Thoughts...

lewindha · Sun Oct 26, 2014 11:58 pm

why would Lodge or any top WR or QB want to come to Ole Miss after what went down this weekend?

Freeze has admittedly played conservatively over the last month. Last night when we needed to open it up he either didn't or it's been so long our offense didn't respond well.

Why would I (a top high school receiver) after hearing that and seeing last night want to come play in an offense that may or may not have a tight leash b/c the defense is good or whatever reason?

TLM 1961 · Mon Oct 27, 2014 5:19 am

Agree, play calling far to conservative. I also understand relying on the defense, but not to the extent we have witnessed the past few weeks. The big difference in the LSU game was the fact that they controlled the ball and the clock. We can't run offense for two or two and half quarters and expect to win in SEC west. We were fortunate Alabama made costly mistake which allowed us the opportunity to win. Our offensive machine has to much rust or there is a broken cog in the wheel, which ever it is better get repaired quickly or our last four SEC games could be ugly.

proud2breb · Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:34 am

lewindha wrote:why would Lodge or any top WR or QB want to come to Ole Miss after what went down this weekend?

Freeze has admittedly played conservatively over the last month. Last night when we needed to open it up he either didn't or it's been so long our offense didn't respond well.

Why would I (a top high school receiver) after hearing that and seeing last night want to come play in an offense that may or may not have a tight leash b/c the defense is good or whatever reason?

He wouldn't! We don't pass until we're playing catch up. Maybe we can get s RB.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

GtownRebel · Mon Oct 27, 2014 8:48 am

lewindha wrote:why would Lodge or any top WR or QB want to come to Ole Miss after what went down this weekend?

Freeze has admittedly played conservatively over the last month. Last night when we needed to open it up he either didn't or it's been so long our offense didn't respond well.

Why would I (a top high school receiver) after hearing that and seeing last night want to come play in an offense that may or may not have a tight leash b/c the defense is good or whatever reason?

Because the weak part of our team is the offensive line and we have no depth there. We hafve the best receivers in the league. We have an OK QB. If I were a HS QB and knew all of this, I would come because HF has proven he can recruit players. He will recruit OL players for depth.

I think he has been playing conservative play calling because we didn't want injuries and we have a great defense. Others have stated that it makes the game much closer than it should be and it does. But now we have soem OL folks hurt because of the team we just played that was very physical. The next 3 SEC games will have the same toughness. It will be interesting to see how HF reacts and if he opens up the play book. Of course Bo Wallce has to execute the play called and not do something to cause a loss. Someone asked a question on another board about Wallce and I am curious to see what everyone on this board thinks. Do you think Wallace's arm has gotten weaker since the Tennessee game? That last throw was a lame duck instead of a throw towards the corner - never was designed to be a short throw.

rickochet2 · Mon Oct 27, 2014 9:06 am

GtownRebel wrote: never was designed to be a short throw.

I'm not convinced that Bo didn't think an under throw there was a good play. The situation clearly pointed for either airmailing the stadium or over throw for a jump ball to our Rec only.

I'm just not convinced that the problem is mechanical.

JustBlues · Mon Oct 27, 2014 9:08 am

I don't call repeatedly running a 166 pound running back between the tackles against an SEC defensive front "conservative play calling". I call it stupid play calling. Conservative implies safe. There is nothing safe about running the little guy into the big guys. An occasional inside run by the scat back is ok as it keeps the defense from assuming an outside run every time he touches the ball, but to do it over and over when it isn't working puzzles me. This is especially true when the larger Mathers was running the ball well Saturday night.

proud2breb · Mon Oct 27, 2014 9:53 am

Won't matter what OL players are recruited as long as Matt Luke is running that aspect of our team

JustBlues · Mon Oct 27, 2014 9:56 am

proud2breb wrote:Won't matter what OL players are recruited as long as Matt Luke is running that aspect of our team

I couldn't disagree more. Luke has done more with less than I thought possible.

Mon Oct 27, 2014 10:38 am

JustBlues wrote:
proud2breb wrote:Won't matter what OL players are recruited as long as Matt Luke is running that aspect of our team
I couldn't disagree more. Luke has done more with less than I thought possible.

I would prefer that you name one player that Matt Luke has "coached up"... name one player that has shown progression in ability over ability he got here with...strength and conditioning don't count that is another coach. Do I hear crickets?

Heath · Mon Oct 27, 2014 11:17 am

JustBlues wrote:I don't call repeatedly running a 166 pound running back between the tackles against an SEC defensive front "conservative play calling". I call it stupid play calling. Conservative implies safe. There is nothing safe about running the little guy into the big guys. An occasional inside run by the scat back is ok as it keeps the defense from assuming an outside run every time he touches the ball, but to do it over and over when it isn't working puzzles me. This is especially true when the larger Mathers was running the ball well Saturday night.

In my opinion (which means little to nothing), if we want to have an effective running game up the middle, we need to go from under center and use a bigger back. Going from shotgun takes too long and allows the LB's to get another step closer to the line.

GtownRebel · Mon Oct 27, 2014 3:58 pm

rickochet2 wrote:
GtownRebel wrote: never was designed to be a short throw.
I'm not convinced that Bo didn't think an under throw there was a good play. The situation clearly pointed for either airmailing the stadium or over throw for a jump ball to our Rec only.

I'm just not convinced that the problem is mechanical.

Let's talk reality. The QB (Bo Wallace) was told to throw to the receiver in the flat to gain 10-15 yards, but if he was covered, to throw it out of bounds. Reason: the ball would at least be on the left hash mark either way for a right footed kicker to at least have a fighting chance to kick the field goal as the ball normally will curve from right to left with a right footed kicker - Wunderlick. From the right hash mark it is a lot harder with a 48 yard kick as it travels more. Instead of following the coach's play calling, Bo Wallace wanted to be the "hero" and threw to a covered receiver (Cody Core) at the goal line and was short on the throw. This wasn't the paly that was called. If you watched ESPN you could see Hugh Freeze ask Bo "what was that" when he came off the field. So for that particular play, it is on Bo Wallace pure and simple. Freeze called the right play and it was not executed as it should have been.

I am not throwing in the other plays like running on first down, which I think everyone including the waterboy knew what was coming on first down and that was stupid to do for the whole game. Or how Freeze put too much pressure on Bo by running on first down so 2nd and 3rd downs were long yardage which also put pressure on the defense as they were on the field forever it seemed. We still had a chance to at least tie the game and go into overtime. Bo did something different than what was given to him to execute and he decided he was better than the coach from my viewpoint. And who knows...we might have won it in overtime - we will never know as we didn't get the opportunity. So you can blast away at the above as it will not change what I wrote. It is time to move on to the next game as we still have a chance to get to Atlanta and the playoffs. I will be there Saturday after driving about 800 miles. We need to win and as fans we need to support this team for gosh sakes. Quit whinning unless you need soem cheese with it.

The blame game is done as far as I am concerned. It is Time to move on to the next game and beat Auburn, who has one of our GA's they hired recently - another Bama ploy I guess that will not help them in this case.

lewindha · Mon Oct 27, 2014 4:13 pm

Let's talk more reality. That last play did not lose the game for us. Bad play calling and bad execution the whole game did.

I pray to all things holy that Freeze benches Bo for Auburn.

B.F. 1 · Mon Oct 27, 2014 5:39 pm

lewindha wrote:Let's talk more reality. That last play did not lose the game for us. Bad play calling and bad execution the whole game did.

I pray to all things holy that Freeze benches Bo for Auburn.

Bad idea. Really, really bad idea.

proud2breb · Mon Oct 27, 2014 7:15 pm

JustBlues wrote:Luke has done more with less than I thought possible.

: ImageUploadedByTapatalk1414455329.496838.jpg (22.05 KiB) Viewed 3696 times

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

proud2breb · Mon Oct 27, 2014 7:17 pm

Hagar wrote:
JustBlues wrote:
JustBlues wrote:Won't matter what OL players are recruited as long as Matt Luke is running that aspect of our team
I couldn't disagree more. Luke has done more with less than I thought possible.
I would prefer that you name one player that Matt Luke has "coached up"... name one player that has shown progression in ability over ability he got here with...strength and conditioning don't count that is another coach. Do I hear crickets?

Yes, you hear crickets! I'm sure JustBlues google search came up empty.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk