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

[ManAboutTown]

Are you an assistant or have inside info? Just curious?

Yes he does have the info friend

[duggie85]

I'm confused by your post.

You were complaining how terrible we are and suggested everyone email Hudspeth's boss, Scott Farmer, weekly to express how we won't stand for our current results.

Back track a few short years ago.... Tulane offered Hud and Scott Farmer allegedly was willing to let Hudspeth walk. T-Joe stepped in and matched or beat Tulane's offer to keep Hudspeth. A lot of people wanted Farmer fired bc that was allegedly the second coach (Lotief) he was willing to let walk and T-Joe intervened.

Do you not see the humor in that now a lot of people are suggesting Hud may not be the man for UL, which if true, Farmer may have been making a good decision all along by supposedly not matching Tulane's offer??

As far as my ESPN comment, I would recommend he treat those upset emails/recommendations just like ESPN treats our name request: do the complete opposite!

[duggie85]

Yes he does have the info friend

Yep. We all know second hand info is never embellished.

You can not convince me that every single practice, Haack was better. I'm willing to bet there were several practices where Eli was not the best RB that given day... that doesn't mean he should sit the bench.

BTW I'm not supporting Nixon with that comment. I don't know the answer to our QB/offensive problems, but like everyone else, I know something needs to change.

[CrappDaddy]

Yes he does have the info friend

I had people with "the info" tell me Connor Morel could pass better than Babb and run better than Desormeaux. It's the age old debate of the backup should be starting. Happens at every school. I'm not saying Nixon is great, all I'm saying is Haack clearly couldn't separate himself from Nixon.

[CrazyCajun]

I had people with "the info" tell me Connor Morel could pass better than Babb and run better than Desormeaux. It's the age old debate of the backup should be starting. Happens at every school. I'm not saying Nixon is great, all I'm saying is Haack clearly couldn't separate himself from Nixon.

Clearly? Really? Then why did he go in as starter? Because he was clearly better... But not who the coach clearly wanted. So far, Nixon has looked great twice when down by 30... They each had outstanding performances against "CLEARLY" inferior opponents. I have still yet to see Haack throw directly into the turf 10 yards short of a WR

[CrappDaddy]

Anyone know which shoulder Nixon keeps injuring?

[Turbine]

This isn't little league. Not everyone gets a chance to play and a participation trophy. I'm not sure why some are so hell bent on making excuses for poor mr Haack. If the guy was the next Jake Delhomme, you can bet your ___ he'd be starting.

You are stealing my point (I should say we agree) except this staff is more like Haslett's, enamored with Brooks.

Jake rode the bench.

[basinbear]

Anyone know which shoulder Nixon keeps injuring?

Throwing shoulder

[Just1More]

I had people with "the info" tell me Connor Morel could pass better than Babb and run better than Desormeaux. It's the age old debate of the backup should be starting. Happens at every school. I'm not saying Nixon is great, all I'm saying is Haack clearly couldn't separate himself from Nixon.

That isn't what happened. Hud chose Haack as the starter despite his major preference to go with a prototypical dual threat QB. Everyone knows, including Hud, that Haack is a better passer. Hud doesn't want to resolve that his offense sucks. Why would he? He's seen it work with good to real good athletic QBs. He knew this wasn't a year that he had a bruiser RB that could do Hud's first love... pound it up the middle, wear down the opponent, and ride out a small margin of safe victory into the 4th quarter. He also knew that Eli is a great review, Jamal supposedly was a great receiver, and with Fuse, Scott and Haynes he'd have some options.

The issue I agree with Hud is that we aren't good enough to operate a balanced attack. I didn't realize it until we played Tech. I accepted, only lightly, that Akron was a "distraction game". But Tech proved our OL isn't good (a fact Hud's won't admit), and that Haack isn't good under duress.

I have no issue at this point with Haack or Nixon starting, playing, whatever. We aren't good. This staff has shown us one of their limitations. When you don't have better athletes, they don't know what to do. They require superior personnel, a superstar or two, to compensate for their lack of teaching and imagination.

Now comes SBC play... where we barely win out with better athletes. Oops, not this year (more than likely). Could we? Should we with this talent? Yes. It isn't who starts at QB. I know what I'd do if my staff had prepared an OL and receiver corps, and my OC wasn't lame. I'd have Haack distributing the ball. But now, it doesn't matter. We can use either QB just as ineffectively. Our staff stinks without superior athletes. No big deal. They're our staff. We just have to know... with Hud you need to recruit through the roof, or we cannot beat good teams.

[cajunhawk]

It was Haacks job to lose and he lost it. Quit making excuses for the guy. Maybe he'll earn it back, maybe he won't. You aren't the coach and I highly doubt your a good judge of talent. So let it be.....

Nixon has played worse...and kept his job. By all means...keep being wrong. I won't mind.

[zephyr]

Clearly? Really? Then why did he go in as starter? Because he was clearly better... But not who the coach clearly wanted. So far, Nixon has looked great twice when down by 30... They each had outstanding performances against "CLEARLY" inferior opponents. I have still yet to see Haack throw directly into the turf 10 yards short of a WR

You also have yet to see him run for over 200 yards when the defense is stacking the line of scrimmage and pressing our pedestrian receivers on the outside. This offense is even more stagnant when Haack is in.

[zephyr]

Clearly? Really? Then why did he go in as starter? Because he was clearly better... But not who the coach clearly wanted. So far, Nixon has looked great twice when down by 30... They each had outstanding performances against "CLEARLY" inferior opponents. I have still yet to see Haack throw directly into the turf 10 yards short of a WR

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.