'A pretty good direction'

[CajunEXPRESS]

I think/hope that with the replays and freezing of the picture that more and more are coming aware of just what the zone read is all about ---mentioned this on here in the past---It is the thing that has been considered the best offense around---with a QB that is a good/great runner it magnifies its effectiveness

-This is why Nixon has always been in the QB race and still is

But please don't be stupid enough to think that Hud is playing favorites or hasn't given Haack a chance that he has done poorly in performing and very effective at times!!! Like wise Nixon has been named the state player of the week for one of the best efforts in the history of the school and has on occasions not looked good---Let the damn thing play out and I trust this coach that has transformed UL football!!!

Nixon is not an accurate passer, and only a good runner, not great.

Boomer he is just not that guy, he is a great athlete in the wrong position.

You of course can continue to pimp your WRONG headed views about players, other teams successes vs our bad losses, and our win streak against only teams with losing records making us something, what I dunno yet.

[CharlieK]

It's as if we have zero situational awareness. I don't really mind the idea of putting Nixon in for a series here and there, and for certain situations. But the idea that you decide ahead of time it's the 3rd series, and you stick with that no matter what? Stupid. We were getting a rhythm offensively, and had just stopped them. We had a short field and chance to go up 24-7. Instead of keeping Haack in there and keeping the momentum, we choose that time to insert Nixon. THEN we have him roll against his body to make a difficult throw. Then we have him throw again. The running quarterback. We throw a pick and the momentum shifts. Why not wait till we are pinned deep and we have to run. Or are up and are looking to burn clock. It's not like we can fool them when we put Nixon in.

Again later. We have a 3rd and 6. And we run Eli up the middle. AGAIN. Do we have zero slant passes in our offense?

[CajunJack55]

It's as if we have zero situational awareness. I don't really mind the idea of putting Nixon in for a series here and there, and for certain situations. But the idea that you decide ahead of time it's the 3rd series, and you stick with that no matter what? Stupid. We were getting a rhythm offensively, and had just stopped them. We had a short field and chance to go up 24-7. Instead of keeping Haack in there and keeping the momentum, we choose that time to insert Nixon.

Agreed. There is a right and wrong way to play two QB's...that was the wrong way. I don't get it.

[CrappDaddy]

You cannot be this naive. The ebb and flow of a game can swing in either direction on a turnover. It was one possession that changed the flow of the entire game. The possibilities are endless...but that doesn't fit the narrative now does it?

Cajun hawk if you think we'd have scored 40 points Saturday if we had not played Nixon for the one series, then you are the Naive one. This is no longer a Haack/Nixon argument. This is just a bad offense/playcalling regardless of the QB.

And for the record I was completely baffled by the decision to play Nixon as well at that point.
Reminded me of the 2005 Troy game where bustle pulled Des after going up 14-0 and let babb have a few series.

[ManAboutTown]

Cajun hawk if you think we'd have scored 40 points Saturday if we had not played Nixon for the one series, then you are the Naive one. This is no longer a Haack/Nixon argument. This is just a bad offense/playcalling regardless of the QB.

And for the record I was completely baffled by the decision to play Nixon as well at that point.
Reminded me of the 2005 Troy game where bustle pulled Des after going up 14-0 and let babb have a few series.

No doubt it's a bad offense, but it's not the QB nor other players' fault.

We ended up with 23 points.. Had we not pulled Haack, we were driving to be up 24-7 in the second quarter. Now, nothing is guruanteed, but they were not stopping us at that point and Haack was settling in.

[Boomer]

What has Haack done poorly?? I'll wait...

---He has thrown more interceptions than TDs---but that is not the point---that is to use after intensive pre game planning what you are going to do---this was the strategy and when Nixon messed up he kept Haack in the game longer and changed the game plan----Let the damn coaches coach!

[ManAboutTown]

---He has thrown more interceptions than TDs---but that is not the point---that is to use after intensive pre game planning what you are going to do---this was the strategy and when Nixon messed up he kept Haack in the game longer and changed the game plan

Let the damn coaches coach!

They're not coaching boomer! They're not!!
I don't know what the hell they're doing.

Stop using stats for your love of Nixon. Brooks has led more TD drives, plain and damn simple! The offense is better with Brooks at QB. When are the "coaches" gunna figure that one out?!

You're wrong again

[CajunNation]

..

[CajunNation]

It's as if we have zero situational awareness. I don't really mind the idea of putting Nixon in for a series here and there, and for certain situations. But the idea that you decide ahead of time it's the 3rd series, and you stick with that no matter what? Stupid. We were getting a rhythm offensively, and had just stopped them. We had a short field and chance to go up 24-7. Instead of keeping Haack in there and keeping the momentum, we choose that time to insert Nixon. THEN we have him roll against his body to make a difficult throw. Then we have him throw again. The running quarterback. We throw a pick and the momentum shifts. Why not wait till we are pinned deep and we have to run. Or are up and are looking to burn clock. It's not like we can fool them when we put Nixon in.

Again later. We have a 3rd and 6. And we run Eli up the middle. AGAIN. Do we have zero slant passes in our offense?

Nixon is a RB, and could be an NFL RB if developed properly, but for this year, if we still insist on keeping him at QB, then a package for him could be developed for short yardage/goal line situations. A poor man's Tebow.

But, immediately after the Bowl Game, he should be moved to RB or a defensive position. His talent is wasted at QB, and his presence there only limits the growth of Haack and Davis.

[CajunJack55]

Nixon is a RB, and could be an NFL RB

well that's a stretch...

[Ragin' Caleb]

well that's a stretch...

Ya think? Lol

[GeauxCajuns]

They're not coaching boomer! They're not!!
I don't know what the hell they're doing.

Stop using stats for your love of Nixon. Brooks has led more TD drives, plain and damn simple! The offense is better with Brooks at QB. When are the "coaches" gunna figure that one out?!

You're wrong again

you asked him what haack has down wrong, he said he throws more INTs than TD's, and you say stop using stats, you're wrong?
thats why i have a hard time with reading your thoughts, even when you make a good point, i feel its more that you got lucky.
every coach in america scripts the first couple of series, and VERY few deviate from that plan, no matter how the game starts (im not saying there isnt fault in that, i think there is). its why every coach harps on sticking to the game plan in every press conference. nixon came in, didnt perform, and didnt see the field again.