re: Did "SEC-style Football" Die Last Weekend?

Aggy killed it. Our entry into the league marked the beginning of the end

quote:

---

AtM did no favors allowing Nevada to run wild

---

So this makes sense from an LSU poster



But this doesn't?

quote:
Jacksonville state held Auburn to fewer points in 60 minutes than LSU did





LSU = hypocrisy U

quote:

---

Spread is for pussies. Line up with a full back and run the damm football.

---

Unless your coach is fat?

please don't tell me "old man football" is dead!

after all Gary Pinkel is still trying to figure out how to play it.

I think we've got the "low scoring" part figured out..

and the D seems legit..

"are we doin it right?"

The correct answer is yes and no.

1) LSU is built to beat teams like Ole Miss but now struggle against Alabama.

2) Alabama is built to beat the crap out of teams like Wisconsin and LSU, but now they keep getting beat by teams that can get to the edge.

There is no one right answer. You pick a system and recruit to it. For Bama, that means being stout in the middle but too fat and slow to defend the edge. You aren't going to be able to do both at an elite level on a yearly basis.

Ohio State is a run based offense but they spread it out. LSU wants to run up the gut with their stud.

It still comes down to the Jimmies and Joes. If you have a lot of elite talent, you can win a national title.

The biggest reason why Ole Miss has taken down Bama for two years in a row for the first time ever is because Ole Miss has increased their recruiting to a level that allows them to execute at a higher level than Bama that attacks Bama's weakness. Translation = Bama is now too weak where Ole Miss is now stronger.

quote:

---

You name ole miss and Bama but not LSU. Why is that?

---

Damned if you /damned if you don't

LSU had a huge lead and could afford to trade yards for game time !

I think it's hilarious how one game has everyone writing off not only Alabama but also the entire style of play they employ. One game in which they committed five turnovers but still scored 37 points, in which a crazy bounce turned a successful defensive play into a long TD for the offense, in which another TD resulted from an ineligible receiver downfield and in which, in spite of all of that, they were actually in the game at the end.

Alabama is not dead. Pro-style (or "SEC-style" -- same thing?) football is not dead. Ole Miss played a great game. They certainly helped cause those turnovers. But that was a very odd game in that, nearly every time Ole Miss gave themselves any chance at a turnover, they got it, while Alabama got the unlucky bounce, dropped a couple of possible INTs, etc. And on top of all this, it's a very unusual situation at QB for them in that they really don't have anybody stepping up to the job. And they were facing one of the best teams that employ the new style which you are touting as taking over the conference. All of these are legitimate reasons why Ole Miss deserved to win the game, but they do not herald the end of football as we know it.

As LSU, Georgia and, yes, Alabama will likely prove this year (I'll be surprised if one of these three doesn't win the SECCG), traditional football is alive and well in the SEC.