Turnovers in 2018

[Captain Uberpants]

I think we’ll cause less TOs but we’ll have a few less on offense as well so I expect us to still be top 10 in margin.

 

[DTP]

I am a firm believer that turnovers are FORCED. Maybe there's an occasional fluke play where the ball falls out of the runner's hand but most of the time players fumble because they get hit hard and/or the ball gets ripped out. Interceptions occasionally occur because a quarterback makes a terrible throw but most of the time passes get intercepted because defenders A)goad QBs into thinking they have an open man and B) are in the right place to jump a route and pick off a pass or C) the rush pressures the QB into making a poor throw.

To say the turnovers the defense forced last year were a fluke is insulting to the defense and the coaches. Now, there may not be as many this year because teams are so conscious of the chain but all that does is limit what our opponents can do. If an opponent is so scared to turn the ball over, that they play uber conservative, it's a win for the defense too.

 

[Cribby]

Turnovers are such a slippery stat to track, because so much goes into them. Sometimes a turnover is absolutely the result of a brilliant defensive play - Garvin's strip/sack/fumble recovery, Bandy's pick-6, etc. Sometimes it's a dumb play by the offense - QB throwing a duck, muffed punt, etc. Sometimes it's just dumb luck. My main focus would be that our general turnover stats remain relatively consistent year-to-year (i.e. we don't drop from 5th to 117th or something) and that from an "eye test" perspective we're still playing with the kind of mentality that *creates* turnovers, if that makes sense.

Exactly.

That’s why I don’t pay the turnover stat much mind.

Like you said , a lot goes into a turnover. And I’d say majority of the time it’s attributed more by the offense F’ing up than the D actually forcing it.

Im not saying the d can’t force them , it’s just normally more on the o. It’s a break, some years you get more breaks than others

 

[ghost2]

Exactly.

That’s why I don’t pay the turnover stat much mind.

Like you said , a lot goes into a turnover. And I’d say majority of the time it’s attributed more by the offense F’ing up than the D actually forcing it.

Im not saying the d can’t force them , it’s just normally more on the o. It’s a break, some years you get more breaks than others

I do think that in addition to just having a consistently aggressive defense, there is a quantifiable psychological effect that turnovers have on opposing teams. It's human nature that mistakes tend to breed other mistakes if you let them, and that's why the turnover chain was so brilliant, IMO. Look no further than the ND game - that thing was in their heads BEFORE KICKOFF. It's also why turnovers can be so hot and cold. Once they stop coming in bunches (like they did for most of 2017), it's more difficult to get them back, which is where having that overall philosophy of aggression comes into play. Play the D the right way, and the turnovers will come.

 

[scrantoncane]

Exactly.

That’s why I don’t pay the turnover stat much mind.

Like you said , a lot goes into a turnover. And I’d say majority of the time it’s attributed more by the offense F’ing up than the D actually forcing it.

Im not saying the d can’t force them , it’s just normally more on the o. It’s a break, some years you get more breaks than others

Up until today, when I gave it some thought, I would have agreed with you. But I’m leaning the other way.

Do you not attribute anything to our aggressive defensive scheme? Do you think, everything else equal, our scheme would cause more TOs than the average team, or even because they are a fluke?

 

[Cribby]

I do think that in addition to just having a consistently aggressive defense, there is a quantifiable psychological effect that turnovers have on opposing teams. It's human nature that mistakes tend to breed other mistakes if you let them, and that's why the turnover chain was so brilliant, IMO. Look no further than the ND game - that thing was in their heads BEFORE KICKOFF. It's also why turnovers can be so hot and cold. Once they stop coming in bunches (like they did for most of 2017), it's more difficult to get them back, which is where having that overall philosophy of aggression comes into play. Play the D the right way, and the turnovers will come.

Aggression works for and against ya, so there’s that point. You’re aggressive you get more turnovers , sacks and tfl. But it can hurt ya too. It killed us on third downs or in long yardage situations. It seems like it’s just a feast or famine kindve scheme.

 

[Cribby]

Up until today, when I gave it some thought, I would have agreed with you. But I’m leaning the other way.

Do you not attribute anything to our aggressive defensive scheme? Do you think, everything else equal, our scheme would cause more TOs than the average team, or even because they are a fluke?

I can see that too. I’m kindve in the same boat as you. It’s a very aggressive d. Almost too aggressive.

Like I said to ghost “ maybe it’s just a feast or famine type of scheme. And that’s just how it’ll be.

Maybe this is the exception to my belief lol.

 

[ghost2]

Aggression works for and against ya, so there’s that point. You’re aggressive you get more turnovers , sacks and tfl. But it can hurt ya too. It killed us on third downs or in long yardage situations. It seems like it’s just a feast or famine kindve scheme.

Absolutely it's a feast or famine scheme. This defense under Diaz will live and die by sacks, TFLs, and turnovers. When those things are rolling, we're unstoppable. When they're not... (hence the 3rd down %, IMO.)

Now, I don't think we need dial down the aggression. I really don't - aggression is a philosophy, and once you start tinkering with that, it's hard to get it back. I think there are some ways to scheme around some of the gaping holes in the defense without sacrificing getting upfield as fast as possible.

AND, the one thing Diaz's scheme has been sorely missing is a ballhawking, ground-covering safety. I'd go so far as to say his scheme revolves around rangy safety play, and we really haven't had that under his watch yet.

 

[warpigs58]

I’ll trade a few to’s for an increase in 3rd down conversions.

Bingo! If our defense isn’t on the field as much because our offense is more effective and moving the chains there shouldn’t be as many turnovers as last year....

 

[Loose Cannon]

I read a comment where a poster predicted we wouldn't be as good this season because we wouldn't cause/create as many turnovers. It got me thinking, will we?

We caused 31 turnovers last year - 14 fumble recoveries and 17 interceptions. For reference, we lost 4 fumbles and threw 14 INTs, for a +15 margin - good for (t) 5th in the nation.

While my initial gut feeling was "no, we have to go down," I am not so sure. Assuming no changes to the style and playcalling, there is no reason the aggression shouldn't continue to cause TOs. Conversely, it leaves us suspect to gaps, holes, big plays, etc. But I, and many others here, would prefer to err on the side of aggression (a byproduct of the D'Nof years).

What does everyone think? Will we continue at our current pace, or will it come back to earth a little?

Just food for thought:

The notion that we had some kind of amazing year in the turnover department last season is mostly born out of the many years of mediocrity. For comparison, last season we forced 31 turnovers in 13 games, or 2.3 per game on average.

In our last championship season of 2001, we forced 45 turnovers over the course of an 11 game regular season, or 4.1 per game.

 

[CashMoneyCane]

I read a comment where a poster predicted we wouldn't be as good this season because we wouldn't cause/create as many turnovers. It got me thinking, will we?

We caused 31 turnovers last year - 14 fumble recoveries and 17 interceptions. For reference, we lost 4 fumbles and threw 14 INTs, for a +15 margin - good for (t) 5th in the nation.

While my initial gut feeling was "no, we have to go down," I am not so sure. Assuming no changes to the style and playcalling, there is no reason the aggression shouldn't continue to cause TOs. Conversely, it leaves us suspect to gaps, holes, big plays, etc. But I, and many others here, would prefer to err on the side of aggression (a byproduct of the D'Nof years).

What does everyone think? Will we continue at our current pace, or will it come back to earth a little?

While in agreement with most here in that turnovers are a weak statistic (from a stats standpoint), I will point out that the two players tied for most turnovers on the team last season (Johnson and Jackson) both return next season.

Question for me is how much pressure will the line generate? I see the ends being better and the DT's not as good.

 

[Hurricane23]

Pressure, pressure, pressure is what cause turnovers, pressures causes bad throws, pressure cause fumbles.....pressure burst pipes.

 

[BoxingRobes]

Once you get accustomed to making turnovers the culture usually carries over. The players who made them are still here

Turnovers, statistically, are luck based - or random, however you'd prefer to conceptualize it. Either way, there is no such thing as a "culture of turnovers"

Article is focused on the NFL, but the same can be attributed to the college game. Examining Luck in NFL Turnovers

If you've ever read a Phil Steele preview magazine, its one of the hallmarks of his preview magazine every year when he talks about the team repeating luck based factors.

If you are expecting a repeat of 2017 in 2018 in regard to the Turnover Chain, you're going to be disappointed. Miami can equal or best their win total from 2017 in 2018, but it won't come in the same way. They'll need to once again limit turnovers, but they'll need to get off the field on third down, generate longer drives on offense, etc.

 

[brock]

While in agreement with most here in that turnovers are a weak statistic (from a stats standpoint), I will point out that the two players tied for most turnovers on the team last season (Johnson and Jackson) both return next season.

Question for me is how much pressure will the line generate? I see the ends being better and the DT's not as good.

I think People overstate the loss of both McIntosh and Norton sometimes, was McIntosh really good? Yes but he and especially Norton didn’t provide much as a pass rusher. You bring in a player just as good if not better than either of them in Gerald Willis who practiced all fall last season and have other talent at dt.

And let’s also not forget how bad our run defense was at times early on in some games that was due to the play of the dts too

 

[Gatorhater]

Those turnovers weren't just dumb luck, we didn't accidentally get those fumbles & INT's, they were forced.

Our team didn't have a lot of turnovers in the 2016 season, so the Defense went into 2017 with the clear cut objective to force more turnovers. That's where the Turnover chain idea came from, Diaz, Rumph & Banda thinking of something to incentivize the Defense to be more hungry & have something to rally around.

It was strategic, not random. Bandy didn't just wander into that lane, he knew where the Ball was going before it was thrown & housed it. Go watch all the fumbles we had last year, the ball carrier didn't just drop it, our guys hit or knocked the ball out of their possession.

Will we have as many as we did last year, who knows? But TO's are apart of the identity of a Defense, it's a concerted effort to create them as much as possible. Usually, whichever team wins the turnover battle wins the game.

We have more depth in the Secondary, sucks we won't have Malek this season but I think they'll be fine. The LB corps is deep spearheaded by veteran leadership of Shaq & Pinckney. The only real question is how much will losing 4 starters on the DLine impact us? Can Coach Simpson get Willis, Bethel, Ford, Silvera, Miller & Tito to all play lights out? I believe he will.

I expect major improvements on 3rd down as well. Also, we're probably going to have to score more on Defense this year too.

What he said.

 

[Gatorhater]

I think People overstate the loss of both McIntosh and Norton sometimes, was McIntosh really good? Yes but he and especially Norton didn’t provide much as a pass rusher. You bring in a player just as good if not better than either of them in Gerald Willis who practiced all fall last season and have other talent at dt.

And let’s also not forget how bad our run defense was at times early on in some games that was due to the play of the dts too

The biggest thing about this recruiting class is not the couple pieces of crap recruits we lmissed but the two beasts we got. Our two new DTs are old school Miami type DTs. Best of luck to McIntosh and Norton, but I am rubbing my hands together waiting for the first Miller/Nesta assault on the dignity of the oppossing pocket. These two are the grizzly bear types we have been missing. Our DE will be feasting on QBs running for thier lives.

 

[DTP]

Just food for thought:

The notion that we had some kind of amazing year in the turnover department last season is mostly born out of the many years of mediocrity. For comparison, last season we forced 31 turnovers in 13 games, or 2.3 per game on average.

In our last championship season of 2001, we forced 45 turnovers over the course of an 11 game regular season, or 4.1 per game.

Good point. As much hype as we got from the turnover chain, there were still three or four teams that forced more turnovers than Miami last year. We need to stop thinking that last year was some kind of aberration and unrealistic standard. As long as we keep up the aggression and keep recruiting the types of players we need, we'll keep seeing big turnover numbers.

 

[scrantoncane]

I think People overstate the loss of both McIntosh and Norton sometimes, was McIntosh really good? Yes but he and especially Norton didn’t provide much as a pass rusher. You bring in a player just as good if not better than either of them in Gerald Willis who practiced all fall last season and have other talent at dt.

And let’s also not forget how bad our run defense was at times early on in some games that was due to the play of the dts too

Come on, Brock. McIntosh dominated games for long stretches at a time. Unproven Willis is as good or better?!

Losing those two guys took us from a legit playoff contender to a good team that would need a lot of luck and breaks to have an outside chance at playoffs.

 

[brock]

Come on, Brock. McIntosh dominated games for long stretches at a time. Unproven Willis is as good or better?!

Losing those two guys took us from a legit playoff contender to a good team that would need a lot of luck and breaks to have an outside chance at playoffs.

I said McIntosh was very good, but disappeared down the stretch(last 3 games) and was awful vs clemson and Wisconsin.
Willis had a 5.5 tfls and 1.5 sacks in 9 game when healthy in 2016 as a backup, imagine if he would have started so he’s not unproven as you say he is . It’s not like he was sitting on his *** all fall last season too. He practiced and has been in shape , Pete and dmoney had commented previously some thought he was Miami’s best dt regardless even over the 2 guys from last year. Quit writing the team off before the season is even played. Last time I checked the rushing defense was bad for majority of the season especially early and we didn’t get much pass rush productivity from those 2 either. There is talent at dt so see what they can do

 

[90scane]

Once you get accustomed to making turnovers the culture usually carries over. The players who made them are still here

McIntosh = 1
Harris = 1
Fines = 1
Delaney = 2
Young = 2

7 of 31 turnovers were from players no longer on the roster. The bigger issue isn't replacing the 7 turnovers but replacing the 4 experienced players on the DL: Norton, McIntosh, Thomas, Harris produced more than just turnovers.