CFN: "SEC: “Sometimes Evidence Contradicts”... on Offense and Defense" (link)

[TiderinMiss]

CFN: "SEC: “Sometimes Evidence Contradicts”... on Offense and Defense" (link)

Weekly Affirmations

When assessing the measure of greatness in anything, you have to weigh that greatness against its opposing force. In football, then, a truly great defense is a unit that will contain a truly great offense. Great defenses, up against lousy offenses, will merely make it look easy. That’s what happened in Tuscaloosa on Saturday. You did have two great defenses on the field, but the very fact that they were so rarely threatened (and that when they were threatened, the offenses fouled up) attests to the paucity of good offense on display....

However...

However, the fact still stands that Croyle overthrew wide-open receivers on deep balls that would have produced touchdowns. The fact still stands that Keith Brown (like a Tennessee counterpart) dropped a 4th down pass that would have converted a first down. The fact still stands that Alabama, despite good coaching and scheming from Mike Shula (who continues to be very underappreciated in the larger scheme of things; he put his players in position to make plays, and the job he’s done in Tuscaloosa just can’t be praised enough), missed plenty of opportunities on Saturday to put the Vols in a hole.

 

[jblackb042]

This is just some Pac-10 homer who is jealous because his joke of a conference when it comes to defense and can't stand hearing how the south (the football capital of the world) has great defense and DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS.

 

[tidefan23]

This is just some Pac-10 homer who is jealous because his joke of a conference when it comes to defense and can't stand hearing how the south (the football capital of the world) has great defense and DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS.

You thought UT's offense was great? Bama's? He didn't deny that our defense was great.

 

[GulfCoastTider]

The evidence contradicts, Blah, blah, blah... The pick in our feature game of the weak was DEAD WRONG, but blah, blah, blah... Greatness must be measured blah, blah, blah...

let him know what you think: mzemek@hotmail.com

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Weird...

He maintains that Harper'***** shouldn't have caused the fumble, and yet it caused the ball to squirt all the way across the end zone and out...

 

[bamahuey1]

I thought this was a poorly written article with very little substance. Way too fluffy IMO. I guess we'll just have to wait until the bowl games to see how the SEC defenses fare against the other conferences. Hopefully, we'll shut 'em up.

 

[Vertical]

Valid point, but methinks he doth protest too much. He seems to have a vested interest in downplaying both the offenses and defense in the SEC. He flatly states that a score of 17-13 would have been evidence of a great game, but not 6-3. He uses the low score as evidence that our offenses are duds, yet all it truly is a measure of is that our defenses were better than the opposing offenses. While he goes on a tirade about anyone believing that it may mean that the defenses are just that good, he fails to realize that his obsessive insistance that they aren't is just as equally based on the unsubstantiated nothingness that he faults Kirk and Rece for! He's essentially a hypocrit. With a hotmail address. That right there tells me all I need to know about this guy.

 

[Tide64]

I don't know what his point is with the comments about Harpers hit, but the rest seems pretty valid. Can anyone name a really good offense in the SEC this year? I can't. Bama has shown the possibility of one, but it is inconsistent. I believe that the SEC has some great defenses, but until one of them actually shuts down a "good" offense, why should anyone across the country see them that way?

Everyone loses their mind when they think the SEC is being disrespected. Please tell me which team in the SEC has a really good offense this season.

 

[LegionField]

uuhhhhhhh........Notre Dame...

Oh wait they are not in the SEC, how about USC....AHHH!!! They aren't in the SEC either. I guess your point is valid..

 

[Tide64]

Others have the same opinion of SEC offenses and defenses...

”Just because one thing is cool, doesn’t mean that something else doesn’t suck.” … Yes, it is possible that the SEC defenses really are that good and SEC offenses really are that bad.

 

[nasatidefan]

He failed to mention...

That Bama on a decent day offensively could hang 30 on USC's defense and there's no way USC hangs 30 on our defense.

I've got a good feeling about this season and this team. These guys have a ton of pride and heart and will find ways to win, just as they have so far. I say we all just sit back and enjoy the ride, it's gonna be fun to watch the media and others squirm around the Tide all year till they have to eat their words.

ROLL TIDE ROLL!! All the way to the Rose Bowl!

 

[markenk]

Perfect example of someone who writes up an article completely based on the box score without actually having to watch the game... That's what I think.

 

[BamaPokerplayer]

The only gripe I really have is when a pac 10 game is 45-44 it is all about how great the O is. It is never about have bad the d is miss tackles etc....

 

[trenda]

He maintains that Harper'***** shouldn't have caused the fumble, and yet it caused the ball to squirt all the way across the end zone and out...

Actually, he contradicts himself.

But Cory Anderson’s fumble caused by Roman Harper was not such a play. Anderson is huge, and Harper—while getting his hat on the ball—did not deliver a level of force that should have caused the burly Anderson (for whom ball security was priority number one on a play that would have set up a chip-shot, go-ahead field goal for the Vols) to cough up the pill.

This guy can't even decide if Harper caused the fumble or not!

 

[Vertical]

I don't know what his point is with the comments about Harpers hit, but the rest seems pretty valid. Can anyone name a really good offense in the SEC this year? I can't. Bama has shown the possibility of one, but it is inconsistent. I believe that the SEC has some great defenses, but until one of them actually shuts down a "good" offense, why should anyone across the country see them that way?

Everyone loses their mind when they think the SEC is being disrespected. Please tell me which team in the SEC has a really good offense this season.

But you see, he is completely ignoring the other side of the coin. Everyone is convinced that USC's offense is incredible. But what truly good defense have they played? Hmm? Obviously, if USC scored tons of points on them, they weren't a "great" defense, by this guy's standards. So, according to him, USC has not played a truly great defense. Therefore, again, according to his logic, it is premature and unsubstantiated to say that USC's offense is 'that great'.

But you know what? It is that great. I don't have to see USC play an amazing defense to know that their offense is incredible, just like I don't have to see Alabama's defense play an amazing offense to know that our defense is incredible. Just by watching the games, you can tell. That's the intangible part of this whole equation that this guy is missing.

If Alabama played USC and we held USC to 7 points, this guy would then proclaim that our defense was amazing. But then at that same time, USC's offense would have to be called 'not that great', because they were stopped! So, instantly, Alabama's defense can then be called 'not that great' because they were able to hold USC to a low score, so obviously their offense wasn't that potent. You see the catch-22 here?

USC, by this guy's logic, has not played a good defense. Thus, you can't say they have a great offense.

And we can all see the problem with that logic, can't we? Alabama's defense may not have played an offense as potent as USC's yet, but USC offense has not played a defense as potent as Alabama's yet. USC's offensive reputation has been built preying on weaker defenses, yet no one writes a huge article about that. Alabama's defensive reputation has been built preying on weaker offenses, but this guy chooses to rail on and on about that? Why? I wonder!

 

[bobstod]

Harper'*****: "...did not deliver a level of force that should have ..."

I guess this guy gets paid to deliver opinions, but I would think that would obligate him to base his opinions on some level of empirical fact.

Let's review here: Roman Harper delivered a blow to a runner who knew that his first priority was NOT TO FUMBLE. At impact, the ball was ejected so forcibly that it shot more than thirteen yards across the end zone.

What other force was at work here?

I know it's October, but ghosts and goblins seldom affect the outcomes of football games.

Conclusion: This guy is a windbag... :biggrin:

 

[gator]

Seems like you are giving too much attention to a poorly written article. Will not knock AL's D but will not go as far to knock USC's O either. I have not seen a top offense out of the SEC so far this year and think the conference is down. On the other hand, I think there are more quality D's than in recent years. As several have mentioned, I look forward to seeing how we fare in the bowls. I don't think we have performed up to par with our out of conference games to this point.

 

[bama9586]

ttt

 

[oskie]

... With a hotmail address. That right there tells me all I need to know about this guy.

...that's funny

 

[TommyMac]

He maintains that Harper'***** shouldn't have caused the fumble, and yet it caused the ball to squirt all the way across the end zone and out...

That's where he blew his credibility. I'd love to tee him up and let Mr. Harper lay the lumber to him. Bet he'd change his mind as soon as he came up out of the fetal position and stopped crying for Mama.