The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

The better TEAM won. The better QB lost.

Can couldnt hit water if he fell off a boat. He is a running back who occasionally throws.

The refs won this game

"turnover ratio"

It's easy to win games when your opponents are handing you the ball over and over.  Almost any team would look dominant with the opposing QB committing six turnovers (as Carson Palmer did in the NFCCG).  The real test is when you come up against a team that doesn't beat themselves for you.

ugh, wtf are you talking about?

Denver's defense forced those turnovers. Why is it that we always focus on the offense and blame them for a turnover rather than praise the defense for forcing the turnover? Denver's defense played brilliant they deserve the credit.

Defense STILL wins championships.

I don't think a defense forces a QB to throw a bad pass.  That is a result of poor decision-making.

I'd certainly give credit to the defense for a strip-sack-fumble, of which DEN forced multiple.  But unlike in the NFCCG, Peyton didn't choose to throw the ball to 4 Panthers.  That makes a huge difference in the outcome of games.

That's part of the purpose of pressure, to force the QB to rush a throw or to hit the QB as he is throwing so the pass is off.

The QB can elect to throw the pass somewhere else, or to throw it away, or not to throw a pass at all.

It is the difference between "unforced error" and "forced error."  In my view, strip-sack-fumble is forced error; INT that was tipped at the line is forced error; a bad throw to a well-covered receiver is unforced error.

If a QB is being hit as he throws, he can't go thru the process of "electing" what to do with the ball.

Also, there are plenty of schemes that disguise coverage so a receiver seems open when he is in fact not. Certainly the credit should go to the defense on a play like that.

I respectfully disagree. The defense can and does force QB's to either throw before the receiver is open or before the QB has had a chance to go through his progressions to find an open receiver. If you don't have an open receiver to throw to and the defense is going to sack you unless you throw the ball, then the QB is in fact forced to throw a bad pass because there is no good pass to throw. I think that happened repeatedly on Sunday. I wouldn't say that happened in every case, but sure happened enough to give praise to Denver's defense rather than simply blame the QB for poor decisions.

I can think of no better example of "decision making" than being able to accurately read a defense, so I'd say tricky defenses still fall under the umbrella of unforced errors.

If you're going to file "well, I didn't know a defender would be there!" under forced error, you've just defined unforced errors out of existence.  No QB thinks a defender will be where he is throwing the ball at the time the pass is thrown.

If you're talking about passes that are altered because the QB was hit before the throw was completed, sure, I guess you can file those with strip-sack-fumbles and tipped balls?  I think that's a small minority of INTs.

Again, you have the option to throw the ball away or take a sack, both of which are preferable to INTs.

I think it is more of a root cause than you think.

Also, if a QB has no open receivers and the game is in the balance, should he just take the sack or throw the ball away?

I personally think that 4th down INTs should be scored as a turnover on downs, or something similar.

A turnover on downs that could directly lead to better field position than a turnover on downs... or could even lead to 6 points...

A punt can also lead to either of those things.  For that matter, a turnover on downs can give the opposing defense just as much of an improved field position as an INT (e.g. a 4th-down sack-strip-fumble recovered by the original offense far behind the LoS).

So if the QB does throw the ball away or takes a sack, was that a poor decision by the QB or did the defense make a great play? Cam only had 1 INT in the game and that was when the ball bounced off his WR's hands. I don't think you can classify much if any of Cam's play in the Superbowl as poor decision making, that was pretty much all great defense.

The answer is obviously "it depends"; sometimes the QB takes a sack when he should have thrown it away, sometimes he throws it away when there's an open man he didn't see.

The point I'm making is that unlike most of CAR's other opponents, DEN didn't simply hand over the ball repeatedly; CAR led the league in INTs, while DEN was 15th in that stat.  When your opponent is giving you the game by making bad decision after bad decision, it's a lot easier to look like a juggernaut.  And in a game where neither offense kills itself with poor decision-making, DEN had the advantage, because they were accustomed to beating opponents "straight up" instead of sitting back and waiting for them to beat themselves.

A fourth down strip sack fumble recovery would not be a turnover on downs. It would just be a turnover because the offense did not complete the play. A true turnover on downs does not allow the defense to advance the ball or score a touchdown.

On the other hand, a fourth down INT can easily be much better for the offense than giving the ball over on downs. (Note to defensive backs... don't always look to pad your stats).

Provided the original offense recovers the ball, that is indeed a turnover on downs.  How could it be possibly scored as a normal turnover if the original offense has the ball at the end?

A 20-yard tackle for loss (e.g. sack) on 4th down advances the ball for the defense and is a turnover on downs.