Stanford proves once again why Bama's defense/offense doesn't need an overhaul.

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,570
18,335
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
Stanford could easily be mistaken for an SEC team from a scheme standpoint. Their current HC and previous HC both implement pro style systems on both offense and defense (like we do).

After the aTm game there seemed to be a epic meltdown on the board about these high tempo offenses could only be stopped by going lighter across the board on defense and changing our offense to the fling it around high paced spread option.

Then came last night. Stanford ran for over 200 yards against Oregon. Ran a four man front for much of the game. They ran their offense, even turned the ball over a few times along the way, and held the vaunted, breath taking Oregon offense to 14 points.

The ONLY adjustment I see Saban needs to make on defense is to simplify his defense a bit so it doesn't require special packages for every other play. Keep the same philosophy, same aggressiveness, but simplify it a bit. Other than that it should be business as usual.

WE BACK IN IT BOYS!!!!! STRAP'UM ON CHICKEN BONE!!!!! "SO YOU'RE SAYIN' THERE'S A CHANCE?!!!!" ROOOOOOOOOOLL TIDE ROOOOOLL!!!! :biggrin2:
 

Ldlane

Hall of Fame
Nov 26, 2002
14,253
398
102
If you noticed though, Stanford didn't make "wholesale" substitutions with every package like we do. I think that is where the "tweaking" needs to be because it takes the fresh guys a bit of time to get up to game speed after they enter.
 

Ty Webb

Suspended
Feb 3, 2012
560
0
0
I didn't see anyone wanting to change our style of play due to the A&M game. I think we run the best offensive and defensive systems in college football. We are very similar to a number of pro teams on O and D.

If anything, I've seen people, and rightfully so, saying we should have used our #1 ranked OL and ran the ball down A&M's throats more, particularly inside the 7 on first down.

I think the A&M game was an example of Alabama not showing up ready to play, and A&M playing their best game of the year. It is as simple as that. If we showed up ready to play, I think we pound A&M by more than 3 TDs.
 

Hamilton

Suspended
Dec 5, 2002
2,080
1
0
Hamilton
bama.ua.edu
Stanford could easily be mistaken for an SEC team from a scheme standpoint. Their current HC and previous HC both implement pro style systems on both offense and defense (like we do).

After the aTm game there seemed to be a epic meltdown on the board about these high tempo offenses could only be stopped by going lighter across the board on defense and changing our offense to the fling it around high paced spread option.

Then came last night. Stanford ran for over 200 yards against Oregon. Ran a four man front for much of the game. They ran their offense, even turned the ball over a few times along the way, and held the vaunted, breath taking Oregon offense to 14 points.

The ONLY adjustment I see Saban needs to make on defense is to simplify his defense a bit so it doesn't require special packages for every other play. Keep the same philosophy, same aggressiveness, but simplify it a bit. Other than that it should be business as usual.

WE BACK IN IT BOYS!!!!! STRAP'UM ON CHICKEN BONE!!!!! "SO YOU'RE SAYIN' THERE'S A CHANCE?!!!!" ROOOOOOOOOOLL TIDE ROOOOOLL!!!! :biggrin2:
Key words...they "ran." We didn't during the a&m game when it really mattered, and we lost. The people who doubted our system in favor of that obnoxious video game style bs wouldn't be having their doubts if we had just done what made us great to begin with. Anyway...I'm glad Oregon got smacked in the mouth by Stanford because I hate their style of football.
 

Bruce014

1st Team
Aug 29, 2012
752
82
52
Alabama
The only "adjustment" needed is for the offense to enable the D to stay off the field.
If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying what I was thinking.
Our offense needs to stop these infuriating 3-and-outs.

Do that, "and the crowd are going wild!"
 

tide power fan

All-SEC
Nov 26, 2011
1,424
20
57
Why we didn't run it in, I think it's because we couldn't run when we needed like the yard and half we needed for a first down, before we settled for a field goal.
 

JDCrimson

Hall of Fame
Feb 12, 2006
5,346
4,417
187
51
Yeah, Stanford stayed committed to the run deep into the 4th quarter, which is what we failed to do last week. However, after watching both games, I will say that Texas A&M is a much more physical and dynamic team than Oregon. I believe in a head-to-head matchup that Texas A&M would beat Oregon.

While I think the scheme is worthy, I think Oregon has taken it too far to the extreme. That could be seen last night. They are too lean on the LOS of scrimmage. Stanford simply abused them at the point of attack. Texas A&M is much more physical on the LOS.

Last night was a textbook example of how to beat teams of this ilk, run the ball about 60-65% of the time while on defense play contain with the DEs on the outside and collapse the interior line with heavy pressure and blitzes. You also need to limit defensive substitutions and win first down.
 

RTR91

Super Moderator
Nov 23, 2007
39,407
6
0
Prattville
Key words...they "ran." We didn't during the a&m game when it really mattered, and we lost. The people who doubted our system in favor of that obnoxious video game style bs wouldn't be having their doubts if we had just done what made us great to begin with. Anyway...I'm glad Oregon got smacked in the mouth by Stanford because I hate their style of football.
It's not about Bama running or passing. It's about execution. Execute the play call and no one is going to crow about what should have been done, what would have happened, and what could have been.

I think Bama and Stanford differ in DL size. Their DL looked smaller and quicker than Bama's. Add their familiarity with Oregon's offense and you get a D knowing what to do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk, so my post may not be what I typed thanks to auto correct. Also, I may need an emoticon but cannot use one in this post.
 

rgw

Suspended
Sep 15, 2003
20,852
1,351
232
Tuscaloosa
Saban himself said that he thought looking for slightly smaller more versatile "every down" type defenders. He noted that a lot of what we do is built off personnel substitutions but the tempo no-huddle nullifies what we do to a degree. For example, our third-down type front seven guys getting stuck on the field in defensive situations they haven't really been coached up to execute or simply can't physically execute. Saban seems to agree that we need to find more guys who can play every down in the front seven so we don't have to play so much by personnel which is really the biggest factor of confusion against the no-huddle.
 

BamaJama17

Hall of Fame
Sep 17, 2006
16,365
8
47
34
Hoover, AL
The ONLY adjustment I see Saban needs to make on defense is to simplify his defense a bit so it doesn't require special packages for every other play. Keep the same philosophy, same aggressiveness, but simplify it a bit. Other than that it should be business as usual.
BINGO!!! Nick Saban and Kirby Smart get payed a lot of money to make these adjustments and I have no doubt they will!!! RTR!!!
 

Alasippi

Suspended
Aug 31, 2007
12,875
2
57
Ocean Springs, MS
It doesn't hurt that Stanford's defensive linemen have the ability to pressure the QB without the aid of a blitz being called.
This allows the cover guys to stay in position and to offer additional run support.
That's one area where we lack just a bit.
That being said I'll follow up with this. Of all the teams I've seen outside the SEC, Stanford is by far the most physical team.
Oregon is outstanding but Stanford simply wore them down and out. I'm SO glad they did. :)
RTR!
sip
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,500
46,843
187
I agree with the principle of the discussion - great defense and a balanced offense produce champions. But even Saban has admitted that he may need to look at bringing in a slightly different player to deal with an offense like that fielded by aTm & Oregon. The specialists that Saban's program produces sometimes create match-up problems when you can't substitute situationally.
 

RammerJammer14

Hall of Fame
Aug 18, 2007
14,511
6,521
187
UA
I disagree, we have run way too much shotgun lately instead of the 1-back Stanford used most of the time. ;)


Seriously though, I wonder how different our offense would have looked this year if Fowler hadn't gotten injured. I loved the look we gave with him in the Michigan game, it looked very promising. I think we would have had a much more power-oriented offense this season. Can't wait to have him back next season. Speaking of which, I hear we picked up a commitment from a Derrick Henry who seems to have the same build as Fowler. Just an aside.
 

JeffAtlanta

All-American
Aug 21, 2007
2,131
0
0
Atlanta, GA (Buckhead)
It doesn't hurt that Stanford's defensive linemen have the ability to pressure the QB without the aid of a blitz being called.
This allows the cover guys to stay in position and to offer additional run support.
That's one area where we lack just a bit.
That's a great point and it may relate to BamaBuzzard's notion about simplifying the defense in certain situations. I wonder if we have some talented pass rushers that don't see the field because they haven't picked up the some of the defense.

Hopefully we have a Charles Haley waiting in the wings. :)
 

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,570
18,335
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
If you noticed though, Stanford didn't make "wholesale" substitutions with every package like we do. I think that is where the "tweaking" needs to be because it takes the fresh guys a bit of time to get up to game speed after they enter.
I think I mentioned that in my post.

The ONLY adjustment I see Saban needs to make on defense is to simplify his defense a bit so it doesn't require special packages for every other play. Keep the same philosophy, same aggressiveness, but simplify it a bit. Other than that it should be business as usual.
 

tidefan26

1st Team
Dec 5, 2005
511
20
42
43
South Alabama
I haven't seen mention that aTm has two possible first round picks at LT and RT. Veteran receivers, and their interior lineman weren't too bad either. To think we need an "overhaul" on either side of the ball after just getting beat, is naive. We ran into a veteran team with a hot QB. It's not the first time, won't be the last.
 

rgw

Suspended
Sep 15, 2003
20,852
1,351
232
Tuscaloosa
We don't need an overhaul, but just some tweaks. Saban thinks so himself...we need more guys who we can trust in all situations out there instead of being so situation-based in our personnel. The tempo no-huddles are going to force our hand. It may mean getting a little smaller at SDE, Jack LB, and ILB so we can hold up against pass and run situations without compromising much. It may mean a smaller nose tackle too...a 3-down guy.

The scheme will stay the same but the personnel may need some more versatility.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.