After lackluster practice, Cajuns get 'back on track'

[zephyr]

Does Robinson dropping a TD count? Robinson fumbling at the 10 count? Does riles dropping a first down in his hands count? How about the first TD at Kentucky? When Haack ran it in? He did everything asked of him against NWST. So you tell me what did brooks Haack do so bad to get yanked so quick? 2 pick 6's? Or was that Nixon? 2-17? Or was that Nixon?

These are the same receivers you gave a full endorsement to in the preseason.Brooks didn't necessarily do anything "bad" to get yanked but he didn't do a whole hell of a lot that led our team to scoring points and lengthening drives either. That game you reference where Nixon looked bad (and he did at times), he also combined, by himself, for over 400 yards of offense and was really our own bright spot.

[zephyr]

I still prefer Haak. Better are and accuracy, reads better, runs ok. Nixon the better runner, but is not accurate and either can hand off to Eli.

I have not found that Haack has made any more or better reads than Nixon. He seems fixated on his primary receiver as much, or more, as Nixon thus far. The bottom line is that with our limited receiving corp, we need an extra dimension as a QB that can move the chains and create points. Its certainly not all on Haack as our line and our receivers have been suspect and I think he could thrive in certain systems. The problem is that people think we have the personnel to run those systems and I don't think that's true.

[DaddyCajun]

You are probably more correct than me. There are just some times that I would have wished Haak would be the guy out there in those certain situations rather than Nixon. Like when Nixon is struggling from one quarter to the next, put in Haak, at least a few series! Let Nixon watch and get a new grasp on what is going on out there from the side lines then put him back in. A change of pace if not anything!

[Ragin' Caleb]

I have not found that Haack has made any more or better reads than Nixon. He seems fixated on his primary receiver as much, or more, as Nixon thus far. The bottom line is that with our limited receiving corp, we need an extra dimension as a QB that can move the chains and create points. Its certainly not all on Haack as our line and our receivers have been suspect and I think he could thrive in certain systems. The problem is that people think we have the personnel to run those systems and I don't think that's true.

He has always had tunnel vision and isn't what a pocket passer does.

[Stabil123]

Based on what Hud said at the quarterback club lunch this week, we might see Hack play some this week.

[Turbine]

For everyone who's been dogging our coaching staff the last 6 weeks and thinks we have the talent to do way better. We are rebuilding, plain and simple.


http://footballscoop.com/news/urban-...ic-players-do/

Or as Baldwin so eloquently stated; "Its not the X and O's, it's the Jims and Joes."

[cajun4life]

Based on what Hud said at the quarterback club lunch this week, we might see Hack play some this week.

I find that very hard to believe.

[CrazyCajun]

These are the same receivers you gave a full endorsement to in the preseason.Brooks didn't necessarily do anything "bad" to get yanked but he didn't do a whole hell of a lot that led our team to scoring points and lengthening drives either. That game you reference where Nixon looked bad (and he did at times), he also combined, by himself, for over 400 yards of offense and was really our own bright spot.

He was the reason we needed 400 yards to not get our teeth kicked in. Where was I endorsing these receivers? My bad if I was under the assumption that a NFL prospect could actually catch. This WR corps will look very pedestrian if all they run is go routes while we slam our running back up the gut all game. We don't use the middle of the field, we don't use the TE, we have no creativity. Stop McGuire and don't get beat over the top and watch out for the reverse or end around... That's it. Fusilier would put up monster numbers at a place lot tech, he is a replica of Taylor. Right now all we have is deep routes that the WR have to come back and get. Sad that we have come to celebrate yardage in a loss. When the game really mattered, Nixon was 3-25 with a pick 6. I hope more than anyone that Nixon turns it around because watching a 18 game work in progress for the next year and a half won't be very fun. You either a QB or you aren't, most have figured that out by 22 years old.

[CrazyCajun]

I find that very hard to believe.

Raining cats and dogs, get in there son and show em your stuff

[cajun4life]

Exactly.

[CharlieK]

He was the reason we needed 400 yards to not get our teeth kicked in. Where was I endorsing these receivers? My bad if I was under the assumption that a NFL prospect could actually catch. This WR corps will look very pedestrian if all they run is go routes while we slam our running back up the gut all game. We don't use the middle of the field, we don't use the TE, we have no creativity. Stop McGuire and don't get beat over the top and watch out for the reverse or end around... That's it. Fusilier would put up monster numbers at a place lot tech, he is a replica of Taylor. Right now all we have is deep routes that the WR have to come back and get. Sad that we have come to celebrate yardage in a loss. When the game really mattered, Nixon was 3-25 with a pick 6. I hope more than anyone that Nixon turns it around because watching a 18 game work in progress for the next year and a half won't be very fun. You either a QB or you aren't, most have figured that out by 22 years old.

Fuselier is absolutely being wasted right now.

[Just1More]

I have not found that Haack has made any more or better reads than Nixon. He seems fixated on his primary receiver as much, or more, as Nixon thus far. The bottom line is that with our limited receiving corp, we need an extra dimension as a QB that can move the chains and create points. Its certainly not all on Haack as our line and our receivers have been suspect and I think he could thrive in certain systems. The problem is that people think we have the personnel to run those systems and I don't think that's true.

What makes "personnel"? God given talent? Coaching and some talen? We recruited talentless personnel in year 5 under Hud, given 4 prior years of the highest success in program history? Why is everyone so easy to call this a "rebuilding year"? What exactly created a paramount of talent last year that had nothing behind it? Climate change? Did our coaches take off a year in recruiting? If last year was a pinnacle of talent, why did it mirror the prior 3 almost to a fault? I certainly see some failures on the field.

Perhaps preparing the year with indecision between two very different QBs warrants some coaching scrutiny. We aren't running a different "system" when one QB is in versus the other. We just aren't well coached around much of an offense, outside of expecting a couple of athletes to rise above "the system".

Basinbear's suggestions of how we should be using the skilled athletes we have is about as close to an intelligent use of talent this year that I've heard. But it would have to include some play calling that doesn't suck. One thing you got correct is that Haack stares down his primary receiver. That tells me we have a weak QB coach more than anything. Oh well... we're going to revert to Hud's comfort zone. We all know that.