Audemus jura nostra defendere
"When a loaf of bread looks like a banquet, I've no right buying tobacco. " - Grandpa Joe
You guys are confusing things. If Alabama played some great heisman-winning pocket passer they'd probably have just as much of a problem. The fact that they've lost to 3 heisman winning scramblers doesn't mean they have a problem with scramblers in general. Denard Robinson looked completely incompetent. Hell, Cam even looked incompetent in the first half.
Last edited by thefloydian; December 10th, 2012 at 10:09 PM.
As floydian said getting beat by a Heisman winner who happens to be a scrambler doesn't mean we automatically have problems with scramblers. If we had played a Heisman winning pocket passer we probably would have had problems as well.
There is no doubt that scrambling QB's cause problems but so do elite pocket passers.
Most of these QBs we are talking about played out of their minds to beat us. Think about the throws Tebow made in the 2008 SECCG. How perfectly Garcia played in 2010. LSU 2011 isn't a good example, that was just a weird game.
In most of these games we beat ourselves, too. Turnovers, blown opportunities, penalties...
I'm not trying to be arrogant here, but if we play mistake-free ball it will be VERY tough for ND to win.
"In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: it goes on."
LOL I know that doesn't mean much, but just commenting. Anyway, our red zone scoring has been pitiful. Against USC, we kept trying to get the fade or out to Eifert. I think if EG gets that down before the NCG, it is VERY deadly. Not many can stop Eifert if he boxes you out and goes up for it.
Anywa, I have one more final tomorrow, so after that I will be back for much more analysis. RT..... err wait, I'm coming to this board too much. GO IRISH!
I think QBs who can improvise with their feet when the pocket breaks down is a problem any good defense will have. The intention of any pass defense call is to get to he passer and make him throw early or get sacked. When the passer is mobile enough to make a guy miss and extend the play or get yardage on a run, it will hurt any defense.
I think LSU is a good analogy for ND's offense. It's kind of "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" deal. They do enough things well on the ground that they can keep you from getting to crazy with blitzes and it opens up easier passing opportunities for a decent QB. Standing on it's own, their QB isn't that great but within that offense he can be the thing that breaks your back on a 3rd down where he extends the play or runs for the first. Their defense keeps them in games, so just getting a handful of plays where he breaks you down can be huge despite defending well most of the night. It's basically the LSU style: hang close, run the ball, make plays at the end.
I'd agree though that if Alabama doesn't have a giveaway, it will be hard for ND to win. They aren't exactly the Bears in regards of scoring a lot of defensive TDs but turnovers have been a factor in points production for them.
The big problem I see is that Alabama has had 7 turnovers in their three biggest games this year. Ball security has been problem in the return game which is usually a killer momentum swinger. We have not played a mistake free game against any of the better teams. In fact, we've played 3 relatively mistake-filled games by Saban's standards and managed to win 2 of them and nearly won the other. I don't think we have to play mistake free but simply not make any of the stupid ones that kill momentum (on returns, deep in our territory, deep in their territory).
The only thing that could worry me is NDs defensive front. Everything is not a problem at all. Coach Nuss just needs to neutralize that front and pound away.
ND had obvious help from the officials to beat Pitt when they were trailing. They also had major help from the officials on the goal line against Stanford. They do not belong in the NC game.
The only thing that could keep ND in the game would be more turnovers or more poor play calling.
UA BS Mechanical Engineering 1992