Turnovers: Why We Were So Good in 2014

[GTech63]

Before the season started there were two areas on offense that people had concerns over. One was at A-back, which with hindsight seems ridiculous but which, at the time, seemed like a potential drop off with Godhigh graduating. The other position was QB. Justin had no experience as a starter and we were told in so many words that the offense was changing again after the departure of Lee. Beyond that everyone was hoping the offensive line could improve but still fearing the rash of injuries that we had in past seasons.

Defense, especially with the off season attrition, everyone knew would be horrible. What we underestimated was how much fight they would have. They never gave up on going after the ball and they hit hard all season long. And they kept getting better.

The biggest intangible, and the one that in my trumps all the others, was that the team believed in each other and was determined to not let anyone get down on themselves. They remained the most positive, loving team I have ever seen. If that same level of team spirit continues this season the team might even go undefeated. It will all depend on how the veterans lead and how the new guys respond.

Funny how hard it is to predict exactly how these things will play out.

Even in hind sight a half dozen plays could have had us undefeated or not in The ACCCG or OB. The cliche of " matter of inches" plays out over and over again in competitive sports. Injuries can't be predicted. How will the new SA adjust to college and it academic demands (at least at GT) so many variables but good coaching and staff can minimize negative effects of these variables. I think we are headed in the right direction at GT.

 

[Rocket City Jacket]

Let's hope he figures that out. That was the only negative thing that I can think of that he did this year. Just throw it into the 3rd row or take the sack if needed. Live to fight another down.

I think JT is somewhat unique in how he scrambles when under pressure in the fact that he will sometime take the "long way" around a defender that is deep in the backfield because he knows he will outrun them given enough time. When he does that he sometime ended up very far from the line of scrimmage and has to make quite a throw to get it out of bounds beyond the line of scrimmage. I think that caused some the the interceptions you mentioned in your comment above.

 

[augustabuzz]

I think JT is somewhat unique in how he scrambles when under pressure in the fact that he will sometime take the "long way" around a defender that is deep in the backfield because he knows he will outrun them given enough time. When he does that he sometime ended up very far from the line of scrimmage and has to make quite a throw to get it out of bounds beyond the line of scrimmage. I think that caused some the the interceptions you mentioned in your comment above.

True, but the root of the problem is deciding too late in the process to throw it away. He'll learn as he gains experience.

 

[Ggee87]

True, but the root of the problem is deciding too late in the process to throw it away. He'll learn as he gains experience.

But I think the point he is trying to make is that when JT scrambles... sometimes great things happen, and when they dont.. JT usually gets rid of the ball. Sure he'll get better at these things.. but I'm not sure I want him doing it any sooner, due to his speed and ability to make something positive happen when it looks like nothing is available.

 

[augustabuzz]

But I think the point he is trying to make is that when JT scrambles... sometimes great things happen, and when they dont.. JT usually gets rid of the ball. Sure he'll get better at these things.. but I'm not sure I want him doing it any sooner, due to his speed and ability to make something positive happen when it looks like nothing is available.

IIRC each of those three events occurred as he was on the sideline and tossed it upfield because he had no angle to the sideline.

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

I hope we don't need a crazy high positive turnover ratio to win double digit games next year. It would be nice if we still are on the positive side of things though, since it usually means that your D is being physical and your O is being smart with the ball.

 

[TechnicalPossum]

In the "Best option pitch of 2014" thread, there was a commentary on the ball security on pitches and runs this year. Out of curiosity, I pulled together the data on it to test the validity, starting with turnovers per game and type in 2014:

vs. Wofford - Zero Turnovers.

vs. Tulane - One INT, one strip sack fumble of JT, one fumble attributed to Zenon (couldn't find the video to see if it was a pitch. May have been based on lost yardage).

vs. Ga. State - Zero Turnovers.

vs. VPI - One fumble on a bad pitch by JT.

vs. Miami - Zero Turnovers.

vs. Duke - Two INT's, one rushing fumble by Laskey.

vs. UNC - One fumble attributed to JT (couldn't find the video to see if it was a pitch. May have been based on lost yardage).

vs. Pitt - One rushing fumble by Days.

vs. UVA - One INT.

vs. NCSU - One rushing fumble by Days, the infamous Nealy fumble recovery fumble.

vs. Clemson - One dropped pitch by Zenon (hit him in the hands), one rushing fumble by Laskey.

vs. UGA - One pileup forward progress stopped fumble called on JT, one sack fumble by JT.

vs. FSU - One INT.

vs. Miss St. - One INT.

This gives a total of six INT's and 12 total fumbles. One fumble was on defense, so a total of 11 fumbles. Of those 11:

2 were strip sacks
5 were rushing fumbles (including the UGA goal line fumble)
4 were pitch fumbles (including the ones that had no video)

For previous years (I didn't break out fumble types)

2013 - 13 INT's, 11 fumbles (3 fumbles vs. UVA)
2012 - 8 INT's, 13 fumbles (3 fumbles vs. PC and MTSU)
2011 - 8 INT's, 11 fumbles
2010 - 7 INT's, 20 fumbles (3 fumbles vs. uga and AF)
2009 - 6 INT's, 12 fumbles (3 fumbles vs. FSU)
2008 - 7 INT's, 20 fumbles (3 fumbles vs. BC)

So, there has been significant improvement in ball security since the rough years of 2008-2010. However, the counting numbers indicate that 2014 was almost dead on par with 2011-2013. And, there are no particular trends in the INT numbers (2013 excluded for Vad Lee reasons), which leads me to believe that they are not particularly significant to the discussion. So, what is the catch?

To try and figure out why we looked better to the eye test, I looked at total fumbles including those that were recovered:

Total fumbles - Lost Fumbles (Data Source - http://www.cfbstats.com/2014/team/255/index.html)
2014: 20 total - 12 lost
2013: 28 total - 11 lost
2012: 31 total - 13 lost
2011: 31 total - 11 lost
2010: 37 total - 20 lost
2009: 34 total - 12 lost
2008: 36 total - 20 lost

In short, in 2014 we put the ball on the ground approximately 40% less than the 2008-2013 fumble average and 30% less than 2013, the previous low total fumble year, even though the number of lost fumbles has been relatively stagnant over the past 3 years. Also, we had zero three fumble games and zero games with more than one lost bad pitch. I would suggest that is why the team looked better on the pitch even when the overall numbers of fumbles are unchanged.

Thoughts?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Putting it on the ground is what we need to limit. Who recovers is by luck much of the time. I'd say putting it on the ground less in 2014 was a very good thing. I suspect it'll change for the worse next season due to inexperience at both A and B back.

 

[JazzyD95]

Putting it on the ground is what we need to limit. Who recovers is by luck much of the time. I'd say putting it on the ground less in 2014 was a very good thing. I suspect it'll change for the worse next season due to inexperience at both A and B back.

Have you been at the bottom of a pileup for the ball? Yeah timing and luck is a factor, but the meaner motherF******wins the the ball at the bottom of the pile

 

[JazzyD95]

.

 

[CuseJacket]

This fits in nicely here:

 

[Nate Anderson]

The turnover against GA Southern was in my opinion the biggest play of the year. We would've lost that game. That would've brought the entire team's morale down and it would look terrible in our loss column. This was Tech's best season in a while and who knows how the season would've gone if we lost that game.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

In the "Best option pitch of 2014" thread, there was a commentary on the ball security on pitches and runs this year. Out of curiosity, I pulled together the data on it to test the validity, starting with turnovers per game and type in 2014:

vs. Wofford - Zero Turnovers.

vs. Tulane - One INT, one strip sack fumble of JT, one fumble attributed to Zenon (couldn't find the video to see if it was a pitch. May have been based on lost yardage).

vs. Ga. State - Zero Turnovers.

vs. VPI - One fumble on a bad pitch by JT.

vs. Miami - Zero Turnovers.

vs. Duke - Two INT's, one rushing fumble by Laskey.

vs. UNC - One fumble attributed to JT (couldn't find the video to see if it was a pitch. May have been based on lost yardage).

vs. Pitt - One rushing fumble by Days.

vs. UVA - One INT.

vs. NCSU - One rushing fumble by Days, the infamous Nealy fumble recovery fumble.

vs. Clemson - One dropped pitch by Zenon (hit him in the hands), one rushing fumble by Laskey.

vs. UGA - One pileup forward progress stopped fumble called on JT, one sack fumble by JT.

vs. FSU - One INT.

vs. Miss St. - One INT.

This gives a total of six INT's and 12 total fumbles. One fumble was on defense, so a total of 11 fumbles. Of those 11:

2 were strip sacks
5 were rushing fumbles (including the UGA goal line fumble)
4 were pitch fumbles (including the ones that had no video)

For previous years (I didn't break out fumble types)

2013 - 13 INT's, 11 fumbles (3 fumbles vs. UVA)
2012 - 8 INT's, 13 fumbles (3 fumbles vs. PC and MTSU)
2011 - 8 INT's, 11 fumbles
2010 - 7 INT's, 20 fumbles (3 fumbles vs. uga and AF)
2009 - 6 INT's, 12 fumbles (3 fumbles vs. FSU)
2008 - 7 INT's, 20 fumbles (3 fumbles vs. BC)

So, there has been significant improvement in ball security since the rough years of 2008-2010. However, the counting numbers indicate that 2014 was almost dead on par with 2011-2013. And, there are no particular trends in the INT numbers (2013 excluded for Vad Lee reasons), which leads me to believe that they are not particularly significant to the discussion. So, what is the catch?

To try and figure out why we looked better to the eye test, I looked at total fumbles including those that were recovered:

Total fumbles - Lost Fumbles (Data Source - http://www.cfbstats.com/2014/team/255/index.html)
2014: 20 total - 12 lost
2013: 28 total - 11 lost
2012: 31 total - 13 lost
2011: 31 total - 11 lost
2010: 37 total - 20 lost
2009: 34 total - 12 lost
2008: 36 total - 20 lost

In short, in 2014 we put the ball on the ground approximately 40% less than the 2008-2013 fumble average and 30% less than 2013, the previous low total fumble year, even though the number of lost fumbles has been relatively stagnant over the past 3 years. Also, we had zero three fumble games and zero games with more than one lost bad pitch. I would suggest that is why the team looked better on the pitch even when the overall numbers of fumbles are unchanged.

Thoughts?

Thanks @TechnicalPossum . I agree with your last point that the key to not turning over the ball is not putting it on the ground in the first place. Even though our rate of losing the ball varying a lot from year to year, looking at your stats we lost fumbles about 46% of the time ...... Next year the number of fumbles should largely depend on the BB and AB performance. We know JT is pretty good (I'm forgetting the UGAg fumble at the end of the game) but don't know about BBs and ABs likelihood to fumble. From some interviews, preventing (and causing) fumbles from contact is a big part of practice so I'd expect not fumbling will be a major factor in who gets on the field.

 

[deeeznutz]

I think besides the fumbles lost, the lack of recovered fumbles was a huge factor in how good we looked on O this year. In the last few years, we'd have a couple a game where we were able to fall on a bad pitch. Even with recovering those they were generally drive killers, putting us in 2nd or 3rd and 15+. Those plays, plus WAY fewer OL penalties (looking at you, 2013 Chamberlain...boy he got better huh?), enabled us to stay "on schedule" much more often. I expect a few more lost pitches this year, especially early, as the new guys learn proper pitch relationship and how to catch under fire, but it should even out as we get deeper into the schedule. The ND game in September could be where this bites us. I'm hoping Johnson's hate for Van Gorder will pull us through though. I still think back to the 2009 FSU game where we lined up in trips ALL GAME and completely baffled them...one of my favorite Tech games to watch. Maybe he's working on a special wrinkle for that one.