Luke Meadows and TOB

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Luke Meadows and TOB

Isn't TOB largely responsible for our turnover margin?

Yes and no. TOB committed quite a few turnovers, but there are also fumbles in there too. Not a lot this year, but there were a few.

The other party responsible for the turnover margin is the defense. Last year we had 18 interceptions and recovered 5 fumbles (23). This year we've had 7 interceptions and recovered 6 fumbles (13).

I would say the D is just as responsible for the bad turnover margin as TOB, but that doesn't really fit the narrative.

[goon]

Re: Luke Meadows and TOB

Yes and no. TOB committed quite a few turnovers, but there are also fumbles in there too. Not a lot this year, but there were a few.

The other party responsible for the turnover margin is the defense. Last year we had 18 interceptions and recovered 5 fumbles (23). This year we've had 7 interceptions and recovered 6 fumbles (13).

I would say the D is just as responsible for the bad turnover margin as TOB, but that doesn't really fit the narrative.

So, which comes first chicken or egg? Does the D create turnovers, or does the O give up turnovers? Or both. I feel D creates fumbles, but the O gives INT. eliminate a few mental mistakes not throwing those INTs and we win a few more games then we lose.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Luke Meadows and TOB

So, which comes first chicken or egg? Does the D create turnovers, or does the O give up turnovers? Or both. I feel D creates fumbles, but the O gives INT. eliminate a few mental mistakes not throwing those INTs and we win a few more games then we lose.

Like I said, assigning blame to the defense doesn't fit the narrative, no matter what the stats suggest.

[BTownJack]

Re: Luke Meadows and TOB

Isn't TOB largely responsible for our turnover margin?

Yes, he has something to do with it but not all. By looking at our numbers it is actually our defense that is intercepting the ball a lot less than last year. Fumbles from this year to last year are pretty much a wash.

NOTE: Last year's stats included two more games (last regular season game & playoff game)

2010:
Turnovers:
16 - INTs thrown (Minett threw 1 of these)
7 - INTs by SDSU defense

6 - Fumbles lost
5 - Fumbles recovered

Penalties (as MJA alluded to - this is a very striking stat considering the 2 more games last year):

SDSU: 60 for 556 yards
Opponents: 61 for 506 yards

Time of Possesion (Average)
SDSU: 27:57
Opponents: 32:03

Conversion Rate
SDSU 3rd Down: 42%
SDSU 4th Down: 18%
Opponents 3rd Down: 40%
Opponents 4th Down: 47%

2009:
Turnovers:
12 - INTs thrown (O'Brien 9 / Crawford 3)
18 - INTs by SDSU defense

7 - Fumbles lost
5 - Fumbles recovered

Penalties (as MJA alluded to - this is a very striking stat considering the 2 more games last year):

SDSU: 54 for 485 yards
Opponents: 71 for 612 yards

Time of Possesion (Average)
SDSU: 30:01
Opponents: 29:59

Conversion Rate
SDSU 3rd Down: 39%
SDSU 4th Down: 25%
Opponents 3rd Down: 35%
Opponents 4th Down: 50%

[jackmd]

Re: Luke Meadows and TOB

So, which comes first chicken or egg? Does the D create turnovers, or does the O give up turnovers? Or both. I feel D creates fumbles, but the O gives INT. eliminate a few mental mistakes not throwing those INTs and we win a few more games then we lose.

INT's occur for widely varying different reasons. They can be the fault of the QB, the receiver, the blockers, they can be the result of a need to force the pass because of bad defense and a large deficit on the scoreboard, they can occur because the QB makes bad decisions or is put in a position by play calling that doesn't allow him enough options. They can occur because the ground game allows LBs and DBs to key on the pass. My point, there are way to many reasons for INT's to blame just the QB.

Another point, in many instances INT's aren't that harmful. If they don't occur deep in your territory, aren't returned for 6, or don't cost your team needed points they are hardly noticed. After all, you can't really be a successful passing team if you don't throw an occasional interception. Get your D on the field and stop the other team or force a turnover for them.

That said, it's clear to me that TOB's main role this year was not to make mistakes. He made too many and for that there is some blame. However, that blame is not solely to be placed on TOB. There are simply too many variables. TOB can learn to take a sack or scramble and slide, throw the ball away (I mean far away) and when not to take a risk and dump a pass, at least I hope he can.

[91jack]

Re: Luke Meadows and TOB

I think that the QB gets too much credit-blame, too. I do think some of it is justified though. I'd say that 2 or 3 of the interceptions came off dropped passes but TOB was probably guilty of 12 or so. The games where TOB doesn't turn the ball over at least twice, SDSU wins. The games he turns it over, SDSU loses. He didn't get hit in some of the games so you can't blame it in pressure. He had a few INT's returned for TD's and there were a couple of them that took away points. We were in the red zone and he just threw it up for grabs.
I hope that TOB becomes more mature between his sophomore and junior seasons like some of you think. He may have a rocket for an arm but reading his progressions hasn't came, yet. If he didn't have his arm, we'd really but hurting with INT's.
I know some times he has to force the passes so it's not all by the numbers but some of it is.
There were points taken off the board by penalties, too. I wonder how many of his INT's came on deep throws. I do remember us making some plays down the field in some games. There were more drops on the deep ball but I'd rather have it picked off 20 yards down the field than at the line of scrimmage.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Luke Meadows and TOB

First of all, you should be reprimanded by the moderators for attacking a poster, not a post. This is a pretty unacceptable statement.

So every person who's ever been critical of a player, coach or other because of continued lack of performance should make a program deserving of not having fans?

Scott Nagy being a perfect example. There's many detractors of Nagy on this board (I have never been one of them for the record). So those detractors should just give up their season tickets and quit? And everyone else too because 25 people don't like how Nagy has handled the program since it went D-1. Pull the plug, only 8 people should show up Thursday night because the Jacks MBB team should have no more fans because Scott Nagy was beat up on a fan message board.

All of the people agreeing with the opinion that the Jacks QB and OC are not making the plays and calls to help this team win games...apparently we should all just be happy at 4-6. Everything's peachy. Let's continue on with making the playoffs every 30 years. Yes this may be on the road of Bison-ish, but reloading should be more of a trend than rebuilding.

See you Saturday when it's 35 degrees "Mr. Super Fan".

Its not ok to be happy with 4-6, and I don't think anyone is advocating that.

Its also not ok to pin it all on one player when there are pretty clearly multiple reasons for the bad year.

I do find it ironic that one would be so willing to anonymously call out a 20 year old kid while asking moderators for protection. I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

[TK22867]

Re: Luke Meadows and TOB

The bottom line is that we just should have come up with the money for Cam Newton.

[JackFan96]

Re: Luke Meadows and TOB

The bottom line is that we just should have come up with the money for Cam Newton.

Agreed. I'd give rep points, but it's well-documented that I have no clue how to do so...even after reading directions and being told how to a couple of times.

[Theee Catrabbit]

Re: Luke Meadows and TOB

The bottom line is that we just should have come up with the money for Cam Newton.

Does he take Hobo Dough?

[RowdyRabbit]

Re: Luke Meadows and TOB

Agreed. I'd give rep points, but it's well-documented that I have no clue how to do so...even after reading directions and being told how to a couple of times.

It's quite simple, in the upper right corner of every post, there are three icons.


Click the "weights and measures" icon shown above. A box will pop open.



type in a comment in support or against the post, and your screen name and click the "add to reputation" button.

You can practice by giving me rep for helping you to give rep!

Hope this helps.

[shot_5533]

Re: Luke Meadows and TOB

Giving opposing wide outs a 10 yard gap at the line kills me. QUOTE]

Cole Brodie gives them the 10 yard gap, but he sure closes it quick. Baits the QB for the ints.

We will miss Jeske too. He sure stepped up for Conrad.

On the bright side - Wise picked up his game. Also the young CB's improved all year and should be better next year. Bo Helm will have to step up to try and replace Jeske like Jeske replaced Conrad.

[MilwaukeeJacksAlum]

Re: Luke Meadows and TOB

Giving opposing wide outs a 10 yard gap at the line kills me. QUOTE]

Cole Brodie gives them the 10 yard gap, but he sure closes it quick. Baits the QB for the ints.

We will miss Jeske too. He sure stepped up for Conrad.

On the bright side - Wise picked up his game. Also the young CB's improved all year and should be better next year. Bo Helm will have to step up to try and replace Jeske like Jeske replaced Conrad.

If you play a zone coverage scheme, your CB's are not going to jam the WR's. That's not how it works. If you play a man-to-man scheme or even man/zone hybrid, you'll see more tight coverage. As stated earlier, the reason why Jeske was in so many plays around the line of scrimmage was because he was rolled up in a sort of Cover 3 scheme.

Cover 3, in basic terms, means you have one safety essentially playing the spot of an outside linebacker. He is "rolled up" into the box providing extra run support. In our 4-3 scheme, it creates a situation where one of your safeties morphs into a linebacker which leaves you with a sort-of 4-4 scheme with 2 CB and 1 Safety playing deep coverage. The 4 "linebackers" cover the under routes and short zone areas such as the hook and curl zones. Our CB's played 10 yards off the WRs because they had deep coverage responsibility meaning their first responsibility was to make sure no one got behind them. We played this scheme because we struggled stopping the run.

For what it's worth, the games we lost this season where the defense struggled was usually because the other team ran all over us. See Deleware and Indiana St. as memorable embarrassing performances. Rarely did a team's passing attack beat us. I really like our Defensive scheme. I just think our D-line struggled this year compared to last year's line (which was probably the best line in SDSU history).

Finally, having CB's play off the WR's is a viable philosophy in terms of D-fense. It is widely employed in the NFL in various forms of the "Tampa-2" coverage. Watch a Chicago Bears game and you will see them run a lot of Cover 2 and 3 packages. The philosophy in this format is you are gambling that the other team cannot consistently complete the short routes long enough to sustain a drive and eventually will miss a 3rd down pass forcing a punt. The focus is more on a good scheme and stopping the run. The bump and run "man coverage" packages such as the one employed by the New York Jets are more blitz oriented with a high risk/reward involved. You hope the risk of bringing the house and putting your CB's on an island pays off in turnovers or sacks and not a long pass play.

[SDSUAlum08]

Re: Luke Meadows and TOB

If you play a zone coverage scheme, your CB's are not going to jam the WR's. That's not how it works. If you play a man-to-man scheme or even man/zone hybrid, you'll see more tight coverage. As stated earlier, the reason why Jeske was in so many plays around the line of scrimmage was because he was rolled up in a sort of Cover 3 scheme.

Cover 3, in basic terms, means you have one safety essentially playing the spot of an outside linebacker. He is "rolled up" into the box providing extra run support. In our 4-3 scheme, it creates a situation where one of your safeties morphs into a linebacker which leaves you with a sort-of 4-4 scheme with 2 CB and 1 Safety playing deep coverage. The 4 "linebackers" cover the under routes and short zone areas such as the hook and curl zones. Our CB's played 10 yards off the WRs because they had deep coverage responsibility meaning their first responsibility was to make sure no one got behind them. We played this scheme because we struggled stopping the run.

For what it's worth, the games we lost this season where the defense struggled was usually because the other team ran all over us. See Deleware and Indiana St. as memorable embarrassing performances. Rarely did a team's passing attack beat us. I really like our Defensive scheme. I just think our D-line struggled this year compared to last year's line (which was probably the best line in SDSU history).

Finally, having CB's play off the WR's is a viable philosophy in terms of D-fense. It is widely employed in the NFL in various forms of the "Tampa-2" coverage. Watch a Chicago Bears game and you will see them run a lot of Cover 2 and 3 packages. The philosophy in this format is you are gambling that the other team cannot consistently complete the short routes long enough to sustain a drive and eventually will miss a 3rd down pass forcing a punt. The focus is more on a good scheme and stopping the run. The bump and run "man coverage" packages such as the one employed by the New York Jets are more blitz oriented with a high risk/reward involved. You hope the risk of bringing the house and putting your CB's on an island pays off in turnovers or sacks and not a long pass play.

And the New York Jets have two great cornerbacks in Cromartie and Revis. SDSU, and 99% of college teams, does not have these types of players.

[JackJD]

Re: Luke Meadows and TOB

Good explanation, MilwaukeeJacksAlum. More confirmation on why I didn't (couldn't?) play football (but love to watch it): a guy needs to think out there.

[Compare: Here's all one needs to know to participate in my sport: run; turn left.]