LSU fans say good ridence to Pelini!

[knapplc]

Please - don't feed the trolls.

[harp]

Please don't feed the trolls.

 

allow me to translate... ehhhheeemmm:

 

"please don't expose me to anything but blind, rabid, homerism. individual thought makes me gag"

 

 

let me translate.....EHHHEEEEMMMM:

 

 

"I have my own personal opinion and no matter how many facts or statistics that prove my opinion wrong i will not change it"

 

Once again i ask you to give me some stats that back up your reasons for considering Bo Pelini a bad coach, instead of simply your "individual thought".

 

i was at all the games! i watched piss poor schemes underachive time and time again. keeping in mind that talent wise, this was the best defensive unit EVER. so no, lucky for you all the stats perpetuate "this was a good defense"

 

so i tell you what!

 

o.k. you're right bo pelini is a great hire for nebraska, they truly could not have done better. there, i changed my opinion... does it match?

[HuskerExpat]

 

you're assuming there were more than two wideouts. that not being the case, commiting a linebacker is as safe if not safer than not commiting one.

 

In addition to my other comments, you are wrong about this one. Look at 2:10 into this video and you will see that you are wrong. If you look at Arkansas formation, they clearly have three wideouts. There is also a tight end and a running back. The tight end did not stay in and block, but rant a route. If you blitzed, you either get to the QB in time and win the game, or you give up a 1st down. It is Arkansas that was in the all or nothing situation, not LSU, so it doesn't make sense to risk everything for a sack. Play the percentages and cover the receivers. Arkansas got lucky, and the game continued...

[harp]

 

you're assuming there were more than two wideouts. that not being the case, commiting a linebacker is as safe if not safer than not commiting one.

 

In addition to my other comments, you are wrong about this one. Look at 2:10 into this video and you will see that you are wrong. If you look at Arkansas formation, they clearly have three wideouts. There is also a tight end and a running back. The tight end did not stay in and block, but rant a route. If you blitzed, you either get to the QB in time and win the game, or you give up a 1st down. One or the other. In that situation, blitzing doesn't make sense. Play the percentages and cover the receivers.

 

 

WAIT, SO YOU'RE SAYING WE EITHER WIN... OR THEY GET THE FIRST, BUT WE DIDN'T BLITZ AND THEY GOT A FIRST.

 

so blitzing wouldn't have been right, it just would have been as un-wrong as not blitzing?!?

 

do you understand yourself anymore? because you're kinda backing up the "should have blized argument."

[HuskerExpat]

 

you're assuming there were more than two wideouts. that not being the case, commiting a linebacker is as safe if not safer than not commiting one.

 

In addition to my other comments, you are wrong about this one. Look at 2:10 into this video and you will see that you are wrong. If you look at Arkansas formation, they clearly have three wideouts. There is also a tight end and a running back. The tight end did not stay in and block, but rant a route. If you blitzed, you either get to the QB in time and win the game, or you give up a 1st down. One or the other. In that situation, blitzing doesn't make sense. Play the percentages and cover the receivers.

 

 

WAIT, SO YOU'RE SAYING WE EITHER WIN... OR THEY GET THE FIRST...

 

so blitzing wouldn't have been right, it just would have been as un-wrong as not blitzing?!?

 

do you understand yourself anymore?

 

I like how you conveniently ignored the facts. You previously said there were only two wideouts, so you blitz in that situation. I assume your previous comment acknowledged that it wouldn't make sense to blitz with three wideouts. I prove you wrong, and now you can't admit it.

 

You obviously don't understand what I am saying, so I will make it very clear. Given the circumstances, blitzing was wrong and coverage was the right call. Sure, hindsight it 20/20, but most coaches will make the same call every time, because the percentages are with you to call coverage in that situation. 9 out of 10 times you win by calling coverage in that situation. At best, you win 6 or 7 out of 10 times calling a blitz.

[captain obvious]

LSU's defense has made plays much more consistently than the offense. At the end of the game, when everything is on the line, it has usually been the defense that has been asked to step up. If LSU's offense wasn't constantly turning the ball over on their side of the field, Pelini's defense would have much better statistics.

 

 

NOPE! nice try, if i was you i'd have gone with generic answer #3 also, but if there is one thing this team has done exceptionally well, its "have an outstanding turn over-ratio." 3 fumbles all year long... none of which were "in lsu territory" and only 2 int's that directly resulted in scores.

 

Are you kidding me? I can recall 2 picks that "directly" resulted in scores during the Alabama game alone.

 

And you don't have to be so condescending.

[Husker Homer]

 

you're assuming there were more than two wideouts. that not being the case, commiting a linebacker is as safe if not safer than not commiting one.

 

In addition to my other comments, you are wrong about this one. Look at 2:10 into this video and you will see that you are wrong. If you look at Arkansas formation, they clearly have three wideouts. There is also a tight end and a running back. The tight end did not stay in and block, but rant a route. If you blitzed, you either get to the QB in time and win the game, or you give up a 1st down. One or the other. In that situation, blitzing doesn't make sense. Play the percentages and cover the receivers.

 

 

WAIT, SO YOU'RE SAYING WE EITHER WIN... OR THEY GET THE FIRST...

 

so blitzing wouldn't have been right, it just would have been as un-wrong as not blitzing?!?

 

do you understand yourself anymore?

 

 

I belive HARPy is RU486 (rf-suk-u). He she they are looking for a bitch session or to argue. Best thing is to not play with them, don't respond and just let the stupid posts get buried.

 

GBR - I'm very happy Coach Pelini is here!

[harp]

LSU's defense has made plays much more consistently than the offense. At the end of the game, when everything is on the line, it has usually been the defense that has been asked to step up. If LSU's offense wasn't constantly turning the ball over on their side of the field, Pelini's defense would have much better statistics.

 

 

NOPE! nice try, if i was you i'd have gone with generic answer #3 also, but if there is one thing this team has done exceptionally well, its "have an outstanding turn over-ratio." 3 fumbles all year long... none of which were "in lsu territory" and only 2 int's that directly resulted in scores.

 

Are you kidding me? I can recall 2 picks that "directly" resulted in scores during the Alabama game alone.

 

And you don't have to be so condescending.

 

SO CAN I!!! thats why i said 2.

 

 

EDIT: actually i just thought of another one. against kentucky. so 3.

[rkhufu7]

If LSU wants to complain about having the number 3 defense in the nation for 3 years in a year...well I say have fun with your new DC. That is about as good as it gets on D. Maybe you should look at your Offense...

 

Time Cube!!!!!

What was NU record vs SEC teams in Bowl games? They kill those teams from that tough conference!

[harp]

 

you're assuming there were more than two wideouts. that not being the case, commiting a linebacker is as safe if not safer than not commiting one.

 

In addition to my other comments, you are wrong about this one. Look at 2:10 into this video and you will see that you are wrong. If you look at Arkansas formation, they clearly have three wideouts. There is also a tight end and a running back. The tight end did not stay in and block, but rant a route. If you blitzed, you either get to the QB in time and win the game, or you give up a 1st down. One or the other. In that situation, blitzing doesn't make sense. Play the percentages and cover the receivers.

 

 

WAIT, SO YOU'RE SAYING WE EITHER WIN... OR THEY GET THE FIRST...

 

so blitzing wouldn't have been right, it just would have been as un-wrong as not blitzing?!?

 

do you understand yourself anymore?

 

I like how you conveniently ignored the facts. You previously said there were only two wideouts, so you blitz in that situation. I assume your previous comment acknowledged that it wouldn't make sense to blitz with three wideouts. I prove you wrong, and now you can't admit it.

 

You obviously don't understand what I am saying, so I will make it very clear. Given the circumstances, blitzing was wrong and coverage was the right call. Sure, hindsight it 20/20, but most coaches will make the same call every time, because the percentages are with you to call coverage in that situation. 9 out of 10 times you win by calling coverage in that situation. At best, you win 6 or 7 out of 10 times calling a blitz.

 

 

ah cool, you found the video. my memory is based off being at the game. and with three wideouts in that situation against that qb i would have blitzed. and i can think of alot of coaches who would have blited in that situation.

[HuskerExpat]

 

ah cool, you found the video. my memory is based off being at the game. and with three wideouts in that situation against that qb i would have blitzed. and i can think of alot of coaches who would have blited in that situation.

 

That's my point, you're just using hindsight to demand a blitz, instead of basing it on a logical argument, because the argument changes when your version of the facts is discounted. It doesn't matter what formation they would have used, in retrospect you wanted a blitz. I love blitzes too, but not in that situation. It doesn't make sense, and there is a higher percentage play to be called.

[harp]

 

ah cool, you found the video. my memory is based off being at the game. and with three wideouts in that situation against that qb i would have blitzed. and i can think of alot of coaches who would have blited in that situation.

 

That's my point, you're just using hindsight to demand a blitz, instead of basing it on a logical argument, because the argument changes when your version of the facts is discounted. It doesn't matter what formation they would have used, in retrospect you wanted a blitz. I love blitzes too, but not in that situation. It doesn't make sense, and there is a higher percentage play to be called.

 

what about that, or anything i've said denotes "hindsight?"

[captain obvious]

LSU's defense has made plays much more consistently than the offense. At the end of the game, when everything is on the line, it has usually been the defense that has been asked to step up. If LSU's offense wasn't constantly turning the ball over on their side of the field, Pelini's defense would have much better statistics.

 

 

NOPE! nice try, if i was you i'd have gone with generic answer #3 also, but if there is one thing this team has done exceptionally well, its "have an outstanding turn over-ratio." 3 fumbles all year long... none of which were "in lsu territory" and only 2 int's that directly resulted in scores.

 

Are you kidding me? I can recall 2 picks that "directly" resulted in scores during the Alabama game alone.

 

And you don't have to be so condescending.

 

SO CAN I!!! thats why i said 2.

 

OK, there may have been only 2 turnovers that directly resulted in scores all season. Just to clarify, though, how did Auburn score a TD on a 40 yard drive against you? Was the field position gained from a good punt return, or was it off the fumble or pick? I didn't watch the game.

 

Moving on to my second point, look at how many games the defense has won for you. I'm talking about big plays in tough situations, when the offense wasn't exactly producing.

 

Alabama and Tennessee are the most obvious ones. How about the South Carolina game? The LSU offense put together scoring drives of 69, 56, 33, and 30 yards. I'm guessing those short scoring drives came from 2 of the 3 turnovers that the defense forced during that game, correct? LSU's offense was only 4/14 converting third downs, which usually won't cut it against the #12 team in the country UNLESS your defense steps up and hands you field position.

 

And as far as "poor" performances by LSU's D... did you even see any Nebraska games? Do you have any idea what we are comparing this to? You're sitting there picking apart one particular 4th and 12 and saying that the defense cost you a perfect season, from what I can tell. They seem to have played very impressively for most of the season, though. Offenses were scoring crazy points on everyone this year. LSU faced some pretty scary offensive weapons.

[rkhufu7]

McBride ran a lot of man and robber coverage. He mixed in some zone blitzing vs passing teams. Schemes will be different cause he blitzed MUCHO!

[shyndy]

seriously do they just expect you to blitz everytime? If you did that it wouldn't be very good i dont think, look at the fourth quarter we had against texas, we literally blitzed every play of that game.