I think that many Bama fans have a hard time relating to a game where Bama wins by big plays, rather than a grind-it-out style. There may be more of that coming...
Thoughts after going back and re-watching the game...
- Thread starter uafan4life
- Start date
I am all for it. I know we loved the 21-0 LSU game, but this game is going down as the best in BCS and playoff history. And our defense is better suited for more snaps.
Yup..With so many teams running more & more spread option type high scoring offenses, plus, with talented skill players running them..Looks like we won't have no option other than running a high scoring type offense ourselves..
College football has steadily evolved toward these HUNH high scoring offenses & Coach Saban is steadily evolving our offense to combat them..Because it's getting harder & harder to stop them with a Deshaun Watson or Chad Kelly running them, you're not going to shut them down, our offense will have to be able to outscore them when our D can't slow them down..Grind-It-Out style college football is going the way of the dinosaurs that's for sure..
I rewatched it today, the biggest thing I notice is that we probably could have had a much better day defensively but our best positional group on defense kinda had an up and down night. Occasionally, our DL just played themselves out of contain and Watson extended drives that were close to being stops for FGAs or punts.
Far be it from me to complain about a handful of plays when our winning difference was made on a handful of plays. Still, that defensive performance wasn't as bad as the numbers...just some really bad misplays by the DL in a few spots and Watson letting loose some "great throws" into "good coverage." I feel like if they just could have contained him a bit better with more consistent disciplined edge rush technique, the game might have been somewhat closer to my prediction...somewhat. Almost every time our edge rushers messed up, he burned us.
I doubt we'll see too many DT QBs quite like Watson for awhile, so overall I think the personnel tweaks on defense are working. They really feasted on some of our younger corners too. If we can maintain a level of pressure similar to this year, I think we can get even better against the top end spread offenses. Funny to think you can find defensive positives in a 45-40 game but I guess that's just the era we live in.
Far be it from me to complain about a handful of plays when our winning difference was made on a handful of plays. Still, that defensive performance wasn't as bad as the numbers...just some really bad misplays by the DL in a few spots and Watson letting loose some "great throws" into "good coverage." I feel like if they just could have contained him a bit better with more consistent disciplined edge rush technique, the game might have been somewhat closer to my prediction...somewhat. Almost every time our edge rushers messed up, he burned us.
I doubt we'll see too many DT QBs quite like Watson for awhile, so overall I think the personnel tweaks on defense are working. They really feasted on some of our younger corners too. If we can maintain a level of pressure similar to this year, I think we can get even better against the top end spread offenses. Funny to think you can find defensive positives in a 45-40 game but I guess that's just the era we live in.
Last edited:
Some people act like we were running constant flea flickers, fumblerooskis, Statue of Liberty plays and triple reverse read zone option pass fakes with illegal linemen downfield offense run at a breakneck pace so you can't substitute.....
And that it took every gadget in our gadget bag to win.
Explosive plays are not trick plays. Every one of those was an offense executing a huge play. Just because they turned into 30, 40, 50 yards doesn't make us lucky.
What you see from Ole Miss, Baylor, Oregon and Auburn run is a gimmick offense done with smoke and mirrors and slight of hand tactics. I didn't see us anywhere near that.
Clemson was good. But we picked our shots and executed as needed.
And that it took every gadget in our gadget bag to win.
Explosive plays are not trick plays. Every one of those was an offense executing a huge play. Just because they turned into 30, 40, 50 yards doesn't make us lucky.
What you see from Ole Miss, Baylor, Oregon and Auburn run is a gimmick offense done with smoke and mirrors and slight of hand tactics. I didn't see us anywhere near that.
Clemson was good. But we picked our shots and executed as needed.
Last edited:
Exactly. A busted coverage is not a trick play. A perfectly executed off tackle is not a trick play. A TE swing pass around the edge is not a trick play. A KO return is not a trick play.
The only trick play was the pooch kick. Besides that, we just out executed them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'll be blunt - I'm okay with it. If we can evolve with the game, that speaks WAY more for longevity than being good at just one thing year in and year out.
Considering we'll have more natural talent at QB than we've had in a few years, it'll be interesting to see what we can do with it.
If there was ever a single question worth asking our defensive coaches, it would be why they didn't do this more.
The flip side, of course, is asking our offensive play callers why Howard didn't get called on more. Dude could have ended the year with 1000 yards on his own.
This offensive ability will also loosen up defenses so we can ground it out as well. It's going to make us really hard to defend.
Howard thingy is mind boggling. Assuming the TE a skill player, he is the absolute last one on the offense, based on past performance, that one would think would be the MVP of the game.
At one point during the game against the Spartans, I turned to my wife and said, "I wonder if Kiffen has been avoiding using Howard until we really need him?" Is it possible? Did he avoid using him in games so that teams wouldn't really have much, if any film on him? Are we that confident that we could pull off something like this?
I think there is something to that, keeping him in the bag unless needed. Clearly we were able to get where we wanted to be without exposing that particular strength. If we were going to OJ 10 times every game, would he have been as successful in the situations where we did use him? The flip side is, if we had been more active with OJ, would that have opened some opportunities for Amari, Ridley, Stewart etc?
I don't want to see us go to a spread, HUNH offense, but I doubt we will.
On the other hand, I would like to see us develop a high-powered offense that takes full advantage of the rule that has screwed us over the last few years. Offensive lineman being able to be three yards down the field on passing plays could really help sell play action.
On the other hand, I would like to see us develop a high-powered offense that takes full advantage of the rule that has screwed us over the last few years. Offensive lineman being able to be three yards down the field on passing plays could really help sell play action.
I don't have a problem with the offense we ran in the game. I think it is exciting. It doesn't give the defense much rest though. I think the thing that disappointed me was the tackling in the 4th qtr on their RB Gallman. Usually when they threw to him. I think there was like 4 or 5 guys that missed him. I really think we were gassed because we usually tackle better than that.
Someone with a better defensive eye might comment on this, but other than just a handful of plays Clemson did a good job of covering and taking away Ridley, Stewart (except that one big 3rd down play) and Mullaney (except for one big play that I remember).
I think it's complimentary to CLK to recognize OJ was the one we could exploit during the game.
It's also a testament to our great depth that a team might take away a few weapons, but we've got others than can still beat you!
I think it's complimentary to CLK to recognize OJ was the one we could exploit during the game.
It's also a testament to our great depth that a team might take away a few weapons, but we've got others than can still beat you!
CNS said we should have used Howard more, and he said that was on him. They called plays that didn't ask Coker to try too much, and that limited what we did.
My guess is once Coker played up to their expectations, they were able to open things up, when they needed to.
My guess is once Coker played up to their expectations, they were able to open things up, when they needed to.
Latest threads
-
Maybe aTm's Pockets Aren't So Bottomless After All -- Layoffs In The Athletic Department
- Started by 4Q Basket Case
- Replies: 1
-
Time to un-vacate 2005-2007 on field victories and un-forfeit the 1993 season?
- Started by CmdrThor
- Replies: 9
-
-
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 11
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0