- 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
re: Why You Can't "Stack the Box" vs. Auburn (with graphics/pics)
Posted on 10/27/10 at 2:30 pm to OBUDan
Posted on 10/27/10 at 2:30 pm to OBUDan
quote:
The bottom line is, Auburn's offense is SO difficult to defend because of one reason:
FIFY. The only answer needed is Newton. That was exactly the same offense run last year when LSU stopped them all night long with a lesser defense. Newton is tremendous all around. The young back is good but his effectiveness is enhanced two-fold because of Newton's ability. A few well-schemed blitzes would have been nice to see. You never know, catch Cam by surprise, hit him at the right time, create a timely turnover. It was time to go for broke IMO and other than the flea-flicker touchdown I never saw the coaches do that.
1
Posted on 10/27/10 at 2:37 pm to OBUDan
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`I don't know if it's going to be possible this week,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Love you curiously ignore the most important part of that quote.
You are right... the threat of pass #9 on the day was too much to dare try this.
Posted on 10/27/10 at 2:40 pm to OBUDan
quote:
Ooooh! I found a good one. This play does exactly as they all crave... walked the safety up! The result: Michael Dyer 16 yard run that put you guys at the one. Let me get this screen shot for everyone.
Fail. As the shadow shows on your screen shot, we still had a safety back over 10 yards (your shot shows 10 people and misses the safety deep). Good try... I thought for a second you brought the score up to Safety Deep 425 yards, safeties walked in 15!
Keep up the good work.
Posted on 10/27/10 at 2:46 pm to igoringa
All he said was they walked a S up. They did...there's 7 in the box...5 on the LOS.
Posted on 10/27/10 at 2:51 pm to Buck Sweep
quote:
All he said was they walked a S up. They did...there's 7 in the box...5 on the LOS.
Um No. He clearly said THE safety, and not 'a' safety. Inference is a one safety package when you say THE. I am sure you know we were not 'craving' a one safety left deep scheme. If after 13 pages, you believe our craving is that then God help us all. Good try defending though.
Posted on 10/27/10 at 3:01 pm to igoringa
LSU didn't play well on offense or defense.
Still the score was tied with 6 mins to go in the 4th Q at 17. Considering that the offense crapped it's pants the entire 2nd half, I'd say the defense did it's job(Well especially the special teams).
I still didn't have a problem with the scheme. I thought the players got away from their responsibility far too often, but most importantly they had opportunities to make tackles for minimal gains and missed them. That ended up being the difference in the game.
Still the score was tied with 6 mins to go in the 4th Q at 17. Considering that the offense crapped it's pants the entire 2nd half, I'd say the defense did it's job(Well especially the special teams).
I still didn't have a problem with the scheme. I thought the players got away from their responsibility far too often, but most importantly they had opportunities to make tackles for minimal gains and missed them. That ended up being the difference in the game.
Posted on 10/27/10 at 3:10 pm to ROUSTER
For all of you wondering about the blitz packages during the auburn game, listen to K Sheps interview, like he said himself, chief dialed up some run blitz's but everyone was shooting the gaps instead of filling them and holding their gaps, they were trying to go for big plays every time. I know no one wants to blame it on the players, hell i don't want to blame it on the players but the defensive scheme was about as good as it could have been for an offense like that. When you spread the field out like the way auburns offense does, the margin of error for the defense decreases immensely. And for all of you who are still arguing about stacking the box, there is a specific thread addressing that topic, i suggest you read it.
Posted on 10/27/10 at 3:10 pm to igoringa
quote:
Um No. He clearly said THE safety, and not 'a' safety. Inference is a one safety package when you say THE. I am sure you know we were not 'craving' a one safety left deep scheme. If after 13 pages, you believe our craving is that then God help us all. Good try defending though.
Here we go again with you, or someone, tell us what the "inference" was. Geez the internet is a strange place for that!
Craving? I'm guessing you craved a win. So, a single safety isn't what you wanted? You wanted the whole wad shot...bring 'em all down in the box, and blitz like hell? Cool! Ok.
Posted on 10/27/10 at 3:13 pm to igoringa
AND actually, this is what OBU said:
He named who they walked up. So, the "inference" was they friggin walked Karnell Hatcher up on the play. That was the "inference". So, IF Karnell Hatcher is a S, then I stand by my "he only said they walked a S up". Because IF Karnell Hatcher is a S, that is, in fact, a fact!
quote:
As you can see pretty clearly, we walk Karnell Hatcher up on the play, into the box
He named who they walked up. So, the "inference" was they friggin walked Karnell Hatcher up on the play. That was the "inference". So, IF Karnell Hatcher is a S, then I stand by my "he only said they walked a S up". Because IF Karnell Hatcher is a S, that is, in fact, a fact!
Posted on 10/27/10 at 3:15 pm to Buck Sweep
quote:
Here we go again with you, or someone, tell us what the "inference" was.
quote:
You wanted the whole wad shot...bring 'em all down in the box, and blitz like hell? Cool! Ok.
Since you have mastered inference, let me introduce to you 'irony'.
My apologies if I inferred the OP mastery of the english language included the difference between A and THE. Yes, I inferred he mastered such a skill. My bad.
Posted on 10/27/10 at 3:17 pm to Buck Sweep
quote:
AND actually, this is what OBU said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see pretty clearly, we walk Karnell Hatcher up on the play, into the box
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He named who they walked up. So, the "inference" was they friggin walked Karnell Hatcher up on the play. That was the "inference". So, IF Karnell Hatcher is a S, then I stand by my "he only said they walked a S up". Because IF Karnell Hatcher is a S, that is, in fact, a fact!
Wrong post nimrod. The post I was responding to was this:
quote:
Ooooh! I found a good one. This play does exactly as they all crave... walked the safety up! The result: Michael Dyer 16 yard run that put you guys at the one. Let me get this screen shot for everyone.
Again, that play is NOT what we all craved. It is exactly what we said we didnt want. So we can go on all day about how wrong the poster is, but we would just be splitting hairs.
Posted on 10/27/10 at 3:18 pm to igoringa
quote:
Um No. He clearly said THE safety, and not 'a' safety. Inference is a one safety package when you say THE. I am sure you know we were not 'craving' a one safety left deep scheme. If after 13 pages, you believe our craving is that then God help us all. Good try defending though.
And, seriously, are you inferring, that he inferred that it was a "one safety package?" Seriously? That's what you're inferring he inferred? Is that your serious inference? Seriously? That's what you're hanging your hat on here? "THE safety" vs "A safety?" You're serious?
I think your "cravings" have distorted your view of reality, and now you're grossly nit picking so that you can make your point.
We get it, you wanted all out blitz.
Posted on 10/27/10 at 3:22 pm to Buck Sweep
quote:
And, seriously, are you inferring, that he inferred that it was a "one safety package?" Seriously? That's what you're inferring he inferred? Is that your serious inference? Seriously? That's what you're hanging your hat on here? "THE safety" vs "A safety?" You're serious?
Apparently I am the only one here serious. For 10 pages the discussion has been why we did not walk the safeties up and play man to man on the outside. He claims to find a play when we did this. He was wrong. But his boyfriend apparently feels obliged to try to cover for him. It is cute.
quote:
We get it, you wanted all out blitz.
Inferring master... where did I ever say blitz? You are outdoing yourself in defense of your sweetie here.
Posted on 10/27/10 at 3:24 pm to igoringa
Ok, you're getting juvenile now. You can't discuss football without trying to prove how E-tough you are.
Posted on 10/27/10 at 3:25 pm to Buck Sweep
Keep dancing away.... it is OK.
Posted on 10/27/10 at 3:27 pm to RANDY44
quote:
That was exactly the same offense run last year when LSU stopped them all night long with a lesser defense.
No it's not.
Posted on 10/27/10 at 3:29 pm to igoringa
quote:
Um No. He clearly said THE safety, and not 'a' safety. Inference is a one safety package when you say THE. I am sure you know we were not 'craving' a one safety left deep scheme. If after 13 pages, you believe our craving is that then God help us all. Good try defending though.
Jesus Christ dude.
This is what I said:
quote:
As you can see pretty clearly, we walk Karnell Hatcher up on the play, into the box.
I named THE safety. If you are too fricking ignorant to figure that out then I can't help you.
Posted on 10/27/10 at 3:29 pm to igoringa
Typical internet tough guy.
I'll infer this...you don't know jack sh*t about defense or football. If you did, you wouldn't have to resort to this type of posting. You parrot what you hear others say, nothing more. You think you know, but you don't. And, you won't dare let anyone explain it to you either, at least not without references like "his boyfriend" etc. You're not very bright.
I'll infer this...you don't know jack sh*t about defense or football. If you did, you wouldn't have to resort to this type of posting. You parrot what you hear others say, nothing more. You think you know, but you don't. And, you won't dare let anyone explain it to you either, at least not without references like "his boyfriend" etc. You're not very bright.
Posted on 10/27/10 at 3:33 pm to OBUDan
quote:
I named THE safety. If you are too fricking ignorant to figure that out then I can't help you.
Yes you named the safey in a subsequent post.
On the topic of ignorant, do you think citing a play where we keep a safety deep is what we 'crave'? As that clearly defines fricking ignorance and contradicts about 10 pages of discussion back and forth.
Posted on 10/27/10 at 3:37 pm to Buck Sweep
quote:
Typical internet tough guy.
For a dude posting all day, you sure like to drop the 'internet' E guy lingo on everyone else. Dont worry, all of us have insecurities.
quote:
I'll infer this...
And continue your trend of inaccuracy. Bravo on your consistency.
quote:
If you did, you wouldn't have to resort to this type of posting. You parrot what you hear others say, nothing more. You think you know, but you don't. And, you won't dare let anyone explain it to you either, at least not without references like "his boyfriend" etc. You're not very bright.
Did you get it all out of your system. Do you feel better now? or do we still need to meet at the monkey bars at recess?
Page 13 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News