Here is something to think about concerning the qb and simple offense.

If LSU cannot find a qb to read defenses and execute at this level, it is not the qb's fault....it is the coachng staffs fault. We learned to read defenses 20 years ago and ran routes based on the coverage...this was small college football....not D1.

If...the LSU coaching staff....for whatever reason...limits the number of choices for the qb the less likely the qb will succeed. I cannot fathom a qb playing at the level at LSU not being able to check down from multiple receivers.

The last 3 qb's at LSU never developed at LSU or seemed to get better with decision making....that tells me either LSU cannot recruit quality qb's or they cannot coach them up.

I don't agree with your assessment. As a matter of fact, I think it's a horribly thought out theory.

quote:

---

If this were a one season thing you may have a point, but we have not had a decent passing attack since RP was dismissed.

It has not mattered who the QB was

---

simply not true. j. lee passed for a lot of yards in 2008. He also improved a great deal in 2011 giving us a efficient passing game.

quote:

---

It has not mattered who the WR were

---

again, not true, r.r. caught a lot of deep balls and had a lot of t.d.'s last year.

quote:

---

It has not mattered who manned the OL

---

quote:

---

It has not mattered who the OC has been

---

again, not true. we had a different offense under jimbo. (bubble screens were the vogue thing). we had the most passing attempts and yardage in 2007 under crowton, we were more spread. Now, under studs, we are more of a I/pro-set with a power running game.

quote:

---

It has not mattered who the QB coach was

---

not true either. not one of jimbo's starting qb's (davey, mauk, j.r., and flynn) failed to get drafted. He was a great qb recruiter/evaluater. crowton, not so much. Krags, the jury is out. he has his guys committed, rivers and randal waiting in the wings. we'll see.

quote:

---

the coaches have done an excellent job evaluating and recruiting talent at every position except 1.

---

Yeah, the most important.

quote:

---

As simple as the offense is, the qb is still struggling to complete passes.

---

It's a catch 22. Because of the fewer WRs running routes, and the fewer routes that those WRs are running, LBs are dropping into the throwing lanes making these "simple" throws much more difficult. That's why we like throwing outside of the number so much.

We are way past simple on offense. A lot of the time, we are covering up the TE on passing downs. Let that sink in. The pendulum has swung too far. It was originally done because we simply couldn't protect the QB. The problem is that, while we are now doing a better job at that, we haven't seen too many positive effects of it because the simplicity has stunted the passing game as much as the protection issues had.

This is about balance. Just like you have to be able to run and pass it. You need to be able to line up 3 WRs from time to time and not have the QB on his back. Similarly, you need to be able to sometimes line up with 3 WRs and run the ball off tackle effectively.

95% of the time, these aren't things that change 8 games into the season. 95% of the time, you find yourself in these situations because coaches are "hiding" a major weakness (QB, OL, etc.) We have had a lot of turnover on the OL. I actually think that we are better on the OL than we were 3 weeks ago. So, maybe there is hope.

If we are thinking NC, then you have to open it up some. You have to be willing to go 3 WR. That doesn't mean we need to throw it downfield every play. If we could run the ball with 3WR, this offense would look VERY different because it's basically impossible to load the box against 3 WR the way we've seen. The passing game would open up some, and I think it would make our power running game better when we did bring a FB in.

quote:

---

We are way past simple on offense. A lot of the time, we are covering up the TE on passing downs. Let that sink in. The pendulum has swung too far. It was originally done because we simply couldn't protect the QB. The problem is that, while we are now doing a better job at that, we haven't seen too many positive effects of it because the simplicity has stunted the passing game as much as the protection issues had.

---

but we have. we are seeing less negative plays. sacks and turnovers.

i'm not saying i wouldn't like having balance and an effective passing game. i want it. I just don't know if the guy we have is capable of being a quality qb and executing what we need to have it.

I think they gave him the keys to throw early, more routes, less protection early in the year. The result was sacks and turnovers with an occasional good play.

i think the coaching staff said, well, lets get rid of the negative plays and we have a better shot at winning more games. Au was disaster. We like to lost that game due to negative plays. Texas A.M. did lose their game with us due to negative plays.

do i like it, want it, no. however, i understand what they have to do and why. therefore, i can't complain because i'd rather win.

Dos,

1. References to Jimbo Fisher is irrelevant I stated clearly in my post "since RP was dismissed"

It seems also we have a problem or at least a difference of opinion as to what constitutes an effective passing attack, number of yards passing isn't it. While I will certainly accept others mine quite frankly is probably the least difficult to achieve. That is be effective enough in the passing game that opposing D's don't load 8/9 in the box and dare us to throw.

Lee in 08, give me a break, with 16 Ints, all the pick 6's? Your evidence is that is a decent passing game? That quite simply among the most ludicrous and stupid things ever posted on this site. No one not any person who has ever coached or watched football would argue that is an effective passing attack.

As for RR last year yeah he caught a few passes 50 maybe? or so and 8 TD's? Averaged about 65 yards a game? Something close to that? He was effective when we got him the ball, but 50 catches over 14 games that's what less than 4 catches a game? I think Randle could have been a piece to an effective passing game but you make my point more than refute it, the talent was there but we did not use it well or enough.

I already addressed the Jimbo deal, but you are also incorrect in regard to Crowton and now Krags/Stud or Stud/Krags and again I will say it's not how about how many times we throw the ball, it's how effective we are when we throw.

The Advocate's Les East had a piece earlier this week that talks about this as he compares last year to this.

More but not better

Look if you are happy with our passing game since RP was dismissed I would argue you have set the ball very very low.

If you truly argue that Lee's pick 6 year is evidence of what is a good passing attack I would say you have no clue what a good passing attack is. I find it difficult to believe that you or anyone actually believes this though.

Again and finally I will say I am not looking for number of passing attempts or a spread Mike Leach attack, just an efficient enough attack so that opposing D's respect it, can't sneak 8/9 in the box. IF we can do that not only will it help the O in general as we can be more balanced especially on neutral downs, but it will also make the power running game harder to defend as there will be less bodies in the box.