Quote:
UL Football: Grading the Ragin' Cajuns entering the start of Sun Belt play
<center>The rest of the story
Printable View
Quote:
UL Football: Grading the Ragin' Cajuns entering the start of Sun Belt play
<center>The rest of the story
Josh, good roll up going in to conference play. I have a generalistic view of the Cajuns up to this point. There are some things from the first 4 games that should have us no more and no less concerned or optimistic about conference play (at least not me). I felt we were pretty solid for SBC play, and still do. The Southern game was not a test of SBC foe capability and the last 2 games were too much better and at venues that add another dimension we won't see in conference play. The KSU game stands by itself as a little bit of a matchup, but I really cannot tell, since I can't tell how KSU would do against the rest of our conference.
All in all... the first 4 games didn't tell me much. The offense and defense have come out just about exactly as I predicted. I think they are solid and can take anyone in the SBC. We have to get our heads back into how you play against SBC foes, and not how you would re-play Nebraska.
The biggest problem I have right now is if our coaches are dumb enough to make adjustments after LSU and Nebraska. That would be the most bothersome issues to me. For instance, Josh points out that our two best corners got burned going after INTs instead of playing "good coverage". If that is a lesson from LSU and Nebraska, and they start playing "softer coverage"... I want the coaches gone now. When the instincts of defensive players being aggressive start getting supplanted by caution, in the SBC, we will lose a game or two because of it. We are better, defensively, than 90% of the SBC offenses.
Perhaps the biggest penalty in playing top 15 programs is not the score. It is the potential foolishness implemented by the coaching staff. There is little to be learned in adjustments from playing top 15 talent. Our corners, our DL, our QB, our RB, our WRs, our OL, and so on... in no way need to make "adjustments" from evaluations following Nebraska. NONE. Injury is one thing... evaluating play is totally irrelevent.
Our defense needs to get even more aggressive and disruptive in SBC play. Let the SBC teams "burn us if they can". Our offense also needs to get back into the same rythmn and timing they started with... from the Southern game. Lord help us if we got gun shy from Nebraska.
In my honest opinion, this team is somewhere between how it played against Southern and LSU. About everything that could go wrong did against Nebraska, plus the guys were really banged up. The Cajuns appear to be improved health-wise but need to rebound from a tough three-game stretch.
igeaux.mobi
I agree, I cringe when a coaching staff decides to push the panic rewrite button after playing a clearly better oponent.
igeaux.mobi
I agree with both of you. I love the aggressiveness of both Corners, and I think Zanders' attitude and energy rubs off on the entire defense. My only preference would be for Chris to enhance the zone-read, and hold on to the football a bit more. I think he'll learn quickly that keeping it would make life much easier for him by opening up lanes in the passing game. I still think there are a few things to find out about this club, but I'm excited about our make-up and core players.
I really hope there was no back to the drawing board situation after the UL - LSU game.
Look at what LSU's defense did to Georgia...
... perspective.
igeaux.mobi
Quote:
Originally Posted by foofoochaisson
It has been mentioned quite a few times that both Nebraska and LSU along with Kansas State took away the QB keep option by keeping the opposite DE, who the QB reads and uses to determine if he will keep it or not, at home and making us beat them man to man on the lines which we found tough to do. When you have a Fenroy and Des combo, it is harder to commit to one guy and hope to make adjustments to stop the other. Here, they are simply saying that they want the RB to beat them before they adjust. We have to alter the plan at times and give the defense different looks to keep them thinking rather than reacting.
Not disagreeing, just pointing out that when mac came in for chris in the NU game, he tucked it a few times, and was effective. Is it personal preference or scheme?
igeaux.mobi
Quote:
Originally Posted by foofoochaisson
I don't think its either. Whether the QB keeps the ball or not is not based on what we are doing, but rather, reading what the D is doing and react off of it. Coach Munoz touched on this in the QB club this week. If you read the transcript, he kind of explains what I'm talking about. IMO, we would open things up much more if we incorporated the triple option into the gameplan similar to what we did in 2005 and 2006. You can roll out Yobes and give Masson another option to run with making it tougher for the defense to focus on one or even two options.
Thought provoking. I remember what you're talking about. Babb did a good job with that triple-option.
igeaux.mobi
Thought provoking. I remember what you're talking about. Babb did a good job with that triple-option. Everytime i think back to those years, i'm haunted by the tech referee debacle, and how tough we played S Car. Sigh...
igeaux.mobi