Reducing turnovers....with a new ball

Posted this in the Wistrom thread, but wanted to add it here as well.

We eliminate the TO's and we beat Iowa and MSU last year IMO. No team, not even the Huskers in the 90's, Miami in 2001, Bama, USC etc could over come our TO's issues and win at an elite level. TO's kill.

Interesting article on the negative effects of INT's

This indicator measures the impact of each and every interception thrown in the playoffs since the AFL-NFL merger of 1970. It tells us that no play in football, perhaps no play in all of sports, is more important than picks. Each interception thrown by a team decreases its chances of winning by, give or take, an astonishing 20 percentage points.

In fact, we're so amazed by the Interception Ladder that, when the Cold, Hard Football Facts watch games, we tick off in our heads the decreasing likelihood of a team's chances to win with each and every INT thrown by its quarterback.

It's the second pick that's absolutely murderous to a team's chances, much like the one that Rivers through to Leonhard Sunday afternoon. Teams almost always win when they throw zero picks. They still have a likelihood of winning when they throw one pick. But the second pick is devastating. Throw it, and your chances of winning are extremely slim.

Here's the CHFF Interception Ladder, a look at the record of teams in the playoffs (since 1970) based upon the number of interceptions that they throw (through the 2009 divisional playoffs):


With these stats, it really shows that we were lucky to win 9 games the past 6 years IMO.

If the ball can prevent 1 TO a game its worth it IMO.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
lo country said:
Posted this in the Wistrom thread, but wanted to add it here as well.

We eliminate the TO's and we beat Iowa and MSU last year IMO. No team, not even the Huskers in the 90's, Miami in 2001, Bama, USC etc could over come our TO's issues and win at an elite level. TO's kill.

Interesting article on the negative effects of INT's

This indicator measures the impact of each and every interception thrown in the playoffs since the AFL-NFL merger of 1970. It tells us that no play in football, perhaps no play in all of sports, is more important than picks. Each interception thrown by a team decreases its chances of winning by, give or take, an astonishing 20 percentage points.

In fact, we're so amazed by the Interception Ladder that, when the Cold, Hard Football Facts watch games, we tick off in our heads the decreasing likelihood of a team's chances to win with each and every INT thrown by its quarterback.

It's the second pick that's absolutely murderous to a team's chances, much like the one that Rivers through to Leonhard Sunday afternoon. Teams almost always win when they throw zero picks. They still have a likelihood of winning when they throw one pick. But the second pick is devastating. Throw it, and your chances of winning are extremely slim.

Here's the CHFF Interception Ladder, a look at the record of teams in the playoffs (since 1970) based upon the number of interceptions that they throw (through the 2009 divisional playoffs):

  •  
     
    0 INT – 191-51 (.789)
  •  
     
    1 INT – 144-119 (.548)
  •  
     
    2 INT – 54-119 (.312)
  •  
     
    3 INT – 17-78 (.179)
  •  
     
    4+ INT – 1-41 (.024)
  •  
     
     
     
    http://www.coldhardf...on-ladder/7285/

With these stats, it really shows that we were lucky to win 9 games the past 6 years IMO.

If the ball can prevent 1 TO a game its worth it IMO.
Click to expand...
Just more evidence as to why a strong running game is so important. People can talk all they want about fancy passing attacks but the pass is much more dangerous of a play for the offense than a run. Be creative with the run and have good blocking.

 
This whole post is about our troubles with fumbles. Then, we switch to how INT's are worse, which, is partially true, partially not. Depends on the situation. In my view, an INT is probably a bit better because the throw is downfield, as opposed to a fumble closer to the original line of scrimmage, giving the opposing team a shorter field to work with. That's an over-generalization, but so is "the ball is more worn, so they must fumble the ball more... new ball, problem fixed!"

But what's funny is the most effective way to actually avoid fumbling is to throw the ball more. I'd like to see the fumble numbers for Texas Tech during their Air Raid days. They're probably freakin' amazing! That's with worn balls!

 
In all reality the balls being broke in probably dont effect our fumbling issues all that much, compared to brand new balls. What causes fumbles are usually 3 things

1. The ball carrier lacks proper placement of the ball and it gets away from his body and/or he is carrying it like a damn loaf of bread and when he gets hit he just flat out loses it.

2. The defender just lays a perfect hit, usually with his helmet hitting directly on the ball causing the fumble

3. The ball carrier just doesn't see the hit coming and therefor is unable to brace for the hit causing the ball to pop out.

I do know that when I played balls right out of the package seemed awfully slick so we would use them Wednesday and Thursday practices before the game so when gameday rolled around the preservative oil crap on them had worn off and they were good and tacky. If anything I would think that a ball truly fresh out of the package would be harder to hold then a ball slightly worn in.

However the same goes for a ball that has been used since day 1 of fall camp, them S.O.B.s got so worn out that they became slick if they got very much moisture on them at all.

 
How about using a really slick ball in practice and a tacky one in the game?
default_dunno.gif


 
BigRedBuster said:
How about using a really slick ball in practice and a tacky one in the game?
default_dunno.gif
Click to expand...
For running the ball, probably a good plan. They do use towels to wrap the footballs from time to time to make them harder to hold on to. But for scrimmages, it could cause problems in the passing game. You want to practice with what you play with.

 
The Dude said:
What does this even mean, by the way? Is there some universal way to carry a loaf of bread that I don't know about? I usually just grab the end of the bag it's in.
Click to expand...
if i saw you carrying that bread, it would be on the turf in no time.

 
I first heard "carrying it like a loaf of bread" in reference to Tommie. I have no idea where it came from, but we're talking 20 years of shelf life on that phrase.

 
isn't it just when you carry it with one hand away from your body? that is always when i hears. i think cam does that a lot. a lot of qb's who jettison out of the pocket seem to do it.

 
sd said:
isn't it just when you carry it with one hand away from your body? that is always when i hears. i think cam does that a lot. a lot of qb's who jettison out of the pocket seem to do it.
Click to expand...

Yes. People said it of Michael Vick all the time too.

 
So do our QBs prefer old, moldy loaves of bread rather than something fresh from the bakery?

 
knapplc said:
I first heard "carrying it like a loaf of bread" in reference to Tommie. I have no idea where it came from, but we're talking 20 years of shelf life on that phrase.
Click to expand...
After I first heard that term, I actually started to make a conscious decision to carry my loaves of bread like footballs when I'm in the store.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top