re: These are the kind of articles we are subjected to these days

He isn't wrong about the offense. Etling simply is not the future and it will be a long season next year with him at QB. I like him a lot and you can tell he plays hard...he's just not that talented. Then again, we don't have anything else. Maybe he'll see a nice jump in maturity next year and prove me wrong. I just see him as being at his ceiling right now and an average QB at best. He has some nice things about him like pocket awareness but you can see his physical limitations hold him back in games. Playing defenses with a pulse really exposed those parts. That said, defensive performance was elite hard to complain about anything there. Article really is dumb. Can't believe I gave it hits.

"So if you remove this big play, that big play, then this big play...it's a close game"

How the frick is that any different from ANY game ever?

Link should be removed and only post the article in OP's post. Doesn't deserve hits.

Well the great florida state gave up 63 pts and clemson gave up 36 to them. But nobody said lsu had a high power explosive offense. But yes the mvp could go to the entire defense. But also guice doesnt do it all alone either.

quote:

---

I always get a good laugh from these 23 year old web writers who try to break down film and analytics like they are a coordinator.

---

It definitely sounded like the kid who wrote that article went into it trying too hard to look smart and ended up locking down dumbarse writer of the year.

Talk about a glass half empty...dude's an idiot.

The article is another example of how people never evaluate great defense the way they evaluate great offense.

If LSU had won 59-39, the writer would be saying it was a great victory and there would be no mention of the mediocre defensive effort.

Our offense didnt look great the entire game but our defense just completely shite down the most explosive offense in cfb.

The writer keeps talking about context, but it's apparent he'said taking things out of context to fit his context. Ironically, he says any LSU positives from this game for LSU are taken out of context.
Let that sink in.

quote:

---

He is right about the offense. Guice didn't really have a great game. He busted that long one, but before that, he had been held in check. Louisville does have a good rush D though. And Etling was very erratic. He was bailed out several times by Dupre. It was pretty frustrating game to watch the offense. The defense was incredible though.

---

This right here. They don't want to hear it, but QB play was awful yet again and Guice was shut down outside of the 70 yard run. He was averaging 3.2 yards per carry on 19 carries before that. Minus the 70 yarder, he averaged 2.72 ypc on 25 carries, lost yardage on 7 carries, and only had 5 carries longer than 6 yards (that includes the 70 yarder).

Dupre and Chark made some incredible plays, but the OL didn't get much push at all and Etling was not accurate at all.

Next year hinges on getting the OL up to snuff and finding a real playmaker QB out of the 5-6 guys we'll have. LSU has 2 great options for the receiving TE position, several electric options for the jet sweep (including CB Jackson and never used WR Dillion), and an X factor FB/RB option that I believe would be the 2nd best RB on our team if given the chance (Ducre). Hell even Mouton now becomes difference maker as a FB or TE.