That wasn't what I got out of it at all. I think he's attempting to disspell the football cliche, "the turnover battle is key."
He's trying to say the "turnover battle" as we know it is a bit flawed, as it doesn't take into account something like missed field goals, which is really in essence a turnover...you lose momentum as your team has just committed an error, you lose your chance to score on this drive, and you lose an oppurtunity to push the opposition's starting field position backwards (in fact, it moves the OTHER way 7 yards). In effect, a missed field goal isn't much different than a fumble, yet a fumble helps decide the turnover battle and a missed field goal does not.
In addition to omitting missed field goals, the "turnover battle" DOES include desperation tosses at the end of a half, which don't really have an impact on the game. These insignificant plays are given just as much credence in the turnover battle as any INT or fumble.
I think he's saying that raw turnover numbers shouldn't be taken at face value, and that when ESPN tells you Team A has 4 turnovers and Team B has 1 turnover, that isn't telling you the whole story. That 4-1 "turnover battle" may not be all that significant as it might not represent exactly what's happened.