Turnover Margin

[adam]

I saw a note that Seattle was the first team since TB (02-03) that won the Super Bowl and had the best turnover ratio (+20) on the year. I thought that was odd, so I looked back the last 10 years to see how teams finished based solely on turnover ratio. Now I know there are a million ways to skin a cat in terms of backwards compiling data, but I found this one stat alone very interesting to say the least. I don't know if you can draw the same conclusions from pts scored, pts allowed, ranked defense, ranked offense, top 10 QB, top 10 running game, etc, but this data seems to have a very solid correlation between turnover ratio and wins.

 

Here is what I found from 2013-2004:

 

- 50 teams since 2004 have had a turnover margin of +10 or greater

- 43 (86%) of those teams finished with at least 10 wins, and only 1 team finished with a losing record (CAR 7-9 in 2004)

- 11.4 was the average win total for teams with a +10 or higher

- Teams with +10 in 2013 (SEA, KC, IND, SF, PHI, and CAR), all made the playoffs

- 2004 was an odd year, as it had 3 of the 7 teams without 10 wins (BAL 9, BUF 9, CAR 7)

 

Now obviously, teams can overcome turnovers, or lack of take-aways and still win games, but turnover margin seems like the strongest indicator of success over almost everything else (besides scoring more than the other team).

 

So maybe it should come as no surprise that SEA (+20) crushed DEN (+0) and that any of those teams listed above would've made for a more competitive game against SEA.

 

Finally, I looked at the Bears since 2004 and compared the same thing, wins to turnover ratio. The Bears have had 3 seasons worse than .500 since 2004, and in each of those years they finished with a losing record. Every other year, they finished at 8-8 or better and had a positive turnover ratio. The most amazing part about the Bears is we only had one season in the last 10 with a turnover ratio over +10, in 2012 when we had a +20, finished 10-6, and somehow missed the playoffs (Lovie's last year).

[selection7]

Lovie always had a lot of emphasis on importance of turnovers...at least on D. I think it's possible those other teams would've been more competitive than Denver. But then, it's hard to say because if Denver played Seattle 10 times in a row, the worst performance by Denver would look about like the real SB did. Throw in Sherman pointing out that a lot of Denver's problems had to do with strategy, and it's hard to say what that SB says about each team's on-field talent.

[adam]

Lovie always had a lot of emphasis on importance of turnovers...at least on D. I think it's possible those other teams would've been more competitive than Denver. But then, it's hard to say because if Denver played Seattle 10 times in a row, the worst performance by Denver would look about like the real SB did. Throw in Sherman pointing out that a lot of Denver's problems had to do with strategy, and it's hard to say what that SB says about each team's on-field talent.

Which makes the stat about the Bears only having one season in the last 10 over a +10 pretty amazing. So even though we were getting turnovers, the offense was making too many of their own to really take advantage of them. Based on all the other teams with high ratios, it does show a strong trend.

[Stinger226]

Which makes the stat about the Bears only having one season in the last 10 over a +10 pretty amazing. So even though we were getting turnovers, the offense was making too many of their own to really take advantage of them. Based on all the other teams with high ratios, it does show a strong trend.

Turnovers is probably the one stat that consistently matters in a game.Whoever wins the TO battle usually wins the game.

[AZ54]

The turnover margin is more a result than a leading indicator. All over the league we hear coaches talking about the need to win the turnover battle every week so it's not some great secret. I will try to explain what I mean.

 

We all know good CBs are good because they can get in position to deflect or even catch the ball. They are even better at it when there is a good pass rush and they know the clock is short for how long they have to cover. Good tacklers tend to force more fumbles than bad tacklers. OTOH good offensive players are that way in part because they protect the football, especially at the QB position.

 

I'm not saying anything we don't already know. I think the media tends to oversimplify it as if a "good" coach gets his players to make INTs and a bad coach doesn't. Millions of people and most likely every football player from high school through college has seen Tillman punch footballs loose for years yet very few can replicate his success. If was as simple as coaching by Lovie, Jennings would be good at it too by now, or our safeties, or at least someone else on the D.

 

For the most part you need the right players on both sides of the ball to win the turnover battle. Get a dominant D and the opponents offense will tend to take more chances late in the game to score points. Get a bad QB who throws like Schaub did last year and no matter how good your defense is you won't win the turnover battle.

 

What I did like about Lovie though is that he actually coached one technique….rally to the ball... very well. One the runner is held up rip out the ball. That sometimes worked well other times it led to missed tackles as players focused too much on ripping out the ball. Again, we were good at it when we had out best players out there Urlacher, Briggs, Peanut, etc. and when guys like Urlacher were injured we weren't so good.