Started By
Message
0
Posted on 1/6/16 at 5:17 pm to BHMKyle
Very nice breakdown. One thing this type of stat analysis can't really account for is obviously the strength of the teams played. My guess is Ole Miss played better teams overall than either OU or Clempson (Big 12 especially weak defense).
That said, I agree with your conclusions that OM is designed to beat the tide (sorry, 2 in a row is not a fluke), and Clemson will be their toughest test. I still think Bama wins, but it'll be tougher than some believe.
That said, I agree with your conclusions that OM is designed to beat the tide (sorry, 2 in a row is not a fluke), and Clemson will be their toughest test. I still think Bama wins, but it'll be tougher than some believe.
Posted on 1/6/16 at 5:18 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
What a coincidence that the team with by far the best offense was the team that not only gave Alabama problems, but beat them straight up in Tuscaloosa.
Before anyone says "But 5 turnovers", please take a step back and realize that 5 turnovers were not the only problem. The Rebels put up 43 points and averaged an astounding 6.7 yards per play against Alabama's defense. Turnovers had nothing to do with that 6.7 yards per play. I imagine its extremely rare for any team to win a game when they give up 6.7 yards every play. Alabama found that out the hard way.
Ole Miss had 139 yards on 2 plays, 1 of which was pure luck and the other of which was a clearly uncalled penalty. So let's just remove the pure lucky play, that reduces their YPP to 5.73 (367 yards on 64 plays). That is still pretty good, the best anyone had against us this year, but it tells a much more legitimate story if you are trying to draw parallels between their offense and Clemson's. And if you remove the play with a lineman 6 yards down field then they end up with about 270 yards on 63 plays, averaging 4.56 ypp.
The point of that isn't to take anything away from Ole Miss, they made plays and won. The point is to kill the argument that Ole Miss ran up and down the field on us. That just isn't true. They had a pretty solid offensive effort, but 70 of those yards were literally pure unadulterated luck that cannot be counted on by another team to occur again.
Finally, plenty of teams win giving up 6.66 ypp and more.
- Arkansas gave up 8.94 ypp to Ole Miss, won the game.
- Mississippi State gave up 6.65 ypp to Arkansas, won the game.
- Texas A&M gave up 6.64 ypp to South Carolina, won the game
- Michigan State gave up 6.48 ypp to Indiana, won the game
- Michigan State gave up 7.13 ypp to Air Force, won the game
That was just in about 90 seconds of looking.
This post was edited on 1/6/16 at 5:21 pm
Posted on 1/6/16 at 5:18 pm to BHMKyle
So Ole Miss built a team to count on 5 turnovers, a ricochet off CB helmet, and the refs not calling an O-lineman 10 yards down field on pass plays? Freeze is a freaking genius and should immediately accept the Cleveland job! 
Posted on 1/6/16 at 5:27 pm to RTRinTampa
And finally, Ole Miss was not the best offensive team we played. The most like Clemson? Yes, probably so.
S&P Offensive Efficiency (Alabama opponents)
1. Arkansas
9. Ole Miss
10. Clemson
12. LSU
16. Mississippi State
27. Michigan State
40. Auburn
42. Tennessee
55. Texas A&M
56. Florida
62. Middle Tennessee St.
70. Georgia
84. Wisconsin
125. ULM
Ole Miss and Clemson both run a version of the similar running spread and both have agile, big armed, very good QB's. But they are also pretty different. Ole Miss has one of the 2-3 best WRs in the country (who is also huge), Clemson doesn't. Clemson runs better than Ole Miss does with their RB as well. Clemson also has a better offensive line.
S&P Offensive Efficiency (Alabama opponents)
1. Arkansas
9. Ole Miss
10. Clemson
12. LSU
16. Mississippi State
27. Michigan State
40. Auburn
42. Tennessee
55. Texas A&M
56. Florida
62. Middle Tennessee St.
70. Georgia
84. Wisconsin
125. ULM
Ole Miss and Clemson both run a version of the similar running spread and both have agile, big armed, very good QB's. But they are also pretty different. Ole Miss has one of the 2-3 best WRs in the country (who is also huge), Clemson doesn't. Clemson runs better than Ole Miss does with their RB as well. Clemson also has a better offensive line.
This post was edited on 1/6/16 at 5:34 pm
Posted on 1/6/16 at 5:46 pm to BHMKyle
The Ole Miss offense forcing five Bama turnovers was really the key to the game.
We're in trouble. There's no telling how many turnovers Watson will force us to commit.
We're in trouble. There's no telling how many turnovers Watson will force us to commit.
Posted on 1/6/16 at 5:54 pm to BHMKyle
did not even try to read
Posted on 1/6/16 at 5:56 pm to Crimson Legend
Let's not forget half of those turnovers happened inside our 30 yard line.
Posted on 1/6/16 at 6:01 pm to BHMKyle
JESUS...
Posted on 1/6/16 at 6:03 pm to GAFF
quote:
Let's not forget half of those turnovers happened inside our 30 yard line.
Here are Ole Miss' drives against Alabama
1st Qtr
4 plays, 2 yards, FG (3-0)
4 plays, 27 yards, punt (3-0)
8 plays, 36 yards, punt (3-0)
2nd Qtr
3 plays, 1 yard, punt (3-3)
6 plays, 26 yards, TD (10-3)
3 plays, 18 yards, TD (17-3)
1 play, -6 yards, end of half (17-10)
3rd Qtr
5 plays, 87 yards, TD (24-10) (66 yd ball off helmet TD)
9 plays, 49 yards, FG (27-10)
7 plays, 51 yards, FG (30-10)
3 plays, -15 yards, punt (30-17)
2 plays, 82 yards, TD (36-24) (Man downfield TD)
2 plays, 31 yards, TD (43-24)
4th Qtr
5 plays, 22 yards, punt (43-37)
5 plays, 37 yards, TOD (43-37)
1 play, -1 yard, End of Game (43-37)
They had ZERO drives over 60 yards that weren't either penalty enabled or pure luck. But yea, sure, sounds like a good method to beat us. Have at it. Maybe Dabo has God on their side ala Gene Chizik.
This post was edited on 1/6/16 at 6:18 pm
Posted on 1/6/16 at 6:03 pm to BHMKyle
I think the main problem Clemson has in this game is HOW they run Watson. This isn't Manziel running around like a chicken with his head cut off. Clemson runs the power with Watson and runs him off tackle a ton, basically using him as a RB. Alabama lives for shutting that the frick down. Where Watson is used to finding big holes, he's going to find the back of his OL's jerseys.
That type of running is the bread and butter of this Clemson offense. There isn't a ton of improvisation. Stop that shite, and Clemson is in real trouble.
That type of running is the bread and butter of this Clemson offense. There isn't a ton of improvisation. Stop that shite, and Clemson is in real trouble.
Posted on 1/6/16 at 6:11 pm to BHMKyle
This post is terrible.
Did you even watch the Ole Miss and Alabama play?
When you lose a game by 6 points and are minus 5 in turnovers, that's really the only problem that requires any substantive discussion. This is, of course, especially true four of the turnovers gave Ole Miss starting field position inside field goal range. That is literally the entirety of why Alabama lost.
24 of Ole Miss's points came off of four scoring drives totaling 77 yards...
77 yards for 24 points...
They had two huge plays for 66 and 73 yards (one of which proved that god is real and hates Alabama) which resulted in 13 points (missed 2pt conversion on one).
This is being built to beat Alabama? Getting spotted 24 points and hitting two 60+ yard TD passes?
Is this a joke?
33% of Ole Miss's offense came from two plays. 60% of their offense came from 6 plays. 70% of their offense came from 9 plays. Excluding these plays, Ole Miss averaged 4.67 yards/play, 3.18 yards/play, 2.4 yards/play respectively. This is not a blueprint for beating anyone.
Ole Miss ran 65 offensive plays including two irrelevant plays (end of the first half and end of the game). Alabama ran 101 offensive plays. They ran an offensive play every 21 seconds of time of possession. Ole Miss ran a play every 22.5 seconds of time of possession. Pace of play was 100% totally irrelevant to Ole Miss's victory.
Viewing the Ole Miss team as some sort of team that is built to beat Alabama is a joke and everything you say should be discounted as incompetent jibber jabber.
Did you even watch the Ole Miss and Alabama play?
quote:
Before anyone says "But 5 turnovers", please take a step back and realize that 5 turnovers were not the only problem. The Rebels put up 43 points and averaged an astounding 6.7 yards per play against Alabama's defense. Turnovers had nothing to do with that 6.7 yards per play. I imagine its extremely rare for any team to win a game when they give up 6.7 yards every play. Alabama found that out the hard way.
When you lose a game by 6 points and are minus 5 in turnovers, that's really the only problem that requires any substantive discussion. This is, of course, especially true four of the turnovers gave Ole Miss starting field position inside field goal range. That is literally the entirety of why Alabama lost.
24 of Ole Miss's points came off of four scoring drives totaling 77 yards...
77 yards for 24 points...
They had two huge plays for 66 and 73 yards (one of which proved that god is real and hates Alabama) which resulted in 13 points (missed 2pt conversion on one).
This is being built to beat Alabama? Getting spotted 24 points and hitting two 60+ yard TD passes?
Is this a joke?
33% of Ole Miss's offense came from two plays. 60% of their offense came from 6 plays. 70% of their offense came from 9 plays. Excluding these plays, Ole Miss averaged 4.67 yards/play, 3.18 yards/play, 2.4 yards/play respectively. This is not a blueprint for beating anyone.
Ole Miss ran 65 offensive plays including two irrelevant plays (end of the first half and end of the game). Alabama ran 101 offensive plays. They ran an offensive play every 21 seconds of time of possession. Ole Miss ran a play every 22.5 seconds of time of possession. Pace of play was 100% totally irrelevant to Ole Miss's victory.
Viewing the Ole Miss team as some sort of team that is built to beat Alabama is a joke and everything you say should be discounted as incompetent jibber jabber.
Posted on 1/6/16 at 9:09 pm to rmn9799
Poor Bama. Even if they win National Champioship they still have to live with the fact there's one team they can't beat.
Posted on 1/6/16 at 9:28 pm to SEC1
So how many of you are putting your $ on Clemson?
Posted on 1/6/16 at 9:52 pm to BHMKyle
You focus on the match up of the their defense against the Alabama offense, IMO, Alabama has a HUGE advantage against their defense. By SEC standards they are small on the DL, and while you may counter about their speed, Alabama will be running it right at them. I see Alabama controlling the clock and keeping their offense off the field, while dominating their DL.
Posted on 1/6/16 at 10:02 pm to phaz
You're literally retarded. Clemson DL will be the second best you've faced all year. But their offense will be the best you've faced all year. Quite a dangerous combo.
Posted on 1/6/16 at 10:06 pm to BHMKyle
1 problem:
You can't score and run all those plays when you don't have the ball.
You can't score and run all those plays when you don't have the ball.
Posted on 1/6/16 at 10:09 pm to BHMKyle
Lol, Clemson will lose by 17
Posted on 1/6/16 at 10:09 pm to BHMKyle
Didn't read, but no shite...
Of course they will be
Of course they will be
Posted on 1/6/16 at 10:20 pm to BHMKyle
They will be the toughest test.
Most important is the BAMA team today is much better than the one that played against Ole Miss. The O line is playing much better, the D line has become a monster, Coker is better, and special teams is playin much better.
Most important is the BAMA team today is much better than the one that played against Ole Miss. The O line is playing much better, the D line has become a monster, Coker is better, and special teams is playin much better.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News