In-Game Thread: Louisiana vs. Tulane

[Turbine]

I'm not angry. I don't get angry with these games anymore. I'm telling you what happened. Sorry, I can't teach you how to properly watch or analyze a football game.

Donald Rumsfeld says that we are dealing with known knowns means when it comes to the turnovers and the results of such.

You seem to be dealing almost exclusively in known unknowns.

[Just1More]

No more stupid than you saying we'd have blown them out if we'd have just run different plays. What I observed on the field was us completely shutting down Tulane (in regulation). Had it not been for the turnovers I think we'd have won (in regulation). That's my opinion. Your welcome to disagree, no need to be an arrogant little _____.

Again... we recovered (defensively) like kings on those TOs. That is actually the best a team can do when a player makes a mistake. The TOs were "oh, so we gifted you from a mistake... and you suck and can't do squat but kick a field goal". And no, we didn't lose on TOs... we lost because every element of our game was junk even after we held them to FGs. And when I'm an arrogant ___, I'm never ever little about it. I'm a massively huge arrogant ___ when I decide to go full metal arrogant. I haven't scratched the surface of arrogant ___.

You can give your opinion... as you have... and I will state mine. Mine isn't budging from what I observed Saturday.

[Just1More]

Call it what you want but the turnovers decided the game. You and MAT are letting you anger with the coaching staff cloud your logical thought processes. You spot a team 9 points in a game where you gave up 16 in regulation and had trouble moving the football all night, that is the key the game.

Yes, we changed philosophies on offense after Jenkins (See what I did there?) throws the second pick and we bogged down after that but nobody knows what would have happened had we kept our foot on the gas. Perhaps we would continue to shred them through the air and find space on the ground or perhaps they would have adjusted and started to limit our production but would have kept the pressure on our QB and created more turnovers...Who knows? Its all subjective at that point and the only thing we can do is speculate as to how the game would have gone. However, we KNOW that the turnovers directly led to points that were precious in a defensive ballgame. They mattered.

You say "who knows?". I know. The talent on our team is well above what Tulane has in their rebuild. We blew that game. And it wasn't... once again... the TOs. Taking the math of this and that score added up to this... and that's why we lost... does not explain every play and player on field. Our coaches do not have, currently, what it takes to get 50% out of the talent on our team. You can think otherwise. I'm fine with that. I'm going to post what I think, when I think it, until I see what should be done on the field with the talent I know exists. And that ain't happening.

[Just1More]

What are you talking about that never happened

Did Baer not kick a personal best FG (50 yards) to beat SDST in our first NO Bowl?

[Turbine]

You say "who knows?". I know. The talent on our team is well above what Tulane has in their rebuild. We blew that game. And it wasn't... once again... the TOs. Taking the math of this and that score added up to this... and that's why we lost... does not explain every play and player on field. Our coaches do not have, currently, what it takes to get 50% out of the talent on our team. You can think otherwise. I'm fine with that. I'm going to post what I think, when I think it, until I see what should be done on the field with the talent I know exists. And that ain't happening.

The Turnovers' prevented a regulation win.

No ifs, ands, or buts

[Just1More]

The Turnovers' prevented a regulation win.

No ifs, ands, or buts

BS Turbine. That's like saying that when you lose a baseball game 4-3, because you gave up 3 runs on a homer in the first, that "those 3 runs cost us the game". If you left 12 men on base from that point forward, because your coaches didn't signal hit and runs, allowed guys to swing for the fences, didn't send a runner home when they should, made poor substitioins, changed pitchers too late... and so on and so forth... you do not write the game off as "giving up that homer in the first was the difference in the game". I've been to 100s of these events... and it is pure BS to look at only the scoring costs and claim that's what beat you. 1000 things happen in a contest... and at any moment you can turn the tables on someone that got up on you from a mistake. We sucked rear end coaching. The FGs were a score difference in regulation only because we allowed them to be.

[Turbine]

BS Turbine. That's like saying that when you lose a baseball game 4-3, because you gave up 3 runs on a homer in the first, that "those 3 runs cost us the game". If you left 12 men on base from that point forward, because your coaches didn't signal hit and runs, allowed guys to swing for the fences, didn't send a runner home when they should, made poor substitioins, changed pitchers too late... and so on and so forth... you do not write the game off as "giving up that homer in the first was the difference in the game". I've been to 100s of these events... and it is pure BS to look at only the scoring costs and claim that's what beat you. 1000 things happen in a contest... and at any moment you can turn the tables on someone that got up on you from a mistake. We sucked rear end coaching. The FGs were a score difference in regulation only because we allowed them to be.

There is a monumental difference between "cost you a win in regulation" and "cost you the game."

I'm, not saying the turnovers cost UL the game.

Overtime is a whole new ballgame.

I'm also not defending crawfish coaching.

They coached well enough to not let the mistakes landslide but simply did not coach aggressive enough to overcome adversity.

[cjr3888]

The Turnovers' prevented a regulation win.

No ifs, ands, or buts

I look at it a little different. The defense put us in a position to win after those turnovers by forcing field goals each time. The coaching (lack of aggressiveness and coaching not to lose) is what cost us the game. Time for someone to step up (coaches or administration), quit being scared, and play to win on and off the field!

[Just1More]

There is a monumental difference between "cost you a win in regulation" and "cost you the game."

I'm, not saying the turnovers cost UL the game.

Overtime is a whole new ballgame.

I'm also not defending crawfish coaching.

They coached well enough to not let the mistakes landslide but simply did not coach aggressive enough to overcome adversity.

Turnovers didn't cost us the game in regulation. They contributed, as did 1000 details during regulation. Our defense made pretty good work of those turnovers. They limited an ineffective offense to attempt field goals when they were within spitting distance of the end zone. There were massive opportunities to win the game, turnovers and the resulting opponents points aside, in regulation. We failed in numerous regards during regulation to exploit a one dimensional team. If you want to add up our dropped passes and theirs. If you want to add up our missed blocks and theirs. If you want to add up our missed tackles and theirs... you get another set of consequential numbers that a coach can say "that is what lost the game". That is an ignorant man's calculus of an entire 60 minutes of regulation. A massive number of actions and results culminated in a tie in regulation. I am stating, without any doubt whatsoever, that we lost in regulation, due to a lack of coaching from play to play, player to player, all regulation long. Turnovers are just the most ugly noticeable thing that happens. They do not by themself decide the outcome of games. And when you only drop 9 points from 3 TOs... you're sitting plenty good to bust a bad team in the ___.

[ManAboutTown]

Turnovers didn't cost us the game in regulation. They contributed, as did 1000 details during regulation. Our defense made pretty good work of those turnovers. They limited an ineffective offense to attempt field goals when they were within spitting distance of the end zone. There were massive opportunities to win the game, turnovers and the resulting opponents points aside, in regulation. We failed in numerous regards during regulation to exploit a one dimensional team. If you want to add up our dropped passes and theirs. If you want to add up our missed blocks and theirs. If you want to add up our missed tackles and theirs... you get another set of consequential numbers that a coach can say "that is what lost the game". That is an ignorant man's calculus of an entire 60 minutes of regulation. A massive number of actions and results culminated in a tie in regulation. I am stating, without any doubt whatsoever, that we lost in regulation, due to a lack of coaching from play to play, player to player, all regulation long. Turnovers are just the most ugly noticeable thing that happens. They do not by themself decide the outcome of games. And when you only drop 9 points from 3 TOs... you're sitting plenty good to bust a bad team in the ___.

The older I get, the more I realize that most people have no idea what they're watching during a football game.

[Bandwagon King]

Turnovers didn't cost us the game in regulation. They contributed, as did 1000 details during regulation. Our defense made pretty good work of those turnovers. They limited an ineffective offense to attempt field goals when they were within spitting distance of the end zone. There were massive opportunities to win the game, turnovers and the resulting opponents points aside, in regulation. We failed in numerous regards during regulation to exploit a one dimensional team. If you want to add up our dropped passes and theirs. If you want to add up our missed blocks and theirs. If you want to add up our missed tackles and theirs... you get another set of consequential numbers that a coach can say "that is what lost the game". That is an ignorant man's calculus of an entire 60 minutes of regulation. A massive number of actions and results culminated in a tie in regulation. I am stating, without any doubt whatsoever, that we lost in regulation, due to a lack of coaching from play to play, player to player, all regulation long. Turnovers are just the most ugly noticeable thing that happens. They do not by themself decide the outcome of games. And when you only drop 9 points from 3 TOs... you're sitting plenty good to bust a bad team in the ___.

You must be oversauced. Usually you are only ludicrous enough to be comical. But this is beyond comedy. It's the unknown comic run amuck on the gong show. I guarantee if you look up all the stats ever compiled in the history of football, the one absolute most consistent stat is that teams who lose the turnover battle consistently lose the game. And the worse you lose the turnover battle, the higher the odds of you losing the game. The fact is the reason the game went into overtime was the score was tied. You take away any one of their points from a lost possession deep in UL territory, & UL wins that game. never mind what happened in a crazy overtime. If UL doesn't turn the ball over four times they win. Anyone who can't acknowledge that fact is so eaten up with another agenda, they can't be considered credible in their opinion.

[alum81]

If Tulane kicks the FG early instaed of going for it on fourth down they would have won in regulation. I think it was after the muffed punt.