I'm not one to jump on typos but that was repeated over and over again, and it seemed justified.
We agree that you're basing off your perceptions. Again that is conjecture, NOT PROOF. Unless you're an expert, there's no reason to believe your analysis matters. The real proof and data shows that our offensive results have been mixed. It only gets better with more experience in the system and another year to experiment with new ideas.
You forget that in the 3rd quarter against Ole Miss, we scored more points on them than anyone else had in an entire game. You also forget UT. We've beaten more quality defenses than we've lost to. UT and Ole Miss against LSU. WVU isn't terrible either. They've actually put up a pretty good fight against Cincinnati tonight, one of the best offenses this year.
We are far far away from last year's inability to move the ball. Any stat sheet would show that. Even in games where we've been lacking, it's still been better than all but one or two of last year's games, though I will admit LSU is the exception. In fact, I'd say we're far closer to a solid consistent output than to last year. 3 quarters of arkansas, KU and 3 quarters of LSU. Granted that's still a lot of bad quarters. But not nearly the majority. Remember last year we struggled to move the ball against even UL-Monroe and Southern Miss.
I guess in the end it doesn't matter what either of us think. Let's see how it goes tomorrow and than we'll analyze it some more just for kicks. Let's call a truce until postgame tomorrow.
We agree that you're basing off your perceptions. Again that is conjecture, NOT PROOF. Unless you're an expert, there's no reason to believe your analysis matters. The real proof and data shows that our offensive results have been mixed. It only gets better with more experience in the system and another year to experiment with new ideas.
Explain how my analysis is wrong. Mostly, it seems you agree with me that he doesn't call and traditional game plan offense and mixes it up - you just think that is an advantage and I think it is a detriment. You disagree with me that the pace is not very helpful in so far as whatever good it does is canceled out by the frequent fast 3 and outs and how that affects our own defense. My other big gripe is the lack of a low gear and refusal to grind out small success and build to bigger ones either as a general offense plan or at least when things are not going well - have you seen different games than I where he is willing to do this save that 3rd quarter drive verse Furman where they nickel and dimed their way down the field?
As for mixed, yes - those first 5 games they really looked great but when they hit the wall against good teams I think that matters more especially since we saw that same flat performance against 'Ole Miss much of the game save some good bursts that netted the 24 points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx34
You forget that in the 3rd quarter against Ole Miss, we scored more points on them than anyone else had in an entire game. You also forget UT. We've beaten more quality defenses than we've lost to. UT and Ole Miss against LSU. WVU isn't terrible either. They've actually put up a pretty good fight against Cincinnati tonight, one of the best offenses this year.
I don't think TEN is a bad defense but with their inept offense I think success against that defense is hardly a banner success. Same with WVA in terms of yeah they are not suck but they are hardly a good team - and it took what, 5 or 6 turnovers for us to get out with a win.
So yeah - they have had success but clearly hit a wall against the tougher parts of their schedule and save some bursts against Ole Miss they have yet to really show they are able to bust through that wall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx34
We are far far away from last year's inability to move the ball. Any stat sheet would show that. Even in games where we've been lacking, it's still been better than all but one or two of last year's games, though I will admit LSU is the exception. In fact, I'd say we're far closer to a solid consistent output than to last year. 3 quarters of arkansas, KU and 3 quarters of LSU. Granted that's still a lot of bad quarters. But not nearly the majority. Remember last year we struggled to move the ball against even UL-Monroe and Southern Miss.
I am not saying we are not better than last year, I am saying that against good teams the real improvement is smaller than the 5-0 start would lead you to believe. last year we could hardly get out of our own way in terms of running our offense and this year we don't have that problem but I just don't see anything yet that says this offense can have its way with top quality teams and the whole premise of this offense is that it should. But yes, on the whole a better year offensively than last year, though still enough to have doubt and questions to this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx34
I guess in the end it doesn't matter what either of us think. Let's see how it goes tomorrow and than we'll analyze it some more just for kicks. Let's call a truce until postgame tomorrow.
Agree, and never meant to really sound like I was passing final judgment. UGA and Bama game to me are the determinate. I have my idea of how I think they will go and will either re-evaluate my thoughts or solidify them based on how our offense does in these two games.
Now, only 36 minutes 'till game day! On a side note, my Dad went to UGA and I was raised a Bulldog - so this game is always special to me as I have an 'ole soft spot for the silver britches but still love to see us beat down the dogs (especially since Richt (sp?) turned them in to a sissified bunch of offensive slap happy pansies who cannot play defense worth a damn - but hey, he gives them nice new costumes to wear for big games so there is that).
__________________ "I thought Auburn was good, but certainly not great on offense. Next season [2010], the Tigers need to be better on short yardage and they need to be able to run the ball and take time off the clock when it's called for." - Phillip Marshall, AuburnUndercover.com
Hrm, maybe I am not crazy after all.
So shoot me, an e instead of an i by mistake, it happens.
As for CGM - I base my argument on what I see him doing and calling. I see a guy swinging for the fences and really see a near total lack of continuity to his play calling that may be his trademark and difficult to predict but it also really causes trouble when everything is not hitting on all cylinders.
<..>.
I've seen bammer swing for fences as often as Auburn does. If they didn't, everyone will stack the box. Tate is excelling because of "swinging for fences" system. It would be absolutely moronic to think that just handoffs to Tate would get you anything more than what it did last year... Zip!
I don't know why you see a disjointed / non-continuous offense. I see a very well coordinated, methodical and continuous offense for a first year OC. Do you also think that the opposing defenses won't stack the box if we do away with once a while swing for fences?
Auburn's air to ground ratio isn't really that bad. Your repeated criticism is absurd. Please do make your posts concise though.
It isn't about air to ground so much as east/west to north/south and big play verse ball control. I cannot even count how many third and shorts have gone for no gain because we went down the field (no the worst thing here and there but not as much as we do it and not when the team desperately needs a first down).
And FYI, for someone with a tone so commonly superior to others I would think you would know this is not CGMs first year as OC he was OC in this conference before (with ARK) so he should be quite familiar with the league.
I stand by what I have said and I believe that the UGA and Bama game will answer the question of whether this offense is right for us as is or needs to be either dialed back or reworked by CGM in the off season.
__________________ "I thought Auburn was good, but certainly not great on offense. Next season [2010], the Tigers need to be better on short yardage and they need to be able to run the ball and take time off the clock when it's called for." - Phillip Marshall, AuburnUndercover.com
Hrm, maybe I am not crazy after all.
[quote=SWBgHz;123923]It isn't about air to ground so much as east/west to north/south and big play verse ball control. I cannot even count how many third and shorts have gone for no gain because we went down the field (no the worst thing here and there but not as much as we do it and not when the team desperately needs a first down).
I will admit, this has been an issue. Yet, I totally disagree with you that the spread doesn't work in the SEC. First of all, Meyer did adapt his spread different from what he had at Utah. I will certainly agree with you on that point. Still, it's a variant and not something that is totally different from the spread. I truly think you're just stuck on being too old school and too traditional. Offensive theory and defensive theory change over the years. They will never stay the same and to think that the spread will never work in the SEC is a bit close-minded in my view. Let the events run their course and if it doesn't work then you can come back and say, "I told you so."
Tomorrow and two weeks from now are not good litmus tests for whether or not the spread will work at Auburn either. If nothing else, don't you think that it has helped bring in some solid recruits this year? I'm not sure why there is so much static that we aren't recruiting well defensively. I must strongly oppose that viewpoint as well. All I'm asking, give it a couple of years and if it still isn't working then you can gloat all you want. Until then, it's bringing in some top-notch skill players and it has put at least a few points on the board. I will grant you that we also need some power sets as well, but with the O-Line so thin right now, I'm not so sure we can do that all too effectively. Let's hope so. Anyway, take care of yourself and War Eagle.
SWBgHz - I would like to see your comments regarding the offense from 2006, 2007, and the 2nd half of 2008. What you seem to be endorsing this exactly what Auburn did in those years.
If you recall 2005 Auburn had a high flying passing offense that set numerous school records. However, because they scored so much, the opposing teams were forced into a high risk / high reward type game plan as well - which resulted in giving up more yards and points by the defense. Surely, no one is going to suggest that the defense was not loaded in 2005?
It seemed like after the 2005 season that xCTT took out the handcuffs and put them on Borges. We went to a "ball control first" type of offense and played to the team strength which was the defense. Granted going into the uga game in 2006 Auburn was primed get a shot at the national title, but uga got a big day out of Stafford, and Auburn didn't have the offensive firepower to come back. BTW the same thing happened earlier that year vs. Arkansas. The 2006 team got down early due to some big plays, and did not have the offense to come back.
So, pick your poison. If you run the 'primarily ball control', against good defenses, you will have to play PERFECT in order to win. If the other team breaks off a couple of big plays - you are in BIG trouble. If your offense gives up a pick 6 or there is a special teams score by the other team - you've pretty much lost.
However, if you play the 'high flying' offense - high risk / high reward - you have the potential to come back if the other team gets out in front of you.
Neither Offense or Defense can play perfect all the time. Both are going to have some bad games. The other side needs to be able to make it up. If both sides play bad at the same time, you will get Baton Rouge from this year.
I agree with you that defense wins championships, but it has to be great defense relative to your overall philosophy. This year maybe an aberation for CGC in that they seem to be going high risk / high reward on both sides of the ball. I truly believe that they are taking some extreme risks on defense tring to manufacture turnovers during large parts of some ball games vs. playing safe - shutout type - defense. However, this 'risky' type play is going to give up some first downs and even TD's. I personally think a lot of the risks are pretty good, they indicate an insightful knowledge of the other teams tendencies and anticipate the plays. But with any risk - you'll eventually get burned. BUT how else are you going to make up for the mistakes that all of the first time starters are going to make - regardless?
Let's be honest both the long run by Randolph against LSU and the McCluster run vs. Ole Miss were given up by Freeman taking the wrong read and getting caught scraping to the wrong gap. No matter the offense, this was going to happen this year.
Additionally, you keep saying you have a problem with CGM's east/west running?
Are you watching the same games as everyone else?
Auburns primary running plays are north/south type runs, but you have to throw in the 'Buck Sweep', 'Jet Sweep', and some other outside plays periodically or the defense will bunch inside to stop the Power plays. If the backside LB is close enough to scrap all the way across the center to the playside gap before the RB gets 2 yards downfield then he is cheating inside too much and you have to run outside of him to make him move out and play honest. That's good playcalling.
If all you do is run 3 plays between the tackles you end up with the 2nd half of the 2008 West Virginia or Vanderbilt games, but this time the opposing coaches will know what you are going to do and you won't suprise them in the first half to get a small lead.
I believe CGM has a diverse playbook, based around sound north/south running plays with proper restraint plays to make the defense have to account for:
Left / Right
Playside / Backside
Inside / Outside
Run / Pass
These are the fundamentals of playcalling - if you narrowly determine you are only going to attack a few of these options, the defense doesn't have to account for as much and is tremendously more effective.
One comment:
"I was at the game and the Trojan’s were sucking wind. They just got tired. The Trojan’s were bigger, stronger and faster, but not quicker and definitely not in shape to keep up."
It is a bunch of Cut-ups showing the Power play the Auburn runs as it's base running play being operated by a bunch of different teams this year including: AUBURN, FLORIDA, Miss St., Florida State, Oregon, etc. and some variants of the same play out of the Wildcat and finishes up with some of the restraint plays like the motion pitch to keep the defense honest protecting the corner and the inside/outside option run by Florida.
Of course a bunch of the Florida clips are of Tebow running a variant of this play where he runs the ball himself, using the TB as just another blocker, which outnumbers the defense even more. But I don't really think we want Todd doing that.
I stand by what I have said and I believe that the UGA and Bama game will answer the question of whether this offense is right for us as is or needs to be either dialed back or reworked by CGM in the off season.
We'll see how much better our team performs against UGA, compared to 08, 07 and 06.. and the full-strength bammer, compared to 08.
The spread offense is really a combination of all others. Great personnel makes for great offense. The "league" doesn't matter. Altering schemes or adjusting during a particular game might decide that particular game but players make plays and great players make greater plays thus: an innovative and unimpeded coordinator, ie. Malzahn, with great players make the most great plays and only a defense countering with similar talent and coaching can negate it.
Linear Mode
