http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/19203858/never-get-last-second-loss-clemson
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What does that mean?Welp, goodbye college football as we know it.
The most talented team almost always wins if they impose their will. MTAQ!I think it is pretty clear that we're going back to controlling the possession instead of being a shots-based offense with a lot of stalled drives due to aggressive first down playcalls. You can kinda hear it in his quotes...
Which means we better appreciate what Bama has won these past 8 years even more. Nothing no matter how good you are is ever guaranteed just ask the 2007 Patriots.The most talented team almost always wins if they impose their will. MTAQ!
If we impose our will offensively, regardless as to what the offense looks like, we'll likely break school scoring records. Just have to have the OL and play-calling to make it happen...The pinnacle of offensive domination was 2012. That is the way coach wants to play and we are going to try to recreate that style.
It was happening last season to some degree with Henry and Coker. That LSU game was classic Bama in the 2nd half. Still "Shots" based, like has been said but we were able to "grind" a bit more. At least it felt that way.If we impose our will offensively, regardless as to what the offense looks like, we'll likely break school scoring records. Just have to have the OL and play-calling to make it happen...
As he did after the game in January, Saban downplayed the impact of changing offensive coordinators the week of the championship game. Steve Sarkisian, who had been an offensive analyst all season for the Tide, stepped in to call plays for Lane Kiffin after Kiffin was named the Florida Atlantic head coach. Kiffin stayed on as Alabama's offensive coordinator through the Washington game, but Saban felt like it was too cumbersome all the way around for Kiffin to juggle his FAU head coaching duties and Alabama offensive coordinator duties.
"We scored more points in that game against a better defense than we did the first playoff game," Saban said. "We really scored 17 against Washington (not counting a defensive touchdown). At the end of the day, we played 80 plays of defense and gave up 14 points, and Clemson scored three times in the fourth quarter. So, what's that have to do with the offensive coordinator? Now, if we had kept the ball more on offense, maybe there wouldn't have been the pressure on the defense in the end or whatever, but we just didn't do the things we needed to do to win that game.
"Look, having to make the change probably wasn't helpful, but it was better than the alternative and that wasn't my fault. It's unfortunate, but it is what it is."
Coach Saban, probably:Seek, kill and destroy. Death is coming and it's painted Crimson and White JACK!!!!
Two weeks ago, Saban was asked about using 12 personnel during a press conference. His answer indicated the offense is still going to be spread across the field at times. Link at time of questionInteresting insight into the impact of changing the OC during the time between UDub and Clemson.
Also dissatisfaction with the "shot-based" philosophy. Which I take to mean emphasis on scoring with quick big plays, as opposed to drives and TOP.
In combination with comments from other recent interviews around lack of development in Jalen's passing abilities, I think we're getting a peek behind the curtain into some of the rumored friction between Saban and Kiffin.
If you listen to what Saban says, and often what he doesn't say, he makes a lot of information public.
This has me curious if we had that success because of the play calling or spreading teams out like Saban suggested in his answer.In 2016, an offense that based primarily out of a three wide receiver set posted 51 plays of 30 yards or more from scrimmage, a total that ranked second in FBS.
Are you taking that as a subtle (not so subtle) dig at Kiffin?Anyone pick up on this?
"Something happened." But what?Something happened to our team from the SEC championship game to the playoff. You look at the Clemson game, and our really good players didn't play very well.
I really don't believe CNS doesn't know (or have a dang good idea at least) what went wrong. Saying "it's on me" is fine but it is also a dodge from telling more what he really thinks."If you had asked me if that team makes it to the championship game in September, I would have said probably not because of the quarterback (Jalen Hurts) being a true freshman," Saban said. "But after we got there, I felt like if we had played to our strengths as a team, we would win. But we didn't play to our strengths, and that's my fault. That's the part that's hard to get over.
"I didn't do a good job, whether it was keeping the team focused, making sure the team took the ownership they needed to take in those games ... whatever. I don't know what it was. But I do know it's on me, and we'll go on and all learn from it."
You left out the biggest quote:Are you taking that as a subtle (not so subtle) dig at Kiffin?
I noticed there were at least two times when coach basically said he didn't know what happened.
"Something happened." But what?
And this one:
I really don't believe CNS doesn't know (or have a dang good idea at least) what went wrong. Saying "it's on me" is fine but it is also a dodge from telling more what he really thinks.
I found "didn't play to our strengths" telling. Normally CNS says something like, "We didn't play up to our potential" or "We didn't execute." But to say "we didn't play to our strengths" makes it sound like it was a game plan problem, and especially an offensive game plan problem.
"Look, having to make the change probably wasn't helpful, but it was better than the alternative and that wasn't my fault. It's unfortunate, but it is what it is."