- 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 10/26/10 at 5:10 pm to OBUDan
Posted on 10/26/10 at 5:10 pm to OBUDan
quote:
I didn't really get into actual plays, thanks.
No but you did try to show a remedial picture of how you thought we at a numbers advantange and I simply pointed out in the simplest terms posible how easy is it for the offense to get a man up on us using a simple p[ulling guard.
quote:
Sure, if you walk a safety into the box and leave a man uncovered, Auburn will gladly throw to a wide open person all day.
Wrong< he could still cover the RB IF we were in a man call. Everyone still has assignments, his just starts 1 yd down the field instead of standing 15 yds downfield while they run all over us!
But the point is, make Newton consistantly beat us in passing! Make the coordinator change the way he is calling plays....take them out of their comfort zone and make tehm do the lowest % of success plays they have.
1
Posted on 10/26/10 at 5:13 pm to OBUDan
(no message)
Posted on 10/26/10 at 5:14 pm to LSUzealot
for the record, i disagree with the OP
i haven't read this thread...but this is failed logic IMO...in your playbook pic there is only 1 safety...we had 2 safeties...that's stupid...we should have had zero safeties and played 1-on-1 on all their receivers...brought in everyone else on the line...force cam to beat us by throwing for 400 yards ...we played right into his strength
quote:
We chose to play them with 5 DBs most of the game. If you went "big" in terms of bringing in LBers, you have major liabilities in pass coverage.
Yes, our secondary is the best part of our team, but even an unaccomplished passer like Newton would dissect a defense leaving 2 WRs uncovered.
i haven't read this thread...but this is failed logic IMO...in your playbook pic there is only 1 safety...we had 2 safeties...that's stupid...we should have had zero safeties and played 1-on-1 on all their receivers...brought in everyone else on the line...force cam to beat us by throwing for 400 yards ...we played right into his strength
Posted on 10/26/10 at 5:14 pm to the LSUSaint
quote:
But the point is, make Newton consistantly beat us in passing! Make the coordinator change the way he is calling plays....take them out of their comfort zone and make tehm do the lowest % of success plays they have.
Yeah. Newton certainly didn't beat LSU with his arm.
Posted on 10/26/10 at 5:15 pm to igoringa
quote:
I hate shite like this. Coaches are infallible. Miles against Ole Miss never happenned last year folks... after all we pay him so we must be imagining it.
Miles must be as good as Saban, both get paid the same.
Coaching doesnt matter as long as tehy are paid, they are equal. That is what you are effectively saying.
Not at all what I'm saying. Not at all.
Posted on 10/26/10 at 5:16 pm to OBUDan
OBU...I appreciate your efforts.
But you will have folks that think you can have 8 in the box and just leave folks uncovered.
The thought that you can just bring the house on the most athletic 6 foot 6 inch QB to ever play the game, and he just will not find them is kind of silly.
I also agree with your assessment that Sabans 7 will stack up pretty good. I actually wanted to spell Nevis for someone like Davenport for that reason, he probably does not penetrate and is big enough to eat up space.....him and Brockers for a couple of series to see what we could do.
Silly, but hell I was grasping at straws.
But you will have folks that think you can have 8 in the box and just leave folks uncovered.
The thought that you can just bring the house on the most athletic 6 foot 6 inch QB to ever play the game, and he just will not find them is kind of silly.
I also agree with your assessment that Sabans 7 will stack up pretty good. I actually wanted to spell Nevis for someone like Davenport for that reason, he probably does not penetrate and is big enough to eat up space.....him and Brockers for a couple of series to see what we could do.
Silly, but hell I was grasping at straws.
Posted on 10/26/10 at 5:16 pm to Buck Sweep
quote:
Not at all what I'm saying. Not at all.
Sure you are. They are paid, us silly fans arent... so no way we can match the brilliance of Miles against Ole Miss or Tenn or heaven forbid have observations of the game that differ from the coaches and be right. Because after all, they are paid the big bucks. So if they are always right and we are always wrong, then that is what you are saying.
Posted on 10/26/10 at 5:20 pm to igoringa
The bottom line is they ran 26 of the last 27 plays. At some point, the conclusion needs to be to man up on the outside and bring everyone else in to focus on the run. Do we risk getting beat deep? Sure. Would I rather take that risk then 440 yards on the ground? Yes.
And recall it was Chavis all week that talked about not being over aggressive and focus on containment. Not I, but him. hence Cam could sit back there and read a book while he waited for an inevitable crease.
And recall it was Chavis all week that talked about not being over aggressive and focus on containment. Not I, but him. hence Cam could sit back there and read a book while he waited for an inevitable crease.
Posted on 10/26/10 at 5:21 pm to igoringa
quote:
Sure you are. They are paid, us silly fans arent... so no way we can match the brilliance of Miles against Ole Miss or Tenn or heaven forbid have observations of the game that differ from the coaches and be right. Because after all, they are paid the big bucks. So if they are always right and we are always wrong, then that is what you are saying.
No! NO it's not, and TELLING me what I'm saying won't change that. (off the subject, but what is it about the internet that makes people think they can TELL you what you meant or said?) If you're hanging your hat on the fact that I said they're paid...well, you missed the point entirely. I also NEVER suggested they're always right. NEVER.
Posted on 10/26/10 at 5:22 pm to tigerfoot
quote:
But you will have folks that think you can have 8 in the box and just leave folks uncovered.
It worked. Newton didn't throw for many yards. What makes you think he would have if LSU had schemed against the run?
Posted on 10/26/10 at 5:33 pm to tigerfoot
quote:
I also agree with your assessment that Sabans 7 will stack up pretty good. I actually wanted to spell Nevis for someone like Davenport for that reason, he probably does not penetrate and is big enough to eat up space.....him and Brockers for a couple of series to see what we could do.
Silly, but hell I was grasping at straws.
Exactly.
Davenport's size would have been nice in this game, it's too bad he doesn't come off low and hard.
I need to rewatch, but I'm curious to see what Brockers did in there.
Posted on 10/26/10 at 5:34 pm to OBUDan
LINK /
The botoom line is we kept the safeties way back.
Example: 47 second mark play..... safety is not on the clear so atleast 15 yards back.
Example 2: 1:10 mark. Cams run. We had 2 freaking safeties back deep. One a full 10 yards and the other off the screen farther back.
Example 3: 2:25 mark. Taylor is atleast 15 yards back (off the screen). He tries to eat up that space and takes a brutal angle.
Bottom line is we knew the point of attack was the line of scrimmage yet we kept our safeties back and, not only had these big plays, but allowed cam to patiently pick holes all day for chunks of yardage.
The botoom line is we kept the safeties way back.
Example: 47 second mark play..... safety is not on the clear so atleast 15 yards back.
Example 2: 1:10 mark. Cams run. We had 2 freaking safeties back deep. One a full 10 yards and the other off the screen farther back.
Example 3: 2:25 mark. Taylor is atleast 15 yards back (off the screen). He tries to eat up that space and takes a brutal angle.
Bottom line is we knew the point of attack was the line of scrimmage yet we kept our safeties back and, not only had these big plays, but allowed cam to patiently pick holes all day for chunks of yardage.
Posted on 10/26/10 at 5:36 pm to Buck Sweep
quote:
I've learned not to do that with folks online that are convinced they know more than the coaches getting paid big bucks
Your inference is clear. Why talk to those not getting paid the 'big bucks'. They (the coaches) must know and execute better. After all, they make the 'big bucks'
Posted on 10/26/10 at 5:38 pm to LSUzealot
quote:
i haven't read this thread...but this is failed logic IMO...in your playbook pic there is only 1 safety...we had 2 safeties...that's stupid...we should have had zero safeties and played 1-on-1 on all their receivers...brought in everyone else on the line...force cam to beat us by throwing for 400 yards ...we played right into his strength
It was just a basic diagram of how a defense might try to match their spread formations, not what LSU did necessarily.
What you are suggesting is that we play man-to-man on all their receivers. So that means 4 CBs occupying 4 WRs, right? Since you want no safeties.
Then you are small defensively and your guys have their backs to the QB. Newton takes off he's going to roast you. If he gets into the secondary, you are forced to tackle him with 180-200 pound guys, besides Peterson.
Its fine and this will go back and forth. Like I said earlier, if Newton torched our secondary everyone would just be coming in here saying... "How could we let this running QB throw all over our secondary?! Chavis sucks!"
I'm sure there's some things Chavis would have liked to do differently, but I don't think the concept of his scheme was outrageously bad as many suggest.
Posted on 10/26/10 at 5:41 pm to OBUDan
quote:
Then you are small defensively and your guys have their backs to the QB. Newton takes off he's going to roast you.
You mean for 400+ plus yards?
quote:
Its fine and this will go back and forth. Like I said earlier, if Newton torched our secondary everyone would just be coming in here saying... "How could we let this running QB throw all over our secondary?! Chavis sucks!"
We are talking about adjusting the gameplan through the game. Chavis was clear pregame that we are not going to be overly aggressive and contain. He said it, not me. To me that is what we appeared to do and Cam was way way too patient for that. Plan A failed. Attempt plan B.
Posted on 10/26/10 at 5:41 pm to OBUDan
quote:
OBUDan
X's & O's Board
Posted on 10/26/10 at 5:55 pm to igoringa
quote:
Chavis was clear pregame that we are not going to be overly aggressive and contain. He said it, not me.
Where?
The interview I saw he said he wants to make them throw it 50 times a game.
Posted on 10/26/10 at 5:56 pm to alange
Posted on 10/26/10 at 7:04 pm to igoringa
quote:
Your inference is clear. Why talk to those not getting paid the 'big bucks'. They (the coaches) must know and execute better. After all, they make the 'big bucks'
My "inference" has got exactly shite to do with money! My "inference" that the coaching staff has a wee bit more experience in game planning, evaluating talent and scheme, implimenting scheme, and even looking at film. You? You've watched some football on TV. If YOU have coached...then let's hear it. Tell us your experience.
Let me explain. If I stated a university, and a football progam, and had 2 applicants for the HC job, and one guy came in and had 1 year of Pop Warner coaching, and the other guy said "I've watched lots of football on TV and I KNOW the game. I'm a very intelligent fan". I'd hire the guy with one year of Pop Warner coaching. I assure you he has a better understanding of what goes in to the game, and game planning, and "making adjustments" (which is hallmark phrase of those that THINK they know something because they watched some football on TV). It aint got shite to do with money, and everything to do with having ACTUALLY DONE THE JOB vs someone who has NEVER done the job yet feel completely comfortable in not only railing on the coach for losing (which is ok), but actually believes, misguided as it may be, that he acutally has a clear understanding of football and scheming of football!
Posted on 10/26/10 at 7:08 pm to Buck Sweep
Page 8 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News