff game against the Bengals.  Is that turnover the reason they lost the game by 17 or were there other factors?

 

Turnovers can and do impact the game, but they are not the only determining factor for wins and loses.  Often times they are the result of the way a team wins and not the reason for a win.  Sometimes they are the cause, and sometimes they are the correlation.

 

 

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by Perry Turtle

[HappyDays]

31 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I have trouble understanding why some don’t think Josh can become an even better QB by thinking a bit more and by taking safer throws.

 

If Allen starts thinking more and taking safe throws he is no longer an elite QB. You can't take away some of his INTs without also taking away some of his TDs. This is especially true because our group of skill players is currently below average and our OL is decent but not great. The offense has a crazy low margin for error which means Allen HAS to push the envelope to score points. There is no other way.

 

Also it should be pointed out again that Allen's turnover luck has been bad in an unprecedented way. ZERO dropped INTs. As far as I know that has never happened before. His turnover worthy play rate is LOWER than his actual turnover rate. Again, that is unprecedented bad luck. With even average turnover luck he would probably have about 5 INTs less than he has right now and we wouldn't even be having this conversation this year, in fact he would probably be the leading MVP candidate.

 

I know it's hard to take a complicated view of things but this conversation is nowhere near as simple as "Josh just needs to stop throwing so many INTs." Not even close. For me the only thing I wish is that he would be more reserved against awful opponents like the Jets week 1 and the Chargers last week.

 

2 hours ago, BigDingus said:

 

Just wanted to highlight after today's Chiefs loss. 

 

Chiefs 2 x turnovers vs Raiders 0 turnovers. 

 

This is the most turnovers Mahomes has had in a season (16) and now have the same record as the Bills. For the first time ever, the Chiefs face going through the playoffs without home field advantage throughout. 

 

Mahomes for the first time in his career has to play with a below average group of skill players and OL. It isn't a coincidence he is throwing more stupid looking INTs this year. He has no choice but to push the envelope.

 

Like I've said many many times Allen and Mahomes the past 3 years or so have played at a very similar level. The difference in team results over that period is exclusively because of other factors that have nothing to do with QB play. Both offenses would likely be bottom of the league bad this year if not for the greatness of their QBs.

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by HappyDays

[Mikie2times]

12 minutes ago, Perry Turtle said:

Allen has thrown a bunch of TDs across his body.  Big TDs too.  Do you really want to coach that our of his game?  I don't.  There's risk, but it's greatly outweighed by the reward.

 

The data isn't clear.  Turnovers are sometimes the cause of a win, but sometimes they are the result of other factors.

 

Consider the Buffalo/New England playoff game.  The Bills won the turnover battle 2-0.  Did they win that game because of the turnovers, or did they win because they kicked NE's ass all over the field, and the turnovers were a result of that ass kicking.

 

In 2021, the Bills lost to the Colts 41-15.  They lost the turnover battle 0-2.  Did they lose the game because of turnovers or because Jonathon Taylor ran for 185 yards and 4 TDs?  

 

The Bills lost the turnover battle 1-0 in last year's playoff game against the Bengals.  Is that turnover the reason they lost the game by 17 or were there other factors?

 

Turnovers can and do impact the game, but they are not the only determining factor for wins and loses.  Often times they are the result of the way a team wins and not the reason for a win.  Sometimes they are the cause, and sometimes they are the correlation.

 

 

 

The Patriots were driving to tie the game at 7 when Hyde made one of the best INT's in Bills history. It swung the momentum like a tidal wave. In the Colts game it was 7-0 Colts, we throw a pick and now it's 14-0. We claw back 14-7, they kick a FG so now it's 17-7, we fumble and they score again making it 24-7.

 

Turnovers alter how the game is played and the outcome of the game had they not occured. Some games it doesn't matter that much. Like the Bengals game in which the turnover happened at the very end. But if you think we can keep showing up top 10 in turnovers each year and not have negative consequences as we are somehow absolved because we have Josh  ( yet it has mattered for every HOF QB just the same and we are a .500 team when the TO differential is even or worse).

 

I'm not making this about Allen. Brady forced us into a conservative style against the Chargers and it partially shielded us so that can work when we can go that way. In the past fumbles have hurt us just as bad as INT's but Josh has really cleaned that up. It's turnovers as a whole. Whatever that recipe is to maximize success and limit turnovers is the right recipe. Your attitude is more aligned with Dorsey. Lets throw 50 times, who cares what the risk is. 

[Maine-iac]

25 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

For me the only thing I wish is that he would be more reserved against awful opponents like the Jets week 1 and the Chargers last week.

 

I'm totally on board with this.  I know some interceptions are the cost of doing business but there are games where you just need to come in and take care of business and turning the ball over gives them the chances they wouldn't otherwise have.  

[Rockinon]

1 hour ago, Perry Turtle said:

The Bills rarely throw 50 times a game these days unless they need to (Daboll would game plan 50 throws a game back in the day).

 

Problem isn't so simple to address.  Take the Chargers game.  On two passes, Allen dropped back, felt pressure, rolled to his right, and launched the ball almost 50 yards downfield.  One pass, to Diggs, was intercepted.  The other, to Davis was a TD.  How do you coach Allen on these two passes?  Do you give him a mental checklist to process through (I'm convinced Dorsey did this) that slows him down and sows doubt.  Do you tell him not to throw against his body, even though he has thrown a ton of TDs against his body.  Do you tell him to take the check-down and not throw risky passes deep (he did complete another deep pass to Davis in the game).

 

Or do you trust the guy who has won 60+ games over his career with his arm and legs and coach him to let it rip?

 

At this point in his career, I'm in the camp to let Josh be Josh.  This team best chance to win a championship is on Allen's arm.  The running game shows up every so often, and the defense is like 75% reliable, but the best way to win is to let Allen loose (when the game calls for it).

 

 

Keep generalizing and ignoring the actual details.

 

 

 

 

Josh doesn't need to be coached on plays like that. He simply needs to look at the tape and can see for himself that the throw running to his right, throwing deep to his left is simply a bad choice. He is clearly over aggressive at times and he knows this by now. You can see it on his face immediately after the play. He has repeatedly also made plays like that work, but throwing across his body like that is clearly a bad decision. He's just got to make mental notes of things like that and try not to do it again. It's not a coaching thing. There are plenty of times his gunslinger attitude works out, but he does need to be better at simply managing a game and learning to save the fight for right moments. That just wasn't the right time. He is going through some growing pains this year. I think he is going to continue to be a great QB and grow into an even better one. He does play like he is unnecessarily impatient at times. I think he is learning this the hard way, but he'll come around.

Edited December 26, 2023 by Rockinon
grammar

[Dablitzkrieg]

This just in, turnovers are bad for every team.  Not really sure why this needed a deep dive.  People just want to really overthink sometimes.

Edited December 26, 2023 by Dablitzkrieg

[Perry Turtle]

1 minute ago, Mikie2times said:

The Patriots were driving to tie the game at 7 when Hyde made one of the best INT's in Bills history. It swung the momentum like a tidal wave. In the Colts game it was 7-0 Colts, we throw a pick and now it's 14-0. We claw back 14-7, they kick a FG so now it's 17-7, we fumble and they score again making it 24-7.

 

Turnovers alter how the game is played and the outcome of the game had they not occured. Some games it doesn't matter that much. Like the Bengals game in which the turnover happened at the very end. But if you think we can keep showing up top 10 in turnovers each year and not have negative consequences as we are somehow absolved because we have Josh  ( yet it has mattered for every HOF QB just the same and we are a .500 team when the TO differential is even or worse).

 

I'm not making this about Allen. Brady forced us into a conservative style against the Chargers and it partially shielded us so that can work when we can go that way. In the past fumbles have hurt us just as bad as INT's but Josh has really cleaned that up. It's turnovers as a whole. Whatever that recipe is to maximize success and limit turnovers is the right recipe. Your attitude is more aligned with Dorsey. Lets throw 50 times, who cares what the risk is. 

Cmon, Hyde drops that interception and Allen doesn't throw 5 TDs?  That ball was under thrown and wasn't going to be a TD, but say it ended up being a TD.  The Bills in danger of losing that game because Jones managed a lucky throw to tie the score at 7?  And against the Colts Allen doesn't throw the int,  so the Bills defense DOESN'T get run over by Taylor?

 

Talk about fairy dust.  Turnovers aren't magical.  There are definitely games that are determine by turnovers, but there are just as many that are not. 

 

There are six games I've mentioned where turnovers were not the key factor in the result (Denver, NE, Phi, NE playoff, Colts, Chargers).  These are examples where turnovers happened but were not the reason for the game's result. 

 

And my position is nothing like Dorsey's.  I want the Bills to throw the ball as many times it takes to win the game.  5, 10, 15, 50 times, whatever it takes.  When they throw the ball, however, I want Allen to do it without fear that the pass can result in an interception.  I want Allen to rip it with out a coach's voice full of self doubt in his head. I want him to bolt the pocket if the yards are there.  I want the ball in his hands when the game is on the line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Perry Turtle]

11 minutes ago, Rockinon said:

 

Josh doesn't need to be coached on plays like that. He simply needs to look at the tape and can see for himself that the throw running to his right, throwing deep to his left is simply a bad choice. He is clearly over aggressive at times and he knows this by now. You can see it on his face immediately after the play. He has repeatedly also made plays like that work, but throwing across his body like that is clearly a bad decision. He's just got to make mental notes of things like that and try not to do it again. It's not a coaching thing. There are plenty of times his gunslinger attitude works out, but he does need to be better at simply managing a game and learning to save the fight for right moments. That just wasn't the right time. He is going through some growing pains this year. I think he is going to continue to be a great QB and grow into an even better one. He does play like he is unnecessarily impatient at times. I think he is learning this the hard way, but he'll come around.

I don't think Allen will ever play the way you want him to. He has made dozens of completions more risky than that and will make dozens more. 

 

It's not that he's hard-headed or dumb, it's that he knows he has the arm to make throws like that and he's going to continue to try.

 

It's who he is, and it's awesome to watch.

[Scott7975]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

The difference is exactly as you state:  throwing back across the field into the center risks an interception because in general you are throwing back into more coverage, whereas throwing down the sideline does not to the same extent.

 

I have trouble understanding why some don’t think Josh can become an even better QB by thinking a bit more and by taking safer throws.  There is no real argument against wanting a QB to turn the ball over less when the data on effect of turnovers on outcome of games is pretty clear.

 

Allen has also won footballs games because he makes those kind of throws. Allen has carried this team for a big portion of his career.  Taking away things that makes him special is what they tried to do earlier this year and it was a disaster.

[Mikie2times]

1 minute ago, Perry Turtle said:

Cmon, Hyde drops that interception and Allen doesn't throw 5 TDs?  That ball was under thrown and wasn't going to be a TD, but say it ended up being a TD.  The Bills in danger of losing that game because Jones managed a lucky throw to tie the score at 7?  And against the Colts Allen doesn't throw the int,  so the Bills defense DOESN'T get run over by Taylor?

 

Talk about fairy dust.  Turnovers aren't magical.  There are definitely games that are determine by turnovers, but there are just as many that are not. 

 

There are six games I've mentioned where turnovers were not the key factor in the result (Denver, NE, Phi, NE playoff, Colts, Chargers).  These are examples where turnovers happened but were not the reason for the game's result. 

 

And my position is nothing like Dorsey's.  I want the Bills to throw the ball as many times it takes to win the game.  5, 10, 15, 50 times, whatever it takes.  When they throw the ball, however, I want Allen to do it without fear that the pass can result in an interception.  I want Allen to rip it with out a coach's voice full of self doubt in his head. I want him to bolt the pocket if the yards are there.  I want the ball in his hands when the game is on the line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The line by Vegas would indicate that these are in fact singular outcomes that have lots of factors involved. That any one game can be played multiple times with multiple results but it seems like somehow you look at these games as if they're were always going to go one way no matter what. Almost like you don't believe in an alternative game script. Perhaps like if we didn't commit all those turnovers to Denver we would have never needed to be in a position to have a game winning drive from Josh. You had literally dozens of games to hand pick to fit whatever argument you want and you hilariously picked games in which turnovers actually did play a huge role.

[FireChans]

3 hours ago, Perry Turtle said:

There are a lot of ways to win the the NFL.  Steelers use defense, because their QBs suck.  The Bills have a unicorn at QB, and they use him to win. Turning him into a game manager because they're afraid of an int is just stupid.

 

The only metric that matters is scoring more points than the opponent.  Again, the Bills offense walked of the field 12 out of 15 times this year with more points than the opponent.  What happened after that is on the defense.

Josh didn’t score more points than his opponent in our losses.

[Perry Turtle]

Just now, Mikie2times said:

The line by Vegas would indicate that these are in fact singular outcomes that have lots of factors involved. That any one game can be played multiple times with multiple results but it seems like somehow you look at these games as if they're were always going to go one way no matter what. Almost like you don't believe in an alternative game script. Perhaps like if we didn't commit all those turnovers to Denver we would have never needed to be in a position to have a game winning drive from Josh. You had literally dozens of games to hand pick to fit whatever argument you want and you hilariously picked games in which turnovers actually did play a huge role.

Come back to reality.  The Vegas line is used by casinos to balance odds and minimize their exposure.  It is not a predictive tool.

 

Your use of "if we" shows the cause vs correlation argument you refuse to acknowledge in the turnover stats.  

 

The Broncos game is plainly fact -based  When the Broncos miss that field goal, the Bills had the game won, despite all the turnovers, sacks, and penalties that happened before, the Bills won.  None of that other stuff mattered.  When the flag came out, and the re-kick went thru, the reason for the loss was 12 men on the field.  You can "what if" all those other things, but the Bills put the right number of players on the field. Game over. No need for nonsense like alternative game script.

 

You overrate turnovers.  Turnovers had nothing to do with the Bills playoff win against NE.  They win with or without those turnovers.  Allen throwing no interceptions against the Colts doesn't prevent Taylor from steamrolling the Bills defense.  Allen's first quarter interception played no role in the defenses inability to stop Mac Jones on the last drive against Mac Jones.  And Allen's interceptions against Denver had nothing to do with the 12 man penalty that turned a W into a L.

 

I'm responding to the turnover numbers you posted by saying that those numbers can further be categorized by causation and corellation.  Sometimes a turnover is the reason for a game's result, and sometimes it's does not determine the outcome, and is just another stat.  This is true of ever statistic outside of final score.

 

You respond with 'what if' and alternative game script nonsense.  I don't think this is subjective.  I think it's pretty easy to see when a turnover directly impacts a game and when it doesn't.

 

 

[FireChans]

23 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:

The line by Vegas would indicate that these are in fact singular outcomes that have lots of factors involved. That any one game can be played multiple times with multiple results but it seems like somehow you look at these games as if they're were always going to go one way no matter what. Almost like you don't believe in an alternative game script. Perhaps like if we didn't commit all those turnovers to Denver we would have never needed to be in a position to have a game winning drive from Josh. You had literally dozens of games to hand pick to fit whatever argument you want and you hilariously picked games in which turnovers actually did play a huge role.

See, I don’t care if folks say, “hey Josh is gonna turn it over, it sucks but it is what it is.”

 

But folks say silly things like “turnovers don’t matter” or “turnovers don’t correlate with losses.”

 

Its comical. 
 

There was once a contingent of posters who debated that you didn’t need a franchise QB to win football games. They are gone now.

[Maine-iac]

1 minute ago, Perry Turtle said:

I think it's pretty easy to see when a turnover directly impacts a game and when it doesn't.

 

The irony of you saying this is immeasurable.

[Perry Turtle]

7 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Josh didn’t score more points than his opponent in our losses.

When he walked off the field for the last time in 12 of 15 of the games this season, the Bills had the lead.  In 13 of those 15 games, the Bills led or the game was tied.

 

Whatever happened after he walked off the field for the last time in those games is on the defense or special teams. The Bills lost 4 of those games.

 

Get the gist Rabbit?

[Mikie2times]

2 minutes ago, Perry Turtle said:

Come back to reality.  The Vegas line is used by casinos to balance odds and minimize their exposure.  It is not a predictive tool.

 

Your use of "if we" shows the cause vs correlation argument you refuse to acknowledge in the turnover stats.  

 

The Broncos game is plainly fact -based  When the Broncos miss that field goal, the Bills had the game won, despite all the turnovers, sacks, and penalties that happened before, the Bills won.  None of that other stuff mattered.  When the flag came out, and the re-kick went thru, the reason for the loss was 12 men on the field.  You can "what if" all those other things, but the Bills put the right number of players on the field. Game over. No need for nonsense like alternative game script.

 

You overrate turnovers.  Turnovers had nothing to do with the Bills playoff win against NE.  They win with or without those turnovers.  Allen throwing no interceptions against the Colts doesn't prevent Taylor from steamrolling the Bills defense.  Allen's first quarter interception played no role in the defenses inability to stop Mac Jones on the last drive against Mac Jones.  And Allen's interceptions against Denver had nothing to do with the 12 man penalty that turned a W into a L.

 

I'm responding to the turnover numbers you posted by saying that those numbers can further be categorized by causation and corellation.  Sometimes a turnover is the reason for a game's result, and sometimes it's does not determine the outcome, and is just another stat.  This is true of ever statistic outside of final score.

 

You respond with 'what if' and alternative game script nonsense.  I don't think this is subjective.  I think it's pretty easy to see when a turnover directly impacts a game and when it doesn't.