Started By
Message
re: 270 yards passing is why A&M lost!
Posted on 10/24/12 at 10:12 am to NoMoreShortcuts
Posted on 10/24/12 at 10:12 am to NoMoreShortcuts
The point is that pass yardage doesn't equal points. If you look at teams that throw it around the field all day - they usually don't win the big games. See WVU the last two weeks for evidence of that.
2
Posted on 10/24/12 at 10:42 am to Katy Tiger
A&M is still 2nd in the SEC in rushing though and has the highest YPG still as well as the highest average yards per rush. We still run the ball.
I still haven't heard a good counterpoint to these facts from the game. A&M got inside the 10 twice and power rushed for TD's both times by RB's. A&M had only 1 3 and out.
Would it be nice for A&M to run the ball more with their RB's? Probably, but that wasn't what cost us this game. What cost us this game was turnovers and execution. You could argue that the most costly turnover was actually the Malena fumble as well which allowed LSU to take the lead before the half. The offensive scheme itself is fine, the problem is it has to be executed with precision and minimal mistakes if you expect to beat a team with a defense like LSU. The same would be true if we ran it in the I Formation 45 times a game, if the plays aren't executed properly you won't be successful.
An offense like A&M's also wears down a defense just as a power running team does. The pace is very fast and the stress on the defense is constant. It is also no easy task to keep up with a guy like Manziel. You better be in shape and have depth. I question the logic that if A&M simply ran "3 yards and a cloud of dust" with their big RB's that it would have worn down a defense as deep and talented as LSU's, the only team that has done that in recent years was Bama but that had more to do with Bama's defense stopping LSU's offense than anything.
SEC teams have won being pass heavy, especially with mobile QB's, in the past. If you look outside the SEC the best team is almost certainly Oregon which runs a very similar offense to A&M. The key for both instances is having the defense.
WVU is a bad example because they have absolutely no defense and they also turned the ball over too much in that game. You have to make stops and you have to protect the football, it doesn't matter if you pass the ball 5 times or 50.
In the end the answer to this question won't be resolved this year. A&M doesn't have the level of defense necessary nor are they executing the offense well enough to get a real answer to the question yet as the big test left is Bama and unless Bama has a terrible game and A&M is flawless Bama should win that game easily because the talent edge is simply too much regardless of how many times they run or pass. Bama has also been running their defensive system for a very long time whereas A&M has 7 games running their O. Next year will be a much better comparison point.
In the meantime, props to LSU for a much deserved win.
I still haven't heard a good counterpoint to these facts from the game. A&M got inside the 10 twice and power rushed for TD's both times by RB's. A&M had only 1 3 and out.
Would it be nice for A&M to run the ball more with their RB's? Probably, but that wasn't what cost us this game. What cost us this game was turnovers and execution. You could argue that the most costly turnover was actually the Malena fumble as well which allowed LSU to take the lead before the half. The offensive scheme itself is fine, the problem is it has to be executed with precision and minimal mistakes if you expect to beat a team with a defense like LSU. The same would be true if we ran it in the I Formation 45 times a game, if the plays aren't executed properly you won't be successful.
An offense like A&M's also wears down a defense just as a power running team does. The pace is very fast and the stress on the defense is constant. It is also no easy task to keep up with a guy like Manziel. You better be in shape and have depth. I question the logic that if A&M simply ran "3 yards and a cloud of dust" with their big RB's that it would have worn down a defense as deep and talented as LSU's, the only team that has done that in recent years was Bama but that had more to do with Bama's defense stopping LSU's offense than anything.
SEC teams have won being pass heavy, especially with mobile QB's, in the past. If you look outside the SEC the best team is almost certainly Oregon which runs a very similar offense to A&M. The key for both instances is having the defense.
WVU is a bad example because they have absolutely no defense and they also turned the ball over too much in that game. You have to make stops and you have to protect the football, it doesn't matter if you pass the ball 5 times or 50.
In the end the answer to this question won't be resolved this year. A&M doesn't have the level of defense necessary nor are they executing the offense well enough to get a real answer to the question yet as the big test left is Bama and unless Bama has a terrible game and A&M is flawless Bama should win that game easily because the talent edge is simply too much regardless of how many times they run or pass. Bama has also been running their defensive system for a very long time whereas A&M has 7 games running their O. Next year will be a much better comparison point.
In the meantime, props to LSU for a much deserved win.
Posted on 10/24/12 at 10:59 am to Katy Tiger
quote:
The point is that pass yardage doesn't equal points. If you look at teams that throw it around the field all day - they usually don't win the big games. See WVU the last two weeks for evidence of that.
I agree, but why do spread offenses fail?
RED ZONE PROBLEMS. Any version of the spread offense is going to rack up a ton of yards, but that only translates into points if the offense can switch to a power running attack in the red zone, or strike from outside the red zone.
In the Spread Offense the point is to spread out the defense and make them defend a huge chunk of the field. When the back of the endzone gets closer, the defense has less field to cover. THUS, red zone problems. The spread will work, but not as the exclusive offensive style. See what the NE Patriots do.
Also, the spread works much better in ZONE DEFENSES than man coverage. A team with good DBs an fast LBs can get into man coverage and SHUT THAT BITCH DOWN. That's what LSU did to Jizz Jar Jesus.
The response to a good defense in man coverage? All we could do is hope to get LB v. WR matchups, but ultimately, the receivers have to run perfect routs and and JJJ has to be NFL-dead-to-rites accurate. We couldn't take effective advantage of any of those matchups and JJJ got happy feet, so the offense was much less productive.
Another response (the response I wanted) is to work out of the spread set and get the defense in man coverage in a nickle or dime package. That set is much less effective at stopping the run. LSU was in man coverage, in nickle a lot...WHICH IS WHY WE SHOULD HAVE RUN THE frickING BALL MORE!!!!
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News