I'm still compiling my data for the Washington game (it figures things like 1st and 2nd half). As a reminder, it showed a blowout of Notre Dame, a tossup with Ohio State, a 31-10 win over Michigan State (I fudged it to 31-17 because I didn't believe it), and a ten-point win over Clemson (although it was 27-17).
Here are a couple of points so far:
1) Alabama has played six of the top 50 offenses, Washington four.
2) Alabama has also played six of the top 50 DEFENSES, Washington four.
3) Washington is VERY good at avoiding turnovers, they average less than one per game. They've turned it over 12 times and forced 33 turnovers.
4) We're pretty good at the turnover thing, too, but we make teams pay far more immediately for their indiscretions (as in pick sixes and fumble returns for TDs). This last is certainly not surprising.
My point is that all of those factors - softer schedule, better defenses and offenses (admittedly a sort of subpoint of the SOS) - indicate that 'close' stats aren't quite as close as they look.
I'm going to reiterate what I've said here a hundred times: you win football games by running the ball, stopping the run, and winning the turnover battle. Maybe our Husky readers here can tell us a little about the following games (and guys, anyone here can tell you my inquiry is serious - I'd love to know from those of you who watch them more often than I do; I've seen three of your games and am watching USC through this week):
Arizona - they were terrible record-wise, but they're the best RUSHING team the Huskies played. They average 235 per game and lit up Washington for 308 yards. The game went into overtime where Washington prevailed. Of course, part of that is because Arizona's rushing defense is nothing short of awful (82nd, down near Arkansas and ATM). The Huskies actually rushed for more yards than Arizona did (352).
What went on in this game? It appears Washington won in part because they won the turnover battle, 3-1. Ok, the game was in Arizona, and it's also possible that Washington was looking ahead to the next two games with Stanford and Oregon. I'll grant that. What's up guys?
Oregon - the Ducks average 226 yards per game and exceeded it by four yards. Yes, they lost by seven touchdowns. Washington ran all over them, too.....but then again, Oregon ranks 121st out of 128 teams in rushing defense; even if you subtracted the Huskies nailing them for nearly 400 yards, they'd still rank 113th.
Washington's rushing offense ranks 36th at 210 yards per game.
Who did Alabama play with rushing offenses better than Washington this year?
Auburn (278.5) - held to 66; however, I'll spot them a little here because Pettway was nowhere close to 100% that day. But even healthy he would not have accounted for an additional 200 yards.
Kentucky (241.3) - held to 72
LSU (238.1) - held to 33
Mississippi St (233.2) - held to 94
Texas A/M (217.5) - held to 114
On the flip side - in favor of Washington fwiw - we've only played one passing offense better than yours, Ole Miss...and that was the one close game we had this year.
But here's one that might give Husky fans pause - you've played ONE PASSING DEFENSE rated higher than Alabama this year, Colorado....and they're 1/2 yard per game less than Alabama.
They held your QB to a season low 118 yards and only nine completions. And it's those COMBINED STATS that cause a lot of our better informed fans to basically say, "If we play our game, you have no chance." If you can't run and can't pass.....there's not much else left. Rutgers has a highly rated passing defense, but that's only because they're 126th against the run and teams are trying to not run the score up on them. (This is one of those little areas where statistics have some truth AND some fiction).
But there's more....the next highest rated passing defense you've faced was Oregon State (#44). Browning lit them up for 291 yards, about eighty more than they average surrendering.
=======
I think Washington does have a chance here, but it's a tiny window. You'll need to win the turnover battle AND cash those in for scores. We've lost the turnover battle in most recent games (not including Florida), but it hasn't mattered because teams either cannot cash in or are so far behind it doesn't matter if they do.
Now, a note about something you're going to hear that is mostly poppycock. ESPN is going to have all kinds of ignorant announcers channeling their 'inner Gary Danielson' and saying, "you can beat Alabama if you have a mobile quarterback" and then they'll cite the same examples we've heard ad nauseum. Let me kindly remove that notion from being a factor, because it isn't. Let me go over the ones they talk about real quick here:
1) 2008 Florida - Tim Tebow
This shouldn't even count. That was Saban's second year and MOSTLY still Mike Shula's recruits. They always forget we led that game going into the fourth quarter despite having a name out of the phone book at quarterback and almost no offensive stars outside of Julio Jones (Mark Ingram had his coming out the next year). The simple truth is that Florida was a MUCH better team than we were that year, and we arrived early. Note that when we had another year, they never mention us pounding them so badly that Urban Meyer quit after having a heart attack.
2) 2010 Cam Newton
Cam Newton might have been the greatest all-around player in the history of the SEC. But for those who didn't see that game, it was the most bizarre defeat I've ever experienced as a Tide fan. But they didn't win because Cam was some awesome dual threat in that game - Alabama's Greg McElroy actually threw for almost 200 yards more than Cam despite the fact McElroy left the game with an injury with about six minutes left. And Cam only rushed for 39 yards on 22 attempts, not exactly stellar numbers. (Forgotten is that Auburn had minus 8 yards offense in the first quarter).
We lost this game because:
a) the most insane fumble you will ever see cost us a touchdown (or at least three for sure) from Mark Ingram
b) Trent Richardson dropped a wide open touchdown and we settled for three
c) we fumbled the ball at the Auburn 8 right before halftime and lost at least three more
There were other reasons, and Cam deserves credit as does Auburn for fighting on. But stuff that would never happen in a million years all happened in one game. We lost PRIMARILY because of.....turnovers. And also because we failed to cash in opportunities.
3) 2012 Johnny Manziel
The part that gets forgotten here (by the ignorant press) is:
a) ATM rushed for 165 yards, and JM2 only had 92 of those - they had other backs
b) we had 3 turnovers and they had none
c) a play-calling sequence starting with first and goal at the end that defied common sense
4) 2013 Nick Marshall
Auburn rushed for nearly 300 yards against us. But what killed us mostly there was that Tre Mason got 164 by himself. Again, I'm not trying to take away from Marshall, and he played a good game against us that day - and Auburn wouldn't have won without his efforts. But...we lost because: a) Auburn had a GOOD running game; and b) we again failed to cash in opportunities in the red zone.
5) 2014 Cardale Jones
This example is going to be out there until the post-season is over. Unfortunately, even if we win, this same recited narrative will come up against next year. "Ohio State beat Alabama with a QB that was third string." True, but look at the box score a little closer:
a) Ohio State rushed for 281 yards against us, 230 from Zeke Elliott
b) Jones was just elusive enough to avoid a safety on a critical play in the game
c) we turned the ball over 3 times to their 2...and the last one was a pick six....we lost by 7
d) Ohio State averaged 6.7 yards per carry.
And that's the thing - if you can RUN on us, STOP our run, and beat us at turnovers.....you will win. (I hasten to add, however, that even Ohio State didn't exactly stop us rushing. We had twin guns in the backfield (TJ Yeldon and a not yet Heisman Derrick Henry) that.....well, I don't know what Kiffin was thinking. Henry only got 13 carries, and we threw the ball 36 times and ran 34...and Henry still had 95 yards in just those carries.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to the first Washington-Alabama game since Christmas Day thirty years ago (and yes, I remember it well).
Here are a couple of points so far:
1) Alabama has played six of the top 50 offenses, Washington four.
2) Alabama has also played six of the top 50 DEFENSES, Washington four.
3) Washington is VERY good at avoiding turnovers, they average less than one per game. They've turned it over 12 times and forced 33 turnovers.
4) We're pretty good at the turnover thing, too, but we make teams pay far more immediately for their indiscretions (as in pick sixes and fumble returns for TDs). This last is certainly not surprising.
My point is that all of those factors - softer schedule, better defenses and offenses (admittedly a sort of subpoint of the SOS) - indicate that 'close' stats aren't quite as close as they look.
I'm going to reiterate what I've said here a hundred times: you win football games by running the ball, stopping the run, and winning the turnover battle. Maybe our Husky readers here can tell us a little about the following games (and guys, anyone here can tell you my inquiry is serious - I'd love to know from those of you who watch them more often than I do; I've seen three of your games and am watching USC through this week):
Arizona - they were terrible record-wise, but they're the best RUSHING team the Huskies played. They average 235 per game and lit up Washington for 308 yards. The game went into overtime where Washington prevailed. Of course, part of that is because Arizona's rushing defense is nothing short of awful (82nd, down near Arkansas and ATM). The Huskies actually rushed for more yards than Arizona did (352).
What went on in this game? It appears Washington won in part because they won the turnover battle, 3-1. Ok, the game was in Arizona, and it's also possible that Washington was looking ahead to the next two games with Stanford and Oregon. I'll grant that. What's up guys?
Oregon - the Ducks average 226 yards per game and exceeded it by four yards. Yes, they lost by seven touchdowns. Washington ran all over them, too.....but then again, Oregon ranks 121st out of 128 teams in rushing defense; even if you subtracted the Huskies nailing them for nearly 400 yards, they'd still rank 113th.
Washington's rushing offense ranks 36th at 210 yards per game.
Who did Alabama play with rushing offenses better than Washington this year?
Auburn (278.5) - held to 66; however, I'll spot them a little here because Pettway was nowhere close to 100% that day. But even healthy he would not have accounted for an additional 200 yards.
Kentucky (241.3) - held to 72
LSU (238.1) - held to 33
Mississippi St (233.2) - held to 94
Texas A/M (217.5) - held to 114
On the flip side - in favor of Washington fwiw - we've only played one passing offense better than yours, Ole Miss...and that was the one close game we had this year.
But here's one that might give Husky fans pause - you've played ONE PASSING DEFENSE rated higher than Alabama this year, Colorado....and they're 1/2 yard per game less than Alabama.
They held your QB to a season low 118 yards and only nine completions. And it's those COMBINED STATS that cause a lot of our better informed fans to basically say, "If we play our game, you have no chance." If you can't run and can't pass.....there's not much else left. Rutgers has a highly rated passing defense, but that's only because they're 126th against the run and teams are trying to not run the score up on them. (This is one of those little areas where statistics have some truth AND some fiction).
But there's more....the next highest rated passing defense you've faced was Oregon State (#44). Browning lit them up for 291 yards, about eighty more than they average surrendering.
=======
I think Washington does have a chance here, but it's a tiny window. You'll need to win the turnover battle AND cash those in for scores. We've lost the turnover battle in most recent games (not including Florida), but it hasn't mattered because teams either cannot cash in or are so far behind it doesn't matter if they do.
Now, a note about something you're going to hear that is mostly poppycock. ESPN is going to have all kinds of ignorant announcers channeling their 'inner Gary Danielson' and saying, "you can beat Alabama if you have a mobile quarterback" and then they'll cite the same examples we've heard ad nauseum. Let me kindly remove that notion from being a factor, because it isn't. Let me go over the ones they talk about real quick here:
1) 2008 Florida - Tim Tebow
This shouldn't even count. That was Saban's second year and MOSTLY still Mike Shula's recruits. They always forget we led that game going into the fourth quarter despite having a name out of the phone book at quarterback and almost no offensive stars outside of Julio Jones (Mark Ingram had his coming out the next year). The simple truth is that Florida was a MUCH better team than we were that year, and we arrived early. Note that when we had another year, they never mention us pounding them so badly that Urban Meyer quit after having a heart attack.
2) 2010 Cam Newton
Cam Newton might have been the greatest all-around player in the history of the SEC. But for those who didn't see that game, it was the most bizarre defeat I've ever experienced as a Tide fan. But they didn't win because Cam was some awesome dual threat in that game - Alabama's Greg McElroy actually threw for almost 200 yards more than Cam despite the fact McElroy left the game with an injury with about six minutes left. And Cam only rushed for 39 yards on 22 attempts, not exactly stellar numbers. (Forgotten is that Auburn had minus 8 yards offense in the first quarter).
We lost this game because:
a) the most insane fumble you will ever see cost us a touchdown (or at least three for sure) from Mark Ingram
b) Trent Richardson dropped a wide open touchdown and we settled for three
c) we fumbled the ball at the Auburn 8 right before halftime and lost at least three more
There were other reasons, and Cam deserves credit as does Auburn for fighting on. But stuff that would never happen in a million years all happened in one game. We lost PRIMARILY because of.....turnovers. And also because we failed to cash in opportunities.
3) 2012 Johnny Manziel
The part that gets forgotten here (by the ignorant press) is:
a) ATM rushed for 165 yards, and JM2 only had 92 of those - they had other backs
b) we had 3 turnovers and they had none
c) a play-calling sequence starting with first and goal at the end that defied common sense
4) 2013 Nick Marshall
Auburn rushed for nearly 300 yards against us. But what killed us mostly there was that Tre Mason got 164 by himself. Again, I'm not trying to take away from Marshall, and he played a good game against us that day - and Auburn wouldn't have won without his efforts. But...we lost because: a) Auburn had a GOOD running game; and b) we again failed to cash in opportunities in the red zone.
5) 2014 Cardale Jones
This example is going to be out there until the post-season is over. Unfortunately, even if we win, this same recited narrative will come up against next year. "Ohio State beat Alabama with a QB that was third string." True, but look at the box score a little closer:
a) Ohio State rushed for 281 yards against us, 230 from Zeke Elliott
b) Jones was just elusive enough to avoid a safety on a critical play in the game
c) we turned the ball over 3 times to their 2...and the last one was a pick six....we lost by 7
d) Ohio State averaged 6.7 yards per carry.
And that's the thing - if you can RUN on us, STOP our run, and beat us at turnovers.....you will win. (I hasten to add, however, that even Ohio State didn't exactly stop us rushing. We had twin guns in the backfield (TJ Yeldon and a not yet Heisman Derrick Henry) that.....well, I don't know what Kiffin was thinking. Henry only got 13 carries, and we threw the ball 36 times and ran 34...and Henry still had 95 yards in just those carries.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to the first Washington-Alabama game since Christmas Day thirty years ago (and yes, I remember it well).