COLUMN: 'Coffin' it up: Penn buries itself in turnovers

Green offense not big enough Green offense not big enoughScott Miller, Commentary It's obvious Penn gave away the game. Four Quakers turnovers led to 20 Big Green points. End of story. But Dartmouth's offensive numbers were nothing short of abysmal. The level of Yale football is predicted to be far below that of the rest of the Ivies, but this weekend, Dartmouth's offense looked and performed worse than the Elis. Here's a look at Dartmouth by the numbers: · 175: Dartmouth's total offense. The Big Green tied Yale for the league's lowest output (in yardage). · 5: The number of first downs the Big Green earned on Saturday The only other team in single-digits in this category was Yale, which mustered nine. Five first downs paled in comparison to Penn's 22. · 26: Dartmouth's rushing yards. On 29 carries (including three sacks), the Big Green ran .897 yards per carry. Princeton and Columbia's 43 and 46 rushing yards (respectively) are equally horrid, but still better than Dartmouth's. · 149: Dartmouth's passing yards. If the Big Green ground game was so miserable, then their passing game must have been functional -- right? Wrong. The 149 yards was second-best to Yale's 117, but the Elis were using third- and fourth-string quarterbacks Mike McClellan and Chris Whittaker. Dartmouth did complete 60 percent of its passes and averaged 8.2 yards per completion, but the total was not up to par, when combined with an more unimpressive ground attack. So how did the defending Ivy League champions manage to rack up 23 points? It was obviously handed to them -- that doesn't need to be discussed. But if this week was any indication, the Big Green and Ivy League's collective claim that Dartmouth can hold on to the trophy is asking for the impossible. There is no way that an offense that is as unproductive as Dartmouth's can win the Ivy title, let alone more than three or four conference games. The Big Green claim that it's their defense (on paper, arguably the league's best) that will win games. Against Princeton, Yale and Columbia, that will most likely be the case. But with Brown, Harvard and even Cornell showing that they can put up numbers, Dartmouth doesn't have a prayer with the offense seen on Saturday. Granted, the Quakers defense deserves credit. It made every single play it needed to. Penn captain and safety John Bishop's post-game comments that the defense failed by not creating turnovers and other big plays were simply captain-speak -- Bishop showing he is the team leader and taking responsibility. But Penn's defense didn't falter. The first Dartmouth touchdown was the fluke tipped-catch in the end zone. The second was on Penn's kickoff return fumble. For every other Big Green score, it was a case of the Penn defense holding Dartmouth to a field goal. But as good as Penn's defense was, there is no excuse for the miserable Dartmouth offense. Even Columbia, whose success in 1996 was based on its defense and not offense, put up better numbers against a more-experienced Harvard defense, where all 11 starters returned for the 1997 campaign. Offense wins a game. Defense does not. Without Penn turnovers, Dartmouth loses in embarrassing fashion. If the Big Green don't learn that lesson, it will be a cold, disappointing season in Hanover, N.H.