Football Season: Reasons to be negative.

Coach Lucas talks very highly of what Hall is doing on O. When you listen to his interview at media day and hear him talk personnel dude has weapons. This years team will be much better over all than last years. This years team will have a much tougher schedule than last years. It may all even out in the record and not much will change there.

If you look at the schedule and study it honestly, most will understand that 6-6 would be an acceptable result. Anything above that would be quite the accomplishment. And before the "yea but it's SBC competition, we should expect more" crowd pipes up, Cajuns play the top 3 SBC (all in bowls last year) teams on the road, plus the 3 road OOC games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ManAboutTown

If you look at the schedule and study it honestly, most will understand that 6-6 would be an acceptable result. Anything above that would be quite the accomplishment. And before the "yea but it's SBC competition, we should expect more" crowd pipes up, Cajuns play the top 3 SBC (all in bowls last year) teams on the road, plus the 3 road OOC games.

---

If we can play teams close and finsish 6-7 wins I will be happy .. getting blown out 28-0 against app state will make me think hard about my tickets for 2018

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cajun_lannister

If we can play teams close and finsish 6-7 wins I will be happy .. getting blown out 28-0 against app state will make me think hard about my tickets for 2018

---

Agreed. Believe it or not, outside of Georgia, Cajuns will probably be the best team App St plays all year. If they don't win 10 games, major disappointment.

But yes, to your point, we need to go over there and compete. Big possibility that the league could be on the line at the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ManAboutTown

I've had on my optimist hat going into this year (I'm mostly employing my "when there is blood in the streets, buy buy buy" strategy) but one of the more baffling prognostications has been "Cajuns have one of, if not the best, O line in the sunbelt". Very reputable people saying this, including SBC coaches and Phil Steele.

I've tried very hard to find the evidence for this, but I'm still searching. We have some talented young lineman, but recent history says we'll have to improve dramatically just to be average.

---

OL is still my major concern as well. Having four starters back from a unit that struggled so much a season ago is not a cause for optimism in my book. Recall how much trouble they had blocking the USM rush in the Bowl game and that was in the 13th game of the year. They were no longer young by them. Having said that, having a better runner at QB may help. Surprisingly I am less concerned with QB than I am with the OL. In fact that unit may prevent Hall from doing all he wants with the offense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cajunsmike

OL is still my major concern as well. Having four starters back from a unit that struggled so much a season ago is not a cause for optimism in my book. Recall how much trouble they had blocking the USM rush in the Bowl game and that was in the 13th game of the year. They were no longer young by them. Having said that, having a better runner at QB may help. Surprisingly I am less concerned with QB than I am with the OL. In fact that unit may prevent Hall from doing all he wants with the offense.

---

Saw the O line on Sunday they are looking much leaner. I honestly think this will be a strong part of this years team. Mostly because last year we ran it double the amount we threw it. I think that teams stacked the box to key on Eli and they kept giving it to him. That would create difficulties for any line. With 3, 4 and 5 talented receivers and no one guy to key on it should spread the D out and create some running lanes. That's if they stick to doing what they are saying now. I also think JD will be a better passer than AJ. From what I heard lot more short quick timing routes which will make the O line better as well.

I am starting to worry about D line. It has great potential but I didn't realize so many were out rehabbing. We can only hope they come back 100% from their injuries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just1More

Excellent basic analysis. Someone said it best only within the last few weeks on here "I don't want to ever again hear the term 'turnover battle'". It's a low football IQ coaching obsession. It's like making love to a woman and bragging that neither one of you messed up your hair. Get in there, get messy and make a lot of noise! Yes, there's a chance you might break some furniture... but get in there and bust it up!

---

Agree 1000% with that, but I'll take it further.

I't sorta like the chicken and the egg question. Which comes first? A fear of turnovers, or relying on an "athletic" QB?

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy of incompetent offense. I believe that most coaches are asking themselves the wrong questions when deciding on what offense they prefer. They seem to base everything around having a dual threat, athletic QB and trying to design an offense around that skill set. Bad idea.

What they should be doing is deciding on whether they want to run an option offense or a competent pass capable offense. If you want to be an option guy, then you need option QB's and expand the offense from there depending on how pass capable the QB is. If you want a competent pass capable offense, then you need legit passing QB's and you expand that offense with more option stuff, if you choose to do so, depending on the running talent of that QB.

Think back to the formation of the zone read at Utah and Urban Meyer. He didn't have "dual threat" QB's. He had legit QB's, NFL caliber QB's, running that zone read. It was magical. The zone read stalls when coaches get lost chasing "athletic" QB's. End result is an option offense with few options except to dive play an NFL RB into a wall all day long.

Having a defense that creates takeaways will win you games, having an offense that the only goal is to not turn it over will not. Having an offense that attacks and isn't scared of the turnovers that come with aggression coupled with a defense that gives that offense 3 or 4 extra possessions is where "winning the turnover battle" usually means you win. Simply having one less turnover than the other team doesn't not. There is a lot of truth to winning the turnover battle, depends how you do it. See Saints 2009

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hark Mudspeth

Having a defense that creates takeaways will win you games, having an offense that the only goal is to not turn it over will not. Having an offense that attacks and isn't scared of the turnovers that come with aggression coupled with a defense that gives that offense 3 or 4 extra possessions is where "winning the turnover battle" usually means you win. Simply having one less turnover than the other team doesn't not. There is a lot of truth to winning the turnover battle, depends how you do it. See Saints 2009

---

Putting emphasis on turnovers is what a coaching staff does when they have very little faith in their own schemes. See the Saints outside of that one year they got lucky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cajunhawk

Putting emphasis on turnovers is what a coaching staff does when they have very little faith in their own schemes. See the Saints outside of that one year they got lucky.

---

Got lucky? The one time they partnered that offense with a defense that created turnovers...they won it all. The defense was far from great but they gave that offense the ball back a lot. You don't think Bellichek and Saban emphasize turnovers? They certainly do, they focus on creating them...not being scared to have one. They both thrive on their defenses putting the ball back in the offense hand. They create turnovers with their schemes not by stripping the ball...doesn't mean they don't emphasize turnovers. It's how you do it.