*****
I wrote this a couple of weeks ago:
Play calling: Put LSU's top four receivers against any secondary in the country and somebody will be open. I worry that Miles will be so hell bent on running the ball this year that we don't take advantage of LSU's strength at wideout.
well, i'd say that was certainly the case Saturday, when LSU played with an offensive game plan that was so conservative it was repulsive. Jamarcus Russell was something for 9-11 for 151 yards in the fourth quarter, but for the rest of the game, Les Miles insisted on running tosses with slow tailbacks or running the ball up the middle with Jacob Hester or Justin Vincent. It was infuriating. And even in crunch time, LSU followed a successful pass with two runs up the middle, putting lsu on a third and long after Hester was stopped behind the line.
Miles' answer for this ineptitude? we need to run the ball more.
At his press conference yesterday, he basically said that there was nothing wrong with the play selection and the more trouble we have running the ball, the more we're going to try to run the ball.
The man absolutely refuses to adapt to the talent LSU has on the offensive side of the ball. "Surely," you say, "If he's going to keep running it, he'll put in the younger guys and see if they can do better since they're faster." nope. he also says there's no personnel issues, so our two freshman running backs will stay on the bench.
I have also lumped Jimbo Fisher into the mix with Miles, since i don't know who's calling the plays, it's both of their faults. i just see bad things ahead for the LSU program if the coaches insist on being this stubborn (quickly approaching idiotic).
*****
Speaking of idiotic, i'm still furious about the SEC saying that the officials got the pass interference calls correct. they aren't saying anything about the other 10 plays LSU disagreed with.
i'm actually mailing a letter about the logic behind the announcement to the SEC offices at lunch today. here's an excerpt from the letter:
Both plays involve an instance where the path of the ball was altered by a defender who was not interfering with the receiver. The LSU penalty was allowed because the offending defender was not playing the ball. However, that implies that Auburn defender, who had his left arm wrapped around the receiver’s left leg, his right hand behind the receiver’s right knee and his face planted into the upper part of the back of the receiver’s upper thigh was playing the ball. If you discount the Auburn player making the deflection or the LSU player making the interception, I don’t see anyway you can say that the Auburn player interfered less on the play than the LSU defender did on the other play in question.
That, in turn, leads to the reasoning behind waiving the Auburn penalty off because the pass was uncatchable. By making the statement that both calls are correct, you are essentially saying that the pass Auburn threw was catchable. Which further means that the conference is saying a ball in the possession of an LSU defender who was not the offending player in the pass interference call is more catchable than a ball deflected into the air. That implies that had the LSU defender not made the interception and had instead knocked the ball down or otherwise deflected it, he would have created an uncatchable pass and the interference would have been waived off.
Let me repeat that: The conference found that a ball already in the possession of a another player is more catchable for a receiver being interfered with than a ball that is actually still in the air.
No comments:
Post a Comment