In-Game Thread: Louisiana vs. Tulane

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrappDaddy

Would there have been OT without -3 turnover margin? I'm betting no.

I have no dog in this fight over Huds credibility. He does things that I question as well. Our team played well, but turnovers killed us. If you didn't know points would be at a premium going in to this game, you weren't paying attention. We coulda done this, shoulda done that, but the bottom line is we have them easy points on turnovers.

---

Come on CD... we recovered well for turning the ball over 3 times in the touchdown zone. We held them to 3 field goals. That's like spotting someone 21 points and taking 12 right out of their mouth at home. We could have spotted 9 to start that game and spanked Tulane in regulation. We ran a coaching clown show after Jennings messed up. Our staff can't settle a team down. They can't mastermind a bunch of hard nosed sandlot Tulane football players. It was a coaching clown show. We handed a crown to Fritz and pumped life into a rag tag Tulane program. Think in detail about what you observed. It was a pathetic operation.

And no the sky is not "falling". We gave the football sky to Hud several years ago, and he lowered it to where we have to walk around our own program hunched over. Tech throttles us. And a bad Tulane team takes a win from us. But we did beat McNeese by a TD. We good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrappDaddy

Don't forget their kicker made his career long fg to send it to the 4th ot.

---

Is that how we summed up our first NO Bowl victory? We lost if not for a career FG?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just1More

Come on CD... we recovered well for turning the ball over 3 times in the touchdown zone. We held them to 3 field goals. That's like spotting someone 21 points and taking 12 right out of their mouth at home. We could have spotted 9 to start that game and spanked Tulane in regulation. We ran a coaching clown show after Jennings messed up. Our staff can't settle a team down. They can't mastermind a bunch of hard nosed sandlot Tulane football players. It was a coaching clown show. We handed a crown to Fritz and pumped life into a rag tag Tulane program. Think in detail about what you observed. It was a pathetic operation.

And no the sky is not "falling". We gave the football sky to Hud several years ago, and he lowered it to where we have to walk around our own program hunched over. Tech throttles us. And a bad Tulane team takes a win from us. But we did beat McNeese by a TD. We good.

---

Hey, Scott farmer and T-Slow love it!!! Less expectations mean less work. No political stress either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrappDaddy

we turned it over 4 times they turned it over once.

---

Is a blocked punt a turnover, or a big play on special teams? They were giving us the ball after all, only expected it not to be on their three. So we had four turnovers, and they gave up a special team play and one turnover.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just1More

Is that how we summed up our first NO Bowl victory? We lost if not for a career FG?

---

That right there says it all. If that first NO Bowl felt like a loss to you, then you will miss most of the fun of UL football. Jmo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeebart21

we can achieve all of our goals in the Sunbelt...

---

This was an AAC game. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alum81

That right there says it all. If that first NO Bowl felt like a loss to you, then you will miss most of the fun of UL football. Jmo

---

I get extremely tired of guys that are fairly football astute getting here and listing what they think are "unusual" events during a football game. Assessments of games, win or lose, should focus on the balance of what you were able to coach and execute on the field. Leave it to the coaches to use a muffed punt or a long field goal as excuses for outcomes. That's so weak it's pathetic. I look at the balance of work done by players and coaches. I apologize to the forum members that I offend, but it's just stupid football jabber to point out the errors of an individual player that actually touched the football. I'll use the extremes as examples... if we played a HS JV team and won in OT... would we compliment the body of work by the coaches and players. And without question, as opposed to those sucked into the vacuum of "coach speak"... if we played the New England Patriots and lost by a 2 pt conversion in OT... it would be the body of work we should be discussing... not the score. If in losing to the Patriots, we say "gee, if we hadn't have gotten intercepted in the 2nd quarter, we would have won." Stupid beyond stupid.

Our coaching against Tulane, for what Tulane had as strengths and weaknesses, was abysmal. No need to ask the coach what were the pivotal "moments" in the game. We saw the game. All 43,934 things that happened that changed the outcome. If the HC doesn't see all of them, he's not all that good of a coach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just1More

I get extremely tired of guys that are fairly football astute getting here and listing what they think are "unusual" events during a football game. Assessments of games, win or lose, should focus on the balance of what you were able to coach and execute on the field. Leave it to the coaches to use a muffed punt or a long field goal as excuses for outcomes. That's so weak it's pathetic. I look at the balance of work done by players and coaches. I apologize to the forum members that I offend, but it's just stupid football jabber to point out the errors of an individual player that actually touched the football. I'll use the extremes as examples... if we played a HS JV team and won in OT... would we compliment the body of work by the coaches and players. And without question, as opposed to those sucked into the vacuum of "coach speak"... if we played the New England Patriots and lost by a 2 pt conversion in OT... it would be the body of work we should be discussing... not the score. If in losing to the Patriots, we say "gee, if we hadn't have gotten intercepted in the 2nd quarter, we would have won." Stupid beyond stupid.

Our coaching against Tulane, for what Tulane had as strengths and weaknesses, was abysmal. No need to ask the coach what were the pivotal "moments" in the game. We saw the game. All 43,934 things that happened that changed the outcome. If the HC doesn't see all of them, he's not all that good of a coach.

---

No more stupid than you saying we'd have blown them out if we'd have just run different plays. What I observed on the field was us completely shutting down Tulane (in regulation). Had it not been for the turnovers I think we'd have won (in regulation). That's my opinion. Your welcome to disagree, no need to be an arrogant little _____.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just1More

Come on CD... we recovered well for turning the ball over 3 times in the touchdown zone. We held them to 3 field goals. That's like spotting someone 21 points and taking 12 right out of their mouth at home. We could have spotted 9 to start that game and spanked Tulane in regulation. We ran a coaching clown show after Jennings messed up. Our staff can't settle a team down. They can't mastermind a bunch of hard nosed sandlot Tulane football players. It was a coaching clown show. We handed a crown to Fritz and pumped life into a rag tag Tulane program. Think in detail about what you observed. It was a pathetic operation.

And no the sky is not "falling". We gave the football sky to Hud several years ago, and he lowered it to where we have to walk around our own program hunched over. Tech throttles us. And a bad Tulane team takes a win from us. But we did beat McNeese by a TD. We good.

---

Call it what you want but the turnovers decided the game. You and MAT are letting you anger with the coaching staff cloud your logical thought processes. You spot a team 9 points in a game where you gave up 16 in regulation and had trouble moving the football all night, that is the key the game.

Yes, we changed philosophies on offense after Jenkins (See what I did there?) throws the second pick and we bogged down after that but nobody knows what would have happened had we kept our foot on the gas. Perhaps we would continue to shred them through the air and find space on the ground or perhaps they would have adjusted and started to limit our production but would have kept the pressure on our QB and created more turnovers...Who knows? Its all subjective at that point and the only thing we can do is speculate as to how the game would have gone. However, we KNOW that the turnovers directly led to points that were precious in a defensive ballgame. They mattered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just1More

Is that how we summed up our first NO Bowl victory? We lost if not for a career FG?

---

What are you talking about that never happened

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tdncz

Worst
Game
Plan....
EVER

---

Imagine if you knew your offense was so terrible that it would never convert a third down, much less drive the team into scoring position. In devising your game plan you realize that the only way to score and win is to (a) get your offense off the field as soon as possible before they make a mistake, (b) get your defense as many opportunities as possible, and (c) gain possession of the ball in field goal range through turnovers or the field position advantages of overtime.

That's pretty much what Tulane did to win an impossible game. Maybe we should hire their coach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zephyr

Call it what you want but the turnovers decided the game. You and MAT are letting you anger with the coaching staff cloud your logical thought processes. You spot a team 9 points in a game where you gave up 16 in regulation and had trouble moving the football all night, that is the key the game.

Yes, we changed philosophies on offense after Jenkins (See what I did there?) throws the second pick and we bogged down after that but nobody knows what would have happened had we kept our foot on the gas. Perhaps we would continue to shred them through the air and find space on the ground or perhaps they would have adjusted and started to limit our production but would have kept the pressure on our QB and created more turnovers...Who knows? Its all subjective at that point and the only thing we can do is speculate as to how the game would have gone. However, we KNOW that the turnovers directly led to points that were precious in a defensive ballgame. They mattered.

---

I'm not angry. I don't get angry with these games anymore. I'm telling you what happened. Sorry, I can't teach you how to properly watch or analyze a football game.