Re: Texas A&M recap: Questionable game plan helps sink Aggies, but Bama loses big as
JessN's preview and postgame articles always trend toward the cool, conservative interpretation; you know what you are going to get. I for one am glad to see an objective interpretation of Hurts' upside and his downside, which is something that has raised some hackles in other threads. I think B1G is correct up to a point, in that we did dominate that game in terms of overall physicality and tempo. In addition to the game itself, my evidence is that CNS himself used the word "dominant" (minus some mistakes and missed opportunities of course) to describe the team's performance in his halftime interview and again after the game. Given how rarely you hear CNS say that, much less at halftime, I think we have to admit that the flow of the game was never as close as the 7-13 or 14 -13 scores would have lead one to expect. But I think JessN is right to point out that as long as our offense remains mistake prone in the red zone, erratic in the passing game, nerve-wracking in the field goal kicking, we have to admit that a quality team has at least a puncher's chance, if not better. Remember, we needed every opportunity and point to beat Clemson last year. The fact that there are so many TF posters clamoring for more running plays is a sign that our passing is not really effective. We have by far and away the deepest receiving corps of Saban's tenure, and we can't get any consistency -- this is a real fact, even if the defense is so good that we can cover it up like Area 51. Hurts' INT was covered by Humphrey's INT. We give their offense the ball in good field position, and our defense flips the field by producing 4th and forever and a long punt return. Our defense can cover for many blemishes, but that doesn't mean the blemishes aren't there.
Now, as for being built to come back, I think here I disagree with JessN a bit. You can come from behind with 8 minutes to go without a great passing game, IF your running offense is so dominant that the other team can't stop it. Ingram's wildcat comeback -- they knew what we were going to do but couldn't stop it anyway. The same point can be shown from a failure -- most of us believe we'd already have 17 if we had just "run Henry left" instead of throwing a sneaky pass to the endzone. What is unstoppable is unstoppable, period. We could be a triple option run team with a mere gesture to passing and probably be very effective this year. But that is not balanced; and would Kiffin actually do that!?!?
JessN's preview and postgame articles always trend toward the cool, conservative interpretation; you know what you are going to get. I for one am glad to see an objective interpretation of Hurts' upside and his downside, which is something that has raised some hackles in other threads. I think B1G is correct up to a point, in that we did dominate that game in terms of overall physicality and tempo. In addition to the game itself, my evidence is that CNS himself used the word "dominant" (minus some mistakes and missed opportunities of course) to describe the team's performance in his halftime interview and again after the game. Given how rarely you hear CNS say that, much less at halftime, I think we have to admit that the flow of the game was never as close as the 7-13 or 14 -13 scores would have lead one to expect. But I think JessN is right to point out that as long as our offense remains mistake prone in the red zone, erratic in the passing game, nerve-wracking in the field goal kicking, we have to admit that a quality team has at least a puncher's chance, if not better. Remember, we needed every opportunity and point to beat Clemson last year. The fact that there are so many TF posters clamoring for more running plays is a sign that our passing is not really effective. We have by far and away the deepest receiving corps of Saban's tenure, and we can't get any consistency -- this is a real fact, even if the defense is so good that we can cover it up like Area 51. Hurts' INT was covered by Humphrey's INT. We give their offense the ball in good field position, and our defense flips the field by producing 4th and forever and a long punt return. Our defense can cover for many blemishes, but that doesn't mean the blemishes aren't there.
Now, as for being built to come back, I think here I disagree with JessN a bit. You can come from behind with 8 minutes to go without a great passing game, IF your running offense is so dominant that the other team can't stop it. Ingram's wildcat comeback -- they knew what we were going to do but couldn't stop it anyway. The same point can be shown from a failure -- most of us believe we'd already have 17 if we had just "run Henry left" instead of throwing a sneaky pass to the endzone. What is unstoppable is unstoppable, period. We could be a triple option run team with a mere gesture to passing and probably be very effective this year. But that is not balanced; and would Kiffin actually do that!?!?