Started By
Message
re: John's Betrayal - The Real 3rd and Chavis?
Posted on 1/13/15 at 12:25 pm to AlaTiger
Posted on 1/13/15 at 12:25 pm to AlaTiger
quote:
quote: I mean, how is the Clemson game on Chavis?
The last minute drive to win the game? Giving up the 4th and 19 at the end to extend that drive? You didn't see that game. Another bowl game where LSU wasn't ready to play - and the defense shares in the blame on that one.
Wouldn't be surprised if we were talking to Chavis before that bowl game too.
1
Posted on 1/13/15 at 1:07 pm to Projectpat
That was the letdown bowl, remember?
Posted on 1/13/15 at 1:14 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
In a way I am sad I will never get to understand what they are talking about, because if A&M's defense ever gets so good I get pissed we are blowing random third downs I will remind myself of how bad it was before John came.
Here it is: Chavis is good, and he had great talent at LSU. But they seemed to do things on a consistent basis against good teams: (1) Near end of the first half or end of game, the other team marches down to near the goal line or scores a TD/FG, (2) the "blown third downs" typically happen more often during critical parts of the game.
Edit: Just one example - LSU vs North Carolina
This post was edited on 1/13/15 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 1/13/15 at 1:24 pm to cyogi
Fair enough. 
Posted on 1/13/15 at 2:50 pm to cardboardboxer
Chavis' apparent principle- while the blitz and tight man coverage can control or limit the opponent, sooner or later it is bound to fail. So while he may use that attack for most of a game, he backs out into a soft zone late, and hopes to ride it out. If you can convert 3rd and 9, fine; it will be for a 1st down, and not a long TD.
In other words, he's not a "live by the sword, die by the sword" type of guy.
I think the problem is that the defense is so different from his man scheme that the players are a little out of sorts with the zone when he switches to it, and it also removes their aggressiveness.
A decent analogy is the boxer who attacks his foe most of the fight, and then starts to dance in the late rounds to avoid a mistake and getting knocked out. He's trying to kill the rest of the time away, but it gives a previously dominated opponent a lot more room to work; and in Chavis' case his defenses have been burned late more often by the delay/zone than by pressure.
In other words, he's not a "live by the sword, die by the sword" type of guy.
I think the problem is that the defense is so different from his man scheme that the players are a little out of sorts with the zone when he switches to it, and it also removes their aggressiveness.
A decent analogy is the boxer who attacks his foe most of the fight, and then starts to dance in the late rounds to avoid a mistake and getting knocked out. He's trying to kill the rest of the time away, but it gives a previously dominated opponent a lot more room to work; and in Chavis' case his defenses have been burned late more often by the delay/zone than by pressure.
Posted on 1/13/15 at 2:55 pm to Scoob
quote:
Chavis' apparent principle- while the blitz and tight man coverage can control or limit the opponent, sooner or later it is bound to fail. So while he may use that attack for most of a game, he backs out into a soft zone late, and hopes to ride it out. If you can convert 3rd and 9, fine; it will be for a 1st down, and not a long TD.
In other words, he's not a "live by the sword, die by the sword" type of guy.
Sounds like he would be a good fit for our offense and style of play (basketball in cleats). Do you agree?
(Thanks for the post, I gave you an upvote)
This post was edited on 1/13/15 at 2:56 pm
Posted on 1/13/15 at 2:57 pm to Spasweezy
quote:This is the key. It is not just 3rd down conversion, it is the inopportune 3rd down conversion (ala the Bama game).
3rd and Chavis only occurs when you fear it most.
Posted on 1/13/15 at 6:14 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
It is not just 3rd down conversion, it is the inopportune 3rd down conversion (ala the Bama game).
That make sense.
Posted on 1/14/15 at 9:56 am to cardboardboxer
quote:He's a good coach; I don't know how good a fit he is. Hard to say how it will work. It might work out very well.
Sounds like he would be a good fit for our offense and style of play (basketball in cleats). Do you agree?
You will need to recruit "his" players, which translates to smaller, faster linemen and linebackers. When he came here, we downsized both areas. You will need a surplus of backs, and require a major force at MLB, or else you'll get run over. And while we get those guys at LSU a lot, Chavis was coaching them, but not the guy recruiting them, so there's that.
2 theories here- your offense might buy him the room to avoid facing "3rd and Chavis"; or it might encourage him to play a lot softer for the whole game.
Good luck (except against us, of course!)
Posted on 1/14/15 at 10:11 am to Hugh McElroy
It is real. It happens at the most inopportune time. So it stands out in our mind. That said, he should improve the Aggie D. So, all in all, it is a good hire for A&M.
Page 4 of 4
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News