Malzahn's bad coaching and play-calling?

[jmcrosson 203]

I keep hearing all of the talk about Gus's poor decision-making as one of the primary causes of the loss last night, but by my count - we left tons of points on the field:

1) PI call on Coates that was an absolute travesty - 1st and goal on the 3. I'll say +7 points on that drive that was negated by horrific refs.

2) Missed chip shot field goal by Carlson in the 1st quarter. +3 points.

3) Coates TD catch where he stepped out of bounds - we settle for a field goal. +4 points. (By the way - at this point the score would've been 27-28, MSU or at least 24-28, MSU, if you believe we would be stopped from scoring a TD on 1st and goal from the 3 on the ridiculous call on Coates)

4) Regardless of what you think about the "fumble" (It baffles me how anyone could say that Louis' "fumble" was such when he has the ball in his hands, pressed against his helmet, and the ground causes a ricochet effect leading to the ball popping out of his hands. That would be the ground causing the fumble, but hey - why should I expect anything but a hometown call at this point, eh, stripes? And just because he bobbles the ball on the way down, does not a fumble make, if he has possession when he hits the ground, which he did!) - this is the score that puts them up 38-20, and effectively puts the game out of reach.

5) Marshall's two interceptions - go back and look at the film. Both were going to Duke Williams for an easy first down on the first play of the game, and a certain TD at the end. Add at least 7 for the end, and who knows what would have happened during the first drive?

I'm not saying that Gus, or any coach in the free world, calls a perfect game, but this has much more to do with execution, bad refs, and an early hole that we just could not crawl out of due to the aforementioned as opposed to Gus' coaching.

You do the math. Gus is a genius play-caller. Adjust the scores appropriately, and we win. Further, I think the image coming to mind when people critique Malzahn's play-calling is the run by Uzomah. Sure, not the best call. (Although someone else has already pointed out that if Slade had blocked ANYONE on that play, then Uzomah walks in.)

Gus is absolutely not the problem. Let's not be ridiculous.

[alexava 6,974]

yes louis fumbled!

[jmcrosson 203]

Obviously, that's very debatable. But thanks for your well thought-out and highly compelling contribution to the post. :-\

[AU64 10,122]

yes louis fumbled!

and yes we ran about a dozen ineffective first down plays..essentially the same play call...which put a lot of pressure on Nick.

Every offense looks good on paper but depends on execution to give results....the point I made somewhere on this board is that Gus is becoming predictable with his play calling and with video analysis of plays and games, our opponents can see it. JMO

[api1957 1,783]

6 points on 3 trips inside the 10 is the difference. Not placing blame anywhere. Completely changes the completion of the game.

[Barnacle 9,064]

I do think there is some stubbornness to his play calling, but I also think that he generally gets the team into the "right play". Like all football plays, it comes down to execution, and there isn't much of a remedy for poor execution. We've all seen how good this offense is when they execute. Think of the Missouri game last year - everyone in the stadium knew exactly what we were running 3/4 of the time, and Missouri couldn't do anything to stop it.

[cooltigger21 0]

More of the same. Gus is infallible or Nick is the greatest qb of all time. CAP is going to run away with the heisman. O line is the best we've ever had and on down the line. Everyone had a role in what happened yesterday. There is not one single player or coach that can say they did the best they could do. It happens and let's hope that won't happen again. It's not a disaster or the end of anything but everyone has to correct their mistakes and that includes Gus.

[around4ever 4,139]

yes louis fumbled!

and yes we ran about a dozen ineffective first down plays..essentially the same play call...which put a lot of pressure on Nick.

Every offense looks good on paper but depends on execution to give results....the point I made somewhere on this board is that Gus is becoming predictable with his play calling and with video analysis of plays and games, our opponents can see it. JMO

I think we need to take a look at ourselves during the off week. We should have our defensive coaches scouting our offense on film and vice versa. Maybe they can help each other out by identifying trends and tendencies.

[alexava 6,974]

not sure who or what i am arguing. I don't have a problem with Gus. Only one or two play calls i SMH at. But i don't think it is debatable at all that Louis fumbled the ball. He clearly lost it then pinching against his head for a nano second before hitting the ground does not equal having it under control.

[Barnacle 9,064]

not sure who or what i am arguing. I don't have a problem with Gus. Only one or two play calls i SMH at. But i don't think it is debatable at all that Louis fumbled the ball. He clearly lost it then pinching against his head for a nano second before hitting the ground does not equal having it under control.

yeah, there was no doubt in my mind they would uphold that call. I think officials would call that a fumble 10/10 times.

[AuburnSpider 2]

Gus is as stubborn as a army mule for sure, BUT, our O line and to some extent our D line are not top shelf SEC. In the SEC who ever has the best lines usually wins. We will still win some games we shouldn't due to scheme and breaks but we are THIS year 2or3 rungs below the primo stuff.

[mom2kid 216]

Bleacher Report had an opinion some of which we can agree or disagree.

http://auburn.247sports.com/ExternalLink/How-Malzahns-Play-Calling-Cost-Auburn-31987745?utm_source=247Sports+Newsletter&utm_campaign=8d9f4a0ec3-141012_Auburn+Tigers&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5300ae947-8d9f4a0ec3-221180533

[WDG 109]

I don't think we ran-run enough counter I.E. Misdirection plays. I believe Gus will make necessary adjustments. War Eagle

[1auburn1 1,120]

Hard to criticize Gus but one thing that drove me crazy was us running the ball up the gut on first and goal from 7-10 Yds out. Lots of coaches do it and I've never understood it. Usually you just get a yd or two against a stacked defense. completely wastes a down. So what if you get a couple of Yds? Now you have an even shorter field to work with.

[WarEagle123 28]

Stop questioning Gus. Three drives in the first half inside the 5 yard line resulted in 6 points. Not the 21 they should have. That's 38 points for us just trading those points. I can't question Gus. We didn't execute inside the 5. Then the horrible PI penalty. That gives is 45. And we win. This was not coaching.

[AUinMS 0]

There is no debate whether or not Louis fumbled, it was clearly a fumble which is what the replay booth looked at. The debatable part of that play was whether or not the whistle should have been blown before he fumbled because his forward progress had been stopped. I believe it had been and the play should have been blown dead. The only problem is that forward progress is a judgement call and not reviewable. If whether or not forward progress had been stopped was a reviewable call, I think the call would have been reversed. Unfortunately, that is not something the replay official looks at so the play stood as called on the field.

[AuburnTiger0707 17]

I don't think it is the fault of Gus at all... The 3 screw ups contributed to our loss. Ricardo arguably has the worst hands on the team. Not to put him down, he is a good player, but he doesn't add much to the team besides that miracle play at Georgia. Gus is a great coach in my book and he rarely makes questionable plays.

[WarTiger 3,947]

4) Regardless of what you think about the "fumble" (It baffles me how anyone could say that Louis' "fumble" was such when he has the ball in his hands, pressed against his helmet, and the ground causes a ricochet effect leading to the ball popping out of his hands.

Pressing the ball against his helmet for a nano second does not constitute possession. Never has, never will.

That would be the ground causing the fumble, but hey - why should I expect anything but a hometown call at this point, eh, stripes?

somebody has been listening to the announcers too much. The ground CAN cause a fumble. Announcers are clueless.

And just because he bobbles the ball on the way down, does not a fumble make,

By every definition known to man it does. What is a fumble?

Fumble

ARTICLE 1. To fumble the ball is to lose player possession by any act other

than passing, kicking or successful handing (A.R. 2-19-2-I and A.R. 4-1-3-I).

The status of the ball is a fumble.

if he has possession when he hits the ground, which he did!)

Again, a nano-second does not constitute possession.

- this is the score that puts them up 38-20, and effectively puts the game out of reach.

The last part is the only truth to this entire paragraph. I can guarantee that if the exact same thing had happened to Mississippi State, it wouldn't even be mentioned here. None of us wanted it to be a fumble, but the facts show it was clearly and obviously a fumble that would be a fumble 100 out of 100 times.

[jmcrosson 203]

4) Regardless of what you think about the "fumble" (It baffles me how anyone could say that Louis' "fumble" was such when he has the ball in his hands, pressed against his helmet, and the ground causes a ricochet effect leading to the ball popping out of his hands.

Pressing the ball against his helmet for a nano second does not constitute possession. Never has, never will.

That would be the ground causing the fumble, but hey - why should I expect anything but a hometown call at this point, eh, stripes?

somebody has been listening to the announcers too much. The ground CAN cause a fumble. Announcers are clueless.

And just because he bobbles the ball on the way down, does not a fumble make,

By every definition known to man it does. What is a fumble?

Fumble

ARTICLE 1. To fumble the ball is to lose player possession by any act other

than passing, kicking or successful handing (A.R. 2-19-2-I and A.R. 4-1-3-I).

The status of the ball is a fumble.

if he has possession when he hits the ground, which he did!)

Again, a nano-second does not constitute possession.

- this is the score that puts them up 38-20, and effectively puts the game out of reach.

The last part is the only truth to this entire paragraph. I can guarantee that if the exact same thing had happened to Mississippi State, it wouldn't even be mentioned here. None of us wanted it to be a fumble, but the facts show it was clearly and obviously a fumble that would be a fumble 100 out of 100 times.

The thrust of this post was about the questioning of Malzahn - the fumble was an "also, by the way."

Nonetheless, if he bobbles the ball on the way down, then grabs hold of it, pressing it to his helmet as he's falling with the ball firmly grasped inside of his hands, then the impact of the ground causes him to lose the ball - even though he had possession by a "nano-second" as you say - the entire play was within a second.

My point is that the key component in it being ruled/seen as/called a fumble is the nano-second of a bobble over-ruling the nano-second of control. I, as well as others, believe it could have easily been ruled as the ground causing it. However, I in no way after the calls made in that game, expected it to go Auburn's way.

Also, I agree with the article posted. I know what a fumble is. My point is that Louis had possession. A point that you seem to believe to, albeit a "nano-second" of one. My point is that a "nano-second" of a bobble doesn't make it a fumble if he gains control.

In fairness, it happened fast, and is debatable which is fine, but the point I was really addressing in the post was the questioning of Gus' play-calling when it was a matter of execution of those plays that was poor - not the plays themselves, by and large.

[Eagle Eye 7 2,535]

Let me see if you I get this right, some folks think Gus is predictable. I got news for you most all coaches are predictable. Gus has said many times, it's not knowing the play, it's about stopping it. I think it was Mizz's coach last year that was asked how do you stop Gus's offense and he replied that he didn't know because he had not seen anyone stop it. I think too many are making too much about the loss. Last year we loss one like this at LSU and I did not hear this much moaning and groaning, probably because we were coming off a 3 and 9 year. We make the NC game and now if we lose to an undefeated #3 team at their house, all of a sudden we are doomed unless Gus re-writes his playbook or we immediately start all the guys on the bench. Chill out folks. Maybe the road to the playoff got tougher ( although I don't know how considering we were scheduled to play 7 ranked opponents and 5 of them at their house) but finishing with a very good season is not. What happened to being happy with a 10-2 season and a trip to a New Years day game. Two years ago that sounded real good. Let's get real folks and not sound like we are from west Vance. WDE

[aubfaninga 16]

I can't find a highlight video of the Coates illegal touching play. Not looking for excuses but did the Miss St. defender "graze" the ball?

I am not saying that he did but I have been looking for the play on youtube.

[macauburn 6]

I keep hearing all of the talk about Gus's poor decision-making as one of the primary causes of the loss last night, but by my count - we left tons of points on the field:

1) PI call on Coates that was an absolute travesty - 1st and goal on the 3. I'll say +7 points on that drive that was negated by horrific refs.

2) Missed chip shot field goal by Carlson in the 1st quarter. +3 points.

3) Coates TD catch where he stepped out of bounds - we settle for a field goal. +4 points. (By the way - at this point the score would've been 27-28, MSU or at least 24-28, MSU, if you believe we would be stopped from scoring a TD on 1st and goal from the 3 on the ridiculous call on Coates)

4) Regardless of what you think about the "fumble" (It baffles me how anyone could say that Louis' "fumble" was such when he has the ball in his hands, pressed against his helmet, and the ground causes a ricochet effect leading to the ball popping out of his hands. That would be the ground causing the fumble, but hey - why should I expect anything but a hometown call at this point, eh, stripes? And just because he bobbles the ball on the way down, does not a fumble make, if he has possession when he hits the ground, which he did!) - this is the score that puts them up 38-20, and effectively puts the game out of reach.

5) Marshall's two interceptions - go back and look at the film. Both were going to Duke Williams for an easy first down on the first play of the game, and a certain TD at the end. Add at least 7 for the end, and who knows what would have happened during the first drive?

I'm not saying that Gus, or any coach in the free world, calls a perfect game, but this has much more to do with execution, bad refs, and an early hole that we just could not crawl out of due to the aforementioned as opposed to Gus' coaching.

You do the math. Gus is a genius play-caller. Adjust the scores appropriately, and we win. Further, I think the image coming to mind when people critique Malzahn's play-calling is the run by Uzomah. Sure, not the best call. (Although someone else has already pointed out that if Slade had blocked ANYONE on that play, then Uzomah walks in.)

Gus is absolutely not the problem. Let's not be ridiculous.

What about the intentional grounding call on miss state, it was a non reviewable penalty that was apparently reviewed by the fellows upstairs and relayed as a no call to the field, then the flag was picked up. very poor judgement on the field refs. i hope Gus protested the refs. Seriously bad penalty calling and it cost Auburn the victory that they deserved.

[jw 4 au 526]

I can't find a highlight video of the Coates illegal touching play. Not looking for excuses but did the Miss St. defender "graze" the ball?

I am not saying that he did but I have been looking for the play on youtube.

WT, if the ball was tipped by the defender before Coates caught it, is it still illegal touching? I think the defender on Coates got a hand on the ball a split second before he caught it. I was hoping the replay official would see it and over rule.

[aubaseball 2,701]

I at first thought louis fumbled the ball too, but after i watched the reply over i believe he gained back possession just before he hit the ground. The ground can not cause a fumble because if it could how many fumbles would you see when players stretch the ball out and when hit hits the ground they lose it. Happens all the time and never once ruled a fumble. As soon as his back hit the ground the play was dead, then his head hits and pops up causing the ball to come loose. Not saying this cost jus the game, way too many mistakes for us to win. If the game is played without either team turning it over, i believe the game is very close and could go either way. Our problem is the penalties in crucial situations. Take those away and the winner is AUBURN every time.

[Sully to Beasley 643]

I keep hearing all of the talk about Gus's poor decision-making as one of the primary causes of the loss last night, but by my count - we left tons of points on the field:

1) PI call on Coates that was an absolute travesty - 1st and goal on the 3. I'll say +7 points on that drive that was negated by horrific refs.

2) Missed chip shot field goal by Carlson in the 1st quarter. +3 points.

3) Coates TD catch where he stepped out of bounds - we settle for a field goal. +4 points. (By the way - at this point the score would've been 27-28, MSU or at least 24-28, MSU, if you believe we would be stopped from scoring a TD on 1st and goal from the 3 on the ridiculous call on Coates)

4) Regardless of what you think about the "fumble" (It baffles me how anyone could say that Louis' "fumble" was such when he has the ball in his hands, pressed against his helmet, and the ground causes a ricochet effect leading to the ball popping out of his hands. That would be the ground causing the fumble, but hey - why should I expect anything but a hometown call at this point, eh, stripes? And just because he bobbles the ball on the way down, does not a fumble make, if he has possession when he hits the ground, which he did!) - this is the score that puts them up 38-20, and effectively puts the game out of reach.

5) Marshall's two interceptions - go back and look at the film. Both were going to Duke Williams for an easy first down on the first play of the game, and a certain TD at the end. Add at least 7 for the end, and who knows what would have happened during the first drive?

I'm not saying that Gus, or any coach in the free world, calls a perfect game, but this has much more to do with execution, bad refs, and an early hole that we just could not crawl out of due to the aforementioned as opposed to Gus' coaching.

You do the math. Gus is a genius play-caller. Adjust the scores appropriately, and we win. Further, I think the image coming to mind when people critique Malzahn's play-calling is the run by Uzomah. Sure, not the best call. (Although someone else has already pointed out that if Slade had blocked ANYONE on that play, then Uzomah walks in.)

Gus is absolutely not the problem. Let's not be ridiculous.

What about the intentional grounding call on miss state, it was a non reviewable penalty that was apparently reviewed by the fellows upstairs and relayed as a no call to the field, then the flag was picked up. very poor judgement on the field refs. i hope Gus protested the refs. Seriously bad penalty calling and it cost Auburn the victory that they deserved.

Even though the officiating crew was an inept unit, their bad calls did not cost us the game. Turnovers and failure to execute on key plays cost us the game.