Turnovers does not equal bad coaching
So I have read just about enough posts/comments claiming turnovers are somehow RR's fault and was a result of poor coaching. The bottom line is fumbles and int's happen; it is part of the game. I am willing to bet RR/Michigan practices ball security just as much as any other team in the nation. RB's practice running while players try to strip the ball, receivers practice catching the ball and securing it and QB's practice tucking the ball away when the take off and run. Sometimes the defense just makes a good play and puts a helmet on the ball or strips the ball away. That is hardly the coaches fault.
Michigan didn't tell Mike Hart to not hold on to the ball before the Florida game...again sometimes the defense makes a good play and sometimes guys just fumble. It wasn't Lloyd's fault when that happened.
Same thing with catching punts. I guarantee RR has his punt returners catching punts every day in practice. He doesn't just throw some guy out there who has never done it before. Hell Greg Matthews has the best hands on the team and even he dropped one. And I'd be willing to bet he has caught just as many punts with RR than he did with Lloyd.
Most of the guys with turnover problems were our younger players. That is one of the downsides of playing guys too early. Tate gets away with carrying the ball at his knees in high school...against OSU it doesn't work. Trust me, RR isn't telling Tate to bring the ball up, over and around defenders when running. He tells him to secure the ball!
I am sitting with one of my buddies who is a Nebraska fan and he brought up their game against Iowa State where they fumbled 8 times. They didn't take a week of from ball security before that game. They just happened to fumble a lot that game and it cost them.
Once again, turnovers happen and they happen even more when you have younger players. I am sure as they practice ball security more and get used to getting hit by DI athletes our turnovers will be cut down dramatically. But for anyone that says somehow fumbles are RR's fault has never played football or been around a football practice.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:34 PM ^
This has been something that has been bugging me as well. Anyone who has ever played a sport at an organized level will tell you that every coach they've had preaches how controlling and limiting turnovers on offense, and creating them on defense is one of the, if not the single, top keys to success.
As a post man (basketball) I can't tell you how many coaches I've made cringe after I made some awful turnovers. They certainly didn't encourage me to make them, I was just a young kid that hadn't learned that game. As you get older, you stop trying to do too much and simply take what the defense gives you. I truly believe that will eventually be Tate's legacy as a Michigan QB. Brian Griese wasn't exactly known for taking care of the ball before the NC season and we didn't quit on them then.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:44 PM ^
I'm confused. Are turnovers "random" events based on good execution by the opposition, or are they a result of inexperience? I think these two arguments point in different directions.
November 25th, 2009 at 3:39 PM ^
Inexperienced teams can be expected to commit more turnovers, especially at the QB position. I think there's a pretty clear correlation there. Owing to a lack of experience, young players will commit mental errors that can lead to turnovers. When he's more experienced, Tate will protect the ball better in his endzone, not zero in on his primary receiver as much, and won't throw as much across his body.
Experienced teams generally don't commit as many turnovers. Those that they do commit, especially fumbles, are often pretty random and can generally be dismissed as flukes. Case in point: Hart's two fumbles against Florida.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:44 PM ^
1. Opening day. Looked sharp in loss against ND. Pleasantly surprised with the new guy despite team around him caving.
2. Bowl game against Arkansas. A great win, but I remember the following. Second half, Brady throws a sort of duck to a receiver in the end zone. It was apparent while the ball was in the air that it would be intercepted, and it was. I said to myself "There he goes again. When will he ever learn to be smarter with the ball." He was of course a fourth year junior playing in a conservative scheme. Coaches can only do so much.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:56 PM ^
I generally agree but there's nothing random, in my opinion, about Tate's fumbles in the pocket. He needs to protect the ball better. I think it's inexperience, not necessarily coaching.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:06 PM ^
Absolutely the point I was trying to make. There are times when you see a defender make a fantastic play to strip the ball, or bait a qb and jump a route and you can say, "Wow that's just a great play."
There are also times, like Tate's end zone fumble where you can also say "man that's just inexperience." I feel awful for him because I know what it's like to try and take on the world. You feel so invincible at one moment but reality keeps crashing you down. When he finally learns to stay inside himself (and gets some better pass protection, but that's beside the point) he's going to be special.
Bottom line, none of these fumbles or INTs, be they the result of inexperience, overzealousness, or great defensive effort and playmaking are the fault of the coaching staff. Anyone who infers that they are is ignorant to the pressures of playmaking.
November 25th, 2009 at 2:33 PM ^
You've said in a paragraph what I was trying to make clear in several...totally agree with you!
"Bottom line, none of these fumbles or INTs, be they the result of inexperience, overzealousness, or great defensive effort and playmaking are the fault of the coaching staff. Anyone who infers that they are is ignorant to the pressures of playmaking."
November 25th, 2009 at 1:16 PM ^
Tate focuses too much on making a big play that he loses focus on ball control. You can try to coach this but it will just have to be up to Tate to concentrate on taking care of the ball but at the same time reading the defense and thinking quick on his feet. I'm sure his multi-tasking skills will improve with time and his fumble rate will decrease.
November 25th, 2009 at 2:55 PM ^
Turnovers could result from any of the following: Youth, inexperience, good defense, poor conditions, poor preparation (this doesn't imply poor coaching, maybe the player just isn't very coachable), fluke plays, etc.
One of the most vexing aspects of 2008 and 2009 was that we were almost guaranteed to lose the turnover battle heading into any game, especially when weather played a factor. I'm not enough of nerd to back up my assertion with stats, however.
By the way, if we're having the same debate about turnovers at this point in 2010, would the coaches be accountable then?
November 25th, 2009 at 4:32 PM ^
I think that turnovers are a result of lack of experience. For some reason freshman ball carriers tend to drop the ball for some reason. Hopefully with a season under his belt plus spring ball and another round of training camp prior to the season, Tate and co with secure the ball a little more.
This doesn't explain the punt return game though.
November 25th, 2009 at 5:18 PM ^
I agree that RR gets far too much blame for the TO woes. Both Tate and Denard became TO machines during the second half of the season.
The statistics are ghastly. UM finished -12 for the year, 112th of 120 in net TOs/game in 2009. We finished 104/120 in 2008.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:11 PM ^
Some turnovers are to blame on the staff. Fumbles are a coaching problem. Because it is up to the coach to teach the players to HOLD ON TO THE DAMN BALL. And some interceptions are also blameable on the coach.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:24 PM ^
very good use of sarcasm. Hardly even noticed it!
You honestly believe coaches dont preach holding onto the ball 24/7?