Game Talk: Louisiana vs. Kentucky

[zephyr]

I've never debated that turnovers are huge. I've never debated time of possession, maintaining field position, special teams play, 3rd down conversions, and an assortment of important factors that matter. I simply disagree with this fictitious "battle" terminology. I'd coach people with the football to not cough it up. I'd coach defensive players to force fumbles or to intelligently jump a route for a pick... but in none of that would I convey a battle is there to be won. To me, it's low brow coach speak. But if somehow it makes our guys loins swell, I'll leave it alone. I just dislike the meaningless phrases that get coined as "strategy" in this game.

Its a point of analysis. Winning the turnover "battle" as players are coached up is coaching them not to turn it over on offense and trying to create them on defense. I don't get what your problem is. The "battle" in itself is a point of analysis and coach speak but doesn't make it any less important in the game and on the field. It certainly was a deciding factor in our loss and the same can be said for many other games.

[Just1More]

Its a point of analysis. Winning the turnover "battle" as players are coached up is coaching them not to turn it over on offense and trying to create them on defense. I don't get what your problem is. The "battle" in itself is a point of analysis and coach speak but doesn't make it any less important in the game and on the field. It certainly was a deciding factor in our loss and the same can be said for many other games.

The critical nature of turnovers isn't being argued. But I have no issue with you wanting to use "battle". It seems important to you. I see it almost like baseball calling it an "error battle". When you make an error, it has nothing to do with the other guy making an error in his half of the inning. I consider the "inside the game battles" something like a batter battling off pitches. Or, a RB battling for an extra yard. The term gets used a lot. And I see "turnover battle" as a misuse. But I have no issue with you sticking with it.

[zephyr]

The critical nature of turnovers isn't being argued. But I have no issue with you wanting to use "battle". It seems important to you. I see it almost like baseball calling it an "error battle". When you make an error, it has nothing to do with the other guy making an error in his half of the inning. I consider the "inside the game battles" something like a batter battling off pitches. Or, a RB battling for an extra yard. The term gets used a lot. And I see "turnover battle" as a misuse. But I have no issue with you sticking with it.

Its not a "me" issue. I know this was a point of contention here a while back during the doldrums of summer and just thought the heat was getting to you but it obviously was something more. Its a phrase used throughout all football circles, beginning with coaches and is analyzed in just about every pregame. You obviously have a problem with it. I was just pointing out how obviously important it was in this game. The funny part is that the argument is over semantics and nothing more. As long as you agree that they are important and sometimes define the outcome of the game, I'll let you refer to it in any light you choose to.

[Just1More]

Its not a "me" issue. I know this was a point of contention here a while back during the doldrums of summer and just thought the heat was getting to you but it obviously was something more. Its a phrase used throughout all football circles, beginning with coaches and is analyzed in just about every pregame. You obviously have a problem with it. I was just pointing out how obviously important it was in this game. The funny part is that the argument is over semantics and nothing more. As long as you agree that they are important and sometimes define the outcome of the game, I'll let you refer to it in any light you choose to.

I've made it very clear in my every mention that it's a semantics issue. I've never confused the criticality of turnovers with the dumb terminology reference. I simply know that forcing a turnover and giving one up are mutually exclusive events. And no amount of dumb phraseology changes that fact.

[Boomer]

Totally agree. That's why I'm so excited about this season. GEAUX CAJUNS

---We were told by more than a few KYs that this was the biggest game in many a moon for them---Believe me they were up for this game!!!

[CharlieK]

---We were told by more than a few KYs that this was the biggest game in many a moon for them---Believe me they were up for this game!!!

Be careful boom, those guys are slick.

[Cajun_Engr]

I think this game was quite different. All the other woulda shoulda games against the big boy teams involved a perfect storm of great plays made by Cajuns and then try to hold on in 4th quarter when big boy team wears down Cajuns with superior depth. But this game against Kentucky saw the Cajuns making terrible mistakes and going in direction of 40+ point blow out, but instead it was the Cajuns that out coached and wore out the big boy team in the late 3rd quarter and all of the 4th quarter. When mid major beats a decent power 5 team, it's usually because of turnovers and an NFL draftable QB having a career night with perfect passes. if the Cajuns played at Kentucky 10 times this year, I think Cajuns win 5. At home Cajuns when 6 or 7. It wasn't really a mismatch at all.

Hud has had 4 solid recruiting classes and this year starting to get benefit of Cajuns being solid transfer destination of power 5 recruits who want to return home to Louisiana, due to multiple years in a row of success and good buzz. That is why the Cajuns can go toe to toe for 4 quarters now with a lower division SEC team that is on the rise and wanted to make a big statement in home opener at renovated stadium.

Exactly. Previous wins over big teams needed some element of luck. Sat night we just needed another Q.

[Just1More]

There is an incremental across the board talent rise on our football team. We've always, and luck has nothing to do with it, had a good chance of making a close game, and beating, "middle to lower SEC teams". We've also had the talent to play much better than we have against top 40 programs. Our issue has always been coaching, from the standpoint of how you prepare the program. Orthodox coaches (85% or so of the FBS coaches are standard orthodox football coaches) recruit as best they can... then run their system to teach standard Saturday position by position and play by play... standard football... and then let the chips fall where they may. Almost every coach to a man will tell you there's no substitute for talent. And they're correct for the most part. But a team that from a generalistic comparison is ranked 15 or more spots from his opponent... in order to overcome the desparity in talent... must take risks.

That said... I'm massively proud of Hud and our team from the Kentucky game. In every respect, we approached the game correctly... and that includes the press man coverage to start the game. Our team must learn how to apply press man on Saturdays. Was it raw and wrong to start? Yes. But adjusting from it is heads above from not teaching and implementing it. It's heads above defending in zone 90% of a game. Carrying forward, we'll destroy equal and lesser programs. And our offense showed signs of every skill position being dangerous from anywhere on the field.

The coaching, regardless of the early failures at Kentucky, is way ahead of the past 4 years. Our talent is in a mess of athletes. It isn't concentrated in a particular few players. Coaching is key right now, and I'm proud of what Hud has done to our defense. It will work. And these guys are going to love playing in it. We're going to have giant defensive games... and Cajun offensive scoring explosions are going to start coming like we've never seen... because of coaching improvements and managing a higher risk approach.

[CrazyCajun]

There is an incremental across the board talent rise on our football team. We've always, and luck has nothing to do with it, had a good chance of making a close game, and beating, "middle to lower SEC teams". We've also had the talent to play much better than we have against top 40 programs. Our issue has always been coaching, from the standpoint of how you prepare the program. Orthodox coaches (85% or so of the FBS coaches are standard orthodox football coaches) recruit as best they can... then run their system to teach standard Saturday position by position and play by play... standard football... and then let the chips fall where they may. Almost every coach to a man will tell you there's no substitute for talent. And they're correct for the most part. But a team that from a generalistic comparison is ranked 15 or more spots from his opponent... in order to overcome the desparity in talent... must take risks.

That said... I'm massively proud of Hud and our team from the Kentucky game. In every respect, we approached the game correctly... and that includes the press man coverage to start the game. Our team must learn how to apply press man on Saturdays. Was it raw and wrong to start? Yes. But adjusting from it is heads above from not teaching and implementing it. It's heads above defending in zone 90% of a game. Carrying forward, we'll destroy equal and lesser programs. And our offense showed signs of every skill position being dangerous from anywhere on the field.

The coaching, regardless of the early failures at Kentucky, is way ahead of the past 4 years. Our talent is in a mess of athletes. It isn't concentrated in a particular few players. Coaching is key right now, and I'm proud of what Hud has done to our defense. It will work. And these guys are going to love playing in it. We're going to have giant defensive games... and Cajun offensive scoring explosions are going to start coming like we've never seen... because of coaching improvements and managing a higher risk approach.

Imagine a defense giving this offense the ball back time and time again and with good field position

[oldalum]

There is an incremental across the board talent rise on our football team. We've always, and luck has nothing to do with it, had a good chance of making a close game, and beating, "middle to lower SEC teams". We've also had the talent to play much better than we have against top 40 programs. Our issue has always been coaching, from the standpoint of how you prepare the program. Orthodox coaches (85% or so of the FBS coaches are standard orthodox football coaches) recruit as best they can... then run their system to teach standard Saturday position by position and play by play... standard football... and then let the chips fall where they may. Almost every coach to a man will tell you there's no substitute for talent. And they're correct for the most part. But a team that from a generalistic comparison is ranked 15 or more spots from his opponent... in order to overcome the desparity in talent... must take risks.

That said... I'm massively proud of Hud and our team from the Kentucky game. In every respect, we approached the game correctly... and that includes the press man coverage to start the game. Our team must learn how to apply press man on Saturdays. Was it raw and wrong to start? Yes. But adjusting from it is heads above from not teaching and implementing it. It's heads above defending in zone 90% of a game. Carrying forward, we'll destroy equal and lesser programs. And our offense showed signs of every skill position being dangerous from anywhere on the field.

The coaching, regardless of the early failures at Kentucky, is way ahead of the past 4 years. Our talent is in a mess of athletes. It isn't concentrated in a particular few players. Coaching is key right now, and I'm proud of what Hud has done to our defense. It will work. And these guys are going to love playing in it. We're going to have giant defensive games... and Cajun offensive scoring explosions are going to start coming like we've never seen... because of coaching improvements and managing a higher risk approach.

Where is there any evidence that we have ever had the talent to win against any SEC team, much less a middle of the pack SEC team. We have lost 38 in a row against the SEC. I'd say that is pretty compelling evidence we have never had the talent to compete with any SEC team.

I really want this team to make it over the hump but we can't win with motivation. We need to make a bit stronger move in talent to be able to compete with the top five conferences.

I really want a top 25 ranking in football and basketball. That's not going to come this season in either sport. How much longer do we have to wait?

[Turbine]

Where is there any evidence that we have ever had the talent to win against any SEC team, much less a middle of the pack SEC team. We have lost 38 in a row against the SEC. I'd say that is pretty compelling evidence we have never had the talent to compete with any SEC team.

I really want this team to make it over the hump but we can't win with motivation. We need to make a bit stronger move in talent to be able to compete with the top five conferences.

I really want a top 25 ranking in football and basketball. That's not going to come this season in either sport. How much longer do we have to wait?

Almost all (if not all) on the road, make no mistake that is the KEY differentiator.

[Just1More]

Imagine a defense giving this offense the ball back time and time again and with good field position

It's going to be cool... and it's coming to a football field near you very soon.