🏈 Saban dynasty causing an SEC decline?

[musso]

No, I mean '15 in the playoffs.

Oops, I totally neglected that bowl game. Point accepted.

Weak running attack? I'm sorry, but what?

Perhaps, "weak running attack" wasn't the best phrase to use, but you're just swinging at the lowest hanging fruit of my post. In great detail I qualified what I meant by "weak running attack." Your rushing total data, while significant, isn't what I'm talking about and doesn't negate my points. Please rebut my more concrete claims.

But, if it's the quarterback rushing ... it's a weak running attack?

Again, "weak" wasn't the most useful adjective I used here. But I do think it's sad that we have to put our QB in harm's way when we have such a loaded backfield of stud RBs. Like many other teams, we have decided to exploit the numbers advantage of allowing our QB to be a dual threat. I get it, but I suppose I'm biased towards keeping the QB behind the LOS. The way I see it, a QB who is encouraged to run will inevitably rush his progressions or simply truncate them and take off if his first read is covered. Give me a tall, pro-style QB over a dual threat any day.

Now you're jumping to '13, talking about the offensive line failures, despite a Bama team that averaged almost 250 yards per game against SEC opponents?

Not jumping to '13, but rather beginning with '13. Reread my comments and you see that my criticisms all pertain to after the '12 season. In other words, I'm comparing the OL consistency of two periods: 08-12 and 13-present. Rushing totals aren't the most important metric. Saban himself has often noted after some games that he values negative plays and penalties more than stat sheet totals. A few big plays dresses up the stats all nice and pretty, but sustained drives and possession require consistent positive yardage, if only modest gains per play. My recollection is that beginning in '13 and definitely with Kiffin's arrival in '14, our explosive plays increased in frequency but so did our negative plays and offensive penalties. Our Time of Possession also became more erratic. So again, your rushing totals don't address the particular concerns I'm raising. I mean, do you have a different recollection of our OL play post-'12???

You really aren't going with "If Colt hadn't been hurt, are you?"

You people love Straw Men arguments, don't you? You just can't stick to my exact claims. I stand by my claim that losing the most prolific QB in Longhorn history and a Heisman candidate and relying on a freshman QB in the national championship "was fortunate" for Bama. With Colt in there, Texas likely avoids the ill-advised interception right before half and also puts more points on the board. As it turned out, Texas held our offense to virtually nothing the whole 2nd half until the final 2 minutes of the game where we scored 2 quick TDs covering a combined 30 yards on 6 plays. Not to mention, an urgency to score more points would have played right into Texas' hands since Greg was playing with broken ribs. Heck, they sacked us 5 times with only the few passes Greg attempted. Got to imagine Greg get sacked more if Colt plays and is likely hurt even more. AJ's redshirt is burned, and it becomes a whole different game. Yes, people, I can analyze my team objectively and still cheer them on at the same time.

I suppose you're talking about '10 here? That was a year decimated by injuries, remember? Bama wasn't fortunate to beat Michigan State the way they did--they were finally healthy.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. By fortunate I simply meant, we were finally healthy and playing only a co-champion of a lesser caliber. I think we could have beaten anyone in the country on that day given how talented that squad was. Saban's remarked once that the '10 roster may have been his most talented.

Easily? No. Every team LSU played that season had trouble with Jordan that season. (Why Miles started with Lee I'll never figure out.) In #1 I mentioned "how many games has Bama been beaten when the opponent didn't rush for 100 yards?" LSU put 150 on Bama that day.

But we didn't lose TOP and even outgained them in total yardage by 60 yards. Don't forget 20 of LSU's rushing yards was their first play in OT. We regularly moved the ball all night, and like I said, missed 3-4 field goals that night. That's just rare. Plus, that inexplicable interception by Reid on Maze's pass to Williams. LSU was fortunate to win, because of rare events and one spectacular interception when the ball was literally in our hands!

 

[JoshB]

It's ironic to see the mention of false starts while criticizing the offense this season when they've had zero false starts this season (versus 12 at this time last season.)

He's grasping at every single straw, no matter how short, he can to fit his narrative (even though that narrative has shifted from Alabama is so dominant that its destroying the SEC to now suddenly Alabama is actually not that strong and can't "dominate" in bowl games because of how dominant they are... confused yet? Exactly).

 

[musso]

So, do you not watch the games or what? Michigan State wasn't dominant?

As I replied to Terry, I totally forgot that game. So that's one exception to my general claim.

Washington wasn't dominant?

No, not offensively, which is what I'm talking about. And no sober Bama fan would call our offensive performance dominant against Washington.

Not ever championship game is going to be Bama vs. Notre Dame, its supposed to be the two best teams in the country.

Agreed, but like I've already clarified, I'm talking about a general trend since '12 with our gradual inability to physically win the LOS in critical moments and avoid drive-killing mistakes. I think Terry or somebody noted a while ago that our new OL coach is expected to fix the OL. So maybe I need to just give him time. I have certainly posted my optimism about improved OL play in the future, given all the blue-chip talent we have collected at that position in recent years.

You are 100% stirring.

Okay, then stop replying to someone you believe in stirring. Really, why indulge someone who is being disingenuous??? Terry and perhaps others know how serious I am. What Saban is as coach, I am as a fan: always trying to find vulnerabilities to our team. I come on here to bounce my concerns off of you guys to get feedback.

Especially considering this is a two month old topic and you're rehashing it.

When ESPN runs material that backs me up after getting gang-tackled previously, yeah I'm going to show I'm not crazy.

 

[musso]

When it comes to the non conference games, I pull for the SEC! (Admittedly, not hard for awbarn, but IF they win, better for the SEC).
Besides, it looks better when we lay the first loss of the season on one of our conference brethren. ROLL TIDE ROLL!!!

LOL, thank you!!! Jesus, I've been on these boards since the early 2000-1, and I don't recall any Bama fan saying he didn't wish his fellow SEC rivals well in their OOC games. Now suddenly, everyone is acting like, "What do you mean, S-E-C!, S-E-C! I've never chanted that before!" Haha

 

[musso]

It's ironic to see the mention of false starts while criticizing the offense this season when they've had zero false starts this season (versus 12 at this time last season.)

Your reading comprehension skills are lacking. I'm talking about a general trend post-'12.
Yes, I've been impressed with our lack of OL penalties so far this season ... all three games of it. But our run blocking (for our RBs) and ball possession, not so much, particularly against lesser competition in Weeks 2 and 3.

 

[musso]

He's grasping at every single straw, no matter how short, he can to fit his narrative (even though that narrative has shifted from Alabama is so dominant that its destroying the SEC to now suddenly Alabama is actually not that strong and can't "dominate" in bowl games because of how dominant they are... confused yet? Exactly).

Not just my narrative. Cowherd's and ESPN's narrative too. What do coaches say about practice? If you practice hard, you play well on gameday, right? Well if you play tough competition during the regular season, you are more battle tested for the quality OOC opponents in bowls. Hence, I want our conference to be strong, so that in the post-season we are more likely to dominate our opponents.

It's really not that difficult of a concept. SEC fans used to pride themselves on having the undisputed strongest conference in the nation. And for decades the SEC record in the biggest bowls reflected that. I want that to remain ... not for my love of the SEC, but for my selfish love for Bama. A good conference makes us better. Period.

 

[RollllTide!]

Don't like cowturd. Don't watch him or anything on ESPN other than a game. If you didn't start this thread all of us would be better educated. When you hang out with $hit you are going to end up smelling like $hit. Like the wife in the movie Cadillac said when she was asked did she run around on her husband. She said just a little.

Just stay away from any sports program that does commentary on politics or disses any one. Not paying for that.

 

[TerryP]

Perhaps, "weak running attack" wasn't the best phrase to use, but you're just swinging at the lowest hanging fruit of my post. In great detail I qualified what I meant by "weak running attack." Your rushing total data, while significant, isn't what I'm talking about and doesn't negate my points. Please rebut my more concrete claims.

It was a bad phrase to use. It's not factual.

I caught your comments on Yeldon and Henry. By themselves it seems like a point but I fail to see how it's salient. It's ignoring far too much.

One, comparing one team to another isn't sound. It's two teams, two different sets of players. Even more importantly you can't take '13-'16 and make any comparisons to the tenure of Nuss or Mac. Different schemes, different OC's, and we've seen the OL coaches change.

Again, "weak" wasn't the most useful adjective I used here. But I do think it's sad that we have to put our QB in harm's way when we have such a loaded backfield of stud RBs. Like many other teams, we have decided to exploit the numbers advantage of allowing our QB to be a dual threat. I get it, but I suppose I'm biased towards keeping the QB behind the LOS. The way I see it, a QB who is encouraged to run will inevitably rush his progressions or simply truncate them and take off if his first read is covered. Give me a tall, pro-style QB over a dual threat any day.

Your opinion. If the staff were to follow it we're losing a valuable weapon. More importantly, we'd be seeing teams Bama is facing having even more success against the running backs due to overloading the box. You know, at least I hope you do, how the dual threat QB minimizes the defense loading the box.

Not jumping to '13, but rather beginning with '13. Reread my comments and you see that my criticisms all pertain to after the '12 season. In other words, I'm comparing the OL consistency of two periods: 08-12 and 13-present. Rushing totals aren't the most important metric. Saban himself has often noted after some games that he values negative plays and penalties more than stat sheet totals. A few big plays dresses up the stats all nice and pretty, but sustained drives and possession require consistent positive yardage, if only modest gains per play. My recollection is that beginning in '13 and definitely with Kiffin's arrival in '14, our explosive plays increased in frequency but so did our negative plays and offensive penalties. Our Time of Possession also became more erratic. So again, your rushing totals don't address the particular concerns I'm raising. I mean, do you have a different recollection of our OL play post-'12???

Touched on above. It happens with every football team.

Let's not ignore the quarterback position in these two periods as well. Greg and AJ both had a lot of time in the system which leads to fewer penalties, it leads to better blocking calls (having guys like Barrett at center helped tremendously,)

Then we're starting a running back, a transfer with a year in, and then a true frosh. That leads to minor mistakes.

You people love Straw Men arguments, don't you? You just can't stick to my exact claims. I stand by my claim that losing the most prolific QB in Longhorn history and a Heisman candidate and relying on a freshman QB in the national championship "was fortunate" for Bama. With Colt in there, Texas likely avoids the ill-advised interception right before half and also puts more points on the board. As it turned out, Texas held our offense to virtually nothing the whole 2nd half until the final 2 minutes of the game where we scored 2 quick TDs covering a combined 30 yards on 6 plays. Not to mention, an urgency to score more points would have played right into Texas' hands since Greg was playing with broken ribs. Heck, they sacked us 5 times with only the few passes Greg attempted. Got to imagine Greg get sacked more if Colt plays and is likely hurt even more. AJ's redshirt is burned, and it becomes a whole different game. Yes, people, I can analyze my team objectively and still cheer them on at the same time.

You use the term "straw man argument" as defense to the same degree Katy Perry uses spermicide.

In all of that you're still choosing to ignore how Bama won that game. It wasn't what Texas lost, it was what Texas couldn't stop--the running attack.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. By fortunate I simply meant, we were finally healthy and playing only a co-champion of a lesser caliber. I think we could have beaten anyone in the country on that day given how talented that squad was. Saban's remarked once that the '10 roster may have been his most talented.

Agreed.

But we didn't lose TOP and even outgained them in total yardage by 60 yards. Don't forget 20 of LSU's rushing yards was their first play in OT. We regularly moved the ball all night, and like I said, missed 3-4 field goals that night. That's just rare. Plus, that inexplicable interception by Reid on Maze's pass to Williams. LSU was fortunate to win, because of rare events and one spectacular interception when the ball was literally in our hands!

Lose time of possession in '11? I don't recall the exact numbers. I do recall they were seconds apart from each other...thinking it was less than 30 seconds. Yes, Bama did outgain them by around 50 yards.

But no, LSU didn't get 20 yards on the first drive of overtime. It was less than 20 on the first two plays and it was either a rush for no gain or a incomplete on the next play. As I recall, LSU was just inside the 10 on third down when they kicked the game winner (and one of the four Bama misses was in that first OT possession.)

But, side-stepping what the LSU remark was about earlier...

 

[JoseyWalesTheOutlaw]

I guess I am a bad fan at 67 but I only care about Alabama. I understand that it will be helpful if other teams in the SEC have success. With that said there isn't a team in the SEC that wouldn't cut Bama's throat if they had a chance. Coach Bryant and Bama carried the SEC in the 60's and then again in the 70's and now Nick is doing the same plus some. I do Hope that the cow college in lee county will lose every game they play. "Sometimes there just aren't enough rocks"................Forrest Gump

 

[musso]

I caught your comments on Yeldon and Henry. By themselves it seems like a point but I fail to see how it's salient. It's ignoring far too much.

I didn't mean to blame it all on the RBs. I merely used their names to refer to the stretch of time when I recall seeing increased frequency in negative running plays. I obviously realize there are lots of moving parts to a successful offense. But one thing I failed to include in a previous post was, Henry's physicality was critical in compensating for the decline in consistent run blocking during his tenure. Without his one-of-a-kind physical gifts, our rushing attack would have been VERY concerning!

Your opinion. If the staff were to follow it we're losing a valuable weapon.

But also gaining something of value too, a better and more patient passer and better utilization of surrounding skill players. Maybe with fewer and fewer players staying through their senior seasons, college coaches are giving up on investing the requisite time on grooming traditional pocket passers. I guess there's been a diminishing return on recruiting pocket passers if they aren't willing to redshirt and max out their college eligibility to fully learn an offense and physically develop to their fullest. So the QB position has devolved into a glorified RB who only has to read a few simple cues and complete a smaller array of throws. I'm thinking out loud here. Thoughts? :think:

You know, at least I hope you do, how the dual threat QB minimizes the defense loading the box.

Uh yes.

Like many other teams, we have decided to exploit the numbers advantage by allowing our QB to be a dual threat. I get it ...

Touched on above. It happens with every football team.

Let's not ignore the quarterback position in these two periods as well. Greg and AJ both had a lot of time in the system which leads to fewer penalties, it leads to better blocking calls (having guys like Barrett at center helped tremendously,)

Then we're starting a running back, a transfer with a year in, and then a true frosh. That leads to minor mistakes.

Great points. As I concede above, lots of moving parts to a good offense. To the point of this thread, I suppose in the glory days of the SEC, perhaps we don't win the conference with these glaring weaknesses (a RB playing QB in '14, a transfer QB in '15, and true frosh QB in '16) and the SEC champ goes on to win the natty like usual. In this scenario, I'm not even in a position to complain about our "declining" post-season performances since we aren't playing elite competition in the national title/play off. Ha!

You use the term "straw man argument" as defense to the same degree Katy Perry uses spermicide.

Because so many of you rely on Straw Men so often. Stop doing it, and I'll stop calling you out on it. I never brought up "if Colt had played." I merely piggy-backed ON YOUR POINT that Clemson would have comfortably beaten any of our post-season opponents '09-'12. That's why I said we were "fortunate" to play against more flawed teams during those years. But just like with so many of you on this board, any remote scent of someone taking ANYTHING away from a Bama victory must be met with an irrational defensive posture, in your case arguing against the Straw Man that I believe Colt would have beaten us. I don't know if he would have beaten us, but since YOU went there, I had to push back on what I sensed was your excessive optimism.

In all of that you're still choosing to ignore how Bama won that game.

LOLOLOL So I'm "choosing to ignore" how Bama won the game by noting the obvious and clear advantage we had by defending against a true freshman QB rather than having to defend the best QB in the nation that season???? Moreover all the ripple effects of not having to score much offensively given Greg's delicate health status for that game, which was perhaps among the best kept secrets in Bama championship history.

It wasn't what Texas lost, it was what Texas couldn't stop--the running attack.

Uh no. Take off your crimson-colored glasses and acknowledge both were factors. Besides, you're overstating Texas not stopping the running attack. See attached stats from that game. If you remove Trent's big TD run, Bama averaged the same per rush as Texas. Moreover, we only had one sustained scoring drive the whole night: 7 plays for only 57 yards. We converted only two 3rd downs. As I already noted, we got two late TDs on drives of 3 plays a piece off of turnovers which don't likely occur with Colt in the game. Dareus' pick before halftime also doesn't likely occur with Colt. And with Colt playing, Greg likely feels additional pressure to score more and thus pass more and he then gets hit more. As little as he passed he got sacked a whopping 5 times. You can't dismiss all the ways the game is likely different with an experienced and prolific QB in the game.

Now was Saban more comfortable going more vanilla on offense after Colt's exit? I'm sure he was. Force that freshman QB to beat your top defense and don't give Texas any easy points off turnovers. So I realize the game was close by a calculated design. We just cannot dismiss though how it all played into Greg's favor with his limited availability for that game. Asking any more from him than we did that night would have been difficult!

Lose time of possession in '11? I don't recall the exact numbers. I do recall they were seconds apart from each other...thinking it was less than 30 seconds.

I said we didn't lose time of possession. Here are the stats.

Yes, Bama did outgain them by around 50 yards.

I said 60 yards. You said around 50. It was 56 yards.

But no, LSU didn't get 20 yards on the first drive of overtime.

I said 20 yards "on the first play," not first drive. Upon revisiting the replay, it was 3 yards on the first play and 15 yards on the second play. So I was 2 yards off. My point remains though: LSU was lucky to escape with a win, and for us to play them again with additional time to prepare, was a "fortunate" national title match-up for us. Not only that, but the argument flying around that LSU shouldn't have to play us again was a very persuasive argument, one with wide public support. So another way we were fortunate that season!

 

[musso]

Oops I forgot to attach the screen shots of the Texas stats.

 

[TerryP]

@musso

As I concede above, lots of moving parts to a good offense.

Yet, when I read your observations I find a lot of them to be myopic. As one example, you credit Henry's physique--one-of-a-kind physical gifts--as the reason he was able to gain the yards he did even after the penetration we saw that season. What's missing is the mention of all the accolades Ingram received about yards after contact.

I'm not saying your observations are incorrect. I'm saying there's a lack of context.

I'm reminded of week one when we saw people in the G, B, and U thread about "Why can't Bama find a place kicker" when that field goal was missed. I surfed the 'net for three days just to see how many would mention the hold. I found three: I'm one.

I know this is going to come across as egotistical. So be it.

If my discussions with you contain so many "straw man arguments" can you explain to me how I'm right so often? It's because the legs I'm standing on aren't made of straw; titanium, compadre', titanium. :devil:

 

[musso]

Yet, when I read your observations I find a lot of them to be myopic. As one example, you credit Henry's physique--one-of-a-kind physical gifts--as the reason he was able to gain the yards he did even after the penetration we saw that season. What's missing is the mention of all the accolades Ingram received about yards after contact.

Hah, talk about myopic ... you're comparing apples (Henry's YACs) to oranges (Ingram's YACs). My beef during the Henry era was that too often there was penetration in the backfield resulting in negative plays. Henry's unique physical gifts didn't help him AT ALL in these situations. Henry was the sort of RB who could break tackles only after first gaining some momentum. Otherwise Henry, because of his size, was a sitting duck in the backfield. This is why I stated earlier:

... and all during Henry's tenure (Henry would get stopped behind the line half the time, the other half he would rip off amazing runs) ...

If you recall whenever Saban would critique our offense during this period, he would always say that despite impressive scoring and yardage averages, we were having too many negative plays and too few 3rd down conversions. This illustrates my point. Our ability to reliably grind it out seems to have gradually declined after '12. One amazing exception to this trend was the LSU game when Henry literally grinded out the final 6(?) minutes of the game. But if you recall, on that final possession the LSU defense wasn't penetrating into the backfield either. Avoid penetration and Henry could do wonders.

As for the Ingram era, my recollection is that our OL rarely allowed penetration and rarely was flagged. Perhaps Ingram didn't have Henry's separation speed and as many explosive runs (Henry seemed to have the most of any RB in recent memory!), but Ingram was seldom dropped for losses. Perhaps I shouldn't solely credit the OL for this because Ingram's smaller size and shifty-ness made him harder to track behind our OL, but I just don't recall the same frequency of OL errors (e.g. holding, false starts, missed blocks, etc.).

So in summary, with Henry it was feast or famine. With Ingram, it was more steady and predictable. Henry's long stride and greater top-end speed allowed him to take it the distance whereas Ingram's center of gravity was ideal for a ball control philosophy. Yes, both had impressive YACs, but I'd say you are being reckless by not differentiating. On the whole, I'd say more of Ingram's YACs occured closer to the box than Henry's YACs, because of the difference in (a) their running styles, (b) the soundness of the offensive line play they ran behind respectively, and (c) how spread out our offense had become with Henry.

 

[musso]

I know this is going to come across as egotistical. So be it.

Oh I don't care if you are egotistical. I only care about the merit of your feedback. Facts > feelings, remember?

If my discussions with you contain so many "straw man arguments" can you explain to me how I'm right so often?

Since you are slow to understand what Straw Men arguments are, let me try for the last time to spoon feed you:

1. I claimed we were "fortunate" to play Texas without Colt.
2. You then rebutted as if I had claimed we would have lost had Colt played.
3. Claiming it was fortuitous to play Texas without Colt does not obligate me to believe Colt would have beaten us had he played. It only obligates me to recognize the obvious: it was easier to beat Texas without Colt.

That is a classical example of a Straw Man fallacy. Stop committing them, and I'll stop calling you out on them.

And by the way, don't confuse the claim that "you are right so often" with the evidence of being right so often.

 

[JoshB]

Did yall know that Derrick Henry was a sitting duck while at Alabama? Could have swore he was the first back to ever gain over 2,000 yards rushing in a season, broke the single season and career rushing yardage and touchdown records... Odd... for a sitting duck like that.

 

[musso]

Did yall know that Derrick Henry was a sitting duck while at Alabama? Could have swore he was the first back to ever gain over 2,000 yards rushing in a season, broke the single season and career rushing yardage and touchdown records... Odd... for a sitting duck like that.

This is what I said:

... My beef during the Henry era was that too often there was penetration in the backfield resulting in negative plays. Henry's unique physical gifts didn't help him AT ALL in these situations. Henry was the sort of RB who could break tackles only after first gaining some momentum. Otherwise Henry, because of his size, was a sitting duck in the backfield...

This is all you apparently read:

... My beef during the Henry era was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Henry, because of his size, was a sitting duck in the backfield.

Your problem, not mine.

 

[JoshB]

This is what I said:

This is all you apparently read:

Your problem, not mine.

The funny thing is there isn't a single thing that's NOT wrong with your entire argument.

No. 1, Henry had no issues breaking tackles at or behind the line of scrimmage...



No. 2, where are all these "negative" plays you keep referencing? In 2015, Henry lost a TOTAL of 68 yards on the entire season... 395 carries... 63 yards...

No. 3, you implied how bad the offensive line was during that time with your negative plays comment... I just showed that Henry only lost a total of 63 yards (and by the way as a team Alabama lost a TOTAL of 352 yards rushing during the season, and that includes 205 from Coker on sacks) so obviously it's one of two things... either Henry had no issue breaking all those tackles considering how awful you suggest the line was... or the line was amazing and Henry was routinely getting 10 yards down field before being touched (because according to you Henry could only break a tackle after getting going)... Have a nice day, sir.

 

[alagator]

And by the way, don't confuse the claim that "you are right so often" with the evidence of being right so often.

You're on the clock bro, tell me where he has been wrong. I've known Terry, despite the ass he is, for over 10 years now and he's never let me down the wrong path when it comes to Bama football.

On the other hand, I recall you bitching about Terrence Cody and how the big men in the middle wouldn't work.

These are facts not feelings