After what I saw with Leach at TT, our defense would still be back on the field after 3 plays. True it would likely be 7 more points, but they would still get worn out by the end of the game. Like someone said earlier, is it really better for us to win 48 to 44 than 20 to 14?

Personally, I would rather win 30 to 10 with a balanced offense that scores after long, long time consuming drives that keeps the defense fresh rather than playing a shoot out.

So again, is Leach an upgrade? Sure. But is he as good as we could hope for? I don't think so.

This post was edited on 11/29/10 at 1:08 pm

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Books

Member since Jun 2005

11174 posts

Posted on 11/29/10 at 1:10 pm to Chicot

quote:
True it would likely be 7 more points, but they would still get worn out by the end of the game. Like someone said earlier, is it really better for us to win 48 to 44 than 20 to 14?

this is fricking stupid. Why does a huge upgrade on the offense equate to a HUGE drop off on defense? Is LSU giving up 40+ pts now w/ the terrible T.O.P.? No. Stop w/ this asinine bs.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by xXLSUXx

New Orleans, LA

Member since Oct 2010

10312 posts

Posted on 11/29/10 at 1:14 pm to Chicot

quote:
Chicot

So you're saying our D would be on the field the same amount of time as they currently are, AND we would score massive points?

So top 10 D and top 10 O. Awesome.
Gotcha. Although I understand what you're saying, the argument that our D would get tired because they would be on the field is weak. Would they be on the field any longer than they are now when we keep going 3-0? No.

I'm not saying Leach is the best choice, FWIW I'd prefer DH, but the argument that the reason Leach shouldn't come, because our D would suffer, is invalid.

2 ...

Report Post

Coaching Changes - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board