re: Reason for loss in Oxford

LSU's $4.5 million coach already admitted that he didn't have his team ready to play

I agree the defense was not there especially the linebackers over running plays and the linemen that can't get off a block!

quote:

---

We are still using the young defense excuse, yet Ole Miss was playing walk-ons.

---

Then clearly our offense was a problem. I don't see how you can conclude that the defense was the biggest problem when they were playing against a seasoned offense playing their best game of the year while our offense was going against walk-ons.

Defense was pourous at best. Mett needs to learn how to look off one receiver and go to another one. He's a senior, and he'll need this skill to make it at the next level. Another question is "why did we abandon the running game with 5 minutes left in the third quarter"?? We were 10 points behind.
Also, the commentators said that LSU called the time out with only a few seconds on the clock. Wouldn't have made more sense to call it with 25 or so left so that we could position ourselves for a field goal of our own?

quote:

---

Posted by yeauxkneauxit You are the only one. This loss doesn't fall on Mett shoulders alone

---

Right, whole team can take this loss. Offense should score more than 27 on that OM defense. Defense should be able to hold OM to under 24.

"Am I the only one who thinks the defense played well enough for us to win?"

In any close game, you can make this sort of argument because it is easy to point to a play or two that would have changed things. For example, "the offense had a bad first half but hung 24 on the board in the second. The O played 'well enough to win' if the D could have ever gotten off the field on 3rd down in the second half instead of giving up 6 of 8." The more meaninful question is simply whether the D played well. Unfortunately, the answer is "no, the D surrended 525 yards to Ole Miss in a disastrous outing."

"The gameplan was good enough to win?"

The same, relatively meaningless assertion could be made for the offensive game plan. In fact, it would be more supportable because the offensive failures were more directly tied to poor decisions/throws by Mett. The D was bad for most of the game and dreadful late, which suggests a bad plan/preparation, not just a couple of mistakes.

"And that Mettenberger's first half of not checking down cost us the game?"

Of course, this "cost us the game." But so did "not making a stop when it counted." Hell, the Ole Miss return man almost "cost Ole Miss the game."

I mean, in a game that's decided by a field goal, there are always a million things that could have happened differently that would have changed the result of the game.

As usual for games that come down to the wire, it seems like the majority of the talking heads and bloggers are focusing on the final drive of the game. That was a poor defensive effort to be sure. But even with 3 picks, Ole Miss only scored 10 in the first half. So the defense is also the only reason we were even within striking distance at all.

Overall, Ole Miss played perfectly and got the benefit of subpar efforts on both sides of the ball for LSU. But I don't see how anyone could watch that game and conclude that it was all the defenses fault. It seems silly to point to just one thing when there's plenty of blame to go around, but if forced to, the three picks in the first half were clearly the biggest reason we lost.

quote:

---

LSU's $4.5 million coach already admitted that he didn't have his team ready to play

---

Unacceptable.

Yall think Alleva called Deebeaux into his office and told him anything at all? "Hey Les, I'm not paying you 4.5 milliion to take a few games off every season. How about giving some of your salary back."

Just so you know... In the books it goes down as LSU losing, not LSU Defense, LSU Offense! LSU lost because it was a combination of the lack of offense and defense.