I respectfully disagree. We do have a capable "BACKUP". Randall just isn't a QB you want to hang your had on for an entire season--he's too inconsistant. But, to be able to come into a game and run the offense without much changing of the personel, or gameplan, Randall can function.
Ramprat and dhead: Have y'all ever seen a game from the sidelines? It's a poor vantage point and difficult to see what a team is doing across the field, from one end to the other, such as where guys are lining up, how they react, etc. It is much easier to see what they are doing from up above. That is why they have coaches upstairs in the box and communication equipment. Mauck gets on the phone/headset with his coach(es) when he comes off the field to learn what he may not have seen. That is much more effective than staying out of the , losing whatever rhythm you may be gaining, and trying to see what's happening from the sideline. Mauck must stay in the until the is out of reach. That is when you put in the "scrubs."
You guys, I think that maybe Matt should've sit out a series after the 1st int. It never hurts, I've seen it happen quite often in football. BUT MATT wasn't all the problem. I think the playcalling should've been better. I think we should've tried a few more things. I also liked most of the playcalling but sometimes you have to try something different. I Love Nick and Jimbo.... But our offense is real predictible since they've been here. I would've like to see a flea flicker or I would've loved to run the play the Rebels called for thier td for a change. If we struggling running the ball, release the rb in the middle of the field, throw him a quick pass. I'll take our backs one on one with any Secondary
You don't sit Mauck for having a bad start, or few bad series. You let him work through it, and change your game plan a little. Clearly we felt going in that Mauck would light up the secondary. In fact, it seemed he forced the ball, and that we called a lot of passing plays where Mauck zero'ed in on Clayton and tipped off his passes. Once things settled down we were fine. Let's not forget that this was an important game, and Mauck seemed to be a little rattled. It happens, teams adjust and things work out. After a poor start Mauck settled in. If you bench him for a series, maybe he never gets the chance to settle in. Also, when they gave Mauck the green light to run he was smarter throwing the ball. When routes were covered he got us a few on the ground and kept drives alive. My point is that Mauck (or most starter Div 1 QB's) are going to have games like this, you have to give them a chance to work through it, and as a good coach you have to adjust your game plan to allow that QB to succeed.
If we'd sat Mauck down yesterday, then he would've been less confident going out there on Friday. Randall would not have been effective against an inspired Ole Miss defense. My only real beef with the gameplan yesterday was the under-utilization of Alley Broussard. He didn't get much PT. For that final 4th down run with 15 seconds left in the game, I was sure Broussard would be put in to pound it out for the first down, but he wasn't, and we didn't get the 1st down. Is someone angry with Broussard?
I wondered the same thing about the RBs. I expected to see more of Broussard. But I think we are in a weird position of having a lot of very good RBs and not enough touches to go around for all of them. Saban might give playing time to players who did well during the week's practices, or which style of back he thinks will be successful against that particular team. We ran a lot of running plays that took a while to develop. Ole Miss was fast last night, atleast faster than they looked against other teams. So that might have had something to do with it, and why some RBs got more playing time than others.
Matt was starting to take off and run with the ball like he use to. Partly because he had Rebels in his face all day and partly, because he lost a little confidence. With that said, I dont see how it would matter in next weeks game.
I agree that Ole Miss was very fast!! I was really suprised. It seemed like they were in the backfield on a lot of plays. This disrupted many things and I do think Mauck got rattled a bit. I don't think sitting him down would help too much. He's got to be the leader and control the offense. I'm not sure what the answer is but it was a good test and hopefully the offense will get back on track. Also i agree, more Broussard!!!
What is our identity on offense? Growing up in MS and having family who still remember when Ole Miss was our biggest rival I am thrilled we won. That does not mean I cannot be a little disappointed in how our offense played. I am not just concerned about the Ole Miss game I have been concerned about how they have played since halftime of the La Tech game. After Florida we made a concerted effort to dominate the line of scrimmage against South Carolina and continued this against Auburn. We have seemed to have gone back to the mentality we had against Florida. I am not trying to imply that I know more than Jimbo, but I do feel like I have the ability to point out things that are not as good as they can be. The question that I have is what is our identity on offense. Are we a dink and dunk West Coast offense? Are we a big play offense? A miss-direction offense? A Texas Tech type offense? A straight-ahead power running game and physical offense that uses the tight end? We really have the personal to be all of the above. We seem to try to be all of the above at some point in the game, and I think that has caused us to not have a true identity on offense. Most teams have something that they go to when things are not going well like yesterday. Their bread and butter, the play calling that brings the offense together and gets their confidence back. I do not think we have this. I have seen all of the above used when we are struggling. I also hear a lot each week about how we are opening up the offense more and more each week. We do not always seem on the same page and maybe have too big of a playbook. The penalties on offense are considered by some to be a lack of focus, but it could also be caused by confusion. My preference is to have our offense run a little more I or two tight end formations, be dominate at the line of scrimmage, use a straight ahead power running game, use the play action, use the tight end, run a ball control attack but also take some shots way down the field at points throughout the game. I would prefer power to finesse. I like the running back rotation we used against SC and Auburn more than what we have used since then. I want our identity to be when all else is not working the other team better get ready, because we are about to start pushing the ball down their throats. Am I right? I do not know and do not care like I said it is just my preference. This team has really done a great job this year. Part of what I love about football is the passion. One play it is damn that was bad, and the next can be damn that was great. We are all passionate about LSU football, but I think the views “we won but damn we could play better” and “we won and damn that is all that matters” should and can coexist.
