ATVS's Triumphant Return to Blogging!
Guys, I sort of took a break last week. I only wrote a couple blog posts, and to be perfectly honest I hardly even paid attention to football at all, at least by my lofty standards. Sure, I spent most of Saturday after 1:00pm watching football, but that's not really paying attention to football. In order to pay attention to football, you have to read all the articles in the papers, study the box scores, do research, etc. You can't just watch football and hope to be informed on what's going on. It would be like trying to understand electoral politics just by watching election returns every four years.
My sorry excuse is that work and family life picked up right as LSU was going to a bye week. That may not have been a coincidence, but the result was that a lot less of my time has been my own lately, and because of the bye week there hasn't been as much urgency to make time for football.
The good news is that while I've been away from the blog, I have had some time to reflect on the state of the LSU football team. I'm not sure when the perfect time for a bye week is. It always seems to come at a time when you wind up thinking to yourself, "The team would be better off just playing football." This is one of those times. The bye week has given the malcontents (of whom I may not be of, but I am of close kin) time to stew, time to go on a slow burn, time to feed back on each other.
I said before the Florida game that the game did not matter. Les Miles had temporarily silenced the critics with his win over Georgia. I believed that at the time, but the sort of game we played against Florida was just about exactly the wrong sort of game to play to inspire confidence in the team among the fan base. With nothing to lose, the struggling LSU offense went onto the field and played just about as tight, and as mechanical, and as spiritless as a unit can play. Watching that game was like watching a boa constrictor slowly suffocate its prey. I think part of that is the playcalling.
Poseur has sort of put his trademark on the school of thought that says that we are being so conservative that we are missing out on too many of the rewards that come with a high-risk/high-reward strategy. I will put my trademark on the other side of that coin. While we're voluntarily passing up the rewards that come with risk, even with moderate risk, we are also stifling our offensive players' energy and enthusiasm. Because everything is so mechanical, so lifeless, the players seem to be feeding off of that negative energy and aren't operating at full efficiency. It just looks like the game is not very fun out there for those players, and that seems to be sapping some of the life out of the offense.
I watch other games, even games with struggling quarterbacks, and they do creative things. They do things that de-emphasize their weaknesses. They do things that inject energy into a game. If a quarterback is having trouble making reads, they give him timing throws like slants or fades. If a running game is having trouble getting a push, they run a few draws or reverses. They disguise passes as runs and runs as passes, to try to give their unit an advantage. We seem to do none of that. We even leave our most explosive individual player, Russell Shepard, on the bench for an entire game.
You can tell that I am displeased with the state of things right now, but at the same time it hasn't really hurt us. We're 5-1. We have a chance to meet every goal for the season. The problem is that watching this football team has not been very fun, and the record has been built up against the weaker part of our schedule. Georgia appears to be walking around in a fog. Mississippi State and Vandy are clearly the worst teams in the league. Washington has come back to earth after a hot start. ULL is a Sun Belt team. Things get tougher from here and if we're going to actually meet those goals, we have to improve as a team, especially on offense. We are going to have to figure out how to generate some explosive plays. A few explosive plays will not only generate yards in and of themselves, but they will energize the team and help out the plays that are designed to get 5 yards.
I am optimistic about this week. Auburn is clearly reeling. The Gus Malzahn offense that started the season looking like a juggernaut has come back to earth in the last two weeks. In their loss to Kentucky this week, Chris Todd had an ATVSQBPI of 2.5 yards per touch. The offense as a whole stunk except for Ben Tate, and scored only 7 points on the game. We have an opportunity here at home to get another win, lock up bowl eligibility, and move on to the next game having won 2 out of 3 of what we considered our toughest stretch of the season. Though now our toughest stretch may well be the November stretch of Alabama, La Tech, Ole Miss, and Arkansas.
24 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
GEAUX
No wonder I don’t see you on td.com anymore.
When did you start this?
Not just high-risk..
… ANY risk. In order to get some reward, one must take some risks. I don’t think LSU needs to become some reckless gambler, but Les built his reputation here on taking calculated gambles that were justified by the game situation. Miles is currently taking no risks at all. To keep the gambling analogy, you have to have something in the pot to win it. He doesn’t have to go all-in, but he does have to call the occassional bet.
Fake Pundit. Real Fan.
http://www.andthevalleyshook.com
You have to actually have the cards in your hand
Before you can start gamblin’
by Billy Gomila on Oct 19, 2009 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions
Just watched the 2nd half all over again
The playcalling was NOT risk-averse. It was dumb and predictable, but it was NOT risk-averse.
by Billy Gomila on Oct 19, 2009 1:16 PM CDT up reply actions
We completely disagree on this point mainly due to a difference in definitions. Jefferson is not throwing in the middle of the field, which is where INT’s tend to happen. Throwing deep is not what I mean by being risky. LSU called deep passes, but it is apparent it has been beaten into Jefferson above all else "do not throw a pick". A player tends to do what he is coached to do, so Jefferson held the ball way too long and took the sack. He was afraid of the risk of the INT. Considering it kept happening over and over again, I doubt this comes from Jefferson, it comes from the coaches’ fear of the turnover. By protecting Jefferson’s psyche, they are damaging it in another way.
Dumb and predictable IS risk averse. The coaches tend to give Jefferson one or two reads and that is it. Watch his head, he is not progressing through reads. He looks at his primary guy and then if he doesn’t throw to him, he throws to the running back. Which is fine, but it is a strategy to mitigate risk.
Fake Pundit. Real Fan.
http://www.andthevalleyshook.com
But they're still taking risks
Just dumb ones. Here’s an example:
Third quarter, LSU’s first possesion. On first down, LSU checked to a play-action pass out of the pistol with 3-WR’s that featured a pair of intermediate crossing routes with a deep post, resulting in a quick sack for Florida. What’s risk-averse about this play-call? Passing had been spotty at best, and Crowton called a play-action pass that would have to have been thrown through a lane between the tackles the middle of the field — contrary to your theory about over the middle. On 2nd down, the playcall was an admittedly conservative option run, but then on third and long the playcall was a 5-wr set with all routes run down the field (couldn’t see the specific routes but chances are more then one went over the middle). This is risk averse and trying to avoid mistakes? If anything it’s almost asking Jefferson to make them, or at least not playing to his strengths by asking him to hold the ball for these routes to develop.
They ARE taking risks. The problem is they’re just not taking smart or calculated ones. If anything, running the ball more and throwing more screens or quick passes into the flats would have yielded a better result then what LSU was doing in the Florida game. But we definitely agree that the result was bad regardless.
But this risk-averse/conservative theme just isn’t jiving with the film. I’m sorry, it’s just not.
by Billy Gomila on Oct 19, 2009 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions
yes they are risk averse...
Just because you run routes over the middle or send people deep does not mean you’re taking chances. Actually throwing it there does. And doing that with success will get our offense going. Whether JJ can do that is the question. As scared as we seem to be to go there it does not seem like there is a lot of confidence by either JJ or the coaches.
If you go to the casino with your kid and buy him a big bunch of chips and sit him down at the roulette table you’re making a show of taking a risk. If you then tell him “have fun gambling but don’t you dare lose any money” you are risk averse, and the whole darn thing is just show. Defensive coordinators, like the house in the example above, have noticed we are not actually betting with our chips, no matter how many we show. After awhile they’ll ignore the kid, just like defenses are ignoring our over the middle passing game.
As the saying goes, we’re not going there with Jefferson… at least not so far.
Perfect rebuttal
Even stretched my gambling analogy to the breaking point. I endorse pttigris’ message.
And even throwing deep isn’t very risky. The most likely outcome of throwing it deep is an incompletion. Even if it is picked off, it acts like a punt. A deep interception is a “good” INT.
Fake Pundit. Real Fan.
http://www.andthevalleyshook.com
So because he's getting sacked before the ball gets out
Or the routes have time to develop, he’s being told not to take chances? That doesn’t make any sense. If they didn’t want him to throw the passes they wouldn’t call the plays. Just because he’s taking sacks doesn’t mean he’s being told to be risk averse — if that were the case they would call more high-percentage, lower-risk plays. You’re making long intuitive leaps without any evidence to back it up. The execution may be crap (and that’s still on the coaches), but the play-calling clearly shows the intent.
If a running back gets stuffed in the backfield on a stretch play, does that mean he’s getting told to cut everything inside and not try to get to the corner? Of course not, it means the play isn’t getting properly executed.
by Billy Gomila on Oct 19, 2009 6:21 PM CDT up reply actions
My final say on this
If our coaches are honestly calling downfield plays while simultaneously telling the quarterback NOT to throw them, then that is so spectacularly contradictory that the team is worse off then any of us imagine.
by Billy Gomila on Oct 19, 2009 6:24 PM CDT up reply actions
routes over the middle don't have...
time to develop. Give me a break. He’s so scared of throwing int’s (and I don’t blame him after seeing JL abused last year) that the ball is not getting out of his hand unless he sees somebody wide open. Good luck with that in the SEC. You don’t have to tell him not to throw it. Just tell him not to make mistakes, which I think the staff has emphasized to him. Add his inexperience, his slow delivery, and the fact that our receivers are not going to usually be wide open in 3-5 seconds and you have little to no downfield or middle pass game.
Facts are facts… we have not thrown them… period. Tha’s not an intuitive leap, it’s an obvious fact. Everything else is conjecture. All of the BS about not enough protection is just that. Not enough to throw to the TE?? He isn’t getting sacked in 2 seconds every time. And yes… we have a real problem, because it’s something that the QB has to get out of his head. I wish it was just play calling.
JJ’s comments this week show that they have been talking to him about it. You may want to read them. JJ said he was going to take more chances. Les came back and clarified that was not the case, that he needed to take only the correct opportunities so to speak. In other words, don’t throw that int. Right now it might be good for JJ to throw a couple, as long as they don’t cost us a game. Might loosen him and Les and GC up a little.
The only fact
In this discussion remains that the plays have been called.
The conjecture is on your end as to why they haven’t been executed. Now, regardless of WHY they haven’t been executed, they haven’t been. This offense sucks, and that is all that really matters.
But don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining. The plays have been called.
by Billy Gomila on Oct 19, 2009 7:29 PM CDT up reply actions
es and GC are as risk averse...
as you have always been averse to admit a mistake Billy. Haven’t seen you do that in any forum in five years. Just like JJ throwing an int it probably would be a liberating experience. I do think they will break out of it first. I can attest to it being liberating… I make them every day, a lot.
This is not one of them.
Stay thirsty my friend…
Not Admitting I'm Wrong
Funny you would say that when you can’t answer the simple question of why receivers were running posts and crossing routes deep if our “risk averse” coaches didn’t want Jefferson to throw them.
Go to SECdigitalnetwork.com, you can watch the video. I’ll kindly await your explanation of exactly what was going on on those plays.
by Billy Gomila on Oct 19, 2009 10:12 PM CDT up reply actions
whatever Billy
way to prove the point… red herring … if he won’t throw it because he’s scared of the TO then it’s irrelevant what routes they are running, just as it’s irrelevant what chips the kid at the casino has if he won’t play them.
Just give the kid less chips, tell him that’s what’s in the budget, and if you lose it it’s no sweat. If you win we split it. Have fun!
And I’ll come back with your answer when you show me somewhere where you ever admitted you’re wrong. If you can’t ever do that I’m wasting my time.
Now I’m waiting Billy.
I think you just gave me your answer
So now, Jefferson won’t “play the chips,” yet it’s Crowton/Miles who is risk averse? So now it’s Jefferson’s fault? If the coaches “give him the chips” then how is it their fault if he won’t play them? I mean, since it’s the coaches being risk averse in your argument…
Why don’t you get your story straight, then worry about whether I’m right or wrong.
by Billy Gomila on Oct 19, 2009 10:45 PM CDT up reply actions
billy you're wrong... period
the coaches are risk averse. They have pounded that into JJ’s head and now they have to work to get it out if they want to change the direction of this offense. You claimed Poseur’s premise was wrong and I simply defended it. You’re wrong, wrong, wrong.
As far as your “running patterns” BS how do you NOT run patterns over the middle if you put 4 to 5 WR’s on the field. Run them all in one spot? We have not thrown the ball there because we’re scared to. End of story.
Dubois said it, Poseur said it, LSU fans all over the net and all over Louisiana are saying it but you can prove it’s wrong because WR’s are running in the middle of the field. Not catching. Running.
Good thinking Billy.
Show me (hell just tell me) where you ever said you’re wrong or this conversation is over.
Go ahead Billy… declare yourself right and end it… like you always do.
Bye.
You're taking this so personally
Why not just answer the question? If you believe Jefferson was instructed not to throw those routes, back it up with facts, quotes, evidence of that intent. Personally, I believe if that were the intent of the playcalling, it would have looked very similar to the Vanderbilt game — which was an excellent example of risk-averse playcalling — the majority of the called plays featured short passes and screens.
And hiding behind consensus is a coward’s errand. Why not just debate your point on it’s merits? And personal insults just make you look juvenile.
by Billy Gomila on Oct 19, 2009 11:05 PM CDT up reply actions
so I'm a coward...
and I’m insulting you. Glad you won’t resort to passive aggressive personal insults. That would make you look like a little woman.
And it’s not an insult to say you never admit an error. That’s not a crime and it’s the truth. I said nothing personal in the initial post and you’re the one that came back in your usual patronizing manner Billy. Don’t hand it out if you don’t like getting it back.
And even my kid’s aren’t juveniles, and I can only wish I looked like one. Who’s using this personal insults again?
You see, you gotta know when to hold em.
And know when to fold em. You’ve also gotta know when to walk away, and know when to run.
Gregatron is not responsible for any of the crap he just wrote.
St. Louis vegetarian blog
I just hope we're counting winnings...
when the season’s done.
I agree that LSU is playing it way too safe
I can’t imagine Les calling the Ingram Wildcat 6 times in a row on the same drive like happened at Alabama on Saturday. Our QB was having a terrible day but we still found a way to score. Take some risks, mix it up, keep the other team guessing.
Come on! Y’all HAVE to beat AUBURN.
Perfect time for a bye
I’ll play Devil’s Advocate (a surprise, I know) and argue that this was the perfect time for a bye. When the season first started, I thought we would be better off if the bye week had occurred before either the Florida or Alabama game, giving us time to prepare. I now think this was the best week for the bye. If the coaching staff is doing their jobs, they have now had the opportunity to review the past six games, work on the playcalling strategy, and coach up Jefferson and the offensive line on technique. Giving the defense some time to prep for Malzahn’s offense can’t hurt either.
The Auburn game really could be the turning point of the season. Win (with a good offensive showing) and we have a great opportunity to rally the fan base and get on a roll going into Bama, Ole Miss and Arkansas. Lose, or show up with the same offense, and we could see a 2-4 or 3-3 second half of the season.
CHAD JONES! WOOOO!!!!
Yeah, I agree
that this is the perfect time for a bye week. The coaching staff can (and hopefully is) working on solutions to the problems this team has on the offensive side of the ball.
So far I’ve been a supporter of JJ, and still think he could be a Flynn/Mauck type of solid game manager quarterback with some scrambling ability, but I’m also starting to wonder how well Sheppard can pass, and how well he could do full time as a qb. Just saying.
Gregatron is not responsible for any of the crap he just wrote.
St. Louis vegetarian blog

by 

















