- 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: "Offense is the problem"
Posted on 1/15/13 at 7:30 pm to Mayhawman
Posted on 1/15/13 at 7:30 pm to Mayhawman
quote:
What that really mean when you aren't aligning it with SOS? Lots of losers in the top 1/2 of that category, fwiw. Let them play SEC schedules and see where they land
You wanna compare to the rest of the SEC? Since 2005, Miles' entire tenure, he has the 6th ranked offense out of the 12 teams (excluding the two new teams).
Since 2008...well lets just say his three best offenses came in his first three years and there's been a notable drop off. My guess, because I don't have the data just from 2008 on directly in front of me yet, is LSU will have the 8th to 10th best offense in the SEC since 2008 combined.
1
Posted on 1/15/13 at 7:32 pm to ForeLSU
Thanks to you both (ForeLSU and UnknownKnight). Interesting stuff. On the surface it just 'feels' like our O hasn't functioned properly (with rare exception) since '07. Some stats seem to really underscore that and others suggests things haven't been as bad as they seem.
IMO, we can do much, much better. Our struggles transcend personnel, OCs, injuries, place-in-the-schedule, etc.
I like Les. I understand why we underwent a paradigm shift after '08. But it is time for the pendulum to swing back, i.e., just as the free-wheeling approach costs us some wins in '08, the (overly) conservative approach has costs us some wins (and championships) in the seasons since.
Because we're so conservative none of our players ever reach their full potential (ok, there may be some exceptions, but it's just that, exceptions). It's one season (and career) long slog.
IMO, we can do much, much better. Our struggles transcend personnel, OCs, injuries, place-in-the-schedule, etc.
I like Les. I understand why we underwent a paradigm shift after '08. But it is time for the pendulum to swing back, i.e., just as the free-wheeling approach costs us some wins in '08, the (overly) conservative approach has costs us some wins (and championships) in the seasons since.
Because we're so conservative none of our players ever reach their full potential (ok, there may be some exceptions, but it's just that, exceptions). It's one season (and career) long slog.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 7:32 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
2006 we averaged 6.6 yards per play on offense. 7th in the country.
2011 we averaged around ~5.6 yards per play lower than 50th in the country.
So there is one mighty big difference there. And to say 3 yards difference in starting field position is not a big deal is misleading. Especially when those three yards mean you are top 10 ranked or 70th ranked in the country.
not sure how you're making that ranking conclusion, post your data. The difference between the 10th ranked team and the 70th ranked team this year was 110 yards. Thats about 9 yards per drive if you assume 12 drives per game.
In addition, you can't simply ignore the 5 yard difference in where the kickoffs occured in 06 vs 11. Given that 11 had an average per play of 5.6, there's no reason to think they wouldn't have scored on the majority of their scoring drives if they were 3 yards longer.
as far as the yards per play goes, 06 certainly had more big play potential compared to 11. But 11 had more blowouts so they were pounding the ball late in the game to burn clock. Rankings have to be taken in context.
This post was edited on 1/15/13 at 7:35 pm
Posted on 1/15/13 at 7:36 pm to ForeLSU
Can't post them now (on phone).
But (total pass yards + total rushing yards)/(pass attempts + rushing attempts)
I have all this data compiled for every team in the NCAA for the last 8 years. It is really telling (IMO) from 2008 on for LSU.
But (total pass yards + total rushing yards)/(pass attempts + rushing attempts)
I have all this data compiled for every team in the NCAA for the last 8 years. It is really telling (IMO) from 2008 on for LSU.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 7:40 pm to ForeLSU
quote:
In addition, you can't simply ignore the 5 yard difference in where the kickoffs occured in 06 vs 11. Given that 11 had an average per play of 5.6, there's no reason to think they wouldn't have scored on the majority of their scoring drives if they were 3 yards longer.
I was originally accounting for that difference. See my earlier posts in this thread. My point was special teams/defense made it easier to score for the 2011 team than other LSU teams of the past. By the way, look at 2010, that year has some messed up stats
Posted on 1/15/13 at 7:47 pm to theunknownknight
IMO, you two need to agree on what metrics show an O's functionality and go from there.
Have no idea how you can quantify "clutch" but the fact that out O couldn't punch it in vs UF when handed the ball inside the 10 is telling as is the inability to seal wins vs Bama ('12) and Clemson and no first half first downs vs UGA in '11 and being shut-out vs Bama (BCSCG).
Have no idea how you can quantify "clutch" but the fact that out O couldn't punch it in vs UF when handed the ball inside the 10 is telling as is the inability to seal wins vs Bama ('12) and Clemson and no first half first downs vs UGA in '11 and being shut-out vs Bama (BCSCG).
Posted on 1/15/13 at 7:51 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
My point was special teams/defense made it easier to score for the 2011 team than other LSU teams of the past.
and you've been proven wrong...
Posted on 1/15/13 at 7:56 pm to AlwysATgr
quote:
IMO, you two need to agree on what metrics show an O's functionality and go from there.
Have no idea how you can quantify "clutch"
this is only a stats debate. The argument, set forth by unknown, et. al, was that Chavis and special teams were the primary factor in 2011's offensive production. The numbers don't support that argument, although that was certainly a huge asset for the team and a big reason all but 2 games weren't in doubt.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 8:01 pm to theunknownknight
If Robert N comes we can hide our offensive problems.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 8:10 pm to ForeLSU
I understand that you both are crunching numbers. My point would be that some of the numbers included in the data pool don't shed any substantial light on how (dys)functional our O really is.
They don't factor in clutch and game situations. Our 99 yd drive vs UTenn last year was largely irrelevant. Our inability to score a TD before the end of the half vs UF was huge.
It needs to be agreed on what charcterizes the functionality of an offense.
They don't factor in clutch and game situations. Our 99 yd drive vs UTenn last year was largely irrelevant. Our inability to score a TD before the end of the half vs UF was huge.
It needs to be agreed on what charcterizes the functionality of an offense.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 8:12 pm to ForeLSU
quote:
this is only a stats debate. The argument, set forth by unknown, et. al, was that Chavis and special teams were the primary factor in 2011's offensive production. The numbers don't support that argument, although that was certainly a huge asset for the team and a big reason all but 2 games weren't in doubt.
2011 was the best offensive year of the last 5 and we went 13-1. It still wasn't considered a strength. The hope was it was the beginning of being an improved team offensively. We regressed this year. We became better passing the ball but had a harder time running(doesn't make much sense). Sure we had injuries on the line and a first year QB but we aren't the only team facing obstacles. Players have come and gone over the last 5 years but its still a struggle. So what is the issue....
1. No issues the offense is fine?
2. Lack of execution?
3. Play calling?
4. Coaching?
5. Lacking talent?
6. System?
Posted on 1/15/13 at 8:15 pm to Topwater Trout
2-6
Posted on 1/15/13 at 8:17 pm to AlwysATgr
quote:
My point would be that some of the numbers included in the data pool don't shed any substantial light on how (dys)functional our O really is.
all numbers have to be taken in context...my only point in this thread was to show that the numbers being used by others were erroneous.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 8:24 pm to HuRRiCaNe MiLeS
I agree with the exception of 5
Posted on 1/15/13 at 8:26 pm to Topwater Trout
quote:
So what is the issue....
I'll post my thoughts at some point in the next couple of days, but the problem is most folks want to apply as simple, single-order cause-effect blame to the issue, and it's more complex than that. But the fact is, the 2011 offense was an above average offense. It just had no solution to the Bama defense.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 8:44 pm to ForeLSU
I think you are over analyzing the problems. Fact of the matter is the offense is not pulling its weight. Even last year with what you have said was a good offense we struggled against the really good defenses. 9 points in 8 quarters against Bama is crap!
Also last year I believe LSU was one of the leaders in turnover margin. If you don't turn the ball over and the defense is opportunistic it will hide the obvious deficiencies in stats on offense but the eye test still told most people we were not a well balanced offense.
Also last year I believe LSU was one of the leaders in turnover margin. If you don't turn the ball over and the defense is opportunistic it will hide the obvious deficiencies in stats on offense but the eye test still told most people we were not a well balanced offense.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 9:03 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
My point was special teams/defense made it easier to score for the 2011 team than other LSU teams of the past.
correct. That is undeniable. not sure how this thread got twisted into semantics into drive starts and scoring drive starts after that. The D and ST scored a bunch. Compare that with the 06 D and ST.
then just look at the damn offensive rankings.
case closed.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 9:06 pm to Topwater Trout
quote:
I think you are over analyzing the problems. Fact of the matter is the offense is not pulling its weight. Even last year with what you have said was a good offense we struggled against the really good defenses. 9 points in 8 quarters against Bama is crap!
did I not say the offense was ineffective vs. Bama? It wasn't a great offense, but the staff's strategy for that offense was effective. There are issues for sure, but to simply chalk up 2011's stats to defense and special teams isn't being objective...that's my only point.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 9:11 pm to Fat Bastard
quote:
The D and ST scored a bunch. Compare that with the 06 D and ST.
those scores weren't included in the stats....please try to check your biases at the door and look at the data. No one is claiming they're aren't issues. But 2011 did not benefit more than 2006 from defense and special teams with respect to starting position and scoring offense.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 9:47 pm to Fat Bastard
quote:This is the mark of good coaching, no?
The D and ST scored a bunch. Compare that with the 06 D and ST.
Miles has always featured +avg D and ST, yet you wish to use it against hi.
Page 10 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News