Enough with this 'they gave it to us' crap
A familiar refrain has reared its ugly head for the second consecutive week in the wake of our first win of the season. It goes something like this.
"Well, we wouldn't have even won/stayed close if _______ hadn't given us the ball ____ times."
I said it last week, and I'll say it again: That's a bunch of malarkey, and if that's the way you feel, I'm sorry you've been cursed to live a pessimistic existence that forces you to look at the world with a glass half empty mentality.
I didn't watch the game or listen to it, so I can't speak with any kind of authority about the interceptions (and two of their subsequent returns for touchdowns) other than what I've read, but unless a team botches a center/quarterback exchange or a handoff in the backfield, the defense almost always has at least something to do with a turnover. We are often way, way too eager to call it a mistake by the offense.
I understand where the sentiment comes from. After all, the offense is in control of the ball, and if they had picked a different receiver, or thrown the ball away, or held onto it a little tighter, there would have been no turnover. True enough. But if a defensive back hadn't broke on the ball, or ripped at it aggressively, or -- don't overlook this one -- simply caught the ball (hello, Texas Longhorns!), there would be no turnover, either.
So, please, let's give credit where credit is due on this one. The Cougars are now sixth -- SIXTH! -- nationally in takeaways with nine in three games, after having just 13 in 13 games last year. They've recovered five of eight opponent fumbles after recovering just three of 17 last year.
The interceptions? To echo woolybugger's brief analysis on the game thread, I don't care if Bo Levi Mitchell stared right at a defender, pointed with is finger and mouthed the words, "I'm throwing it right to you," that guy still has to catch the ball, and still has to take it to the house all by his lonesome.
Oh, and there was this little matter of our heretofore completely inept offense driving 80 yards for the game-tying touchdown with less than 30 seconds to go.
I know it wasn't the prettiest win. And I know there are a lot of reasons to feel like we are going to have major problems competing moving forward. But for one Saturday, the Cougars were the ones making the plays that were the difference in the game.
That is something to be celebrated, not minimized and discarded.
22 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
THANK you!
Nuss, I want to give that post one big, gigantic, AMEN.
Geez, some people are such critics. It must be tough to go through life with such a gloomy outlook on things.
i dont think im pessimistic or gloomy
I do think I witnessed the most horrific quarterback meltdown I’ll ever see in person though. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying that.
I celebrated the win (!!!) Just like anyone else. I just didn’t try to take more out of it than what was there.
by BigWood! on Sep 21, 2009 12:02 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
added
To show I’m not a cold-hearted coug hater, I willl add that I thought chima made a huge play in overtime. It was (again) a very poor decision by the qb, but it was an incredibly athletic maneuver to pull that ball down.
Happy? ;)
by BigWood! on Sep 21, 2009 12:10 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
nope, just arrogant
I assume everyone is thinking of me specifically at all times.
by BigWood! on Sep 21, 2009 4:23 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
this isn't about you
It’s about me…..
I got quoted, almost.
by woolybugger on Sep 21, 2009 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions
I thought it was me
Of course I qualified my statement in the next paragraph, soooo…. maybe not. I’m sure some of the anti-Wulff crowd on the Cougfan forums were in a tizzy,.
Like most QB mistakes, some of it is the QB, some of it was the defense. I’m damn excited we were on the right side for once. Fun game to watch.
by Grady Clapp on Sep 21, 2009 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions
I was at the game, and the defense made some great plays to get this turnovers.
One of the two interceptions that we returned for a TD was created by pressure from Travis Long, that made Mitchell make a throw that he would never had made. Long was a stud on Saturday, for those who were not at the game.
The interception by Beck was also a great play, and Beck made a play on the ball, which none of our players were doing the last couple years.
The interception by Jones was also very impressive, and it was really our first glimpse of what Jones is capable of doing. Not only did Jones make an outstanding read, but it was not an easy catch to make.
And Chima did something that we have not seen a lot of, he went up and got the ball instead of waiting and watching the other team make a play.
It is time for all of the NegaCougs to either get on board and help turn this thing around, or stay away not hurt our program.
Our players have done nothing but play their hearts out this season, and they deserve our support. If this team, and coaching staff keep believing and fighting, I have no doubt that in a couple years we will be a much improved program.
by bson25 on Sep 21, 2009 1:32 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Thanks for the observations.
I love the word “NegaCoug” and look forward to using it in the future.
by Craig Powers on Sep 21, 2009 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions
I can't do that
The Huskies consistently used NegaDawg and Typologist last year. Using NegaCoug is something I wouldn’t be able to bring myself to do
It originated with the Huskies?
I’m out then.
by Craig Powers on Sep 21, 2009 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Yep
I think it was present on the dawgman forums throughout the Willingham era… and the infighting was consistently hilarious. I miss it already.
by Grady Clapp on Sep 21, 2009 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions
yes - NegaDawg will forever be tied to the Tyrone era.
BTW – thanks for the post. I can now reference it anytime I hear a coug saying that USC gave UW the win by turning the ball over three times in the red zone. As you say, the Dawg D had something to do with that.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
The UW defense had A LOT to do with it
They were absolutely relentless in attacking the ball. As much as I hate to give Nick Holt props — because I think he’s a lunatic — that’s coaching.
I'll give them crap when it's warranted
It’s just that in this case it’s not warranted. Like somehow they should apologize for SMU’s mistakes, which they did an unbelievable job of exploiting.
This doesn’t mask the fact that there were big problems that might cause big issues moving forward, but they have nothing to apologize for in this win.
so which is it?
Did SMU not give us the win or should we not feel bad about SMU giving us the win? I’m squarely in camp B.
If we’re ever going to start giving back wins wez’d have to start with @ arizona ’04…. But stoops is an idiot enough not to take it.
by BigWood! on Sep 21, 2009 4:28 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Certainly, the offense has to make a mistake (no matter how minute) to have a turnover
I just think that we tend to place far too much blame on the offense and not credit the defense in these cases.
But, again, I wasn’t there. Maybe Mitchell did wink at the Hyphen and say, “This one’s for you, big boy!” and then the Red Sea parted as he walked into the end zone.
NegaCougs
It’s not really about being critical or pessimistic to say that we were outplayed and that SMU mistakes gave us a chance to get back in it. It’s just a different take on the same game.
Similarly, we “pessimists” were the same ones who predicted a 1 or maybe 2 win season, which I think most people are now anticipating. A lot of people were predicting 4-5 wins including Stanford, Hawaii, UCLA, & Washington! So far they’re 0 for 2. It’ll take a miracle to knock off those remaining 2. It sure seems like 2008 all over again.
You don’t have to view everything through biased crimson lens to be a fan or support the team. I support people who have/had blind optimism coming into the season, but again, it’s also a legitimate view point to have a realistic outlook.
Go Cougs
Nuss, I love that "point and mouth the words"
because that is exactly what the Lobster did on several plays and hit SMU players in the spot where they least expected it, in the hands! We actually thought that we were trying a new play, the ricohet. You throw it at the opposing team and then try to catch it when it bounces off their hands.
Off topic, but related to your quote I am concerned the staff is waiting too long to play Tuel. As I continue to say, if a frosh isn’t going to start at least in half the games, then he should not be playing (unless injuries dictate otherwise).

by 











