Funny thing

**laram0** · #1 (**permalink**) -20-11-2007

Through our first 8 games we had a -11 turnover ratio-lost all 8 games.

Recently we have put together back to back wins on the road no less.

vs Saints we had a +2 turnover ratio

vs Whiners we also had a +2 turnover ratio.

Hmmmm

Dang those turnovers earlier this season by Steven Jackson, Torry Holt, Dante' Hall, Gus Frerotte & Marc Bulger!

We could very easily be 5-5 right now.

*AlphaRam* · #2 (**permalink**) -20-11-2007

You are correct, sir!

*r8rh8rmike* · #3 (**permalink**) -20-11-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by laram0

Dang those turnovers earlier this season by Steven Jackson, Torry Holt, Dante' Hall, Gus Frerotte & Marc Bulger!

We could very easily be 5-5 right now.

Yep, those were killers for sure. When your team is playing on margin and struggling, turnovers can make all the difference. We need to continue the trend of holding onto the ball if we want to beat Seattle.

*Keenum* · #4 (**permalink**) -20-11-2007

Not a funny thing, just simple football teachings:
It's hard to win when you turn the ball over and don't get it back.

*RAMFANRAIDERHATER* · #5 (**permalink**) -20-11-2007

You are correct sir. Many of us made this point during the "slide". However, some others claimed it was nothing more than bad play-calling and defended the "culprits" who turned the ball over, saying Linehan should have made adjustments, or somehow done some coaching magic that would have negated the turnovers. The truth is, and will always be, the team that turns the ball over the most, usually loses.

It's amazing that we've been in any of these games with the front line we've got, and other key injuries. Yet we should have, or could have won at least the first ****** game, the Cards game and the Browns game. It would have been possible to beat the Panthers as well, if not for a couple of key turnovers.

In the days of the GSOT, we were capable of scoring so many points that we could overcome a turnover or two. But this isn't the GSOT. The GSOT is now playing in New England. (not Detroit as some have suggested)

*moloch41* · #6 (**permalink**) -20-11-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAMFANRAIDERHATER

The GSOT is now playing in New England. (not Detroit as some have suggested)

Wouldn't they be the GSOG?

**txramsfan** · #7 (**permalink**) -20-11-2007

Well, maybe 3-7. The Holt fumble was a killer earlier against the whiners but other than that I don't really think we were even competitive in the rest of the games we lost.

*moloch41* · #8 (**permalink**) -20-11-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by txramsfan

Well, maybe 3-7. The Holt fumble was a killer earlier against the whiners but other than that I don't really think we were even competitive in the rest of the games we lost.

We were competitive in the Browns game, but couldn't make adjustments on defense to stop their WRs. Apparently, Haslett was convinved that Fahkir Brown could cover Edwards one on one without blitzing.

**txramsfan** · #9 (**permalink**) -20-11-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by moloch41

We were competitive in the Browns game, but couldn't make adjustments on defense to stop their WRs. Apparently, Haslett was convinved that Fahkir Brown could cover Edwards one on one without blitzing.

Yea, but I really don't think that game had much to do with turnovers. I thought that was the "gist" of this thread.