I think FSU's change was more tactical:
FSU came into that game wanting to baby their RS Freshman QB into the starting role. They have arguably the best tailback in the nation and an experienced OL, so they made the decision to focus on getting Cook the ball. It was an obvious decision on FSU's part so Ole Miss came in wanting to take away easy passes on the outside and be really aggressive with their front. Not a bad decision, it worked very well.
The change came when FSU decided that they were going to have to live or die by their QB and they opened up the offense a bit. They went for more longer developing pass plays, moved the pocket, and got after the middle of the field. The biggest issue I saw was that Ole Miss saw that shift in play calling heading into half and I don't think they changed strategy at all.
The offensive issues Ole Miss had in the second half mostly come down to poor run/pass balance. They were doing a good job of mixing runs in there just enough to keep the FSU DL honest. They got out of their balance and it was rough for Kelly in the backfield. Also, some of Kelly's marginal to poor throws that went Ole Miss' way in the first half turned into interceptions in the second half.
For Alabama:
I think we started really slowly on the offensive line. USC was being extremely aggressive with the number of guys they were bringing but we weren't even getting enough guys blocked to prevent jailbreaks. Defense really gave up one big play the entire half and it produced a "near make" FG for USC.
I dispute whether Hurts himself was the reason we blew them out in the same way FSU's Francois pulled his team out of the ditched. What he did do for the offense is force USC to play a bit safer and it tempered their pressure to make sure they kept eyes on Hurts moving around in the pocket. Overall, I thought USC did a very good job of preventing the busted play scrambles. His two scores were all-the-way QB runs: what appeared to be an inverted veer and what was definitely a pure QB sweep play for the second one. Other than that, they did a good job of mitigating his gains when plays broke down...his yards per was on the low end for a QB runner who didn't get sacked.
I think Hurts won the game in more of a chess match deal. The few times they tried to blitz us, he burned them with his arm because they were trying to rush corners instead of linebackers to have the speed to finish him off. Barnett coulda thrown those two TD passes but I don't think he could've forced the defensive changes on USC's side to create them.
FSU came into that game wanting to baby their RS Freshman QB into the starting role. They have arguably the best tailback in the nation and an experienced OL, so they made the decision to focus on getting Cook the ball. It was an obvious decision on FSU's part so Ole Miss came in wanting to take away easy passes on the outside and be really aggressive with their front. Not a bad decision, it worked very well.
The change came when FSU decided that they were going to have to live or die by their QB and they opened up the offense a bit. They went for more longer developing pass plays, moved the pocket, and got after the middle of the field. The biggest issue I saw was that Ole Miss saw that shift in play calling heading into half and I don't think they changed strategy at all.
The offensive issues Ole Miss had in the second half mostly come down to poor run/pass balance. They were doing a good job of mixing runs in there just enough to keep the FSU DL honest. They got out of their balance and it was rough for Kelly in the backfield. Also, some of Kelly's marginal to poor throws that went Ole Miss' way in the first half turned into interceptions in the second half.
For Alabama:
I think we started really slowly on the offensive line. USC was being extremely aggressive with the number of guys they were bringing but we weren't even getting enough guys blocked to prevent jailbreaks. Defense really gave up one big play the entire half and it produced a "near make" FG for USC.
I dispute whether Hurts himself was the reason we blew them out in the same way FSU's Francois pulled his team out of the ditched. What he did do for the offense is force USC to play a bit safer and it tempered their pressure to make sure they kept eyes on Hurts moving around in the pocket. Overall, I thought USC did a very good job of preventing the busted play scrambles. His two scores were all-the-way QB runs: what appeared to be an inverted veer and what was definitely a pure QB sweep play for the second one. Other than that, they did a good job of mitigating his gains when plays broke down...his yards per was on the low end for a QB runner who didn't get sacked.
I think Hurts won the game in more of a chess match deal. The few times they tried to blitz us, he burned them with his arm because they were trying to rush corners instead of linebackers to have the speed to finish him off. Barnett coulda thrown those two TD passes but I don't think he could've forced the defensive changes on USC's side to create them.
