Want to read it yourself?

[BamaGrad03 0]

They could have run it more times, though the results wouldn't have been any different.

[Raven_tiger 5]

The bummers played vanilla and smashed Clemson in the mouth. I hate to say that, but that is what happened. Now the question is:

1. Is Alabama that good or is Clemson way overrated?

Myself? I think a little of both.

[runswithscissors 33]

The bummers played vanilla and smashed Clemson in the mouth. I hate to say that, but that is what happened. Now the question is:

1. Is Alabama that good or is Clemson way overrated?

Myself? I think a little of both.

thats a pretty fair assessment.

[Ranger12 46]

It does not matter who we were preparing for last night, we did not execute period. UAT executed against who they were playing. It should not matter who you are playing, you better be able to execute. We did not play at our full potential against a very inferior opponent and was still able to win.

Tigerheat's point was that if we had played like that against a better opponent, we might have lost or at least the game would have been closer at least. Has nothing with what team you prepared for, it has to do with how the team prepared for the mission. Some missions are tougher then others, but you still have to properly prepare and execute every mission or there could be negative consequences.

[rtftiger 40]

On the other hand, Alabama had to use their entire arsenal

False

very false. we weren't the ones running 2-3 trick plays, that was Clemson. they even tried the AU "switch around the tight ends to try and confuse the LB" trick for a series and that didn't work too well either. Clemson is the team that used their entire arsenal. were you even watching the game? our playcalling was good, but it was very vanilla if you actually watched the game.

Yeah Clemson did pull out some trick plays but they in no way showed their enitre arsenal either.

So your telling me that Clemson will only run the ball 15-20 times a game this year in each game?

I agree though that Alabama was very vanilla on both sides of the ball but Clemson just looked horrible last night. I knew it was over at halftime and I could tell that Clemson's players looked totally dejected by halftime.

neither you nor i can honestly say whether they did or not. but i think we could both agree they pulled some toys out of the toybox. when i started seeing them do the TE shuffle i was a little worried because it threw us off a little in the game against you guys, but they responded well to it.

i don't know how many times Clemson will only run the ball 15-20 times. but i can feel pretty confident in saying i doubt another team on their schedule holds them to a net 1 yard rushing. they didn't have much of a choice but to abandon the run. their center was the lone returning starter on the OL, and that "morbidly obese" NT Terrence Cody (the one that many here said was way too obese to play) absolutely owned him down after down. at one point, they were having to triple team him. when you have that sort of thing going on in the trenches, it really frees up your LBs and makes it very tough to run the ball. and a CNS defense depends on the LB corps fairly heavily. i felt going into it if we could force them to the air, even though they have a good QB, i felt pretty good about our secondary. plus the DL kept constant pressure on their QB on passing downs. it was just an overall effort.

A couple of things here.

First, you're right. Clemson's o-line was horrible, basically all new players. They probably were as bad last night as they will be all season. Both Auburn and Alabama know the problem of playing with young lineman. Our line probably didn't get it together until the fourth game of the season last year, after we had lost to South Florida and Mississippi State.

Second, your morbidly obese NT looked good in the first game, when he only played about 12 snaps. I would wait until Ole Miss or Tennessee (two teams who should be able to run well) before crowing about him.

Just sayin'

[BamaGrad03 0]

Second, your morbidly obese NT looked good in the first game, when he only played about 12 snaps. I would wait until Ole Miss or Tennessee (two teams who should be able to run well) before crowing about him.

Uh, he played every non third down defensive snap until we put the scrubs in.

And he was SPRINTING off the field on 3rd downs every time.

[rtftiger 40]

Second, your morbidly obese NT looked good in the first game, when he only played about 12 snaps. I would wait until Ole Miss or Tennessee (two teams who should be able to run well) before crowing about him.

Uh, he played every non third down defensive snap until we put the scrubs in.

And he was SPRINTING off the field on 3rd downs every time.

How could you tell that he was sprinting? Was it the speed? Or, the jiggling?

Also, in regard to the number of snaps, I realized that I was being overly minimalistic. So, I looked at the stats. If he played every first and second down of the entire game, he would have played 18 snaps. Sorry to be misleading.

Take a look.

[BamaGrad03 0]

How could you tell that he was sprinting? Was it the speed? Or, the jiggling?

The speed.

You can downplay his impact all you want. But the guy is indeed a good athlete. He is VERY agile for his size, and doesn't seem to get winded like you would expect a big dude like this to be.

[rtftiger 40]

How could you tell that he was sprinting? Was it the speed? Or, the jiggling?

The speed.

You can downplay his impact all you want. But the guy is indeed a good athlete. He is VERY agile for his size, and doesn't seem to get winded like you would expect a big dude like this to be.

Again, I'd hold comments on his fitness until he plays 30 snaps in a game against a team that runs it with authority. And, we'll see how he handles 11 games.

But, yes, he seemed to play well for 18 plays.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Since when is Clemson a poor running team?

[AUslug 1]

Whenever the schmuck calling the plays doesn't call more than 20 running plays in a game. If an SEC team had Davis and Spiller, they would be getting a lot carries.

[runswithscissors 33]

Whenever the schmuck calling the plays doesn't call more than 20 running plays in a game. If an SEC team had Davis and Spiller, they would be getting a lot carries.

for the record, they only ran 14 running plays. they could have called 50 running plays and i think the outcome would have been the same. they had no choice but to abandon the running game because we were scoring every time we touched the ball, plus we were dominating the line. you guys keep pointing to the playcalling and saying "gee whiz their OC is an idiot, pitiful playcalling" as an excuse, but what we keep trying to tell you is we were dominating the line and stuffing them anytime they ran, plus owning the clock. why should they keep trying to do something that is just not working? they only called 20 passing plays too. Clemson had the ball for 18:47. Alabama had the ball 41:13. how in the world do you expect them to have a balanced attack when they only had the ball for almost 19 minutes? we ran 72 plays to their 34. but no, it wasn't that we were playing well. it was just the schmuck calling the plays can't figure out to hand the ball to the RBs and let them take care of it.

[rtftiger 40]

Whenever the schmuck calling the plays doesn't call more than 20 running plays in a game. If an SEC team had Davis and Spiller, they would be getting a lot carries.

for the record, they only ran 14 running plays. they could have called 50 running plays and i think the outcome would have been the same. they had no choice but to abandon the running game because we were scoring every time we touched the ball, plus we were dominating the line. you guys keep pointing to the playcalling and saying "gee whiz their OC is an idiot, pitiful playcalling" as an excuse, but what we keep trying to tell you is we were dominating the line and stuffing them anytime they ran, plus owning the clock. why should they keep trying to do something that is just not working? they only called 20 passing plays too. Clemson had the ball for 18:47. Alabama had the ball 41:13. how in the world do you expect them to have a balanced attack when they only had the ball for almost 19 minutes? we ran 72 plays to their 34. but no, it wasn't that we were playing well. it was just the schmuck calling the plays can't figure out to hand the ball to the RBs and let them take care of it.

Yes, Clemson went away from the run because it wasn't working. I think they abandoned it too quickly, but yes, you're right.

I just don't think that you can count on dominating Ole Miss or Tennessee in that way.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Tennessee doesn't concern me NEARLY as much as teams like LSU, UGA, and AU. I say that because UT has gotten away from physical play in recent years. We were WAY less physical last year, and still dominated both lines.

Ole Miss is still an unknown. I do know that if Hardy is healthy it could mean bad news. That guy almost beat us by himself last year.

[AUslug 1]

Whenever the schmuck calling the plays doesn't call more than 20 running plays in a game. If an SEC team had Davis and Spiller, they would be getting a lot carries.

for the record, they only ran 14 running plays. they could have called 50 running plays and i think the outcome would have been the same. they had no choice but to abandon the running game because we were scoring every time we touched the ball, plus we were dominating the line. you guys keep pointing to the playcalling and saying "gee whiz their OC is an idiot, pitiful playcalling" as an excuse, but what we keep trying to tell you is we were dominating the line and stuffing them anytime they ran, plus owning the clock. why should they keep trying to do something that is just not working? they only called 20 passing plays too. Clemson had the ball for 18:47. Alabama had the ball 41:13. how in the world do you expect them to have a balanced attack when they only had the ball for almost 19 minutes? we ran 72 plays to their 34. but no, it wasn't that we were playing well. it was just the schmuck calling the plays can't figure out to hand the ball to the RBs and let them take care of it.

I was referring to the playing calling being questionable not only in the Bama game but in games past where the backs weren't getting the carries. Sorry I didn't bow down to Bama enough for you. I was quite surprised at how Bama trounced Clemson and they look better than I thought they would at this point.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I thought Clemson's play calling was HORRENDOUS.

They didn't show any wrinkles besides that weak ass deal where they ran Cullen Harper out to wide out.