JessN: Sugar Bowl wrap-up: What will this game mean for Alabama’s future?

[bamacon]

Except, we keep talking like our lineup is static. We ran the ball against UGA last year because we couldn't block their pass rushers but we could blow them off the ball. This year, the line was not nearly as good. So our play action wasn't nearly as effective either.

One thing we haven't discussed at all is the loss of Steen for the bowl game. Our most consistent lineman is gone and that doesn't have an impact? That said, our play calling Thusday night played right into the Sooners' strength, which may explain the seemingly odd running plays before Henry's last TD -- slowing down a pass rush we couldn't block, the same strategy we employed against Georgia but with far less success.

In my opinion, we never abandoned our running game, we just weren't as good. Neither were we as good on defense because we lost several good-to-great contributors. That led to inexperienced replacements as well as exposing players like Hubbard, Ivory and Williams.

In short, we were a different team this year -- and weaker in key ways.

Never said that. I'm talking about the playcalling being inconsistent. When runs were working we'd start passing out of the blue and then vice versa. DH was getting 8-15 yards a clip and then we start throwing. Take the Gus approach, do what is working and make the opponent prove they can stop it. That's all.

 

[gamersfuel]

I feel as though coach is a by the book type of guy. He feels as though it should work. If it doesnt work, it's because of lack of execution and nothing else. This is why i feel as though we wont see any major changes. We are at our best when we are a dominant running team. Honestly, we can win with any QB who can make accurate throws to open receivers. We can get back to that if Henry starts next year. I'm not overly convinced Coach sends Yeldon to 2nd team. Again, the by the book mentality. You could even call it stubborness. Same with the defensive side. It's so obvious our large DE's are a weakness against smaller, faster, uptempo teams. This entire season ive seen our DE's stumbling and bumbling around the field chasing 180-200 lb QB's, WR's and RB's. thats what helps LSU, they have fast, athletic guys playing DE that can run you down. Then you have the secondary which is suppose to be the bread and butter of a Nick Saban team. something is not right. Our guys have talent. But there has to be an issue with the scheme somewhere. My fear is that coach sticks with the "it should work so we'll keep doing it" mentality.

 

[CoolBreeze]

I feel as though coach is a by the book type of guy. He feels as though it should work. If it doesnt work, it's because of lack of execution and nothing else. This is why i feel as though we wont see any major changes. My fear is that coach sticks with the "it should work so we'll keep doing it" mentality.

Meh, I don't get that impression at all. If there is one thing I am 100% sure of it is that coach has more football smarts than everyone on this board combined and that he will do absolutely everything to correct the shortcomings that were exposed in the past two games. The guy is probably in the film room at this very moment.

 

[gamersfuel]

Meh, I don't get that impression at all. If there is one thing I am 100% sure of it is that coach has more football smarts than everyone on this board combined and that he will do absolutely everything to correct the shortcomings that were exposed in the past two games. The guy is probably in the film room at this very moment.

i hope you are right

 

[cuda.1973]

I'm interested in what teams who can stop the tempo offense are doing. Stanford does it on a consistent basis; Alabama has had very mixed results with it over the past seven seasons. The bigger issue is not the results, it's the philosophy. There's enough body of work on the table now for Alabama's coaches to take a hard look at what they're doing and ask questions as to whether certain changes can or should be made while keeping the basics of the scheme.

Agreed.

Also, what you didn't mention about either of those two Stanford losses was what the Stanford offense did in either game: They scored 21 points against Utah and 17 against USC. This isn't a discussion about Alabama looking like Stanford as a whole; it's a discussion about what takeaways there are to be had from looking at the SU defense against tempo teams. It's a very narrow discussion point, so let's not try to take it places it shouldn't go.

And let's not lose sight of what our offense did. Or, better yet, didn't do. In the games where we struggled, how many times did we fail to convert on 3rd and short? Too many, I feel. Keep our D off the field, and the chances for their weaknesses to be exploited drops. (Add to that turning the ball over, in the red zone................too many points left on the field.)

No, I have no idea how to do either of those. CNS does. We shall see how he tweaks things.

 

[glasscutter256]

Stanford runs a much simpler front rotation with fewer at-the-snap adjustments. The DL plays a lot more single-gap technique than Alabama does (Alabama runs mostly two-gap) and is also more aggressive with its penetration push. Alabama very often uses a "mush rush" philosophy with the front three (or front four, in increasingly more cases) whereby the aim is to have the DL control the OL and manipulate the gaps so that the linebackers can get the penetration (I'm to assume it's because the LBs are quicker and less apt to get outmaneuvered by the QB once they have penetration). This has led to some difficulty against zone-read teams, which are more susceptible to highly penetrative defensive lines than they are gap-contain fronts.

No accident that Stanford ranks 5th in the nation in sacks. Alabama is 86th.

Jess,
Thank you. Penetrating DL is what the other guy said too. Of course the risk is much greater of a big play if your DL takes himself out of the play by penetrating the wrong way. It is a risk either way. To play that kind of defense, you need smaller quicker DL. As I said, we lost those 2 guys at the beginning of the year (Pettway and Tomlinson).

 

[Bamabuzzard]

I'd like to get away from the notion that one can't criticize last night's performance without its turning into a criticism of the entire Saban tenure. The game has changed, greatly, in the last seven years (hard to believe it's been that long). It may sound strange to some, but I don't have major criticisms of the defense last night, at least in the second half, after we adjusted. You could wish we'd adapted sooner, *but sometimes it just takes to halftime, when there's time to instruct the players as to what they need to change. We ran into a hot QB, who had the game of his life, and he made our inexperienced/hobbled DBs pay. There were the lapses I would expect, given who we had to put on the field.

**On the offensive side, I do have criticism aplenty. After what AU did to us with an aggressive pass rush, I can't see much excuse for not giving CK help on the edge. The same thing needn't have happened over and over again, with it appearing that we were just unconscious to what was happening. I don't know what I can say about play calling without banning myself. There are standard, stock answers to what OU was doing and we didn't use them at all. It's pitiful when you're screaming inside to throw the slant to 88 or just draw and screen and we kept trying to drop back (or shotgun) and throw it downfield, with no left side help. We didn't take what they were giving us. It just seemed extremely stubborn. We go away from a hot young back, who, incidentally has been a bit restive about his PT because he thought he could do better (guess what?). It's almost as if Nuss went back to his far west roots in a tight situation. Kiffen was called in for a specific reason. So far as I can tell, we didn't follow or listen to any of his observations and advice. Can we change without a change in OCs? I don't know the answer to that, but I'll guarantee you that it's a question Saban is pondering tonight...

*Literally as I'm reading this part of your post I'm listening to Andre Ware saying that the defensive coordinator for Houston Cougars saying he simplified his defensive calls and packages to enable his players to play faster and to be able to make adjustments quicker. I wonder how much of this can be done with Saban's system?

**Earle, I'm with you on the offense. I don't know if some of the blame should go on Saban as well. He has the power to buzz upstairs and change the offensive direction. But all indications point to that didn't happen. It looked like our offense was totally shell shocked.

 

[CrimsonForce]

Never said that. I'm talking about the playcalling being inconsistent. When runs were working we'd start passing out of the blue and then vice versa. DH was getting 8-15 yards a clip and then we start throwing. Take the Gus approach, do what is working and make the opponent prove they can stop it. That's all.

The offensive play calling was mind boggling. OU's dline was playing without any discipline and simply speed rushing us almost every play. A simple draw or screen would have been highly successful and slowed down the rush considerably. Or at least put a TE or RB to chip the DE. The screen is usually a regular play we run but I don't remember one being called.

 

[CrimsonEyeshade]

The offensive play calling was mind boggling. OU's dline was playing without any discipline and simply speed rushing us almost every play. A simple draw or screen would have been highly successful and slowed down the rush considerably. Or at least put a TE or RB to chip the DE. The screen is usually a regular play we run but I don't remember one being called.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Oklahoma's defense never lined up the same way twice. The linebacker who gassed by Cyrus came from all different angles. Blackledge made the point several times on how OU's shifting formations differentiated it from other 3-4s. That would seem to make it more difficult to give help to the tackles.

 

[Bryant Ave]

...... We are at our best when we are a dominant running team. Honestly, we can win with any QB who can make accurate throws to open receivers. We can get back to that if Henry starts next year. I'm not overly convinced Coach sends Yeldon to 2nd team. Again, the by the book mentality. You could even call it stubborness. .........

Your biggest strength can also become a weakness. Coach Bryant, Stallings and Saban were all stubborn but the most successful.

It seems like you have a better chance of passing someone with good game day play on defense than on offense. For the sake of all of our talented RB's, I do hope that the position starts wide open next year. It's a little nauseating with Henry's skill that he was not played more this year when others were in the dog house, even if he was learning on the job. 1/3 of his career at Bama may be already over. He is a game changing back, and we lacked one this year for the fist time since maybe 2007.

 

[bamaman65]

Would playcalling change if we had a new OC? I feel that the OC calls the plays that are determined to be OK by Saban. Why don't we run wide more? Our offense works good when we have the other team outmanned but if they have talent that is equal to us it does not work.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Would playcalling change if we had a new OC? I feel that the OC calls the plays that are determined to be OK by Saban. Why don't we run wide more? Our offense works good when we have the other team outmanned but if they have talent that is equal to us it does not work.

I know Saban says they self evaluate. He's going to have to do some self evaluating from an offensive perspective. If we can't over power someone offensively we're stuck in the mud. We simply aren't creative enough when things aren't clicking just right. That has to change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HartselleTider]

glasscutter- While I agree that the risk is greater of giving up a big play if your DL penetrates the wrong way, it's also a risk when you blitz. And Bama's defense can't get pressure on an opposing quarterback without blitzing. If you live by it, you'll die by it.

 

[Ole Man Dan]

I'd like to get away from the notion that one can't criticize last night's performance without its turning into a criticism of the entire Saban tenure. The game has changed, greatly, in the last seven years (hard to believe it's been that long). It may sound strange to some, but I don't have major criticisms of the defense last night, at least in the second half, after we adjusted. You could wish we'd adapted sooner, but sometimes it just takes to halftime, when there's time to instruct the players as to what they need to change. We ran into a hot QB, who had the game of his life, and he made our inexperienced/hobbled DBs pay. There were the lapses I would expect, given who we had to put on the field.

On the offensive side, I do have criticism aplenty. After what AU did to us with an aggressive pass rush, I can't see much excuse for not giving CK help on the edge. The same thing needn't have happened over and over again, with it appearing that we were just unconscious to what was happening. I don't know what I can say about play calling without banning myself. There are standard, stock answers to what OU was doing and we didn't use them at all. It's pitiful when you're screaming inside to throw the slant to 88 or just draw and screen and we kept trying to drop back (or shotgun) and throw it downfield, with no left side help. We didn't take what they were giving us. It just seemed extremely stubborn. We go away from a hot young back, who, incidentally has been a bit restive about his PT because he thought he could do better (guess what?). It's almost as if Nuss went back to his far west roots in a tight situation. Kiffen was called in for a specific reason. So far as I can tell, we didn't follow or listen to any of his observations and advice. Can we change without a change in OCs? I don't know the answer to that, but I'll guarantee you that it's a question Saban is pondering tonight...

I've wondered about our Offensive philosophy this year. I screamed at my TV a lot too.
Teams have adjusted their Defenses to reduce our effectiveness. Most of the times I just knew what plays we would run, and so did the better Defenses...
We have not changed with the times.
Play calling would be a good place to start fixing our problems.
IMO: Our Offensive Line coach didn't scheme very well the last couple of games
or our players failed to understand. I think it was the former.
We sometimes seem to have abandoned the philosophy of playing the best player, for playing the guy in the system the longest period of time. We turned away from pounding them with two backs. I do believe in using the guy with the hot hand.
We didn't do that the last couple of games. It is obvious to me that our Offensive Line ceased getting better by mid-season, they regressed. That's my opinion on Offense.

Defense has not adjusted to stop the HUHN. WHY NOT? It ain't going away any time soon...
I know we are manned to stop runs straight ahead, but we are being attacked on angles.
Giving CK a little help may have helped. Didn't happen.
There is blame all around, now's the time for CNS to do some soul searching, and address the small problems.

If it sounds like I'm complaining about the last two games, I guess I am.
THOSE WERE OUR GAMES TO LOOSE. Play error free and we win em both.
Too many errors, fumbles, interceptions, mis-reads, missed kicks, came from too many veteran players.
Sorry for the rant, but that's the way I see it. :frown:

 

[bamaman65]

I don't believe changing OC will change the offense. I believe that we will run the same plays no matter who the OC is. I watched Clemson and I like their offense. I know if we ran their offense we would have to get a QB that can run. I always said in college a qb that is a threat to run is the best. When the pass protection breaks down is when they are dangerous. I can outrun most of the dropback passers.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

We don't even have to run an offense like Clemson to be highly successful. If we'd start running off the edges more and quit being so predictable in certain situations that would be a huge help. I hate to keep going back to it but a great example was the fourth and 1 against Auburn when they overloaded the left side, crammed everybody in the box and we STILL, STILL run into the teeth of the defense. That to me is the definition of stubborn. This year especially, in many games and situations we gave the defense NOTHING to think about. That's what makes offenses like Malzahn so hard to defend. Rather than having a test question with two multiple choice selections to pick from there's five. The defense can't sell out on any given down.

That's the biggest beef I've got with the offense and if the staff can't see this then lord help us all.

 

[twofbyc]

I agree with Earle 100% on his comments about the offense...you take what is there, and if you don't most times you will pay for it by eventually losing the game. Having "balance" can be deceptive....ask the barn. If you can run it and they can't stop you, you only need to throw a few passes just to show them you can.
And vice versa - if they put 8-9 in the box and dare you to throw, you throw. This insanity of insisting on the run when there are more people than you can block and you continually get stopped for little gain is just that - insane.
However, I think the defense could have played better, but the turnovers were the main reason for the loss.
CNS doesn't get paid what he gets paid (and for those who think it's only 7 mil, keep dreaming) to lose, certainly not two games in a row. His salary comes with winning...week in and week out, with very very few hiccups. His salary can't be solely justified by what he has done in years' past; it must continue, or rest assured the big bucks won't. Does that mean winning every game? No. But going 11-2 two years in a row won't work if it doesn't include a trip to the "new" playoffs, or at least an SEC championship.

 

[CrimsonEyeshade]

Sorry, but I don't agree. What you're describing as the norm has never been achieved, year in/year out in the history of College Football, Alabama included. Maybe it's just me, but an 85% winning percentage, plus the improving grad rates along with the national recognition the school and team receives, fits very nicely in "the very few hiccups" category. Plenty of rooms available.

Meanwhile, here's hoping we win 'em all next year.



CNS doesn't get paid what he gets paid (and for those who think it's only 7 mil, keep dreaming) to lose, certainly not two games in a row. His salary comes with winning...week in and week out, with very very few hiccups. His salary can't be solely justified by what he has done in years' past; it must continue, or rest assured the big bucks won't. Does that mean winning every game? No. But going 11-2 two years in a row won't work if it doesn't include a trip to the "new" playoffs, or at least an SEC championship.[/QUOTE]

 

[twofbyc]

Sorry, but I don't agree. What you're describing as the norm has never been achieved, year in/year out in the history of College Football, Alabama included. Maybe it's just me, but an 85% winning percentage, plus the improving grad rates along with the national recognition the school and team receives, fits very nicely in "the very few hiccups" category. Plenty of rooms available.

Meanwhile, here's hoping we win 'em all next year.



CNS doesn't get paid what he gets paid (and for those who think it's only 7 mil, keep dreaming) to lose, certainly not two games in a row. His salary comes with winning...week in and week out, with very very few hiccups. His salary can't be solely justified by what he has done in years' past; it must continue, or rest assured the big bucks won't. Does that mean winning every game? No. But going 11-2 two years in a row won't work if it doesn't include a trip to the "new" playoffs, or at least an SEC championship.

[/QUOTE]

I will qualify that by saying a "berth" in the SECCG. But, in the history of CF, no one has gotten paid what CNS is getting paid, either. And in the modern era, no one has won 3 out of 4 NC's, either (modern era being my adult years, of which I have passed a few).
So we can agree to disagree, and watch what happens.

 

[CrimsonEyeshade]

BYC, he repays that salary 20 fold. I expect Alabama teams to play hard, win and lose with class, and conduct themselves in a manner that makes us all proud. That includes competing for trophies.

I hope we win every game.

And let's see what happens. Thanks for your reply.

I will qualify that by saying a "berth" in the SECCG. But, in the history of CF, no one has gotten paid what CNS is getting paid, either. And in the modern era, no one has won 3 out of 4 NC's, either (modern era being my adult years, of which I have passed a few).
So we can agree to disagree, and watch what happens.[/QUOTE]