- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If we were to get Leach
Posted on 11/29/10 at 1:20 pm to xXLSUXx
Posted on 11/29/10 at 1:20 pm to xXLSUXx
quote:
the argument that the reason Leach shouldn't come, because our D would suffer, is invalid.
I agree that it is invalid if we are saying that we should keep Crowton rather than going after Leach...again under both coaches our defense would be on the field the same amount of time.
But again, I am not saying that I want Crowton over Leach. What I am saying is that I want someone that has run a proven balanced attack. An offensive coach that can put of an average of 30 points (instead of Leach's 45 maybe) but that can help keep our defense fresh enough to keep the other team to say 10 points. I just don't see how winning 45 to 40 under Leach as OC would be any better than winning 20 to 14 like we do now.
1
Posted on 11/29/10 at 1:21 pm to Books
quote:
this is fricking stupid. Why does a huge upgrade on the offense equate to a HUGE drop off on defense? Is LSU giving up 40+ pts now w/ the terrible T.O.P.? No. Stop w/ this asinine bs.
How is this fricking stupid?!?! Name one team that runs or ran a spread offense that also had a top 10 defense consistently?
Posted on 11/29/10 at 1:21 pm to Chicot
quote:holy shite, you're slow
but that can help keep our defense fresh enough to keep the other team to say 10 points. I just don't see how winning 45 to 40 under Leach as OC would be any better than winning 20 to 14 like we do now.
Posted on 11/29/10 at 1:23 pm to Books
quote:
holy shite, you're slow
Okay, then..how would it be better? Or are you only capable of firing off lame arse insults rather than adding anything of substance to the discusion?
Posted on 11/29/10 at 1:23 pm to xXLSUXx
Would Leach possibly run the ball with good running backs to salt away a win if he knew he had a defense that could protect a lead when not worn out
Posted on 11/29/10 at 1:23 pm to Chicot
quote:LSU managed a pretty stout defense this yr w/ a terrible time of possession. How does that change if the offense is scoring points instead of 3 and outs?
How is this fricking stupid?!?! Name one team that runs or ran a spread offense that also had a top 10 defense consistently?
Posted on 11/29/10 at 1:25 pm to Chicot
quote:
Okay, then..how would it be better?
b/c the offense is scoring as opposed to going 3 and out? LSU's defense held up well this yr as is and if they had more pts on the board LSU wouldn't have lost a game. And for the record, I didn't start w/ the lame insults til you continued to ignore several valid pts
This post was edited on 11/29/10 at 1:27 pm
Posted on 11/29/10 at 1:26 pm to Chicot
quote:
Chicot
I agree with your idea, but don't think it would affect us as much as you think. Leach would have had better defenses if he had players like Peterson, Nevis, Sheppard, and Mathieu.
But we both can agree on the fact that we need someone better than Crowton.
Posted on 11/29/10 at 1:28 pm to Books
quote:
Books
I noticed you still answer my question. Can you name one team that runs or ran a spread offense that also had a top 10 defense consistently?
Posted on 11/29/10 at 1:28 pm to ForeLSU
quote:
more risk is put into the offense which forces the defense to have to clean up any messes. Gives them less time to rest and may produce more short fields than you'd like.
How is this any different than the status quo?
Posted on 11/29/10 at 1:33 pm to Chicot
you ignored mine first and continue to ignore my points. LSU doesn't need a top 10 defense w/ an offense averaging 35+ ppg. But that doesn't mean LSU's defense w/ the same coaching and talent would start giving up the absurd 40+ you keep throwing out. There's a middle ground and a quick scoring offense doesn't magically make LSU's talent or defensive staff inept.
AGAIN, LSU's defense managed a top 10 defense THIS YEAR w/ an offense that couldn't stay on the field. How is it possibly bad if the offense is scoring instead of going 3 and out?
AGAIN, LSU's defense managed a top 10 defense THIS YEAR w/ an offense that couldn't stay on the field. How is it possibly bad if the offense is scoring instead of going 3 and out?
This post was edited on 11/29/10 at 1:36 pm
Posted on 11/29/10 at 1:36 pm to Books
quote:
LSU's defense held up well this yr as is and if they had more pts on the board LSU wouldn't have lost a game.
Really? Because in the Auburn games and Arkansas games it looked the the defense had their asses handed to them. LSU scored enough points to beat Arkansas but the defense gave up way, way too many big plays.
Look at the big games we won...Florida and Bama...LSU had sustained drives that allowed the defense to rest. What happened? We won. Against Auburn and Arkansas, offense was off the field quickly and defense spent far more than their share of time on the field and got our asses handed to us. With Leach's offense, expect our defense to be out there the same amount of time as they were for Auburn and Arkansas. Again, I admit that we would have more points, but I state again..Is winning 45 to 40 really any better than 20 to 14? No. So Leach may not be the upgrade that we really need to go after.
quote:
And for the record, I didn't start w/ the lame insults til you continued to ignore several valid pts
So because I chose to "ignore" what you believed to be valid points you feel it is justified to start insulting someone? Great job of debating!! Let me tell you...perfect form?
By the way, which were the valid points again? I don't believe I saw you post any. Any since you have chosen to ignore equally valid points, does that mean I can now refer to you as a dipshit?
Posted on 11/29/10 at 1:39 pm to Books
quote:
you ignored mine first
Really? Because when I look up at the posts, my question was posed first?
quote:
continue to ignore my points
No, I am not ignoring them. Just waiting for you to post some.
quote:
How is it possibly bad if the offense is scoring instead of going 3 and out?
Didn't say it was bad, just said it wasn't as good as we should be trying to get.
Now, can you answer my question: Can you name one team that runs or ran a spread offense that also had a top 10 defense consistently?
Posted on 11/29/10 at 1:40 pm to xXLSUXx
quote:
But we both can agree on the fact that we need someone better than Crowton.
Yes we can!!!
That sucker has got to go!!
Posted on 11/29/10 at 1:40 pm to Chicot
quote:Had LSU scored more than 20 pts LSU wins even w/ the tired defense. And unless Leach's offense is scoring in 3 plays, that wouldn't be an issue. Not to mention the difference b/n 0 and 7 pts
Really? Because in the Auburn games and Arkansas games it looked the the defense had their asses handed to them. LSU scored enough points to beat Arkansas but the defense gave up way, way too many big plays. Look at the big games we won...Florida and Bama...LSU had sustained drives that allowed the defense to rest. What happened? We won. Against Auburn and Arkansas, offense was off the field quickly and defense spent far more than their share of time on the field and got our asses handed to us.
quote:again w/ the retarded jump to the defense giving up 40 ppg. It's my whole issue w/ your terrible logic
With Leach's offense, expect our defense to be out there the same amount of time as they were for Auburn and Arkansas. Again, I admit that we would have more points, but I state again..Is winning 45 to 40 really any better than 20 to 14? No. So Leach may not be the upgrade that we really need to go after.
Posted on 11/29/10 at 1:41 pm to Chicken
quote:
they have played much worse than that in last two games...
That's Leach's fault
Posted on 11/29/10 at 1:42 pm to glaucon
quote:
How is this any different than the status quo?
who said I wanted the status quo...
Posted on 11/29/10 at 1:43 pm to Books
quote:
again w/ the retarded jump to the defense giving up 40 ppg. It's my whole issue w/ your terrible logic
Okay, I can see your point here that you don't agree that we will necessarily give up 40 ppg. But you still haven't added anything to say why you think Leach is the best possible OC that LSU should be pursuing?
By the way, still waiting: Name one team that runs or ran a spread offense that also had a top 10 defense consistently?
Posted on 11/29/10 at 1:45 pm to Chicot
quote:try again
Really? Because when I look up at the posts, my question was posed first?
quote:
Books
BR
Member since Jun 2005
8682 posts
Online
re: If we were to get Leach (Posted on 11/29/10 at 1:10 p.m. to Chicot)
quote:
True it would likely be 7 more points, but they would still get worn out by the end of the game. Like someone said earlier, is it really better for us to win 48 to 44 than 20 to 14?
this is fricking stupid. Why does a huge upgrade on the offense equate to a HUGE drop off on defense? Is LSU giving up 40+ pts now w/ the terrible T.O.P.?
Chicot
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Aug 2007
916 posts
Online
re: If we were to get Leach (Posted on 11/29/10 at 1:21 p.m. to Books)
quote:
this is fricking stupid. Why does a huge upgrade on the offense equate to a HUGE drop off on defense? Is LSU giving up 40+ pts now w/ the terrible T.O.P.? No. Stop w/ this asinine bs.
How is this fricking stupid?!?! Name one team that runs or ran a spread offense that also had a top 10 defense consistently?
Posted on 11/29/10 at 1:46 pm to Books
quote:
Books
You are going full retard about something that has a very high chance of never coming to fruition.
You never go full retard.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News