re: Call that puzzles me most but no one seems to be talking about...

quote:

---

Back to back short side options with Mett? He had a great night but those were wasted plays



Thanks for the reminder.

---

Please at least try to understand those calls as:

back to back plays attempting to utilize Shepard against a tired Bama defense (and he did gain a couple yds), putting him in the best matchup possible. As has been noted before this thread, short-side means 1 less defender. If what you want is a toss sweep to the wide side, you're better off with Ford. Shep is more elusive than fast, so the short side gives him less guys to fake. Also, as much a joke as it would be to consider Mett as a carrier, the Bama guy still has to give him a token glance (and I will say he sold it better than JJ did last year at times), and that also gives Shep the slightest advantage over a simple toss sweep.

The purpose was give Shep a shot, and we did it.

4 pt lead, 90 seconds. Defense holds and we win. They didn't and we lost.

That simple.

Excellent point. Way too much time for Ala. even if we make the FG. If we bury them w a 1st down it's ball game over. LSU wins! When you don't play to win you sometimes lose. It finally caught up w Miles in this game. Sad truth is it probably cost LSU another shot at a national championship. I just hope Miles continues to learn from his ever increasing mistakes as a head coach. I also hope he continues to out recruit eveyrone! Getting better assistant coaches and someone Miles will (maybe) listen to will help..... Always next year. My kid cried herself to sleep last night after that game. Damn! Should have and could have been a happy ending. Still liked the offensive effort all night. We beat the crap out of them in 2nd half. That was fun to watch except final 10 plays...... Geaux Tigers!

"Play that gets me is not punting and trying a 55 yard fg before half. Punt and its halftime"

I was embarrassingly upset by this and the fake FG in what I thought was a terrible situation. I actually don't have a problem with anything other than the prevent D. I did not see the necessity of the onsides, but that is a risk/reward play and I have no problem with it. I also would have gone for the first but it was sensible to do what the coaches did. Like many others, I liked the decision to go for it on 4th down, but I hated teh play call given what I thought was 2.5 yards to go. I now understand that it was somewhat under 2.

quote:

---

It seemed like an odd time to suddenly go conservative. We'd been playing risky all night long, but then with the game on the line, Miles blinked and played for a FG with a kicker who can't hit squat this year.

I actually liked the other risky calls, and would've liked to take the chance on this one as well.

---

Agree 100%. I think the risky calls shook Bama up. They knew we had the talent to match them, and to their surprise we were executing great, and they had no idea what the frick might be coming next. Had we gone for it I think the Bama pucker factor would've hit the ceiling. And with Alleman struggling, I think it was a no-brainer to continue to take a risk.

quote:

---

Agree 100%. I think the risky calls shook Bama up.

---

See, I think it did, too. A lot of the plays themselves didn't work, but Bama didn't capitalize on the field position. It was like they were shell shocked from LSU going all-out on them. I don't think they matched our intensity. Even the fake FG didn't result in Bama points. And Alleman would've liked missed anyway. So what did we lose?

I think trying to kick a FG with 2 minutes left was the first time we mentally let up and played not to lose. And it cost us. We lost our mental edge.