I would be thrilled if E surprises us, steps up his game and becomes a truly elite OC. I think it is unlikely though.

What I have argued is there is at least a partial leadership vacuum at LSU that prevents them from obtaining and maintaining a championship-caliber program. LSU might have enough talent and leadership to achieve about 80% of the goal of winning championships. In working towards most difficult goals, it becomes increasingly difficult to see progress as one gets to 100%. Elite coaches will put in that extra, extremely difficult work in the face of diminishing returns and will be relentless, honest and intelligent in their pursuit. I call this "striving for excellence."

Average coaches get comfortable with 75 or 80% success, e.g. 8 win seasons and minor bowl appearances. When faced with adversity, they will get frustrated, tending to react emotionally and point fingers. Others may need to step in to mediate problems that they themselves are responsible for and paid to manage.

I don't think we can reasonably expect O and E to take the steps necessary to attain excellence because that's what their past records suggest.

Let me use a simple analogy. Suppose LSU decided to save money and simply rely totally on the talents of their offensive players. They ask themselves, "why hire an OC at all? Why should we pay someone $1M/yr when we might be able to win just as many games with no one in the position?"

In that scenario, wouldn't it be reasonable for people to voice their concern? Wouldn't those same people be happy if by some unlikely circumstances, LSU went undefeated the next year and averaged 35 ppg, but still rightly understand that such a strategy could not possibly be maintained indefinitely?

Is it really "whining" and people being "miserable" when those concerned about the direction of LSU's program patiently point this out?

This post was edited on 1/19/18 at 9:21 am