Football's Ongoing Turnover Problem Pt. 1
For some reason I got to thinking about turnovers this afternoon--sure does feel like we've been on the short end more often than not, doesn't it?--and so I went back to 2004 and compiled some numbers, not really sure where I was going with any of this. There are two sides to the turnover margin coin, of course, but I'll get to the offense later this week. Below I've broken down a few things: interceptions caught by the defense, interception percentage (INT/OppPassAtt), opponent pass attempts per INT, total number of fumble recoveries, total number of forced fumbles, fumble recovery percentage. How State's defense ranks among the rest of the ACC is in parenthesis for each category. I've also broken it down by era--the Amato press-man years, and the TOB/Archer bend-zone years.
| INTs | INT% | ATT/INT | FumRec | ForcedFum | FumRec% | LG AVG INT% | LG AVG FumRec% | |
| NCSU D 04-06 | 29 (10) | 3.1 (10) | 31.8 (10) | 22 (10) | 44 (12) | 50.0 (3) | 3.5 | 46.2 |
| NCSU D 07-09 | 36 (7) | 3.0 (8) | 32.9 (8) | 22 (12) | 53 (12) | 41.5 (10) | 3.6 | 49.4 |
| NCSU D 04-09 | 65 (11) | 3.1 (10) | 32.4 (10) | 44 (12) | 97 (12) | 45.4 (10) | 3.5 | 47.9 |
There's very little difference in the rates at which the different pass D schemes generated INTs. Archer's defenses have generated a higher total, but that's simply because opponents threw the ball more often in those three years. On a rate basis, the Amato defenses were (barely) better at making INTs happen. Not that I mean to suggest anything about the man vs. zone turnover question here: these numbers are inconclusive, especially so since this is such a limited sample. The whims of chance cloud everything, anyway.
The main thing is, good lord, we have not been good at creating turnovers for a long time now. It baffles me to this day how bad the 04--such a phenomenal group on a down-to-down basis--was in this area. O'Brien's defenses have been particularly unlucky in the fumble recovery percentage department, which only compounds the low number of fumbles they've forced.
If this team wants to surprise in 2010, it's going to have to make a lot more mistakes happen. (I suppose that goes without saying considering the personnel on hand.) Which is not out of the question when it comes to this sort of thing, and we saw it two years ago when the '08 team forced 12 more turnovers over the '07 team. It's certainly no coincidence that that was O'Brien's most successful team. But that year was an outlier in terms of both INT% and fumble recovery percentage. So recent history doesn't suggest we're in for another marked gain like that, but the nice thing about the whims of an oblong ball is...you never know.
0 recs |
8 comments
| Add comment
|
Comments
Honestly, this has to be poor luck, right?
There is NO way you could be this bad at creating turnovers.
I have hope for State.
This team will improve in '10... on its 16-16 conference record over the last 4 years.... after losing 20 games in the last 4 years... after having the 7th worst major-conference defense... after not even winning its own division in the ACC in the last 4.
Tomahawk Nation: Nole-Holds-Barred Analysis of FSU Sports!
Follow Tomahawk Nation's Twitter feed!
We've hoped so for years
I mean, Steven has posted that things like this tend to even out over time… but in our case, they don’t seem to. It’s a baffling combination of bad defense and hot opposing QB’s… I mean, some of the shit that mediocre-to-bad QB’s have done to us defy logic and reason. It’s like the Curse of Weinke. We got our 6 picks, and we’ve been punished ever since.
by wolfonthehill on Jul 20, 2010 7:53 AM EDT up reply actions
It's weird
We didn’t seem to have this much trouble during the Rivers years, and those defenses weren’t nearly as good as the 04/05 units. Defensive line aside, those defensive backfields were not exactly chopped liver.
I always tend to
look at forced fumbles as more of a luck statistic, but to be last over multiple year groupings makes me somewhat question that. I know that last year State tackled like a bunch of middle schoolers, but that hasn’t been the case every year. I think our bio dept needs to get to work on some adrian wilson clones.
With Amato, it seemed like the DBs were taught to not even attempt the interception if they were in one on one coverage. With TOB, the DBs tend to not even be in the same time zone as the receiver.
I guess there is some coaching
involved in forced fumbles, but you would think everyone knows those tricks (helmet on the ball, stripping the carrier). But then you have things like Tony Baker’s first carry last year, Andre Brown throwing the ball 20 yards behind him into the end zone against wake (was that considered forced?), and guys who are just fumble prone (TA, Adrian Peterson, Tiki).
by PACKHOOLIGAN on Jul 20, 2010 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
On Facebook? Use Connect to join SB Nation. Share insights with fans and friends.- » Create a new SB Nation account
- » Already registered with SB Nation? Log in!

by 









