Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

It really is about the turnovers


Khyber53

Recommended Posts

Our giving the ball away more often is just as big of a problem as the lack of forced turnovers.  Maybe even bigger.  We already have more turnovers than last season, with four games left.  Early in the season, the offense just looked out of sync.  Later in the season a beat up oline contributed to more turnovers.  

 

Also, lets face it.  One of the reasons we had a better turnover ratio last year was that we played a lot of bad teams.  This year, not so much.  We don't get to play Dallas with Romo, or Jacksonville, etc....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Davidson Deac II said:

Our giving the ball away more often is just as big of a problem as the lack of forced turnovers.  Maybe even bigger.  We already have more turnovers than last season, with four games left.  Early in the season, the offense just looked out of sync.  Later in the season a beat up oline contributed to more turnovers.  

 

Also, lets face it.  One of the reasons we had a better turnover ratio last year was that we played a lot of bad teams.  This year, not so much.  We don't get to play Dallas with Romo, or Jacksonville, etc....

Yeah, the giveaways are a big part of it, and how more successful the other teams have been this year in converting those into points. And I agree that we did play a lot of bad teams last year who couldn't make those work out, but we've played our fair share of bad teams this year, too. The Chargers, Saints and Rams aren't exactly championship teams.

I guess the margin between good and bad seasons really is a pretty fine line, probably set up right along the turnovers axis more than anything else. The great teams and the truly horrible teams (long term in both) are affected by the turnovers, but perhaps nowhere near as defined as we and others like us are.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turnovers come in two ways: interceptions and fumbles.

Fumbles are about a combination of Luck, aggressiveness, and the other teams carelessness. It's hard to prepare for other than practice stripping and jumping on the ball. 

Interceptions though come from pressure. We get more interceptions when we get pressure on the opposing QB. And throw more when Cam is pressured. 

Fix the Oline. Strengthen the Dline. And we're be fine for next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...