- 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
A novel concept - perhaps Miles isn't so dumb
Posted on 10/25/10 at 5:04 am
Posted on 10/25/10 at 5:04 am
as many here want to make him out to be. I know this won't be popular around here, but if you step back a moment and put aside the frustration at how close we were to getting a win on the plains, perhaps there was some actual method to his madness.
We've all criticized the game plan against Auburn, such as not throwing down field more against a team which has been very poor against the pass, as well as the much loved Chavis (through 7 games at least) taking some blows this week for allowing Auburn to get over 500 yards of offense (never mind we were in the game until the very end).
Do you think Miles actually knows both his options at QB leave a lot to be desired? Surely he must as all the "experts" here seem to know it. That said, maybe the game plan made some sense - keep the clock running and keep the game close. That's really not a bad plan when you think about it, and we did have a shot to win it in the end (OK, so there was another clusterfrick with the last play for the Tigers, but that is another debate, this one is about the game plan).
So while the merits can be debated, perhaps they didn't want to force the ball down field given the risk of turn overs (as evidenced by JJ ending the first drive with an INT) and the fact running the ball would keep the clock running. Same for the defense, we played more to force Auburn to run and never really dared them to throw it. We all question that but perhaps the plan was to keep the clock running and merely contain Auburn. Maybe this was the result of seeing what can happen if you try to get into a shoot out with Auburn, even with a top notch QB and a decent backup, as Arkansas did.
So sure, in hindsight it seems the game plan sucked but had we won, maybe we'd be having a different debate? Anyway, maybe this is a stretch but perhaps it is one way of making some sense out of what was a very frustrating game plan on Saturday. (Perhaps they would have tried to throw more had that first down field attempt not resulted in an INT coupled with Lee getting hurt, but who knows).
We've all criticized the game plan against Auburn, such as not throwing down field more against a team which has been very poor against the pass, as well as the much loved Chavis (through 7 games at least) taking some blows this week for allowing Auburn to get over 500 yards of offense (never mind we were in the game until the very end).
Do you think Miles actually knows both his options at QB leave a lot to be desired? Surely he must as all the "experts" here seem to know it. That said, maybe the game plan made some sense - keep the clock running and keep the game close. That's really not a bad plan when you think about it, and we did have a shot to win it in the end (OK, so there was another clusterfrick with the last play for the Tigers, but that is another debate, this one is about the game plan).
So while the merits can be debated, perhaps they didn't want to force the ball down field given the risk of turn overs (as evidenced by JJ ending the first drive with an INT) and the fact running the ball would keep the clock running. Same for the defense, we played more to force Auburn to run and never really dared them to throw it. We all question that but perhaps the plan was to keep the clock running and merely contain Auburn. Maybe this was the result of seeing what can happen if you try to get into a shoot out with Auburn, even with a top notch QB and a decent backup, as Arkansas did.
So sure, in hindsight it seems the game plan sucked but had we won, maybe we'd be having a different debate? Anyway, maybe this is a stretch but perhaps it is one way of making some sense out of what was a very frustrating game plan on Saturday. (Perhaps they would have tried to throw more had that first down field attempt not resulted in an INT coupled with Lee getting hurt, but who knows).
17
Posted on 10/25/10 at 5:08 am to TigerinSoCal
4th and 6.
Posted on 10/25/10 at 5:10 am to TigerinSoCal
quote:
had we won, maybe we'd be having a different debate?
We won the first 7 games this year and we have been having the same debate
Posted on 10/25/10 at 5:11 am to SPEEDY
quote:
We won the first 7 games this year and we have been having the same debate
LOL...true dat...
Posted on 10/25/10 at 5:14 am to TigerinSoCal
quote:
That said, maybe the game plan made some sense
Starting a QB who has been horrific, and not adjusting at all to 430 yards rushing is not making sense to me.
quote:
We all question that but perhaps the plan was to keep the clock running and merely contain Auburn.
Ok, that may be a strategy at the start of a game. But when a team is STILL breaking long runs on your contain defense, it's not good gameplanning to not adjust to that.
Posted on 10/25/10 at 5:24 am to TigerinSoCal
I believe the last play was an attempt by Miles and Crowton to use their reputation to look confused in an attempt to confuse AU and get Tolliver unmarked. watched that play about 40 times last night...with all that confusion, and with our reputation, you can't tell me that we actually got set for that play, with a legal formation, and actually got the play off in time, without planning that...YOU CAN'T TELL ME THEY HAVEN'T WORKED ON THAT PLAY IN PRACTICE.
Posted on 10/25/10 at 5:25 am to hondapa26
I DON'T think Miles is dumb...I just hate nearly all of his decisions!
Posted on 10/25/10 at 5:27 am to hondapa26
quote:
look confused in an attempt to confuse AU and get Tolliver unmarked
Didn't Tolliver not even run a real route?
Posted on 10/25/10 at 5:41 am to TigerinSoCal
It's actually not a stretch at all. The way to beat Newton is to keep him on the bench. We did this pretty well in the first half, and were in a position to win. But we went very flat, giving him more touches. Had we not flatlined on offense late in the game, we very well could have won.
Posted on 10/25/10 at 5:42 am to TigerinSoCal
there is no perhaps.
The man isn't so dumb because he has a $4,000,000 salary, has LSU by the short hairs. Essentially he is a man with $80,000 abilities and the aforementioned salary.
Dumb like a fox.
Now, as a Head Football Coach I think you can make the argument that he isn't the brightest crayon in the box.
The man isn't so dumb because he has a $4,000,000 salary, has LSU by the short hairs. Essentially he is a man with $80,000 abilities and the aforementioned salary.
Dumb like a fox.
Now, as a Head Football Coach I think you can make the argument that he isn't the brightest crayon in the box.
Posted on 10/25/10 at 5:44 am to JohnnyU
SADLY, his salary is closer to 6 million
Posted on 10/25/10 at 5:47 am to hondapa26
quote:
SADLY, his salary is closer to 6 million
Posted on 10/25/10 at 5:47 am to shel311
quote:
Didn't Tolliver not even run a real route?
yeah, that's the only thing that opposes my theory. He ran a hook instead of a slant to the middle of the field. Had the ball even been thrown to him, he would have been 3 yds. short. But, I think he messed up. I really think the whole play was planned. If TT runs a slant, he takes it to the house b/c Bynes was pulled to the opposite side of the field when Murphy went in motion...TT was one on one!!! would have been a TD, but instead, he ran a hook route??? And didn't even try to fricking block for Lee when the play busted??? HE REALLY PLAYED TERRIBLE
Posted on 10/25/10 at 5:48 am to SPEEDY
go look at his contract
Posted on 10/25/10 at 5:49 am to hondapa26
Posted on 10/25/10 at 6:05 am to hondapa26
SALARY - $300,000/YEAR
NATIONAL CHAMPIONS BONUS - 3.75 MILLION A YEAR
TAF - $550,000/YEAR
TELEVISION, INTERNET - $975,000/YEAR
ADD IN THE POST SEASON GAME BONUS, AND HE COULD POTENTIALLY MAKE OVER 6 MILLION A YEAR
NATIONAL CHAMPIONS BONUS - 3.75 MILLION A YEAR
TAF - $550,000/YEAR
TELEVISION, INTERNET - $975,000/YEAR
ADD IN THE POST SEASON GAME BONUS, AND HE COULD POTENTIALLY MAKE OVER 6 MILLION A YEAR
Posted on 10/25/10 at 6:33 am to TigerinSoCal
Well since "If Auburn's approach gave LSU anything, it was the run to the quarterback" and "the quarterback run was LSU's best offense" LINK it is obvious that Lee should have gotten the vast majority or all of the snaps. I read it on the rant all week. It has to be true.
Posted on 10/25/10 at 6:38 am to Methuselah
I love the part that says
"Jefferson looked like his AU conterpart, keeping the ball on cut-read options, or on run pass options"...then comes the good part, "for 74 yds on 16 carries, and 1 TD"
"Jefferson looked like his AU conterpart, keeping the ball on cut-read options, or on run pass options"...then comes the good part, "for 74 yds on 16 carries, and 1 TD"
Posted on 10/25/10 at 6:44 am to TigerinSoCal
I wish we would have played JL and play action passed Auburn. Alabama will beat Auburn with that same strategy. They will control the ballgame and force Auburn to beat them with the pass which won't happen.
Posted on 10/25/10 at 6:44 am to TigerinSoCal
quote:In hindsight, the biggest problem in this game was not the defense giving up so many yards to AU. I think the week before we saw what their offense was capable of versus Arky. The biggest problem in this game, IMO, is the same problem we've been having for almost 2 years running... a non-productive offense, a lack of appropriate play calling, clock management, and inadequate use of people in skill positions. All of the above. It goes on...
in hindsight
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News