re: "Penn State played on the same field."

I truly believe LSU wins that game on a good field. It is a well know fact that a wet/muddy field hurts fast teams. Now, I wouldn’t call PSU slow, but certainly LSU as more overall speed. I heard coming into the game that the weakness of PSU was their defensive backfield. After watching the game, I would say the same. In fact, I felt that the discrepancy between LSU’s WRs and PSU’s DBs was so great that LSU should, and could have won that game based on that fact alone. If I were Crowton, my gameplan leading up the bowl would have been to pass, pass, and then pass some more. Judging by the number of 3-4 WR sets we ran in the game, I think that’s just what they were trying to do. Unfortunately, the weather did not cooperate, and I guess Crowton didn’t want to, or couldn’t change the “gameplan” that close to gametime (the forcast did call for rain, but reports were that the field had been greatly improved since the Champs Bowl).

Anyway, what I’m getting to is that on a muddy field, a bigger, more explosive football player (LSU WR) is hurt more than a smaller, less explosive player. In order to understand this, you have to look at the laws of physics. In order for the grass beneath a play to slip out, a force must be exerted upon it. What is force? Force is equal to mass multiplied by acceleration (or deceleration). Therefore, the ground is more able to withstand the forces of a smaller, less explosive player, thus providing more “footing”. Furthermore, this is why all players are not equally affected by a muddy surface. On a good field (especially artifical turf), I think we would have seen the LSU WRs stop, cut, and explode out of their breaks on the way to a big day in that PSU secondary (and subsequently actually getting first downs, kepping our D off the field so they wouldn’t be so tired at the end of the game). Additionally, since the WRs were taking longer to run their routes in the muck, Jefferson had even less time to find the open guy due to our continuously shaky OL play.

The bottom line is that I’m an LSU fan, so I’d rather chalk this one up to mother nature and bad luck (PSU put the ball on the ground at least 4-5 times and recovered all of them, we fumble twice and lose them both). We do have a lot of problems that need fixing, but we win that game on a good field!

That's football, that's the breaks of the game. You have to be prepared to play in sloppy conditions from time to time. I'm not saying the field didn't affect us, because it certainly did. But it not the reason we lost the game. We didn't adapt to the conditions that we were playing, and we certainly did not play well at all, we dropped passes, gave up on plays. And in general made bad decisions. The simple fact is all year we have not been a very good football team. We struggled offensively, and that resulted in us beating ZERO quality opponents and. Had some near misses in teams we should have beat the he'll out of. It's not about us playing on the same sloppy field, or the fact we were pit at a disadvantage, it's the simple fact penn went out there and did the right things to win and we did not.

quote:

---

the bottom line is saying the field didn't make a difference is just as naive as saying it was the reason LSU lost

---

no, not at all

i believe the field had an impact, and influenced the game. as did injuries, and confidence. is it the reason LSU lost....NO!

that is what many hre are saying. all conditions remain the same except the field conditions, and LSU wins.....THAT is bullshite. The field is not THE reason LSU lost.

Effort, discipline, and fundamental football skills.

In those categories, last Friday anyway:

Penn St>>>>LSU

Blame that on whatever you want.

Also I notice that the 4 bowl wins we have under Miles, as well as all three under Saban, were on Turf.

The losses: 2002/3 Cotton Bowl against Texas, the 2004/5 Cap1 Bowl game against Iowa, and this game were all on a natural playing surface.

quote:

---

As it was, we were playing way off the ball, safeties deep.

---

we always play 1 safety about 25 yards from the snap

quote:

---

Our speed advantage are from our receivers and runningbacks that cannot run it in the middle.

---

quote:

---

The conditions penalizes the team that doesn't having a POWER running game

---

quote:

---

Trindon likes to run to the edge and he isn't quite as explosive going to the edge in mud.

---

this point would mean something if trindon was our #1 back. ridley, a power back, was

quote:

---

if you run a 40 in 5.0 and i run it in 5.3 in dry conditions....lets say it rains and now in those conditions you run a 5.3...do i still run a 5.3?

---

On the other hand, if I run a 5.5 in the mud (5.0 in dry conditions) and you run a 5.4 in the mud (5.3 in dry conditions) ....

quote:

---

i am not saying the field conditions helped LSU, I am saying it is not THE reason LSU lost...like so many others

---

No, you are saying much more than that...here is your quote:

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

---

In that statement you are equating the effect the field has every player. That simply isn't true regardless of whether or not LSU could beat Penn St. on a better field.

quote:

---

you are saying much more than that

---

have you read all of my posts, or just been very selective

what about these?

quote:

---

penn st was going to run the ball in any conditions, and LSU wasn't going to b/c we had no rb's

what exactly would a dry field have changed to the gameplan? you think LSU would have been able to run the ball against a top 10 run defense (from a run first conference) without their top 3 rb's when they could run the ball all season against far inferior competition with 2 of their top 3 rb's healthy?

---

quote:

---

saying changes in condition would have equaled a change in performance, when you have an ENTIRE YEAR of evidence disproving that, is ignorant
against penn sta, LSU was exactly what is was the entire 2009 season. below average at qb, unable to run the football, weak on the 0-line and inconsistent at WR

---

quote:

---

the sloppy conditions should affect the footing of defensive playes on both sides....not just LSU's

---

quote:

---

it isn't like they had been effective and neutralized on the sloppy field, they have been piss poor all season long

its like putting 20lb weight on my ankle and saying it negating my strength in a dunk contest

both teams struggled moving the ball, but penn st converted 3rd don after 3rd down and LSU didn't

it was exactly how lsu's season went or most of the year. get outgained, and somehow, still be in it at the end

---

quote:

---

i am not saying the conditions helped LSU by any means, but i just can't see how anyone can sit here and think they would have seen something different from LSU (against one of the better defenses they played all year) tat they didn't see all year

what we saw from LSU on 1/1, was what we saw all year

---

quote:

---

was LSU ever going to able to run the ball on penn st? what does our offense do (or did in 2009) that we couldn't do on friday? how was LSU taken out of our game, and somehow less likely to stop penn state b/c of a muddy field? if we were less likely to sop them, it should have helped our run game

---

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...like i said, put 20lb ankle weights on me, then watch me blame the weight on why i can't dunk

---

quote:

---

how? LSU couldn't run the ball on anyone this year, on any field conditions

what in the world makes you think they would have been able to run it on the #6 rush defense in the ncaa without their top 2 NFL bound rb's if the field was dry?

---

quote:

---

i believe the field had an impact, and influenced the game. as did injuries, and confidence. is it the reason LSU lost....NO!

that is what many hre are saying. all conditions remain the same except the field conditions, and LSU wins.....THAT is bullshite. The field is not THE reason LSU lost.

---

As you can see, I have acknowldged numerous times the conditions were a factor in the game, BUT they were not THE DETERMINING FACTOR. they affected both teams, saying they affected LSU's ability to run the ball with effectiveness is incorrect, b/c LSU wasn't able to run the ball all year, on any conditions.