Started By
Message
re: I know we are melting, but we ARE improving on offense
Posted on 9/19/17 at 10:35 am to BoomNation
Posted on 9/19/17 at 10:35 am to BoomNation
Well, TOs aside, having a slow, disjointed but ultimately productive day on offense is probably the best we can hope for at this point. Getting the offense to generally execute properly, if not smoothly, is probably the right way to go. Hopefully in the coming weeks we'll be able to increase how fast we play and how smoothly/quickly we can executed improved play calling. I'm not confident in that, but that's my hope.
As to the TOs, they can't be ignored. But, we probably won't have 5 fumbles again next week (hopefully any week). If we can pile up yards on Missouri, keep TOs low, and execute a little better (even if still rusty) - I think that is a good step forward.
I caveat all that to say that there are some claiming that but for 5 TOs, we did fine. Even if we scored on two or three of those drives, we're only scoring 38-45 points, with starters carrying the load. Mercer is a team we should put 50-60 on without breaking a sweat. So still a lot of work to be done even when you ignore the TOs.
As to the TOs, they can't be ignored. But, we probably won't have 5 fumbles again next week (hopefully any week). If we can pile up yards on Missouri, keep TOs low, and execute a little better (even if still rusty) - I think that is a good step forward.
I caveat all that to say that there are some claiming that but for 5 TOs, we did fine. Even if we scored on two or three of those drives, we're only scoring 38-45 points, with starters carrying the load. Mercer is a team we should put 50-60 on without breaking a sweat. So still a lot of work to be done even when you ignore the TOs.
2
Posted on 9/19/17 at 11:47 am to Pettifogger
Kerryon coming back this week!!! HELL YES
Posted on 9/19/17 at 12:23 pm to Pettifogger
quote:At this point last year, we had struggled offensively against the two best teams we played, but in between our offense broke 700 yards for only the 2nd time in school history, against an FBS team that ended up leading the Sunbelt Conference in total defense. That was with Sean White as QB, in his fifth career start.
having a slow, disjointed but ultimately productive day on offense is probably the best we can hope for at this point.
The only other time we broke 700 was in 2013 against FCS Western Carolina, with a true FR QB taking his first ever snaps at the collegiate level, in only the 6th game of Gus Malzahn's HC career at AU. That QB was Jeremy Johnson.
I'm just wondering why 'the best we can hope for at this point' is so much worse than it used to be.
This post was edited on 9/19/17 at 12:24 pm
Posted on 9/19/17 at 1:05 pm to FearlessFreep
quote:
I'm just wondering why 'the best we can hope for at this point' is so much worse than it used to be.
I don't think it's what we should truly accept/expect.
But, considering how off we looked against Clemson, I just don't think immediate turn around was likely. Ideally, being as optimistic as I think is warranted based on what Gus has done of late, I'm hoping for:
1 - Mercer - We put up solid yardage, solid points were probably there but for turnovers, Stidham improves in some areas even if he gets away with stuff he couldn't against better teams
2 - Missouri - Continuation of the above, more points scored, same/more offensive production, fewer turnovers, improving execution and plays start to run more smoothly
3 - Mississippi St - Things actually start coming together against solid competition?
Posted on 9/19/17 at 1:13 pm to Pettifogger
Fair points. I think Gustav's ultimate fate may be decided based on how we perform against MSU. While a loss wouldn't necessarily be devastating (despite taking our fate out of our hands as far as the West is concerned), failure to show significant improvement offensively against a team we dominated last year would pretty much prove that we are headed in the wrong direction and a change at the top may be necessary.
If we play well and MSU still beats us, I would probably feel differently, particularly if we followed up with a win in Red Stick the following week. But I can't say I'm optimistic at the moment.
If we play well and MSU still beats us, I would probably feel differently, particularly if we followed up with a win in Red Stick the following week. But I can't say I'm optimistic at the moment.
Posted on 9/19/17 at 1:15 pm to FearlessFreep
tbh if we don't crack 30 against Missouri that's a sign this offense just doesn't have it. They have been terrible this season.
Posted on 9/19/17 at 2:43 pm to AuburnTigers
The foundation of Gus's offense is the Counter and Power inside zone. It's pretty telegraphed in that we run Power out of stacked formation and the Counter out of the slant formation. What makes them effective is being able to run inside Zone to keep the D off balance to what we are running depending upon the formation. If the inside zone is ineffective then the counter and power are ineffective and our whole run offence goes out the window. The D always had a numbers advantage v. our run game and there is always a guy in the hole. What made Gus's inside zone so effective when we are great is the threat of a QB running the ball which effectively nullified the numbers advantage the D had against our run game.
If the D has a numbers advantage v. the run that means we should have 1v1 numbers in the passing game which should be a big advantage in the passing game. We don't have a receiver that is that threat to go over the top that requires over the top help to help draw a player out of the box. I don't see any signs from Stidham that he is recognizing the coverage and knows where he should be going with the ball based on the coverage at the snap of the ball. With modern passing philosophy and a properly designed route concept he should be able to see the coverage after the ball is snapped and understand the leverages of the different coverage concepts and that would tell him where and when to go with the ball. Instead Stidham drops back, looks at one receiver to see if he is wide open. If not looks for another receiver. That's making him look tentative with the ball at the top of his drop. Just like that long pass to our backup kicker v. Mercer where the receiver crossed all the way across the field after the QB stood in the pocket for 6+ seconds. Hastings ran open through 2 different zones before he got the ball at the far boundary from where he started. Long completion looks good on paper but he would have been sacked twice v. a team with a pulse. Hastings should have had the ball 2-3 seconds earlier as soon as he crossed out of the first ILB's coverage window. We have no idea how to attack a coverage to force a man out of the box.
If the D has a numbers advantage v. the run that means we should have 1v1 numbers in the passing game which should be a big advantage in the passing game. We don't have a receiver that is that threat to go over the top that requires over the top help to help draw a player out of the box. I don't see any signs from Stidham that he is recognizing the coverage and knows where he should be going with the ball based on the coverage at the snap of the ball. With modern passing philosophy and a properly designed route concept he should be able to see the coverage after the ball is snapped and understand the leverages of the different coverage concepts and that would tell him where and when to go with the ball. Instead Stidham drops back, looks at one receiver to see if he is wide open. If not looks for another receiver. That's making him look tentative with the ball at the top of his drop. Just like that long pass to our backup kicker v. Mercer where the receiver crossed all the way across the field after the QB stood in the pocket for 6+ seconds. Hastings ran open through 2 different zones before he got the ball at the far boundary from where he started. Long completion looks good on paper but he would have been sacked twice v. a team with a pulse. Hastings should have had the ball 2-3 seconds earlier as soon as he crossed out of the first ILB's coverage window. We have no idea how to attack a coverage to force a man out of the box.
Posted on 9/19/17 at 2:57 pm to DeoreDX
Your post makes a lot of good points. Question:
If it's more the latter, it can be corrected. If it's the former, we're screwed.
quote:Do you believe this is more a failure of offensive strategy/playcalling, or of execution? Or a little of both?
We have no idea how to attack a coverage to force a man out of the box.
If it's more the latter, it can be corrected. If it's the former, we're screwed.
Posted on 9/19/17 at 3:05 pm to AU_251
quote:
Kerryon coming back this week!!! HELL YES
And then out by the 3rd quarter
Posted on 9/19/17 at 3:59 pm to FearlessFreep
quote:
Do you believe this is more a failure of offensive strategy/playcalling, or of execution? Or a little of both?
Doesn't look like they are even trying and I have no idea why not.
Somewhat disguised their covereage that ended up being cover 3. One safety comes down at the snap. Davis releases straight up field right at the DB. Why wouldn't you have him do an inside release? With a Cover 2 he would still have outside leverage. vs cover 3 it makes the two deep DB's make a decision and you want to force a poor decision. If the middle 3rd and outside 3rd go with the deep receiver that flat would be wide open. Also our slot released straight to the side. If he releases more up field instead of back and to the side and the outside backer doesn't go with him then he only have one man to beat if the WR makes a block.
Instead we run inside zone and had two unblocked defenders and Pettaway had to make a great individual effort to gain positive yards. v. a good set of backers would have been a no gain.
Now we have 3 vs 2 on the field side hash. I have no idea how you don't immediately just attack all of that space. This should be an automatic 8-10 yards.
Instead we run inside zone and they had two free defenders to tackle our RB.
Posted on 9/19/17 at 4:07 pm to DeoreDX
I'm no offensive coordinator but a screen to Hastings here with two blocks looks like a touchdown or at least a very long gain.
This post was edited on 9/19/17 at 4:08 pm
Posted on 9/19/17 at 4:20 pm to DeoreDX
quote:
he should be able to see the coverage after the ball is snapped
Ideally, Stidham/QB should know presnap and it is confirmed after ball is snapped (in terms of disguised coverages)
Simplistic coverage reads with the use of motion should be more than reasonable for a college QB.
Posted on 9/19/17 at 4:35 pm to tilco
quote:
I'm no offensive coordinator but a screen to Hastings here with two blocks looks like a touchdown or at least a very long gain.
Dore is missing the 11th defender underneath the box score. It looks like they are playing Cover 1 Free. Most people like to run at it and it was a smart choice
You run this 100 times, you should have a 10+ yard play on 75+ of them if your OL don't sh** the bed
Why running made sense
-Mercer has 3 man front, nose tackle appears in a 0tech maybe shaded to the field side
-Mercer has only 6 man in the box
Golson simply has to pivot and seal NT, Tega blocks DE and Horton quickly chips DE scrapes to LB level
If OL gets reasonable blocks, this stresses the WLB who is in outside contain with no support (Soft CB / No FS). If he chooses to plug the lane, a Pettway bounce outside puts him in open field with 5+ yards of open field
What Happened
Golson (and Tega to a lesser degree) failed to adequately seal NT from running lane which shrunk the lane. We got bailed out by the WLB delayed crashing into the box and losing contain Pettway correctly bounced and got a big gain. Even w/ the failed blocks, Pettway gets trip tackled at worst by NT/DE for a 3-4 yard gain
This post was edited on 9/19/17 at 5:00 pm
Posted on 9/20/17 at 5:14 pm to AuburnTigers
4 turnovers and 24 points against fricking Mercer is not improvement. We look even worse than we did against Georgia Southern.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 5:17 pm to DyeHardDylan
quote:
4 turnovers and 24 points against fricking Mercer is not improvement. We look even worse than we did against Georgia Southern.
Except that 4/5 turnovers were fumbles, which we've never had major issues with in Gus' entire tenure. You can easily attribute that to being a fluke. Given those fumbles were in the RZ, easy to see why points didn't add up
You are ignoring the bigger point which is why we didn't score more TDs on the drives we didn't fumble/turn the ball over
Posted on 9/20/17 at 8:23 pm to GenesChin
"Except that 4/5 turnovers were fumbles, which we've never had major issues with in Gus' entire tenure. You can easily attribute that to being a fluke. Given those fumbles were in the RZ, easy to see why points didn't add up "
Exactly
"You are ignoring the bigger point which is why we didn't score more TDs on the drives we didn't fumble/turn the ball over"
FG GUS
Exactly
"You are ignoring the bigger point which is why we didn't score more TDs on the drives we didn't fumble/turn the ball over"
FG GUS
Posted on 9/21/17 at 7:36 am to ChexMix
If people want to bitch about Gus, at least choose one of the many credible reasons not bullshite. We have standards here
Posted on 9/21/17 at 7:40 am to GenesChin
quote:
You are ignoring the bigger point which is why we didn't score more TDs on the drives we didn't fumble/turn the ball over
There was really one one bad drive (meaning one drive where we didn't really move the football). One of the punts happened after Eli Stove dropped a first down. The other one we just straight up failed. Jalen Harris's stupid penalty pushed us out of the redzone leading to a missed FG. All the rest either ended in a turnover or points
Hoping we got all that sloppiness out and go kick the shite out of Missouri this weekend
Posted on 9/21/17 at 9:29 am to TigerPaw1
quote:
There was really one one bad drive
I'm saying our TD per possession rate was extremely low vs a team like Mercer, even if you ignore the turnovers.
Kicking FGs against LSU last year? Fine. Kicking FGs vs Mercer? Not fine.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 9:36 am to GenesChin
quote:
I'm saying our TD per possession rate was extremely low vs a team like Mercer, even if you ignore the turnovers.
Kicking FGs against LSU last year? Fine. Kicking FGs vs Mercer? Not fine.
Oh I agree with that, just was saying we moved the ball fine besides one drive. Absolutely agree we should have had more points despite the turnovers
Page 3 of 4
Latest Auburn News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News