Lame attempt 8 at being a seer

[MikeDeTiger]

I will respectfully disagree.  If our OL was good, they wouldn't have been mugged by 3 other P5 teams we faced plus the directional schools.  There's no other way around it.

What I will agree with you on is there IS a big talent gap there.  Unlike the Florida game, for example, LSU's OL problems were not blown assignments.  They are just that much less talented than the Alabama linemen.  I have never in my life seen that many double-teams defeated so quickly and so consistently.  Alabama also double-teamed Rashard Lawrence and Big Ed all night, but at least our guys had the decency to get held up a lot by double-teams.  

I have never agreed with the stance Saban is some great tactician.  From an X's and O's standpoint, he's fine.  He's not a mad scientist on either side of the ball, he knows what he likes and what works, and he's fine.  What he is, is the greatest recruiter in the world.  Full stop.  There's no long con here, no overarching plan that you're suggesting, I don't think.  He knows the axiom "It's not the X's and O's, it's the Johnny and Joes" is correct, and he works it.  The only sneaky and heady tactics Saban does at Alabama is targeting Louisiana kids HARD.  I counted 9-10 LA kids for Alabama Saturday, 6 of whom were starters.  Think LSU couldn't have used those guys?  He knows 1) Louisiana is a talent rich state  2)  He only has one school to beat out for Louisiana kids  3) getting those kids directly hurts the chances of the one team they play every year that could possibly be talented enough to cause them problems.  Same reason other teams are occasionally able to catch them napping and upset them.  It's impossible to make 18-22 year olds focus all the time.  It's hard for grown men.  Not LSU though.  The bye-week before LSU is not an accident, just like we schedule ours before them also.  LSU is the one game they will bring it 100% guaranteed, and that's the reason LSU can't tag them like Ole Miss or Auburn, and why LSU will not beat them again until Saban is gone...because nobody is going to out-recruit him and he's still going to drain too much of our lifeblood, the in-state recruits.  We could abandon the pro-style attempts to a more pure spread, or get a guy like Hugh Freeze or Kendall Briles (which....please God, no) with a lot of creativity and score some more points.  We'll also just lose to them by less.  This is the only "Great Plan" Saban is guilty of, and mark it down, LSU will not beat Saban again.  

The rest is just his guys are better than your guys.  The end.  

You say "LSU is that good."  But it's not true.  LSU is that good on defense.  Good enough to hold Alabama to 21 points or less with a competent offense.  Good enough to have some stars, but not stars up and down the roster.  But we still don't have the D-lines we used to (because those guys go to Alabama now) and we still don't have elite O-lineman (because the state does not produce a ton, and the ones we produce, half go to...guess where).  Oh, and we've lost the majority of the state's elite LBs to them as well.  We'll probably still get elite DBs because our DB development and NFL success is insane.  Everybody else....well, if you want to see a real mastermind, then look at Dave Aranda.  What he does with a unit full of guys, half of whom couldn't start at Alabama, is great, and he does it with scheme.  

I recall you also were inclined to think Les Miles was playing a lot of mind games over the years.  It's funny to think about because he was indeed an interesting character.  But I can tell you definitely he was not.  Miles was exactly what he appeared to be.  There were no tricks, no charades, no cons.  Just a guy who loved the game and what you saw is what you got.  That's also exactly what Saban is.  What you see is what you get.  He preaches recruiting, he does recruiting, he wants to win games.  

I think we could expect Alabama to perform differently in some games against more creative teams than they do if he were playing some secret chess game where he's 11 moves ahead of everybody else.  If I'm right, we can expect to see Clemson give them a punch in the mouth again, win or lose.  And I believe they will.  

[Drew4UTk]

tactics being how strategies are accomplished, i don't speak to Saban being a tactician.  Strategy: win as many games as he can.  Tactic: run on the team with weak DL.  Pass on the team with weak secondary.  Playaction on the team with D units that match your O sets, and hope to 'chess' their asses to death.  Saban has been in few chess matches in his career, i've noticed, and it's because his johnny and joe's, and as close to consistently perfect execution (practiced better/more thoroughly/effectively than anyone else?) that could be asked for.  His 'tactic' is fundamentals.  

i recall and some of y'all may as well when they met up with Meyer in 2008 and 2009- in my mind it was the first battle in the war of innovation vs. fundamentals... now that isn't exactly so, as Meyer's spread was actually just a new(ish) look and was fundamentally founded (though folks had to pay attention to see that)... yet, on the other side of the ball was Alabama, who stood firmly behind "this is the way it's done, and execution of every cog in unison makes the gears turn" flag proved that fundamental approach where the only threat is a team you can't remove from their comfort zone and who executes equally well while just as consistent is your only problem- which reduces a match to 'johnny's and joe's' at that point and that point only.  

there are few teams who can 'johnny and joe' with Bama... and those that possibly could now have to defeat the discipline of a team that executes consistently higher than anyone else.  

there was also a series with LSU and Bama where the D's were just lights out.  you know the year.  LSU had a defense that was balls out aggressive and after the ball every play- flirting with reckless- but... if a player could get past the first tackler, they had an opportunity to get some yards.  meanwhile, on the pure fundamental line stood Bama's D- they were equally effective but not near as much fun to watch- they seemed to play a game where the first tackler's job was to slow down the carrier the split second before the rest of those damn elephants arrived- and they were right behind him. .... this, and Bama was notorious for subbing with players just as good every second or third down.... nobody had that kind of depth. 

in both (all) of those season's Bama relied on a fierce and powerful D, and ran offenses with (johnny's and joe's) that were fresh- a stable of runners three deep that cold have started anywhere individually- high percentage passes from a field commander (not commando) type QB.  it was effective beyond anyone's reproach.

what i'm suggesting Saban&co. are doing now- as part of their overarching strategy for the season, is: blitzkrieg early- take tempo and initial game plan away from opponents and with it establish absolute/firm control of the game (there is zero patsy'ing around with this bama team), then play a game of attrition where the objective is to keep offense safe and fresh, and at the cost of D playing softer than they can if necessary.  my only proof of this is the way the D played Saturday where they played all out against a good LSU squad with intent to make a statement that everyone in the CFB world heard... and we did.

[bamajoe]

Drew, that is an interesting theory and I hope you are right. I think it is more basic than that. I think Alabama is simply getting better now that all the new players are now seasoned. That defense is just better than it was a month or two months ago. 

[Cincydawg]

When you recruit at a high level, especially on defense, you can swap players and not lose very much going from starter to a two, especially later in the season.  Then your starters are fresh late in the game, your twos are seasoned, and next year you repeat.

Georgia is trying to get there, they are just young this season for whatever reason, lost a lot last year of course.  The thing is even when Georgia is good, Alabama is also going to be at the same level.

The Dawgs may have missed their one shot last season.

[MikeDeTiger]

  my only proof of this is the way the D played Saturday where they played all out against a good LSU squad with intent to make a statement that everyone in the CFB world heard... and we did.

This is my rub.  There is no stat, metric, or visual confirmation that suggests LSU is any way a "good squad" on offense.  This is the worst line we've had in years, and it's showed in multiple games.  These are the worst RBs we've had in, by my count, 23 seasons.  (That is of course an opinion, but a pretty solid one.  Look, Charles Scott would start over every back we have right now.)  The WRs....eh, the freshman might turn out pretty good.  They're certainly better than the older guys were at this point of their careers.  The older guys are the worst unit LSU has seen in over 15 years.  Nobody knows what the QB is because his WRs drop a lot of balls and his line is a revolving turnstile.  
This offense looked like turd against Miami, Auburn, Florida, Mississippi State, AND SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA.  They have one good showing, against UGA, and I swear if you played that game again the score would be reversed.  UGA was cocky and unprepared for our uptempo.  We'd be lucky to kick a few FGs if we played again.  Every other game was literally won with defense and special teams.  
The only "statement" Bama's defense made was they can get up for the one tough game they've played so far and beat down a helpless offense.  They did it better, but they're hardly the only team to kick LSU's offense' ass.  

[Drew4UTk]

aye, @MikeDeTiger , we continue to disagree... 

It's a down season across the board imHo (or maybe it's a season of giants?) - and that is what this is all about, sharing opinions.  I am not nearly as critical of LSU as you are, and understandably so.  They're closer to you and you have greater expectations of them than I do.  

it seems to me there are but two teams playing at the level expected this time of year, and that is Bama and Clemson.  Michigan is a possible, and UGA may be shaking their hangover.  imHo, those are the four best teams playing right now.  ND is NOT playing at that level when they flirt with just about every team they've played, and neither Bama or Clemson have the loss that proves vulnerability. 

LSU is still at the top of the tier, right behind those four and alongside the likes of Michigan, Oklahoma, WVU, Wazu, ect... personally i think they'd mop the bayou with ND, but again it's just opinion.  In a season w/o this strange dominion owned by Bama, they are at the top of the game... even though they have warts- everyone else does too- except Bama and Clemson, with Clemson not exactly the showstopper Bama appears to be......   

[Cincydawg]

I'm not sure Clemson has played anyone since the A&M game that really pushed them much.  I know Syracuse did, but it's Syracuse still.

I lack faith they can be punched in the mouth early in  a game and persevere if the talent levels are near equal.  I'd favor a lot of top ten programs over Clemson right now.

[Drew4UTk]

i've tried to watch clemson when possible.  they are a funny lot- they play UP to BIG games, and kinda coast through the rest. (the aTm game notwithstanding, and they flat out needed zebras to pull them out of there with a win).  

they are damn good on both sides of the ball when they're playing with moxy.  it's like some switch they flip when they choose to.  they can play with ANYONE when they flip that switch to 'moxy', but... they look damn vulnerable when they are flat.  

I am really anxious to see how they handle Duke.  Duke offers an interesting matchup.  if they hit the moxy pedal, they blast them out of death valley with ease............. playing flat Duke may have something for them aTm and 'cuse missed.... 

[bamajoe]

I don't see how anyone could be down on LSU this year. They were not expected to have much and many expected them to be way down on the West pecking order. The Board expert ELA had them 41st in the nation. I believe they have over achieved if anything. 

[MikeDeTiger]

Those were ridiculous assessments for anyone who followed the program.  Joe, even you knew it, I saw you arguing with him and Badger about it.  Those yanks don't know a SEC west team like any SEC west fans will.  Don't know what ELA's deal is other than 1) he's not perfect  2) some of his LSU info in the countdown was flat wrong, not talking about opinions, I mean factually wrong about personnel etc.  3) lose to Troy and this is the kind of stuff you'll get.  ELA was hardly the only one to look at last year and make ignorant predictions about this year.  I told y'all before the season this team wasn't a 5-7 win team like the popular media picked.  I said the defense and ST would be good and that's won LSU a ton of games the past 16 years.  

I also told y'all the O-line was a major question mark because there was very little experience there.  One of the least experienced lines in the country.  Since then they were decimated by injuries and a poor situation got worse.  

Drew, you can say that I have higher expectations because I'm a fan, and you may be right, but that's not mutually exclusive from telling you the OL is objectively bad.  By your reasoning, isn't it possible that because you are a UT fan, your opinions of an OL might be skewed downwards?  I know that sounds harsh, but we both know UT hasn't had the good up front for a while now, but that does not mean that a mildly better unit at LSU is somehow better than I'm giving it credit for.   Again, they've been whipped BAD by every decent front they've played except UGA, and UGA came into that game with about the worst sack rate in the SEC.  Further, UGA was clearly not ready for LSU's uptempo plays, that's where LSU did nearly all of it's damage.  On the many more plays LSU ran without tempo, the line and the offense managed a whole lot of jack squat vs. UGA.  Let me repeat this since I'm not sure it sunk in the first time, SOUTHEASTERN LOUISIANA whipped LSU's OL.  FREAKING SELA.  You can't tell me I'm just being harsh.  

Maybe these guys look better with more starts together next year.  Maybe they're just not talented and they won't.  I don't know.  I don't want to read too much into a single data point, because we all know looking bad against Alabama does not make you definitely bad.  But we can take something from each data point, and any sort of good line does not look THAT bad, not against Alabama, not against anybody.  And equally importantly, they've looked very bad against far more teams than only Alabama.  I just don't see any objective justification for trying to polish that particular turd.   

[Cincydawg]

BC will be a test for Clemson I suspect, or Clemson may flip a switch.

Clemson could well be getting better with the freshman QB on offense, as one would expect.