Aforem7

I think it shows the strength of playing at home plus what happens when an objectively bad run defense plays a very good run offense

quote:

---

Doesn’t sound good at all

---

How does it not seem good? He seems confident except for Luis. I'm just confused the reason for witholding stuff

quote:

---

Miami shut him down, though, because they were elite on defense last year.

---

He had an average game against Miami. Went 23/37 for 277 yards and 1 TD. Only got 7 rushing yards as well. Miami only sacked him once in the game.

The difference in that game was that Miami took advantage of being on the field, they kept the ball away from OM for as long as possible. TOP for the game was 41:22 to 18:38. Trinidad could just not get into a groove because just about everytime Miami had the ball they would keep it for a long time and wasted very few of those possessions. But to do that you have to play extremely efficiently offensively, which Miami did that game and we did not Saturday night. Despite all that, Miami still only won by 4 on a nuetral field

quote:

---

Losses:

A&M
Alabama
Texas
@ Tennessee

Toss ups:

@ Kentucky
Miss State
@ Auburn

Auburn sucks but it's at Jordan Hare and strange shite happens there so I'm not ready to count that as a win.

---

So we lose a game by 1 score on the road against a top 10 team and a 6th year heisman contender QB in the 3rd game of the season, and now you have us going 7-5 at best, 4-8 at worst?

Grow some nuts dude

quote:

---

Kiffin's familiarity with Chambliss made him overthink it and was just trying not to give up the big play instead of letting the defense play to their strengths. He kept calling Chambliss Houdini so I assume he thought sending extra pressure at Chambliss would just result in Chambliss escaping and finding open guys downfield with less people in coverage

---

This. From everything Kiffin said both during the week and after the game, Kiffin believed that if we sent a bunch of pressure, Chambliss would just escape and run all over us. So instead he chose to drop back in zone coverage, take away his legs, and force him to make throws. It worked in the sense that he only finished with 9 rushing yards. The problem was that we couldn't get enough pressure with a 4 man rush and he had all day to make the throws. And with his talent and the talent at WR's you're going to get killed.

I'm not necessarily sure what the answer to defend them is. Ik everyone is saying to bring more pressure, but Chambliss has shown the ability to execute RPOs to damn near perfection to beat pressure most of the time. Going back to last year, that offense has scored less than 30 points only 3 times. They put up 35+ on Georgia twice and 34 on oklahoma. And last I checked, Kirby and Venables are much better defensive minds than Baker.

Imo the only way to truly limit what their offense can do is to keep them off the field and not allow them to get momentum. We did that in the second half, unfortunately our offense couldn't string anything together in the first half and we kept giving them the ball back

That class action law suit just got a whole lot bigger

Pat Forte

Marcus Freeman would be deemed the best coach in America for "supporting players in their fight for fair play against the NCAA" followed by Sports Illustrated articles like "Freeman - The Future of College Football"

Considering that lsu has yet to break any NCAA or SEC membership rules, has not submitted a final roster and therefore has not added any "former NFL" players to their roster, and that LSU is not a party in the injuction hearing today nor is even involved in the active player lawsuits, theres literally zero grounds for a lawsuit against lsu.

Unless this is a preemptive lawsuit suing LSU for possibly adding players to the roster tomorrow, which in that case every fricking school that is involved with adding these players (Missouri, Texas, Arkansas, etc) should also be named

quote:

---

They aren’t punishing the player, only the school. Who is gonna sue them?

---

The players are going to have to sue the conference with the argument that by placing penalties on the schools for the players participating, the conferences are limiting the players' trade through impunitive action on "employers"

This obviously would only apply if the injuction is granted on August 31. If the injunction is not granted, then the court sided with the NCAA and it doesn't matter what the league specific rule is. But if it is granted, then according to the court, the players are eligible to compete in the NCAA and its "affilitiates" and therefore punishments on schools by the conference could be argued as limiting their trade