- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Disspelling the offense caused the defense to be bad thought.
Posted on 7/2/10 at 12:30 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Posted on 7/2/10 at 12:30 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
fricking retarded. Total defense was average, to better than average and the scoring defense was stellar. This, despite the offense being totally unable to sustain drives.
Didn't read the entire thread but I think this needs to be pointed out too.
I've seen Tenn's defenses for years and Chavis has had aggressive D. When he has the personnel...
LSU did not have the personnel last year in the front four, so Chavis played a "safe" defense. When you can't generate pressure from your front four, it makes it hard to have a great defense. Bama blitzes a lot but they also get pressure from the front four when they need it.
Considering how bad our front four was last year, I'd say Chavis did a pretty good job keeping points off the board. Also, nobody can say for sure if one year in the scheme had a lot to do with the problems early on. I would imagine in his second year here, you should see improvement now that guys are more comfortable in the scheme and players developing. We should see a better front four and more aggressive team, IMO.
Front four is the most important part of a defense. The heart and soul. The game is won in the trenches on both sides of the ball. You can have great CBs and a weak front four, eventually that CB is going to get burned if they have all day. In comparison, a great front four can make a mediocre DB look spectacular when a QB can barely get 3 step drops, much less a good running game. A good front four improves the ENTIRE defense. A bad one HURTS the entire defense.
Sure, we need to improve. But I also think if the offense gets better, so shall the defense. It seemed to me defenses were gassed in the fourth quarter this past year. I think that can be contributed with too many minutes on the field. Third down and Chavis didn't help but neither did the offense constant 3 and outs.
This post was edited on 7/2/10 at 12:32 pm
1
Posted on 7/2/10 at 12:30 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Forget it if he can not understand that not converting 3rd downs leads to the defense being on the field more than they should be there is no point trying to show him. How can you even argue when we only converted 2 of 9 against La Tech.
Posted on 7/2/10 at 12:33 pm to TigerFanNKaty
quote:
Forget it if he can not understand that not converting 3rd downs leads to the defense being on the field more than they should be there is no point trying to show him. How can you even argue when we only converted 2 of 9 against La Tech.
Agree....
Posted on 7/2/10 at 12:45 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:Actually, you're soft-selling it. The total defense ranked 27th, which is the top quartile of teams. That's not just above average, that's far above average. But I do completely agree with your point.
Total defense was average, to better than average
Posted on 7/2/10 at 12:47 pm to deuce985
One thing I'm concerned about with Chavis defense is that we had a 4th quarter lead going into Alabama, Ole Miss, Arkansas, and Penn St. And in all 4 games we lost that lead, losing 3 of those games. We no longer have that suffocating defense that killed any game winning drives.
But the defense isn't to blame. Consider that we had at least 4 or 5 5* recruits on offense along with Holliday - and we still managed to have one of the worst offenses in NCAA football. That is a massive frick up.
But the defense isn't to blame. Consider that we had at least 4 or 5 5* recruits on offense along with Holliday - and we still managed to have one of the worst offenses in NCAA football. That is a massive frick up.
Posted on 7/2/10 at 12:56 pm to Chimlim
quote:
But the defense isn't to blame. Consider that we had at least 4 or 5 5* recruits on offense along with Holliday - and we still managed to have one of the worst offenses in NCAA football. That is a massive frick up.
This... people just don't want to come to grips with the fact that our defensive line dropped way off after 07. You can have the want to blitz and be aggresive all day but if you do not have the personnel what good will it do. The mighty Saban when he got here didn't all of a sudden have great defenses and he only had a really dominant one for only one year.
Posted on 7/2/10 at 1:07 pm to AUmember
quote:Less than 5 plays per possession, and you don't see a problem?
LSU's offense converted 50% of it's 3rd downs against Washington, averaged 5.1 yards per carry and 9.1 yards per pass, both of which were better than Washington's average. Yet Washington ran 87 plays to LSU's 49.
There are only two things beyond an offense's control than can limit the number of plays they run on any given possession: end of the half and the endzone. There are only two ends of halfs in a ball game, and Washington had the ball at both of them in this game. That means they had the opportunity to run up to 400 plays on their 10 possessions (assuming TDs or turnover on downs inside the 9, without penalty yards). Instead, they ran 49 plays and only scored on half their possessions. The other 5 ended in punt, fumble, punt, punt, punt, for a total of 3 plays each. 15 plays in 5 drives. And you're blaming the defense for the offense not getting enough time on the field?
Against Tech, we had 10 drives that weren't ended by end of half, and we only scored on 4 of them. The other 6 ended with punt, punt, punt, punt, punt, downs, for a total of 20 plays. 3.3 plays per possession. And we go into the 4th quarter against Louisiana Tech with 17 points after SEVEN chances with the ball?
I don't think anyone's claiming that either the offense or the defense were either perfect or 100% to blame. And statistics don't always tell the whole story. But more often than not, they will give you the general gist. And inasmuch as struggles on one side of the ball weigh down performance on the other, the evidence is pretty convincing that the offense was more of an anchor last year than the defense was.
Posted on 7/2/10 at 1:23 pm to AUmember
quote:I'm not, I'm mostly agreeing with you and you are arguing with me.
ne of those was Georgia's first drive of the second half, so don't try to convince me that the defense was tired.
Posted on 7/2/10 at 1:27 pm to King Joey
quote:And I never stated as such.
Bottom line, there is no measure by which the offense was doing its job nearly as well as the defense was.
quote:Precisely.
The more a team struggles on one side of the ball, the more impact it has on the other side.
quote:They were equally as bad. Hence my point. Ok, well the offense was worse but the defense, despite it's statistical ranking, didn't scare anyone and while it managed to keep points off the board for the opponents, did not help our offense get MORE critical drives which it needed to score. Our offense sucked, therefore it needed more chances. This isn't good, and I'm not saying it the defense's fault, but they didn't help matters any by FURTHER limiting our offense to many fewer chances (which they themselves also contributed to by sucking so much). The law of averages - if the LSU offense got more chances- would eventually pay off and we would score.
To suggest that the struggles on offense did not have more impact on the defense than the struggles on defense had on the offense is to suggest that the struggles on offense were not significantly worse than the struggles on defense.
Posted on 7/2/10 at 1:36 pm to Tiger_n_ATL
quote:
The law of averages - if the LSU offense got more chances- would eventually pay off and we would score.
If they had the ball the whole game it wouldn't be an issue. You can only expect so much from a defense, it is what it was. Statistically solid DESPITE a crappy offense that couldn't sustain drives. If the offense had sustained more drives, the defense may have been top five in the nation.
This thread is proof some people can see the other side of the coin even if it is buried in 20 feet of dirt and encased in concrete.
Posted on 7/2/10 at 1:52 pm to Tiger_n_ATL
quote:
the defense, despite it's statistical ranking, didn't scare anyone and while it managed to keep points off the board for the opponents, did not help our offense get MORE critical drives which it needed to score. Our offense sucked, therefore it needed more chances. This isn't good, and I'm not saying it the defense's fault, but they didn't help matters any by FURTHER limiting our offense to many fewer chances (which they themselves also contributed to by sucking so much). The law of averages - if the LSU offense got more chances- would eventually pay off and we would score.
Why does everybody think LSU's offense had so many fewer chances to score than their opponents? When one team's possession is over, whether by a score, punt, or turnover, the other team gets the ball. Barring slight differences from end of half possessions, onside kicks, and muffed punts, LSU's offense had just as many possessions as opposing offenses. The defense did an excellent job of keeping points off the board, while the offense didn't put them up.
If last year's defense was #1 in every statistical category, that offense still wouldn't have been in the top 50 with all those "extra scoring chances" they would have had.
Posted on 7/2/10 at 1:54 pm to RogerTheShrubber
I can see that it was largely the offenses fault. My only point is that we lost our attacking style of defense from the Saban/Pelini era and I miss it tremendously. Our struggling offense could really benefit from it as well. No one has their head in the sand, we full well know the problems. But unless and UNTIL we get both an efficient, productive offense and an attacking, aggressive defense (not a 'bend don't break' one), we are NOT going to win any championships.
This post was edited on 7/2/10 at 1:56 pm
Posted on 7/2/10 at 2:26 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
You just listed HALF of LSu's schedule, Forrest.
How many points did UF, Bama, Ole Miss and PSU score despite the TOP disparity?
GO for it.
I didn't list Florida, Bama, and Ole Miss because they all have great defenses. Bama was #1 and Florida was #3. But the teams like ULL, La Tech, Tulane and such should not have these lenghty drives even if they don't score points.
Your a numb skull. I'm not talking about points, I'm talking about the length of time the defense is on the field.
Florida, Ole Miss, and Bama all had almost 200 yards rushing.
Posted on 7/2/10 at 2:30 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
How many points did they score? How many yards did they accumulate?
You shouldn't ask this question because La. Tech outgained LSU. Even if LSU's offense goes 3 and out 3 out of 4times, La Tech should not be able to move the ball.
La Tech had 3 drives of 13 plays...Are you kidding me, you can't see that as a problem?
Posted on 7/2/10 at 2:32 pm to Tiger_n_ATL
quote:
I'm not, I'm mostly agreeing with you and you are arguing with me.
My bad...I lost control.
Posted on 7/2/10 at 5:02 pm to AUmember
quote:
La Tech had 3 drives of 13 plays...Are you kidding me, you can't see that as a problem?
Did you notice that 2 of those 13 play drives came immediately following the LSU offense going 3 and out, and the other one after a "4 and out"? LaTech also had an 11 play drive that came right after LSU's offense went.. you guessed it.. 3 and out. LSU's offense only held the ball for times of 2:01, 1:07, and 0:23 just prior to LaTech going on those long drives. A winded defense is going to give up long drives.
The more I look at it, the more I realize how great last year's defense could have been statistically if the offense was even mediocre.
Posted on 7/2/10 at 5:37 pm to Korkstand
quote:
The more I look at it, the more I realize how great last year's defense could have been statistically if the offense was even mediocre.
Its true.
Posted on 7/2/10 at 10:03 pm to AUmember
quote:
I agree completely that it works both ways, but our defense is just as much to blame for our record last year as our offense.
Wow - let me see if I've got this straight. The offense was 112th (!!!!) in the country (that's almost dead last, BTW), and the team won over twice the number of games it lost, and yet somehow the DEFENSE is equally to blame? So that leaves, basically, special teams and game day coaching that must have won a bunch of games last year!
I understand the point you're trying to make, but your logic just blew up. I a convoluted way you are actually correct, except not in the way you (I think) meant it. The Defense was more responsible for the number of wins than the offense - I still think it's a small miracle that the sum of the parts was equal to 9 wins (just look at the individual parts and you'll see what I mean.)
Posted on 7/2/10 at 10:16 pm to TigerFanNKaty
quote:
Opponents Team/Opp. Total
Washington 23:08 / 36:52 -13:44
VANDERBILT 36:23 / 23:37 12:46
UL-LAFAYETTE 31:59 / 28:01 3:58
Mississippi State 25:58 / 33:52 -7:54
Georgia 33:10 / 26:50 6:20
FLORIDA 23:30 / 36:30 -13:00
AUBURN 31:11 / 28:49 2:22
TULANE 28:10 / 31:50 -3:40
Alabama 27:08 / 32:52 -5:44
LOUISIANA TECH 23:40 / 36:20 -12:40
Ole Miss 26:24 / 33:36 -7:12
ARKANSAS 29:27 / 30:33 -1:06
Penn State 21:39 / 38:21 -16:42
Totals 361:47 / 418:03 -56:16
Time of posession stats from last year. Pretty telling stat look at the total almost one hour.
There you go. The defense played 14 games last year and the offense only played 12 - Let's get 'em out on the field and see if they can score now!
Posted on 7/3/10 at 8:07 am to Tiger_n_ATL
quote:But,
They were equally as bad. Hence my point.
quote:Hence, my disagreeing with your point.
Ok, well the offense was worse
quote:No one is suggesting that the defense was a great benefit (or any benefit, really) to the offense. The assertion is that the offensive struggles contributed to the defensive woes more so than the defensive struggles (such as they were) contributed to the offensive woes. That is all.
the defense, despite it's statistical ranking, didn't scare anyone and while it managed to keep points off the board for the opponents, did not help our offense get MORE critical drives which it needed to score.
quote:That analysis is neither incorrect nor inconsistent with the assertions of the people with whom you appear to be trying to disagree.
Our offense sucked, therefore it needed more chances. This isn't good, and I'm not saying it the defense's fault, but they didn't help matters any by FURTHER limiting our offense to many fewer chances (which they themselves also contributed to by sucking so much).
If you say the offensive struggles accounted for a greater proportion of the overall defensive woes than the defensive struggles accounted for of the offense woes, then you agree with the counterargument of this thread and disagree with the assertions of the OP.
If you say the defensive scheme tended to put the offense into situations with which it was woefully ill-equipped to deal, then you are quite likely correct but are not at all participating in this particular discussion.
Page 5 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News