Havoc rate was 12th in SEC

Tell that to your 2023 defense

Our defensive scheme was fine, the real issue was giving up 8.1 yards per play in the red zone, which is on execution lmao.

our defense was fine, your offense just got lucky

Our defense was young and battled injuries all last season, that's the real story. New transfers and another year in the system will fix those third down issues, not some panic scheme change. We're building something special, and our staff knows exactly what they're doing.

You're right about the scheme being predictable, but that soft zone on third and long is a disease that's infected the whole sport. I watched our Big Blues in the late 80s under Coach Dickerson, and we'd bring the house on third down. You either got the sack or got beat deep, but at least you had an identity. These coordinators today are too scared of getting beat over the top, so they let teams nickel and dime them all the way down the field. Your Tigers have the athletes to play press man, just like we did back in the day. If you don't let those new transfers use their length at the line, you're wasting them. A passive defense just breaks a team's spirit.

Scheme?...

LSU's defensive struggles were absolutely about talent, not scheme. Their secondary allowed a 65% completion rate, which is a personnel issue that transfers can't fix overnight. The idea that a new philosophy alone fixes a unit that ranked 90th in passing yards allowed is naive.

Our havoc rate was top 30

Scheme needs elite talent to work

Our D will be just fine

man, this take is so off base it's almost funny. you're talking about lsu's scheme like it was some outdated mess, but that's just not reality. the tigers were breaking in an entirely new secondary last year, multiple true freshmen getting major snaps, and you expect them to run press man and complex pressures every down? that's how you get torched for 60 poins, not 7.2 yards per attempt. the "bend don't break" approach was a necessity, not a choice, to protect those young dbs. the havoc rate was low because the front four, while good, wasn't generating consistent wins without help, and sending extra guys would have exposed those rookies even more. to blame the scheme entirely ignores the massive talent turnover and the fact they were learning on the fly. the new transfers absolutely have the length, and i'm hearing the spring install is way more aggressive, but that's because the personnel now allows it. last year's play-calling was a product of the hand they were dealt. acting like the coaches were just stubborn is a lazy narrative from someone who doesn't understand the week-to-week grind of developing croots and transfers into a cohesive unit. the numbers might not lie, but they also don't tell the whole story about a young group surviving a gauntlet. this spring is about evolution, not some total philosophical failure that needs scrapping.

Our defense was top 15 in scoring D last year, so that "scheme" clearly worked just fine

Our defensive EPA per play actually ranked top 40 nationally, which shows the scheme created more stops than this take admits

Our defense was fine, your offense just got lucky

Reminds me of the '97 Panthers defense that would've never allowed that soft zone nonsense

That take completely misses the reality of last season's personnel. LSU's secondary was decimated by injuries and inexperience, forcing them into conservative coverages to protect young players. When you're starting freshmen at corner, you can't run an aggressive press-man scheme every down, that's how you give up explosive touchdowns. The 7.2 yards per pass attempt is a direct result of playing soft to prevent the big play over the top, a necessary evil with the group they had. The havoc rate being in the 80s wasn't about scheme, it was about a defensive line that couldn't win one-on-one matchups consistently, failing to generate pressure with just four rushers. You can't call creative blitzes when your base defense can't hold up, it leaves your vulnerable secondary completely exposed. The idea that a schematic shift alone fixes everything is naive. The new transfers have size, but installing a complex, aggressive defense requires time and cohesion that spring ball alone doesn't provide. LSU's offensive firepower often put the defense in bad spots, playing with leads that forced opponents into obvious passing situations where any defense gets picked apart. The focus should be on developing the talented young players they have and simplifying assignments to play faster, not on some wholesale philosophical overhaul that could lead to even more miscommunication and big plays given up.

That take completely misses the mark by ignoring the personnel deficiencies that crippled the LSU defense last season. The secondary was decimated by injuries and inexperience, forcing them into conservative coverages just to survive. When you're starting multiple freshmen and walk-ons against SEC passing attacks, you can't play press man every down, the risk of explosive plays becomes astronomical. The 7.2 yards per pass attempt is a direct result of having to protect young defensive backs, not some stubborn schematic choice. The havoc rate being in the 80s is a talent and execution issue, not a play-calling one. You can't disguise pressures effectively when your linebackers can't hold up in coverage and your edge rushers can't win one-on-one matchups. The idea that a simple philosophical shift fixes everything is naive. The new transfers might have the length, but they still have to learn the system and prove they can tackle in space. LSU's defensive issues were a perfect storm of youth, injuries, and facing elite quarterbacks. To blame it all on scheme is letting the players who consistently lost individual battles off the hook. The staff had to manage a bad hand last year, and suggesting they weren't trying to create negative plays is disingenuous. The defense will improve with better players and health, not just because someone draws up a more aggressive blitz on a whiteboard.

Our defense was yooung. Wait till this YEAR.

Sounds like our 2012 defense

Our 2011 defense played with heart, not just schemes, and that's what's missing today

Scheme...

This reminds me of the '98 defense that just lined up and hit people, no fancy schemes needed