- 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: Games where Mett could have received PT last year
Posted on 1/15/12 at 12:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/15/12 at 12:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
It's hard to split reps 3 ways especially when you spend the entire second half of games draining the clock. I think the coaches should have forced the issue. Knowing what we know now, that the coaches weren't going to play Lee in the SECCG and NCG, having him take another snap the rest of the season is a bit moronic IMO. It may be a bigger waste than the plays that were force fed to JJ leading up to bama. At least the coaches were doing that because they wanted him to play.
1
Posted on 1/15/12 at 12:04 pm to DrEdgeLSU
quote:
our senior QBs needed all the reps they could possibly get
reps doing what? running play action to single-covered receivers?
it's painfully obvious that reps haven' helped that much in teh past 4 years. our passing offense regressed as the season went on
quote:
We were playing for 2011, not 2012,
i think mett could have helped in 2011
This post was edited on 1/15/12 at 12:05 pm
Posted on 1/15/12 at 12:05 pm to LSUFAN2
quote:
You can use similar information from 2006 & 2007 for Flynn-Russell or Flynn-Perrilloux
well RP got plenty of PT in 2007
flynn wasn't that great in 2006. remember the MSU game? he got in, threw a pick, and got benched. flynn wasn't ready to be trusted in 2006
Posted on 1/15/12 at 12:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
If your contention is that getting Mett playing time in those games would helped Bama, fine. I disagree, but that makes more sense than clamoring for him to play so he'd be prepared for 2012.
Posted on 1/15/12 at 12:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
eliminating competition and ensuring JJ's feelings aren't hurt means more than developing our offense to win the title
That's ridiculous and pathetic.
Could Mettenberger have received more playing time? Sure.
But, everything that was done was done because winning the title was given priority over developing for next year.
You may disagree that Jefferson gave us the best chance of winning the NC. I think that's a pretty reasonable argument. But, the thought that this was about Jefferson's feelings is plain stupid. Every decision to play Lee longer in a game like Kentucky, or go with Jefferson as the 2nd QB like against Auburn was done with the intent of giving this team the best chance of winning the NC.
And, if January 9th had gone like November 5th (a low scoring tight game in which LSU wins close) everyone would have agreed that it was the correct decision.
You hindsight 20/20 guys are funny.
Posted on 1/15/12 at 12:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
mett was our only QB who provided ability in the passing game by himself. that means a lot
I'm definitely in the camp that believes mett should have played a lot more and probably should have started because our deficiencies at qb. Mett spent some time with some great qb coaching (IMO) at Georgia. Then had a great season in JUCO. I believe he could have made the transition well.
But I feel that this qb deal can be one of those instances where you could criticize miles for seniority. Mett was new to the team. Miles knows what he had out of the two senior qbs. He felt more comfortable with that.
Posted on 1/15/12 at 12:07 pm to DrEdgeLSU
quote:
If your contention is that getting Mett playing time in those games would helped Bama, fine.
and UGA
since Lee was basically the red-headed step child, i don't even know if we had a legit backup plan once JJ started starting
if miles had beef with lee, then mett should have been the backup plan
Posted on 1/15/12 at 12:09 pm to moneyg
quote:
But, everything that was done was done because winning the title was given priority over developing for next year.
i don't dismiss as an option for 2011
quote:
You may disagree that Jefferson gave us the best chance of winning the NC. I think that's a pretty reasonable argument.
well, thanks
quote:
Every decision to play Lee longer in a game like Kentucky, or go with Jefferson as the 2nd QB like against Auburn was done with the intent of giving this team the best chance of winning the NC.
then it was a horrible decision, imho
quote:
And, if January 9th had gone like November 5th (a low scoring tight game in which LSU wins close) everyone would have agreed that it was the correct decision.
we crossed the 50 once and rarely even tried to pass, so that's a huge if
quote:
You hindsight 20/20 guys are funny.
i was saying this during the year, bro
Posted on 1/15/12 at 12:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i think mett could have helped in 2011
Can you link me to a post of yours after the Bama game where you suggested that we should go away from the Lee/Jefferson duo and start preparing Mettenberger for THIS season?
Posted on 1/15/12 at 12:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
I'll hold off judgement on Mett until he throws a pass against a real defense. I've been fooled enough the past 2 years.
Posted on 1/15/12 at 12:11 pm to moneyg
quote:
Can you link me to a post of yours after the Bama game where you suggested that we should go away from the Lee/Jefferson duo and start preparing Mettenberger for THIS season?
i said it before
and my posting after JJ took over decreased b/c i got banned for calling out JJ once. i wasn't going to risk it
Posted on 1/15/12 at 12:12 pm to 7thWardTiger
quote:
I'll hold off judgement on Mett until he throws a pass against a real defense.
well it's hard to be worse than JJ/Lee
and i don't mean this to really rip a player, but both were extremely limited passing if it wasn't on play action after gashing Ds with the run
This post was edited on 1/15/12 at 12:12 pm
Posted on 1/15/12 at 12:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
then it was a horrible decision, imho
In hindsight. Up until the NC game, it had worked perfectly. We hadn't played any close games other than Alabama and pretty much everyone said Jefferson was the guy we needed against Bama since he could run and scramble.
quote:
we crossed the 50 once and rarely even tried to pass, so that's a huge if
Proof that this is a hindsight argument. The coaches are making decisions without that benefit. You are retroactively using the results of the NC game to fit your argument...which you didn't make ahead of time.
quote:
i was saying this during the year, bro
link?
Posted on 1/15/12 at 12:14 pm to LSUzealot
quote:
Well with reports that JJ had to have receivers remind him of the play as its been called, I can see why the coaches wanted to give him as much PT as possible
Um...that seems like an argument NOT to play someone
Posted on 1/15/12 at 12:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
We didn't need a different QB against UGA. We ran for like 300 TDs in the 2nd half.
I do agree that it seemed like we has no backup to turn to if things went south. Honestly, though, there was no solution to the fact that our o-line was getting owned against UGA in the first half and all game against Bama. I don't know that another QB makes a difference there at all in terms of execution.
I do agree that it seemed like we has no backup to turn to if things went south. Honestly, though, there was no solution to the fact that our o-line was getting owned against UGA in the first half and all game against Bama. I don't know that another QB makes a difference there at all in terms of execution.
Posted on 1/15/12 at 12:16 pm to moneyg
quote:
Up until the NC game, it had worked perfectly.
UGA was not "perfect" on offense
quote:
and pretty much everyone said Jefferson was the guy we needed against Bama since he could run and scramble.
and lots of people pointed out that if bama had prepared for a simple option attack, JJ's effectiveness would be eliminated
quote:
The coaches are making decisions without that benefit.
they had the UGA game to wake them up
Posted on 1/15/12 at 12:17 pm to DrEdgeLSU
quote:
Honestly, though, there was no solution to the fact that our o-line was getting owned against UGA in the first half and all game against Bama
a big part of that was that we were running a very basic offensive package and not changing anything up
if the D knows what you're doing, they can affect your offense
Posted on 1/15/12 at 12:20 pm to yungtigr
I've been saying Mett should have been playing in mop up since game 5.
Posted on 1/15/12 at 12:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i said it before
So, you said it prior to this team really setting themselves up for a NC run? Was it also before Lee started playing pretty well?
I mean, there are a lot of people who heading into the season thought Mettenberger could have helped. But, after seeing what this team was and seeing that and improved Lee and an improving (hopefully) Jefferson could do, they understood that taking unnecessary risk in the middle of the season didn't make sense.
quote:
and my posting after JJ took over decreased b/c i got banned for calling out JJ once. i wasn't going to risk it
Right. On TigerDroppings, it is frowned upon to suggest that a backup QB should play...automatic ban.
quote:
i wasn't going to risk it
I will admit that the risk of you losing your posting privileges would probably hurt you more than most.
The bottom line is that your argument lacks substance. Mettenberger is definitely the most talented passer. But, with our tough early schedule, the coaching staff decided that we had a better chance of losing one early with Lee. And, once Lee started playing well and Jefferson came back and beat Bama, there was no chance of a change at QB.
Hindsight 20/20.
Posted on 1/15/12 at 12:23 pm to moneyg
quote:
So, you said it prior to this team really setting themselves up for a NC run?
yeah. we were killing teams and had plenty of plays to put in mett
quote:
Was it also before Lee started playing pretty well?
lee didn't gain anything handing it off late against teams. that argument is irrelevant
quote:
they understood that taking unnecessary risk in the middle of the season didn't make sense.
where was the risk in putting in mett in games that LSU had full control of?
quote:
Mettenberger is definitely the most talented passer. But, with our tough early schedule, the coaching staff decided that we had a better chance of losing one early with Lee.
where did i say met should have started or played when a game was in doubt?
hell, i even LISTED games where he could have received PT without taking any real risks
Page 3 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News