Final: Louisiana (27) vs A-State (37)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zephyr

It took Hud months to declare the job Haack's. I don't think it was necessarily a "clear" decision. Plus, its one thing to go out and do it in August in practice and another thing to do it under the lights.

---

Months for him to declare it...when it was cut and dry from the spring to preseason camps to practice. He could have thrown all his support behind the better quarterback...and had his offensive coordinator prepare a gameplan to fit his strengths. Instead...he put Haack in an offense that only Nixon could run half-assed, and had no problem switching QB's because it's easier to run a half-assed offense that will never work, than come up with an offensive gameplan that can take the strentghs of our offense and use it to exploit the opposing defenses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zephyr

Call me blind because the offense has moved better with Nixon in the lineup. Sorry

---

It only works because he is a running back...and is running the ball. He can't pass the ball to save his life. If this is the best we can get for $1,000,000 a year...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zephyr

Call me blind because the offense has moved better with Nixon in the lineup. Sorry

---

We are 2-4 that's what I see and they each beat a bad football team. Haack isn't some freshman you have to pull the redshirt off.. He was your week one starter and a captain... Yet he doesn't get a chance to go in down 27-0? In a conference game? I bet he would have gotten pulled quicker, that's right... He did.

No kidding.

Haack is the first QB at this school that was expected to be all-conference from day 1 or he would lose his job.

Good debate here.

If you listened to Hud's show last night, then you know about the quarterback "controversy."

I did not listen last night....but then I did not have to ...:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zephyr

The point is that when Haack would have been as unsuccessful in the passing game, those would have been 3 and outs or worse. He wouldn't add that dimension to the offense, even if the passing game is struggling. The passing game has struggled all season, regardless of who is at QB. As I mentioned before, a lot of this falls on play calling and the common denominator is the receiving corp, its not just on the QB. We are going to have to be willing to concede that the passing game is not going to be a strength at all this year and we will need to do other things to make up for it. Haack doesn't do those things.

---

Yeah because Haack's pedestrian 5.7 yards per carry is terrible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofParadise

Good debate here.

If you listened to Hud's show last night, then you know about the quarterback "controversy."

---

It's not really a controversy. We have a QB who rides the bench and a RB who is our starting QB. It's pretty easy to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cajun4life

It's not really a controversy. We have a QB who rides the bench and a RB who is our starting QB. It's pretty easy to see.

---

Well, you saw I put that word in quotes, right :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turbine

All his starts were billed as tentative (and it could be claimed) with an offense designed to make him fail, so "his to lose" doesn't carry the traditional meaning.

---

It sure seems that Hud recruited Haack with the idea that the offense was going in the direction of what Boise has had for the last decade or so.

But, for some reason he decided to change horses mid stream to a project QB and an ultra-conservative power game.

Why would you recruit Haack so hard in the first place if you didn't plan on throwing the ball, a lot.