And that is why QB's don't win football games.

[Rich]

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...

[Spider-Dan]

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).

[Pappy13]

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

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[Rich]

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).

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.

[fyo]

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).

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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 true turnover on downs does not allow the defense to advance the ball or score a touchdown.

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