- 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
0
Posted on 10/13/15 at 4:57 pm to misey94
quote:
If we are actually talking about total bodies of work, how about you stop cherry picking from Chavis' tenure and get honest there, as well. Go back and look at our sack and turnover numbers last year. We were bottom third in one and in the bottom 30 in the other. When you have a weaker offense, you can't just gloss over that. Short fields and great special teams fed a slightly above average LSU offense in 2011.
Then go back to 2013 and go through the passing numbers. All terrible, across the board. You talk about giving up big plays this year? We hemorrhaged yards and points through the air to everyone we played that year. UGA, Bama, State and Ole Miss all ate us alive.
As for the depth issues, that falls on Chavis, too. The man signed 2 LBs in 2 years, and 1 is now gone. He had one legit target last year and didn't get him, so we end up with 0 bodies at our biggest position of need. On what planet is it ok for the DC to allow that to happen on a unit over which the head coach has allowed him almost complete authority? The chickens of Chavis and Brick's lazy recruiting have come home to roost. We have a good to great starting lineup, but the biggest talent drop off to the reserves since Saban's early years. And If Chavis were still here, we would be even more vanilla this year than last out of sheer necessity. I can GUARANTEE that we are not playing as aggressive a scheme as Steele and O would prefer. Oh, and Brick would still be here, and would still have 0 accountability, and would continue to be here indefinitely.
That doesn't even make sense. Just because Chavis had shortcomings doesn't mean that Steele's that have made us objectively worse in stopping people from scoring (which is the name of the game) get a pass. It is ok to want more from a defense that has not played a complete game all year. Anyone who disagrees is a no good commie.
By the way, that 2013 defense you deride, gave up exactly the amount of points we give up now per game. So by your own evaluation, you are dissatisfied with Steele.
This post was edited on 10/13/15 at 4:59 pm
Posted on 10/13/15 at 5:15 pm to therick711
My point is more that we haven't had a complete defense since 2011. Even 2012 had it shortcomings, and it's been very hit and miss since then.
You gave Chavis several free passes for the things I mentioned. Because of the more aggressive scheme, greater number of turnovers, and greater number of sacks and quarterback pressures, I am giving Steele A bit of a pass based on the depth issues that I mentioned. Those depth issues are inherited, and the current staff is recruiting very well at the moment to address them.
Anyone who makes a definitive decision on the Steele and Orgeron hires after one season is being pretty shortsighted considering what they're up against. They won't be able to build up enough talent and experience to simulate anything close to 2011 and 2012 until at least the end next season.
I know one thing. I much prefer the approach of recruiting your arse off and playing a balls out aggressive scheme (which we aren't even capable of running yet), than having to go vanilla and knowingly sacrificing turnovers and sacks because you mailed it in when it comes to recruiting, didn't make a key member of your staff accountable, and created your own damn problems. That sums up the last two years of Chavis' LSU defenses. Rather than praising his inventiveness in working around it, I would rather call out that he actually created the problem. Our current staff is still stuck dealing with this problem, and will be for most if not all of next year.
You gave Chavis several free passes for the things I mentioned. Because of the more aggressive scheme, greater number of turnovers, and greater number of sacks and quarterback pressures, I am giving Steele A bit of a pass based on the depth issues that I mentioned. Those depth issues are inherited, and the current staff is recruiting very well at the moment to address them.
Anyone who makes a definitive decision on the Steele and Orgeron hires after one season is being pretty shortsighted considering what they're up against. They won't be able to build up enough talent and experience to simulate anything close to 2011 and 2012 until at least the end next season.
I know one thing. I much prefer the approach of recruiting your arse off and playing a balls out aggressive scheme (which we aren't even capable of running yet), than having to go vanilla and knowingly sacrificing turnovers and sacks because you mailed it in when it comes to recruiting, didn't make a key member of your staff accountable, and created your own damn problems. That sums up the last two years of Chavis' LSU defenses. Rather than praising his inventiveness in working around it, I would rather call out that he actually created the problem. Our current staff is still stuck dealing with this problem, and will be for most if not all of next year.
This post was edited on 10/13/15 at 5:16 pm
Posted on 10/13/15 at 5:17 pm to misey94
I didn't give Chavis a pass at all. Steele isn't getting it done. Now maybe Mills and Bower are what he needs to right the ship, but if not, we're going to have to score in the 30s to win.
Downvote all you want, but you ignore these weaknesses to your peril.
Downvote all you want, but you ignore these weaknesses to your peril.
This post was edited on 10/13/15 at 5:19 pm
Posted on 10/13/15 at 5:22 pm to therick711
If you think Chavis would be doing as well as last year with this year's talent and level of experience, then you're fooling yourself. We would look much more like 2013 than 2014 this season. He would've given up fewer points against the cupcakes because he wouldn't play anybody. He played three damn defensive tackles the entire fricking season last year. Bain hardly played, and Gilmore and Herron never got in. He would have the same struggles with Mills and Bower out that Steele is having. And by the end of the year our guys would be completely run into the ground. We would be even more vanilla, have just as few sacks turnovers as last year because of it.
Posted on 10/13/15 at 5:25 pm to misey94
Your mistake is you keep thinking we have to have Chavis or Steele. When hiring, we could have had anyone within reason. Les chose Steele, and there are shortcomings to what he does which have been masked by great offensive play and weak opponents.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News