LSU D game plan

#1

AlcoVOLic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
959
Likes
498
#1
Loved the Pitt game plan and totally understood the FL game plan. Actually refreshing to see a we plan for each unique offense for once !!

LSU’s D looks better than FL so we simply can’t outscore them (hypothetically). and they have a similar QB in respects of running ability as FL. My question is do you play zone again or man to man and allow QB rushing yards?
 
#2
#2
Loved the Pitt game plan and totally understood the FL game plan. Actually refreshing to see a we plan for each unique offense for once !!

LSU’s D looks better than FL so we simply can’t outscore them (hypothetically). and they have a similar QB in respects of running ability as FL. My question is do you play zone again or man to man and allow QB rushing yards?[/Q
 
#4
#4
Loved the Pitt game plan and totally understood the FL game plan. Actually refreshing to see a we plan for each unique offense for once !!

LSU’s D looks better than FL so we simply can’t outscore them (hypothetically). and they have a similar QB in respects of running ability as FL. My question is do you play zone again or man to man and allow QB rushing yards?
I say be aggressive.

Blitz the dude. I mean he can run better than Richardson but, are our DB's stopping anybody??

Two sacks that end LSU drives, but we give up some big plays here and there is better than never getting to him and they score every drive.
 
#7
#7
Loved the Pitt game plan and totally understood the FL game plan. Actually refreshing to see a we plan for each unique offense for once !!

LSU’s D looks better than FL so we simply can’t outscore them (hypothetically). and they have a similar QB in respects of running ability as FL. My question is do you play zone again or man to man and allow QB rushing yards?
Are you asking our D's game plan or LSU's D game plan like the title of your thread suggests haha
 
#11
#11
I think our D, for the most part, is what it is.

I would like to see us focus on how to generate more explosive plays and RedZone D (meaning be aggressive until they hit the RedZone). Current personnel won’t allow us to dominate defensive statistics.

But if we can create more offensive possessions via explosive defensive plays and turnovers, and/or forcing FGs in our RedZone… that’s a win for this defense this year (especially given this O’s ability to score).

More talent help is not arriving on D until the 2023 and 2024 classes (and look at the number of DBs in the 2023 class for evidence). So we have to maximize the current talent we have available to us. I would rather be aggressive and give the ball back to the O faster vs dying by 1000 cuts.
 
Last edited:
#12
#12
If you’re asking what LSU’s D gameplan is, I will say that they should load the box and make Hendon throw it all over the field. Pitt had the best plan so far and they shut the run down pretty much.

If you’re asking what we should do to stop LSU on D, well, who really knows. Playing zone and not giving up the big play worked but as you can tell is wildly unpopular. Getting pressure by blitzing worked against Pitt but none of their Qbs were as mobile as Daniels. So there’s a huge risk in playing man to man so you can blitz from the back 7 and actually get to the Qb.

Now, if only our front 4 could get pressure without bringing an extra man, then you could really mix it up and try and confuse their Qb.

I expect the same game plan as Florida. We just aren’t good enough to man up in the secondary.
 
#13
#13
Loved the Pitt game plan and totally understood the FL game plan. Actually refreshing to see a we plan for each unique offense for once !!

LSU’s D looks better than FL so we simply can’t outscore them (hypothetically). and they have a similar QB in respects of running ability as FL. My question is do you play zone again or man to man and allow QB rushing yards?
UT had held UF to 21 points through 52 minutes then went into game preserve mode on both sides of the ball. They weren't able to run the 4 minute O effectively and gave UF an opening. The 4 minute/prevent D just outright sucked except for the last play.

IMO, the moral of the story is that UT can not turn it off any earlier than 4 or maybe even 3 minutes to go. They have to stay aggressive against good or great teams.

I still think a lot of it falls on Banks. But I don't think UT has the guns on either side of the ball to run clock on someone like Bama or maybe even LSU. If they get a lead they can't sit on it.
 
#17
#17
Loved the Pitt game plan and totally understood the FL game plan. Actually refreshing to see a we plan for each unique offense for once !!

LSU’s D looks better than FL so we simply can’t outscore them (hypothetically). and they have a similar QB in respects of running ability as FL. My question is do you play zone again or man to man and allow QB rushing yards?

YES ! ! ! ;)
 
#18
#18
Daniels holds on to the ball forever. Hopefully that plays into our favor and we can get pressure on him

In that case, maybe you don't blitz? Maybe you only rush 4 (sometimes 5), but do so in a contain manner...rush to keep him in the pocket and try to collapse it. If he has a tendency to hold the ball, that usually means his guys need to be more open than usual (or he doesn't see open guys), so if we drop back more guys to cover and keep him in the pocket, our DLine might be able to get to him. It also might mean we can play man instead of zone if he's going to stay in the pocket.
 
#19
#19
UT had held UF to 21 points through 52 minutes then went into game preserve mode on both sides of the ball. They weren't able to run the 4 minute O effectively and gave UF an opening. The 4 minute/prevent D just outright sucked except for the last play.

IMO, the moral of the story is that UT can not turn it off any earlier than 4 or maybe even 3 minutes to go. They have to stay aggressive against good or great teams.

I still think a lot of it falls on Banks. But I don't think UT has the guns on either side of the ball to run clock on someone like Bama or maybe even LSU. If they get a lead they can't sit on it.

Also, Florida was in 4 down mode the whole game. That's tough on a defense. Who knows if LSU will do the same. Hopefully, we force a lot of 4th downs so we can find out. And hopefully, we stop more of them this time.
 
#20
#20
Loved the Pitt game plan and totally understood the FL game plan. Actually refreshing to see a we plan for each unique offense for once !!

LSU’s D looks better than FL so we simply can’t outscore them (hypothetically). and they have a similar QB in respects of running ability as FL. My question is do you play zone again or man to man and allow QB rushing yards?

LSU's online isn't as good as Florida's. They have given up the 2nd most sacks in conference. I'm sure there will be some plan to exploit this
 
#21
#21
I would have the same basic plan as last weekend. Stuff the run, contain the QB as best you can then hope your DB's can make some plays in zone. The only problem I saw last week was when they got up 17 they should have bull-rushed the QB, knowing the were not going to run. Take more chances on defense with the lead.
 
#23
#23
Don't turn the ball over. Miss State would have beaten LSU in Baton Rouge if not for some stupid 4th down decisions by Leach backed up in their own territory and a muffed punt that gave LSU about a 10 or 15 yard field.

And Tennessee is better than Mississippi State.

Play clean football. Play like we're capable. That should be plenty to win the game.
 
#24
#24
If you’re asking what LSU’s D gameplan is, I will say that they should load the box and make Hendon throw it all over the field. Pitt had the best plan so far and they shut the run down pretty much.

If you’re asking what we should do to stop LSU on D, well, who really knows. Playing zone and not giving up the big play worked but as you can tell is wildly unpopular. Getting pressure by blitzing worked against Pitt but none of their Qbs were as mobile as Daniels. So there’s a huge risk in playing man to man so you can blitz from the back 7 and actually get to the Qb.

Now, if only our front 4 could get pressure without bringing an extra man, then you could really mix it up and try and confuse their Qb.

I expect the same game plan as Florida. We just aren’t good enough to man up in the secondary.

Good points. I will see say though, if something “worked but as you can see is wildly unpopular”, I am much more interested in the worked part. I actually agree with you that it worked. Had we finished the last several minutes of the game differently I doubt we would be seeing nearly as much angst. Few ways that could have happened:

- Our defense could have stopped them even once playing zone as they did.
- We could’ve brought pressure and looked good if it worked, and like a disaster if Richardson made us pay for it.
- We could have kept playing normal offense instead of running the clock and giving back the ball.
- Finally, had we been able to run the clock down like we tried by getting first downs that would have worked too.

We also could have recovered the onside kick, but I’m not including that in the list because even though it doesn’t get so scary they still scored twice and we would be getting a bunch of the same complaints even though it wins (Remember the super scary way with them scoring twice and recovering the kick we also won).

Anyway, all is that is to say I think the plan was sound, but obviously we still would have liked to see a better defensive performance. Even though it gets skewed by what happened at the end, we were not easily stopping them all night. Sure we got them to 4th down a lot, but they made almost all of those conversions. As far as scheme goes, maybe some blitz should have been worked in because of Richardson was in fact making the throws, but I think it was completely fair to worry about him running around in space. Could see arguments either way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redge
#25
#25
I think the difference is in the offensive line. LSU's isn't as good as UF's. That should help us accelerate the clock on him without as much blitzing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: white65

VN Store



Back
Top