musso
Member
As I posted before the game, I predicted a 30-20 loss to Clemson. I was off a bit by expecting a lower scoring game. But essentially I expected a close first half, and worried about our defensive depth in the 2nd half. I expected us to tire out like last year enabling Watson to find his rhythm as the game went on. I also expected the Clemson D to gradually figure out Hurts' limitations and begin to constrict our offense eventually leading to 3-and-outs. Most all of this happened according to plan. Amazingly we still had a chance to win at the end, despite a one-sided game statistically. Now we know why Saban was irritated by a reporter's question pre-semifinal about why Stewart was throwing with the QBs during practice, haha.
Here's my take on the natty.
The closer any game is, the more “what if’s” there are. That’s just how it is.
If Bama converts on just a couple of third downs (for example, when Clemson’s Lawrence barely gets a hand on Howard’s foot), perhaps Clemson doesn’t have enough time at the end …
If the refs flag Clemson’s pick plays for touchdowns …
If we don’t have an unusual number of self-inflicted penalties …
If we don’t drop so many passes …
If Bo doesn’t get hurt …
If Kiffin had remained on staff to guide Hurts and our offense for one more game …
If Anderson turns his head around to see Renfrow approaching him on his left, maybe he stiff-arms him into the end zone for a crucial a non-offensive TD …
If Hurts puts a little more air in his deep pass to Stewart who is behind coverage …
And so forth.
For me it boils down to a fundamental battle within college football during the Saban era: physicality VS finesse, inside play VS perimeter play, ground-based offense VS air-based offense, ball-control offense VS tempo offense. I see it as football’s Yin & Yang. What beat us last night, other than the inconvenience of Hurts’ youth, was simply playing the perfect opponent to defeat Saban: a dual threat QB with accurate passing and physical receivers with good hands. It’s that simple. Dabo was correct before the game in saying that Clemson was the only team capable of beating Alabama. Ole Miss almost did it for a 3rd year in a row, and as Hugh Freeze commented during the Washington game (Finebaum Film Room), his offense is virtually identical to Clemson’s both in scheme and personnel. The only difference I’d say between Ole Miss and Clemson was Clemson’s defensive front was stouter. And that seemed to be the difference. We were able run it against Ole Miss in the 2nd half, even without Bo, but Clemson stiffened against the run.
The truth is, there isn’t much we can do about it. Teams who can’t match Bama’s talent in the box will concentrate their recruiting, development, and scheme at two positions: QB and WR. They will put all their eggs in those two baskets, and when they play us, they will negate any talent disparity in the trenches by effectively eliminating the trenches from the game. You do this with the shot gun, tempo, spread, quick passes, QB runs, and one-on-one matchups with undersized DBs. Our opponents know that the supply of tall cornerbacks is just too small for even mighty Bama to attract on a regular basis.
The best response Saban can deploy is offensive, not defensive, that is by putting a premium QBs, RBs, and OL. And this is where I think we found ourselves in an unusual position this season. We ended up with a starting QB with a limited ceiling for the season as a true freshman. We only had one RB (Bo) who could be a suitable threat both between and outside the tackles and therefore a critical ball control tool in the 2nd half. However his availability was limited. And we also didn’t have good play in the interior of our OL. Even by fixing one of these three weaknesses before last night, I say we get by with a win, despite Clemson’s deadly talent profile.
This is why I’m really excited about this year’s signees: an awesome OL class and two RBs with a Scarborough-like build.
There’s little we or anyone else can do defensively against teams who abandon the run and throw 50+ times a game to big, athletic receivers in space. The only thing we can counter with is an offense with better OL play, more physical RBs, and more confident and accurate QB play.
The Finebaum's of the world need to shut their trap about Bama slipping, because this kind of football doesn't lend to any one program staying on top. When you bottleneck your offense to the QB and WR positions, you get inconsistent performance and limit yourself to the health of those players. So the more we travel down this path, dynasties will be a thing of the past for ALL schools.
Here's my take on the natty.
The closer any game is, the more “what if’s” there are. That’s just how it is.
If Bama converts on just a couple of third downs (for example, when Clemson’s Lawrence barely gets a hand on Howard’s foot), perhaps Clemson doesn’t have enough time at the end …
If the refs flag Clemson’s pick plays for touchdowns …
If we don’t have an unusual number of self-inflicted penalties …
If we don’t drop so many passes …
If Bo doesn’t get hurt …
If Kiffin had remained on staff to guide Hurts and our offense for one more game …
If Anderson turns his head around to see Renfrow approaching him on his left, maybe he stiff-arms him into the end zone for a crucial a non-offensive TD …
If Hurts puts a little more air in his deep pass to Stewart who is behind coverage …
And so forth.
For me it boils down to a fundamental battle within college football during the Saban era: physicality VS finesse, inside play VS perimeter play, ground-based offense VS air-based offense, ball-control offense VS tempo offense. I see it as football’s Yin & Yang. What beat us last night, other than the inconvenience of Hurts’ youth, was simply playing the perfect opponent to defeat Saban: a dual threat QB with accurate passing and physical receivers with good hands. It’s that simple. Dabo was correct before the game in saying that Clemson was the only team capable of beating Alabama. Ole Miss almost did it for a 3rd year in a row, and as Hugh Freeze commented during the Washington game (Finebaum Film Room), his offense is virtually identical to Clemson’s both in scheme and personnel. The only difference I’d say between Ole Miss and Clemson was Clemson’s defensive front was stouter. And that seemed to be the difference. We were able run it against Ole Miss in the 2nd half, even without Bo, but Clemson stiffened against the run.
The truth is, there isn’t much we can do about it. Teams who can’t match Bama’s talent in the box will concentrate their recruiting, development, and scheme at two positions: QB and WR. They will put all their eggs in those two baskets, and when they play us, they will negate any talent disparity in the trenches by effectively eliminating the trenches from the game. You do this with the shot gun, tempo, spread, quick passes, QB runs, and one-on-one matchups with undersized DBs. Our opponents know that the supply of tall cornerbacks is just too small for even mighty Bama to attract on a regular basis.
The best response Saban can deploy is offensive, not defensive, that is by putting a premium QBs, RBs, and OL. And this is where I think we found ourselves in an unusual position this season. We ended up with a starting QB with a limited ceiling for the season as a true freshman. We only had one RB (Bo) who could be a suitable threat both between and outside the tackles and therefore a critical ball control tool in the 2nd half. However his availability was limited. And we also didn’t have good play in the interior of our OL. Even by fixing one of these three weaknesses before last night, I say we get by with a win, despite Clemson’s deadly talent profile.
This is why I’m really excited about this year’s signees: an awesome OL class and two RBs with a Scarborough-like build.
There’s little we or anyone else can do defensively against teams who abandon the run and throw 50+ times a game to big, athletic receivers in space. The only thing we can counter with is an offense with better OL play, more physical RBs, and more confident and accurate QB play.
The Finebaum's of the world need to shut their trap about Bama slipping, because this kind of football doesn't lend to any one program staying on top. When you bottleneck your offense to the QB and WR positions, you get inconsistent performance and limit yourself to the health of those players. So the more we travel down this path, dynasties will be a thing of the past for ALL schools.
Last edited:
