Turnovers and Penalties

[cstrunk]

Four games have now passed and ISU has had problems in both categories in all games played. I think it's safe to say that this is a trend that we're going to be seeing the rest of the year, unfortunately.

Does anyone think that we'll remarkably get these two problems fixed over the last two-thirds of the season? Or do most people agree that we will see it all year?

It's pretty safe to say, IMO, that if we don't get much of a turnaround in these categories, we will not go bowling.

 

[Drive4cy]

I don't think it will happen every game but it's certainly a real problem.

I would love to see ISU put together a complete, 4 quarter game at some point. We haven't sniffed that yet.

 

[ajk4st8]

Penalties get better. Turnovers will not.

 

[ISUAlum2002]

We're far enough into the season now that our team is what it is. You know that saying "you are what your record says you are?" I think it applies here, too. Our stats are what they say we are. I think it's probably wishful thinking that with our team heading into the heavy portion of the schedule they'll be able to improve on these key game factors.

 

[BryceC]

Completely agree. This is an undisciplined team that plays undisciplined football. One third of the season is in the books and it's been the same every game.

 

[chrishull14]

We have no idea what will happen. This is completely on the players. They must decide for themselves what kind of team they want to be. Are they the bad news bears? Or are they on the verge of greatness and just going through growing pains?

 

[Clones85']

Easier to change now. Easier to get message across to your team after a loss. They didn't think they had to listen before b/c they were winning and feeling confident. Now they see what the errors do and it will be fixed. Mark it down!

 

[CycloneRulzzz]

Four games have now passed and ISU has had problems in both categories in all games played. I think it's safe to say that this is a trend that we're going to be seeing the rest of the year, unfortunately.

Does anyone think that we'll remarkably get these two problems fixed over the last two-thirds of the season? Or do most people agree that we will see it all year?

It's pretty safe to say, IMO, that if we don't get much of a turnaround in these categories, we will not go bowling.

if it couldn't get corrected with 2 weeks off it's not going to happen. It's all mental now. It's almost like they are trying to out do themselves with how bad they begin a game;

 

[chrishull14]

They are still 3-1. If they play to their potential, they could be 5-1 when we see them again. Or...they could add 2011 to the long list of Cyclone football disappointments.

 

[CloneFan4]

Saturdays game will be the turning point of this season in those two categories. It may take some time but we will steadily get better on this as the season progresses.

 

[Doc]

It's kind of hard to pick an option, because I think they'll be reduced, but still be a problem.

The way our receivers have been blocking out in space has been scaring me all season. They are really trying hard to block, but are a little overzealous. They just have to find a happy medium, and I think they will. Our offense will continue to be TO prone, but I don't think these brutal 1st quarters can possibly continue -- maybe we'll just get one TO in the 1st instead of 3 from here on out.

 

[ahaselhu]

Remember that Jantz has been in a D1 program for only what, 6 months, and that he has limited experience outside of that. Given that a lot of our turnovers can be attributed directly to him (8 or 9 out of 14), I'd say that it's fair to believe that our TOs will decrease as the year goes on, but they will be a problem to some extent throughout the year.

 

[VeloClone]

Get better, yes. Fixed, no.

 

[BMWallace]

I think that is one of the few upsides to this loss. Up till now the players have been able to get by with giving up 3/4/5 turnovers a game and over 100 yards in penalties and still win. Now that they lost (got their ***** handed to them) the coaches should really be able to bear down on them for all the mental mistakes. Its sad that it took a massive loss, but if it helps the team in the long run ill take it. That said, I am still worried about the o-line being so dinged up.

 

[kkise]

Easier to change now. Easier to get message across to your team after a loss. They didn't think they had to listen before b/c they were winning and feeling confident. Now they see what the errors do and it will be fixed. Mark it down!

I agree. The loss grabs the team's attention.

 

[TedKumsher]

Can I get an answer in between those 2? I think it'll be a problem all season, but not as bad as it's been.

 

[TedKumsher]

Remember that Jantz has been in a D1 program for only what, 6 months, and that he has limited experience outside of that. Given that a lot of our turnovers can be attributed directly to him (8 or 9 out of 14), I'd say that it's fair to believe that our TOs will decrease as the year goes on, but they will be a problem to some extent throughout the year.

Sorry -- but he's played right at 20% of the games he will play as a Cyclone (and that assumes he won't get injured). He doesn't have the luxury of that excuse.

 

[jaretac]

I think both will get better. People forget how many young players we do have out there. Will this team go from being what it is to being what it could be before the season ends? I hope so, but I doubt it. If this team played smart football like the 2009 team we will win a lot of games.

 

[jaretac]

Sorry -- but he's played right at 20% of the games he will play as a Cyclone (and that assumes he won't get injured). He doesn't have the luxury of that excuse.

I think people need to get off Steels butt a little bit. His turnovers:

UNI: 3
Iowa: 0
UConn: 3
Texas: 1.5 (if you count the hand off which is partly the RB issue too)

He has had two bad games. One was the first game in Div 1 and one was his first road game (and a long road game at that). The Texas game he actually wan't that bad in. I threw one pick, and that was against a great defense. The hand off you could partially blame on him, but you also have to blame it on the RB.

I find it strange that people aren't talking more about the fumbles, particularly by the running backs. We have had as many fumbles as picks and the fumbles always seem to be at the worst time. It's not just Jantz that is the issue, it's the team. I think we will see SJ do better as the games go on, but the fumbles haven't slowed down at all. In fact they have gotten worse.

Fumbles- lost:
UNI: 2-1
Iowa: 3-3
UConn: 0-0
Texas: 3-2

 

[TedKumsher]

I think people need to get off Steels butt a little bit. His turnovers:

UNI: 3
Iowa: 0
UConn: 3
Texas: 1.5 (if you count the hand off which is partly the RB issue too)

He has had two bad games. One was the first game in Div 1 and one was his first road game (and a long road game at that). The Texas game he actually wan't that bad in. I threw one pick, and that was against a great defense. The hand off you could partially blame on him, but you also have to blame it on the RB.

I find it strange that people aren't talking more about the fumbles, particularly by the running backs. We have had as many fumbles as picks and the fumbles always seem to be at the worst time. It's not just Jantz that is the issue, it's the team. I think we will see SJ do better as the games go on, but the fumbles haven't slowed down at all.

I know you probably quoted me as an example -- but just for the record, people keep talking about "it's only his 4th ever start". But a football (regular) season is only 12 games. That's 33% of an entire season. It's not like basketball with 30 games a season, or MLB with 162. 4 games IS A LOT MORE THAN IT SEEMS.

Also for the record -- I think Jantz is great. I think the "only 4 games" argument is unnecessary. If anything, it weakens any pro-Jantz arguments by offering a crutch -- a plausible excuse. It implies that there are stupid errors from inexperience. Instead, just look at his relatively normal ups and downs without factoring in experience. Then you can realize that he'll probably have fewer and shallower downs as he gains experience.

I probably sounded down on Jantz -- when I really just don't like the "inexperience" excuse.