- 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: 3rd and Chavis as something that cost LSU = Myth
Posted on 1/7/10 at 1:43 pm to Cookieman
Posted on 1/7/10 at 1:43 pm to Cookieman
quote:
It tells me they were fukking tired...
And probably pissed that the offense couldnt stay on the field for more than a minute at a time...
totally agree...but in order to get them some rest try to get them off the field quicker by winning a down and distance battle every now and then... Not saying Chavis didnt do a good job...Just still very skeptical...My personality likes DC's to put pressure on a offense to make them fold to pressure (like a coward in battle)...not a "prevent them from scoring" attitude.(where the opposing O believes they have a chance)..I love defense b/c they can score and stop scoring...
2
Posted on 1/7/10 at 1:45 pm to TigerFan55555
quote:
totally agree...but in order to get them some rest try to get them off the field quicker by winning a down and distance battle every now and then... Not saying Chavis didnt do a good job..
it's a give and take though, the more you have faith in your offense to bail you out, the more chances you take...this year he had to assume that any big plays given up probably wouldn't have been matched by the O.
Posted on 1/7/10 at 1:46 pm to TigerFan55555
Once again, the offense finished 112th out of 120. They didn't even move on La Tech that well. When you have a shitty offense that doesn't stay on the field for more than 3 and outs, you have a defense that cannot be the best it could possibly be. If the offense would have put 8 more plays on the field per game to balance what the opposition did, then the defensive stats would have been even more impressive.
Posted on 1/7/10 at 1:47 pm to TigerFan55555
3rd and Chavis is just a catch phrase.
All I know is the defense could not get off the field in critical situations. PERIOD.
All I know is the defense could not get off the field in critical situations. PERIOD.
Posted on 1/7/10 at 1:47 pm to Tigercat
quote:
quote:
no big deal. the opponent only converts 42% of the time on 3rd down
You are right 3rd and medium/longs are no big deal.
(Nice try at deflecting the actual point via unimaginative sarcasm.)
thats not sarcasm. 42% of the time, the opponent converts on 3rd down. That isn't good brah
Posted on 1/7/10 at 1:57 pm to Tigercat
Is the lack of quarterback pressure and sacks a myth too? Penalties a myth? Players underachieving a myth? Getting blown off the line of scrimmage by EVERY team we played a myth?
Posted on 1/7/10 at 1:59 pm to Elleshoe
quote:
thats not sarcasm. 42% of the time, the opponent converts on 3rd down. That isn't good brah
The defense wasn't as good as it should have been, but the evidence in the stat book doesn't point the finger at a prevent-esque scheme. And anyone who has objectively watched a LSU game this past year can clearly see how horrid the DL was compared to the rest of the defense. Simple as that, brah, and thats the point. No one is satisfied with the overall result.
Posted on 1/7/10 at 2:03 pm to jwill37
i'd say this. We heard "3rd and Chavis" and watched Washington convert 11/19 on 3rd downs, w/ long conversions on 3rd & 12, 14, 8, 6, 10, and 6 w/ a roughing the passer conversion on 3rd & 12 for good measure.
I guess it didn't hold true all season, but w/ everyone watching in game 1, the "3rd and Chavis" concept made a big impression.
I guess it didn't hold true all season, but w/ everyone watching in game 1, the "3rd and Chavis" concept made a big impression.
Posted on 1/7/10 at 2:10 pm to Tigercat
the lack of 3 and outs was mentioned. Looking at the drive charts for each game, I come up w/ the following:
Team - # of 3 and outs - # of possessions - Turnovers
Washington - 1 - 10 - 2
Vandy - 3 - 11 - 1
ULL - 3 - 10 - 3
Miss St - 4 - 16 - 3
UGa - 6 - 11 - 1
UF - 1 - 8 - 1
Auburn - 3 - 12 - 3
Tulane - 4 - 11 - 1
Bama - 2 - 12 - 1 (and a safety)
Ole Miss - 1 - 11 - 0
Ark - 1 - 12 - 1
PSU - 3 - 13 - 0
I may have miscounted the # of possesions or missed something here or there; however, the thing that stuck out on all the drive charts was the # of long, sustained drives we gave up.
Team - # of 3 and outs - # of possessions - Turnovers
Washington - 1 - 10 - 2
Vandy - 3 - 11 - 1
ULL - 3 - 10 - 3
Miss St - 4 - 16 - 3
UGa - 6 - 11 - 1
UF - 1 - 8 - 1
Auburn - 3 - 12 - 3
Tulane - 4 - 11 - 1
Bama - 2 - 12 - 1 (and a safety)
Ole Miss - 1 - 11 - 0
Ark - 1 - 12 - 1
PSU - 3 - 13 - 0
I may have miscounted the # of possesions or missed something here or there; however, the thing that stuck out on all the drive charts was the # of long, sustained drives we gave up.
Posted on 1/7/10 at 3:04 pm to los angeles tiger
quote:
why didnt you include all games?
quote:Because the defense's inability to get off the field (even in wins), is what cost our offense critical playing time, we don't have that great of an offense anyway, and they needed every scoring opportunity possible. Of course, you could say that the defense was getting tired because of all the 3 and outs on offense. Chicken or the egg I guess?
Why would he need to? He posted about the games we lost.
Page 4 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News