Turnovers under Rodriguez
A friend of mine made a statement today that he feels that UM will lose the PSU game due to the "characteristic turnovers and mistakes that are a RichRod staple."
I asked him if he thought they were a staple throughout his career or only at UM.
I searched mgoblog (granted, I'm not the greatest at this...but at least I tried) and came up with this diary with a nice chart.
http://mgoblog.com/content/mailbag-55
However, I was wondering if there was any data that was more current. Anyone out there have access/time to post something like this? Maybe this has already been posted on mgoblog. Since the prevailing wisdom is that turnovers and mistakes cost UM at least a shot at the MSU and Iowa games, I would think this would be of interest to the board.
October 27th, 2010 at 1:26 PM ^
Wait, why would Coach sit on a pastry?
October 27th, 2010 at 2:31 PM ^
I guess if it's a jelly pastry it could be sticky enough.
October 27th, 2010 at 3:12 PM ^
"Ick ben ein Berliner".
October 27th, 2010 at 1:30 PM ^
It looks like we are headed for another dismal season on the topic of turnovers...
M 2008:
30 giveaways (2.5 pg), 20 takeaways (1.7 pg), TOM -10 (-0.8 pg)
M 2009:
28 giveaways (2.3 pg), 16 takeaways (1.3 pg), TOM -12 (-1 pg)
M 2010:
10 giveaways (1.42 pg), 7 takeaways (1 pg), TOM -3 (-0.42 pg)
It's nice to see that we're not coughing up the ball as much as last year, however we still have some tough defenses to play and that number could easily get in the realm of the last two years.
Not surprisingly we are horrible at forcing turnovers. This year we are on pace to force 12 turnovers which is HALF of the worst number by any of RR's defenses while at WVU.
Hopefully we can get back to even on the TOM, or else it's very likely our W/L record is in the gutter just like the last two years.
October 27th, 2010 at 1:40 PM ^
So far this year we have 12 give aways and 9 takeaways. With lots of the take aways coming against new QBs and the fact that we will be playing new QBs in the next three games, I would hope to go into the final 2 ahead on TOM. But then I am just an optimist that way.
October 27th, 2010 at 2:04 PM ^
I also am optimistic about this, particularly if the D-line can get some pressure on those youngsters
October 27th, 2010 at 2:38 PM ^
I'm so f-ing sick of all the negative talk around here.
October 27th, 2010 at 5:41 PM ^
concerns our defense. Our defense is awful. Therefore the negative talk reflects a negative reality. Not to discuss it, and in fact not to discuss it mostly in a negative way, would in fact be a distortion of reality.
October 27th, 2010 at 1:44 PM ^
I would question the validity of this statement:
however we still have some tough defenses to play and that number could easily get in the realm of the last two years.
In order to get to 2.3 pg we'd need to average 3.5 turnovers per game the rest of the year, nearly 2.5 times more per game than we currently are. Granted OSU and Wisc are good defenses, but I just don't see how you claim that we could "easily" get within the realm of last year. Even if by "realm" you meant 2 pg, that would still require twice the turnovers per game as we have thus far.
I guess I just don't see how you cant look at the states given and not see a definitive improvement in ball security.
October 27th, 2010 at 1:57 PM ^
True - I guess the more alarming stat is TOM against Big 10 competition. Avg. TO/game factors in the non-conference (generally speaking, easier) part of the schedule. UM went from -10 in TOM in 2008 to -12 in 2009 (granted, UM was at least -4 against OSU, IIRC). Already at -3 in 2010 after only 2 Big 10 games. Maybe that's what the poster is getting at.
Either way, I think that the ball security has gotten better with UM this year due mainly to the maturation of offensive players. However, UM still has young and inexperienced QBs which could (and probably will) lead to more costly mistakes in the next 5 games. Clearly, UM can't win if they turn the ball over, as RR says, "we're not good enough to play poorly and win."
Basically, we know what the defense is. The fate of UM winning falls to the offense which is lead primarily by youth. Mistakes are likely on the horizon, especially with 2 of the next 3 on the road.
October 27th, 2010 at 2:11 PM ^
Against defenses like Penn St. (granted they are injured), Illinois, Wisconsin and OSU I could see a combined 10 turnovers if we're being reckless with the ball. Plus you gotta be scared of Ryan Kerrigan.
Not saying that it will happen but if you remember last year against PSU, Illinois, Purdue, Wisconsin and Ohio State we had 3, 3, 1, 1, 5 turnovers respectively. If we have 13 more turnovers we'll be right in the realm at 25 (corrected including the two fumbles by DBs)
October 27th, 2010 at 7:04 PM ^
If we have only 1 turnover against each of Purdue and Wisconsin, we're at 7 wins without beating PSU. And PSU is not the team they were last year - not even close.
October 27th, 2010 at 1:31 PM ^
Michigan's turnover margin in conference games in 2010:
http://cfbstats.com/2010/leader/827/team/offense/split07/category12/sor…
In 2009, they were twice as bad as the next worst Big Ten team (MSU):
http://cfbstats.com/2009/leader/827/team/offense/split07/category12/sor…
October 27th, 2010 at 1:38 PM ^
Okay, then. If this chart is correct (I'm assuming it is)...
http://mgoblog.com/content/mailbag-55
...then the worst TOM for a RR team at WVU was -8 in his first year. Every other year they were in the black on TOs. In fact, they're worst year was +3 and best topped out at +19.
Given the links you provided and the dismal TOM for RR coached UM teams (thus far), it seems that my friends argument that the penalties and TOs is incorrect. They are not an RR staple - just a staple here at UM.
October 27th, 2010 at 1:34 PM ^
It doesn't matter who the coach is. Now that we are playing fewer freshmen on offense (and none at QB), we don't turn the ball over as much. This shit ain't rocket science.
October 27th, 2010 at 3:45 PM ^
And we have a first year starter Sophomore. He will turn the ball over and he will make some bad choices over the rest of the season. I mean its one thing if the coaches are telling the QB to throw into coverage and the RBs to hold the ball wrong. Its another thing when youth and inexperience happen.
October 27th, 2010 at 2:10 PM ^
You're friends with Bellanca?
October 27th, 2010 at 2:33 PM ^
but 1st year players ... which I still think Denard is a 1st year player at QB. He made 2 bad reads v. MSU and 1 against Iowa ... that all resulted in turnovers. Most INT's are the result of bad reads and I agree with you ... more experience = less bad reads.
Also just one other note .... Lewan is also a 1st year (ok ... freshman) player that killed 2 drives against Iowa with penalties. Don't get me wrong ... Lewan is going to be a first round NFL pick. I am just hoping he remembers that Jake Long returned for his senior year and then was rewarded by being the top pick in the draft !!! Once he learns to be "wildly under control" look out !!! He can dominate his position !!
Go Blue !
October 27th, 2010 at 3:31 PM ^
RR does not run a conservative offense, so he clearly plays a more high risk/high reward type of offense.
The comment your friend made is not nice, but yes, I agree, it is scary as hell watching Mich with the ball, cause they either really look awesome or they make a ton of mistakes.
The more conservative, smash mouth teams of the big ten tend to have less turnovers in general, cause they have a much lower risk type offense
October 27th, 2010 at 9:01 PM ^
we still have to do MUCH better at holding onto the football. (It is not the kind of consistency we seek.)