JessN: LSU wrap-up: Whether system or players, Alabama just didn’t have what it needed

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,556
18,298
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
I addressed the bolded section above in the original analysis. Yes, Alabama did get off the mat in the second half and for that it should be commended.

I'm talking about the bigger picture of flailing against top teams. This has become a trend. The defense has not controlled any of Alabama's last four games that meant anything (LSU '19, Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia). In those four games, you had two teams get big leads in the first half, another (OU) outscored Alabama 34-24 in the final three quarters (side note: I *hate* "won the second half/won the last quarter" stuff because it's not always relevant, but I'll walk through that door you opened just this once) and in the fourth game, we're down two scores and only Jalen Hurts turning into Superman won that game, with UGA still throwing into the end zone on the final play.

Point being, the recruiting has been too good for this to be happening, unless the guys we're signing really aren't that good and they're just getting the "Bama bump" from recruiting services that rival fans always accuse us of getting. Or, they're not being developed. Or, the scheme is a bad fit (I'm about to respond to Major 42's post and will expound on that thought more there).

And remember, three of those games I just listed involved Quinnen Williams, Dylan Moses and Mack Wilson on the field. It's not just a 2019 problem.

Are we making too much of a single loss? Maybe, but the system is what it is and if you don't go undefeated every year, your path to a championship is difficult (and really, that's all we play for around here, spoiled as we may be).
What makes a coach "good"? What makes a coach "great"? IMO, what separates good and great coaches from average and bad coaches isn't how they do when they've got the best talent on the field, everybody's healthy and everything is stacked in their favor. It's how they do when those conditions don't exist. When "you" don't have the best players on the field, can you get your guys to play above their talent and experience level? That to me is what separates good/great coaching from average coaching. However, I will disclose and have disclosed in other threads that it does get to a point that injuries and lack of experience etc can't be overcome and you just have what you have. But it's not an either or. It's not that simple. I think our DC gets a pass to some degree because of the injuries and having to play youth etc., but not a 100%. I'm sorry, I've been involved in sports too long to accept that across the board. For several years now it's been discussed AND pointed out in your analysis that we have a development problem with some areas of our team that points to coaching. Whether it be on the Oline, FG kicking, DL etc. This isn't something new. Saturday, yes there were times it was obvious the busted coverage or mistakes were player related. But then there were a lot of times that it wasn't a mistake by the players, but rather a simple case of our DC being out schemed by the other team's OC. Hell, Danielson pointed out several times the play LSU ran was the perfect play for the defensive alignment we showed them. It didn't matter which players we had on the field in those cases. Their play selection was superior to our defensive play selection. Which tells me they knew our tendencies more than we knew theirs. Sounds a lot like the Clemson game.

But I will end on this, we don't need any more turnover at DC or any other coordinator position. I hope Golding is retained as well as Sark. We NEED stability. We also need for coaches to put as much emphasis on THEIR development and improvement as the players. Because when that happens, the players' development improves as well.
 
Last edited:

gtgilbert

All-American
Aug 12, 2011
3,163
4,022
187
Two truisms about football ...

1) Innovation happens first on offense, defenses adjust, and then offenses have to find the next plan/scheme;
2) Defensive base formations swing back and forth between 3-4 and 4-3 base every 5-10 years.

When Saban took over at Alabama, I think there was one other team running a 3-4 (Vanderbilt, maybe?) and what I remember was they weren't running a flexible over/under version. Everybody was packing DL and trying to crash the corners. Heck, if anyone remembers the MTSU game Freddie Roach's freshman year, they were still running a 4-4 stack. Three DBs in a modern college defense! I can't imagine that today.

Flash ahead to 2007, and everyone had the same LB system: A big ILB that could plug the A-gaps and then a couple of smaller guys outside. Alabama had been a 4-3 team under Kines forever but in late 2005 and for much of 2006, started to transition to a 3-3-5 almost out of necessity because we didn't have the numbers at DT. Matt Collins was the MLB and played fairly well for a walk-on in the SEC.

Well, first thing Saban did with Collins was move him to DE, and aside from A-Day I don't think he ever played again. Going from a starter at MLB to fourth-team DE was a big move for sure. Guys like Terrence Jones and Demarcus Waldrop would never have played in those early Saban defenses because his OLBs were flex ILBs that could play DE (Dont'a Hightower was probably the archtype). Jones and Waldrop were hybrid rovers. We were so small as a defense in those years. Kines at least knew to combine it with "opposite-shoulder" DL technique he stole from the 80s Miami Hurricane program. It was unconventional but it worked enough to cover up all those holes we had due to probation and erratic recruiting. Kines will never get the credit he deserves for holding things together while everything around him and his defense was going to hell in a handbasket.

What's interesting about Carroll is it wasn't too many years ago that most of his sub packages started to have a 3-man base front look to them. Now he's moved back to a four-man front and a lot of other teams are going that way.

In the SEC, the team that's been the most consistent about playing that style is Mississippi State. Even Auburn is based out of the 3-4 over/under that Steele took from Saban, but they have stayed in 4-2-5 nickel for a lot of the year because the LBs have issues. MSU has put up fantastic results (by MSU standards) for years but when they don't have a bull at MLB, it shows. The other advantage to the modern 4-3 is that if your WLB goes down, generally the SLB can swap over and play that spot, too. In the 3-4 over/under, if your WLB goes down you have to hope your MLB is athletic enough to move outside, because Saban "cheats" on his SLB and JLB body type; they're basically small DEs.

Around 2016-2017, all but one or two SEC teams had moved to some variant of the 3-4 over/under. It will be interesting to see if some move back. If they do, maybe that helps Alabama because it takes some competition for a 3-front NT off the board during recruiting season.

When Saban lacks a boomer at MLB, a star at WLB and a dynamic, dual-role T playing nose, the defenses struggle. We were only going to have one of those this year anyway (Moses), and he's hurt.

Schematically, anyone who reads my evals knows we've talked about the soft part of a Saban defense (passes to the middle of the field over the ILBs) for years. It's just as much a weakness now as it has ever been, if not worse, because there's no C.J. Mosley running around out there with recovery speed to burn. I was hoping Christian Harris, with his background as a safety and WR in high school, would be that guy this year. It hasn't come to pass.
The reality, though, is that we don't really run the 3-4 over/under much at all. I haven't plotted it out this year, but across 2017 and 2018 we only ran that alignment between 15-20% of the time. Our real base defense is the nickel, and we even run dime more often than we run the 3-4.

Our nickel package varies a little bit depending on how you view our players, but nominally by position it's more often a 3-3-5 and sometimes a 2-4-5. That said, I don't think the positions they are listed as on the roster really matters. Basically we have edge guys, inside guys, and true standup, behind the Dl linebackers. We have had tweaners in the past - guys who could play edge, but also play some inside. Ray would have been that guy this year. most often we would have one edge be nominally an OLB and one was a DE. This year more often than not our edge guys are both OLBs, but I think that is only because we don't really have a DL who is great at that role with Ray out. Others have flashed, but none to the degree it would be worth taking either Jennings or Lewis out of the game. As you said, they are basically DE's who are just a shade smaller and more agile than we'd expect from a pure DE.

Our inside guys can either be 'bigger' of the DE types or a DT/NT, but really they operate more like a true 4 man front DT than anything else.

At LB, there's not really that much of a difference between the two, other than one calling plays, which is why we see guys tend to get their first reps at will early, but then move over to Mike as they gain more experience and are able to make the calls. This is probably the biggest rub in that against the modern offenses, it might make more sense to have pure mike / will roles where we target guys who are just a little lighter and faster and try to get them to stay that way at Will, versus the Mike who still needs coverage ability, but not to the same degree.

All that to say, the scheme has certainly evolved significantly as has the player type we typically look for.

IMHO, our biggest issue has been recruiting at ILB - as you mentioned, for our defense to work well, we need studs in these roles. Really since 2017 with Moses, we've not gotten any of our top targets and they have all landed at other SEC schools we compete against. in 2018 we basically whiffed entirely on that position - yes we got Kaho late in the game, but we also knew he was a project since he'd dropped so much weight and he's still not completely physically ready for SEC play as an LB. We missed on Walker, Peterson and I think one more. In 19 we wanted harris and got him, but knew he was going to take time to develop (that he didn't get) and Lee, but we all know the real targets were Dean, Pappoe and To'o To'o who were all more game and scheme ready. We've got to get this back on track to get the defense where we want it to go...
 

CrimsonProf

Hall of Fame
Dec 30, 2006
5,716
69
67
Birmingham, Alabama
I'm not convinced that our scheme is the problem, though sometimes we would do well to just cut our guys loose.

I can't ignore the injuries, the early departures, and the coaching turnover. Part of what makes the best defenses what they are right now is a very stable coaching staff. We've not had that for a variety of reasons over the years, but I feel like we're in a late-stage capitalism sort of situation where the problems are legion, and the solutions are hard to come by. A thing keeps going until it stops. Maybe that's where we are right now.

"Nothing lasts forever, that's the way it's gotta be..."

 

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,556
18,298
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
The entire scheme may not be the problem. But the weakness in the scheme has been known since the Sugar Bowl loss to Utah. The weakness/soft spot in Saban's defense is the middle of the field. The problem has been having the time, space in the pocket and the quarterback with the skills to get it there. The quarterbacks since 2008 have gotten better and better and better. More teams have good quarterbacks than years ago. Highschools are running more passing offenses than ever, kids are getting private lessons and going to "passing schools" more than ever. The evolution of the offenses make it easier to expose the soft spot in Saban's scheme. Something has to give. We either have to get back to having dominant inside rushers or there needs to be a "tweak" in the scheme to address the middle of the field. Something has to happen or we're going to continue to get lit up by teams with good passing games.





I'm not convinced that our scheme is the problem, though sometimes we would do well to just cut our guys loose.

I can't ignore the injuries, the early departures, and the coaching turnover. Part of what makes the best defenses what they are right now is a very stable coaching staff. We've not had that for a variety of reasons over the years, but I feel like we're in a late-stage capitalism sort of situation where the problems are legion, and the solutions are hard to come by. A thing keeps going until it stops. Maybe that's where we are right now.

"Nothing lasts forever, that's the way it's gotta be..."

 

editder

All-SEC
Nov 2, 2017
1,536
1,654
182
Nice write up, Jess.

Glad our team fought back in the 2nd half and made it respectable.

I know our defense is not great, but I think 3-4 major plays sealed the game for LSU: Tua's fumble early, Tua's interception/and the disaster with 26 seconds until the half, and our defense not getting that last stop on Burrow.

I thought this year would be the best shot for Bama to win another National Championship for awhile, but it looks like unless chaos happens, Bama will be in a bowl game instead. If that happens, will the team be motivated to win, or will it be like the last 2 times Bama played in a regular bowl game? I do not want to play Oklahoma if that happens !

I still cannot understand why for the 2nd big game in a row where it really matters, our coordinators were out coached, at least in the first half. We still almost won.... that is amazing. I am proud of the team for their grit and determination to try to come back. Tua was amazing in the 2nd half. Too bad the onside kick did not work.....

I hope we can keep the recruits we are after, especially Bryce Young. Rumor is LSU has a silent QB commit for next year. I assume it will be King from Houston or someone similar. Surely, not Bryce. I do know their QBs on the current roster will probably not start next year.

I think I will pull for Ohio State to win it all over LSU or Clemson, if Bama does not make the playoffs. I don't want LSU to win it and I don't want Dabo trying to catch up with Saban.
At least equally important as giving up the first down to Burrows at the end of the game was the failure to stop them on third and a hundred when their RB dragged Diggs and ? Five yards for a first down. They were going to have to punt and the momentum had swung our way. That was a back breaker.
 

JessN

Administrator & Editor-in-Chief
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
6,269
3,827
432
The reality, though, is that we don't really run the 3-4 over/under much at all. I haven't plotted it out this year, but across 2017 and 2018 we only ran that alignment between 15-20% of the time. Our real base defense is the nickel, and we even run dime more often than we run the 3-4.

Our nickel package varies a little bit depending on how you view our players, but nominally by position it's more often a 3-3-5 and sometimes a 2-4-5. That said, I don't think the positions they are listed as on the roster really matters. Basically we have edge guys, inside guys, and true standup, behind the Dl linebackers. We have had tweaners in the past - guys who could play edge, but also play some inside. Ray would have been that guy this year. most often we would have one edge be nominally an OLB and one was a DE. This year more often than not our edge guys are both OLBs, but I think that is only because we don't really have a DL who is great at that role with Ray out. Others have flashed, but none to the degree it would be worth taking either Jennings or Lewis out of the game. As you said, they are basically DE's who are just a shade smaller and more agile than we'd expect from a pure DE.

Our inside guys can either be 'bigger' of the DE types or a DT/NT, but really they operate more like a true 4 man front DT than anything else.

At LB, there's not really that much of a difference between the two, other than one calling plays, which is why we see guys tend to get their first reps at will early, but then move over to Mike as they gain more experience and are able to make the calls. This is probably the biggest rub in that against the modern offenses, it might make more sense to have pure mike / will roles where we target guys who are just a little lighter and faster and try to get them to stay that way at Will, versus the Mike who still needs coverage ability, but not to the same degree.

All that to say, the scheme has certainly evolved significantly as has the player type we typically look for.

IMHO, our biggest issue has been recruiting at ILB - as you mentioned, for our defense to work well, we need studs in these roles. Really since 2017 with Moses, we've not gotten any of our top targets and they have all landed at other SEC schools we compete against. in 2018 we basically whiffed entirely on that position - yes we got Kaho late in the game, but we also knew he was a project since he'd dropped so much weight and he's still not completely physically ready for SEC play as an LB. We missed on Walker, Peterson and I think one more. In 19 we wanted harris and got him, but knew he was going to take time to develop (that he didn't get) and Lee, but we all know the real targets were Dean, Pappoe and To'o To'o who were all more game and scheme ready. We've got to get this back on track to get the defense where we want it to go...
In regards to the 3-4 over/under terminology, I don't know that we've been in base this year at all other than around the goal line and a handful of short-yardage plays. Running only four DBs in a modern college defense is now considered a situational package. What I meant more was our approach to how we utilize over/under concepts when we switch to nickel and dime, and the personnel that gets left on the field in those situations, rather than how a pure 4-3 team like MSU deploys (especially) DL in those situations.

Our most common alignment if you want to compare personnel to the positions they're listed as on the roster, is probably the 3-3-5. Dale/Barmore at NT, R.Davis at SDE, Young/Eboigbe/(rarely)Mathis at WDE. Jennings' development in pursuit has allowed us to keep him standing up.

Against LSU we ran a lot of 3-2-6 with Lewis lining up at what was essentially WLB. In those cases, Jennings' hand goes down. We also run a lot of 4-1-6 (or really, 2-3-6 with Lewis/Jennings at DE and Benton at MLB). The issue at the moment is guys like McClain and Hightower could legitimately play both LB and DE. So could Upshaw. Lewis and Jennings do OK with it but they're not those guys. We also don't have an ILB like Mosley that can take the place of the dime safety when needed. We've got a lot of guys who are really one-role players and can't be stretched. Jennings is probably the most versatile of that bunch right now.

Also, we have to account for how offenses have changed even since Mosley's time here. Back then, you really could put people in three buckets: standard pro-set (UA, LSU, UGA, etc.), spread-option (UF, OSU, MSU, etc.), and what I could best call "Big 12 spread," meaning more or less all of the Big 12, any decent team in the Group of Five, UK, etc. What LSU is doing now is something really different. It comes out of that pro-set/spread meld that Alabama went hard into with Kiffin and later, Locksley, and basically they've got multiple options for the defensive personnel on the field and then change the outcome based on how the defense shows pre-snap. That sounds simple but it's a little more complex than that; it's sort of an audible system on steroids. The only real way to defeat it is if you can either overwhelm their OL (which Auburn did the best job of so far) or if you have multiple defenders that can fill multiple roles. They're also not afraid to run a sub-optimal (from a running standpoint) QB as a designed running back on draws. If LSU ever got its hands on a Tua (or even a Jalen) it would be an uglier scenario than it is now. Saban mentioned how LSU loads/unloads the formation pre-snap to create mismatches; we do a lot of that but I think their post-look audible system is better than ours.

The result is either the defensive system we run is showing too much in the pre-snap look period, the personnel is not capable of covering more than one area of responsibility, or some combination thereof that requires us to be more nimble in responding to the load/unload shift (and what that does to your defense afterward).
 

The Ols

Hall of Fame
Jul 8, 2012
5,136
5,724
187
Cumming,Ga.
Family board..Terrible first post....Clean it up and come back and visit..RTR!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

USCBAMA

All-SEC
Sep 21, 2001
1,860
105
182
Columbia, SC, Richland
Jess spot on on the second quarter ... but apart from that this game had no resemblance of the Clemson game which we never climbed back into ... this is how College football is played since “basketball on grass” has taken over the sport, it’s main effect is to confuse and wear out the opposing defense. It works... there are no dominant defenses anywhere in the sport at least of the top their teams... you fail to mention that LSU the victor in this game gave up over 500 yards as well and was helped immensely by our miscues, and an officiating crew that will be appearing in an upcoming video entitled “3 Blind Mice”... officiating did not cause our loss but it contributed in the the second quarter of the game on a critical third down pass ruled a catch after the receiver on his own went out of bounds not forced out like the excuse used so that it wasn’t reviewable... that is seven points of the 20 we gave up. Should we win out and a few of the top teams stumble we might see a rematch of tonight but the clincher is we will have to win in Barner stadium where nothing has been legally won by the barn an probably by the same dumb officiating crew we saw tonight. Just a side note LSU won the first half by a score of 33-13, in the second half we won 28 -13... the defense must have been somewhere on the field to hold them to 13 because Orgeron would have won by 100 if he could. Feel like the Clemson game not even close for me... Felt like a close loss to a great team with a bozo for a head coach instead of a beat down by a great team with “Opie” for a head coach.
The only real difference is that Clemson had a much better defense than LSU, making a potential comeback less likely.
 

Ole Man Dan

Hall of Fame
Apr 21, 2008
8,982
3,421
187
Gadsden, Al.
We have gone over the various sets teams use and the advantages they are trying to gain.
Even with our Defense that everyone knows now...
We would have beat LSU if our guys had made wrap em up tackles,
and if a Referee had glasses.

I do agree we have played at a disadvantage when injuries hit hard on our Defense. We find ourselves in a quandary.
We are one of the better teams in the country, but our Defense is held back by not having enough quality depth to play our Defense the way it could dominate.
Maybe somebody at a meeting should have mentioned tweaking our Defense to fit the guys we have. Not everybody is suited to play multiple positions.
Different skill levels, different athletic abilities, different body types, ect...

All that aside...
The middle of the field has been one of our biggest weaknesses.
We have allowed runs up the middle, passes to the middle ect...
Regardless of the Defensive line ups, hash mark to hash mark has been where teams attack us. (If they are good teams)
We need that fixed asap.
 

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.