The turnovers excuse

[Cyclone42]

I am really having a hard time with this. A lot of people have been using the turnovers excuse, saying basically "We really do have a good team. If it weren't for the turnovers, we would have won!"

I don't agree, because that argument has to go both ways. If you are going to subtract points from the other team and say we would have won if it weren't for whatever number of turnovers, then you should do the same the other way also. According to the box score, we had 3 turnovers, and they had 2. So if you subtract from each side accordingly, the score ends up being Neb. 14, ISU 3, and they still win.

Box score link:
- Statistics - Rivals.com

 

[ISUFan22]

Allow me to quote these stats for you...from BryceC's other post...

Check out these stats from our four losses:

First Downs: ISU 23.5, Opp 18.0
Total Yards: ISU 379.25, Opp 339.0
Possession Time: ISU 33 min, Opp 27 minutes

We're controlling the ball, gaining more yards, and getting first downs. The problem is:

Turnovers: ISU 15 Opp: 7
Points off turnovers: ISU 10 Opp: 58

I could be wrong on that last stat, but by everything I've found I think it's correct.

Those stats don't lie.

 

[Wesley]

We had 4 turnovers. They had three all in first quarter. Scales lost the handle because he was clumsy. Brett had one tipped up that Nlythe could have caught (Ruud); Grixby stepped in on route when Bret did not see him; Grixby caught aanother errant that might have bounced off a receiver. So we really had 2 braincramp plays among the 4 turnovers. Scales fumbled just like last year.

The 3 Red errors were a dumb toss by Keller to a covered person by Singleton, a goal line "damit" drop by Marlon Lucky, and a dumb as dirt drop by Cody "Paws" Glenn.

We lost the turnover battle, but the 93 and 44 yard interception returns killed us along with the numerous 50 yard kickoff returns.


Could have won, but let it get away again in the second half. Need to learn how to finish a game. Remember the last five minutes of Kent State when everyone left the JTS? Just do not get it done every week at end of the game.

 

[Wesley]

Allow me to quote these stats for you...from BryceC's other post...



Those stats don't lie.

Dan would not be happy....his team philosophy was built on winning turnover battle.

Clone Reality Check: Whoever wins turnover battle wins the game through our first five games.

Last year the key state was defense gave up 370 yards and offense gained 310 yards a game or a diff of 60 yards.

Now the yardage stat is overshadowed by 2 more turnovers a game (which are worth about 40 yards a turnover).

 

[CyCloned]

Okay: Here is the story----

1) The cyclones are not good, but they are not as bad as they appear

2) The turnovers are killing any chance an average team like ISU has of winning games. Most of these hav been bad passes.

3) I do not believe that ISU should be 5-0, but they should have a couple more wins. The defense and the OL have made huge strides in the first few games.

4) The main reason ISU is having all these problems is good old Dan left town with this team in the dumpster. No OL, a starting QB that can't read coverages, locks onto his receivers and doesn't do any progressions, plus last years backups that never saw the field in a game so they are learning under fire.

5) it is not just the TOs, it are the ones that get returned for scores....

 

[CTTB78]

Cycloned, point #4 is the key. Bret is not playing like a Big 12 QB that has played the minutes he has. I hope that GC will play Arnaud or Bates at least full halves the reason of the season. What's the point of playing Bret if he leads the nation in turnovers? We saw that last season in basketball.

 

[mwitt]

Clone Reality Check: Whoever wins turnover battle wins the game through our first five games.

We lost the turnover b attle in the Iowa game.

 

[brianhos]

It's pretty simple, good teams cause turnovers, bad teams give away turnovers. We are giving away right now. That does not mean we cannot get better, but once is a fluke, twice is a pattern, 3 times is a trend, 4 times is a law.

 

[CrossCyed]

I posted this on my blog, but we've turned the ball over twice in the red zone, five times within the opponents thirty, and eight times on the opponent's side of the field.

 

[Wesley]

We lost the turnover b attle in the Iowa game.

Burst my bubble.:wubclub: We have not won the turnover battle yet. Will we ever?

 

[CYdTracked]

Good teams don't commit turnovers. It's part of the game, you either don't commit them or you find a way to compensate and win regardless.

 

[mwitt]

I don't think anyone is saying that we're a good football team, we just have had some bad luck with turnovers.

I think people are saying that we CAN be a decent football team if we were able to eliminate some of those turnovers. It's been well documented that this team is improving. Hopefully by the Kansas game, we're not turning the ball over at this rate.

 

[keepngoal]

Allow me to quote these stats for you...from BryceC's other post...



Those stats don't lie.

sobering..... i think i need a drink after seeing those stats.

yet, i can see the light.

-keep.

 

[temperflare]

I think our coach said it best, "Our margin of error is very small".

We are progressing each week. We are a good team, but we are not good enough to overcome mistakes. We are going to have 1 or 2 turnovers that are caused by solid defensive play by the opponent. When we have an additional 1, 2, or 3 turnovers that are caused by ourselves... well... we lose. Most teams do, especially when those turnovers take points off the board for us and/or lead to direct points for them.

Side note: I can only think of one penalty we had during the Nebraska game. How disciplined is that?

I still think we'll pull out a W or two before the season is over.

 

[DaddyMac]

I agree wholeheartedly.

You can't use the terms "good team" and "turnovers are killing us" in the same sentence. Especially 5 games in a row.

I'm flattened by the TO stat, and the Pts off TO stat. We're giving it up at a 2:1 clip, and are being outscored at a near 6:1 pace? Are you kidding me. 7 TO and 10 lousy points.

Honestly, I see only giving up 58 pts on 15 TO's as being a pretty respectable job by our D. Especially when you consider how many TO's put the other team in the shadow of the goal line, if not score outright.

The offense, while putting decent statistics on the board, has got to figure a way to a) hold onto the d@mn ball and b) get it in the endzone!

 

[CycloneSteel]

The First down stat is the most inflated one there is, please throw that one out the window. Dinking and dumping leads to a lot of 1st downs, but usually not very many points. Going downfield leads to points.

 

[ISUAlum2002]

Moving the chains consistently is a key to driving the field for scores. Not sure why you would toss out first downs as a stat when so many other teams have dinked and dunked our defense to death and beat the bejesus out of us by doing so.

 

[Skyh13]

Yeah... the biggest thing here is eliminating those turnovers. ESPECIALLY turnovers at the goal line.... ugh... MAAAAN those hurt. As much as they hurt us fans, it really hurts the morale of the team, particularly the defense. Then, when the other team scores off of that turnover, either due to a defensive return, or because the defense couldn't make a stop... that just really hurts.

 

[jumbopackage]

The First down stat is the most inflated one there is, please throw that one out the window. Dinking and dumping leads to a lot of 1st downs, but usually not very many points. Going downfield leads to points.

Going downfield usually requires making first downs. First downs are also indicative of controlling the clock. Keeping the other team's O off the field is key for us right now. I don't think it's an inflated stat. It just is what it is.

I'd rather have sustained drives than 3 and outs.

Going downfield CAN lead to points. Lots of first downs can also lead to points. It just depends on your offense.

 

[mj4cy]

I am really having a hard time with this. A lot of people have been using the turnovers excuse, saying basically "We really do have a good team. If it weren't for the turnovers, we would have won!"

I don't agree, because that argument has to go both ways. If you are going to subtract points from the other team and say we would have won if it weren't for whatever number of turnovers, then you should do the same the other way also. According to the box score, we had 3 turnovers, and they had 2. So if you subtract from each side accordingly, the score ends up being Neb. 14, ISU 3, and they still win.

Box score link:
- Statistics - Rivals.com

I don't think we're good BECAUSE of the turnovers. Good teams take care of the ball.