The Pats, the Giants, and the Turnover story

[ivanvamp]

In SB 42, there were 2 turnovers and 4 potential turnovers.

(1) With the Pats up 7-3, and the Giants driving, Eli throws a pass that is tipped and intercepted by Ellis Hobbs at the NE 10. Big break for the Pats, but a nice play by Hobbs. That saved the Pats at least 3 points.

(2) The next Giants' possession, Eli is sacked and fumbles. Pierre Woods recovers but as he's on the ground, Ahmad Bradshaw dives for the ball. In my view, this was a missed call by the refs...with Woods in possession, the *instant* Bradshaw touches him Woods should be down by contact. But they allow the pile, and Bradshaw rips the ball away from Woods. The Pats would have had the ball at the NY 30 with a chance to score to go up 14-3. That would have almost certainly been a game-changing play right there.

(3) Later in the 2nd quarter, Eli has the Giants driving. He is sacked again and fumbles but it's recovered by the Giants at the NE 20. A penalty costs the Giants so they don't score regardless.

(4) Pats last drive of the half....marching. 22 seconds left, they have the ball at the NY 44. Brady gets sacked and fumbles, and the Giants recover, killing the chance for a FG that could have put NE up 10-3.

So that's 4 turnover opportunities, and just one of them was recovered by the Patriots. Three fumbles, and all three were recovered by the Giants.

Now, what about this season's matchup?

There were 7 turnover opportunities. The Pats got 2 (one INT, one fumble recovery). The Giants got 5 (2 INT, 3 fumble recoveries). Again, let's focus on the fumbles, because those are more random. Of the 4 fumbles, 3 were recovered by the Giants.

So in their last two games between the Giants and Patriots, there were 7 fumbles, 4 by the Giants and 3 by the Patriots. And of the 7, just *one* was recovered by the Patriots.

Again, causing fumbles can be a skill. Recovering them is quite a bit of luck. You'd expect luck to even out, but in their last two games, it hasn't. You just don't expect 6 out of 7 fumbles to be recovered by one team.

All that happened, and the Giants barely won both games - it took everything they had to win those games.

So here's the question: do we expect the Giants to recover the vast majority of fumbles? Because if those fumbles end up at even 4-3 Giants, the outcomes of those last two meetings are quite likely different.

 

[Fball]

The Giants, just in general, have been a lucky team the past few years. Remember the play against AZ earlier this year, when Cruz left the ball on the turf at the end of the game but the officials called him down?

I'm not sure that Woods actually had the ball in that last SB, though; he fell on it, but the replays never showed him w/ his hands on it.

That said, it's hard to forget a few missed opportunities on Eli's last drive...

 

[The Brandon Five]

In SB 42, there were 2 turnovers and 4 potential turnovers.

(1) With the Pats up 7-3, and the Giants driving, Eli throws a pass that is tipped and intercepted by Ellis Hobbs at the NE 10. Big break for the Pats, but a nice play by Hobbs. That saved the Pats at least 3 points.

It's too bad for Ellis that our last memory of him will be the blown coverage on Burress. He never should have been put in that position as Plax was burning him most of the game. Rewatching the game I noticed Sanders rushing the passer. Great idea.

(2) The next Giants' possession, Eli is sacked and fumbles. Pierre Woods recovers but as he's on the ground, Ahmad Bradshaw dives for the ball. In my view, this was a missed call by the refs...with Woods in possession, the *instant* Bradshaw touches him Woods should be down by contact. But they allow the pile, and Bradshaw rips the ball away from Woods. The Pats would have had the ball at the NY 30 with a chance to score to go up 14-3. That would have almost certainly been a game-changing play right there.

Watching the game again for the first time recently this was one of the calls that really pissed me off. Horrible.

(3) Later in the 2nd quarter, Eli has the Giants driving. He is sacked again and fumbles but it's recovered by the Giants at the NE 20. A penalty costs the Giants so they don't score regardless.

It's like nobody wanted the ball. That thing bounced all over the place.

(4) Pats last drive of the half....marching. 22 seconds left, they have the ball at the NY 44. Brady gets sacked and fumbles, and the Giants recover, killing the chance for a FG that could have put NE up 10-3.

It's easy to forget that we were able to move the ball against them for stretches in that game (the first drive, the drive here, the last TD drive).

So that's 4 turnover opportunities, and just one of them was recovered by the Patriots. Three fumbles, and all three were recovered by the Giants.

Now, what about this season's matchup?

There were 7 turnover opportunities. The Pats got 2 (one INT, one fumble recovery). The Giants got 5 (2 INT, 3 fumble recoveries). Again, let's focus on the fumbles, because those are more random. Of the 4 fumbles, 3 were recovered by the Giants.

So in their last two games between the Giants and Patriots, there were 7 fumbles, 4 by the Giants and 3 by the Patriots. And of the 7, just *one* was recovered by the Patriots.

Again, causing fumbles can be a skill. Recovering them is quite a bit of luck. You'd expect luck to even out, but in their last two games, it hasn't. You just don't expect 6 out of 7 fumbles to be recovered by one team.

All that happened, and the Giants barely won both games - it took everything they had to win those games.

So here's the question: do we expect the Giants to recover the vast majority of fumbles? Because if those fumbles end up at even 4-3 Giants, the outcomes of those last two meetings are quite likely different.

An interesting point. The Pats have been one of the best in the league in turnover differential but the Gints just beat the two best largely due to turnovers. Let's hope that the boys do a good job of holding on to the ball and maybe a few bounces go our way for a change.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Unless the fumbler recovers his own miscue, you expect the defensive team to recover a fumble much more often than not, since the defenders are converging on the ball-carrier while the offensive players are not.

That the Giants recovered so many of their own fumbles would be to be pretty fortunate.

If you were to assure me that we will win the turnover battle on Sunday, most of my anxiety would be completely gone. Our odds of winning would shoot up to 95% or so, historically, in that case.

 

[BradyManny]

Good post.

It's truly remarkable how much one play can change a game, and SB42 shows this more than any other game.

It also all comes back to the fact that the more possessions in that game, the more likely it is the Pats come out on top.

The Woods non-recovery was a huge one. If that game goes to 14-3, with the Pats getting another crack at a score to end the half and open the 2nd half - things sure turn out differently. The Patriots could've run their offense differently playing with a lead and slowed down the Giants pass rush. It very well could've ended up a 7-14 point victory for the Pats.

The Brady fumble is another big one - mostly b/c McDaniels and Brady have both said Moss was open for a TD if Brady gets that ball off.

Obviously, 4th & 13 was huge - as were the plays that led up to it that took them out of (perceived) field goal range. Still, they oughta have kicked it, no doubt.

Heck, you can - in a very odd way - even say that the Brady-to-Moss TD that put us up 14-10 led to the events that cost us the game. The Giants would've punted on their 4th & 1 had it been a tie game, and we likely would've marched down the field with just under 2 minutes left and hit a field goal to win the game. Now this one is stretching it, but you get the point.

Basically - if you want to win a Super Bowl, you can't have all these plays go against you.

 

[patsfaninpa]

Let's look back at the two conference championship games. On both of Brady's interceptions the Raven player made a great catch. Webb with a diving over the shoulder catch and Smith with a great snag after Pollard made a great tip. San Fran dropped two interceptions because their own defenders ran into each other. Manning could have just as easily had two int's and Brady none. The defenders have to make plays. Simple as that. Chung dropped an int on the play he hurt his foot last game. Can't happen this week.
Ahmad Bradshaw fumbles but the play is blown dead. Good call IMO. Forward progress was stopped and he wasn't resisting. But, he does have a tendency to fumble. I think we can force 2-3 turnovers. And, probably will have to in order to win. Amazing we lost turnover battle and won 2 playoff games. Especially, the Baltimore game.

 

[Patradomous]

I've been hammering this point on two different forums.
Pats have to win the TO battle to win the game.
Giants have been lucky in the TO department.
The worm turns this week.

The Woods non-recovery was a huge one. If that game goes to 14-3, with the Pats getting another crack at a score to end the half and open the 2nd half - things sure turn out differently. The Patriots could've run their offense differently playing with a lead and slowed down the Giants pass rush. It very well could've ended up a 7-14 point victory for the Pats.

that bothered more than anything and it hardly gets mentioned.

 

[ivanvamp]

I've been hammering this point on two different forums.
Pats have to win the TO battle to win the game.
Giants have been lucky in the TO department.
The worm turns this week.

I don't think they need to "win" the TO battle. They just can't "lose" the TO battle. If the turnovers are even, I think that's ok. The Giants have been winning because, primarily, of their huge TO advantage.

Playoffs (3-0): 6 takeaways vs. 1 giveaway (6.0:1 ratio)
Last 5 games (5-0): 11 takeaways vs. 2 giveaways (5.5:1 ratio)
First 14 games (7-7): 26 takeaways vs. 23 giveaways (1.1:1 ratio)

Look at that again.

Meanwhile, here are the Pats' numbers:

Playoffs (2-0): 2 takeaways vs. 5 giveaways (0.4:1 ratio)
Last 5 games (5-0): 11 takeaways vs. 6 giveaways (1.8:1 ratio)
First 13 games (8-3): 25 takeaways vs. 16 giveaways (1.6:1 ratio)

In other words, the Pats, in their last 5, have been essentially just as successful at the turnover game as they were in their previous 13. And they're winning just as they were earlier in the year.

But the Giants....whoa...very different story. Most of the year they were essentially 50-50 in the turnover department, and not surprisingly, their record was 7-7. But in their last 5 (even more in their last three), they have been COMPLETELY dominant in the turnover game.

THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why the Giants have been winning. Eli has been the same Eli as he has been all year. Many of the Giants' other stats are similar. It's the turnover game they've suddenly been dominating, and that is why they are on such a roll.

And they *need* to win the turnover battle to win this game. I think if the turnover ratio is even, the Pats should win.

 

[Beecke]

Since we are talking about things that were: Here is a breakdown from CHFF about who was peaking 2007 and how it looks now.

Pretty interesting, make of it what you will.
Patriots-Giants Tour de Statistical Force: who's peaking? | Cold Hard Football Facts

 

[Mark.]

Since we are talking about things that were: Here is a breakdown from CHFF about who was peaking 2007 and how it looks now.

Pretty interesting, make of it what you will.
Patriots-Giants Tour de Statistical Force: who's peaking? | Cold Hard Football Facts

Great find-thanks for sharing!

 

[ivanvamp]

I don't think they need to "win" the TO battle. They just can't "lose" the TO battle. If the turnovers are even, I think that's ok. The Giants have been winning because, primarily, of their huge TO advantage.

Playoffs (3-0): 6 takeaways vs. 1 giveaway (6.0:1 ratio)
Last 5 games (5-0): 11 takeaways vs. 2 giveaways (5.5:1 ratio)
First 14 games (7-7): 26 takeaways vs. 23 giveaways (1.1:1 ratio)

Look at that again.

Meanwhile, here are the Pats' numbers:

Playoffs (2-0): 2 takeaways vs. 5 giveaways (0.4:1 ratio)
Last 5 games (5-0): 11 takeaways vs. 6 giveaways (1.8:1 ratio)
First 13 games (8-3): 25 takeaways vs. 16 giveaways (1.6:1 ratio)

Follow-up: The last 5 games, here are the fumbles in Giants' games:

at NYJ:
- NYG: 0 fumbles
- NYJ: 1 fumble (NYG)
*1 total fumble, 1 NYG recovery

vs Dal:
- NYG: 2 fumbles (2 NYG)
- Dal: 2 fumbles (1 NYG)
*4 total fumbles, 3 NYG recoveries

vs Atl - no fumbles at all

at GB:
- NYG: 0 fumbles
- GB: 3 fumbles (3 NYG)
*3 total fumbles, 3 NYG recoveries

at SF:
- NYG: 1 fumble (NYG)
- SF: 4 fumbles (2 NYG, 2 SF)
*5 total fumbles, 3 NYG recoveries

So in their last 5 games, the Giants have fumbled the ball 3 times, and all three of them were recovered by the Giants. They have forced 10 fumbles, and 7 of them were recovered by the Giants.

All in all, there have been 13 fumbles, and the Giants have recovered 10 of them (76.9%). That's a crazy number.