- 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: "Penn State played on the same field."
Posted on 1/3/10 at 10:09 pm to coldhotwings
Posted on 1/3/10 at 10:09 pm to coldhotwings
quote:
blitz
that could be the untold story of the game
lsu's inability to get to clark when they blitzed
0
Posted on 1/3/10 at 10:12 pm to LSUfan4444
quote:
so, the slop conditions hurt the advantage LSU had in speed, BUT also hurt the tigers deficiency in the run game???
is your stance that the field conditions hurt the team with the advantage or disadvantage in an area.....before you answer, think about it.
Our speed advantage are from our receivers and runningbacks that cannot run it in the middle.
Let me clarify it for you. The conditions penalizes the team that doesn't having a POWER running game. Trindon likes to run to the edge and he isn't quite as explosive going to the edge in mud.
Posted on 1/3/10 at 10:13 pm to wahoocs
posters who know little of football post that both teams were effected the same...
Go read what Bear said about mud, Mac, every coach...
A muddy field takes the advantage of speed form the faster team.
Also on a muddy field the heavier team that is a running team normally wins.
Why do you think The Bear went to the wishbone?
Because 15-20% of all games were in the mud in the south, and thats 1-2 more wins a year under those conditions.
Most everyone else was playing the I in those days (passing 15-20 times a game).
Go read what Bear said about mud, Mac, every coach...
A muddy field takes the advantage of speed form the faster team.
Also on a muddy field the heavier team that is a running team normally wins.
Why do you think The Bear went to the wishbone?
Because 15-20% of all games were in the mud in the south, and thats 1-2 more wins a year under those conditions.
Most everyone else was playing the I in those days (passing 15-20 times a game).
Posted on 1/3/10 at 10:14 pm to udtiger
I am not sure it would have made much difference. We got our asses handed to us on both sides of the ball. We got beat .... end of story. Time to move on.
Posted on 1/3/10 at 10:14 pm to biglego
quote:
And PP said somewhere his ability to cut was compromised and thats why he played so soft.
Getting burned probably had something to do with it
Posted on 1/3/10 at 10:16 pm to tigger1
quote:
posters who know little of football post that both teams were effected the same...
Go read what Bear said about mud, Mac, every coach...
A muddy field takes the advantage of speed form the faster team
Outside of Trindon, how do you know LSU was the faster team?
PSU isn't Wisconsin.
Posted on 1/3/10 at 10:16 pm to coldhotwings
quote:
The conditions penalizes the team that doesn't having a POWER running game. Trindon likes to run to the edge and he isn't quite as explosive going to the edge in mud.
penn state had an advantage in the running game on any field....that is the point
lsu was unable to run the ball all year with scott and williams on dry fields. doing it against penn st (#6 rush defense in the ncaa) without either of them wasn't going to happen...like i said, put 20lb ankle weights on me, then watch me blame the weight on why i can't dunk
and if trindon can beat you to edge when its dry, he can beat you to the edge when its wet (unless he slips). footing was an issue for everyone and certainly not an advantage for either team
Posted on 1/3/10 at 10:17 pm to udtiger
LSU had first down on Penn State's 40.
No time outs.
Threw a middle screen.
Les Miles is a moron. Sorry.
No time outs.
Threw a middle screen.
Les Miles is a moron. Sorry.
Posted on 1/3/10 at 10:18 pm to LSUfan4444
quote:
and if trindon can beat you to edge when its dry, he can beat you to the edge when its wet (unless he slips). footing was an issue for everyone and certainly not an advantage for either team
Trindon had two returns where he got to the edge. One would have been a touchdown had he not elected to run directly into the defender in an open field.
Posted on 1/3/10 at 10:19 pm to tigger1
quote:
on a muddy field the heavier team that is a running team normally wins.
unless it is windy, that is not true today
the passing game in all stages of football is so much more advanced now
Posted on 1/3/10 at 10:20 pm to Homeboy
quote:
Les Miles is a moron. Sorry.
maybe crowton couldn't see his play sheet b/c mud flew into the press box ??
Posted on 1/3/10 at 10:20 pm to LSUfan4444
if the field was dry we would not have changed our game plan. the point is that we did not change our game plan on a wet field. our inability to run the ball left us with few options. i do not understand why we didn't involve our TE's and RB's in the passing game. Ridley caught several key passes in the arky game.
Posted on 1/3/10 at 10:22 pm to coldhotwings
quote:
Can't completely abandon the run. Would u be comfortable with JJ throwing the ball 10 consecutive times while Penn State dials up the blitz?
Didnt say abandon it.
One thing coaches dreed in these kinds of conditions is a WR getting behind the secondary because there is no way to recover (That is why our DB's were playing so far off thier man and why the double move on the outside was killing us). If LSU had spread the field more with 4 and 5 wide out sets forcing man coverage (insted of the "I"), the under neath throws would have been there all night for the most part. Short high percentage passes like extended hand offs.........just enough to get 4-5 yards a pop with the deep pass and hand off to keep them honest.
Once again LSU played against its own strengths. We have tall athletic WR's.........arguably the best core in all of CFB. If they had dared played them tight in man to man, we would have made them pay on a wet field.
Posted on 1/3/10 at 10:24 pm to tigger1
quote:
Also on a muddy field the heavier team that is a running team normally wins.
You do realize Ridley is a larger back than Royster, right?
Posted on 1/3/10 at 10:26 pm to LSU GrandDad
quote:
if the field was dry we would not have changed our game plan
we had the same game plan as we had all year!!
on the season LSU had 410 rushes and 312 pass attempts...in the cap 1 bowl, lsu had 35 pass attempts and 40 rushes
quote:
our inability to run the ball left us with few options
it did that all season, on dry fields. it wsn't b/c we were on a sloppy field, it was b/s we weren't able to run the ball....just like the reast of the season. on a a dry field, we still weren't going to run it on the #6 rush defense
Posted on 1/3/10 at 10:34 pm to RogerTheShrubber
You realize the Penn State per man was 306, 303, 309, 310, 297
vs
269, 311, 294, 254 on our defensive line?
Our ol was 301, 289, 286, 315, 325
How is our strength at C and RG and LG? vs Penn State's lineman?
Other than Black and Barksdale man per man Penn had a better OL and very near the top 3 we played all year, with only Florida and Bama out front of them.
I will agree at LT Bama was weaker than Penn State.
Ridley like many LSU players lost much of their ablitiy to cut they normally have.
In the Dome this game would have been much different.
vs
269, 311, 294, 254 on our defensive line?
Our ol was 301, 289, 286, 315, 325
How is our strength at C and RG and LG? vs Penn State's lineman?
Other than Black and Barksdale man per man Penn had a better OL and very near the top 3 we played all year, with only Florida and Bama out front of them.
I will agree at LT Bama was weaker than Penn State.
Ridley like many LSU players lost much of their ablitiy to cut they normally have.
In the Dome this game would have been much different.
Posted on 1/3/10 at 10:39 pm to tigger1
the bottom line is saying the field didn't make a difference is just as naive as saying it was the reason LSU lost. It made a significant difference in the play of the game...who knows what the final score would've been on a better field.
Posted on 1/3/10 at 10:44 pm to ForeLSU
LSU lost to the better team all around. You know how I know? Because PENN played on the same field as LSU and they ADJUSTED their play accordingly.
Penn State beat LSU. No excuses. Game over. Quit being patsies about it.
Penn State beat LSU. No excuses. Game over. Quit being patsies about it.
Posted on 1/3/10 at 10:44 pm to LSUfan4444
quote:
it did that all season, on dry fields. it wsn't b/c we were on a sloppy field, it was b/s we weren't able to run the ball....just like the reast of the season. on a a dry field, we still weren't going to run it on the #6 rush defense
No one is arguing that we had an effective run game all season. There is no doubt however that the field, given our skill set and style, made our run game that much more ineffective. Even though our 3.8 ypc was second to last in the SEC, that is a hell-of-a-lot better than the 1.6 ypc we had this game. Penn st's 4.9 ypc to 3.1 ypc was no where near as drastic a drop as LSU's............and that is because the field condition hurt our style of running much more.
None of this should be mistaken as an excuse. LSU lost on so many other levels I wont bother listing them.
Posted on 1/3/10 at 10:54 pm to LSUfan4444
quote:
and if trindon can beat you to edge when its dry, he can beat you to the edge when its wet
in a straight line, you may have a point. In football, where reaction times are everything, players are pre-positioned to maintain leverage, and the ability to start and stop is much more important to some players than others it's just not accurate.
Have you ever played football? Surely, you have experienced this at some level, huh? You don't think a team built for speed would be better off playing a team built for power on turf? It's the same concept.
quote:
lsu was unable to run the ball all year with scott and williams on dry fields. doing it against penn st (#6 rush defense in the ncaa) without either of them wasn't going to happen
This is an entirely different point. If you want to make a case that LSU wouldn't have beaten Penn St. anyway then go ahead. But, to state that the field was a non-factor is just nonsense.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News