This is one of the dumbest criticisms of Lobo I've seen.
Solid, in-depth rebuttal. Care to expand?
The play should have been stopped for a gain of 2-3 and a FG attempt. Lobo should sent Givens a fruit basket for making him look good there.
This is one of the dumbest criticisms of Lobo I've seen.
Solid, in-depth rebuttal. Care to expand?
The play should have been stopped for a gain of 2-3 and a FG attempt. Lobo should sent Givens a fruit basket for making him look good there.
Under Lobo, we are scoring more points this year than Calhoun's offense ever did. In fact, this will be the 2nd year that Lobo's offense has scored more than the best Calhoun year.
So, in other words, 7 out of 9 years (78%), his scoring offense has been worse than Calhoun's. It's 9 for 9 (100%) in total offense, in case you were wondering, and I'd daresay he's had more talented casts to work with than Calhoun did.
Calhoun was better than Lobo. Not even arguable.
It would be interesting to see what Calhoun could have done with some of our recent skill players.
Sure. Getting the ball in the hands of your best playmaker, in space, with blockers in front is the best way I can think of to try and score a touchdown. To claim that call is giving up and playing for the FG is ridiculous...
Neuro, you had to know that was the obvious rebuttal to your stat.
Lobo's offense in 2003, the year after Calhoun left, scored more points than any of Calhoun's offenses, presumably with some of the same players.
Lobo's offense in 2003, the year after Calhoun left, scored more points than any of Calhoun's offenses, presumably with some of the same players.
There just wasn't a lot of space on this particular screen. Not particularly wide, maybe even to the short side of the field. He really should have been down sooner.
Now Lobo did use the screen really well at other points, including late in the game, mixing them in well with runs to keep the clock moving.
These criticisms of our coaches borders on the insane. In case anyone cares to look back three months ago, we were picked last in the conference and to win at most 3 games. Look at how many young players are contributing; is that not coaching? I guess some of you think all coaches do is call plays. The bulk of the work is in practice and coming up with a game plan. With the expectations this team had, I would say 6 wins and being in position for 3 more wins qualifies as good coaching. Some of you wouldn't recognize good coaching if it bit you in the butt.
And using a lot of the same plays.
If you can't look at a game called by Lobo and not realize he's in over his head as an OC, I don't know what to tell you other than you just don't know very much about football.
Clearly, Givens made a great play, but that is what you want your OC to do, get the ball in your playmaker's hands so that he can make a play. The blockers didn't make their plays, but Chris did. To argue that the play call was playing for a FG is what made your post so dumb. If the play call had been a fullback dive to center the ball, then you would be right.
Exactly right, he took Calhoun's offense and many of the same players and improved it to score more points.
Now he has taken different players and a different offense to score more points than Calhoun. I won't get personal and claim it's you that doesn't know much about football but...
Exactly right, he took Calhoun's offense and many of the same players and improved it to score more points.
Now he has taken different players and a different offense to score more points than Calhoun. I won't get personal and claim it's you that doesn't know much about football but...
Are you serious, man? Your argument that Lobo is a good OC is that the year after Calhoun left, his offense scored 0.5 points a game more than Calhoun with the same players even though his offense scored a full 7 points less than that the next year.
Then Lobo took 8 more seasons before getting back to that point again.
That's a failure, not a success.
So if it had been a direct snap to Givens and a dive behind the center, you would have bewn cool with that?
Your entire argument is that it was a great call because it went to Givens. That's asinine.