I'm not as worried as others are about the D-line. We played a team that takes about half a second to throw the ball. I don't care how fast our guys are, they simply didn't have time (with the exception of a couple of snaps) to get to Smith, nor did they try as much as they normally would (didn't see many blitzes). It's gonna happen from time to time. Overall, I think this was a great victory, as well as a statement by LSU; i.e. - you wanna go no huddle and throw the ball? Fine. See how that works out for you when the clock runs down to 0:00.
65 pass attempts and maybe 2 pressures by your D-line all night (maybe) Can't ever go past a C rating with that stat line. And it was only 4 turnovers. Although they certainly decided the outcome of the game.
Good post. If you throw 65 times you will put up some yardage. Also can't discount the holding that went on all night, and got called maybe twice. :geauxtige
I don't think I'd rate our defense as low that issy. When you look at the number of plays they were on the field for I find it amazing they were able to play as well as they did. I'd move each area on defense up by 1 letter.
You're right, Red. WVU runs a LOT of screens and that was evident tonight. Want to slow down an agressive and "fast" defense? Execute screens. Looks like our DLine was playing so that if they didn't get good penetration, hold your ground and don't over-pursue upfield. The breakdown, IMO, was that our LB's were pretty much non-existant. Usually, when you're invisible and it's a "good thing" is typically if you're on the OLine...because that usually means you're not getting holding calls, illegal procedure penalties, not giving up a sack, etc. Credit Geno Smith though. I said heading into this game that he was a QB that we haven't seen up to this point. He is much, MUCH better than anything Oregon or MSU have. He's good, but when you put it up 60+ times, it makes good QB's look great.
Not the LB's. They need to be better picking up short crossing routes and RB's out of the backfield. When 2 of your 3 LB's are converted safeties, you'd expect better "coverage skills", IMO.
WVU runs a base 3-3-5. That's extra safeties in the game matching up against TE's instead of LB's. Peterson isn't a big-bodied TE. He's extremely effective in creating mismatches when a LB is trying to cover him. He's too ellusive vs most LB's, and a size problem vs cornerbacks. But putting safeties closer to the line and matched up against him takes the matchup problems away.
Maybe he simply wasn't a primary target/option for this game then? At least, I hope that's the explaination...
