- 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
Someone explain WHY the watered-down offense was necessary. Thanks.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 8:56 am
Posted on 10/14/13 at 8:56 am
* I am very pleased with our victory and will take an 11-point victory against a ranked SEC team any day. I'm excited about the rest of year, especially with our D improving as they have.
Now - Everyone is saying the offensive performance was "brilliant" and "excellent game plan". While I am not disagreeing, I am curious as to WHY this is. Did we not think we could throw downfield on their DB's? Did we not think our O-Line could pass-protect well enough? (Just asking, not bashing).
Someone explain to me exactly why we were so conservative. Why was it necessary, or why was our staff thinking it was for the best?
Now - Everyone is saying the offensive performance was "brilliant" and "excellent game plan". While I am not disagreeing, I am curious as to WHY this is. Did we not think we could throw downfield on their DB's? Did we not think our O-Line could pass-protect well enough? (Just asking, not bashing).
Someone explain to me exactly why we were so conservative. Why was it necessary, or why was our staff thinking it was for the best?
36
Posted on 10/14/13 at 8:58 am to The Mick
Run game was working. Why risk turn overs?
Posted on 10/14/13 at 8:58 am to The Mick
UF DBs are very good and our WRs weren't getting great seperation. We were running the ball very well.
UF can't score and our coaches knew it. No reason to throw it up for grabs.
Also, the passing O looked a little out of sync for the first time this year.
UF can't score and our coaches knew it. No reason to throw it up for grabs.
Also, the passing O looked a little out of sync for the first time this year.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 8:58 am to The Mick
What was Florida's clear strength on their team? I forget.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 8:59 am to The Mick
their DBs are really good.
they most likely prepared for the mettattack all week
Their offense sucks.
= run the ball
they most likely prepared for the mettattack all week
Their offense sucks.
= run the ball
This post was edited on 10/14/13 at 9:00 am
Posted on 10/14/13 at 8:59 am to The Mick
Florida's best unit was the secondary?
The run was working really well?
Is that enough for you?
The run was working really well?
Is that enough for you?
Posted on 10/14/13 at 9:00 am to The Mick
Simple Les Ball.
Les knew his Defense was in control, flashed back to 2008, and decided to grind the hell out of them, and impose his will Michigan-1971-style.
Les knew his Defense was in control, flashed back to 2008, and decided to grind the hell out of them, and impose his will Michigan-1971-style.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 9:00 am to The Mick
The offense wasn't that watered down. We just didn't execute very well in the passing game. After a while, it didn't make sense to risk the win for passing stats. Seriously, this game could have easily been 28-6. We were clearly the better team.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 9:02 am to The Mick
quote:Because it worked.
Now - Everyone is saying the offensive performance was "brilliant" and "excellent game plan". While I am not disagreeing, I am curious as to WHY this is.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 9:02 am to The Mick
Strength of the UF defense was their secondary. Relative weakness of the UF defense was their depleted defensive line and smaller linebackers.
Coaching staff felt like the most advantageous match up for our offense was the power run game against their front 7. Add on that Les enjoys dominating an opponent and there you have the genesis of the game plan.
Coaching staff felt like the most advantageous match up for our offense was the power run game against their front 7. Add on that Les enjoys dominating an opponent and there you have the genesis of the game plan.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 9:02 am to The Mick
quote:
Someone explain to me exactly why we were so conservative. Why was it necessary, or why was our staff thinking it was for the best?
UF has the best secondary in college football. We pounded the football and it was very effective. So why stop doing that until they make us stop? IF Florida had started stacking the box with 9 guys and the game was closer, we would have passed more. We didn't have to, so why risk it? Its Florida.....we won by double digits.....don't over think it. lol
Posted on 10/14/13 at 9:03 am to The Mick
quote:
While I am not disagreeing, I am curious as to WHY this is. Did we not think we could throw downfield on their DB's?
Well we tried a couple times and couldn't.
quote:
Did we not think our O-Line could pass-protect well enough? (Just asking, not bashing).
No, we thought our O-line could overpower their d-line.
We also wanted to control the ball as much as we could, give our young defense some rest and wear out Florida's D. Florida lives off of takeaways and ball control. You limit that as much as you can and you win the game.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 9:04 am to The Mick
Turnovers, 3 and outs, and giving them short fields to work with Would have lost us that game. Our game plan minimized those risks.
Think about how we have won so much with a terrible offense and a great D the last few years. Florida is trying to do the same and we knew what to do.
Think about how we have won so much with a terrible offense and a great D the last few years. Florida is trying to do the same and we knew what to do.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 9:04 am to The Mick
quote:
Someone explain to me exactly why we were so conservative.
I personally believe that establishing the run game against Florida's d was more of a statement to our future competition. In the last 5 games (prior to fla) our offense was one dimensional at times- and defenses like ga had our scheme figured out. We truly needed a game like Saturday to throw it out there that "hey, we can and will run it down your throats- jack".
Posted on 10/14/13 at 9:04 am to The Mick
Maybe the coaches felt an offensive game plan they were confident in and would give a good chance of an 11-point victory against a ranked SEC opponent is a pretty good game plan. If LSU uses the same type game plan against every opponent left on its schedule, and wins the rest of its games, would you be satisfied?
Posted on 10/14/13 at 9:05 am to The Mick
quote:
Someone explain WHY
I think the Saints game last night is an example of why.
If the other team is not stopping your run game, why get away from it?
Posted on 10/14/13 at 9:05 am to The Mick
Florida's secondary is f'n awesome. I mean, one of the best in country sort of awesome. So we tried running the ball to avoid going into the teeth of their defense. And it was working well, as UF couldn't stop it. So why change what was working? Keep pounding the ball until they show they can stop it.
Also, playing with a lead, running the ball a ton made sense as it effectively shortened the game. There were something like only three drives per team in the second half. The clock was our friend.
Also, playing with a lead, running the ball a ton made sense as it effectively shortened the game. There were something like only three drives per team in the second half. The clock was our friend.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 9:05 am to The Mick
quote:
Everyone is saying the offensive performance was "brilliant" and "excellent game plan". While I am not disagreeing, I am curious as to WHY this is. Did we not think we could throw downfield on their DB's? Did we not think our O-Line could pass-protect well enough?
Florida has a very good secondary, and it showed by us either having to make very tough catches in traffic, or occasionally getting a pass interference call. Mettenberger was not as sharp, as he missed a few open receivers at points during the game. We were running the ball very effectively against them, and our defense was not allowing their offense to put any points on the board.
In the first half, we had a long first drive that stalled when Mett overthrew an open receiver on 3rd down, then we scored touchdowns on two of our next three possessions, with the nonscore occuring when the ball slipped out of Mettenberger's hands after we had drove the ball down close to the UF redzone. So we were moving the ball, and we actually even tried a trick play at one point (I think that was first half, it not it was 3rd quarter). The third quarter wasn't great, but Florida couldn't score and we held an 11 point lead. Once they cut the lead to 8, we immediately marched right down the field to the UF redzone, but Mett was limping badly on that drive so we decided to keep the ball in Hill's hands and at worst kick a field goal, which we did, to regain the two score lead.
It's not so much that we went conservative, it's that Florida's offense piddles around and milks the clock. It makes their defense seem super duper, but in reality is just shrinks the possessions in a game. LSU really didn't punt that many times, we just didn't have the ball a whole lot. And if UF wants to just fiddle fart around on offense and milk the clock while we have a two score lead, why should we stop them?
Edit: great point by Houston Tiger, Landry was not 100%
This post was edited on 10/14/13 at 9:07 am
Posted on 10/14/13 at 9:05 am to The Mick
it wasn't even that it was that conservative, we're just used to breaking 60 yarders this year in the run game and now that we didn't we think it was more conservative
Posted on 10/14/13 at 9:06 am to The Mick
quote:
While I am not disagreeing, I am curious as to WHY this is. Did we not think we could throw downfield on their DB's?
For one thing, 3 of their DB's are 3 of the best in the country that will be playing on Sundays.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News