Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports

Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays

Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
« Reply #40 on: October 12, 2010, 05:10:26 PM »
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

AWK

  • Caller of the "Taint"
  • ***
  • 8190
  • Damn Right.
Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
« Reply #41 on: October 12, 2010, 05:32:49 PM »
Wait, so WTF?  Alabama lost?!?!?!?!
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Redskins cornerback DeAngelo Hall said, "Guys don't mind hitting Michael Vick in the open field, but when you see Cam, you have to think about how you're going to tackle him. He's like a big tight end coming at you."

Pell City Tiger

  • ****
  • 7104
  • Moral Highlander
Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
« Reply #42 on: October 12, 2010, 06:48:02 PM »
Wait, so WTF?  Alabama lost?!?!?!?!
No, bama just failed to score more points.

It was like Pearl Harbor and 9/11 all rolled into 3 1/2 hours.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
"I stood up, unzipped my pants, lowered my shorts and placed my bare ass on the window. That's the last thing I wanted those people to see of me."

Godfather

  • Chapter
  • ****
  • 21263
  • He knows!
    • Tigers X
Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
« Reply #43 on: October 12, 2010, 08:24:10 PM »
No, bama just failed to score more points.

It was like Pearl Harbor and 9/11 all rolled into 3 1/2 hours.

9/11 times a hundred? Jesus, that's...
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Gus is gone, hooray!
                       -Auburn Fans


Auburn Forum

Token

  • ****
  • 4866
Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
« Reply #44 on: October 12, 2010, 08:33:52 PM »
Yes, 91,100.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
« Reply #45 on: October 12, 2010, 10:39:54 PM »
I completely disagree.  After the 1st quarter...hell at halftime...I said, "Here comes the Ingram train and the typical Saban defensive guillotine." 

But it never came.  Ingram was never part of the gameplan.  And I wholeheartedly believe that Ingram and Richardson are unstoppable.  They simply are too aware, too quick and too powerful to be consistently stopped for anything less than 3-4 yards a carry. 

But it never happened.  Instead, McElroy let South Carolina hold the momentum.  Not really his fault because the coaches asked him to do too much.
Same thing I was thinking. RWS, Saban gave up on the run way too quick. It was not like this was the first time the UAT run game was shut down early. Ingram has been in that spot before and took games on his shoulders and went nuts. What makes you think that the run game was done by halftime?
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

JR4AU

  • ****
  • 9989
Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
« Reply #46 on: October 12, 2010, 11:49:08 PM »
Same thing I was thinking. RWS, Saban gave up on the run way too quick. It was not like this was the first time the UAT run game was shut down early. Ingram has been in that spot before and took games on his shoulders and went nuts. What makes you think that the run game was done by halftime?

If by gave up too quick, you mean, "before the game started" then you're correct.  The run game was never part of the game plan beyond just keeping them honest.  They threw the ball 22 times the first half, to only 13 Rushes.  And the run wasn't productive at all.   McElroy's first sack wasn't til the start of the 2nd Q, and resulted in a fumble, and a short field for SC.  He was only sacked 2 times in the first half. 

McElroy threw for 79%, and a career high 315 yards, and 2 TDs.  Clearly, the plan to throw the ball was the right one from the standpoint of production.  What Saban and Co. probably didn't count on was McElroy taking some bad sacks, which are not bad play calling, but poor execution.  And they probably never counted on playing a majority of the game 2 possessions down, but also figured when that happened that the game plan they had was ok for that scenario.   Whooleo also caught 8 balls for 118 yards, and there as that big play for 51 yards to Hanks to get them back to a seven point game in the 4th quarter. 

A sack resulting in a TO early in the 2nd Q, was probably the main turning point in this game.  Clearly from McElroy's numbers, the passing game WAS working, but there were key times when he took sacks, that were probably more his failure to make the throw, or throw the ball away than anything SC did. 

If I had Ingram and Richardson, I think I'd plan to run the shit out of them every game, and if you think they fucked up by not planning to do that, then I'm agreeing. 

But from a purely lobjective game plan standpoint, I can see why they decided to throw the ball based on SCs pass Def stats, AND why they didn't abandon the plan when I study the play by play.  In fact, there was nothing in the first half that said "this offensive game plan is the wrong one".  By the time it became clear that McElroy, despite passing the ball effectively WHEN he threw it, was going to take sack after sack, the game was pretty well lost, and beyond taking it over with rushing the ball.  The biggest failing in this game was allowing Garcia to go off for 17 for 20 200 yards 3TD/1Int passing, and give up nearly 100yds rushing to Lattimore. 

Just my take after looking at the play by play on ESPN's site.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Jumbo

  • Assistant Pledge Master
  • ***
  • 10862
  • I live on the corner of Epic & Bananas.
Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
« Reply #47 on: October 13, 2010, 04:55:53 AM »
Wait, so WTF?  Alabama lost?!?!?!?!
:wartim:
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
You'll never shine if you don't glow.