There have been plenty of defenses that have gotten turnovers with anemic offenses. I would have to see some actual proof to believe there is even a decent correlation between the two. Case in point, Cardinals are 30th in the league in scoring and 4th in the league in turnovers. Browns are 23rd in scoring, 7th in turnovers. Colts are 18th in scoring and they are last in turnovers with only 10. Jets are 29th in points and have 10 more turnovers than Miami, even though they are tied for 15th.
So? Last year, roughly the same Cardinal & Browns defenses were like 6th & 7th worst in the NFL, so I'm not sure your point? There's nothing showing they're not more than 1 year wonders. There's still nothing you can say to diminish the offense's impact on creating turnover opportunities for their defense. Case in point, the Patriots have been trying furiously the past handful of years to fix their secondary..... yet they had 48 INTs in 2010 & 2011, good for #2 in the NFL. ..... and a Packer defense riddled with injuries had 55 INTs in '10 & '11. #1 in NFL. Like I said, a scoring efficient offense creates more error-prone, turnover-opportunistic situations for the defense.
They are showing that scoring offenses do not have much of an impact on defensive turnovers. There is zero proof that there is a decent correlation. You have done nothing to prove there is. last Season Kansas City, 31th in points, 14th in turnovers. Saints 2nd in total points, 31st in turnovers. Chargers 6th in points, 24th in turnovers. I never said it doesn't help get interceptions. However there are plenty of teams that have good amount of turnovers that are low in points. There are plenty of teams with tons of points that do not get many turnovers.
LMAO. Phinsational: When the sun is not out, its more likely to rain. Dupree: There are plenty of days when the sun is not out and it does not rain. This aint exactly Top Secret stuff. Teams are more likely to take risks on both sides of the ball when playing from behind. More passing/deeper passes on offense, more tight coverage/blitzes on defense. More importantly, when a defense goes into a game knowing that their offense will put up points it allows them more flexibility in attacking the opposing offense. Our defense plays under a lot of pressure b/c they know that if we fall behind the offense will not be able to catch up. New England's/Green Bay's defense can play aggressive knowing the offense can pick up the slack if they give up a few scores, or they can play soft and wait for mistakes/TOs, knowing the offense can pick them up if they allows few scores in the process. TEAM GAME.
and KC has just 12 takeaways this year, and that's with Eric Berry back. Where's the consistency? The Saints have a bad defense so I'm not sure your point. I never said a great offense will turn a bad defense into a turnover creating machine. So tell me, what's more prone to turnovers: a running back fighting for extra yards, or a back who makes sure to cover up and go down before any gang-tackling/ripping can occur? a defense that knows the offense is likely in passing mode and taking more shots downfield, or a defense facing a more unpredictable offense? a defense that can take more risks and afford to be more aggressive, or a defense that's more restricted? a QB playing inside his comfort zone, or a QB playing outside his comfort zone and under a greater burden? an OC having to call more low-percentage, high-risk plays, or an OC capable of sticking to normal game plan? Again, I'm not sure where you grew this mentality that I'm saying turnovers can ONLY come from the offense creating better opportunities. If you want any turnover consistency, unlike Cleveland & Zona, you pretty much need both offense AND defense creating opportunities and then capitalizing on them. There are obviously some great defenses that can consistently do it on their own, but that's necessarily the norm.
Good defenses get turnovers. Bad/Mediocre turnovers do not get turnovers. The impact of the offense isn't that great. Again, where did you read that? The point is simple. Having low turnovers is not a symptom of having an offense that doesn't score points. Too many teams are able to get lots of turnovers and not score points, and too many teams get no turnovers and have a high powered offense. All that other stuff doesn't matter because it doesn't provide consistent results in scoring offense. In fact a lot of times having a defense that is good at turnovers helps the scoring offense. So you could say, having a low scoring offense is a symptom of having a defense that doesn't score points. It is easier to score points if * the defense scores the points for the offense * the offense has a shorter field due to a turnover * the offense has more opportunities due to the turnovers * offenses are less likely to take big risks, which leads to more three and outs, which leads to better field position and more opportunities.
Wrong. Dupree: The sun not being visible doesn't mean that it is going to rain. It could also be night time.
You're doing it again . "More likely" is the key term in the discussion. Obviously, forcing turnovers is one of the things that make a "good" defense "good". You're arguing that good offenses don't create TOs for their defense, but however likely a particular defense (good or bad) is to force turnovers, the number rises when that defense can play with a lead or with the knowledge that it's offense can recover from any mistakes made in the pursuit of a turnover.
