Levi's lone interception on the Season.

[Turbine]

I haven’t done the analysis necessary to answer that question accurately. But I’ll roll the dice and say it’s not equivalent to 10 completions.

That's fair.

I know I place a higher value on not throwing interceptions than most do.

[covcaj]

That's fair.

I know I place a higher value on not throwing interceptions than most do.

I guess some stats guru could do an analysis, but my guess is, if it were done the st.dev. would be so large, it would be meaningless. How much does a 40 yd interception thrown on third and long hurt you as opposed to throwing an interception on your opponents one yd line on first down?

[Rainman66]

And to your analogy of business, plenty of successful companies have re assigned people to different tasks if they weren’t performing satisfactorily. LL wouldn’t be “fired” I still think he serves an important purpose on this roster.

I agree to a point. I will use a sales analogy. A sales person has a quota, he is meeting the quota or exceeding by a bit, but everyone in the world knows that there is a lot more revenue opportunity in the territory, IF the sales person executed better. In my experience at three Fortune 250 companies in sales, is that particular sales person will not be reassigned or fired, unless his manager is absolutely sure whoever replaces him will do better.

What I know everyone will have an opinion on is what is LL's quota in starting QB terms. I don't have a good answer for that. But I do know the answer of what Napier's quota is and that is winning games.

[CajunVic]

It is interesting that almost each and every analysis provided with respect to Levi results in a conclusion that he should unequivocally be the starting QB for Louisiana. So it is not a coincidence that the Head Coach feels the same way.

[GeauxCajuns]

I agree to a point. I will use a sales analogy. A sales person has a quota, he is meeting the quota or exceeding by a bit, but everyone in the world knows that there is a lot more revenue opportunity in the territory, IF the sales person executed better. In my experience at three Fortune 250 companies in sales, is that particular sales person will not be reassigned or fired, unless his manager is absolutely sure whoever replaces him will do better.

What I know everyone will have an opinion on is what is LL's quota in starting QB terms. I don't have a good answer for that. But I do know the answer of what Napier's quota is and that is winning games.

Won’t disagree with any of those points

[Rainman66]

It is interesting that almost each and every analysis provided with respect to Levi results in a conclusion that he should unequivocally be the starting QB for Louisiana. So it is not a coincidence that the Head Coach feels the same way.

Unequivocally is a stronger term than I feel or would use. I believe it is riskier to start someone other than Levi right now, that is all.

Vic, I get your point of view. You are going to support whomever starts at QB for the Ragin' Cajuns, regardless of the name on the back of the jersey. You trust Napier's judgement from what he is seeing in practice, on film and in games that he is the best option for Louisiana to win games. I agree with all those points.

I think it is a fair statement that the offense, in general, and Levi in particular has not performed up to capabilities and/or expectations this season, but even through those struggles we are still winning.

For me, I really don't mind winning ugly, and it has been winning REALLY UGLY this season, as long as we are winning. For the most part, that has been the formula the last 2.5 seasons with this team. In the last 2.5 seasons, we have won 25 games, which is OUTSTANDING, but we can probably count on one hand how many were pretty wins. The Iowa State game was a HUGE win, but it sure wasn't pretty.

I fully support Napier and Levi, and want them to win every game. I think everyone that bleeds Vermilion and White agree with that statement. What everyone doesn't believe is that Levi is the QB to win the rest of the games this season.

[CharlieK]

That's fair.

I know I place a higher value on not throwing interceptions than most do.

I suspect the answer is a curve, highly dependent upon whether the INTs are a function of poor decisions or aggressive play (or the ratio of same). So therefore dependent upon the QB and different for each.

I could play 100% conservatively (from an INT perspective) and run every down. Zero INTs. Or I could play 100% recklessly and throw every down, into double coverage etc and throw a ton of picks. Somewhere in between is the sweet spot where I am aggressive enough to maximize scoring while tolerating some INTs. (And minimizing negative affects on actually winning the game).

The question for Lewis, is “are we too close to the conservative end of the curve to maximize scoring”? The goal of the offense is maximum score, not minimize INTs. And it is NOT axiomatic that minimum INTs means maximum score.

[Turbine]

The goal of the game is maximum score, not minimize INTs

I really appreciate that point.

[CajunVic]

We play to win the game. That is the goal - to win the game. Nothing else really matters. We play to win the game.

[CharlieK]

We play to win the game. That is the goal - to win the game. Nothing else really matters. We play to win the game.

True. Point taken. Which complicates the question further. Edited to account.

Would you agree that minimizing INTs at all costs does not necessarily mean maximizing win chances?