This. Also, a high ankle sprain generally involves the rotation of the fibula and tibia, which is what causes the stretching of the ligament above the ankle. Because of that, you have have even less stability when under load, and a higher chance to re-injure the ligament.
Not that I'm trying to say I know the depth's of CLM's mind, but playing a lot of pass plays against a team that we should have soundly beat might have just been giving JL a chance to show he can get it done. We won. Also, I don't really think anyone will know for sure about JJ until he's seen lining up at QB :miles:
Total game stats may be misleading. Show me the passing/rushing stats and yardage for each through the 1st half and 3rd quarter, and compare them to the same stats in the 4th quarter. Most of Lee's passing yds came from the 37-yd Lafell TD, which was about 10 yds lee and 27 after the catch, and that long, lucky floater to RJJ. And I think the point made by nearly everyone here isn't the apparent balance in the playcalling, but that it actually should have been skewed much more to the running game.
Re: A theory on the LaTech play calling OK... 1st Quarter ----------- 1st drive: 4 rushes, 6 passes = 3 points 2nd drive: 3 rushes, 3 passes = 7 points 2nd Quarter ----------- 1st drive: 3 rushes, 0 passes = punt (started at our 4 so we had to run) 2nd drive: 1 rushes, 2 passes = punt So going into half time we had 11 rushes and 11 passes. The drives we passed on, we scored. Lee had completions of 18, 15, 14, and 38 with a TD. He looked a little ugly on the incompletions, but at this point, he was not stinking it up. Most adjustments are made at half time. They gave him the chance to try to pull himself together in the second half and he failed. Not the coachs. Lee failed. They gave him his shot. This was a game against LA Tech, not Ole Miss. Lots of people on here wanted him to have a shot if JJ got injured. I think that he deserved it. Putting him in there and then running KW every play would have proven nothing. It would not have been fair to JL or JJ. We still could not know if we could count on Lee to not be a head case. If this was Ole Miss or Arky and KW was running it down their throat, I would have put money on KW rushing it 40 times in the second half. But it was LA Tech and I really don't think the team or the staff was too worried about it. They started unleashing blitzes and popped them pretty good in the second half. A cat playing with a mouse. 3rd Quarter ----------- 1st drive: 2 rush, 2 passes = punt 2nd drive: 6 rush, 4 passes = 7 points (two 1st downs were passes) 3rd drive: 0 rush, 3 passes = punt (we were deep in Tech territory and decided to go for the throat) This is where Lee lost it. Before the last drive of the third quarter, he was doing OK. 4th Quarter ----------- 1st drive: 0 rush, 3 passes = punt (Lee sacked and intentional grounding) Once we lost that much yardage, we had to pass. I firmly believe we would have run it a lot in this drive because...) 2nd drive: 7 rush, 2 passes = 7 points 3rd drive: 3 rush, 0 passes = missed field goal 4th drive: Victory kneel I think that we are remembering the game incorrectly. Yes, a large number of Lee's passes sucked. Yes, Lee is toast. But we did run the ball more than pass it and the passing was effective at times. Effective enough to make the running effective. You can't have one without the other (go ahead, sing it in your head), you need BALANCE!
Re: A theory on the LaTech play calling I agree with almost all of your analysis, and you've made the same point I did about what the coaches wanted to get out of Lee in this game. I disagree about offensive adjustments at halftime. I've seen very few of those in LSU's games thus far. Balance is definitely essential, and there are people who go to the other extreme and NEVER want to run between the tackles. I'd actually argue that a good deal of LSU's offensive woes is that the team is striving for too much balance with predictable playcalling and, in the process, has not established an identity. Much of that has to do with the pitiful OL play, and much of it has to do with a green QB. If these don't improve in 2010, however, we have a big problem on our hands.
Re: A theory on the LaTech play calling Yeah, the adjustments I meant were defensive adjustments. We didn't change much at all on O. And I didn't mind that, it was LA Tech and we wanted to see what Lee could do. People complained when we ran KW up the middle in the past ("He is better running outside grumble grumble..."). People complained when they ran KW only on pitches to the outside ("Come on, don't be so predictable grumble grumble..."). People complain that the play calling is too generic ("I can call the plays they are going to run as soon as they line up grumble grumble..."). People complain when they do something abnormal ("Why did they throw it 6 times in a row grumble grumble..."). There is a fine line between being predictable and playing to your players strength. I think that they do a good job of it. The amount of contradictory grumbling on here confirms it in my mind. I still have not seen ANYONE take the challenge of going into the chat room during the games and trying to call the plays when they line up. I blame it on the O-line. Not the play calling. I blame it on the O-lineman that left the team in the past few years causing us to have a center with no experience. I think it is the in-experience of the center and the unexplainable decline of Black. And I honestly don't know if or how they will fix it. That is why they are paid the big bucks.
