[Husker] Turnovers

[Mike Jaixen]

As you dig in, there is some data there...but I keep coming back to "so what does this mean"?  When Ron Kellogg fumbles or throws an interception, that's pretty much meaningless.  When Ameer Abdullah fumbles in the 2nd half against Georgia, that might mean more.

And in the end, when I look back at this season's turnovers, I still don' t believe that any really affected the final outcome.  UCLA and Georgia are more open to debate, I believe.  But if Nebraska turns the ball over 20 times instead of 35 in 2012, I still think Nebraska probably ends up 10-4.

If Dirk would have taken it to the next level and analyze the circumstances that led to turnovers, he might have something to work on.  Is Martinez forcing the ball at times?  Should somebody else be fielding punts next season? (YES!)  Does Martinez need better protection on the blind side (YES!!!)

But I ends up with "Nebraska turned the ball over way too much" as a takeaway.  And gee, I already knew that.

Mike Jaixen
http://huskermike.blogspot.com
http://www.cornnation.com

--- On Mon, 1/28/13, Nick Chevance <nickchevance at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Nick Chevance <nickchevance at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Husker] Turnovers
To: "David Elfering" <aroundomaha at gmail.com>
Cc: "Husker List" <husker at tssi.com>
Date: Monday, January 28, 2013, 11:08 AM

My first reaction to this article in the paper was "oh, geez, another Dirk
Chatelain hit piece on Bo."  And I still think it is, but regarding the
lack of data behind the piece, he actually does supply it.  If you go to
the link (the one that came in the original post was broken), you will find
for each of the 35 turnovers, individual info on each, included the game,
where it took place, the score at the time of the turnover, and a few other
pieces of information.

http://dataomaha.com/documents/husker-turnovers-a-look-at-nebraskas-slippery-slope

I'm not convinced that its just offensive turnovers, that it may have more
to do with the fact that our defense wasn't reciprocating by getting the
ball back.  I can remember back to the days of Alexander and Buckhalter in
the backfield, and taking bets on who was going to fumble next or the
most.  The difference in those days (1998 we were +6 in margin) was that
the defense was able to minimize the damage by getting some of those balls
back (we fumbled 27 times but forced our opponents into 30 fumbles).  This
year we fumbled 35 times, lost 22 of them, and threw 13 INTs.  Our
opponents fumbled 21 times, got 11 of those back, and threw 13 INTs.  Its a
wash on the INTs, but we only forced 21 fumbles, an average of less than 2
a game while almost averaging 3 a game on offense, and the results are we
gave it away 22 times and only got 10 back.

It may not be as much about how many we lose, as how many turnovers can we
get.  That will require changes on defense, which really isn't a mystery to
most of us.  If we can reverse that statistic, with 21 turnovers and
forcing 35 on our opponents, that should probably mean more for our W/L
record.

Nick
_______________________________________________
husker site list
husker at tssi.com
http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker