Started By
Message
When running the dang ball goes wrong: How Miss St showed Clemson the way to stop Alabama
Posted on 4/22/19 at 1:49 pm
Posted on 4/22/19 at 1:49 pm
6
Posted on 4/22/19 at 1:57 pm to prevatt33
If by “stop” they mean allow 215 yards in the 1st quarter then sure. Bama was a couple of 50-50 plays from dropping at least 35 points
Posted on 4/22/19 at 2:00 pm to Glorious
quote:
If by “stop” they mean allow 215 yards in the 1st quarter then sure. Bama was a couple of 50-50 plays from dropping at least 35 points
That's the whole point of the article, which I see you didn't read. Modern football is about stopping points, not yards - and MissSt did an excellent job at the former.
But again, there's no use in discussing it if you didn't read it.
This post was edited on 4/22/19 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 4/22/19 at 2:05 pm to Glorious
Also, MissSt finished the year ranked #1 in S&P defense and held us to 21.6 points below our scoring average. I have no idea why you'd throw shade at that unit.
S&P Defense for 2018:
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaadef
S&P Defense for 2018:
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaadef
This post was edited on 4/22/19 at 2:07 pm
Posted on 4/22/19 at 2:08 pm to Glorious
quote:
If by “stop” they mean allow 215 yards in the 1st quarter then sure.
Bama averaged 6.1 yards per play versus Clemson and got smoked.
As far as I know, they don't determine the winner by comparing offensive yards gained. I think they go by points.
Posted on 4/22/19 at 2:12 pm to prevatt33
FYI, the concepts discussed in the article are the exact reasons that the announcers in our spring game talked about Sark specifically wanting to go back to more "full-read passing concepts" in the Red Zone, as the RPO game fails when the field gets compressed in that area.
Posted on 4/22/19 at 2:16 pm to prevatt33
I read it. I just think the article atributes way too much of the 16 points allowed to Clemson’s scheme. Bama was a false start on the 2 away from scoring 20 points on its next 3 possessions following the pick 6. If Bama gets 7 as opposed to 3 that drive, they don’t feel compelled to chase points and go for it 3 times unsuccessfully in the redzone.
If you want to attribute the need to chase points to the pick 6 I agree. I also agree that scheme caused the pick 6. But I don’t see this as an indicator that we should change things offensively. If things go very slightly diffferently, Bama drops 40 on Clemson. This game was more the exception than the rule
If you want to attribute the need to chase points to the pick 6 I agree. I also agree that scheme caused the pick 6. But I don’t see this as an indicator that we should change things offensively. If things go very slightly diffferently, Bama drops 40 on Clemson. This game was more the exception than the rule
This post was edited on 4/22/19 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 4/22/19 at 2:23 pm to prevatt33
quote:
As far as I know, they don't determine the winner by comparing offensive yards gained. I think they go by points.
Sure. In 2015 and 2016 we put up way more points against Clemson. But I don’t think the offense was necessarily better just because they blew a bunch of coverages on OJ. My main point is that a bunch of outlier plays were the difference
Posted on 4/22/19 at 2:31 pm to Glorious
quote:
I read it. I just think the article atributes way too much of the 16 points allowed to Clemson’s scheme. Bama was a false start on the 2 away from scoring 20 points on its next 3 possessions following the pick 6. If Bama gets 7 as opposed to 3 that drive, they don’t feel compelled to chase points and go for it 3 times unsuccessfully in the redzone.
If you want to attribute the need to chase points to the pick 6 I agree. I also agree that scheme caused the pick 6. But I don’t see this as an indicator that we should change things offensively. If things go very slightly diffferently, Bama drops 40 on Clemson and that this game was more the exception than the rule
But we didn't.
And that's the whole point. Modern defense is becoming more about maximizing your chances at stopping the drive at some point in the drive, and stopping it on the goalline works just as well as stopping it on the other side of the 50. A stop is a stop, and field position is rapidly mattering less and less over time.
The fact that you keep saying "if we had done x" or "if X had happened", that we'd have won or it'd have been a super different ballgame - is exactly true - and it proves my point! The other team successfully prevented us from making a small handful of plays, and we got straight smoked in the end. It didn't matter that we had a crapload of yards between both 10 yard lines.
You can claim that we "shot ourselves in the foot" alluding to unforced errors in goal-to-go situations, but again this proves my point. Clemson prevented Alabama from scoring from far out, severely limiting the big plays by choosing to stop the pass first, and the run second, in defending our RPO game. This forced Alabama to continue to execute the RPO game at a high level in the red zone and goalline, which is difficult to do given the compressed field. And so, that whole unforced error crap doesn't fly. Clemson forced us to execute all the way down the field and we failed to do so, given that as the field gets smaller, the defense has an ever-increasing advantage. It was literally their whole plan.
We beat people with the big play all year, and that well went dry against Clemson due to how they played us.
This post was edited on 4/22/19 at 2:39 pm
Posted on 4/22/19 at 3:13 pm to prevatt33
[/quote]
I don't disagree with any of this. But this only works if Clemson is converting 3rd and longs over and over again. "A stop is a stop" only when you are chasing points and have to go for it deep in the opponents territory. Otherwise id take the odds that we get at least a field goal and have a good shot at a td. I don't think it is as much of Clemson conceding yards because they chose to as much as it is because they have to. Like I said, an unforced false start from the 1 away from 215 yards and 20 points in the 1st quarter. Those last 2 drives in the 1st quarter got us down to the 1 based on our regular offense and no big plays. So yea the coulda shoulda game is appropriate if their plan effectively failed until we started making unforced errors
quote:
But we didn't.
And that's the whole point. Modern defense is becoming more about maximizing your chances at stopping the drive at some point in the drive, and stopping it on the goalline works just as well as stopping it on the other side of the 50. A stop is a stop, and field position is rapidly mattering less and less over time.
The fact that you keep saying "if we had done x" or "if X had happened", that we'd have won or it'd have been a super different ballgame - is exactly true - and it proves my point! The other team successfully prevented us from making a small handful of plays, and we got straight smoked in the end. It didn't matter that we had a crapload of yards between both 10 yard lines. You can claim that we "shot ourselves in the foot" alluding to unforced errors in goal-to-go situations, but again this proves my point. Clemson prevented Alabama from scoring from far out, severely limiting the big plays by choosing to stop the pass first, and the run second, in defending our RPO game. This forced Alabama to continue to execute the RPO game at a high level in the red zone and goalline, which is difficult to do given the compressed field. And so, that whole unforced error crap doesn't fly. Clemson forced us to execute all the way down the field and we failed to do so, given that as the field gets smaller, the defense has an ever-increasing advantage. It was literally their whole plan.
We beat people with the big play all year, and that well went dry against Clemson due to how they played us.
I don't disagree with any of this. But this only works if Clemson is converting 3rd and longs over and over again. "A stop is a stop" only when you are chasing points and have to go for it deep in the opponents territory. Otherwise id take the odds that we get at least a field goal and have a good shot at a td. I don't think it is as much of Clemson conceding yards because they chose to as much as it is because they have to. Like I said, an unforced false start from the 1 away from 215 yards and 20 points in the 1st quarter. Those last 2 drives in the 1st quarter got us down to the 1 based on our regular offense and no big plays. So yea the coulda shoulda game is appropriate if their plan effectively failed until we started making unforced errors
Posted on 4/22/19 at 3:50 pm to prevatt33
Also the article makes a really good point, we ran the RPO to allow us to run the ball against good alignments/numbers. There are ways to run RPO with the explicit goal of passing first through the use of combo routes and second windows leaving running to be the second option (as it should be considering how its less efficient and often downright a waste compared to a pass), something we did not do nearly enough of.
Posted on 4/22/19 at 4:48 pm to prevatt33
Not sure why this has 2 downvotes, it was a very good read.
Posted on 4/22/19 at 5:05 pm to Glorious
quote:
So yea the coulda shoulda game is appropriate if their plan effectively failed until we started making unforced errors
It needs to be said directly that in preventing the big play by playing pass first, Clemson forced Alabama to methodically move the ball down the field and execute in the red and goalline areas. And when comparing a 5-play scoring drive versus a 12-play scoring drive, there are 7 more plays on which the offense could mess up, whether by penalty or turnover, or forced or unforced errors. And this was the plan Clemson implemented and which worked to perfection, as they didn't care at all if the error was forced or unforced. What they cared about was forcing us to execute again and again - and we failed, especially when the field shrank.
Posted on 4/22/19 at 5:09 pm to Glorious
quote:
But this only works if
Of course.
If.
Each team formed a scheme to increase their chances of winning. Bama's plan was based on Ifs, as was Clemson's. Clemson's If's were more dependable than ours (only possible to see with hindsight), an example being that we thought we could get pressure with 4. We couldn't, and so we lost one of our ifs.
I agree that the Championship game was close to being a very different ballgame. But that doesn't mean piss. What we have is what happened, and you and I are discussing why that happened on that day. Nothing more, nothing less.
Posted on 4/22/19 at 5:12 pm to 3down10
quote:
Not sure why this has 2 downvotes, it was a very good read.
Haters gonna hate. Some folks can't handle referencing the fact that we lost. Some folks hate reading anything longer than 3 sentences. Some folks are just losers.
It is what it is, and I choose to focus on those who participate. Clicking a button without writing a response is not participation at all. Not in the slightest little bit. It's simply the illusion of participation for spectators.
Posted on 4/22/19 at 5:38 pm to prevatt33
quote:
Each team formed a scheme to increase their chances of winning. Bama's plan was based on Ifs, as was Clemson's. Clemson's If's were more dependable than ours (only possible to see with hindsight), an example being that we thought we could get pressure with 4. We couldn't, and so we lost one of our ifs.
I agree that the Championship game was close to being a very different ballgame. But that doesn't mean piss. What we have is what happened, and you and I are discussing why that happened on that day. Nothing more, nothing less.
Good stuff.
Honest question. In the game that Sark coached for us, it seemed like we ran exponentially more plays under center until Bo got hurt. We really hadnt done that all year or since that game. Why is that not a short yardage package that we use on a regular game anymore?
Is there not enough time in practice to implement those formations? Are our OLinemen not built for that anymore? If being close up is the RPOs kryptonite, then the coaches were at least somewhat aware of that. So why are we married to it when we get close?
This post was edited on 4/22/19 at 5:40 pm
Posted on 4/22/19 at 5:49 pm to Glorious
Being under center if you aren't designing your offense around it often increases the chances of a mistake. The center/QB snap under center is incredibly easy to frick up if you aren't getting the reps in and quite frankly running/throwing from under center isn't so amazingly beneficial that it's worth changing your awesome offense for.
You can design RPO/plays in shotgun and be very successful in a compressed field. The problem was that we kept running the same RPO stuff inside the 20 that we did at the 40 and while that can work against teams that refuse to let the run happen, great defenses realize that letting a team run for 3-4 yards a pop and have to avoid making any mistakes is much better than getting 8-12 through the air.
You can design RPO/plays in shotgun and be very successful in a compressed field. The problem was that we kept running the same RPO stuff inside the 20 that we did at the 40 and while that can work against teams that refuse to let the run happen, great defenses realize that letting a team run for 3-4 yards a pop and have to avoid making any mistakes is much better than getting 8-12 through the air.
This post was edited on 4/22/19 at 5:58 pm
Posted on 4/22/19 at 6:17 pm to prevatt33
Good article.
The championship game was just a perfect storm coming together. We got punched in the mouth early and we never really regained our composure imo. It happens in college football. I don't think it would happen the same way this year.
I'm not worried about the offense at all. It's the secondary and pass rush that concerns me. We haven't been able to get consistent pressure on passing downs in a few seasons. CBs in college just aren't talented enough to cover 3+ seconds consistently.
The championship game was just a perfect storm coming together. We got punched in the mouth early and we never really regained our composure imo. It happens in college football. I don't think it would happen the same way this year.
I'm not worried about the offense at all. It's the secondary and pass rush that concerns me. We haven't been able to get consistent pressure on passing downs in a few seasons. CBs in college just aren't talented enough to cover 3+ seconds consistently.
Posted on 4/22/19 at 7:24 pm to prevatt33
Very good article, as they usually are from Bill and Ian.
Definitely curious to see how Sark tweaks things. I wanted to strangle him after year 1 in Atlanta, but he did a very solid job last season without his #1 RB and with a total dumpster fire, injury plagued o-line. Yes we have Ryan/Julio/Ridley, but he called some very nice games.
Definitely curious to see how Sark tweaks things. I wanted to strangle him after year 1 in Atlanta, but he did a very solid job last season without his #1 RB and with a total dumpster fire, injury plagued o-line. Yes we have Ryan/Julio/Ridley, but he called some very nice games.
Posted on 4/23/19 at 3:25 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
Definitely curious to see how Sark tweaks things. I wanted to strangle him after year 1 in Atlanta, but he did a very solid job last season without his #1 RB and with a total dumpster fire, injury plagued o-line. Yes we have Ryan/Julio/Ridley, but he called some very nice games.
Yeah and even in year 1, I think Atlanta was rated something like #8 in Total Offense...
Know a lot of other Atlanta fans that were happy to see him go...they were surprised when I mentioned that Atlanta was #6 in Total Offense this past season and that Julio and Ryan each had their second best career seasons. And, as you said, they did it with both starting guards and Freeman out for most of the season...
While I like the Koetter hire, not sure their offense will improve unless they get through with minimal injuries next season...
Page 1 of 2
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News