Read a comment on reddit from a user that made a lot of sense. So it seems that our coaching “trying to outsmart” LSU lost us the game. Less blame should be on the players and put mostly on the coaches.

“Not an expert, but I waste a lot of time reading/watching about modern college offenses. Playcalling, for better or for worse, has developed into a completely reactive game of cat and mouse. Gone are the days where anyone commits to running or passing 100% on any given play, instead having a package of 3 to 10 plays ready to use depending on what the sideline and then quarterback sees from a defense. Aranda at LSU is the real talent on that staff (Coach O...meh), and beat Kirby et al in the chess match. He showed packages that looked as if they were oriented to stop the run and put man coverage on receivers, when in fact he would drop back in split zone/man stuff. This was, IMO, the thing that made everyone think Fromm was trash. The routes you call for man vs those you call for zone have different soft spots, which is why we saw receivers open up after Fromm worked through his progressions (Godwin in the endzone early comes to mind). Having said that, the pass protection is also different, as are the run option calls (inside vs outside zones and variations).

Again, I’m not an expert and someone who is, I would love you to correct me on all of this. Going a step further, I think this was lost in the film room. Chaney wasn’t prepared for the packages coming in and didn’t make the adjustments. I was firmly convinced our receivers could block their secondary and we would run wide to try and wear their, depth-wise, already the line down for ease of run in the second half. We abandoned that approach due to the looks we got and didn’t play “our brand of football” which is pure marketing, but still. I think this game illustrates the failings of modern offense, which in my purely uninformed opinion, leans far too heavy on working with what you’re given instead of leaning into your strengths. You have talented playmakers in the backfield? Give them the ball SOME WAY and let them make plays half the time, and in the other half find ways to get those talented receivers get plays even if you’re running five yard stops/slants/outs off of play action.

I simply don’t think Chaney is the guy, but it’s hard to argue with what he did last year. Armchair analysis is easy, and he knows volumes more than I ever will. Just don’t like the way he calls games.”

-another user

This. What really pissed me off yesterday was that we constantly did things in reaction to what LSU was doing or what they might do. To me, the fake field goal and the two-point attempt later in the game especially were solely reactions to what LSU might be doing. We tried to “fool” them or “outsmart” them, and that seemed to last the whole game. And I hate that. A good team will be just as prepared for anything, so you don’t win games against good opponents by trying to be smarter than them. You win by just beating them. So in addition to your points, I feel that Kirby and Chaney didn’t utilize our strengths to let our players just simply make plays to beat them. It’s like everything they did was in hopes that LSU “wouldn’t be ready for it.” And that bothers me. A team will always be “ready” to stop the run, but it doesn’t mean they actually will stop it. Seems like we really forgot that, and it hurt us completely.

This post was edited on 10/14/18 at 4:29 pm