Turnovers

[C.Biscuit97]

Obviously, there is a lot of talk on this board about our coach and quarterback. Thoguh I think coaching is somewhat overrated on the NFL level, these are two huge areas of concern for this team. Whenever people get excited about this team, the "negative" folks love to point out how terrible Jauron & company is. However, I present the following:

 

- We were the #1 special teams unit in the NFL and led the NFL in average field position.

 

- In 2007, we scored 15.8 points/ game (30th). This year, we scored 21 points/ game (23rd).

 

- In 2007, we gave 22.1 points/ game (15th). This year, we gave up 21.4 points/ game (19th).

 

- In 2007, we finished 31st in defense. This year, we finished in 14th.

 

- In 2007, we finished 30th in offense. This year, we finished 25th (modest gain, by a gain nonetheless).

 

- In 2007, we finished 30th with our QBs posting a 73.8 rating. This year (and it was dragged down considerably by our backup QB), we finished 22nd with a 81.3 rating.

 

- In 2007, we finished 15th in rushing with a 4.0 ypc. This year, we finished 14th with a 4.2 ypc.

- Additionally, we also improved in Time of Possession from 27th to 17th this year.

So if we improved in every area, how could we win the same amount of games as a team led by a rookie/ out of the league QB which one of the worst injury situations I have ever seen? This is why:

 

- In 2007, we fumbled 20 times (7th best) and lost 7 (5th best). This year, we fumbled 36 times (2nd worst) and lost 15 of them (2nd worst).

 

- In 2007, we threw 14 ints (6th best). This year, we threw 15 (16th best).

- In 2007, we forced 29 fumbles (9th best) and recovered 12 (13th best). This year, we forced 21 fumbles (16th best) and recovered 12 (10th best).

 

- In 2007, we had 18 INTs (10th in the NFL). This year, we had 10 ints (27th in the NFL).

- Overall, in 2007, our turnover ratio was a +9 (6th in the NFL and the only one of the top 7 teams that didn't make the playoffs). This year, we finished -8 (27th and a negative change of 17).

Here's a few of the conclusions I drew:

 

1) Obviously, turnovers are the name of the game. Look at the difference teams like the Ravens, Fins, & Ravens made in one year.

 

2) In almost every area, we improved. Isn't that what you want from your team?

 

3) I think it is interesting that the INTs throw was pretty much the same and middle of the pack. If there was a significant increase, you could blame it on the coaching philosophy. However, you can't.

 

4) As crazy as it sounds, I think Rian Lindell was a huge factor in some of our losses. In 2007, Lindell was 24 of 27 fg attempts (89%, 10th in the NFL). This year, he was 30 of 38 in fg attempts (79%, 31st in the NFL). In some of the close games the Bills lost, a missed field goal that Lindell probably would have made in 2007 totally changes game stragety.

 

So here are my questions for discussions:

 

1) How much does the coaching staff deserve in blame for the change in turnover ratio? IMO, I think is clearly on the players. If you somehow blame Jauron, you also must give him credit for 2007.

 

2) Do we make the playoffs this year with our 2007 turnover ratio?

 

3) Is Lindell a good enough kicker to count of in close games?

 

Discuss.

[PushthePile]

Excellent post. I have to believe that the TO differential is largely to blame for last years slide. The team was significantly better last year, and your statistics certainly support that. Some fans will downplay the gains and simply attribute it to a weaker schedule. I tend to think that the schedule hype is overrated. What is not overrated is divisional games and the AFC East has no cream puffs. It was the divisional games that broke our back last year and untimely turnovers was a large factor. If we protect the ball better in those games, the sentiment around here would be alot different.

 

First off, I tend to agree with you that coaching in the NFL is grossly overrated. Peopel around here will try and convince you that Bellicheat could have made Losman a HOF. Don't get me wrong, coaching is extremely important but players win games. All the "great" coachs had "great" players. You don't win a superbowl with mediocre talent but you can certainly win one with mediocre coaching. I don't believe that the coaching staff can be blamed for the turnover difference. Especially considering that the real difference came from fumbles. At the NFL level it's not the coachs fault his players didn't wrap up the ball. I think the lack of turnovers created is mainly because of the lack of pressure. This team doesn't have enough bullets to mount a real attack. Mitchell is a decent blitzer but that's it. We can't create pressure from outside our D-line and we all know what that looks like.

 

Lindell has been on the decline. In perfect conditions and within his range he's money. Unfortunately he doesn't see those conditions too often in Buffalo. I don't think he stinks but he is playing for his job this year. Can we win with him? YES Will he cost us late in the season in an important game? Probably

 

If we can duplicate the 2007 turnover differential, this team will win more games. If they do that and continue overall improvement, we can start talking playoffs.

[The Big Cat]

I've been banging this drum since last year's New York and Miami games. Not to worry, folks here will find a way to blame Jauron for turnovers. Just wait.

[PushthePile]

I've been banging this drum since last year's New York and Miami games. Not to worry, folks here will find a way to blame Jauron for turnovers. Just wait.

Unfortunately you are right Cat. The Jauron sucks crowd will certainly point to the Jets disaster and treat it like it cost us the playoffs. Drag out the same old drum and start beating it.

[McBeane]

After watching the games as well I saw the turnovers killing us. Not only do we lose the ball, but it makes our defense have to be on the field more which wears them down and ends up with us giving up more points. And we know our offense has struggled with scoring. I totally agree with the OP, turnovers KILLED us big time.

[BillsVet]

In 2007, IIRC, Buffalo was tied fourth in the AFC in turnover differential and they finished 7-9.

 

AFC Turnovers 2007

 

For the record, NE, SD, IND, and JAC all made the playoffs in 07. PIT at +3 and TEN, which finished +1 also made the playoffs. Admittedly, this is one season's worth of stats, but Buffalo was an anomaly during the 07 season in that they were top five in the conference and went sub .500.

[vincec]

Turnovers are not all luck.

 

Defenses that can pressure the QB create sacks (with QB fumbles) and interceptions due to disrupted timing and poor throws. Defenses that get can stop the run create obvious passing downs which lead to better opportunities to create turnovers in the passing game. Defenses that get penetration into the backfield create broken plays and cause fumbles.

 

On offense, teams that run the ball effectively turn the ball over less because they stay out of long yardage situations and force opposing defenses to reduce the frequency of blitzes and nickel/dime coverages. This leads to fewer ints. Also, some backs are simply more turnover prone than others because of their running style (upright) or the way the hold the ball (Tikki Barber before changes).

 

It's a team game too. Teams with strong offenses get big leads and force other teams into riskier play calls to catch up. Strong defenses keep the games close so offenses can play more conservatively.

 

So the Bills poor turnover performance is a reflection on the teams performance and coaching, not simply luck as is being implied.

[offde-fence]

You can't blame coaches for not intercepting the ball. You can blame them for not calling plays that lead to pressure...yet, our defense was banged up a lot, and Fewell couldn't stop the run - not his fault. Our players couldn't stop the run, so, the safeties had to play the run a lot more, which, I think, gave them hesitation. And, there was no pressure from the DE's, which our scheme needs to be successful. I'd say players were the factor for that. With our scheme, if our front four can stop the run and pressure the QB, then, with the speed everywhere else, we'll be picking off passes left and right. To that end, we'll have to see how they perform this year. I still think stopping the run is going to be the biggest test.

As for Lindell, I believe he took a special off-season training with some pro sports facility before the 2007 season, which attributed to his great year. He must have felt like it was going to stay with him last year without having to go through that again. Hopefully he'll put some extra work in this year.

[The Big Cat]

Unfortunately you are right Cat. The Jauron sucks crowd will certainly point to the Jets disaster and treat it like it cost us the playoffs. Drag out the same old drum and start beating it.

 

 

If said drum wasn't a perished equine, I'd be more than willing to indulge you.

 

There are definitely some things to get pissy about, and Jauron is certainly not without his faults, but the way people twist and turn what happens in the moment ON THE FIELD, it signifies a basic refusal to believe anything other than "coach's fault coach's fault coach's fault coach's fault coach's fault."

 

Makes me wonder how many of the aforementioned knee-jerks played and/or still play sports.

[vincec]

The players can't be blamed for everything. Coaching does play a part in this game. Unless you think that it's just bad luck that DJ has had one winning season in his entire career and good luck that someone like Don Shula had only 1 losing season in 32 years of coaching. It's just the players that they happened to get. The coaches really didn't play a part in any of it.

[C.Biscuit97]

In 2007, IIRC, Buffalo was tied fourth in the AFC in turnover differential and they finished 7-9.

 

AFC Turnovers 2007

 

For the record, NE, SD, IND, and JAC all made the playoffs in 07. PIT at +3 and TEN, which finished +1 also made the playoffs. Admittedly, this is one season's worth of stats, but Buffalo was an anomaly during the 07 season in that they were top five in the conference and went sub .500.

 

 

That was the whole point. This 2008 team was better in every single way than the 2007 team. The only reason the 2007 team was able to compete was because of the turnover ratio. If we had the 2007 turnover ratio this year, we would have been a playoff team.

 

Honest question: who do you blame for the turnovers? Coaches or players?

[C.Biscuit97]

Turnovers are not all luck.

 

Defenses that can pressure the QB create sacks (with QB fumbles) and interceptions due to disrupted timing and poor throws. Defenses that get can stop the run create obvious passing downs which lead to better opportunities to create turnovers in the passing game. Defenses that get penetration into the backfield create broken plays and cause fumbles.

 

On offense, teams that run the ball effectively turn the ball over less because they stay out of long yardage situations and force opposing defenses to reduce the frequency of blitzes and nickel/dime coverages. This leads to fewer ints. Also, some backs are simply more turnover prone than others because of their running style (upright) or the way the hold the ball (Tikki Barber before changes).

 

It's a team game too. Teams with strong offenses get big leads and force other teams into riskier play calls to catch up. Strong defenses keep the games close so offenses can play more conservatively.

 

So the Bills poor turnover performance is a reflection on the teams performance and coaching, not simply luck as is being implied.

 

The sack total wasn't that much different from 2007 and we lost a pro bowl DE. I really don't see how Jauron could be blamed for that.

 

And as I pointed out in my initial post, we were better in almost every single category on the team except turnovers. INTs thrown remained basically the same, so that eliminates a coaching problem in the offensive system.

 

so again, is it Jauron's fault the Bills fumbled a lot more in 2008??? And is Jauron's fault that Lindell was a much worse kicker in 2008???

 

Again, I've never said Jauron is a great coach. But he is being scapegoated for the team's shortcomings.

[The Big Cat]

But he is being scapegoated for the team's shortcomings.

 

And ironically folks here will go so far as to blame Jauron for publicly being said scapegoat. Something about that being an indication of "holding guys accountable."

[C.Biscuit97]

And ironically folks here will go so far as to blame Jauron for publicly being said scapegoat. Something about that being an indication of "holding guys accountable."

 

 

It's jsut funny because I know Jauron haters will avoid this thread because there are too many facts to actually argue. If they blame him for the turnovers, then they need to give him credit for 2007. However, the idea of blaming a coach for his players fumbling more is pretty funny as well.

 

I don't know why it is so hard to admit that this team had more problems than Jauron. They have improved every year and he finally have a QB (I think) that actually looks like he belongs in the NFL. But Jauron sucks.

[BillsVet]

That was the whole point. This 2008 team was better in every single way than the 2007 team. The only reason the 2007 team was able to compete was because of the turnover ratio. If we had the 2007 turnover ratio this year, we would have been a playoff team.

 

Honest question: who do you blame for the turnovers? Coaches or players?

 

Let me get this straight, and I'm going to illustrate absurdity by being absurd here. The 07 and 08 Bills recorded the same record with very different schedules. Their 2007 tilt was harder than the 2008 schedule. Turnover differential is cited as perhaps the one factor which made for the difference. This is a black and white argument which takes nothing but numbers into account.

 

I would think Buffalo's 2007 +9 (and fourth in the AFC) would make for a better record. In 08, they had a much easier schedule and mustered only a -8. This makes absolutely no sense.

 

How does a team with a harder record in 07 have a better TO ratio, while the 08 team had a worse ranking with a much easier schedule? There's more to this story than TO's.

[The Big Cat]

Let me get this straight, and I'm going to illustrate absurdity by being absurd here. The 07 and 08 Bills recorded the same record with very different schedules. Their 2007 tilt was harder than the 2008 schedule. Turnover differential is cited as perhaps the one factor which made for the difference. This is a black and white argument which takes nothing but numbers into account.

 

I would think Buffalo's 2007 +9 (and fourth in the AFC) would make for a better record. In 08, they had a much easier schedule and mustered only a -8. This makes absolutely no sense.

 

How does a team with a harder record in 07 have a better TO ratio, while the 08 team had a worse ranking with a much easier schedule? There's more to this story than TO's.

 

Yes.

 

The first Miami game, the second Jets game, and the Browns game--REGARDLESS OF WHO WAS TO BLAME--were ALL determined by turnovers. And those are just the ones that are fresh in my head. I seem to recall the other two Jets/Dolphins games were lost because of turnovers as well.

 

But, even if you don't count the last two, that's enough turnovers to change our record from 7-9 to 10-6. Factor in Lindel's two missed field goals during the Ninners which COMBINED for less than 45 yards (something that also wouldn't have happened in 2007), and suddenly 11-5 is just a few mishaps away.

[thebandit27]

This post is the bomb.

 

Well researched, well presented, and well summed up.

 

Most importantly, it's spot on. So I guess I can only answer the questions asked...

 

1) I'd say some, but not most of the blame should go on the coaching staff. I do believe that they haven't put their players in position to do what they do the best. While, I don't necessarily think that they haven't been aggressive enough per se, I think they've mis-used their LBs when they blitz. Guys like Poz and Mitchell can get to the QB if they'd send them more often. That said, the pass rush is totally ineffective on it's own and their LBs aren't strong enough in coverage to be playing in that capacity as often as they're forced to. So that has to go on the players. Now, I think a lot of that had to do with Schobel being injured and the team really not having a decent 2nd option. We'll see how a healthy Schobel and Maybin impact the pass rush and thus impact the chances for turnovers.

 

2) As crazy as it sounds, when you put it like that...yeah, I'd have to say we do...there's a lot more talent on this team than that one, so why not? However, I'm not sure I'm ready to bank on that happening.

 

3) Yes.

[Flbillsfan#1]

Excellent post. I have to believe that the TO differential is largely to blame for last years slide. The team was significantly better last year, and your statistics certainly support that. Some fans will downplay the gains and simply attribute it to a weaker schedule. I tend to think that the schedule hype is overrated. What is not overrated is divisional games and the AFC East has no cream puffs. It was the divisional games that broke our back last year and untimely turnovers was a large factor. If we protect the ball better in those games, the sentiment around here would be alot different.

 

First off, I tend to agree with you that coaching in the NFL is grossly overrated. Peopel around here will try and convince you that Bellicheat could have made Losman a HOF. Don't get me wrong, coaching is extremely important but players win games. All the "great" coachs had "great" players. You don't win a superbowl with mediocre talent but you can certainly win one with mediocre coaching. I don't believe that the coaching staff can be blamed for the turnover difference. Especially considering that the real difference came from fumbles. At the NFL level it's not the coachs fault his players didn't wrap up the ball. I think the lack of turnovers created is mainly because of the lack of pressure. This team doesn't have enough bullets to mount a real attack. Mitchell is a decent blitzer but that's it. We can't create pressure from outside our D-line and we all know what that looks like.

 

Lindell has been on the decline. In perfect conditions and within his range he's money. Unfortunately he doesn't see those conditions too often in Buffalo. I don't think he stinks but he is playing for his job this year. Can we win with him? YES Will he cost us late in the season in an important game? Probably

 

If we can duplicate the 2007 turnover differential, this team will win more games. If they do that and continue overall improvement, we can start talking playoffs.

I agree turnovers are important. Turnovers by the QB in BOTH Jets games cost the Bills a Win. 7-9 could have been 9-7 very easily.

[BillsVet]

Yes.

 

The first Miami game, the second Jets game, and the Browns game--REGARDLESS OF WHO WAS TO BLAME--were ALL determined by turnovers. And those are just the ones that are fresh in my head. I seem to recall the other two Jets/Dolphins games were lost because of turnovers as well.

 

But, even if you don't count the last two, that's enough turnovers to change our record from 7-9 to 10-6. Factor in Lindel's two missed field goals during the Ninners which COMBINED for less than 45 yards (something that also wouldn't have happened in 2007), and suddenly 11-5 is just a few mishaps away.

 

Again: How does the 07 team with a harder schedule and more injuries have a TO difference of +9 while the 08 team facing a the 2nd easiest schedule in the NFL have a -8?

 

It's not missed FGs, every team has that. It's not just individual players. We're talking about a net loss of 17 from one year to the next with vastly different schedules.

 

How quickly we forget these games. Blotting out of your memories of last season is key for you here. Rookie HC's with less than average rosters beat Buffalo three times last season: MIA 2x and SF 1x. Not to mention, they were badly outclassed by NE 2x. And who can forget the now fired Mangini beating Buffalo twice. If you want to cite examples where we almost won, cite those.

 

Again, this is a thread initiated by casual uniformed fans who rationalize losing. It's made in order to rationalize that Buffalo is closer to success, yet the Bills who take the field in 09 will be predominantly players with less than or equal to 3 years of experience. The HC loses 57% of his games, and the GM didn't handle personnel before January 2008.

 

There is more to the inferior play than just turnover differential here. It's an organization-wide issue in management and coaching which these casual uninformed fans who rationalize failure love to discredit.

[Kelly the Dog]

I would wholeheartedly agree, except turnovers have to do with bad quarterbacking, bad line play, bad receiving and route running, bad defense, bad coaching, and bad personnel decisions which all lead to bad luck.