Alarming trend

[StatTiger 3,188]

Here are the total number of 200-yard rushing games by each team within the SEC from 2000-2008. The data is sorted by win pct. Take note of the total number of 200-yard games.

Team ............... W L Pct Gms

Florida ............. 25 2 0.926 27

Auburn ............ 35 3 0.921 38

Georgia ........... 19 2 0.905 21

LSU ................. 36 4 0.900 40

Tennessee ....... 24 3 0.889 27

S. Carolina ...... 20 3 0.870 23

Alabama .......... 32 5 0.865 37

Kentucky ......... 10 3 0.769 13

Arkansas ......... 42 13 0.764 55

Miss State ....... 16 5 0.762 21

Vanderbilt ....... 15 5 0.750 20

Ole Miss .......... 17 6 0.739 23

Totals ............ 291 54 0.843 345

Here is the same data from 2006-2008:

Team .................... W L PCT Gms

Alabama ............... 10 0 1.000 10

Georgia ................ 7 0 1.000 7

Miss State ............. 5 0 1.000 5

Tennessee ............ 7 0 1.000 7

S. Carolina ........... 3 0 1.000 3

Florida ................. 19 1 0.950 20

Auburn ................ 8 1 0.889 9

Kentucky ............. 5 1 0.833 6

LSU ..................... 14 3 0.824 17

Vanderbilt ............ 6 2 0.750 8

Arkansas ............. 14 5 0.737 19

Ole Miss ............... 7 5 0.583 12

Totals ................ 105 18 0.854 123

Auburn had (29) 200-yard games from 2000-2005 but only 9 from 2006-2008. Note the increase in 200-yard rushing games by the UF Gators in the last 3 seasons. Good running game and a strong defense is still a successful formula in the SEC. UF has established a strong running game in their spread offense and hopefully Malzahn can do the same in 2009.

[japantiger 4,278]

Nice to see numbers to support what we already know...controlling the ball and great defense has been winning college football games since 1869.

[AUloggerhead 3,155]

AU offensive production in 2006-7 was mediocre at best, and in 2008 it was fully on life support. If the AU offense was a horse last season, it would have been shot midseason to put it out of its misery.

Thankfully, those days are past and we should see a complete reversal of this recent "trend." I don't know for sure but I suspect the new coaching staff is interested in moving the damn ball all game long and will not be content with an everyday game stategy of getting a minimal lead, shutting down the offense and relying on the defense to preserve the win.

[mcgufcm 4,109]

Yeah, because getting a lead and playing defense failed so miserably during the last decade... one of the best decades in the history of the school. Keep the snide comments to a minimum.

I do find it interesting that we had almost 5 200-yard games per year for 6 years under 4 coordinators. I'm not sure that means anything, but I thought it was interesting.

I also find it interesting that we are not alone in the drop off. The conference averaged just over 47 200-yard games per year from 2000 to 2005, and then it dropped to 41 per from 06 to 08. Personally I think it was some combination of the defenses getting better and teams trying to switch (stupidly) to pass first offenses (UT, AU, Ark, UK, etc), but I find it interesting that the total number went down despite the increase to 12 games a season.

[AUman43 5]

Great post. It has always been a trade-off because great running teams control the clock and keep the ball away from the other teams "O" but are not great in playing "catch-up" if they get behind. They do wear a defense down and make them vulnerable in the fourth quarter. This was Pat Dye's philosophy. However, a pass oriented offense can score a lot of points, play good catch up and rely on their 'D" to keep the score down from the opposing team. The problem is if the box is stacked, and they can't pass, they're in trouble. This is where BALANCE is so important as well as the special teams which can play a crucial role on both teams. In the final analysis, schemes don't win, players, solid fundamentals and coaching does.

[AUloggerhead 3,155]

Yeah, because getting a lead and playing defense failed so miserably during the last decade... one of the best decades in the history of the school. Keep the snide comments to a minimum.

I do find it interesting that we had almost 5 200-yard games per year for 6 years under 4 coordinators. I'm not sure that means anything, but I thought it was interesting.

I also find it interesting that we are not alone in the drop off. The conference averaged just over 47 200-yard games per year from 2000 to 2005, and then it dropped to 41 per from 06 to 08. Personally I think it was some combination of the defenses getting better and teams trying to switch (stupidly) to pass first offenses (UT, AU, Ark, UK, etc), but I find it interesting that the total number went down despite the increase to 12 games a season.

Well, you're being just a tad bit generous with characterizing AU's philosophy the last few years under xCTT with "getting a lead & playing defense." It was more like "getting a minimal lead, shutting down the offense sometimes as early as the 3Q & playing defense. Let me tell you a better winning strategy -- getting a substantial lead & playing defense. Even in last year's xCTT-signature forgettable 3-2 win against MSU, people forget that MSU had an opportunity to get into FG position at the end and almost pull it out. Normally, keeping the opponent's defense on the field all the time with a ball control offense is the goal as it tires out the defense. Shouldn't our strategy be likewise: keeping our defense fresh & off the field for long stretches? You can only do that with an offense that can move the ball regularly. I'm a defensive-minded guy and I love a hard fought defensive game (e.g. AU vs LSU last 4 years or so,) but in this day & age where the BCS voters determine all, you can't win 10-9 and expect to get any top votes. You also need an offense that will put the hammer down week after week and impress the voters. I wish it wasn't so but there it is. OU, UF, SC & even uat all know this. xCTT didn't think he had to do this and in fact went out of his way not to run up the score when he had the chance. Whatever, it's all water under the bridge now. I'm hoping the Gus Bus offense will be putting the pedal to the metal from here on out. WDE

[TigerHeat 9]

AU offensive production in 2006-7 was mediocre at best, and in 2008 it was fully on life support.

I saw no evidence of any life support. We were flatlining just about all year.

[mcgufcm 4,109]

Are you really pulling the 3-2 game out as an example of Tubs intentionally pulling the plug on the the offense?? What the heck were you watching? Did he pull the plug before we got off the bus or something? Our offense was inept because we had poor gameplans, below average QB play, and an idiot calling plays... Tubs didn't "pull the plug" and play defense. We never plugged the damn thing in to begin with.

There are examples where trying to run clock cost us (2002 UGA is the best example), but there are just as many times where the strategy worked and we won (2006 South Carolina, 2006 UF, 2004 VT even if I hated watching it, etc). I hope we score 1 million points under Malzahn. But I do not fault Tommy Tuberville for developing a strategy to win games and executing it. We won, we won, an we won some more. That's the Tuberville legacy. Winning as much as any football coach in Auburn history ever won.

[Strychnine 1,812]

Are you really pulling the 3-2 game out as an example of Tubs intentionally pulling the plug on the the offense?? What the heck were you watching? Did he pull the plug before we got off the bus or something? Our offense was inept because we had poor gameplans, below average QB play, and an idiot calling plays... Tubs didn't "pull the plug" and play defense. We never plugged the damn thing in to begin with.

There are examples where trying to run clock cost us (2002 UGA is the best example), but there are just as many times where the strategy worked and we won (2006 South Carolina, 2006 UF, 2004 VT even if I hated watching it, etc). I hope we score 1 million points under Malzahn. But I do not fault Tommy Tuberville for developing a strategy to win games and executing it. We won, we won, an we won some more. That's the Tuberville legacy. Winning as much as any football coach in Auburn history ever won.

If I am recalling the right game correctly, I would not even blame the 2002 UGA game on that. I would blame it on a rather effective offensive strategy that was stopped when one of its cornerstones was injured (Ronnie Brown) in the 3rd quarter I think. After that, we could not do anything. We had no devastating passing attack to fall back on, no Carnell Williams, no Ronnie Brown. There was really nothing else that could be done other than hope the defense could pull it out, which they almost did.

[au2004ece 30]

Let me tell you a better winning strategy -- getting a substantial lead & playing defense.

Sometimes attempting to get a substantial lead when you already have a winning lead can lead to the loss of the game. CTT bet that keeping the minimal lead was a better percentage play that forcing something on offense in an attempt to get points that probably would not be needed.

[cadillacattack 0]

O-line

O-line

O-line

[Duder 259]

We notoriously played vanilla offense under Tuberville no matter what the lead is.

No one is saying that we should try to hang 50 on everyone before we shut the offense down. Calling the dogs off is fine, but make sure you have enough points up first. We sat on too many leads under Tuberville. Yes, he won them often, but he lost a few as well. He relied too much on defense and special teams which is why we were never able to have a consistently stellar offense under Tuberville. We had a lot of talent through his tenure and we won a lot of games. Had he spent more time developing creative ways to use that talent on the offensive side of the ball I don't believe we would've been in as many nail biters and we'd be in a better place recruiting. Truth be told, if Tuberville had ever taken more of an interest in the offense he'd probably still be the head coach.

It wasn't all his fault, his staff sucked. But the HC's job is to make the game plan that his assistance execute. Far too long we relied on a stellar defense and an average offense. We stopped attracting recruits for some positions (WR jumps out at me) because they would never be used effectively.

[mcgufcm 4,109]

Duder, I hear you to an extent.

1) His staff did NOT suck. Eddie Gran was a FANTASTIC coach. Hugh Nall is extremely well-respected in his former profession. Al Borges has had two extremely successful runs (one in the Pac 10 and one in the SEC). Bobby Petrino was clearly a solid coordinator (if not so solid a person). I think Knox was average as a position coach and very good as a recruiter (although I concede that others liked him less than I did). I have a very low opinion of Noel Mazzone and Steve Ensminger... so I won't defend them in the least.

2) I COMPLETELY disagree with the repeated assertion by so many people that we ever stopped attracting top talent OR that we currently lack talent. Next season, I see AT LEAST 10 future NFL players (not counting a single freshman, redshirt freshman, or JUCO player). And even at the receiver positions (including TE) look at the guys that we got late in Tuberville's tenure: Tim Hawthorne (one of the biggest recruits at his position in the country), Chris Slaughter (same), Phillip Pierre-Louis (ACC/SEC offers), Tommy Trott (highest rated TE in the country), Gabe McKenzie (big time recruit), Lutz (big time recruit)... and that's an incomplete list. How does that show an inability to attract big time pass catchers? It may be an indictment of our ability to develop receiver talent, but it does NOT show any inability to recruit.

3) I'm not sure that paying more attention to the offensive side of the ball WOULD put us in a better spot in terms of talent. Tubs knows/knew defense. We had GREAT defenses under him regardless of who the DC was. The talent level and recruiting on that side of the ball benefited from that. If more attention is paid to the offense at the expense of defensive production... you might have seen less talent brought in on that side of the ball.

PS. My list of likely NFL players: Ziemba, Pugh, Berry, McKenzie (at some position), Tate, Fannin, Coleman, Carter, McFadden, Thorpe, McNeil. I think other guys could get there, but I think those guys are locks.

[Duder 259]

Duder, I hear you to an extent.

1) His staff did NOT suck. Eddie Gran was a FANTASTIC coach. Hugh Nall is extremely well-respected in his former profession. Al Borges has had two extremely successful runs (one in the Pac 10 and one in the SEC). Bobby Petrino was clearly a solid coordinator (if not so solid a person). I think Knox was average as a position coach and very good as a recruiter (although I concede that others liked him less than I did). I have a very low opinion of Noel Mazzone and Steve Ensminger... so I won't defend them in the least.

2) I COMPLETELY disagree with the repeated assertion by so many people that we ever stopped attracting top talent OR that we currently lack talent. Next season, I see AT LEAST 10 future NFL players (not counting a single freshman, redshirt freshman, or JUCO player). And even at the receiver positions (including TE) look at the guys that we got late in Tuberville's tenure: Tim Hawthorne (one of the biggest recruits at his position in the country), Chris Slaughter (same), Phillip Pierre-Louis (ACC/SEC offers), Tommy Trott (highest rated TE in the country), Gabe McKenzie (big time recruit), Lutz (big time recruit)... and that's an incomplete list. How does that show an inability to attract big time pass catchers? It may be an indictment of our ability to develop receiver talent, but it does NOT show any inability to recruit.

3) I'm not sure that paying more attention to the offensive side of the ball WOULD put us in a better spot in terms of talent. Tubs knows/knew defense. We had GREAT defenses under him regardless of who the DC was. The talent level and recruiting on that side of the ball benefited from that. If more attention is paid to the offense at the expense of defensive production... you might have seen less talent brought in on that side of the ball.

PS. My list of likely NFL players: Ziemba, Pugh, Berry, McKenzie (at some position), Tate, Fannin, Coleman, Carter, McFadden, Thorpe, McNeil. I think other guys could get there, but I think those guys are locks.

Some of your thoughts I agree with but some I have a problem.

As a whole, his staff was under-whelming. Gran was great, Petrino was solid, Borges was good for a few years. That's about it, in my opinion (speaking of just the offense, of course).

I think ten NFL players on our roster next year is a very liberal number. Coleman and Carter are locks. A few of the o-line may break in at some point. Tate and Fannin have a lot of work to do before I'd call them a lock. We have some talent, yes. We don't have enough. The teams we have to routinely compete against (LSU, UF, UGA) all attract more talent consistently. Tuberville was great at coaching up players, but why not coach up a 5-star instead of settling? And for the "big name" recruits we did attract, what did the staff do to help them be successful? Some of those names fizzled once they were put on the field.

I'm not saying we should have ignored defense, but obviously more attention was given to defense, right, wrong or indifferent, than the offensive side of the ball. It is possible to strike that happy median but it felt like Tuberville was too content to have a strong defense, an average offense and play field position.

[mcgufcm 4,109]

See I just think Tuberville worked his position to near perfection. The simple fact of the matter is: Auburn is not in the position that UF or UGA or LSU are in. Those teams can recruit their backyard and have NFL talent tripping over itself. We can't. Even if we were the only team in the state of Alabama, we still wouldn't have the recruiting base that those three have. Since are not the only team in the state (we're not even The State U), you have to 1) go outside your state and 2) find less acclaimed players that are just as good as the "big name" recruits. You just have to. If any Auburn coach thinks he'll have long term success without doing BOTH of those things, he's crazy.

I would compare Auburn to UT before I'd compare us to UGA (note: I don't think we're exactly the same b/c I think Auburn actually sits in a better geographic/contact position, but it's a closer comparison). If you look at UT's recruiting strategy, their best years came during times when they recruited NATIONALLY. Lane Kiffin has to do that if he's going to win. There isn't enough talent in Tennessee to have it any other way. I'm not suggesting that Auburn has to recruit nationally (we don't), but you have to pull equal numbers from Florida, Georgia, and Alabama with a few from MS or AR or SC or wherever. That's just how we have to be.

In order to do that, you have to have a precise brand image. Under Tubs, we had one until the last season. We played defense, but even more than that, we played FAST defense. Smaller linebacker? C'mon. Speed rush end? C'mon. Oversized corner? We'll move you to safety. Even on offense, we had a brand. Athletic lineman that likes to run block? C'mon. Top shelf running back looking for carries? C'mon.

Did that leave us in a perpetual search for the right QB/WR groups? Sure. But it also assured us of: 1) great defense and 2) great running game. That assured us of winning. Even in the valleys, we were a winning team (until we abandoned the brand in 2008), and when we found the answer to the QB/WR thing, we were a very, very good team (2002 late in the season, 2004, 2005).

Personally, I thought Tuberville's only major mistake was trying to abandon the brand that he built. I thought his consistency guaranteed that we were relevant every year, and it gave us the chance to have big seasons from time to time. I also think it helped us recruit. It is not a coincidence that we were better at finding "diamonds in the rough." This was a place where tough hombres came to prove they were tough hombres. For whatever reason, the big name guys we recruited OFTEN didn't work out (Lee Tilley, Leon Hart, Hawthorne to this point, Rowell, Tony Bell, Raven Gray, Greg Smith, etc.), but it didn't matter. We had MORE guys come here unheralded and prove that lack of exposure was a mistake (Dontarrious Thomas, Travis Williams, Jerraud Powers, Jay Ratliff was a TE, Ben Grubbs, Courtney Taylor, Josh Thompson, etc., etc., etc.).

Personally, I don't see the complaints about recruiting. I just don't. We didn't fail to bring in big time talent. We failed to bring in big time hype. That's all. Sen'Derrick Marks was THE MOST TALENTED defensive lineman signed by any school in the SEC when we got him... the general public just didn't know that until later. He was a 5* talent; he just wasn't 5* hype.

I think Tuberville and his staff recruited 3 states well. I think they had a brand of ball that recruits could rely on, and it helped attract tough-minded players. I think we brought in truckloads of talent that could match almost anyone in the SEC, and I don't think we would've done that without have a defense first, running second, and defense third kind of mentality.

As for the guys here: Ziemba and Pugh are insanely talented. They hit the sophomore wall. Even Andre Smith did that. I bet a dollar to a dime they look great this year, and it won't be due to improved positional coaching as much as it will be due to growing up. And McFadden is as much of a lock as Antonio Coleman... his speed/size/coverage combo will put McFadden (barring injury) into the first day of the draft.