Turnovers and Turnovers Created

In David Hale’s mailbag this morning, he addresses the amount of turnovers created vs. the turnovers committed ( he provided the numbers and I did the graph).

Turnovers and creating turnovers is a relatively new problem, over the course of Richt’s career.  If you look at this decade, the worse years with turnovers was 2000, 2006, 2009; when we had subpar quarterback play (you could even take 2000 off but we’ll leave it up there for some context). 

Also, there is a difference between a down year and a disappointing year.  2008 and 2004 were very similar years as far as our talent level, preseason expectations and end of the season results.  The turnover margin those years were very similar.  If people say the defensive scheme we play, the one we have run nearly a decade, is no good at creating turnovers, look at 2002-2003, 2005-2007.  I submit it is not a coaching problem as much as player problem.  Players are not making the plays.   Ucheedawg reads that and says: “It is up to the coaches to get the most out of the players to make the plays.”  I want to make something clear:  I am not giving the coaches a pass, and it is up to them to put the correct players out there (ie Rambo over Evans), but it is the responsibility of the players to make plays.

The problems we are facing now are problems that when seen them in the past, it has been corrected.  Having a new QB next year will make the # of turnovers committed shrink tremendously.  Even in 2001, with first time starter RS Freshman David Greene was QB, the amount went down.  I think we can all agree that a new DC will be coming in, so our turnover numbers should increase also; as they did in 2005 and 2002 (I’ll give BVG a pass in 2001 as that was transition year across the board) whenever a new DC has come in. 


Go Dawgs!

3 Responses to “Turnovers and Turnovers Created”

  1. 1 ucheedawg November 25, 2009 at 12:31 pm

    It’s not often that I will publicly disagree with another contributor here at TGT, but I could not disagree more. I think that it is obviously a coaching problem as opposed to a player problem. We are no less talented on the defensive side of the ball now than we have ever been. Corbindawg will be the first to agree with this. Yet he contends it’s a player problem. That does not make sense to me and is incredibly difficult to justify.

  2. 2 Granite November 25, 2009 at 12:52 pm

    You cannot blame one without the other. The coaches prepare the players all summer and week in and week out but it is up to the players to make the play.

    On one side you can say that there is great talent on the field but the coach is not bringing them up to their full potential, putting the right personnel on the field, or calling the correct play. You bring in amazing HS talent and do nothing with them, ie John Eason.

    Or you can say that the coaches bust their butts preparing the players and studying film but the players don’t give 100% and get beat on the big play, staying one step behind the receiver, or put themselves out of position. (I would give an example but everyone knows who I’m talking about and I’m not here to bash student athletes)

    This year we have seen both problems come to light. We have been out schemed and we have been out of position, both resulting in being beat on the field. I believe it is a top down problem. Coaches can correct their schemes in a week but it’s hard to correct a man’s mentality, that has been building since last spring, in the course of a few days.

  3. 3 Corbindawg November 25, 2009 at 1:47 pm

    I also included offensive numbers on the graph also. People just want to focus on the defense becasue that is what fans are most mad about; this is an offensive problem also.

    We have a lot of problems. The coaching is a major problem; no denying that. The players are to shoulder a good bit of blame for not executing properly. “I submit it is not a coaching problem as much as player problem” is not saying there is no coaching problems; it is saying that there are a lot of problems and the players not executing is problem also.

    Bobo calls a play for Joe Cox to throw to AJ Green running down the sideline, facing one on one coverage; Cox throws a pick.

    Let’s break this sentence down. Bobo calls a play; Cox doesn’t execute it. It is the coaches decision to call that play in a favorable situation. In a perfect world, it would work.

    Now Joe Cox should obviously NOT be in the game, and that has been discussed to the nth degree here and elsehwhere. That is a problem on the coaches (“I am not giving the coaches a pass, and it is up to them to put the correct players out there (ie Rambo over Evans)”). The fact of the matter is though, the coach called a play and it was not executed properly.

    You response next still is, “Well, Cox shouldn’t be in. That is coaching.”

    Richard Samuel hasn’t seen much meaningful PT since LSU. He was a fumble machine. Why does Samuel ride the pine and not Joe Cox? Wooten and T. King are playing more than Michael Moore; it can’t be just because senior favoritism. We don’t know all the information, therefore we don’t know all the answers to our questions.

    That is why I write a blog about coaching; the coaches actually coach and know what is going on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: