- 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: For those of you bitching about Chavis
Posted on 12/31/09 at 4:05 pm to drizztiger
Posted on 12/31/09 at 4:05 pm to drizztiger
quote:
Then why are you calling out the people bitching? They are bitching for the exact reasons of how good Chavis is and giving him a raise to stay.
The threads I read were good riddens to Chavis. I am not saying the guy is the best, but certainly not the worst. These are the same ones bitching about Pelini though I am sure.
This post was edited on 12/31/09 at 4:20 pm
2
Posted on 12/31/09 at 4:10 pm to Weaver
People were all saying that if he's going to play this game of wanting leave after one year to let him go. This is ridiculous. He played up a 33% raise after one above average year, and still below LSU's defensive average the previous what? 9 years?
Posted on 12/31/09 at 4:11 pm to Weaver
quote:
I am not saying the guy is the best, but certainly not the worse.
This is just about the consensus on the board. The raise to retain him is more the cause of bitching than people wanting Chavis gone.
Posted on 12/31/09 at 4:11 pm to LSUMafia
quote:
For those of you bitching about Chavis
Again, giving him a raise after one year is exactly why LSU will continue to be an 8-10 team win with little shot at the SEC title. Chavis' defenses more based on the offense. They get worse when the offense is better in his history. That's pretty bad to think when it should be the opposite.
We got 4, FOUR, ppg better this year. The pick 6's counted against the defense last year were ridiculous.
I agree that he should not have gotten a raise. My beef is people blaming the poor season on the d and 3rd and Chavis. The offense is 107. With the athletes we have, we should not be 107. The problem is the offense.
Posted on 12/31/09 at 4:21 pm to LSUMafia
quote:
People were all saying that if he's going to play this game of wanting leave after one year to let him go. This is ridiculous. He played up a 33% raise after one above average year, and still below LSU's defensive average the previous what? 9 years?
Again, I am against the raise. I am talking about after the season was over. My dad was even bitching about Chavis. The defense wasn't the problem. The offense was. If you want to bitch about raises, Crowton got one and did shitty, so people should really be bitching about him, not Chavis. At least Chavis made an improvement, Crowton did worse off then last year.
Posted on 12/31/09 at 4:23 pm to Weaver
I never blamed our poor performance, particularly on offense entirely on the defense. The offense sucked, but was made worse by the fact they got less chances. That is a fact.
Chavis' defense against UF proved my point. We just got way less opportunities and offensive rhythm was affected.
That said, 85% or more of our offensive problems lie squarely on Crowton's shoulders.
Chavis again is a good DC, but I will never expect a dominant defense under him nor one I believe is worth $600k a year.
Chavis' defense against UF proved my point. We just got way less opportunities and offensive rhythm was affected.
That said, 85% or more of our offensive problems lie squarely on Crowton's shoulders.
Chavis again is a good DC, but I will never expect a dominant defense under him nor one I believe is worth $600k a year.
Posted on 12/31/09 at 4:26 pm to LSUMafia
quote:
Chavis again is a good DC, but I will never expect a dominant defense under him nor one I believe is worth $600k a year.
This.
And Crowton shouldn't even be in the discussion, he should have been fired a month ago. If we ended up using Crowton's buyout money to retain Chavis, it's a double loss for LSU.
Posted on 12/31/09 at 4:26 pm to LSUMafia
We will agree to disagree. After one year, I don't think we can make a decision on if Chavis will be good or not. Before the hire last year, everyone said that with the LSU talent, Chavis' d would be lights out. Now everyone is saying he can't do shite. Alem was not very good. I am not convinced Pep is either. Nevis needs to step up and I think Josh Downs will be good. If the d line improves, I think the d will get better. I understand the linebackers will be weak, but the secondary should be lights out.
Posted on 12/31/09 at 4:26 pm to deuce985
quote:
I don't like how he used Georgia to get more money out of us.
It happens all the time, but i can't stand it either. So next year maybee he flirts with another team and LSU bumps him to 700k. When does it end. I'm not sure he is even worth the 500K he was getting paid.
Posted on 12/31/09 at 4:28 pm to Rza32
quote:
It happens all the time, but i can't stand it either. So next year maybee he flirts with another team and LSU bumps him to 700k. When does it end. I'm not sure he is even worth the 500K he was getting paid.
According to all the rantards, Miles won't be here, cause he is awful. Won't have to worry about that.
Posted on 12/31/09 at 4:28 pm to LSUMafia
quote:
I exaggerated but by stats its 10.
LSU offense - ~60 offensive plays per (722 plays in 12 games)
LSU opponents - ~70 offensive plays per game (846 plays in 12 games)
It's even a bigger issue in BCS games:
UF - 64 to 47 (-17)
MSU - 86 to 58 (-28)
Bama - 72 to 56 (-16)
UW - 83 to 48 (-35)
That's just 4 of our 9 BCS games alone accounting for a -96 difference between our offense and opponent's offensive plays.
Please explain where the defense is a major part of this equation and post the stats to back it up.
This post was edited on 12/31/09 at 4:29 pm
Posted on 12/31/09 at 4:31 pm to LSUMafia
so offensive time of possession is determined by the defense? man, where have i been? here i've been thinking that the offense controlled how long they held the ball. damn. you know, if you make a first down, they give you four more plays. that increases the number of plays you have by four and it also adds the time it takes to play those four plays to your time of possession. it also decreases the other teams plays by four. are you starting to get how this football thing works?
Posted on 12/31/09 at 4:34 pm to Weaver
quote:
According to all the rantards, Miles won't be here, cause he is awful. Won't have to worry about that.
you promise
Posted on 12/31/09 at 4:49 pm to moneyg
In all but the Bama game, the defense could not stop the opponents offense from moving the ball. Gave up 3rd down after 3rd down conversion.
Against Bama, its not like they didn't have quick strike drives, but this was a consistent problem. Time of possession is also about the defense getting the opponent's offense off the field. It would entirely be on the offense if the 3rd down conversion rate for our opponents wasn't high.
My point wasn't that Chavis is to blame for the offense, but he lost us the UF game as much as Crowton did.
Against Bama, its not like they didn't have quick strike drives, but this was a consistent problem. Time of possession is also about the defense getting the opponent's offense off the field. It would entirely be on the offense if the 3rd down conversion rate for our opponents wasn't high.
My point wasn't that Chavis is to blame for the offense, but he lost us the UF game as much as Crowton did.
Posted on 12/31/09 at 5:25 pm to LSUMafia
Offense going 3 and out lead to our low TOP...not the defense. In fact against UF, the defense did a hell of a job. UF really only scored two fields if you ignore the blatant penalty on the TD.
Our offense put up 3 points against Florida. There is no way to blame the defense on that one. The defense held UF to next to nothing, while also on the field all game.
3 and outs where out a defense. Notice we had 4th quarter leads against the other two teams, Ole Miss and Bama. The defense played well up until the fourth quarter. They were just flat out tired.
Our offense put up 3 points against Florida. There is no way to blame the defense on that one. The defense held UF to next to nothing, while also on the field all game.
3 and outs where out a defense. Notice we had 4th quarter leads against the other two teams, Ole Miss and Bama. The defense played well up until the fourth quarter. They were just flat out tired.
Posted on 12/31/09 at 5:30 pm to Newgene
It's a combination.
If the offense goes 3 and out, then the defense has to go back out. If the defense allows 10+ play drives, the defense stays out.
The defense actually allowed many of those type of drives in the first half of games, before they would be considered tired or fatigued from being on the field the whole game.
The offense sucked and the defense was improved, but certainly not dominant.
If the offense goes 3 and out, then the defense has to go back out. If the defense allows 10+ play drives, the defense stays out.
The defense actually allowed many of those type of drives in the first half of games, before they would be considered tired or fatigued from being on the field the whole game.
The offense sucked and the defense was improved, but certainly not dominant.
Posted on 12/31/09 at 5:36 pm to LSU GrandDad
quote:
so offensive time of possession is determined by the defense? man, where have i been? here i've been thinking that the offense controlled how long they held the ball. damn. you know, if you make a first down, they give you four more plays. that increases the number of plays you have by four and it also adds the time it takes to play those four plays to your time of possession. it also decreases the other teams plays by four. are you starting to get how this football thing works?
so wait, this thing applies to both teams, right? so if the defense doesn't stop the other offense from getting the first down, the other offense gets four plays more and you get four plays less, right?
Posted on 12/31/09 at 8:06 pm to lsutothetop
quote:
so wait, this thing applies to both teams, right? so if the defense doesn't stop the other offense from getting the first down, the other offense gets four plays more and you get four plays less, right?
Statically, LSU's defense was above average in 3rd down conversion rate...44th. LSU's offense was 103rd in time of possession.
If you want to continue to blame time of possession on the defense, go ahead.
Posted on 1/1/10 at 10:36 am to Maximus
quote:
so did the D get off the field on 3rd downs or not?
Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. You know, like all other teams that play football max. You should know this max, since you seem to know everything else there is to know about coaching football and running a program.
quote:
I'm confused
You are always confused max. Your head is always up your arse.
Posted on 1/1/10 at 10:36 am to Weaver
Prepare yourself! You cannot reason with some of the idiots on this board!
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News