Fumbles recovered=2, WTF?
It looks to me like we recovered TWO (insert sadface here) fumbles this season. This lands us at the less than lofty rank of 126, where we sneak in just ahead of Mississippi State, who picked up 1. This just seems uncanny and highly unlikely, but I think it's the second season in a row where this stat has been very low. I'm trying to wrap my head around this, as it doesn't seem simply coincidental.
Thoughts?
(edited title to prove I can spell 'fumble')
January 12th, 2016 at 1:26 PM ^
Yeah who cares because it is widely known that turnover margin is not one of the top 3-4 stats that determine a win or a loss. Ask Ty Isaac and his playing time about this whole "turnovers mattering" thing.
Once Rudock got past his early turnover jitters he protected the ball well - even if O'Korn has more "arm talent" if he doesnt protect the ball as well as Rudock did the back 2/3rds of the season it will be important for the defense to cause more turnovers in 2016 because you dont win many games being -2 in turnover margin.
January 12th, 2016 at 12:45 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 13th, 2016 at 12:02 AM ^
Certainly not Ufer, Wangler, or Carter about an irrelevant extra point against Indiana...
January 12th, 2016 at 12:29 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 12th, 2016 at 12:55 PM ^
Agreed on all of the comments about recovering a fumble is random and not teachable. Which puts the focus on the causing. Scheme has been discussed as one reason (corners turning and running and not looking back, pass rush coming up the middle vs the edges). The other, vaguely touched on, is what the players have been taught (making sure you get the tackle instead of focusing on the rip).
My completely unscientific lack of knowledge eye says, for non-explainable fumbles (i.e. a player is running with the ball and then doesn't have the ball, not QB sacks or special team drops) there is something to teams which have the types of players who are able to deliver a big hit from an unexpected angle. It seems the bulk of these types of fumbles come when a player gets blindsided by someone who can deliver signifcant force. What would be the reason this type of player exists more often on one team than another? Is it the type of athlete recruited? Is it a player who is more willing to leave their assignment to make a highlight play? If so, is the benefit of the fumble outweighed by other consequences of the player going for the big hit?
January 12th, 2016 at 12:56 PM ^
Outside of game adjustments vs OSU and general LB play (Durkin's responsibility) this was my biggest disappointment. Florida created lots of turnovers so I was expecting a big jump.
I posted this stat almost every week in the "Opponent by the Numbers" post and we actually were stuck at 1 almost the entire year. As others have said fumble recoveries are sort of random but fumbles forced are not - it just didn't happen. Not sure if that is due to the nature of our LBs (who generally create a lot of fumbles for other teams) or what but it was one of the few weaknesses on the D.
January 12th, 2016 at 1:02 PM ^
FIRE SOMEONE!
January 12th, 2016 at 1:08 PM ^
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
You fail to recover 100% of the fumbles you don't cause.
Helmet on the ball.
January 12th, 2016 at 1:10 PM ^
The Oregon State game aside, opponents never got off bad punts or bad snaps against us either. When I saw Maryland get off three punts against Sparty of 15, 21 and 17 yards, I kept thinking, "Why the crap can't teams ever do that against us?"
The fumble recoveries were about as non-existent this year as I can ever remember for a season. When Penn State muffed that punt against us, I had to pick my mouth up off the floor before I could properly cheer.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 12th, 2016 at 1:12 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 12th, 2016 at 1:16 PM ^
I find this a source for optimism, along with our bizarre special teams fiascos. Both seem likely to be completely random, so we should expect a boost next year simply from regression to the mean in these areas.
January 12th, 2016 at 1:23 PM ^
January 12th, 2016 at 1:23 PM ^
Could be that the coaches are emphasizing tackling over ball-dislodging? Going for the strip/rip can sometimes cause you to miss tackles. I have no idea what the stats show, but I'm guessing that, in general, going for the straight tackle is usually the better play, and you should only go for a fumble if the offensive player is already on his way down OR if you are sacking the QB and have a chance to directly hit his arm.
Obviously I would like more fumbles, but our defense obviously did quite well even without forcing a lot of them.
I suspect you would get more INTs if you sat back in zone coverage more. You won't get a lot of INTs in bump & run man coverage.
January 12th, 2016 at 1:33 PM ^
We were ok in INTs - nothing special nothing awful, something like 70th in the nation with 10. I can recall 2-3 more that we should have had off hand incl 1 that went thru Peppers hands. And there had to be 2 in the Minn game that Leidner just heaved up as an arm punt that we missed on. But INT wasnt a massive outlier like the fumble recoveries are.
It would be nice to see one of our DBs have a Desmond King type of INT rate next year - Lewis played great this year but INTs is not really his thing. So maybe a Clark or Stribling can start coming up with a few more.
January 12th, 2016 at 2:54 PM ^
Well at least you can look forward to returning to the median hopefully next season.
January 12th, 2016 at 3:24 PM ^
SC talks about it better up top, but it makes sense there aren't elite pass rushers to help generate a bunch (they only had 5 forced), but they also sorta just had some bad luck at times.
January 12th, 2016 at 5:10 PM ^
January 12th, 2016 at 5:25 PM ^
If you could predict fumble recovery percentage (especially when a team turns the football over) with any degree of success you'd be a rich man.
January 12th, 2016 at 6:34 PM ^
Everyone keeps saying the turnover margin is luck and it's bound to improve after a bad year, yet we continue to have below average TO margins year after year. I don't get it and I'm not sure anyone does.
January 13th, 2016 at 1:39 AM ^