- 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: When the Topic of an OC is Brought Up.....
Posted on 10/25/12 at 6:29 am to LSU GrandDad
Posted on 10/25/12 at 6:29 am to LSU GrandDad
quote:
think he's trying to get it fixed. he hired gonzales and he hired kragthorpe. he let crowton go. then kragthorpe gets sick and we have stud. he's giving this a try but miles is not going to accept what's going on now. i give him credit for trying to work with the kragthorpe situation and give stud his shot. if the woes don't get fixed, miles with do what's right; he always has and he will continue to. i believe they are busting their arse to do so but the progress is damn slow. should he fire stud tomorrow? what will that do to our season, esp. with the revolving door on the OL.
I agree totally w/ you GrandDad, CLM has in the past made the needed changes to get the program where its at now. It took a few years for us to land a Chavis, lets be optimistic for minute: we pick up an OC comparable to Chavis! Now, that would be worth waiting for!
Posted on 10/25/12 at 7:04 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
i believe they are busting their arse to do so but the progress is damn slow.
This is said with a completely straight face and with all due respect: They sat down a kid who was leading the conference in passing efficiency last year.
Logic tells any outside observer that sitting a player who is operating the passing game more efficiently than any other conference QB obviously means they are not interested in a passing offense operating as efficiently as possible.
They replaced him with a much less efficient passing QB who ran much better.
Logic tells any outside observer that-again-they have zero interest in the passing offense compared to the running game.
This year, we see play calls involving only two receiver routes, even while the team defends the rush adequately with offset backs (IE-Two RB's which is a personnel grouping we run often). Most of these routes are on opposite sides of the field, known as a "whole field read".
Simply throwing in a 3rd WR and giving the QB a half field read with basic keys and zone stretching concepts, while still allowing for vertical routes on the backside if man coverage gets called on defense is a simple, elementary aspect of offensive football for developing QB's.
We do not do this for our QB. We mainly ask him to beat the defense with extremely difficult throws-especially for an inexperienced QB-which are things like the deep fade, skinny posts on a vertical release, etc.
Again, making the passing game uncomplicated makes it easy for a defense to defend. At the same time, giving the QB fewer options while requiring low-percentage, high-degree-of-difficulty throws to utilize those options is not logical. There is no conceptual attack we use in our passing game that I can see. There were some things developing early in the year in OOC games. But that has disappeared.
We as a staff are simply not interested in developing a quality, efficiently operating passing game. Folks who disagree are simply ignoring the staff and head coaches previous behavior and track record, nevermind the current way we operate this part of our offense.
This post was edited on 10/25/12 at 7:07 am
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)