|
Replies: 11
| visibility 1,108
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Just want to put this opinion out there about the turnovers
Oct 5, 2015, 2:25 PM
|
|
Just curious on how Kelly is using the turnovers as a reasoning and it's supposed to hold up.
Let's examine this a bit in detail. Obviously, won't be looking at the 2nd quarter fumble by Scott that Clemson recovered (that ESPN has listed in the play-by-play as a fumble under a ND drive).
CU Turnover 1 (ND Interception on Clemson): Clemson is intercepted by Cole Luke of ND. Next drive gives ND a TD. ND +7
ND Fumble #1: ND 1st and 10 at the ND 36..Kiser runs to the 45, fumbles, recovered by Prosise for the 1st down...drive conclusion...ND TD. ND +7
ND Turnover #2 (Clemson Interception on ND): ND 1st and 10 on the ND 18. Pass intercepted by BJ Goodson on the ND 35 for no gain. Clemson ball. Clemson drive ending...missed FG.
ND Turnover #3 (Fumble recovered by Clemson): 2nd and 10 on the Clemson 12, pass of 8 yards to Brown, Brown fumbles, recovered by BJ Goodson. **ND -3 or -7 potential** This so far seems to be the ONLY one yet to have had a bit of impact against ND due to a stopped drive. However, Clemson drive ending...punt.
ND Turnover #4 (Fumble recovered by ND): ND 1st and 10 @ Clemson 32. Kiser stopped for a 6 yd loss, fumbles, recovered by Kiser for no gain. ND Drive ending...TD ND +7(so don't see how that fumble cost them anything)....2 point conversion attempt, failed...game over.
Conclusion: From what I am seeing there, ND actually capitalized and scored off of the 1 turnover they had from Clemson. Clemson however, did not score 1 time off of any of ND's turnovers, only recovered 2 of them. Only one of those 2 could have cost points off ND. So IMO, one single turnover in the game is all he can really try to complain about, though he talks about the "having 4 turnovers, I'd tell you we'd lose" as if all 4 were costly. Anyone else have the same opinion?
|
|
|
|
 |
110%er [6692]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11164
Joined: 10/14/07
|
Re: Just want to put this opinion out there about the turnovers
Oct 5, 2015, 2:27 PM
|
|
You're forgetting the fumble on the second half kickoff that we took in two plays later for 7.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: Just want to put this opinion out there about the turnovers
Oct 5, 2015, 2:34 PM
|
|
ok, yep...missed that one due to how they had it looking on the play-by-play (not listed bold as a fumble recovery).
So, there is that one that does Clemson +& (which now matches the +7 they scored off the CU interception, so points wise, they negate each other).
Issue still is several of there other fumbles, didn't cost them...they scored on 2 of those (including the ending drive).
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: Just want to put this opinion out there about the turnovers
Oct 5, 2015, 2:37 PM
|
|
*Clemson +7; *their other fumbles
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
there's more than one cost, but turnovers are part of the
Oct 5, 2015, 2:29 PM
|
|
game, some think the most important/deciding part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1776]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2566
Joined: 3/15/99
|
Like the time on the clock lost after NDs last fumble.***
Oct 5, 2015, 2:31 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: there's more than one cost, but turnovers are part of the
Oct 5, 2015, 2:38 PM
[ in reply to there's more than one cost, but turnovers are part of the ] |
|
Kind of the point I am making though is if the team that fumbles recovers the fumble and they score on that drive still, is it really costly at all?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
Re: there's more than one cost, but turnovers are part of the
Oct 5, 2015, 2:45 PM
|
|
if the team that fumbles recovers their own fumble it's not a turnover.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10904]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12988
Joined: 8/4/14
|
Good analysis***
Oct 5, 2015, 2:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2519]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3326
Joined: 8/23/02
|
When we hit them hard, they dropped the ball.
Oct 5, 2015, 2:49 PM
|
|
When they hit us hard, which they did, we didn't drop the ball.
Ball security wins games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [785]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 567
Joined: 11/24/06
|
Re: When we hit them hard, they dropped the ball.
Oct 5, 2015, 3:28 PM
|
|
^^^ This.
And this happened because our guys flat out executed better. On both sides of the ball. Improved recruiting & coaching over the past 5 years translates to us winning close games while the losers lugubriate themselves with lame excuses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16489]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11654
Joined: 9/1/01
|
We scored 7 after the fumble on the second half opening kick
Oct 5, 2015, 3:09 PM
|
|
off. Nothing but a missed fieldgoal on the rest. Not sure their 80 yard drive after the Int in the endzone is really points off of a turnover, but certainly lost points for us. Likewise they certainly lost some points on that fumble near the goal line.
We did do very well in the kicking game save for that one punt at the end. We punted well in general, and got a couple of good returns on kickoffs. Not much on punt returns, but did score with the short field after the shank on their first drive.
Great game by the Tigers and the ride home was MUCH nicer with the win. Even the terrible traffic management after the game was tolerable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 11
| visibility 1,108
|
|
|
50
