- 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: Can we talk about these 4 OL going to Top 25 SEC teams. I saw these guys as mid-major gets
Posted on 1/8/26 at 6:24 am to hashtag
Posted on 1/8/26 at 6:24 am to hashtag
quote:
So coach hashtag, please explain what was deficient in Sloan's scheme as opposed to those running games which were more successful. Rushing attempts are designed for the back to run throuhg a handful of locations. Regardless of what is called it is incumbent upon the linemen to execute certain blocks based upon the intnded point of attack and the positioning of the defender they are responsible to block. Since you claim the problem is Sloan's scheme please justify your opinion.
hey mr sloan.
You still didn't answer the question because you can't.
You just parroted scheme because you heard someone else say it and you thoight it would make you sound knowledgeable.
2
Posted on 1/8/26 at 6:27 am to BayouPride
If we go into ANOTHER season without an O line 
Posted on 1/8/26 at 7:11 am to tigersbb
Not defending the prior poster or saying scheme was the main reason, but..
1) LSU was very predictable with their run game. We would very rarely pull lineman, never ran a draw.
2) Motion and misdirection which Kiffin will do more than the prior offense.
3) Throw the ball downfield to loosen up the linebackers.
4). We had zero QB run game. Having an athletic QB makes the OL issues less obvious. From a yardage perspective and pass blocking perspective.
1) LSU was very predictable with their run game. We would very rarely pull lineman, never ran a draw.
2) Motion and misdirection which Kiffin will do more than the prior offense.
3) Throw the ball downfield to loosen up the linebackers.
4). We had zero QB run game. Having an athletic QB makes the OL issues less obvious. From a yardage perspective and pass blocking perspective.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 9:24 am to BayouPride
Oline portal has limited players at this position, they got better offers this year due to limited quantity. We better hope the transfer pool increases this weekend.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 9:58 am to BayouPride
The meaasureablex. Very good. They have game experience. So the other team see them as someone they can coach up
Posted on 1/8/26 at 10:39 am to TigerCard
quote:
so many left, even with the prospect of what most of us think will be better coaching? Is it money? Misplaced loyalty to BD ( who was, after all, a good recruiter)? Did the new staff not want to keep them?
All good questions. Adding to the bizarre nature of the situation is that their play was consistently not good enough here yet they’re good enough for the best programs in the toughest conference to fight over them. All I got is: looks like Tarzan plays like Jane
Posted on 1/8/26 at 11:04 am to tigersbb
quote:oh. okay. Here you go. Our running game relied way too much on RPO playcalls, which limited our blocking success. We didn't pull OL enough, or run outside zone enough, or misdirection.
You still didn't answer the question because you can't.
You just parroted scheme because you heard someone else say it and you thoight it would make you sound knowledgeable.
Our OL, primarily our tackles, could not fire off the ball and make contact at the first level because of this. You would regularly see them taking a step back first, even on runs that weren't off guard. Our guards rarely got the the 2nd level because they can't go downfield if the QB is gonna pull the ball and throw it.
Additionally, we ran our RPOs directly towards our slot WRs/TE continuously which means that WR/TE was running a route instead of setting the edge at the second level, or moving to the 3rd level to hit a safety. This created a numbers mismatch with LBs and safeties running past WRs/TEs who were running a route after the defense saw the ball being handed off.
If you take half of those calls and make them the exact same formation, but a designated running play, the OL is firing off the ball, and the WRs/TEs are blocking guys. You then have the numbers blocking to be successful. Instead, we just ran RPOs all day every day.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 11:11 am to Lsutigerturner
BK, Brad, Sloan, the OLmen themselves. None of them cared. There was no fire. There was no deep pursuit of bettering oneself and pure focus. There was no deep passion and fire to win. There was no "I'm gonna give it my f*cking all because this is an opportunity most dream about." It was just bodies taking up space. People going through the motions absent minded, not aware that their lack of fire and pursuit has consequences. That is how I'd describe this offensive staff and players.
This post was edited on 1/8/26 at 11:15 am
Posted on 1/8/26 at 12:57 pm to hashtag
quote:
Our running game relied way too much on RPO playcalls, which limited our blocking success.
They did not run RPO. The running plays were called prior to the snap. The blocking techniques may have been deficient but scheme was irrelevant if they are not succesful in executing with proper form and techniques to fire off at the defender. This may be the result of poor position coaching.
The one complaint I do have is that in third and short or goal line plays they too often ran from a tight formation which resulted 11 defenders bunched at the line of scrimmage.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 1:04 pm to tigersbb
quote:
They did not run RPO.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 2:29 pm to BayouPride
Development was the biggest problem....
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News