re: I wanted boards opinion on execution of an offense

Stiffer competition?


Come on MAN!

Ole miss
Tenn
Ark
Alabama
Auburn
Florida
Am
ND

4 of the 8 had such bad teams that they fired their head coach. Ole Miss had a first year head coach and as I've been told a million times on this board you can't expect much out of a first year coach. LSU only beat 2 of the teams with winning records. So, yeah I would have liked to have seen what would have happened against some better teams.

quote:

---

I wanted boards opinion on execution of an offense

---

Does not compute

I didn't intend to put them in order.
Means nothing at all what order they are in, thanks for pointing out something meaningless.

Furthermore they are SEC teams with SEC caliber players.
I suppose you clowns want to blame their lack of success last year on O too.

Maybe we can play the NFC east one year so y'all be happy.

Jalen hurts will most likely be asked to play rb in the pros, not a legit pro qb.

quote:

---

o need, this year will tell everyone what they need to know. One way or the other

---

Hey little buddy, we finally agree on something

Friction on this board comes in when people start expressing how they choose to feel about up till that point.
I just choose to be optimistic about it and put trust in people hired to do the job.

quote:

---

p&g

---

you didnt follow college football last year of you think playing 1 good team is a tough stretch.

Tenn and Arky had 8 losses and combined for 1 sec win
Florida had 7 losses and 2 sec wins
A&M and ole miss both had 6 losses and combined for 7 sec wins


the other 3 teams were decent and we lost 2 of them.

quote:

---

10:04 am to p&g I'm going to guess your opinion on the matter is whatever allows O to take zero blame whatsoever for any failures last season and going forward.

---

Exactly.

I just stopped by to downvote the shithead who started this thread, but this bears repeating.

The O-suckers like pg and ree are so easy to see through—all the while, they are stupid enough to think they are fooling everyone as to their true motives.

quote:

---

to execute the play that is called? sure.

but schematically, what could the coaches have done to put the players in better position to succeed? call better plays, outscheme their opponents, spot matchup advantages and attack them accordingly, and above all - preparation. you know from the first series if your team is prepared or not...and if they are not, then it's on you.

---

You bring up a point that has always been a gripe of mine (including especialy LSU, but not limited to).

You can (and should) scheme in a way, macro and micro, strategically and tactically, that gives the players the most advantages. It's magical how much execution improves when you do that. It's one thing to run extra wind sprints and take an arse chewing vs. having a coach ask why you couldn't get an angle on a LB and adjust the why. It's the difference between demanding better and getting better.

On "execution" in general... both are required, and both have dual roles:

Coach as Instructor: you have to lay the proverbial foundation for the skills sets required to execute the scheme. Drills of course, but includes being able to recognize weaknesses (honestly and objectively) and address them on the individual level.

Coach as Strategist: the "scheme". Have to be able to devise one that gives your players the best advantages, play to play AND game to game, AND communicate that effectively.

Players: have to be able to (honestly and objectively) take criticism on those weaknesses by the coach, be coach-able, and go out and combine those to and do your job.

If any of those two fails at either of the two roles- "execution" suffers. Hence both.