Turnovers, explosive plays, and wins in the NFL

[defiantgiant]

So apparently Brian Billick has invented a new stat, and it actually looks pretty smart. He calls it the "Fox-Tox Rating" (which is sort of a dumb name, I admit) and it's basically a composite of turnovers and what he calls "explosive" plays (runs over 12 yards or passes over 20.) It's basically the differential in turnovers (turnovers created on defense minus turnovers committed on offense) taken together with the differential in big plays (big plays on offense minus big plays allowed on defense.) It's apparently a good predictor of success: a good Fox-Tox rating correlates very well with winning and making the playoffs, and a bad one correlates well with losing.

 

If you buy Fox-Tox, teams that fail in one area (stopping big plays/turnovers or creating big plays/turnovers) can still have success if they're good at the other three. Teams like the Saints, who struggle to stop big plays on defense, can still do well if they create turnovers on defense, and their offense both makes big plays and limits turnovers.

 

I'm kind of interested to see how the Bears' moves this offseason will pan out in terms of their differentials. Here's what I see:

 

1) Turnovers on Defense: Adding Peppers should help pass pressure, adding Chris Harris and (hopefully) Major Wright should help the defense force more fumbles and maybe get more picks.

2) Turnovers on Offense: The big one. Cutler's got to get it together and stop throwing so many interceptions.

3) Big Plays on Defense: Having Urlacher healthy and a decent free safety in Wright (again, hopefully) should help us stop getting gashed on third-and-long.

4) Big Plays on Offense: If you believe the article, teams with good QBs and good receiving options can create big pass plays, even with a subpar pass-blocking o-line (see Colts, Saints, Cowboys last season.) It made me think about our offense last year: when the line was struggling, Turner went even more ball-control in the passing game (all those short slants and bubble screens that got like 5 yards.) That might have actually made things worse - he turned an offense that couldn't protect the ball into one that couldn't protect the ball OR get any yards. Martz, on the other hand, clearly wants to throw the ball deep, which could definitely help the offense (provided that Aromashodu, Knox, and Hester can step up.)

 

What do you guys think?

[AZ54]

In a league awash in parity this makes a lot of sense.

[Guest TerraTor]

In a league awash in parity this makes a lot of sense.

I just wish we had a WR i could trust to catch the ball on 3rd and 8 for a 1st down

[defiantgiant]

I just wish we had a WR i could trust to catch the ball on 3rd and 8 for a 1st down

That's definitely the thing that jumps out at me about the article. All the teams doing really well in Fox-Tox have a reliable big-play WR: Andre Johnson, Reggie Wayne, Vincent Jackson, Marques Colston, Sidney Rice, DeSean Jackson, Greg Jennings, Miles Austin...every team that put up a lot of explosive plays on offense had a bona fide #1 receiver and a good QB. The Bears have the QB, but one of our receivers has to step up.

[jason]

So apparently Brian Billick has invented a new stat, and it actually looks pretty smart. He calls it the "Fox-Tox Rating" (which is sort of a dumb name, I admit) and it's basically a composite of turnovers and what he calls "explosive" plays (runs over 12 yards or passes over 20.) It's basically the differential in turnovers (turnovers created on defense minus turnovers committed on offense) taken together with the differential in big plays (big plays on offense minus big plays allowed on defense.) It's apparently a good predictor of success: a good Fox-Tox rating correlates very well with winning and making the playoffs, and a bad one correlates well with losing.

 

If you buy Fox-Tox, teams that fail in one area (stopping big plays/turnovers or creating big plays/turnovers) can still have success if they're good at the other three. Teams like the Saints, who struggle to stop big plays on defense, can still do well if they create turnovers on defense, and their offense both makes big plays and limits turnovers.

 

I'm kind of interested to see how the Bears' moves this offseason will pan out in terms of their differentials. Here's what I see:

 

1) Turnovers on Defense: Adding Peppers should help pass pressure, adding Chris Harris and (hopefully) Major Wright should help the defense force more fumbles and maybe get more picks.

2) Turnovers on Offense: The big one. Cutler's got to get it together and stop throwing so many interceptions.

3) Big Plays on Defense: Having Urlacher healthy and a decent free safety in Wright (again, hopefully) should help us stop getting gashed on third-and-long.

4) Big Plays on Offense: If you believe the article, teams with good QBs and good receiving options can create big pass plays, even with a subpar pass-blocking o-line (see Colts, Saints, Cowboys last season.) It made me think about our offense last year: when the line was struggling, Turner went even more ball-control in the passing game (all those short slants and bubble screens that got like 5 yards.) That might have actually made things worse - he turned an offense that couldn't protect the ball into one that couldn't protect the ball OR get any yards. Martz, on the other hand, clearly wants to throw the ball deep, which could definitely help the offense (provided that Aromashodu, Knox, and Hester can step up.)

 

What do you guys think?

 

I have been for this, saying this, supporting this, SCREAMING this, since the early 90s. The only time I didn't call for it was when the Bears had Crowton, who, admittedly didn't do care too much about the running game, and was quickly run out of Chicago as a result...with assorted other details (but at least he tried to attack the defense). The last few offensive coordinators have been protect the lead, play not to lose limp-dicks. I EAGERLY anticipate the Martz regime.

[AZ54]

That's definitely the thing that jumps out at me about the article. All the teams doing really well in Fox-Tox have a reliable big-play WR: Andre Johnson, Reggie Wayne, Vincent Jackson, Marques Colston, Sidney Rice, DeSean Jackson, Greg Jennings, Miles Austin...every team that put up a lot of explosive plays on offense had a bona fide #1 receiver and a good QB. The Bears have the QB, but one of our receivers has to step up.

 

Actually the one thing that stands out among that list is the fact those teams all have multiple threats on offense, not just one guy. Either that, or the QB is at the top of the league (i.e. Brees) and can distribute the ball so well everybody is a threat. The one exception might be Andre Johnson.

[defiantgiant]

Actually the one thing that stands out among that list is the fact those teams all have multiple threats on offense, not just one guy. Either that, or the QB is at the top of the league (i.e. Brees) and can distribute the ball so well everybody is a threat. The one exception might be Andre Johnson.

I don't know about that. The Saints don't really have any major receiving threats after Colston, the Vikings have Sidney Rice and then a bunch of guys who are average to good, and the Texans have Andre Johnson and then a couple of decent guys in Daniels and Walter. Before Celek's ridiculous season this year, the Eagles basically just had DeSean Jackson and a bunch of #3s, but they still made a lot of big plays.

 

I think there are really a lot of ways to skin a cat here. You can have (as you pointed out) a QB who's among the best in the league at spreading the ball around, like Manning or Brees or McNabb. You can have a 1000-yard receiving TE, like the Chargers, Cowboys, Colts, and Eagles do. Or you can have a big-play wideout like Rice or Andre Johnson, who can break big gains even when he's drawing all the coverage. Clearly you can have more than one of these things: the Cowboys and Chargers have a big-play WR and a great receiving TE, the Saints have a spread-the-wealth QB and a big-play WR, and the Colts and Eagles arguably have all three.

 

On the other hand, the Vikings and Texans are getting good results from just the big wideout and nothing else, really. Favre and Schaub are very good QBs, but they're not the kinds of guys like Brees or McNabb who can work magic with a crew of subpar receivers. Shiancoe and Daniels are good TEs, but not elite. Interestingly, none of these teams have just the elite second receiver/TE and nothing else...seems like you need either a genuine #1 or one of those rare QBs who can make something out of nothing. I think the takeaway is that as long as you have either the elite QB or the elite WR, then you can make a lot of big plays.

 

It'll be interesting to see which of these teams (if any) the Bears' passing game can mimic. Cutler's certainly not bad at spreading the ball around, but Drew Brees he ain't. He was at his best when he had a situation like Favre's in Minnesota: one great jump-ball receiver who he can force some throws to, and a decent surrounding cast around that guy. And I don't know if Aromashodu can turn into that Brandon Marshall type of receiver. If he can, great, problem solved, but there's no telling right now. If the Bears' passing game sputters again in 2010, I could see us drafting a genuine big-play receiver in the next draft. Maybe AJ Green, maybe Julio Jones, but a guy who can help our passing game pick up yards in chunks.

[AZ54]

I think you neglect the effect of a running game on the passing game. If we are solely talking about 3rd and 8 maybe that's not so much a factor but you can't dismiss the effect a guy like Adrian Peterson has on a defense and how that opens up the field for the passing game. Consider AP, New Orleans has Reggie Bush, Dallas has excellent RBs plus a TE in Jason Witten. You either have multiple threats or a QB who can just flat out distribute the ball perfectly around the field no matter what a defense is doing. We all know Tom Brady belongs in that list too even if none of his WRs made your first list.

[defiantgiant]

I think you neglect the effect of a running game on the passing game. If we are solely talking about 3rd and 8 maybe that's not so much a factor but you can't dismiss the effect a guy like Adrian Peterson has on a defense and how that opens up the field for the passing game. Consider AP, New Orleans has Reggie Bush, Dallas has excellent RBs plus a TE in Jason Witten.

I know how the running game helps the passing game generally, but remember that we're just talking about big-play offense here. I don't know exactly what the relationship is, but it certainly doesn't look like you have to have a good ground attack to make a lot of big plays through the air. The Colts' run game, for example, wasn't scaring anybody last season (Addai and Brown barely topped 1100 yards between them.) Same goes for the Eagles, the Texans and the Chargers. And as much as Reggie Bush showed up on the highlight reels, he wasn't even New Orleans' #1 running back, and he didn't break 100 yards a single time this season. In the entire regular season, he only ran 70 times for 390 yards. Even when you put that together with Pierre Thomas' 793 yards, you don't get a particularly big-time running attack. I doubt any defenses were stacking the box to stop the Saints from running, so I don't think Bush opened up the field for the passing game in the traditional way that you're describing.

 

I do really like your comparison of Bush to Peterson and the Cowboys' RBs (especially Felix Jones) though. Reggie won't make anybody stack the box, but he is like Peterson and Jones in that he can create big plays on his own. He broke at least one 12+ yard rush in 8 regular-season games and added a 20+ yard pass play in 3 games. So while he may not have drawn 8-man boxes, he moved the chains in big chunks when he got the ball. Same thing goes for Felix Jones: he reliably produced 12+ yard rushes and 20+ yard receptions in almost all of the games where he wasn't hurt. Peterson is an even better example...he created at least one explosive play in 15 out of 16 regular-season games, and a lot of the time he'd break long runs and big receptions in the same game. There was only ONE team this entire season to hold him without an explosive play: the Bears in Week 16. Keeping Peterson from getting those big chunks of yardage may have had something to do with the win that night.

 

So that's another thing the Bears need to find a way to do - get some big plays out of the running backs. We don't necessarily need to have two 1000-yard rushers or anything (as much as I'd like to) but we do need Forte and Taylor to break off some long gains. Given how much Mike Martz likes to throw to his running backs, I think that could happen this season.

[WheresMyronBaker]

I see this as some insight as to how the Bears did in 2006. Take a big play defense, add a big play (monumentally) special teams...and an offense that was not special...and you get to the big dance.

[defiantgiant]

I see this as some insight as to how the Bears did in 2006. Take a big play defense, add a big play (monumentally) special teams...and an offense that was not special...and you get to the big dance.

Yeah, I think you're totally right. That defense did well at stopping big plays (they had the third-fewest 20+ yard passes allowed, for example) and racked up enough picks/forced fumbles that they still had a positive turnover differential despite Grossman's 20 picks and 5 fumbles. The offense might not have put up many big plays, but Hester took care of a lot of that. The good news is that, if you believe Fox-Tox, the Bears' defense doesn't need to go back to 2006 form for the team to do well. They were carrying the offense on their backs in 2006...now they just need an offense that doesn't turn the ball over and can break off big gains from time to time.