Washington vs. LSU: Why Tigers Are a Lock to Cover Large Spread
The No. 3 LSU Tigers will take the field on Saturday night at 7 p.m. ET as 24-point favorites (Bovada) against the Washington Huskies, and the Bayou Bengals look poised for another blowout win.
LSU opened up its season in Tigers Stadium with a lopsided 41-14 win over North Texas, a victory in which sophomore running back Kenny Hilliard dominated, rushing for 141 yards and two touchdowns on just 13 carries.
In fact, the Mean Green didn't have an answer for any of the Tigers' backs, as LSU recorded 316 total rushing yards, highlighted by Hilliard's day and backfield-mate Alfred Blue's 123 yards.
The Huskies showed they're susceptible to the ground game in their Week 1 win over San Diego State, as despite winning 21-12, they allowed 199 rushing yards and a rushing touchdown, and that will be the main key why LSU covers the spread in this one.
Washington itself wasn't too impressive on offense, scoring just two touchdowns—one rushing and one passing—and they'll need a lot more production out of junior QB Keith Price and his offense if they're going to contend with LSU.
LSU junior QB Zach Mettenberger left much to be desired after his 19-for-26 day, with a touchdown and interception, but against the Huskies, LSU doesn't need him to be much of a factor.
As long as Mettenberger can manage the game and make throws when he's called upon, this game should be a breeze for the Tigers because of their defense and running game.
They have a swarming defense and a running game built to sustain an average performance from their quarterback, which is what they got from Mettenberger after he returned from taking a brutal sack via Hilbert Jackson.
When it's all said and done, you can expect the LSU Tigers to use their tough ground game and fierce defense to put up some gaudy numbers against the Washington Huskies.
Follow me on Twitter: @Pete_Schauer
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?