📝 Elam to announce Thursday @ 12pm ET (UPDATE: Announcement open to media ONLY)

[TerryP]

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> @musso <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->

I had it in my mind that Darren Lake 'shirted in 2012. I had to look just a moment ago and he didn't. So yes, we've got two upperclassmen returning with Ivory and Lake. DL certainly hasn't done anything that's drawn my attention to this point.
<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->
@bamaraider <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> made a comment over on the football board (J. Reed thread) about Ivory and I can see where he's coming from with his critique. He was pushed around at times last year. Granted, the majority of the time it was against a more experience G or C, but he certainly wasn't plugging the gap like a bigger body can do. That's where I saw Elam fitting—a 335-345 type body that's going to require a double-team.

Based on what we've seen out of most of the linemen, a guy hovering around 300 (like the majority of this class is, sans Reed) isn't able to take up two of the offensive linemen. It's there I think we're looking at this differently (DT's.)

I may be wrong, but it's my feeling we see three of the true DT's (NG's) see action this fall. Frazier is highly touted, but I can't move past "I'll believe it when I see it" when it comes to a frosh playing that role. Simple physical maturity is one of the biggest question marks. That said, if we can get a solid rotation with three and two of those require a double-team effort by opposing offensive lines? We'll be in good shape.

---

Switching to corner:

I see three guys I'd call quality: Eddie Jackson, Geno Smith, and Cyrus Jones. I'm not sold on Sylve.

If you think back to the last half of the season Sylve's playing time dropped to little if anything. Cyrus ended up starting how many of our last seven? I think it was all but one game.

My thinking, at this point, is that's our CB's in our dime (if not our nickel as well.)

Maurice saw a lot of action last year and should make that two deep roster. Washington? Question marks.

I see talent in these guys. I honestly think we'll enter the fall with Jackson holding one of the starting corner spots. At this point, gut tells me Cyrus has the second and Geno comes in IF we use three corners in our nickel. With the lack of depth at S, we may be moving to a three corner look in the nickel versus the three safety look we've played the last few years. It would certainly give us more speed in the secondary.

 

[bama alum]

I had it in my mind that Darren Lake 'shirted in 2012. I had to look just a moment ago and he didn't. So yes, we've got two upperclassmen returning with Ivory and Lake. DL certainly hasn't done anything that's drawn my attention to this point.

[MENTION=12209]TerryP[/MENTION] I thought Lake moved his way up to a 2B (with Ivory 2A) during Lake's freshman year. I really liked what I saw out of him. Apparently, the coaches did too since he saw a lot of snaps. Last year without Jesse Williams, I thought Lake would have an increased role. Nope... He needs to step it up.

I'm ready to see Kirven tear it up, too.

 

[TerryP]

[MENTION=19691]bama alum[/MENTION] 2012 with Lake. Geez, having a hard time remembering how many games he actually played in...and this conversation with [MENTION=11400]musso[/MENTION] keeps it on my mind. :c004:

Purely off the top of my head, I'm thinking he played in about half of the games—mop up duty.

The one thing I DO remember is a comment I made about Auburn's offensive line just quitting when he had a TFL in that game.

 

[musso]

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> @bamaraider <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> made a comment over on the football board (J. Reed thread) about Ivory and I can see where he's coming from with his critique. He was pushed around at times last year. Granted, the majority of the time it was against a more experience G or C, but he certainly wasn't plugging the gap like a bigger body can do. That's where I saw Elam fitting—a 335-345 type body that's going to require a double-team.

Based on what we've seen out of most of the linemen, a guy hovering around 300 (like the majority of this class is, sans Reed) isn't able to take up two of the offensive linemen. It's there I think we're looking at this differently (DT's.)

I may be wrong, but it's my feeling we see three of the true DT's (NG's) see action this fall. Frazier is highly touted, but I can't move past "I'll believe it when I see it" when it comes to a frosh playing that role. Simple physical maturity is one of the biggest question marks. That said, if we can get a solid rotation with three and two of those require a double-team effort by opposing offensive lines? We'll be in good shape.

I agree with everything you said. I don't think we differ at all on the requirements of a NG in our system. And I agree about the need for the NG to be well in excess of 300 lbs to be effective. Again, the only difference of opinion I recall between us was the efficacy and wisdom of Saban's 3-4 in what was becoming the age of spread/up-tempo offenses. Little did I know that Saban/Smart would simply toss out the 3-4 against such offenses and win multiple championships along the way, haha.

But I can't help but ponder the utility in investing scarce "capital" in locating, signing, developing, and retaining [from early departure to the NFL] such a rare specimen, particularly in an age when the spread/up-tempo is minimizing their utility drastically. I see the spread/up-tempo as the ultimate counter or equalizer against the few teams loaded with blue-chip linemen. Let's face it, only a few schools can attract quality linemen and this offensive trend is the majoritarian push-back against the privileged programs. To put it another way, how many opponents of ours really require such beef up front anymore?? LSU certainly ... maybe Tenn ... UGA maybe but they're in a different division ... UF seems to be trying to get there, but again in a different division.

We're talking about a position that is seldom even fillable, even for Bama who is atop the college football world. So why not abandon it altogether and return to a simpler base 4-man front more suited to today's game? Why not free up a spot for another LB or two in this class ... or maybe another WR ... H-back ... instead of wasting scholarships on half-measures to fill a position which will be needed against only a couple of teams each year?

 

[TerryP]

[MENTION=11400]musso[/MENTION] I understand your questioning the "investment." I'm not convinced that focusing on having a solid NG would be a detriment to the success of our scheme or is a waste of time/effort.

Case in point. UF, when we had a player of this stature, had how much success against the scheme? Even when we lost Cody, we faced teams trying to run this spread/option attack and were able to win those games.

I wonder...no, suspect, a fluke of a loss against Auburn clouds some people's reasoning ability on this discussion. Setting that aside just a second, but using the offense they field as an example, what's one of the staples Malzahn uses in his offensive attack—specifically blocking scheme?

It's a pulling guard. IF the guard can't pull because he has to block and that's due to the NG requiring a double team effort, where does his offense go at that point?

I do question the idea that going to a four man front is the answer. Teams that play the simpler four man front lose as much, if not more often, than those using the 3-4 scheme. Again, using Auburn as example, the two teams they faced this year that employed a 3-4 approach the beat—UGA and Bama.

How did they win those games? Was it a defensive scheme issue?

 

[musso]

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> @musso <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> I understand your questioning the "investment." I'm not convinced that focusing on having a solid NG would be a detriment to the success of our scheme or is a waste of time/effort.

Case in point. UF, when we had a player of this stature, had how much success against the scheme? Even when we lost Cody, we faced teams trying to run this spread/option attack and were able to win those games.

I wonder...no, suspect, a fluke of a loss against Auburn clouds some people's reasoning ability on this discussion. Setting that aside just a second, but using the offense they field as an example, what's one of the staples Malzahn uses in his offensive attack—specifically blocking scheme?

It's a pulling guard. IF the guard can't pull because he has to block and that's due to the NG requiring a double team effort, where does his offense go at that point?

I do question the idea that going to a four man front is the answer. Teams that play the simpler four man front lose as much, if not more often, than those using the 3-4 scheme. Again, using Auburn as example, the two teams they faced this year that employed a 3-4 approach the beat—UGA and Bama.

How did they win those games? Was it a defensive scheme issue?

I’d say yes it was a defensive scheme issue, in part at least. You can’t simply blame the final score on the final seconds of the game. That’s not fair. As remarkable as the endings of both the UGA and Bama games were, it is after all a four-quarter game. And there were glaring statistical anomalies in both games that cannot be overlooked. Moreover, you can't ignore the anomalous defensive statistics against almost every spread/up-tempo offense Bama faces.

I similarly ask you:

Was it a defensive scheme issue that UGA fell behind 27-7?

Or ...

Was it a defensive scheme issue with Alabama giving up 300 yards rushing?

Digging deeper, consider every loss dating back to Saban’s second season.

08 – UF, Utah
09 – n/a
10 – S. Car, LSU, Aub
11 – LSU
12 – A&M
13 – Aub, OU

During this span, the only conventional offense to beat us besides LSU (who admittedly plays “our game” as good as almost anyone else in the country) was South Carolina in 2010, when Garcia had the best game of his life and was surrounded with skill players with NFL talent. Otherwise, if you look at every other loss you will find a conspicuous commonality shared among the opposing offenses.

I get your "pulling guard" example, but I would counter with this:

As fast as such offenses are snapping the ball, who is more likely to endure over the course of a game, a DL at 330+ lbs or at 290-300 lbs? Keep in mind too that most of the OL on up-tempo teams are slimmer than traditional OL.

And no, my reasoning isn't clouded due to the nature of the Auburn loss. I've been questioning the value of our NGs ever since Chapman's departure. In hindsight, I’d say we were very fortunate to have Cody and Chapman back-to-back at NG. Despite their respective limitations, they seemingly performed the best out of all our NGs. But ever since Chapman left, I've increasingly wondered why we keep expecting our NGs to absorb two OL consistently when they have neither the size of Cody nor the strength of Chapman? And before someone chimes in with how much Jesse Williams benched, I guarantee you he never squatted what Chapman could squat. Jesse had bird legs compared to the tree trunk that was Chapman.

I say sure, if you can sign a true NG then let’s stick with the 3-4, and if we have to set him on the bench in games where the offense is snapping it too fast, so be it. But if not, then let’s spend a scholarship on another blue-chip DT, a faster, slimmer pass rusher who can better pressure mobile QBs, an explosive receiver, another LB, S, CB, or how about a kicker for heaven’s sake! Let’s build our DL around the more abundant 290-300 lbs body types instead of wasting scholarships on NGs in DT bodies who seldom pan out.

Let’s stop trying to force squares into a circular holes, especially when opposing offenses are increasingly becoming less physical in their scheme.

 

[TerryP]

[MENTION=11400]musso[/MENTION]

You're right in that you can't fault the last minute of both UGA's and Bama's games against Auburn as the reason they were lost. I haven't. I believe you're missing the overall, larger point. You can't point to the 3-4 scheme as the reason for those losses. It's painting a picture with a large brush stroke.

Why is pointing to a 3-4 scheme as a reason Auburn gained 300 yards rushing against Bama "not fair?" What team managed to stop the Auburn rushing game this season?

In another large brush stroke you mention the losses Bama has had. But, you can't just say "it's because of the type of offense." It's ignoring some major factors like five turnovers against OU. It's ignoring the Tide being inside the 20, three times, against Auburn and coming away without scoring. It's ignoring the anomaly that is Johnny Manziel, or a Cam Newton. It's ignoring losing the entire left side of the line against Utah.

While the defense did break down in those losses, the offense did to the same degree—often to a larger degree.

If you choose to say the spread is an Achilles heel to the 3-4, how do you explain the wins against teams featuring a spread offense? They outnumber the losses. If you choose to say the no-huddle is the Achilles heel, how do you explain Ole Miss getting shut out?

All teams, no matter the scheme, have trouble against these types of offenses.

I believe you're missing the point on your "counter" to the point of the use of a pulling guard and how a strong NG disrupts that offense. No huddle offenses, and their success, is predicated on rhythm. If it's stopped when it can't be executed, there is no rhythm. Then you're looking at a situation where bringing size and weight into this discussion lacks its place. What happens with these HUNH offenses when they are facing second and long? The majority of the time they huddle.

Now, up until this point we're talking about differences of opinion. The suggestion that these no-huddle and hurry-up offenses use slimmer offensive linemen is factually incorrect.

Alabama's and LSU's offensive line averages 307lbs per player. AU, 302. A&M, 305. Ole Miss, 309. It'll boil down to fractions of an inch but if you were to average heights among these five teams you'll likely find LSU's and Bama's are taller.

(BTW, your statement on the squat when comparing Jesse Williams and Josh Chapman isn't accurate. Both guys handled weights in excess of 630lbs. Williams pushed the 700 mark in fourth quarter workouts a few times.)

 

[planomateo]

Speak of the devil.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p>Ladies and gents, Jared Lorenzen. RT <a href="https://twitter.com/coachjerrybyrd">@coachjerrybyrd</a>: <a href="https://twitter.com/jaywilkinson">@jaywilkinson</a> sprint out package would be limited <a href="http://t.co/YrKVLEQZ4a">pic.twitter.com/YrKVLEQZ4a</a>”</p>&mdash; Matt Hayes (@Matt_HayesSN) <a href="https://twitter.com/Matt_HayesSN/statuses/430526194673385472">February 4, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script async="" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" style="display: none;"></iframe>

 

[musso]

@musso

You're right in that you can't fault the last minute of both UGA's and Bama's games against Auburn as the reason they were lost. I haven't. I believe you're missing the overall, larger point. You can't point to the 3-4 scheme as the reason for those losses. It's painting a picture with a large brush stroke.

And I believe you missed the last four words in my first sentence: "... in part at least." In other words, I'm asserting scheme is a contributing factor, not "the reason" as you say or even painting with a large brush stroke as you also claim. Remember, I was replying to your rhetorical question which implicitly excluded UGA's and Bama's 3-4 schemes from consideration. I'm merely replying with "yes, I believe you can't take defensive scheme off the table, and your focus on the miraculous endings, while tempting, wasn't fair."

Why is pointing to a 3-4 scheme as a reason Auburn gained 300 yards rushing against Bama "not fair?"

:icon_scratch: Is this a typo? Did you mean to omit "not" in "not fair"? If so I can respond by repeating what I said in my previous post. I'm not so much against the 3-4 as I am against using a NG who isn't a true NG. I realize some of my posts are long, but a good portion of it was against the investment of scholarships on a position that is seldom even fillable given the available pool of recruits. And here we are losing Elam, a recruit with the physical potential to be an effective 3-4 NG, to ... Kentucky. I don't know what Lake's problem is, but he seems to have the physique for the position but hasn't developed. Ivory hasn't impressed me either. This bluechip from Ark looks promising, but as you said, it's always iffy to expect much from a fresh at NG. Reed sounds promising from his former coach, but at a tad above 300 I question him at NG. I'm just praying Ivory and Lake improve enough and remain healthy.

What team managed to stop the Auburn rushing game this season?

Point taken. Auburn finished tops in the nation in rushing offense. But we had the top rushing defense before that game. So do the math ... was 300 yards rushing closer to their season average for rushing offense or closer to our season average for rushing defense?

In another large brush stroke you mention the losses Bama has had. But, you can't just say "it's because of the type of offense." It's ignoring some major factors like five turnovers against OU. It's ignoring the Tide being inside the 20, three times, against Auburn and coming away without scoring. It's ignoring the anomaly that is Johnny Manziel, or a Cam Newton. It's ignoring losing the entire left side of the line against Utah.

While the defense did break down in those losses, the offense did to the same degree—often to a larger degree.

Again, I've already clarified that I'm not painting with large brush strokes, merely attempting to add defense to the list of legitimate faults. I completely agree with your assessments of other contributing factors. And let me go further by saying that I readily admit the possibility that perhaps this is as good as it can possibly get in modern college football. Our defensive statistics have been astounding under Saban. And as you first said, perhaps more is gained than lost by keeping a NG on our DL. I might look back 20 years from now and wonder how I ever could be critical of Saban's defensive tactics given all the dazzling statistics of the era.

BUT ... do you not agree that today's offenses are taking the line of scrimmage out of the equation as much as possible? Teams are minimizing the role of OLs and DLs while maximizing the impact of skill players in space. The game seems to be valuing the endurance of players, not brute strength. I just don't see many teams on our schedule anymore that require DL above 300 lbs, and we might find it more prudent to spend scholarships on leaner, faster DL who can better pursue mobile and elusive ball carriers.

If you choose to say the spread is an Achilles heel to the 3-4, how do you explain the wins against teams featuring a spread offense? They outnumber the losses. If you choose to say the no-huddle is the Achilles heel, how do you explain Ole Miss getting shut out?

Come on Terry, you can think more critically than this. I'm saying the spread/up-tempo may be a necessary ingredient but not sufficient in and of itself. You've got to have some play-makers, avoid mistakes, penalties, and turnovers, limit Bama's time of possession, etc. You can't just show up with a spread offense and beat Bama, but it's easier to beat us with a HUNH offense.

I mean, how is it not compelling to see the commonality in the offenses that have beaten us, save LSU and a random S. Car?

All teams, no matter the scheme, have trouble against these types of offenses.

Agreed. But how about LSU's 4-3 vs A&M? They held Manziel in check both years better than we did. UF did a good job last season, granted it was Manziel's first game, right? But they shut him down in the 2nd half and pressured him on passing downs, like LSU. Auburn's DL got after Manziel this season too.

I believe you're missing the point on your "counter" to the point of the use of a pulling guard and how a strong NG disrupts that offense. No huddle offenses, and their success, is predicated on rhythm. If it's stopped when it can't be executed, there is no rhythm. Then you're looking at a situation where bringing size and weight into this discussion lacks its place. What happens with these HUNH offenses when they are facing second and long? The majority of the time they huddle.

Now, up until this point we're talking about differences of opinion. The suggestion that these no-huddle and hurry-up offenses use slimmer offensive linemen is factually incorrect.

Alabama's and LSU's offensive line averages 307lbs per player. AU, 302. A&M, 305. Ole Miss, 309. It'll boil down to fractions of an inch but if you were to average heights among these five teams you'll likely find LSU's and Bama's are taller.

Is not 307 heavier than 302 and 305??? Jk, I swear I heard during multiple games commentators claim throughout the season that so-and-so HUNH team deliberately trimmed down their OL in order to sustain a fast pace for a whole game. Now, I don't remember specifically which teams these were, but I know I heard it several times relating to several different HUNH teams.

(BTW, your statement on the squat when comparing Jesse Williams and Josh Chapman isn't accurate. Both guys handled weights in excess of 630lbs. Williams pushed the 700 mark in fourth quarter workouts a few times.)

Well I'm not privy to such data, but my recollection was that Chapman ate up space better than Williams did. And he sure looked thicker downstairs. Williams always looked top-heavy to me with small legs for a NG.

You tell me though, don't you agree that Cody and Chapman have easily been our best 1-2 punch at NG? Have we had anyone in your opinion afterwards to measure up at that position in "regular." I'm sure most of us would admit Dareus has been Saban's best overall DL, but we know he normally played at end, sliding inside only on passing downs when the NG was removed.

 

[musso]

I say sure, if you can sign a true NG then let’s stick with the 3-4, and if we have to set him on the bench in games where the offense is snapping it too fast, so be it. But if not, then let’s spend a scholarship on another blue-chip DT, a faster, slimmer pass rusher who can better pressure mobile QBs, an explosive receiver, another LB, S, CB, or how about a kicker for heaven’s sake! Let’s build our DL around the more abundant 290-300 lbs body types instead of wasting scholarships on NGs in DT bodies who seldom pan out.

Let’s stop trying to force squares into a circular holes, especially when opposing offenses are increasingly becoming less physical in their scheme.

I...do you not agree that today's offenses are taking the line of scrimmage out of the equation as much as possible? Teams are minimizing the role of OLs and DLs while maximizing the impact of skill players in space. The game seems to be valuing the endurance of players, not brute strength. I just don't see many teams on our schedule anymore that require DL above 300 lbs, and we might find it more prudent to spend scholarships on leaner, faster DL who can better pursue mobile and elusive ball carriers.

Class fills needs, signals changes for Tide

Because Saban didn’t simply add some of the best talent in the country this week, he also answered each and every need Alabama had on its roster, most notably the need for more athletic defenders to help stop the letdown it experienced in the final two games of the season against offenses that employed some form of the spread or hurry-up, no-huddle offense.

Saban has said on multiple occasions recently how important it is for Alabama to adapt to the changing landscape of college football. His system has long relied on big, heavy bodies on the defensive line to clog running lanes and free up linebackers to play in space. And for a while, no one had an answer for it as his defenses at LSU and Alabama routinely dominated the point of attack. But as more and more mobile quarterbacks have begun moving the pocket and more and more hurry-up offenses have sped up the game, the size Saban so covets has been nullified. Three-hundred pound defensive linemen are too slow to catch quarterbacks like Johnny Manziel and Nick Marshall, and they’re too slow to catch someone like Trevor Knight when he’s getting rid of the ball in the blink of an eye.

The litany of personnel packages Saban was known for using have become outdated as well. It’s not that they’re no longer effective, they’re simply no longer applicable. With so many teams going without a huddle on offense, there’s no time to substitute players. So, in turn, Saban and defensive coordinator Kirby Smart have had to simplify the defense and find players who can play multiple roles. That means no more lumbering defensive ends and no more linebackers who don’t have the speed to cover a slot receiver. Athleticism and versatility is now the name of the game.

“One of the goals we had was to get a little more fast-twitch, quicker body type guys to play on the edges for us,” Saban said. “We're playing against a lot more spread. I feel between the outside backer types we got as well as some of the more athletic kind of defensive ends we got that maybe we satisfied that need as well.”

“We’re excited about Rashaan,” Saban added later in the news conference, “who not only is a fantastic athlete and exactly what we're looking for in terms of the more athletic, fast-twitch edge player who can rush, but also has great character, is a really good person.”

...But no need was more obviously met than pass rushers. Evans and Christian Miller are the top two outside linebackers in the country, and both have the speed to chase down the quarterback or drop back in coverage. D.J. Pettway is a veteran defensive end with the ability to play the run and the pass, and five-star Da'Shawn Hand is one of the nation’s premiere edge rushers as well.

...The hope for Saban and Alabama is that with more athleticism on the field at every level, outcomes like last season won’t happen again. Instead of getting one hand on players like Manziel and Marshall, maybe they’ll get two hands and a tackle.

Saban’s change in philosophy has been steady. The question is how quickly it catches on.

:wudup:I promise I didn't pay Alex to write this.

 

[TerryP]

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> @musso <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->

Since we're past NSD week, we can get back into this conversation. Now, you've got two posts here...I can't say I'll get to the second one today. A lot depends on the weather...projects in the yard getting ready for spring will likely take me away from the forum for most of the day—HOPEFULLY for the weekend...a lot to do!!

There are a few things I've never implied, much less said, in discussions this season. One of those being I look at the loss to Auburn as a game lost in the last seconds or put the loss squarely on a "miraculous ending."

I do disagree that the loss can be put on the scheme. I've seen that offense have success against all the defenses its faced—from a 50 front to a 30 front. The suggestion to exclude the 3-4 scheme was to bring in that specific point. Teams playing a nickel approach or a 50 front allowed Auburn to rack up the yards they did against Bama. There wasn't a scheme that stopped them; no matter what front they fielded.

I can't understand how you point to the loss in 2013 as a scheme issue, but dismiss the wins with the same scheme. It doesn't work with me...doesn't equate with how I view the losses.

These preceding paragraphs here circle back to a question you've copied, but only took one sentence. Again, I'll say, what scheme stopped Auburn's attack this year?

There's one, that's LSU. Chavis employed several fronts in that game from a five to a four to a three man front. The difference I saw was gap responsibility. LSU maintained their's, Bama did not. It's important to note where both games fell on the schedule as well. Early on, Auburn was just getting their offense together.

If you and I chose to address one game at a time, I suspect I'll fault the losses to different areas. Then again, in the next to the last post in this thread, you mention the same things I've pointed to as faults. To get a win against Bama, you've cited "You've got to have some play-makers, avoid mistakes, penalties, and turnovers, limit Bama's time of possession, etc."

That description fits with any team. More importantly, it fits with every loss the Tide has had in the last four/five years.

I'm left with the following impression based on what I've seen you say over the last half of a decade.

When we lost against Florida in 2008, your posts critiquing Alabama's play and scheme mirrors this one. Yet, in 2009, the very mistakes made in 2008 were overcome. (It's interesting to me to recall the loss to UF in 2008 was a close loss followed by a win in 2009 with the same approach. The difference? A pure, unadulterated focus on responsibility)

Now, in this discussion focused on the loss to Auburn in 2013, I see the same issues I saw in 2008. There are multiple reasons for both losses in both years—breakdowns on defense, offensive woes, special teams mistakes.

I want to quote one paragraph here:

BUT ... do you not agree that today's offenses are taking the line of scrimmage out of the equation as much as possible? Teams are minimizing the role of OLs and DLs while maximizing the impact of skill players in space. The game seems to be valuing the endurance of players, not brute strength. I just don't see many teams on our schedule anymore that require DL above 300 lbs, and we might find it more prudent to spend scholarships on leaner, faster DL who can better pursue mobile and elusive ball carriers.
​

No, I don't agree with this. It's football, a game won in the trenches. I do find it puzzling you're pointing to teams on our schedule and saying you don't see many that require DL under 300lbs.

Why is it puzzling? Because the very defensive line we're talking about here was one that didn't have players who were above that 300lbs pointed to. In fact, it was one of the leanest defensive lines we've fielded since Saban has been here.

As fast as such offenses are snapping the ball, who is more likely to endure over the course of a game, a DL at 330+ lbs or at 290-300 lbs? Keep in mind too that most of the OL on up-tempo teams are slimmer than traditional OL.
​

That size you've referred to here, the one you're saying will have more success because of endurance? It just so happens that's the size we fielded, this year.



One last thought...

When we've slid a guy from the end position to the middle, we've used a four man front instead of our regular the majority of the time. The only instances where we've not done so has been in our rabbit packages.

---

I'm going to grab some lunch and hit my workshop...be back to this thread if the weather doesn't permit me to do what I need to do.

I do find your last post intriguing...one, using Alex as support, and two his suggestions. One of the guys he's talking about is A'Shawn...all 320lbs of him.

 

[ElephantStomp]

I think every defensive scheme has a use for a 300 pound plus DL. It doesn't matter if it's HUNH, Read Option, etc if anybody fast athlete or not runs up the middle they get nowhere IF gap responsibility is upheld. Now, on the edges and LBs you need quicker players to play the edge, but again if the gaps are played correctly I don't care who the guy with the ball is they're not going to gain much if anything, Manziel is a different cat, so not counting him.

I've said several times on this board and to people in person that I think Auburn will be less effective next year and the HUNH will lose it's luster just as the read option for the most part has in the NFL.

 

[TerryP]

:wudup:I promise I didn't pay Alex to write this.

No kidding musso. The problem is what Alex is writing and what you've been saying are two different things—and some of what Alex is saying isn't correct. (It begins early with his statement about the defensive linemen being to cumbersome/slow to catch a player. That's not their job which tells me Alex doesn't understand, or is choosing to ignore, the fundamental approach of a 3-4.)

What Alex says in his article isn't correct except for one player—Da'Shawn Hand. (I supposed we could include Pettway here, but then again he as a part of the 2011 class.)

If you look at the DT's in the class they are the same size as DT's in other classes. There is no difference in height or weight in what we've recruiting for the 2014 class versus that of 2008. If we look at the DE's in this class, again, we're recruiting and playing the same size guys.

This entire conversation we've been having has been about what defensive grouping? The defensive line.

The only change we've seen in what we've recruited in this class is found with the outside linebackers. There you'll find a different type of player.

The defensive line, remains the same as do the other positions in our scheme, with the one exception above.