Class of 2015 The future Vs this year.

[Bambrewer]

I seen a bunch of people discussing in other threads the problems of this year and wanted to jump in but figured I'd start a post about it instead of extending kids threads with stuff not about that kid.

First I would like to say how i think it must be very difficult for a coaching staff to take over and make a successful team. Imagine having an idea of how a team should be run and a vision of what you would coach the kids to do expect that the kids you have to coach are kids put in place by someone with a different vision.

It seems to have worked on the defense...so why is that. HCSS and Coach Bullough are both defense minds and pretty good at it. The kids that were in place when they took their new positions were kinda their kids anyway. HCSS had picked these players with the past staff and picked Coach Bullough as a like minded coach. So it does make sense the defense would be ok. ( One reason I cant wait for Shy to be there)

But offense is a different problem. These kids that were here where put in for a different coach and coordinator. Different philosophies with the wrong kids there to achieve those goals. Last year seemed to have some success with the seniors. So this year why the drop off? I would mostly blame injuries here. When you lose kids last year and then lose a bunch this year to injury like they did it would be very hard to put an offense out there that would be viable. At that point you are using the seniors as much as you can for their talent and experience but now putting them with younger kids you brought in for a different style offense...then switch offense coordinator and style mid year. Not much chance for any type of routine to be established.

That said I can't really find a place to get exact stats and I am sure one of you guys could find it and figure it out quicker than I... But I am pretty sure 4 games this year were lost inside the 20 yard line. I know the FSU game they would have won had they scored on the drives that stalled inside the 20 or got in the end zone instead of kicking field goals. Like I said I am sure some one could tell me exactly what games would have been won or lost from this...but my point is they were only the red zone issues away from their win loss goal for the year.

So now for the future...where does this leave the team. This year will be really the first class of all HCSS kids on defense and mostly his offense recruits. The switch to Lester will add an xfactor here...we can see where the recruiting changed when he came in. The change at tight end is the most noticeable so far for immediate impact. This will give the team more short throw size and seems to add alot to the running game from blocking. The recruitment of the Qb seems to signal a change in style coming but when will that make its impact felt next year...probably not with the existing qbs on the roster. Receivers seem to be a little short with the kids that didn't materialize for one reason or another but Ishmal looks like he will be good no matter what Qb is in place. Estime will be good. From there it will just be how the younger kids that haven't been in much will perform. . Will the tight ends and running backs be more prevalent in the new offense? It seems as if Phillips and incoming Strickland are pretty capable in the short pass or running out of the back field game so I think that will help the game inside the 20. That with the large tight end set should improve the scoring. The new Oline recruits seem very impressive...especially after talking with the O line coach during our visit.. He was really excited about the new speed and size he was recruiting. I see the Qb getting more time for passing and the outside run getting much better combining the line and backs.

So really the only question is...how long for the young guns to shine? I think next year will be the defense is still very good causing lots of turn overs and making stops and my personal favorite more sacks. I see the defense spending less time on the field and less fatigue at the end of the game allowing more consistency from start to finish. I see the offense growing maybe a slow start but getting better and better each week. All and all I see the new recruits playing a big part next year especially on offense. I see the team getting 10 wins and some of those will be games they will be expected to lose. I am looking forward to watching Shy play there and this team being very successful...after all I am from Patriots country..we don't know how to lose here! GO ORANGE!

 

[djorange1989]

I love the detailed and positive take, Bam! the O has got to be better, I figure it can only go up! I think we will see a lot more play action, a lot more usage of the TEs obviously and hopefully more north-south running. Even with all the losses on D, I think that side will still be ok, a lot of kids got experience this year. I just want the team to get back on the right track and to get back to a bowl game. 3 very winnable OOC games and we have Wake, BC and Pitt all coming to the Dome(which will hopefully become an actual home field advantage next year!). NC St and UVA are both winnable road games too. Other 4 games will be very tough, but you never know. Kids like Shy that are on the way make me feel optimistic for the future, even with this year being so rough. People can talk all they want about injuries not being an excuse, but they made a big difference in the second half of the season. We didn't play well early on when we weren't as banged up, but trying to beat NC State with 4 OLs hurt and trying to beat Duke with 3rd and 4th string QBs sure as hell is a bad formula for winning. Go SU!

 

[Bambrewer]

Do you really think it was that bad early on? I think the red zone has been bad all year but I think they moved the ball to the 20 pretty effortlessly most games until the injuries got out of control and Qbs started dropping. I think consistency was a big factor there..different players different play callers. Like I said I would love for some one to figure out the outcomes had the field goals and turn over on downs inside the 20 gone better.

 

[djorange1989]

Do you really think it was that bad early on? I think the red zone has been bad all year but I think they moved the ball to the 20 pretty effortlessly most games until the injuries got out of control and Qbs started dropping. I think consistency was a big factor there..different players different play callers. Like I said I would love for some one to figure out the outcomes had the field goals and turn over on downs inside the 20 gone better.

you are absolutely right, when the O was relatively healthy earlier on, they moved the ball well, just could not close it. Against MD they had almost 600 yards of offense, but still not much to show on the scoreboard. No question things got way worse once the injuries kicked in. No Hunt, no Estime, no Broyld meant the team went from moving it well between the 20s to barely moving the ball at all. Red zone issues cost the team the MD and ND games. We had tons of chances in both.

 

[RF2044]

I love the optimism in your post. And there is some good perspective in there.

Here's my concern, though: college football is about scoring points, and it shouldn't be this difficult to field a potent offense. Heck, forget about potent for a minute--let's settle for just a functionally competent offense. We blew two games this year [and realistically, probably three] where we just couldn't score points. Every one of those three games easily could [and probably should] have been victories--and that's with the injuries we had, keeping everything else constant.

I agree that the offensive philosophies have shifted. I just have less confidence than I did coming into the year that HCSS has the offensive vision needed to turn things around on that side of the ball. Which is really strange to me, given that despite being a defensive-oriented coach, the guy was a QB as a player. I don't care if Lester is the guy. I don't care if we go "outside" the program to find a new OC. But we can't keep marching this lousy offense out year after year hoping for different results.

Lots of teams field functional offenses and score lots of points--we're missing the boat. And it is incumbent upon HCSS to fix that issue, or he's going to be out of a job. Because I agree with one of your main premeses: with our solid defense, if we could ever score some !@#$ points, it wouldn't be hard to get to 8-9 wins every year.

But we need to be able to score some points. Offense is the name of the game in college football.

 

[memcorsu]

• First, the defense was much better this year than the numbers show. Unfortunately, they were on the field way to much because of the poor O.
• This year we competed with every team we played.
• We shot ourselves in the foot multiple times throughout the season. This can be cleaned up. Players were in the position to make or not make a play. I would say that there are 2 games we beat ourselves.
• I hate this excuse and I struggle writing it, the officiating was atrocious this year. I wish I knew how to cut videos and highlights because I could make a pretty long one. FSU and ND games were both pretty bad.
• There is no way you can overcome having 9 different OL starters and 4 different QB's with the potential of moving your starting WR to QB. Add to that, missing your top two receivers. That is just on the O side. The D side had the secondary, and LB corp depleted with multiple interior DL going down. People say this is not an excuse, but they are wrong. As you have problem seen the effect on your son's team this year.
• One of the biggest issues this year was the 8 game run we had. I don't care who you are and how great your program is, you play 8 games straight in a sport like football and you will not accomplish what you have the potential to accomplish.
• O, the type of offense this year does not fit the Syracuse identity. We have never been an "pretty" team. It has always been smash mouth football that we were successful playing. We need to get back to our roots. Move the ball South North, receivers multiple crisp patterns, tight ends filling the gaps with rb's coming out of the back field to the flats. The passing game needs to have players filling gaps at the multiple levels. Running game needs to be nose on nose. I would love to see us go back to the I. The goal should be to churn up 5-10 yards a play making the D have to cover underneath and play action deep to Ish or hitting more intermediate throws to Lewis, TE's, Custis etc... 10-20 We need to also have more sustained drives eating up chunks of clock. Our D has to get off the field. If we can get to that, the D will be much much better.
• We need a QB who can pass first then run if need be instead of run first then pass.
• From what I am hearing, I think we might be going there or trying with Lester.

 

[tep624]

We need a competent QB. Game, set and match. Everything else, and I mean everything, is secondary.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

• O, the type of offense this year does not fit the Syracuse identity. We have never been an "pretty" team. It has always been smash mouth football that we were successful playing. We need to get back to our roots. Move the ball South North, receivers multiple crisp patterns, tight ends filling the gaps with rb's coming out of the back field to the flats. The passing game needs to have players filling gaps at the multiple levels. Running game needs to be nose on nose. I would love to see us go back to the I. The goal should be to churn up 5-10 yards a play making the D have to cover underneath and play action deep to Ish or hitting more intermediate throws to Lewis, TE's, Custis etc... 10-20 We need to also have more sustained drives eating up chunks of clock. Our D has to get off the field. If we can get to that, the D will be much much better.

Oh man, I was with you all the way up until this part.

The I is not the answer. If we have Rob Konrad in the backfield, sure, the I has some appeal. We don't. Players that would be good in that role don't play the fullback position these days. Now why might that be?

It's revisionist history to say that smash mouth has been successful for us. We've traditionally struggled to get line play that could match the ability of our skill players. The best offenses for us (freeze option, everything we did with McNabb, Nassib's senior season) were predicated on speed and options, not hat on hat football. Marrone instilled in our fan base this idea that Syracuse = smash mouth. It doesn't. In fact, his offenses sucked right up until he sped things up. Now why might that be?

The goal shouldn't be to churn 5-10 yard plays. The goal is to put points on the board. I'm not worried about making sure our D gets to rest if our offense is getting a bunch of 90 second TD drives. The best way to help the defense isn't to get them off the field, it's to give them a bigger margin for error. That only happens if we score more points. Right now we simply ask too much of our defense. It's ridiculous. Bunching up the offense with tight ends and fullbacks isn't going to give the defense any more margin for error.

It's so discouraging to me to see what some people envision as solutions. The sad thing is, the Syracuse identity used to be an innovative one. P ran out of ideas, Robinson sucked, it took Marrone three years to see the light, and people can't differentiate between the problems MacDonald had as a coach and what the system he was installing could actually offer, so we've forgotten that and now we default our thinking to the most meatheaded option possible and try to take pride in it by declaring that to be some sort of noble, Northeastern football identity. We have fans bemoaning Dome attendance and diminishing fan support while simultaneously proposing offensive "solutions" decades behind what everyone else is succeeding with.

We have the exact offense we deserve.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Do you really think it was that bad early on? I think the red zone has been bad all year but I think they moved the ball to the 20 pretty effortlessly most games until the injuries got out of control and Qbs started dropping. I think consistency was a big factor there..different players different play callers. Like I said I would love for some one to figure out the outcomes had the field goals and turn over on downs inside the 20 gone better.

Bam, I can't envision a better defensive system for your son. I think when it comes to defensive scheme, we've got as good as you can get in college football.

I really, really worry about the offensive scheme though. I think people are giving up too soon on what McDonald was trying to accomplish and aren't separating McDonald's flaws from the positives of his scheme. Lester worries me. I understand doing what you're comfortable with and know but believe in, but until we get offensive coaches that 1) want to utilize the Dome advantage and 2) actually have the skills and scheme to do so, I just don't see us being any better than average on that side of the ball.

 

[Bambrewer]

Bam, I can't envision a better defensive system for your son. I think when it comes to defensive scheme, we've got as good as you can get in college football.

I really, really worry about the offensive scheme though. I think people are giving up too soon on what McDonald was trying to accomplish and aren't separating McDonald's flaws from the positives of his scheme. Lester worries me. I understand doing what you're comfortable with and know but believe in, but until we get offensive coaches that 1) want to utilize the Dome advantage and 2) actually have the skills and scheme to do so, I just don't see us being any better than average on that side of the ball.

Thats kind of my feeling... You cant give an offensive play caller a passing offense player list then try and run the ball with a team not set up for it. The downside for Mcdonald was you only get one year to bring in players for your system and try and piece it together...which clearly didnt work. Now you have Lester with his vision. I am hoping the Lester vision is more of a hybrid of what he wants to do and what Marrone had. I am hoping that in the meetings when it was decided to switch out oc's HCSS saw Lester having a vision where the kids that are here and the team he wants to build could come together...where as Mcdonald seemed to want to convert the kids here to his plans. I am thinking that is why the change came mid season...but with the mounting injuries and no consistency it was more than a play calling change could over come.

I am not really sold on the need for fans filling the dome being required for the success. Of course having the dome filled to capacity and fans screaming like mad to upset opponents communications would be perfect. I see alot of teams with small crowds winning. The climate control for half your games is a big plus with the dome either way but I think fan assistance is just icing on the cake

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I am not really sold on the need for fans filling the dome being required for the success. Of course having the dome filled to capacity and fans screaming like mad to upset opponents communications would be perfect. I see alot of teams with small crowds winning. The climate control for half your games is a big plus with the dome either way but I think fan assistance is just icing on the cake

Yeah, I think the defense is there. If the offense catches up, the product will be appealing to more fans, and if the offense catches up we should see more winning. Once that happens we'll see more people come to the games. I agree with you that filling the Dome isn't required for the team to get better, but is something we can expect as the program improves.

 

[baggerbob]

Whatever Lester does next year Custis 6-6-230+, and Enoicy 6-5-225+ along with Ismael have to be a big part. We need to get people like Custis and Enoicy across the middle, where they can use their size to catch, and run. Then in the red zone throw it high so only they can get it. Parris is the only TE coming back who will play, Custis, and Enoicy will play both positions, along with Trey.

 

[memcorsu]

Oh man, I was with you all the way up until this part.
It's revisionist history to say that smash mouth has been successful for us. We've traditionally struggled to get line play that could match the ability of our skill players. The best offenses for us (freeze option, everything we did with McNabb, Nassib's senior season) were predicated on speed and options, not hat on hat football. Marrone instilled in our fan base this idea that Syracuse = smash mouth. It doesn't. In fact, his offenses sucked right up until he sped things up. Now why might that be?

I really support what you are saying. I am not talking about the option or three yards and a cloud of dust B10 kind of offense. I also don't see us being an Oregon or TCU kind of West Coast team. I think our OLine has always been and will be the type that can get a solid push and decent in pass protection if not good (they did a heck of a job against FSU and ND just got decimated with injuries after that and things fell apart; not to say the ones that are still able to play are the walking wounded and this goes unnoticed). I was thinking more of this type which we have used before in the late 80's/90's:

Overall the goal of the Coryell offense is to have at least two downfield, fast wide receivers who adjust to the deep pass very well, combined with a sturdy pocket quarterback with a strong arm. The Coryell offense uses three key weapons. The first is a strong inside running game, the second is its ability to strike deep with two or more receivers on any play, and the third is to not only use those two attack in cooperation with each other, but to include a great deal of mid-range passing to a TE, WR, or back.

The Coryell offense has the ability to both "eat the clock" with the ground game but also to strike deep and fast without warning. Critics argue that the Coryell offense is ill-suited for coming from behind, as the deep pass attack will be predictable and therefore easy to stop. However, the fact that the offense is structured around a power running game and tall WRs who can win jump balls and have some breakaway speed make this contention hard to support. This offense is built not only for deep passing but also to defeat short yardage and red zone situations. When evenly matched, the Coryell offense can produce big drives and big scoring efficiently. If teams sit back to cover the deep field, offenses should be able to run the ball on them. If the defense tightens down to stop the run, the offense can go deep. If a defense hedges its bets by using three-deep setups with an eight-man defense up front, the QB can pick apart the defense with 10-20 yard passes.

We have the OL and receivers to run this already. I am not sure about the backs, although Erv has shown he is elusive enough to run through the holes when blocking South North. The Rb's coming in would fit here and Washington if dreams came true. We are lacking the QB although the Oregon QB and Edouard's tape has shown the ability to run this. Virgil but that is holding our breaths. I think Hackett's last year here was more of this type of O.

Unfortunately/fortunately however you take it... GM spent to much time focusing on Pro Style offenses and visiting them which we will never be. Lots of flash.

I have also sat through most of the home games under late GROB, Marrone, and this year(was in FL for SS first year); never left early. I feel the pain.

 

[Dr. Bill]

Oh man, I was with you all the way up until this part.

The I is not the answer. If we have Rob Konrad in the backfield, sure, the I has some appeal. We don't. Players that would be good in that role don't play the fullback position these days. Now why might that be?

It's revisionist history to say that smash mouth has been successful for us. We've traditionally struggled to get line play that could match the ability of our skill players. The best offenses for us (freeze option, everything we did with McNabb, Nassib's senior season) were predicated on speed and options, not hat on hat football. Marrone instilled in our fan base this idea that Syracuse = smash mouth. It doesn't. In fact, his offenses sucked right up until he sped things up. Now why might that be?

The goal shouldn't be to churn 5-10 yard plays. The goal is to put points on the board. I'm not worried about making sure our D gets to rest if our offense is getting a bunch of 90 second TD drives. The best way to help the defense isn't to get them off the field, it's to give them a bigger margin for error. That only happens if we score more points. Right now we simply ask too much of our defense. It's ridiculous. Bunching up the offense with tight ends and fullbacks isn't going to give the defense any more margin for error.

It's so discouraging to me to see what some people envision as solutions. The sad thing is, the Syracuse identity used to be an innovative one. P ran out of ideas, Robinson sucked, it took Marrone three years to see the light, and people can't differentiate between the problems MacDonald had as a coach and what the system he was installing could actually offer, so we've forgotten that and now we default our thinking to the most meatheaded option possible and try to take pride in it by declaring that to be some sort of noble, Northeastern football identity. We have fans bemoaning Dome attendance and diminishing fan support while simultaneously proposing offensive "solutions" decades behind what everyone else is succeeding with.

We have the exact offense we deserve.

You make some very valid points. If you look at football history, there have always been innovations on both the offensive and defensive sides. Like a chess match, one side creates strategies to stop the other. Right now, the "flavor of the day" offensive schemes seem to revolve around spread attacks with 5 receiver sets and no huddle, hurry up offenses, and read option running attacks. The rationale for this type of offensive scheme is to keep defenses from loading the box to block the run and enhance the opportunities in the passing game. A great scheme with the right players. There are other offensive schemes, some may consider "old school" , that can also put points on the board.
The point I want to make, is that I am less concerned about what scheme we run, as long the person running and implementing it is talented enough to understand how to attack defenses, attack vulnerabilities and create scoring opportunities for the offense regardless of the team and scheme that it opposes. A good offensive scheme forces the defense to react and adjust always. A 12 personnel attack emphasizing two tight end sets can work and dictate to defenses as well, it may not have a lot of 30 second TD drives, but eating clock and producing 7 points can win games also.

 

[Dr. Bill]

Lester is quoted in an article today in the Post Standard where he uses the words "Multiple" and Variable" to describe his offense. I like what he said about having spent a season as a defensive coordinator and then going back to the offensive side and being more effective because he understood how to not show his hand to a defense. Sounds good! Attacking defenses, I like any scheme that understands how to do that and is variable enough to balance your personnel versus defensive personnel and schemes.

 

[timkay99]

I really, really worry about the offensive scheme though. I think people are giving up too soon on what McDonald was trying to accomplish and aren't separating McDonald's flaws from the positives of his scheme. Lester worries me. I understand doing what you're comfortable with and know but believe in, but until we get offensive coaches that 1) want to utilize the Dome advantage and 2) actually have the skills and scheme to do so, I just don't see us being any better than average on that side of the ball.

I agree 100 % with this.

Look at last year recruiting. There is a reason so many WR were taken. So, when your top 2 go down, there are going to be problems. You can talk about McDonald not knowing how to call plays, but I feel the board in general greatly overrates the OL's run blocking ability this year (especially between the tackles).

If Lester transitions back to a 2 TE set, play action type offensive scheme (which I don't think he is, but people are saying he is), you really making Custis and Enoicy true TE's? Sets back the development of them with learning blocking schemes.

In the end, I believe McDonald was on the right path. I think Lester may stay truer to it then people think (or we better recruit a true everydown RB).

Issues this year rest solely on Hunt being inaccurate to start the season, then the injury bug decimated absolutely everything.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

The point I want to make, is that I am less concerned about what scheme we run, as long the person running and implementing it is talented enough to understand how to attack defenses, attack vulnerabilities and create scoring opportunities for the offense regardless of the team and scheme that it opposes.

I would agree with the sentiment, if not for the Dome.

 

[memcorsu]

Here is an article on Lester's plan for the future all be it unclear exactly what he will run:

http://www.syracuse.com/orangefootb...tim_lester_sheds_light_on_offensive_syst.html

I think it is pretty telling the type of QB he said he would like to have; "Nassib". Points more towards more of a pocket type of passer.

This is a great article on multiple player groupings. I think it is very well written:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1698299-breaking-down-nfl-offensive-personnel-groupings

 

[Dmcnabbrules]

Here is an article on Lester's plan for the future all be it unclear exactly what he will run:

http://www.syracuse.com/orangefootb...tim_lester_sheds_light_on_offensive_syst.html

I think it is pretty telling the type of QB he said he would like to have; "Nassib". Points more towards more of a pocket type of passer.

This is a great article on multiple player groupings. I think it is very well written:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1698299-breaking-down-nfl-offensive-personnel-groupings

I didn't take the Nassib comment like you did.

At the quarterback position, a mobile threat would help in running his system, but is not necessary.

"The guy has to be able to read coverage and throw balls," Lester said. "So if you had a (Ryan) Nassib, I'd take Nassib in a heartbeat to run it."

I think Lester was trying to point out that the system doesn't have to be run by one particular style of QB. The most important part is making the correct reads.

 

[Crusty]

Red Zone Scoring Stats -I did not bother to include Nova and CMU

Opponent|RZ scores - chances|Touchdowns
Maryland 3-5 (2 TD)
Notre Dame 2-3 (2 TD)
Louisville 2-2 (0 TD)
Florida State 2-4 (2 TD)
Wake Forest 4-4 (2 TD)
Clemson 0-0 (0 TD)
NC State 2-3 (2 TD)
Duke 2-2 (1 TD)
Pitt 1-2 (1 TD)

 

[Crusty]

I think everyone pretty much agrees that we are in good shape with the defense, which, of course we should be given that the HC was our DC and he hand picked Bullough. We also had players recruited by Shafer that fit the defense they both run.

Except for 2013, we have become a team known for its defense and hard hitting aggressive style of play. We are getting even better defensive recruits (see what I did there?) and I think we will get better with each passing year. Linebacker U is now in the process of moving to Syracuse.

It is very true that the offense had a perfect storm. Injuries, mid-season coaching changes, talent/scheme issues all contributed to a downward spiral from which we we never recovered.

As for the future for the offense, I am afraid that we are a couple of years away from anything very good. The only thing that I see that could change that is for Hunt to achieve the level of play we expected him to reach this year. I am afraid that none of our young QB's have the skills to overcome their inexperience at this level. Please note this is not a knock on them, just a statement of freshman reality.

I am concerned about the style of offense Lester will run. Everything that we know thus far, including Stephen Bailey's article that really said nothing, gives us few tea leaves to read.

I surmise that probably Lester feels he needs more blocking at the point of attack and perhaps more check down and red zone options, which could be the reason for more tight ends. It is somewhat puzzling why we didn't use the ones we had more this season. Custis might as well have red shirted for all he was used. (The one fade route to Custis that was called in the RZ Wilson threw to Ish, while Custis stood wide open on the other side of the end zone.)

This is looking more and more to me that we are going to be a defense oriented team much like say, Virginia Tech. Sorry OttoinGrotto, but it looks as if we have lots of rock fights in our future.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I think everyone pretty much agrees that we are in good shape with the defense, which, of course we should be given that the HC was our DC and he hand picked Bullough. We also had players recruited by Shafer that fit the defense they both run.

Except for 2013, we have become a team known for its defense and hard hitting aggressive style of play. We are getting even better defensive recruits (see what I did there?) and I think we will get better with each passing year. Linebacker U is now in the process of moving to Syracuse.

It is very true that the offense had a perfect storm. Injuries, mid-season coaching changes, talent/scheme issues all contributed to a downward spiral from which we we never recovered.

As for the future for the offense, I am afraid that we are a couple of years away from anything very good. The only thing that I see that could change that is for Hunt to achieve the level of play we expected him to reach this year. I am afraid that none of our young QB's have the skills to overcome their inexperience at this level. Please note this is not a knock on them, just a statement of freshman reality.

I am concerned about the style of offense Lester will run. Everything that we know thus far, including Stephen Bailey's article that really said nothing, gives us few tea leaves to read.

I surmise that probably Lester feels he needs more blocking at the point of attack and perhaps more check down and red zone options, which could be the reason for more tight ends. It is somewhat puzzling why we didn't use the ones we had more this season. Custis might as well have red shirted for all he was used. (The one fade route to Custis that was called in the RZ Wilson threw to Ish, while Custis stood wide open on the other side of the end zone.)

This is looking more and more to me that we are going to be a defense oriented team much like say, Virginia Tech. Sorry OttoinGrotto, but it looks as if we have lots of rock fights in our future.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

 

[Crusty]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

Yeah, everything Lester has said so far is gobbleygook for the media. A "variable" offense, "multiple" personnel - gee, that helps.

I keep looking at his last year at Elmhurst when he ran 2/3 of the time. He had the "Most Outstanding Player" in D3 who was a great runner so it makes sense that he would run first. I don't see anything that tells me he is a Bill Cubit "pass-to-run" disciple.

Lester is a smart guy and smart guys are hard to figure out because they are smart enough to adapt and evolve so, I will just have to wait and see like everyone else. (Maybe he will see the Dome advantage.)

2012 Total Plays 828 | 548 Run | 280 Pass |66% Run
2011 Total Plays 744 | 440 Run | 304 Pass | 59% Run
2010 Total Plays 689 | 340 Run | 349 Pass | 50% Run
2009 Total Plays 672 | 370 Run | 302 Pass | 56% Run
2008 Total Plays 731 | 359 Run | 372 Pass | 49% Run

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Variable and multiple, huh?

Well, we're screwed.

 

[Crusty]

Variable and multiple, huh?

Well, we're screwed.

LSU is losing sleep right now trying to figure it out.
I guarantee you that you and I are going to hate it. The board will like it until we hit conference play. Oh well, the D will be fun to watch - and they are going to be on the field a lot - a lot.