re: Once again, having Jarrett Lee at QB helps the LSU running game

quote:

---

The running QB takes away carries from the talented RBs, unless he is only running on busted plays.

---

Or setting up other plays, or escaping the blitz or runnning the option.

don't feed the flagship

quote:

---

And running the option, and keeping it, is taking away a carry from a RB.

---

Even if it is a big gainer? You would rather hand off to a RB for a small or no gain than pull it out and have the QB take it for big yardage? You would rather the QB pose no threat to run the ball so that the defense can ignore him in that regard? You want the defense to play 11 on 10 on running plays?

quote:

---

And, we suck at the option.

---

But are great at passing?

quote:

---

But looking at the running game, we have the sack and then 3 "team loss" rushes (on bad snaps, etc.) for -21 yards ( LINK), and other than that, we get 202 rushing yards on only 44 attempts, good for 4.59 yards per carry.

So what I and others have been saying for years is demonstrated yet again--the LSU running game works better with a pro-style QB like Lee in the game to keep the opposing defensive backs honest.

---

Well let's compare. With the 'dangerous' 2011 passing games, we've got 4.59 ypc (setting aside sacks & the bad snap) through one game. That's a good number; not great, but it might support your hypothesis. I kinda doubt one game is statistically significant but let's assume it is. The question still remains whether that shows a better run game than we had with the 'non-dangerous' 2010 passing attack.

For the 2010 stats we'll limit it to conference games to make a fairer comparison in terms of strength of opponent.* For 2010 we have 331 attempts for 1479 yards, which is good for 4.47 ypc. To be consistent, we also have to take away the sack yardage from last year. I can't find the 2010 sacks allowed numbers easily, but "team" had 6 rushes for -26 yards and Lee had 10 for -46 (we'll leave JJ's sacks in with his rushing stats). Let's assume 2/3 of those were in conference games so we'll credit 12 attempts and 48 yards to sacks and kneeldowns. That leaves us with a 2010 ypc of 4.79, a little bit higher than the 4.59 we got against Oregon.

I'm not saying the OP is wrong, but the only data point doesn't support the hypothesis. I might try to remember to bump this thread in a few weeks and see what the stats show then. By then hopefully the offense will be clicking a little better and we'll have an actual downfield passing game, not just the threat of one.

*It turns out that LSU's ypc were basically exactly the same whether you look at SEC games only or the set of all games. The ypc is a smidgen better when you take nonconf games in. So if you think all games are a more representative set, it only bolsters the analysis here (albeit marginally).

Edit to mention that all stats are from the utterly indispensable cfbstats.com

quote:

---

Here's my only thing about a running QB- we have talented RBs, RBs that are more talented at running the ball than the running QB. The running QB takes away carries from the talented RBs, unless he is only running on busted plays.

---

This

We ahve a great stable of RB's that are better runners than any of our QB's. Why would you want your QB running instead - because he can't pass, right? Makes sense.
Now, I ask why on earth would a Coach continue to use the running QB to start every game?

Not sure meaning of the post. Did not see what Lee did against Oregon helped the running game. Only way to help running game is to move the chains hitting passes along the way in which we did not. Yea I know Oregon put 8 in the box at times, but out O Line overpowered them. Having said that, the 8 Bama will put in the box will be much better than Oregon. We will have to hit the TE over the middle at times and throw the ball downfield. Every team in America respects LSU passing game because we have great athletes at WR not because we have an Andrew Luck on our team. That passing performance against Oregon will not cut it against teams in the SEC which know our offense much better. I'm sure Bama and the rest of the SEC will stack the box and makes us beat them throwing the ball.

quote:

---

But UC won't agree with anything that can be construed as a criticism of Miles or JJ.

---

Thanks for proving that you are NOT smarter than a 5th grader.

My point is that a moblie QB poses more problems for a defense than an immobile one. Anybody that has played the game(X-Box doesn't count) knows this. The more things you can throw at a defense, the greater the advantage you have. Have someone explain how this works to you.

quote:

---

My point is that a moblie QB poses more problems for a defense than an immobile one.

---

So much so, that most teams don't have running QBs.

And your wording has changed. There is a difference to me between mobile QBs, and running QBs.

quote:

---

Now, I ask why on earth would a Coach continue to use the running QB to start every game?

---

Because he is winning?
Not an important fact right?
I can see you as a head coach.: "Quarterback A 's play is winning games for us. We can't have that. Let's use somebody else."
That about how you would do things?