Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports

Pat Dye Field => War Damn Eagle => Topic started by: AUChizad on October 10, 2010, 05:30:10 PM

Title: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: AUChizad on October 10, 2010, 05:30:10 PM
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/10/about_that_fake_field_goal_nic.html

Quote
About that fake field goal? Nick Saban says he 'probably' got it wrong
Published: Saturday, October 09, 2010, 7:18 PM
  Kevin Scarbinsky, Birmingham News

Nick Saban got it right after the game. During the game, Nick Saban got it wrong.

"Probably didn't make a very good call on the fake," the Alabama coach said.
No argument here.

Alabama trailed by seven early in the fourth quarter when it faced fourth-and-11 from the South Carolina 25-yard line. Kicker Jeremy Shelley lined up as if to attempt a 42-yard field goal, which Saban later said "is right on the edge of his range."

Instead, holder AJ McCarron rolled left and tossed a pass in the flat that was dropped by ... wait for it ... Ed Stinson.

That's right. That's linebacker/defensive end Ed Stinson.

Had he caught the ball, an iffy proposition anyway for a linebacker/defensive end, Stinson would've had to break at least one tackle to get the first down. Not likely considering that Mark Ingram and Trent Richardson, Alabama's actual running backs, had trouble breaking tackles against South Carolina.

After the game, Saban second-guessed himself before anyone else had the chance.

"It did give them the momentum of the game back," he said. "We could've taken points right there, not that it would've affected the outcome of the game because we never got them stopped anyway."

South Carolina took the momentum of that stop and drove 74 yards in 10 plays for a two-touchdown lead that held up for a 35-21 win.

Give Saban the blame for making that risky call. Give him credit for taking the blame and admitting his mistake.
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: AWK on October 10, 2010, 05:31:14 PM
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/10/about_that_fake_field_goal_nic.html
It's good to know that Scarbinsky knows how Saban's dick tastes...
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: RWS on October 10, 2010, 05:53:06 PM
Everybody knows you just can't pull that shit off unless you are Les Miles. It was a stupid call.


Unless it worked.  :silence:
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: jmar on October 10, 2010, 07:38:55 PM
Everybody knows you just can't pull that poop off unless you are Les Miles. It was a stupid call.


Unless it worked.  :silence:
There were signs that Bama could run early on (I haven't seen the replay) but McElroy was allowed the leash as if he was deserving somehow. It was contrary to what this offense has been about for two seasons. South Carolina responded on defense accordingly. After the third series even the run game became hopeless. That's what I saw.
But yeah any trick that fails almost always looks desperately stupid.
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: Ranger12 on October 10, 2010, 08:25:47 PM
Even when the run game seemed to be faltering, I don't understand how you give up on it so easily when you have the Heisman Trophy winner on your team with a very good #2 being him. Ingram had 11 carries and Richardson had 6...17 combined! Ingram has a history of carrying the team in a situation like this, so why not give him the chance? Saban screwed the pooch on this, plain and simple.
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: djsimp on October 10, 2010, 08:49:40 PM
Even when the run game seemed to be faltering, I don't understand how you give up on it so easily when you have the Heisman Trophy winner on your team with a very good #2 being him.

EGG ZACK LEE!
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: Townhallsavoy on October 10, 2010, 09:22:46 PM
Everybody knows you just can't pull that shit off unless you are Les Miles. It was a stupid call.


Unless it worked.  :silence:

I think we need a Les Miles emoticon for the "Unless it does" comments.  I think it'd fit right nicely if you ask me of my humble opinion I reckon.
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: RWS on October 10, 2010, 09:35:30 PM
Even when the run game seemed to be faltering, I don't understand how you give up on it so easily when you have the Heisman Trophy winner on your team with a very good #2 being him. Ingram had 11 carries and Richardson had 6...17 combined! Ingram has a history of carrying the team in a situation like this, so why not give him the chance? Saban screwed the pooch on this, plain and simple.
USCe got up on us quick, and by the looks of it, they weren't going to let off the gas. I somewhat agree with going to the air at that point, if nothing else, to catch us up and get within 7-10 points so we could then get back into "our game". If after the first quarter you thought we would win that game, you're a fool. That's not the popular thing to say on many Alabama boards, but it's the truth. I mean they just beat our asses.
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: Townhallsavoy on October 10, 2010, 09:45:52 PM
USCe got up on us quick, and by the looks of it, they weren't going to let off the gas. I somewhat agree with going to the air at that point, if nothing else, to catch us up and get within 7-10 points so we could then get back into "our game". If after the first quarter you thought we would win that game, you're a fool. That's not the popular thing to say on many Alabama boards, but it's the truth. I mean they just beat our asses.

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. 
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: RWS on October 10, 2010, 09:54:54 PM
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.
I sure as fuck hope the coaches didn't ask him to keep hanging onto the ball 5 seconds past the point he should have thrown it away a million times.
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: Townhallsavoy on October 10, 2010, 09:55:43 PM
I sure as fuck hope the coaches didn't ask him to keep hanging onto the ball 5 seconds past the point he should have thrown it away a million times.

They asked him to win the game.  He's just inept at winning games by himself. 
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: jmar on October 10, 2010, 10:11:43 PM
I sure as phuk hope the coaches didn't ask him to keep hanging onto the ball 5 seconds past the point he should have thrown it away a million times.
I realize that I am talking about a different era, but I can count on two hands the number of times Bryant teams were"out" of a game. In my opinion, Saban coached teams aren't far off the mark. It might not be popular, but HE phuked that one away and HE didn't adjust accordingly, I never thought that they were out of it until the fake FG attempt. The Bama OL never got in a rythym because McElroy was busy playing John Elway. Did Ingram and Richardson even break a sweat? I know they were stoned several times but the South Carolina defense was stoked by that point in the game.
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: Token on October 10, 2010, 10:33:18 PM
We got our asses whipped in the trenches.  We got our asses whipped in the secondary.  We got our asses whipped on special teams.  We got our asses whipped on the sidelines.  We got our entire ass handed to us on national television for all the world to see.  They were faster, stronger, smarter, and stronger. 

Publish it.
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: jmar on October 10, 2010, 10:41:00 PM
We got our asses whipped in the trenches.  We got our asses whipped in the secondary.  We got our asses whipped on special teams.  We got our asses whipped on the sidelines.  We got our entire ass handed to us on national television for all the world to see.  They were faster, stronger, smarter, and stronger. 

Publish it.
Damn Token, your the anti-Winston Churchill.
Very Churchillian my friend.
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: RWS on October 10, 2010, 10:48:16 PM
I realize that I am talking about a different era, but I can count on two hands the number of times Bryant teams were"out" of a game. In my opinion, Saban coached teams aren't far off the mark. It might not be popular, but HE phuked that one away and HE didn't adjust accordingly, I never thought that they were out of it until the fake FG attempt. The Bama OL never got in a rythym because McElroy was busy playing John Elway. Did Ingram and Richardson even break a sweat? I know they were stoned several times but the South Carolina defense was stoked by that point in the game.
I think we could have played our best, and still lost. It was a cluster fuck of epic proportins from kickoff till the end. I can't even explain all the levels of fail the team and coaches accomplished Saturday. Looking at it from our end, it was over L O N G before that fake FG.
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: jmar on October 10, 2010, 10:51:37 PM
I think we could have played our best, and still lost. It was a cluster phuk of epic proportins from kickoff till the end. I can't even explain all the levels of fail the team and coaches accomplished Saturday. Looking at it from our end, it was over L O N G before that fake FG.
Okay!
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: RWS on October 10, 2010, 10:53:21 PM
Okay!
I appreciate you at least not being a homer about it, though.

Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: jmar on October 10, 2010, 10:55:12 PM
I appreciate you at least not being a homer about it, though.
Sure thing.
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: GH2001 on October 10, 2010, 10:58:05 PM
Everybody knows you just can't pull that shit off unless you are Les Miles. It was a stupid call.


Unless it worked.  :silence:

You are right...no one else has that amount of luck stored up.
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: JR4AU on October 10, 2010, 11:06:30 PM
I keep reading bammers here, and others agreeing with them, that the "game plan" was fucked up...."why didn't they run the ball more?".  Well they ran 64 plays, and 29 were runs...for a whopping 36 yards.  Oh, and South Carolina's Pass Def?  Only 103rd in the nation.  Saban/McElwain had every right to put a game plan together that was pass heavy due to that fact, AND the fact that their Run D is 23rd in the nation.  Bammer only ran it 31 times vs FL, 31 vs PSU, and 40 vs Ark. So they weren't that far off their pace anyway.

News flash...bammer got outplayed on the field.  Simple as that.  Blame schemes, blame coaches, or whatever, sometimes you just run up against a team that's better than you on that day, and has enough talent to pull off their game plan, and be ready for yours.   
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: JR4AU on October 11, 2010, 04:39:20 PM
I keep reading bammers here, and others agreeing with them, that the "game plan" was fucked up...."why didn't they run the ball more?".  Well they ran 64 plays, and 29 were runs...for a whopping 36 yards.  Oh, and South Carolina's Pass Def?  Only 103rd in the nation.  Saban/McElwain had every right to put a game plan together that was pass heavy due to that fact, AND the fact that their Run D is 23rd in the nation.  Bammer only ran it 31 times vs FL, 31 vs PSU, and 40 vs Ark. So they weren't that far off their pace anyway.

News flash...bammer got outplayed on the field.  Simple as that.  Blame schemes, blame coaches, or whatever, sometimes you just run up against a team that's better than you on that day, and has enough talent to pull off their game plan, and be ready for yours.

Correcting myself...of those 29 runs, 12 were by McElroy, most of which were sacks I assume.  Still my point is the pass defense of SC said throw the ball, and McElroy, for all the shit he's taking, was 27 of 35, for 315 yds, 2 TDs and 0 INTs.  Neither Ingram or Richardson managed 4 yds per carry. 
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: Snaggletiger on October 11, 2010, 04:55:33 PM
I'll have to give credick where credick is due on one play, though.  The TD Bammer scored just before half on a pass to Whooo-Leo was great recognition.  Hell, even the announcers called it before hand.  For some inexplicable reason, USCe substituted at CB and put in the shortest dude on the team to cover His Whooolishness.  One look over by McElmo and chops were licked.  Bang. 
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: RWS on October 11, 2010, 05:04:42 PM
I keep reading bammers here, and others agreeing with them, that the "game plan" was fucked up...."why didn't they run the ball more?".  Well they ran 64 plays, and 29 were runs...for a whopping 36 yards.  Oh, and South Carolina's Pass Def?  Only 103rd in the nation.  Saban/McElwain had every right to put a game plan together that was pass heavy due to that fact, AND the fact that their Run D is 23rd in the nation.  Bammer only ran it 31 times vs FL, 31 vs PSU, and 40 vs Ark. So they weren't that far off their pace anyway.

News flash...bammer got outplayed on the field.  Simple as that.  Blame schemes, blame coaches, or whatever, sometimes you just run up against a team that's better than you on that day, and has enough talent to pull off their game plan, and be ready for yours.
It didn't have shit to do with the gameplan. When you're down 21-3, and it's obvious the other team is going to keep coming at you, you can't just run it and run it and run it. Even if that is your game. It's a little different if the other team is faltering a little on defense and you're knocking them back. I strongly believe we were going to lose that game, no matter what. Like you said, we got beat. Period. Not that difficult to understand, and no need to apply the Prowler Formula to it.

If we had to lose, would I have prefered to lose in a slugfest where both teams are playing some good ball? Sure. Am I mad that we lost in the fashion we did? Sure. However, we went two seasons and some change without losing a regular season game, and have lost 3 games total over two seasons and won a SECCG and a NC in that span. Isn't that enough to be happy about? Thinking you are going to win every game every season in the SEC is, for the most part, unrealistic. 
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: AuburnChopper 3.0 on October 11, 2010, 05:49:19 PM
(http://cdn2.sbnation.com/imported_assets/564331/spurriercocktripssaban.gif)
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: JR4AU on October 11, 2010, 05:53:47 PM
(http://cdn2.sbnation.com/imported_assets/564331/spurriercocktripssaban.gif)

I'm fuckn' crying I'm laffin' so hard!
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: Tiger Six on October 11, 2010, 09:08:55 PM
I'm phukn' crying I'm laffin' so hard!

That was pretty funny.  The finebaum and spurrier cameos were nice touches.
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: The Prowler on October 11, 2010, 10:01:27 PM
"hid ya kids, hid ya wife and even hid ya husband cause the Cocks are rapin' everyone." - Token

I never thought SPuat was gonna make a miracle come back...wanna know why?  Two words, Dead Legs.  SPuat looked tired and slow against R-Kansas and that was three games ago.  Against UF, it didn't matter if they were tired, Florida was/is that horrible.  Now you couple Dead Legs and being in a hostile enviroment and the team you're going up against has fresh legs...that's a losing recipe, especially when you top it off with retarded playcalling on both sides of the ball.
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: RWS on October 11, 2010, 11:39:51 PM
especially when you top it off with retarded playcalling on both sides of the ball.
Don't make me fuck you up on yet another thread. Token really was dead on with his Tidesports.com comment. You need to register. Other than the fake field goal, there wasn't really anything wrong with the playcalling. And if the fake FG worked, it would have been a genius call. Not retarded. It's just so easy to blame it on playcalling. The same playcalling that has got us on the map the past two seasons. Oh, and now all of a sudden maybe Saban was onto something with the whole bye-week issue? Get the fuck out of here.
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: JR4AU on October 11, 2010, 11:57:36 PM
Don't make me fuck you up on yet another thread. Token really was dead on with his Tidesports.com comment. You need to register. Other than the fake field goal, there wasn't really anything wrong with the playcalling. And if the fake FG worked, it would have been a genius call. Not retarded. It's just so easy to blame it on playcalling. The same playcalling that has got us on the map the past two seasons. Oh, and now all of a sudden maybe Saban was onto something with the whole bye-week issue? Get the fuck out of here.

"Bad play calling" is one of the catch phrases of the "intelligent SEC football fan".
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: The Prowler on October 12, 2010, 12:26:37 AM
"fuck me up on another thread"?  Please point out where I was wrong in anything that I posted....I'm not going to be holding my breath.  "We got out played, out coached, yada, yada..."  Newsflash, stupid fuck, being "out coached" also means stupid decisions in the playcalling department.  After your QB holds onto the ball for more than 7 seconds for the 6th time, then takes a sack, maybe a run play should be called, because it would be obvious that the opponent has done their fuckin' homework and has all the receivers on lockdown.  But hey, what do I know, I just calls it like I sees it.  You're right rws, SPuat just flat out sucks.
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: JR4AU on October 12, 2010, 01:05:49 AM
"fuck me up on another thread"?  Please point out where I was wrong in anything that I posted....I'm not going to be holding my breath.  "We got out played, out coached, yada, yada..."  Newsflash, stupid fuck, being "out coached" also means stupid decisions in the playcalling department.  After your QB holds onto the ball for more than 7 seconds for the 6th time, then takes a sack, maybe a run play should be called, because it would be obvious that the opponent has done their fuckin' homework and has all the receivers on lockdown.  But hey, what do I know, I just calls it like I sees it.  You're right rws, SPuat just flat out sucks.

Dude, you really should be coaching...you're a fucking football genius.
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: RWS on October 12, 2010, 07:31:55 AM
"fuck me up on another thread"?  Please point out where I was wrong in anything that I posted....I'm not going to be holding my breath.  "We got out played, out coached, yada, yada..."  Newsflash, stupid fuck, being "out coached" also means stupid decisions in the playcalling department.  After your QB holds onto the ball for more than 7 seconds for the 6th time, then takes a sack, maybe a run play should be called, because it would be obvious that the opponent has done their fuckin' homework and has all the receivers on lockdown.  But hey, what do I know, I just calls it like I sees it.  You're right rws, SPuat just flat out sucks.
OR, MAYBE, he should start throwing it to his wide fucking open receivers instead of dancing around and holding onto the ball, or maybe throw it away instead of taking a coverage sack. There were numerous plays where they replayed and showed how he had a wide open receiver that he missed for 10-20 yard gains.....numerous plays. Did you even watch the game? I mean, they were stuffing the run too. Oh, the pass isn't working, so let's run it more. Except we're down 21-3. So let's run it. Oh, that isn't working either.
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: AUChizad on October 12, 2010, 08:06:58 AM
Dude, you really should be coaching...you're a fucking football genius.
The peewee coaching community doesn't have room for any more "football geniuses".
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: AuburnChopper 3.0 on October 12, 2010, 08:18:27 AM
The peewee coaching community doesn't have room for any more "football geniuses".
:wartim:
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: JR4AU on October 12, 2010, 08:24:38 AM
The peewee coaching community doesn't have room for any more "football geniuses".

Actually, one doesn't have to have coached a game at any level to know that this:

stupid decisions in the playcalling department. After your QB holds onto the ball for more than 7 seconds for the 6th time, then takes a sack, maybe a run play should be called, because it would be obvious that the opponent has done their fuckin' homework and has all the receivers on lockdown.  But hey, what do I know, I just calls it like I sees it.  You're right rws, SPuat just flat out sucks.

is no where near the football genius that Prowler or you think it is.  What's amazing is that there are people out there watching football games that think they know that much more than the guys being paid hundreds of thousands  or even millions of dollars to do the job.  Seriously.  Tell me you think that the coach's level of analysis in a game plan or game situation is this simple:

McElwain: "Coach Saban, they really got me bumfuzzled, they gots Julio, Maze, and e'erbody on lockdown"

Saban: "Call a run play, that's the smart move, and I suspect all the fans think it would be too". 

McElwain: "Which one do you think coach?"

Saban:  "A Goddamn RUN play you fucking moron!"   
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: JR4AU on October 12, 2010, 08:26:09 AM
:wartim:

Tweedle Dumb chimes in, Tweedle Dumber to the rescue.
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: eagleair89 on October 12, 2010, 08:51:08 AM
  Seriously.  Tell me you think that the coaches level of analysis in a game plan or game situation is this simple:

McElwain: "Coach Saban, they really got me bumfuzzled, they gots Julio, Maze, and e'erbody on lockdown"

Saban: "Call a run play, that's the smart move, and I suspect all the fans think it would be too". 

McElwain: "Which one do you think coach?"

Saban:  "A Goddamn RUN play you phuking moron!"   

During the week the preparation is almost maddeningly in-depth and over-kill......no stone unturned.

However, speaking from a few years of experience listening to some former AU coaches during the game (and hearing stories from coaches following a game)........the above type of conversation actually happens quite often each and every game [minus the fan comment]....tifwiw.

WAR EAGLE
 :bar:
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: JR4AU on October 12, 2010, 09:03:59 AM
During the week the preparation is almost maddeningly in-depth and over-kill......no stone unturned.

However, speaking from a few years of experience listening to some former AU coaches during the game (and hearing stories from coaches following a game)........the above type of conversation actually happens quite often each and every game [minus the fan comment]....tifwiw.

WAR EAGLE
 :bar:

I think Tubs was pretty famous for stuff like this on the headsets.  Although what I've heard is more along the lines of "that fucking shit would have worked if Joe had blocked his man, or if Jimmy had run his route."  But yeah, "adjustments during the game amount mostly to simply determining what works, and what doesn't and running more of what does.  Sometimes, aint shit working though...see Alabama saturday for reference...and oh BTW, it's not like their offense was totally inept...McElroy's passing numbers weren't bad. 
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: AuburnChopper 3.0 on October 12, 2010, 01:28:19 PM
Tweedle Dumb chimes in, Tweedle Dumber to the rescue.

Don't you have a sense of humor?  Gah.....

 :taunt:
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: JR4AU on October 12, 2010, 01:43:13 PM
Don't you have a sense of humor?  Gah.....

 :taunt:

yep...

 :clap:
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: WarCam on October 12, 2010, 05:10:26 PM
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/10/about_that_fake_field_goal_nic.html

Steve Spurrior Show last night- "I didn't know what they were thinking...."
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: AWK on October 12, 2010, 05:32:49 PM
Wait, so WTF?  Alabama lost?!?!?!?!
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: Pell City Tiger 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.
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: Godfather 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...
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: Token on October 12, 2010, 08:33:52 PM
Yes, 91,100.
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: Ranger12 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?
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: JR4AU 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.
Title: Re: Saban Doesn't Need "Gimmicky" Trick Plays
Post by: Jumbo on October 13, 2010, 04:55:53 AM
Wait, so WTF?  Alabama lost?!?!?!?!
:wartim: