Chatelain: With NU turnovers, foes take away wins

[husker B-rent]

agreed with a previous poster. we already knew this or if we didnt then we should have.

 

can anyone that watches all of the games honestly say that they didnt realize we were minus on turnovers?!

[Count 'Bility]

Thanks Dirk. I dont know how much I couldve moved forward without knowing SOMETHING I ALREADY KNEW.

 

I havent read any previous post, so if it hasnt already happened I apologize for turning this into a bash Dirk thread, but I cant help it, the guy is such a cornhole.

 

You knew the turnover margin since Bo's arrival was -8? You knew the that of the 25 winningest programs in the past four years, Nebraska ranked 25th in turnover margin? You knew that the Buckeyes were plus 53 in the same timespan? You knew that we are 0-9 against ranked teams under Bo when losing the turnover battle, and 4-0 when winning it?

 

At least for me, there was some interesting factual information laid out in this article.

 

Or was it just the name of the author which you disagree with?

 

1st off, No i do not disagree with Dirk. These are statistical facts. Hard to argue with those (tho i could try, it's what I like to do, win or lose). Did I know these numbers before? No. Not exactly. But yes, it's pretty obvious to anyone who pays any sort of substantial attention to Nebraska football over the past few years that turnovers and the margin has been a problem, especially in big games, and that on numerous occasions we can point a finger to that phase alone as a culprit for a loss. My point is that Dirk has always had a negative tone and has a history of gaining negative opinions, and now he writes a nice little statistical piece that uses statistical figures to simply generalize that "TURNOVERS ARE BAD". That's all this is. A bunch of fancy little stats that I could get out of the darn media guide that summarizes "When we lose the turnover battle, we lose more" so he can say "look at me, I wrote a nice little column that didnt say Bo should be fired or Martinez should be benched, Is everyone proud of me?". Well, all I can say to that is duh. It is my biased opinion because I do not like Dirk's writing. I hope i answered your questions.

[NUance]

Yeah, accountability, I know what you're saying. I almost didn't post this article because the general premise is kind of a motherhood statement. We all know turnovers are bad. Turnovers = loses. That's about like saying when we don't score enough points we lose. But I thought this stat was pretty amazing:

 

In games when they lose the turnover battle, they are 0-9. When they win the turnover battle, they are 4-0. When turnovers are equal, Nebraska is 3-1.

Their total turnover margin in those big games is minus-12 (20 takeaways, 32 giveaways).

[Count 'Bility]

Yeah, accountability, I know what you're saying. I almost didn't post this article because the general premise is kind of a motherhood statement. We all know turnovers are bad. Turnovers = loses. That's about like saying when we don't score enough points we lose. But I thought this stat was pretty amazing:

 

In games when they lose the turnover battle, they are 0-9. When they win the turnover battle, they are 4-0. When turnovers are equal, Nebraska is 3-1.

Their total turnover margin in those big games is minus-12 (20 takeaways, 32 giveaways).

 

Well I agree, as well as with Zoogie. The stats are interesting, and my take on the article would be complete different had it not be Dirk Chatelain. It's like he's trying to make up for all the antagonistic crap he's written this because he must know his ice is getting thin with the program. So he writes a numbers piece with a bunch of fancy stats? And I know that it's not the fact that it happens that is bad but that he points out that it is happening so much more often over the last 4 years, which eludes to my whole point, that anyone with at least one good eye and wears red on saturdays in the fall already knows this. If Sipple writes this I say "interesting, better get that fixed", and that is my biased opinion, basically because Sip doesnt come off as a complete jackass.

[kchusker_chris]

bump.

[True2tRA]

Thanks Dirk. I dont know how much I couldve moved forward without knowing SOMETHING I ALREADY KNEW.

 

I havent read any previous post, so if it hasnt already happened I apologize for turning this into a bash Dirk thread, but I cant help it, the guy is such a cornhole.

 

You knew the turnover margin since Bo's arrival was -8? You knew the that of the 25 winningest programs in the past four years, Nebraska ranked 25th in turnover margin? You knew that the Buckeyes were plus 53 in the same timespan? You knew that we are 0-9 against ranked teams under Bo when losing the turnover battle, and 4-0 when winning it?

 

At least for me, there was some interesting factual information laid out in this article.

 

Or was it just the name of the author which you disagree with?

Dirk questioned Taylor's abilities as a QB. Around here that makes you public enemy number 1 apparently.

[True2tRA]

Uh oh, I mentioned his name in another thread. I am really getting bad at that.

[kchusker_chris]

The turnover margin is on the defense IMO. The offense gets more of the blame, that's obvious. Burkhead fumbling at the 5 against Northwestern ended up being the difference in the game. Abdulla fumbling at the 5 against SC ended up having a dramatic impact on the outcome of the game. So what gets overlooked sometimes is the complete innability of the defense to generate any turnovers.

 

Offense

Nebraska was 61st last season losing 11 fumbles. (9 will put you in the 35ish range)

Martinez was 65th, with 8 interceptions (6 will get him in the 35ish rang)

 

Defense

Nebraska was 111th with 7 forced fumbles. (15 will put you in the 35ish range)

Nebraska was 86th with 8 recovered fumbles. (12 will put you in the 35ish range)

Nebraska was 73rd with 10 interceptions. (14 will put you in the 35ish range)

 

The way I see it, the offense is 1 interception, and a couple fumbles from being a top 35 team in regards to turnovers. They averaged less than 2 turnovers a game. You'd like to see it closer to 1, but it's not something that greatly concerns me considering we were in the first year of an option based offense (which is prone to fumbles) and we don't exactly have the best passer under center. Taylor keeping his interceptions at 8 was probably his single biggest improvement this year. If you exclude the blowout to Wisconsin (a couple of those interceptions i put at the feet of Beck) and Taylor is a top 25 guy.

 

The defense however, is 8-10 turnovers from being in the top 35ish. There were individual players with more interceptions that our entire team. You can point at the backfield on this one (and they share the blame) but this comes back to "containment" on passing downs. When you give a guy like fresno states QB all day to throw, interceptions are hard to come by. I'd go out on a limb here and say that 50% of interceptions in college football should be credited to the pass rush rather than the DB. We have no pass rush. Therefore we aren't generating turnovers, and we can't swing the momentum of the game.

[zoogs]

How many fumbles did we not lose? It annoys me that this isn't a statistic kept anywhere. We put the rock on the ground way too many times last year, inexcusable. Agree that the defense also isn't holding up to their end and should generate more turnovers.

[kchusker_chris]

How many fumbles did we not lose? It annoys me that this isn't a statistic kept anywhere. We put the rock on the ground way too many times last year, inexcusable. Agree that the defense also isn't holding up to their end and should generate more turnovers.

We fumbled 32 times - lost 11. cfbstats.com is best place to go...at least that i've found.

[Foppa]

Doctors have confirmed that 4 out 5 kids prefer points over turnovers.