This is not meant to be a negative post... Just watched Coach B's presser and sensed frustration when discussing the QB and turnovers... Anyone else pick up on that ? Will they actually "do anything" about it or just "keep working on it" (while spotting the opponent 14 a week)?

I guess the question is: How long can a leash be before the leash is no longer a leash and becomes the mechanism by which you are being pulled ?(which btw was the premise of the ABO)

(11-01-2017 08:13 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  This is not meant to be a negative post... Just watched Coach B's presser and sensed frustration when discussing the QB and turnovers... Anyone else pick up on that ? Will they actually "do anything" about it or just "keep working on it" (while spotting the opponent 14 a week)?

I guess the question is: How long can a leash be before the leash is no longer a leash and becomes the mechanism by which you are being pulled ?(which btw was the premise of the ABO)

What is there to be "done" other than "keep working on it"? All three QB s have shared in the turnovers. Should we go down to to one of the walk ons? If there is something to be done, I am all for it, but what the heck would that be? Seriously, I want to hear what should be done. Tape the football to their hand for a week?

I think we are all frustrated with the turnovers. It would be odd if he wasn't.



***BTW, I thought ABO was a blood typing system. At least that is the clue/answer in the crossword puzzles.

(11-01-2017 08:13 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  This is not meant to be a negative post... Just watched Coach B's presser and sensed frustration when discussing the QB and turnovers... Anyone else pick up on that ? Will they actually "do anything" about it or just "keep working on it" (while spotting the opponent 14 a week)?

I guess the question is: How long can a leash be before the leash is no longer a leash and becomes the mechanism by which you are being pulled ?(which btw was the premise of the ABO)

Geeez..............

Turnovers that are benign.... like INT's on hail mary's and desperation drives down 30..
Turnovers that kill drives and prevent scores....
Turnovers that lead to points by the opponent....
Turnovers that immediately become points for the opponent......

There is clear delineation .... check the video...

(11-01-2017 09:43 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  Turnovers that are benign.... like INT's on hail mary's and desperation drives down 30..
Turnovers that kill drives and prevent scores....
Turnovers that lead to points by the opponent....
Turnovers that immediately become points for the opponent......

There is clear delineation .... check the video...

Speak plainly. This is not Math 100 where the proof is left to the reader.

(11-01-2017 08:13 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  I guess the question is: How long can a leash be before the leash is no longer a leash and becomes the mechanism by which you are being pulled ?(which btw was the premise of the ABO)

um...what is ABO?

(11-01-2017 10:29 AM)Pan95 Wrote:  um...what is ABO?

Agenda Based Offense

(11-01-2017 10:32 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 10:29 AM)Pan95 Wrote:  um...what is ABO?

Agenda Based Offense

Ahhh....thanks Westside....

(11-01-2017 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 09:43 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  Turnovers that are benign.... like INT's on hail mary's and desperation drives down 30..
Turnovers that kill drives and prevent scores....
Turnovers that lead to points by the opponent....
Turnovers that immediately become points for the opponent......

There is clear delineation .... check the video...

Speak plainly. This is not Math 100 where the proof is left to the reader.

Turnovers are clearly "self inflicted" wounds.. But let us break them down by QB:

Glaesman: a fumble 6 vs. Stanford, a fumble 6 vs. UH (if I recall correct.. may led to a TD), a fumble 6 vs. UTSA, a pick 6 vs. La Tech, fumbled at the one at UTEP, and had additional INT's vs. UTSA, UH, and La Tech... Arguably 40 points (give or take) directly off of QB miscues.

Smalls: (on only about 10 total snaps or so).. a pick 6 vs. Army, two fumbles leading directly to two Army scores. 21 Direct points off turnovers.

Tyner: Fumble at Stanford (down 30), INT vs. FIU killed a drive no points, hail mary INT at Pitt, INT 4th qtr at Pitt (killed a drive), INT in garbage time at Pitt, Hail mary INT vs. La Tech.. I do not recall an INT at UH but there may have been.... Leading to zero points and possibly preventing scores for us only.

Running a "game manager's offense"...All turnovers are bad and they cause it to be difficult to win.. But clearly, some of the nature of the turnovers from some are actually leading directly to losses...

It should also be pointed out, that the number one QB now has more playing experience overall than the now number three. Hence, I have alluded to the proverbial leash... Number three did not receive such a leash and arguably speaking... did engineered less damage to ourselves against tougher opponents.

(11-01-2017 10:27 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 08:13 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  I guess the question is: How long can a leash be before the leash is no longer a leash and becomes the mechanism by which you are being pulled ?(which btw was the premise of the ABO)

I know right?

(11-01-2017 10:43 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 09:43 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  Turnovers that are benign.... like INT's on hail mary's and desperation drives down 30..
Turnovers that kill drives and prevent scores....
Turnovers that lead to points by the opponent....
Turnovers that immediately become points for the opponent......

There is clear delineation .... check the video...

Speak plainly. This is not Math 100 where the proof is left to the reader.

Turnovers are clearly "self inflicted" wounds.. But let us break them down by QB:

Glaesman: a fumble 6 vs. Stanford, a fumble 6 vs. UH (if I recall correct.. may led to a TD), a fumble 6 vs. UTSA, a pick 6 vs. La Tech, fumbled at the one at UTEP, and had additional INT's vs. UTSA, UH, and La Tech... Arguably 40 points (give or take) directly off of QB miscues.

Smalls: (on only about 10 total snaps or so).. a pick 6 vs. Army, two fumbles leading directly to two Army scores. 21 Direct points off turnovers.

Tyner: Fumble at Stanford (down 30), INT vs. FIU killed a drive no points, hail mary INT at Pitt, INT 4th qtr at Pitt (killed a drive), INT in garbage time at Pitt, Hail mary INT vs. La Tech.. I do not recall an INT at UH but there may have been.... Leading to zero points and possibly preventing scores for us only.

Running a "game manager's offense"...All turnovers are bad and they cause it to be difficult to win.. But clearly, some of the nature of the turnovers from some are actually leading directly to losses...

It should also be pointed out, that the number one QB now has more playing experience overall than the now number three. Hence, I have alluded to the proverbial leash... Number three did not receive such a leash and arguably speaking... did engineered less damage to ourselves against tougher opponents.

I am well acquainted with our QB/TO problems.

But what do you want Bailiff to DO about it? Sounds like you want Tyner back in there. Fine with me. i like Tyner. But what is bailiff NOT doing that you want him to DO?

And how does what he is doing or not doing show an agenda? And what is that agenda?

NG thinks t there is a JK-DB conspiracy, whereby JK wants DB to stay and told him to make his team look like it's losing primarily because it's full of young/inexperienced guys because that's the only excuse that will allow JK to justify keeping DB on. It assumes both DB and JK are morons and that the two of them believe the BOT/admin and general fanbase are mostly morons. And he's concocted this entire thing because he's a Tyner superfan and his convoluted conspiracy is the only way he can imagine that his favorite QB is not starting.

This is dumb on so many levels.

(11-01-2017 12:26 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  NG thinks t there is a JK-DB conspiracy, whereby JK wants DB to stay and told him to make his team look like it's losing primarily because it's full of young/inexperienced guys because that's the only excuse that will allow JK to justify keeping DB on. It assumes both DB and JK are morons and that the two of them believe the BOT/admin and general fanbase are mostly morons. And he's concocted this entire thing because he's a Tyner superfan and his convoluted conspiracy is the only way he can imagine that his favorite QB is not starting.

This is dumb on so many levels.

I think I just got called dumb...

A Tyner fan? Sure... 6'5" 240 pound sideline signaller with a big arm? Who wouldn't be a fan of that?... But... Really all I want at this point.. Is my Quarterback to stop scoring for the other team. Concocted theory or not, that isn't too much to ask. Or is it?

And please remember, I have killed the ABO theory.. This query is solely about football and addressing ball security... Has nothing to do with contract negotiations or motives. You brought that up sir...

(11-01-2017 01:29 PM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  And please remember, I have killed the ABO theory.. This query is solely about football and addressing ball security... Has nothing to do with contract negotiations or motives. You brought that up sir...

Did you type that with a straight face? You named the f'ing thread.

Welcome to my ignore list.

(11-01-2017 01:29 PM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  And please remember, I have killed the ABO theory.. This query is solely about football and addressing ball security... Has nothing to do with contract negotiations or motives. You brought that up sir...

Bro - the thread title is "ABO not dead?"

This is gold...

Title got you all to check it though.... troll or not....

Couldn't help but notice the deafening silence regarding the Points allowed per turnover...

By the way Ant, I really do want to kill the ABO theory.. They just won't let it die...

(11-01-2017 01:55 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 01:29 PM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  And please remember, I have killed the ABO theory.. This query is solely about football and addressing ball security... Has nothing to do with contract negotiations or motives. You brought that up sir...

Did you type that with a straight face? You named the f'ing thread.

Welcome to my ignore list.

You will be back.... They always come back