Started By
Message
“There’s too much scheming and not enough beat-your-arse football”
Posted on 9/28/25 at 1:29 pm
Posted on 9/28/25 at 1:29 pm
Josh Moon’s Facebook post yesterday hit the nail on the head. I don’t know why it won’t let me copy and paste his entire post, but the thread title is enough.
Freeze sucks, but this problem goes way further back than him. You can say this goes back to 2008 when Tuberville abandoned his own philosophy to bring in Tony Franklin. We were always, always one of the mean, aggressive, tough guy teams that brought pain every game. The 2006 Auburn-LSU game is still one of the most violent games I’ve ever seen.
Since Franklin, we’ve had Malzahn, Harsin, and Freeze—three guys who had success elsewhere but seemingly couldn’t get it done at Auburn. Is that an Auburn problem? Is it tPTB like we always say inhibiting their success?
Or is it that Auburn was never meant to be a “smart” team and instead be one that did the simple things really well?
The run game, clock management, good special teams, low penalties, good discipline. Maybe that’s not a perennial NC competitor strategy, but I bet we’re closer to 10 wins a year with rivalry victories than the 5-7/6-6 we’re experiencing now.
Right now we have “geniuses” outsmarting our fanbase, and everything sucks.
Anyone with a basic understanding of football knows that yesterday’s gameplan was dead in the water. You HAVE to develop a run game in a loud away stadium. It’s the first step in any successful strategy in the SEC. But Freeze tried all kinds of bullshite that tried to “out scheme” the opposition.
I wish I was able to write a letter to the people in charge. This is basic advice. And it would work. I guarantee it would work. We have the same NIL funds as the better programs. A rich history. A rabid fanbase. There’s no need to be scared of not recruiting well enough to go toe-to-toe with Alabama, Georgia, A&M, Ole Miss, etc.
But it seems like that’s how we play: scared. Scared that we need an offensive genius to survive. Scared that we need flashy promises to recruit. Scared that we can’t catch Alabama and Georgia.
Freeze sucks, but this problem goes way further back than him. You can say this goes back to 2008 when Tuberville abandoned his own philosophy to bring in Tony Franklin. We were always, always one of the mean, aggressive, tough guy teams that brought pain every game. The 2006 Auburn-LSU game is still one of the most violent games I’ve ever seen.
Since Franklin, we’ve had Malzahn, Harsin, and Freeze—three guys who had success elsewhere but seemingly couldn’t get it done at Auburn. Is that an Auburn problem? Is it tPTB like we always say inhibiting their success?
Or is it that Auburn was never meant to be a “smart” team and instead be one that did the simple things really well?
The run game, clock management, good special teams, low penalties, good discipline. Maybe that’s not a perennial NC competitor strategy, but I bet we’re closer to 10 wins a year with rivalry victories than the 5-7/6-6 we’re experiencing now.
Right now we have “geniuses” outsmarting our fanbase, and everything sucks.
Anyone with a basic understanding of football knows that yesterday’s gameplan was dead in the water. You HAVE to develop a run game in a loud away stadium. It’s the first step in any successful strategy in the SEC. But Freeze tried all kinds of bullshite that tried to “out scheme” the opposition.
I wish I was able to write a letter to the people in charge. This is basic advice. And it would work. I guarantee it would work. We have the same NIL funds as the better programs. A rich history. A rabid fanbase. There’s no need to be scared of not recruiting well enough to go toe-to-toe with Alabama, Georgia, A&M, Ole Miss, etc.
But it seems like that’s how we play: scared. Scared that we need an offensive genius to survive. Scared that we need flashy promises to recruit. Scared that we can’t catch Alabama and Georgia.
5
Posted on 9/28/25 at 1:55 pm to StringedInstruments
My personal belief is that someone way up in the foodchain at Auburn is obsessed with the idea of a mobile QB. I think that is why year after year we waste so many scholarships on ATH and running QB's who cannot execute the pocket passing game, or ever take on the function of "game manager".
A modern, championship QB has to do all of these things and more.
A modern, championship QB has to do all of these things and more.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 2:05 pm to StringedInstruments
His premise is flawed from the start.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 2:06 pm to CharlesUFarley
quote:
My personal belief is that someone way up in the foodchain at Auburn is obsessed with the idea of a mobile QB.
They must have read this message board
Posted on 9/28/25 at 2:13 pm to StringedInstruments
quote:
There’s too much scheming
Posted on 9/28/25 at 2:15 pm to StringedInstruments
quote:
Or is it that Auburn was never meant to be a “smart” team and instead be one that did the simple things really well?
I don't understand this. When you say Auburn, I'm assuming you mean the football program. Having said that, youre speaking like it's some consciousness that transcends the players. Like it has sentience and personality. The Auburn football team is just the coaches and players on its roster. It has no distinct existence.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 2:45 pm to AUveritas
quote:
When you say Auburn, I'm assuming you mean the football program. Having said that, youre speaking like it's some consciousness that transcends the players. Like it has sentience and personality. The Auburn football team is just the coaches and players on its roster. It has no distinct existence.
I disagree and I am as pure of a materialist as it gets.
I do think “Auburn” as an assemblage features material-discursive systems that make up its very real existence: recruiting pipelines, boosters, SEC money, coaching traditions, cultural practices and personality of our fans, campus rituals, even the Tiger Walk and the way Jordan-Hare is experienced on Saturdays. These aren’t abstract. They’re physical bodies, discourses, practices, and infrastructures that together do give “Auburn football” a distinctive way of being. It’s in their convergence that creates what we shorthand as “Auburn.”
So when I say Auburn was never meant to be a “smart” team but one that thrives on doing simple things really well, I’m pointing to the historical consistency of how those entities have materialized a style of football.
We’ve strayed away from what has been a successful on-field production, and my point is that we have consistently attempted to reconstruct “Auburn” into something it’s not. We have an offensive minded coach who is trying to run some kind of pseudo-high velocity offense but can’t get his players to understand the snap count. Maybe instead of offensive “gurus” (who never pan out to be a guru long term), we should stick to the basics.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 2:55 pm to StringedInstruments
quote:
We’ve strayed away from what has been a successful on-field production, and my point is that we have consistently attempted to reconstruct “Auburn” into something it’s not. We have an offensive minded coach who is trying to run some kind of pseudo-high velocity offense but can’t get his players to understand the snap count. Maybe instead of offensive “gurus” (who never pan out to be a guru long term), we should stick to the basics.
The last time AU was "successful" in the manner you're describing was 2007 then. Back then Mike Leach and his guys were the oddballs with how much they threw the ball.
Did the vast majority of CFB also pivot away from the basics at the same time for no reason? No, they all adapted to succeed. If you don't want to adapt you get left behind like Iowa and Wisconsin who are still running your preferred 3 yards and a clowd of dust basic principles.
And don't take this to mean I don't agree with you about Freeze, because his offense had mediocre success 10 years ago and is having zero success now.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 2:57 pm to StringedInstruments
quote:
We have an offensive minded coach who is trying to run some kind of pseudo-high velocity offense but can’t get his players to understand the snap count. Maybe instead of offensive “gurus” (who never pan out to be a guru long term), we should stick to the basics.
Can we figure out why (outside of season or two) all of Auburn's offensive minded head coaches have bombed out in spectacular fashion while the greatest success going back 40 years has seemed to come under head coaches with defensive minds?
Is it easier to turn defensive play calling over to someone else and become a CEO type of coach?
Are defensive minded coaches ok with just giving the keys to the offense to someone they trust and stay out of it while offensive minded coaches have an ego that won't let them do that?
Is it an Auburn thing where TPTB dictate who you can hire and that approved list doesn't usually include someone who runs an offense like you think it should be run so there is always conflict?
Posted on 9/28/25 at 3:13 pm to PJinAtl
Personally I don't believe there is enough meat on the bone in the latest gimmick offenses we have seen. Mike Bobo has been our best OC yet. Bobo didn't have to rely on senior experience across the board to have the system work. The RPO should be a wrinkle, not a foundation.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 3:20 pm to PJinAtl
I’m thinking that the game has changed significantly.
Roster management has now become paramount …. as has opponent analysis.
Players still desire getting to the next level. Player development will always be a major factor.
The days of waiting 2-3 years for a team to develop, gel, and mature are long gone.
We need a leader that can identify talent, attract talent, and develop talent …. along with a system to manage that entire process.
Roster management has now become paramount …. as has opponent analysis.
Players still desire getting to the next level. Player development will always be a major factor.
The days of waiting 2-3 years for a team to develop, gel, and mature are long gone.
We need a leader that can identify talent, attract talent, and develop talent …. along with a system to manage that entire process.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 3:24 pm to sbr2
quote:
adapt
I don’t disagree. But I do think you can adapt without abandoning your identity, which I think we did.
And to those suggesting we don’t have a scheme: we do. It just sucks. The scheme is don’t hand the ball off to running backs and try to run screens and deep balls all game. Freeze and Malzahn (Franklin) all run their systems. And as we saw with all three, their system comes first even when it doesn’t work.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 4:13 pm to StringedInstruments
Freeze consistently tries to prove he is the smartest guy in the room. He is more stubborn than Gus ever dreamed. It is beyond frustrating watching him continually try to jam a square peg in a round hole.
Posted on 9/29/25 at 12:11 pm to AUTubaHerd
quote:
They must have read this message board
Actually, it goes further back to the pre-internet days.
Page 1 of 1
Latest Auburn News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News