What is the most pivotal game this season?

[homersapien 11,354]

If we play well but lose to Oregon in a close game, it will have negligible effect regarding the rest of the season.  Beating A&M will negate a close loss to Oregon and set us up psychologically (confidence) for Miss State. 

This is why A&M is a more pivotal game than Oregon, IMO.  

It all depends on playing Oregon tough in both execution and coaching and then demonstrating continued improvement from there, win or lose.  A&M is the first really important game.

 

[DAG 33,955]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

If we play well but lose to Oregon in a close game, it will have negligible effect regarding the rest of the season. Beating A&M will negate a close loss to Oregon and set us up psychologically (confidence) for Miss State. 

This is why A&M is more pivotal than Oregon IMO.  

It all depends on playing Oregon tough in all aspects - execution and coaching - plus continued improvement from there.

 

And if we lose to Oregon, it could shoot down any possible momentum leading up to playing someone with the talent level of the Aggies. I guess my thinking is, if we can't beat Oregon, why are we thinking we can go into college station and beat the argues in a much more hostile environment against a team top to bottom more talented? 

[keesler 5,924]

19 minutes ago, bigbird said:

An Oregon loss can be recovered from...especially if they win the Pac-12. A conference loss is almost impossible to recover from. Allowing us to lose to TAMU has the potential to relegate us to 4th in the west behind bama, LSU, and TAMU. That would have a substantial effect on our program as a whole, not just this season. I chose TAMU.

I agree.

Considering how the team/locker room took a nose dive after the LSU loss last yr, the same exact scenario could easily happen this season with a loss to aTm.  Claims were made this week that there was no leadership from the players or the coaches after that LSU loss, then all the rumors and crap stirred up about firing CGM with the offense & defense at odds with each other, etc.  If AU falls to aTm, this season could spiral out of control just like '18. 

 

[homersapien 11,354]

3 hours ago, DAG said:

And if we lose to Oregon, it could shoot down any possible momentum leading up to playing someone with the talent level of the Aggies. I guess my thinking is, if we can't beat Oregon, why are we thinking we can go into college station and beat the argues in a much more hostile environment against a team top to bottom more talented? 

Well, if the Aggies are that much better than Oregon, then the A&M game is easily more "pivotal" than Oregon, simply because it's a conference game.

Execution and coaching in the Oregon game is more important than winning it.  If we play well, there's no reason to think we can't beat A&M, even if we lose in a close one to Oregon.  (And we won't know how good Oregon is until much later in the season.)

I agree beating Oregon - or at least playing well but losing a close game - is important for momentum to start the season, but A&M is the more important game, win or lose vs. Oregon.   

 

[aujeff11 6,243]

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

If we play well but lose to Oregon in a close game, it will have negligible effect regarding the rest of the season.  Beating A&M will negate a close loss to Oregon and set us up psychologically (confidence) for Miss State. 

This is why A&M is a more pivotal game than Oregon, IMO.  

It all depends on playing Oregon tough in both execution and coaching and then demonstrating continued improvement from there, win or lose.  A&M is the first really important game.

 

Oregon game may be trial by error in a lot of ways. I hope for Gus to challenge both QBs that game and force A&M to prepare for both.   The two cupcakes following Oregon and in between A&M should help with making the offense more taylor made for the chosen QB. 

[DAG 33,955]

49 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, if the Aggies are that much better than Oregon, then the A&M game is easily more "pivotal" than Oregon, simply because it's a conference game.

Execution and coaching in the Oregon game is more important than winning it.  If we play well, there's no reason to think we can't beat A&M, even if we lose a close one to Oregon.  (And we won't know how good Oregon is until much later in the season.)

I agree beating Oregon - or at least losing a close game we could have one - is important for momentum to start the season, but A&M is the more important game, win or lose vs. Oregon.   

 

If we are executing and coaching well wouldn't the assumption be we should win the game? How possibly could you argue that execution and coaching are more important than winning? 

If we play well and lose, there should be a lot of concern going into the aggy game simply due to the aggies having more talent top to bottom than Oregon and our young players being in their first true hostile environment. I also believe their line play will be better. Oregon line play will not match up to 3 or 4 premier team's we face later on in the season. If we can't establish the run against someone like Oregon, I don't see how you can conclude we stand a chance against any of the competitive teams in conference play. 

This game is set up for us to win. There won't be any film about JG. It is essentially a home game for us, and we should be able to overpower Oregon. Gus is at a point where close losses to teams we should beat won't be acceptable. This is a very winnable game. But if your argument is swayed by it being a conference game then heck under those terms the Arkansas game is more pivotal than Oregon.

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

One thing to remember about Game A vs Game B is that Game A comes before Game B and therefore very well might influence what happens in Game B. 2018 is a perfect example of this. A lot of the bad stuff doesn't happen in 2018, or at least isn't nearly as bad, if the entire team gets off the bus each Saturday in September and October.

 

[DAG 33,955]

20 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

One thing to remember about Game A vs Game B is that Game A comes before Game B and therefore very well might influence what happens in Game B. 2018 is a perfect example of this. A lot of the bad stuff doesn't happen in 2018, or at least isn't nearly as bad, if the entire team gets off the bus each Saturday in September and October.

 

I get the argument of Texas A&M being pivotal in terms of the trajectory of how we do in conference play. My only question to those who speak of this is under what rationale do they think if we lose to Oregon, we will be able to match the aggies at college station or UF at the swamp. Both of these programs now are in year two with their coaching staffs, have talent comparable to ours and will be at home. Oregon arguably could be the Pac 12 champ, but UW was the Pac 12 championship last year, and I can think of about 6-7 teams in the SEC who could beat them. Two weeks of playing against crap teams will not adequately prepare us for what we will face at College Station. The best we can hope for is for the boys to set the tone by winning against Oregon. 

[Barnacle 9,064]

14 minutes ago, DAG said:

I get the argument of Texas A&M being pivotal in terms of the trajectory of how we do in conference play. My only question to those who speak of this is under what rationale do they think if we lose to Oregon, we will be able to match the aggies at college station or UF at the swamp. Both of these programs now are in year two with their coaching staffs, have talent comparable to ours and will be at home. Oregon arguably could be the Pac 12 champ, but UW was the Pac 12 championship last year, and I can think of about 6-7 teams in the SEC who could beat them. Two weeks of playing against crap teams will not adequately prepare us for what we will face at College Station. The best we can hope for is for the boys to set the tone by winning against Oregon. 

I don't think it's unreasonable to think we could lose to Oregon and beat both A&M and Florida. First games are always weird, and I think it just depends on the manner we lose, not the fact that we lost. A couple key turnovers or penalties could easily lose us a game we otherwise would have won, i.e. mental errors, as opposed to getting whipped by the guy in front of you. We will be fielding a young quarterback in his first start on a big stage. To me, that's a huge deal. On the other hand, if we come out and lose the LOS battle, that's another issue. If we can't match up to Oregon, it's going to be tough sledding against those SEC opponents. I just think there are a lot of other ways to lose, especially in game one with a young quarterback that wouldn't necessarily be indicative of our team's ceiling. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

“ But if your argument is swayed by it being a conference game then heck under those terms the Arkansas game is more pivotal than Oregon.“

If someone actually said that, they’d actually be correct if we are talking consequences. Not only are aTm and Arkansas conference teams, they are division matchups. Can’t make it to Atlanta if we don’t have the best conference record and trumping H2H wins in the SECw. Obviously Arkansas won’t mean diddily squat unless we lose, but a trumping H2H win over A&M will help with the positioning if they are also jockeying for the division. 

The Oregon game isn’t going to help us get to Atlanta. It may help us become a CFP team absent a conference championship, but that remains to be seen. Auburn fans have already spoken out against teams that can’t win the division playing in the CFP anyways. 

 

The first game has rarely meant much for Auburn. When we lose those games, it has been shown that we can still rebound in spectacular fashion, and when we win, it has been shown we can still lose 5 games throughout the season anyways. Proof is in the pudding. Reality is no one game is more important than the others, but the next one. Cannot beat Oregon and A&M, but lose to LSU, Florida, and Georgia. I’m still of the opinion that (if we cannot win them all) we should strive for a certain number of wins against the more difficult teams, and hope the polls work itself out. 

[DAG 33,955]

4 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

I don't think it's unreasonable to think we could lose to Oregon and beat both A&M and Florida. First games are always weird, and I think it just depends on the manner we lose, not the fact that we lost. A couple key turnovers or penalties could easily lose us a game we otherwise would have won, i.e. mental errors, as opposed to getting whipped by the guy in front of you. We will be fielding a young quarterback in his first start on a big stage. To me, that's a huge deal. On the other hand, if we come out and lose the LOS battle, that's another issue. If we can't match up to Oregon, it's going to be tough sledding against those SEC opponents. I just think there are a lot of other ways to lose, especially in game one with a young quarterback that wouldn't necessarily be indicative of our team's ceiling. 

I never said it was unreasonable. I just want to know what the rationale is. 

Like I said, we have a young QB, etc, but realistically, this game is set up for us to win.

We have home field advantage essentially, more talent, a full off season of unknown for what the offense may look like, so Oregon really doesn't have any film of what to expect. 

Our young QBs won't grow up in two weeks against crap teams.

Now, you face the Aggies, with film, who are at home, with another veteran QB, with equal talent as us. After the first game, you are only going up hill. It is not going to get easier.

 

Now, this is where I disagree with you. Gus Malzahn does NOT need to lose to Oregon. Period. Under any circumstances. He needs to win that game. We have LSU, UGA and BAMA who all have given him fits. Until proven otherwise, those games are foreseeable losses in my eyes. Now, take into account, the idea of us losing to Oregon. 4 losses not including any toss up games which are the AGGIES  and UF at their home. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

Something that could also be pointed out. If we are talking pivotal games, as in the most important,  you could name five or six teams.

If we are talking pivotal as in balls of your feet shifting into another direction, bad losses have served as great pivotal games as well. None more notable than Tebow’s bad loss to Ole Miss. 

 

 

[Barnacle 9,064]

Edit: If you intended your question to be what rationale do I have to say we should (are more likely than not to) beat A&M or Florida after losing to Oregon, my answer is I don't have a rationale for saying that we should beat those teams. My argument is why I think we could beat those teams. So if you meant it that way, my post below is most likely a big fat waste of time! 

Edit 2: After reading your post again, I think saying we should beat those teams is probably what you meant. So yes, I'm probably arguing with myself below.

1 hour ago, DAG said:

I never said it was unreasonable. I just want to know what the rationale is. 

I thought I provided that in my post. Look, I'm not saying we should beat A&M or Florida regardless of what happens against Oregon. On paper, we should handle Oregon, and you've already provided the reasons why A&M will be a much more difficult test. I just don't think a loss to Oregon seals our fate against better teams. Is it a good sign? Probably not. It won't increase our odds of winning, that's for sure, but like I said, depending on the manner in which we lose, a loss to Oregon may not tell us very much about where we ought to expect the team to be in 3 or 4 weeks. There are losses that you walk away from saying "we have a long way to go." And then there are losses that you come away from saying "we are very close to being a good football team." Every year, we see teams lose to teams they ought to beat, and then go beat teams they ought to lose to later in the season. In 2008, Florida lost to an unranked Ole Miss team at home 31-30. They were a better football team then they showed against Ole Miss. Then Tim Tebow cried about it they won a National Championship. Granted, we aren't 2008 Florida, but I think you get my point. 

1 hour ago, DAG said:

Our young QBs won't grow up in two weeks against crap teams.

There's a fine line between playing well enough to win and not quite well enough. I'm not saying someone is going to make a quantum leap in two weeks against crap teams, but the bottom line is that these guys need experience. Just the Oregon game itself will be invaluable. Now, I'm kind of assuming that Gus picks a guy and sticks with him over that time period. Obviously, a switch complicates things. My point is that marginal improvement from game 1 to 4 could be the difference between a W and a L. They should improve over that time span, even if the competition is weak.

1 hour ago, DAG said:

Now, this is where I disagree with you. Gus Malzahn does NOT need to lose to Oregon. Period. Under any circumstances. He needs to win that game. We have LSU, UGA and BAMA who all have given him fits. Until proven otherwise, those games are foreseeable losses in my eyes. Now, take into account, the idea of us losing to Oregon. 4 losses not including any toss up games which are the AGGIES  and UF at their home. 

This is the only part of your post that I'm confused about. What are we disagreeing about? Serious question.

[homersapien 11,354]

3 hours ago, DAG said:

If we are executing and coaching well wouldn't the assumption be we should win the game?  Of course not.  The ball is not round and bounces in unpredictable ways. And some teams are roughly as good as - or better - than we are.

How possibly could you argue that execution and coaching are more important than winning?  In the final analysis, it's poor execution and coaching that upsets everyone more than just losing a close hard fought game in which a single unlucky break might make the difference between winning and losing. To turn it around, how can you ever expect to win against competitive teams with poor execution and coaching?

If we play well and lose, there should be a lot of concern going into the aggy game simply due to the aggies having more talent top to bottom than Oregon and our young players being in their first true hostile environment. Agreed

I also believe their line play will be better. Oregon line play will not match up to 3 or 4 premier team's we face later on in the season. Possibly

If we can't establish the run against someone like Oregon, I don't see how you can conclude we stand a chance against any of the competitive teams in conference play. That would be poor execution or bad play calling.

This game is set up for us to win. There won't be any film about JG. It is essentially a home game for us, and we should be able to overpower Oregon. Hopeful speculation

Gus is at a point where close losses to teams we should beat won't be acceptable. True

This is a very winnable game. But if your argument is swayed by it being a conference game then heck under those terms the Arkansas game is more pivotal than Oregon. Actually, one could make a good case that any conference game is more "pivotal" than Oregon.

 

 

[DAG 33,955]

35 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

Edit: If you intended your question to be what rationale do I have to say we should (are more likely than not to) beat A&M or Florida after losing to Oregon, my answer is I don't have a rationale for saying that we should beat those teams. My argument is why I think we could beat those teams. So if you meant it that way, my post below is most likely a big fat waste of time! 

Edit 2: After reading your post again, I think saying we should beat those teams is probably what you meant. So yes, I'm probably arguing with myself below.

I thought I provided that in my post. Look, I'm not saying we should beat A&M or Florida regardless of what happens against Oregon. On paper, we should handle Oregon, and you've already provided the reasons why A&M will be a much more difficult test. I just don't think a loss to Oregon seals our fate against better teams. Is it a good sign? Probably not. It won't increase our odds of winning, that's for sure, but like I said, depending on the manner in which we lose, a loss to Oregon may not tell us very much about where we ought to expect the team to be in 3 or 4 weeks. There are losses that you walk away from saying "we have a long way to go." And then there are losses that you come away from saying "we are very close to being a good football team." Every year, we see teams lose to teams they ought to beat, and then go beat teams they ought to lose to later in the season. In 2008, Florida lost to an unranked Ole Miss team at home 31-30. They were a better football team then they showed against Ole Miss. Then Tim Tebow cried about it they won a National Championship. Granted, we aren't 2008 Florida, but I think you get my point. 

There's a fine line between playing well enough to win and not quite well enough. I'm not saying someone is going to make a quantum leap in two weeks against crap teams, but the bottom line is that these guys need experience. Just the Oregon game itself will be invaluable. Now, I'm kind of assuming that Gus picks a guy and sticks with him over that time period. Obviously, a switch complicates things. My point is that marginal improvement from game 1 to 4 could be the difference between a W and a L. They should improve over that time span, even if the competition is weak.

This is the only part of your post that I'm confused about. What are we disagreeing about? Serious question.

I don't think we are disagreeing tbh

[homersapien 11,354]

2 hours ago, DAG said:

I get the argument of Texas A&M being pivotal in terms of the trajectory of how we do in conference play. My only question to those who speak of this is under what rationale do they think if we lose to Oregon, we will be able to match the aggies at college station or UF at the swamp. Both of these programs now are in year two with their coaching staffs, have talent comparable to ours and will be at home. Oregon arguably could be the Pac 12 champ, but UW was the Pac 12 championship last year, and I can think of about 6-7 teams in the SEC who could beat them. Two weeks of playing against crap teams will not adequately prepare us for what we will face at College Station. The best we can hope for is for the boys to set the tone by winning against Oregon. 

Heck, if we lose to Oregon, should we just forfeit the rest of the season? 

That's why we play the games.  Some are just more important than others.

[DAG 33,955]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

 

I like your responses!

I should say that I agree in this case that the conference game is more critical than any non-conference match just for the fact it effects us going to the championship. I think my standpoint is this...how logical does it look for us to get to the SEC championship game if we can't beat Oregon? Nevertheless, personally besides 3 games on our schedule, I think it is imperative we win the others. It’s honestly hard to choose between Oregon and Texas A&M because they are both NEEDED victories. 

[DAG 33,955]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Heck, if we lose to Oregon, should we just forfeit the rest of the season? 

That's why we play the games.  Some are just more important than others.

Of course not! But don’t expect me to go into the Aggie game confident with a moral victory of losing a close game to Oregon. I think the young players need as much confidence as ever before conference play. 3-0 seems to be the best case scenario for that matter. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

1 hour ago, Barnacle said:

There are losses that you walk away from saying "we have a long way to go." And then there are losses that you come away from saying "we are very close to being a good football team." 

On the later:

2013 LSU had me pumped despite the loss. We would not quit for anything. Was definitely a loss where I knew we were extremely close.

[Barnacle 9,064]

8 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

On the later:

2013 LSU had me pumped despite the loss. We would not quit for anything. Was definitely a loss where I knew we were extremely close.

And another example of a weird game. We win that game on a dry night.

[KolchakAU85 430]

I think the most pivotal game of the year is LSU, because:

1. We haven't beaten them in Baton Rouge since Abraham Lincoln was president.

2. We had them beat the last 2 years, and Gus let them off the hook.

[Carnell 592]

On 7/9/2019 at 8:24 AM, WarTim said:

Sad to say but the opener is critical. Lose that one and the non Gus folks will be rabid. 

Lose that one and non gus folks will be rabid.  Heck I was foaming at the mouth when we hired him in 2013.

[homersapien 11,354]

14 hours ago, DAG said:

I like your responses!

I should say that I agree in this case that the conference game is more critical than any non-conference match just for the fact it effects us going to the championship. I think my standpoint is this...how logical does it look for us to get to the SEC championship game if we can't beat Oregon? If we get beat badly, it's not logical at all.

Nevertheless, personally besides 3 games on our schedule, I think it is imperative we win the others. It’s honestly hard to choose between Oregon and Texas A&M because they are both NEEDED victories. Yep, but A&M is a conference game.

 

[Carnell 592]

18 hours ago, homersapien said:

If we play well but lose to Oregon in a close game, it will have negligible effect regarding the rest of the season.  Beating A&M will negate a close loss to Oregon and set us up psychologically (confidence) for Miss State. 

This is why A&M is a more pivotal game than Oregon, IMO.  

It all depends on playing Oregon tough in both execution and coaching and then demonstrating continued improvement from there, win or lose.  A&M is the first really important game.

 

If we lose to Oregon close or a blowout Auburn is washed up for the season.  A loss in that game will be devastating and there is not any morale victories.  AUBURN will still be in the running for the SEC with a loss technically I believe they effectively be out of the running for the SEC since several teams in the league are better than Oregon.

[Mikey 16,550]

19 hours ago, bigbird said:

An Oregon loss can be recovered from...especially if they win the Pac-12. A conference loss is almost impossible to recover from. Allowing us to lose to TAMU has the potential to relegate us to 4th in the west behind bama, LSU, and TAMU. That would have a substantial effect on our program as a whole, not just this season. I chose TAMU.

Oh, ratz! Here I thought we'd go an entire year without agreeing on a single thing. Now you go and spoil it.