re: Stats don't lie.......we are mirroring 09

I apologize for the Kige spasm.

quote:

---

Where do you want our offense to go? Into the stands?

I'll hang up and listen as this group tries to grapple with that concept.

---

A lack of appreciable difference, is simply that; a lack of difference. Agreed there were other factors (fumbles, kickoffs, etc), however there appears to be no measurable difference and such lack of difference, understanding that 2009 offense was terrible, should give pause to any reasonable person.

That was even dumber than I expected.


YOU CAN'T RACK UP HUGE NUMBERS ON OFFENSE WHEN YOU ARE STARTING EVERY DRIVE AT THE 50 YARD LINE.

quote:

---

I've seen alot worse 3 years runs at LSU

---

I have as well.

But those teams did not have half of the talent as the teams that we are putting on the field now.

Those coaches weren't making the money our coaching staff is making to put a quality product on the field.

I'll gapple with it. Those 300 return yards took less than ONE Minute...We had many 3 and outs like last year and JJ looked like last year. Crowten called plays like last year. Miles took 10 seconds to decide to stop the clock before halftime. Etc....

Now, to argue the time needed for stats. We played against their 2nd and 3rd stringers (An ACC Scout Team) and had to hang on!!!!!!!!!! Geez, has anyone seen the trend started 3 years ago?

For those wanting more games to say that the numbers will not mirror last year...Why don't you check the Washington stats and if they are like last years season ending averages, then ???, that stops all the people needing more than one game to see how the year will pan out stat wise.


Just Saying....Looked like we are scared to finish and M Ford should have had a few snaps...Doghouse my arse!!! Our 2 backs had 3-4 fumbles and Miles hated Keiland for 1 or 2 a year???? Miles is a bonehead!!!

quote:

---

After LSU has 2 regular season SEC games under its belt, then you can start comparing LSU's SEC stats in 2009 to LSU's SEC stats in 2010. Until then, it really doesn't mean much, besides maybe playcalling/blitzing/substitution patterns.

---

This. And I didn't see any improvement in play-calling. Crowton was, of course, as awful as ever. I like Chavis, but I didn't understand why our best cover corner blitzed on two of the most important passing downs in the game.

Jefferson clearly had more confidence and I thought he showed great leadership minus a couple of hicups. O-Line has clearly improved and I liked how Ridley ran the ball (minus the fumbles, obviously. I think that will eventually iron itself out.)

My main disappointments came in the fact that our offensive playcalling doesn't seem to have changed one bit and Miles still doesn't seem to have any clue how to go for the jugular. Great, Shepard got one carry and took it to the house. Why didn't we go back to that or fake that and throw the ball downfield? UNC was clearly going to have to watch out for him and we didn't exploit that at all.

It's also disappointing to me that we obviously were never able to nail down any consistent starters in the secondary (minus you-know-who). Brandon Taylor is a liablilty, as is Eugene. I think Claiborne will be fine. I'm mainly concerned (obviously) with the play of our Safeties.

I know, it was one game. Because of that, I'm not going to comment on the stats in comparison to last year, but all I can say is I'm thoroughly displeased with our continually garbage offensive gameplan and inability to put a weaker team away.

quote:

---

Dude it was against an ACC scout team??????

---

I'm getting really sick of this argument. I already posted this in another thread, but guess I will have to repeat myself.

Too much is being made of the missing players. The missing players did not turn them into a Division II school. If there is anything that can validate this, then it is Vegas. Vegas has a vested interest in setting the odds the way the do-- and they moved the line from somewhere around even to LSU by ten. Not LSU by 30 or 40 the way Florida was supposed to win over Miami (OH). The game did not end TOO differently than the line predicted. So, everyone should really stop acting like we had difficulty beating a bunch of total scrubs. Yes, the game would've been tougher had their starters been there, but it is absolutely impossible to know how it would have ended if that were the case-- LSU may have lost, or may have won by 20. Nobody will ever know.

You may not like this, because it may make it harder for you to justify your self-loathing and desire to speak badly of something you claim to love, but Vegas said the difference between them missing 8 starters vs. approx 4 for LSU was worth about 10 points. If we let the in-state schools play us this close later this year, your argument may have merit. It just doesn't here.

quote:

---

I'm getting really sick of this argument.

---

THEIR COACH SAID IT ! NOT ME!

They played over 8 guys that were walk-ons or scheduled to be red-shirted. HOW MANY SNAPS DID THEY SEE IN PRACTICE???????

Vegas odds were a lucky guess because no one knew how significant the penalty would be.

quote:

---

THEIR COACH SAID IT ! NOT ME!

---

I quoted you. You said it. I don't know what their coach said, or really care. He might've been playing the sympathy card, who knows.

quote:

---

They played over 8 guys that were walk-ons or scheduled to be red-shirted. HOW MANY SNAPS DID THEY SEE IN PRACTICE???????

---

We had a walk-on at fullback in Stampley b/c we kicked our scholarship starter fullback off the team not too long ago. And then there's that Seth Fruge walk-on guy. We played a boatload of redshirt and true freshmen for a variety of reasons.

quote:

---

Vegas odds were a lucky guess because no one knew how significant the penalty would be.

---

Vegas gets paid to be lucky. Don't be a moron. There is a valid reason why they set the line at 10 points instead of 30. If we played a direction school the line would've been 30. The fact that it wasn't says something... and in case you missed what that something is, it is that the North Carolina team we played was not a scout team. They were much better than that-- they were not full strength-- but they were better than that.

You should really let this line of thought go now, because your most recent post is stupider than your previous one, and I don't really want to have to address this anymore. Sorry, Vegas' opinion simply means more than yours... to just about everyone.

quote:

---

Sorry, Vegas' opinion simply means more than yours... to just about everyone.

---

Which also means they factored in how poor our offense would be, right?