Garrett says lack of turnovers led to defensive coordinator turnover

[Rynie]

Please tell me you mean you couldn't agree more with everything but the second paragraph...

That part of the post is insane.

Haha. I get what he's trying to say. Not sure if I agree. Can we all just agree Garrett sucks, though?

 

[peplaw06]

Field position. Momentum shifts. You're almost 20 times more likely to score a TD on a turnover than on a punt return, and that's just on the play itself. If the defense gets a turnover in the other team's end of the field, the offense can actually lose yards, and they still score points with a FG. The odds of that happening on a punt are almost zero.

And just for grins... 2012 regular season numbers

796 total turnovers
71 INT TDs
21 FR TDs
92 total TDs on turnovers

Scoring percentage 11.6%

2448 Total Punts
18 Punt Return TDs

Scoring percentage 00.7%

I don't have the numbers, but if you take FGs after turnovers into consideration, I would guess that you're probably 30 times more likely to score points after a turnover than on a punt.

Any more questions?

Oh, and just because I forgot to mention...

There comes a point on the field where a defense can no longer force a team to punt... i.e. inside their own 40 or so. The turnover becomes the only way where the defense keeps points off the board, short of praying for a missed FG. Makes the turnover exponentially more important than the punt.

This is remedial stuff really. Anyone with a modicum of sense wouldn't argue a punt = a turnover.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Both are a loss of downs, booyah. Suck this cock.

 

[GloryDaysRBack]

More Punts and less turnovers are why we are 6th in total yards and 15th in scoring. It's why we suck.

 

[dbair1967]

And when you are the DC of a team that cant force a turnover, you invent new terminology. A "takeover" is what Ryan started calling possessions that ended without turnovers.

 

[Everlastingxxx]

And when you are the DC of a team that cant force a turnover, you invent new terminology. A "takeover" is what Ryan started calling possessions that ended without turnovers.

Turnovers happen with 3 and outs aswell. The “takeover” term was trying to promote a more aggressive approach to taking the ball away from offense.

I find it interesting that you can’t get Ryan’s cock out of your mouth. Move on already.

 

[dbair1967]

Turnovers happen with 3 and outs aswell. The “takeover” term was trying to promote a more aggressive approach to taking the ball away from offense.

I find it interesting that you can’t get Ryan’s cock out of your mouth. Move on already.

I believe its fairly obvious who has been slobbering all over fat Ryan's tool for months and months now

 

[Mr.Po]

I liked the Ryan hire at the time. Mostly the swagger I thought he could bring to the team. I equated that some of the middle of the road defensive rankings he racked up with Oakland and Cleveland were due to just being associated with bad teams with little to no talent. Seeing his work first hand made me quickly realize he was more flash than substance. He brought nothing innovative and creative to the 3-4 defense we had in place already. He may have been short handed to some degree this past season with injuries but his schemes had major flaws. He quickly proved to be an empty promise during his 2 year run here.

 

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

Field position. Momentum shifts.

Not sure how you arrive at field position. What's the difference of say... a QB throws from their own 20-yard line and it gets INT at the other 20 yard line for 60 yards, and that of a punter punting the ball from the 20 yard line to the other 20 yard line for a 60 yard punt?

Or an RB rushes from their own 20 yard line to the other 20 yard line for a 60 yard run, and then fumbles and it's recovered by the defense?

The field position is still the same.

As for momentum... that's arbitrary. Who are you to say that momentum is not gained by forcing the opposing offense to a 3 and out?

I've never heard of a defender getting upset about having to settle for a 3 and out, instead of getting an INT, or fumble recovery.

You're almost 20 times more likely to score a TD on a turnover than on a punt return, and that's just on the play itself. If the defense gets a turnover in the other team's end of the field, the offense can actually lose yards, and they still score points with a FG. The odds of that happening on a punt are almost zero.

WHO CARES! That's never been my arguement. In fact, the TD portion is irrelevant, to the argument. On a 3rd and 1 situation, you're more likely to get the first down by running than by passing. So what.

Bottomline. Punts, INTs, and fumble recoveries addd up to the exact same thing.

Here I will make it easy for you.

What is the GOAL of the OFFENSE? To SCORE... right? Either by TD or FG.

What is the GOAL of the DEFENSE? To STOP the offense from scoring and TURN the ball OVER to their offense... right? Either by INT, fumble recovery, turnover on downs, or... wait for it... by forcing a punt.

Are you arguing that an INT accomplishes that goal moreso than a PUNT?
Are you arguing that a fumble recovery accomplishes that goal moreso than a PUNT?

And just for grins... 2012 regular season numbers

796 total turnovers
71 INT TDs
21 FR TDs
92 total TDs on turnovers

Scoring percentage 11.6%

2448 Total Punts
18 Punt Return TDs

Scoring percentage 00.7%

I don't have the numbers, but if you take FGs after turnovers into consideration, I would guess that you're probably 30 times more likely to score points after a turnover than on a punt.

And once agian... WHO CARES? That was NEVER my arguement. So what if a INT is more likely to be returned for a TD, than a PR? That's to be expected, because upon a INT, the offense then becomes the defense, and they naturally do not do it so well. Most DBs are the ones that get the INTs, and not too many Olinemen are going to chase down a DB. .

Bottomline, all that crap you wrote dopes not detract from the fact that PUNTS are technically, turnovers.

Any more questions?

No. Because you'll just go off on more bullshit tangents. You fail to answer my inital question the first time. You still didn't explain how a PUNT is not a turnover, and how a PUNT and INT do not add up to the same thing.

 

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

I don't think there is anyone on here who will agree with a punt = a turnover.

I'm not looking for agreement. How about you explain as to how it is not?

 

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

Turnovers happen with 3 and outs aswell. The “takeover” term was trying to promote a more aggressive approach to taking the ball away from offense.

I find it interesting that you can’t get Ryan’s cock out of your mouth. Move on already.

You and I don't agree on much, but at least you get it. Perhaps the confusion is about takeaways as opposed to turnovers. An INT and fumble recovery would be a takeawy, because you are literally doing just that.

 

[peplaw06]

Not sure how you arrive at field position.

You basically admitted in your last post that field position was a difference. You said, "aside from field position how are they different?" Now it's not a difference?

What's the difference of say... a QB throws from their own 20-yard line and it gets INT at the other 20 yard line for 60 yards, and that of a punter punting the ball from the 20 yard line to the other 20 yard line for a 60 yard punt?

There is no difference in field position in those two scenarios, if you assume in this rare instance that the INT return and the punt return result in the offense getting the ball at the same place. The odds of a 60 yard INT happening are remote compared to a 60 yard (gross) punt. And the odds of getting a better return on an INT are much higher than on a punt, because you don't have 10 punt coverage guys bolting down the field as soon as the ball is snapped.

Then there's the difference that a 60-yard INT probably didn't happen on 4th down, so you took a down away from the offense.

Or an RB rushes from their own 20 yard line to the other 20 yard line for a 60 yard run, and then fumbles and it's recovered by the defense?

Is this really what you're hinging your argument on? A 60 yard run where the RB fumbles at the end? What has that happened like 3 times ever?

As for momentum... that's arbitrary. Who are you to say that momentum is not gained by forcing the opposing offense to a 3 and out?

Do you know what the word "arbitrary" means? From the context here, I don't think you do.

It may be difficult to measure, or subjective. But I'm 99% sure most people who know football at all would agree that momentum swings much more when a team gets a turnover than when a team forces a punt. Because TURNOVERS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PUNTS FORCED.

I've never heard of a defender getting upset about having to settle for a 3 and out, instead of getting an INT, or fumble recovery.

What the fuck? Is this your baseline? You've never heard of a defender getting upset about a 3 and out? Well, that settles everything... What a joke.

How about this Laz? When you hear a coach talking about what they need to do to win a game, is it more likely to hear...

A) We have to win the turnover battle, or
B) We have to punt fewer times than they punt.

??

WHO CARES! That's never been my arguement. In fact, the TD portion is irrelevant, to the argument. On a 3rd and 1 situation, you're more likely to get the first down by running than by passing. So what.

Bottomline. Punts, INTs, and fumble recoveries addd up to the exact same thing.

Here I will make it easy for you.

What is the GOAL of the OFFENSE? To SCORE... right? Either by TD or FG.

What is the GOAL of the DEFENSE? To STOP the offense from scoring and TURN the ball OVER to their offense... right? Either by INT, fumble recovery, turnover on downs, or... wait for it... by forcing a punt.

Are you arguing that an INT accomplishes that goal moreso than a PUNT?
Are you arguing that a fumble recovery accomplishes that goal moreso than a PUNT?

lol

The likelihood of a TD after a turnover is devastating to your argument, not irrelevant to it. And I guess if you want to ignore facts and statistics, and instead dumb it down so you can manage to comprehend this, we can do that. The GOAL of the entire team is to score more points than the other team... you know, to win. Usually that occurs through an offense scoring points and the defense preventing points. But it can also occur by the defense/special teams scoring points. The ONLY way the defense scores points is through turnovers. Special teams is much less likely to score points than a defense is, as I've shown.

If a defense can score points, then the likelihood of winning goes up dramatically.... remember that's the GOAL.

And once agian... WHO CARES? That was NEVER my arguement. So what if a INT is more likely to be returned for a TD, than a PR? That's to be expected, because upon a INT, the offense then becomes the defense, and they naturally do not do it so well. Most DBs are the ones that get the INTs, and not too many Olinemen are going to chase down a DB. .

Bottomline, all that crap you wrote dopes not detract from the fact that PUNTS are technically, turnovers.

Dude, you asked what the difference was between a turnover and a punt, and I gave it to you. I showed you stats, you ignore them and say the stats are "to be expected." If they were expected, then why did you ask how a punt was different from a turnover? It's like you're admitting here that they're different, when you were saying they weren't different... Brilliant debating tactic.

No. Because you'll just go off on more bullshit tangents. You fail to answer my inital question the first time. You still didn't explain how a PUNT is not a turnover, and how a PUNT and INT do not add up to the same thing.

Can you read? I explained it time and time again. Just cause you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's not an answer.

FFS Laz. Give it up. Save what little face you have left.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Save some faaaaaaaace, you know you only got one

 

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

You basically admitted in your last post that field position was a difference. You said, "aside from field position how are they different?" Now it's not a difference? There is no difference in field position in those two scenarios, if you assume in this rare instance that the INT return and the punt return result in the offense getting the ball at the same place. The odds of a 60 yard INT happening are remote compared to a 60 yard (gross) punt. And the odds of getting a better return on an INT are much higher than on a punt, because you don't have 10 punt coverage guys bolting down the field as soon as the ball is snapped.

No two INTs are the same in terms of field position, so why would you expect a punt and an INT to have identical field position? But field position was neve rmy point. Regardless of field position, a punt is still a turnover.

Then there's the difference that a 60-yard INT probably didn't happen on 4th down, so you took a down away from the offense.

So a 60-yard INT on a 1st down, 2nd down, 3rd down, 4th down... so what? Now you're being stupid. So which one of those 60 yard INTs and on which downs are the worst? .

Is this really what you're hinging your argument on? A 60 yard run where the RB fumbles at the end? What has that happened like 3 times ever?

Doesn't matter as to how many times.

It may be difficult to measure, or subjective. But I'm 99% sure most people who know football at all would agree that momentum swings much more when a team gets a turnover than when a team forces a punt. Because TURNOVERS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PUNTS FORCED.

Not really. The idea that you prevented the opposing offense from scoring is momentum gaining in itself, regardless if it's by a punt, fumble recovery, or INT. And Punts are turnovers. And no idiot... one is no more important than the other. All of them results in the offense failing to score, and the defense getting the ball back for their offense. How is that anymore important than the other?

How about this Laz? When you hear a coach talking about what they need to do to win a game, is it more likely to hear...

A) We have to win the turnover battle, or
B) We have to punt fewer times than they punt.

??

lol

How about this asshole. We have to stop the other team (offense) from scoring. Which includes either INT, fumble recovery, or forcing them to punt.

The likelihood of a TD after a turnover is devastating to your argument, not irrelevant to it. And I guess if you want to ignore facts and statistics, and instead dumb it down so you can manage to comprehend this, we can do that. The GOAL of the entire team is to score more points than the other team... you know, to win. Usually that occurs through an offense scoring points and the defense preventing points. But it can also occur by the defense/special teams scoring points. The ONLY way the defense scores points is through turnovers. Special teams is much less likely to score points than a defense is, as I've shown.

No. The TD has no relevence, because every INT or fumble recovery or punt does not result in a TD, but all three DO RESULT in the opposing offense failing to score on that drive thus a turnover.

If a defense can score points, then the likelihood of winning goes up dramatically.... remember that's the GOAL.

Really? Defense can score points? Since when? The primary GOAL of the defense is to stop the opposing offense from scoring; scoring points is secondary if possible. It's stupid to suggest that the only way the defense can stop the offense from scoring is by the defense itself scores. But once again, that has never been my argument. A punt is still a turnover.

Dude, you asked what the difference was between a turnover and a punt, and I gave it to you. I showed you stats, you ignore them and say the stats are "to be expected." If they were expected, then why did you ask how a punt was different from a turnover? It's like you're admitting here that they're different, when you were saying they weren't different... Brilliant debating tactic.

No asshole. Iasked you the difference between an INT and fumble recovery and that of a punt. Because all three are turnovers. I was actually being rhetorical, and you went off on tangents. The fact is they result all in the same: the preventing of the opposing offense from scoring, whether defense scores a TD is not a point of debate.

Can you read? I explained it time and time again. Just cause you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's not an answer.

Has nothing to do with me liking it or not. And it's not a relevant answer.

FFS Laz. Give it up.

That's what I told your mother to do with with my trap money, after I pulled her off the corner for the night.

 

[peplaw06]

 

[Everlastingxxx]

You and I don't agree on much, but at least you get it. Perhaps the confusion is about takeaways as opposed to turnovers. An INT and fumble recovery would be a takeawy, because you are literally doing just that.

Sorry, i haven’t read your posts in this thread so i don’t know what your argument has been. My hunch is that you are probably holding a ridiculous stance and you are too much of an idiot to admit it.

 

[Everlastingxxx]

I liked the Ryan hire at the time. Mostly the swagger I thought he could bring to the team. I equated that some of the middle of the road defensive rankings he racked up with Oakland and Cleveland were due to just being associated with bad teams with little to no talent. Seeing his work first hand made me quickly realize he was more flash than substance. He brought nothing innovative and creative to the 3-4 defense we had in place already. He may have been short handed to some degree this past season with injuries but his schemes had major flaws. He quickly proved to be an empty promise during his 2 year run here.

I can respect that view point. It’s fair and balanced. In the end i think we all expected more from the defense. I thought the defense was innovative in the first season, not so much the second season. I thought the defense played hard for him. He produced a few quality starters. Injuries were a huge part of it late in the season. I would have liked to have seen one more season with him.

That said, it’s time to move on, although i am sure dblair has Ryan’s hairy balls in his mouth as we speak. I have zero faith in the fucking old man that was hired. I am not a fan of the 4-3. I don’t see anything aggressive or innovative about it. You need pass rushers and the Cowboys have only 1, maybe 2 and linebackers that can’t stay healthy. Thankfully the defense has two stars at cornerback.

 

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

Sorry, i haven’t read your posts in this thread so i don’t know what your argument has been. My hunch is that you are probably holding a ridiculous stance and you are too much of an idiot to admit it.

It's the very same arguement you are making right here T-shirt boy sans Ryan's cock in your mouth---that's your thing.

Turnovers happen with 3 and outs aswell. The “takeover” term was trying to promote a more aggressive approach to taking the ball away from offense.

I find it interesting that you can’t get Ryan’s cock out of your mouth. Move on already.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I want a t shirt that says Viva la DCU.

 

[junk]

I want a t shirt that says Viva la DCU.

You'll get your numbered orange coveralls and best buy polo and like it