Jefferson and Risk
One of the major themes of this season was the way the offensive coaching staff managed the game as if they were petrified of the turnover. I've commented on this quite a bit, which led to much gnashing of teeth over the definition of "risk averse", but my basic argument was always that it seemed the coaches stressed not throwing picks above all else, which hindered the offense and Jordan Jefferson's development.
Well, since I like to cherry pick articles which support my position, James Varney of the Times-Picayune picks up with my theme in today's piece on Jefferson.
But in the passing game Jefferson hurt himself in two ways. First, his natural inclination to protect the football was heightened by a coaching staff petrified by the interceptions that haunted the team in 2008. That mindset created both a reluctance to take a chance and a frequent failure to get rid of the ball quickly. Those factors contributed to the alarming 35 sacks LSU allowed in 2009.
So pronounced was Jefferson's gunshy approach that on more than one occasion he scrambled out of bounds for a loss rather than hurl the ball away even when he was well outside the tackles.
When asked to assess his game's strengths and weaknesses Monday, Jefferson cited his fear of interceptions. While his ball control instincts are sound, he said he must balance them with a team's need for its quarterback to make plays.
"It has," he replied when asked if his tendency boosted the sack total. "Some of the sacks were errors that the line had, but I take responsibility for them."
There's both encouraging and discouraging things in that snippet, but let's first focus on the most important thing: I was right. This was a staff that was so intent on not having another interception meltdown that it absolutely dominated their mindset. Sure, we didn't throw many interceptions. Mission accomplished. But we did it at the expense of big plays, the use of the middle of the field, and taking way too many sacks. Frankly, the cost was way too high. A few interceptions is the cost of an offense that actually takes chances once in awhile. The reward is more big plays and the use of the whole field.
Let's start with the discouraging part of this clip since we're there already: this is what bad teams and bad coaches do. They obsess over the last mistake and overreact to correct that mistake at the expense of everything else. The cure becomes worse than the disease, and there's really no way to say we had a good offense this season. In fact, it was one of the worst in all of football, which is completely inexcusable given how much talent we line up every snap.
Jefferson seems like a very coachable player. You tell him to avoid an INT at all cost and that's what he'll go out and do. Jefferson did exactly what he was coached to do, and the end result was a gunshy quarterback and offense that couldn't consistently move the football or score points. The fault there lies on the coaching staff. Just like a bad general, they were fighting the last war.
However, let's focus on the positives. First, there is the fact that Jefferson is coachable. Tell him X, he does X. But what I really like is his maturity. Jefferson takes responsibility and deflects blame from the much maligned offensive line. That's what leaders do. He knows he has to get rid of the football and he wants to do better. And he takes responsibility for the offense's failures.
Jefferson is still a work in progress, but I like the progression so far.
0 recs |
7 comments
|
Comments
I think this only further shows how contradictory the playcalling was at times
If you’re going to stress “don’t throw the interception” at all costs — which will lead to your young QB holding the ball longer to make sure WR’s are really open — while calling slow-developing routes from five-WR sets, that give your struggling offensive line no extra blocking help, you’re basically asking the quarterback to take sacks. You’re asking the QB to hold the ball longer and not compensating for the consequences.
it’s a complete conflict of mentalities.
by Billy Gomila on Dec 22, 2009 2:48 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I've got no problem with the general strategy of "avoid the INT at all costs"
You can’t argue with results, we won every game we were favored in.
The other side to that coin is we didn’t try for a higher risk/reward strategy in games we knew we’d need it. As in, every game we weren’t favored in. That was pretty annoying.
I don’t think our coaches were scared of the INT, I think our coaches were scared of the fan reaction after the INTs. I was impressed with Jeferson after every pic he threw, I thought he handled it well. But because of all the asshole booers last year I think the coaches wanted to avoid that kind of crowd reaction at all cost on national TV. At least that is the theory that I’ll convince myself of, because it’s either that or our coaches have the IQ of my front door.
by LSU Jonno on Dec 22, 2009 4:56 PM CST via mobile reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
But because of all the asshole booers last year I think the coaches wanted to avoid that kind of crowd reaction at all cost on national TV.
I don’t think you should blame the fans. Fans do what they do. It’s up to the coaches to do what is right, and realize that successful football has little to do with public opinion.
Gregatron is not responsible for any of the crap he just wrote.
St. Louis vegetarian blog
by Gregatron on Dec 22, 2009 5:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well obviously winning cures all
But the fans need to understand that when you act like assholes publicly it has reprocussions.
by LSU Jonno on Dec 23, 2009 9:21 AM CST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Yen and Yang
Last year was Yen
This year was Yang
Next year is balance!
GEAUX TIGERS!!!
by SouthernMan on Dec 22, 2009 5:05 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

by 















