The reason Bama lost is the same reason we lost...

[STLhawg]

The reason Bama lost tonight is the same reason we lost our last two games.  We both couldn't sustain drives in the second half which over-tired our defense.  Am I saying Arkansas = Bama -- not all!   Just making an observation that I found interesting.

And don't let that make anyone think I am saying Robb Smith shouldn't have been fired.  With our defensive numbers this season, I don't see how was was going to survive.  In fact, I think he lost some of his DC powers after the Auburn game.  I do feel that Rory Segrest should be encouraged to leave too.

[DeltaBoy]

Yep Bama Hammer RB went down and they didn't have anybody step up.

[Pork Twain]

That is the simplistic way of looking at it.  They lost because they have a young QB that could not consistently hit throws longer than 10 yards and they lost their stud RB in the third.  We lost because of a couple of turnovers and because our halftime defensive adjustment was to go into bend and then break mode.

[Exit Pursued by a Boar]

They didn't sustain drives in the first half either. I went to bed at half, but told my son that Bama had wasted too many opportunities in the first half and that it may come back to beat them.  Of course, it's hard to just stomp on an opponent's throat when you face a good opponent.  The plain fact of the matter is that Clemson is a good team that came back. It also is a fact that Hurts led his team back to take the lead, but left enough time on the clock for Clemson to come back again.  Bama's  defense has been good enough all through the season, but not in the case of this last drive.

Since I didn't see the 2nd half, did anyone discuss the fact that Clemson ran that last play instead of kicking a FG for OT?  There was no guarantee they'd get another play if that one failed.

EFBAB

[jbcarol]

https://twitter.com/wesrucker247/status/818694483298680832

[Hog Fan...DOH!]

That is the simplistic way of looking at it.  They lost because they have a young QB that could not consistently hit throws longer than 10 yards and they lost their stud RB in the third.  We lost because of a couple of turnovers and because our halftime defensive adjustment was to go into bend and then break mode.

I believe you are correct about the first part.  An experienced QB wins that game for Bama (insert what's-his-name game manager from the past 10 years).  I also think Bama did a really bad job rotating in Dlinemen.  Josh Frazier (Springdale) came in for one series at NG and absolutely blew up the Clemson center each snap.  Dude can play.     

Also... Clemson is really, really good.  They deserve so much credit.

To be clear, the Arkansas O had 7 penalties, 4 turnovers, and an ejection against Va Tech.  The D was left on a short field the entire 2nd half.  I'm not sure what "adjustment" a defense can make in that situation. 

[BloodRedHog]

Both defenses were tired.
I thought they lost because the pick play is now legal I guess.
Bama's DB's maul wide receivers on every play but officials do not call it. Clemson's wide receivers combated this by using tall guys to jump over shorter guys. Williams is a monster.

[Biggus Piggus]

1. Much changes from the beginning of a football season to its end. Clemson's season began with a 19-13 victory at Auburn. Ended with a 35-31 victory over Alabama. Living with slow starts is alright.

2. The game has changed. Completion % and third down % decide games. Anyone who does not get this will be left behind.

Watson completed 64%, Hurts 42%. Clemson converted 39% of its third downs, Bama 13%. The Tide rushed for 221 yards and three touchdowns. Was not enough. Alabama's offense failed too often, which wore out its defense.

I kept hearing commentators say "offense was not the problem, 31 points should be enough." That is how the game has changed. Do not fixate on the number of points. That is old-school football.

Alabama had 16 meaningful possessions in this game:
* 11 punts.
* 4 touchdowns.
* 1 field goal.

The Tide had seven three-and-out possessions. In the whole game, Bama had two (!) drives that lasted more than five plays. Its offense did not convert on a third down after the first quarter -- 0 for 10. The biggest failure was getting all of 3 points off two Clemson fumbles. Those wasted chances kept Alabama from building a lead that might have been enough.

Five scores in 10 possessions would be fine. Five scores in 16 possessions = the only way Alabama was going to lose this football game. The Tide failed to shorten the game by elongating possessions. Those failures became predictable. Bama had 14 possessions that lasted fewer than 2 minutes.

Here was Alabama on first-down plays:

20-yard run by Hurts
4-yard run by Scarbrough
Illegal shift penalty
25-yard touchdown run by Scarbrough

That was all in the first drive.

2-yard run by Scarbrough
Incomplete pass
-1 run by Hurts
False start penalty
-2 run by Scarbrough
25-yard run by Stewart
3-yard run by Scarbrough
1-yard pass Hurts to Ridley
2-yard run by Harris
1-yard run by Harris
3-yard run by Hurts
5-yard run by Scarbrough
2-yard run by Scarbrough
-3 pass Hurts to Stewart

End of first half.

False start penalty
3-yard run by Scarbrough
3-yard run by Scarbrough
Incomplete pass
6-yard run by Scarbrough
Incomplete pass
13-yard run by Harris
0-yard run by Hurts
3-yard run by Hurts
3-yard run by Harris
Incomplete pass
24-yard pass Stewart to Howard
30-yard touchdown run by Hurts

21 carries, 150 yards, two TDs
7 passes, 3 completions, 22 yards
3 penalties

Old-fashioned football would look at this and say "good enough." That is what Alabama has been doing for a long time. Against good defenses, the Tide's offense has been inefficient but still capable of big plays.

Nineteen of 28 Alabama plays on first down gained 3 or fewer yards. Going 75% run vs. pass on first down -- did they have to do that because of Jalen Hurts' limitations, or was it a lack of imagination? Overt risk-aversion?

Alabama's offense is an old-style, high-volatility, big-jackpot slot machine. Clemson's offense is a lower-volatility, more frequent payoff game.

The Tigers had 10 drives that lasted more than five plays (remember, Bama had two) and seven possessions of 2+ minutes (Tide had two). Efficiency trumps volatility.

College football offense no longer can afford to waste possessions. That was the big difference in Arkansas's offense, 2016 vs. 2015. Last season's offense (in the second half of the season) was a machine that was hardly stopped.

This year's offense punted 59 times and committed 25 turnovers in 923 plays.

Last season, 44 punts, 11 turnovers, 886 plays.

The strategy of "scoring enough" and trying to play out the string? If Arkansas didn't kill it against Missouri and Virginia Tech, it died last night in the hands of Alabama.

[jbcarol]

The strategy of "scoring enough" and trying to play out the string? If Arkansas didn't kill it against Missouri and Virginia Tech, it died last night in the hands of Alabama.

/End Forum

[EastexHawg]

Clemson won because they had a QB who could execute a somewhat sophisticated passing game.  They were also well prepared.  On a second down play on Bama's last drive I started saying, "Here comes a screen pass" as soon as they lined up.  Look back at Saban's history in similar situations and how often they have gone to the screen.  T.J. Yeldon against LSU, for example.

Ben Boulware knew it was coming, too.  That was preparation, coaching.  Unfortunately for Clemson Bama converted the subsequent 3rd and 16, but Boulware's recognition and tackle for loss was a huge play nonetheless.

[Pork Twain]

1. Much changes from the beginning of a football season to its end. Clemson's season began with a 19-13 victory at Auburn. Ended with a 35-31 victory over Alabama. Living with slow starts is alright.

2. The game has changed. Completion % and third down % decide games. Anyone who does not get this will be left behind.

Watson completed 64%, Hurts 42%. Clemson converted 39% of its third downs, Bama 13%. The Tide rushed for 221 yards and three touchdowns. Was not enough. Alabama's offense failed too often, which wore out its defense.

The strategy of "scoring enough" and trying to play out the string? If Arkansas didn't kill it against Missouri and Virginia Tech, it died last night in the hands of Alabama.

Another key difference is that Watson (36/56 420yds) spread the ball around and made all the throws, had a stud WRs and TE that must be covered at all times and kept the Bama spread out on defense (4 WR with more than 90yds).  Hurts on the other hand (13-31 131yds), hit one pass to a wide open TE (one guy with more than 40yds) but other than that kept most of the throws to within 5yds of the LoS and that allowed Clemson to pretty much stack the box all night. 

[Exit Pursued by a Boar]

Alabama's offense is an old-style, high-volatility, big-jackpot slot machine. Clemson's offense is a lower-volatility, more frequent payoff game.

The Tigers had 10 drives that lasted more than five plays (remember, Bama had two) and seven possessions of 2+ minutes (Tide had two). Efficiency trumps volatility.

College football offense no longer can afford to waste possessions. That was the big difference in Arkansas's offense, 2016 vs. 2015. Last season's offense (in the second half of the season) was a machine that was hardly stopped.

Interesting, but a bit simplistic, Biggus.  Your point also runs counter the popular wisdom that no-huddle spread offenses are taking over.  Those offenses value time of possession less, not more.  Bama needed more ToP.  If you look at your rundown of Bama's possessions, you could just as easily say they didn't execute.  Surely, the penalties doom any kind of offense. Couldn't we just say that two good teams met and that one team had a chance at the end and converted? In the end, I'd say Bama's vaunted defense had a chance to stop Clemson's vaunted offense and didn't.

EFBAB

[Biggus Piggus]

Interesting, but a bit simplistic, Biggus.  Your point also runs counter the popular wisdom that no-huddle spread offenses are taking over.  Those offenses value time of possession less, not more.  Bama needed more ToP.  If you look at your rundown of Bama's possessions, you could just as easily say they didn't execute.  Surely, the penalties doom any kind of offense. Couldn't we just say that two good teams met and that one team had a chance at the end and converted? In the end, I'd say Bama's vaunted defense had a chance to stop Clemson's vaunted offense and didn't.

EFBAB

Alabama, a more talented team, lost to Clemson because its offense squandered most of its opportunities. It should not have been a close game, but Clemson's strategy beat Bama's.

Spread offenses ARE more efficient. They do not require super-long possessions to move downfield, but they move the ball more predictably with fewer three-and-outs.

You seem to be confused about efficiency vs. time of possession. Time of possession is a byproduct not a goal. Should not be a goal. Goal should be to create an offense that minimizes the number of negative plays and maximizes the probability of success.

When you're playing to set up a handful of big plays, inherently you get a large number of bad outcomes. It's all about the setup.

This is the way old-school offenses run. They are designed to set up big-play opportunities. Old-fashioned play-action passing was low completion % but very high yards per completion. Does not have to be like that. You can have efficiency in play-action -- but you have to design a great route tree AND teach the QB to spread the football around to all his receivers. Old-fashioned play-action passing was one target, elaborate setup, spring it on 'em. Low chance of success, high reward.

If you and your opponent are going to have 16 possessions, the offense has to be more efficient. Alabama's offense was very inefficient, and that was the only way the Tide was going to lose to Clemson. Waste a ton of chances + leave the defense on the field too long. Down the stretch, Bama's defense was not 100%. Blame the offense.

[Biggus Piggus]

 
Another key difference is that Watson (36/56 420yds) spread the ball around and made all the throws, had a stud WRs and TE that must be covered at all times and kept the Bama spread out on defense (4 WR with more than 90yds).  Hurts on the other hand (13-31 131yds), hit one pass to a wide open TE (one guy with more than 40yds) but other than that kept most of the throws to within 5yds of the LoS and that allowed Clemson to pretty much stack the box all night. 

I thought the Tide did not have enough short routes leaving Hurts to chuck the ball fruitlessly downfield too often. They had a number of pass plays where Hurts rolled out (so he would have to read only half the field) and stared until being forced to get rid of the ball. Very inefficient, low odds.

[TNhawgfan]

I thought the Tide did not have enough short routes leaving Hurts to chuck the ball fruitlessly downfield too often. They had a number of pass plays where Hurts rolled out (so he would have to read only half the field) and stared until being forced to get rid of the ball. Very inefficient, low odds.

I agree completely. Lot of iffy play calls for bama. Guess firing your play caller before the big game backfired on ole saint nick

[Exit Pursued by a Boar]

Alabama, a more talented team, lost to Clemson because its offense squandered most of its opportunities. It should not have been a close game, but Clemson's strategy beat Bama's.

Spread offenses ARE more efficient. They do not require super-long possessions to move downfield, but they move the ball more predictably with fewer three-and-outs.

You seem to be confused about efficiency vs. time of possession. Time of possession is a byproduct not a goal. Should not be a goal. Goal should be to create an offense that minimizes the number of negative plays and maximizes the probability of success.

When you're playing to set up a handful of big plays, inherently you get a large number of bad outcomes. It's all about the setup.

This is the way old-school offenses run. They are designed to set up big-play opportunities. Old-fashioned play-action passing was low completion % but very high yards per completion. Does not have to be like that. You can have efficiency in play-action -- but you have to design a great route tree AND teach the QB to spread the football around to all his receivers. Old-fashioned play-action passing was one target, elaborate setup, spring it on 'em. Low chance of success, high reward.

If you and your opponent are going to have 16 possessions, the offense has to be more efficient. Alabama's offense was very inefficient, and that was the only way the Tide was going to lose to Clemson. Waste a ton of chances + leave the defense on the field too long. Down the stretch, Bama's defense was not 100%. Blame the offense.

I may well be confusing efficiency and ToP, but I'd argue that all offenses seek to "minimize the number of negative plays and maximize the probability of success."  I am just not ready to throw Bama's offense under the bus based on one game.  The penalties had nothing to do with style of offense.  The limitations placed on Jalen Hurts by Sark/Saban may have as much to do with Hurt's own limitations, the respect Sark/Saban had for Clemson's D, and the quality of Clemson's D that inspired that respect.  Bama's offense was indeed predictable.  Predictability doesn't indicate "low chance of success, high reward to me."  It suggests either a lack of confidence in Hurts on the part of Sark/Saban or an unwillingness to open up the offense for other reasons.  I am sure Saban would disagree vehemently that Bama has an "old school offense." Certainly, he didn't hire Kiffin and Sark to run such an offense.

Let me ask a question: Based on last night's performances, if Bama and Clemson played ten times, what do you think the result would be? If the answer is Bama more than half the time, pointing to the style of offense of each team in last night's game becomes problematic, even if we grant that Bama has a better stock of players. However, blaming the loss on last night's performance by Bama's offense -- on the night -- is still on the table given penalties and Hurts' passing stats.  These are two different things. I am not disagreeing with you entirely. Clemson won. Clemson had to produce a game-winning drive at the last minute and did. That is compelling evidence. Clemson scored 21 points in the 4th quarter. That also is compelling evidence. By the same token, Bama had to produce a go-ahead drive with little time left and did. They just left too much time on the clock. In most cases, I'd bet on Bama's defense in that situation. What I am saying is that judging everything by one game is premature.

What we do agree on wholeheartedly is that Bama wasted too many opportunities to take a big lead early. I am sure Saban would agree with that too. I guess, in the end, I am cautioning against equating the quality of an offense with the style of an offense, at least not based on one game.


EFBAB

[code red]

The reason Bama lost tonight is the same reason we lost our last two games.  We both couldn't sustain drives in the second half which over-tired our defense.  Am I saying Arkansas = Bama -- not all!   Just making an observation that I found interesting.

And don't let that make anyone think I am saying Robb Smith shouldn't have been fired.  With our defensive numbers this season, I don't see how was was going to survive.  In fact, I think he lost some of his DC powers after the Auburn game.  I do feel that Rory Segrest should be encouraged to leave too.

We lost be cause we turned the ball over.  Bama did not turn the ball over.

[NaturalStateReb]

Alabama, a more talented team, lost to Clemson because its offense squandered most of its opportunities. It should not have been a close game, but Clemson's strategy beat Bama's.

Spread offenses ARE more efficient. They do not require super-long possessions to move downfield, but they move the ball more predictably with fewer three-and-outs.

You seem to be confused about efficiency vs. time of possession. Time of possession is a byproduct not a goal. Should not be a goal. Goal should be to create an offense that minimizes the number of negative plays and maximizes the probability of success.

When you're playing to set up a handful of big plays, inherently you get a large number of bad outcomes. It's all about the setup.

This is the way old-school offenses run. They are designed to set up big-play opportunities. Old-fashioned play-action passing was low completion % but very high yards per completion. Does not have to be like that. You can have efficiency in play-action -- but you have to design a great route tree AND teach the QB to spread the football around to all his receivers. Old-fashioned play-action passing was one target, elaborate setup, spring it on 'em. Low chance of success, high reward.

If you and your opponent are going to have 16 possessions, the offense has to be more efficient. Alabama's offense was very inefficient, and that was the only way the Tide was going to lose to Clemson. Waste a ton of chances + leave the defense on the field too long. Down the stretch, Bama's defense was not 100%. Blame the offense.

Exactly.  It's not time of possession that matters, but what you do with possessions. 

[onebadrubi]

The reason Bama lost tonight is the same reason we lost our last two games.  We both couldn't sustain drives in the second half which over-tired our defense.  Am I saying Arkansas = Bama -- not all!   Just making an observation that I found interesting.

And don't let that make anyone think I am saying Robb Smith shouldn't have been fired.  With our defensive numbers this season, I don't see how was was going to survive.  In fact, I think he lost some of his DC powers after the Auburn game.  I do feel that Rory Segrest should be encouraged to leave too.

THey couldn't run the ball to put a game away. 

[311Hog]

a few things i thought about.

1. Bama relies on it's defense to score and they did most of the season.  And they "almost" did on more than one occasion last night i swear if these teams played 10 times Bama would win 8.  Clemson dodged so many bullets.

2. Clemson's pass game is not sophisticated at all.  Nothing about their offense is.  Line up in 5 wide empty set, run pick/rub/clear out routes let Watson scan then take off.  Their play book is 2 maybe 3 poster boards long.  It is basketball on grass. 
3. Injuries really played a role IMHO and the fact that some how the Big 12 refs were used that is a recipe for offensive football and which team hangs its hat on offense?

[elksnort]

If Scarbrough affair does not get hurt, Alabama wins by the "old fashioned" run it down there throat. It would have happened.

Anyway, I am happy to have seen Clemson win. Very fatigued of Alabama. Really a very good hard fought football game. Let's give Clemson defense some credit for making it difficult for Hurts. Frankly, I am not sure why they did not use the TE more.

All in all, a really great game.

[lamont7906]

They lost because the OC was playing conservative ball throughout the game until  the last scoring drive of bama. The OC was trying to play it safe and depend on there defense. The issue is you can't play conservative with high octane offenses. The OC should have just played ball and trust the young QB to throw down the feild more.

[hoglady]

Bama gave up on their other backs pretty quickly.
Putting the game on Hurts back was too much.
Bet if they had it to do over again they would call a few more run plays and a few less meaningless pass plays, that obviously Hurts wasn't capable of executing.

[Biggus Piggus]

Clemson had to produce a game-winning drive at the last minute and did. That is compelling evidence. Clemson scored 21 points in the 4th quarter. That also is compelling evidence. By the same token, Bama had to produce a go-ahead drive with little time left and did. They just left too much time on the clock. In most cases, I'd bet on Bama's defense in that situation. What I am saying is that judging everything by one game is premature.

Bama's defense wasn't what it was supposed to be at the end, because of fatigue.

Alabama has been dealing with this inefficiency problem for a long time. It was present in many of the Tide's big games since Saban took over. It had everything to do with why Saban hired Lane Kiffin and added spread and uptempo elements.

I wonder which direction they go now - further toward spread/uptempo, or retrenching to restore the effectiveness of the power running game and play-action.

[Hog Fan...DOH!]

Alabama, a more talented team, lost to Clemson because its offense squandered most of its opportunities. It should not have been a close game, but Clemson's strategy beat Bama's.

Spread offenses ARE more efficient. They do not require super-long possessions to move downfield, but they move the ball more predictably with fewer three-and-outs.

You seem to be confused about efficiency vs. time of possession. Time of possession is a byproduct not a goal. Should not be a goal. Goal should be to create an offense that minimizes the number of negative plays and maximizes the probability of success.

When you're playing to set up a handful of big plays, inherently you get a large number of bad outcomes. It's all about the setup.

This is the way old-school offenses run. They are designed to set up big-play opportunities. Old-fashioned play-action passing was low completion % but very high yards per completion. Does not have to be like that. You can have efficiency in play-action -- but you have to design a great route tree AND teach the QB to spread the football around to all his receivers. Old-fashioned play-action passing was one target, elaborate setup, spring it on 'em. Low chance of success, high reward.

If you and your opponent are going to have 16 possessions, the offense has to be more efficient. Alabama's offense was very inefficient, and that was the only way the Tide was going to lose to Clemson. Waste a ton of chances + leave the defense on the field too long. Down the stretch, Bama's defense was not 100%. Blame the offense.

First, Clemson deserves a ton of credit.  They are 90% the talent of Bama and better at QB and WR.  There was no reason to expect a Bama blowout, just ask Vegas. 

Second, I don't think Bama is a "jackpot" offense.  The execution simply wasn't there.  It's not a reach to expect Hurts to improve drastically from year 1(!!!!) to 2 to 3. 

 

[elksnort]

Bama gave up on their other backs pretty quickly.
Putting the game on Hurts back was too much.
Bet if they had it to do over again they would call a few more run plays and a few less meaningless pass plays, that obviously Hurts wasn't capable of executing.

This^^^^^.
I think games get over analyzed at times. Scarbrough (sp) was the best choice but those other backs were/are good also. Keep running and it uses clock and possibly a long run would have occured.

[Dumb ole famrboy]

When Scarborough went down - Alabama went away from their running game. Their 2nd back only had 5 carries for the entire game - gained 25 yards. It was never established that the running game actually needed to be abandoned due to Scarborough's injury.

[Pig in the Pokey]

I thought the Tide did not have enough short routes leaving Hurts to chuck the ball fruitlessly downfield too often. They had a number of pass plays where Hurts rolled out (so he would have to read only half the field) and stared until being forced to get rid of the ball. Very inefficient, low odds.

I blame Sark.

[PorkSoda]

so what about the move of pushing kiffin out and starting your new OC in the championship game?

was that still a good idea?

[factchecker]

so what about the move of pushing kiffin out and starting your new OC in the championship game?

was that still a good idea?

I'm not sure if keeping Kiffin would have won the game but the move to Sark doesn't look good in hindsight.

[hawganatic]

Since I didn't see the 2nd half, did anyone discuss the fact that Clemson ran that last play instead of kicking a FG for OT?  There was no guarantee they'd get another play if that one failed.

EFBAB

They had six seconds left on the clock.  Their previous two plays both ran under four seconds, and after the scoring play they had one second left.  Also had a timeout if they needed it.

Clemson coaches knew what they were doing when they ran that play.  Very good clock management.  Would have been roasted if they had kicked the field goal and lost the game in OT.

[ALLVOL]

Or one could say that the defense wasn't able to make the Clemson offense to go 3 and out enough.

[hawganatic]

so what about the move of pushing kiffin out and starting your new OC in the championship game?

was that still a good idea?

Don't think Kiffin's offense looked any better in the semi-final game than Sark's did in this game.  Actually liked a lot of the formations they were running.

Game came down to losing their starting RB, and Hurt not being able to make plays in the air.  Don't think it had to do with what was being called.

[Pork Twain]

I thought the Tide did not have enough short routes leaving Hurts to chuck the ball fruitlessly downfield too often. They had a number of pass plays where Hurts rolled out (so he would have to read only half the field) and stared until being forced to get rid of the ball. Very inefficient, low odds.

Agreed, it almost seemed like every rollout was destined for the stands.  You just cannot waste so many opportunities against a top team.

[tophawg19]

what beat us against V-tech , other than them being good [ see VT vs Clemson] was the defense in the second half couldn't flip the field and kept the offense on a long field . forcing them to take chances , which led to turn overs

[Biggus Piggus]

It's hard for people to let go of their old-fashioned ways.

Think of it as the same thing as tempo in basketball. Allowing 60 ppg in basketball is good if you are playing 67 possessions or more. If you're playing 60 or less, your defense sucks. Points per game is not a measure of defense.

Scoring 31 points is good if you are playing nine or 10 possessions. Not 16. It freaking sucks if you have 16 drives.

Old-style football = you could count on just a handful of scoring opportunities where everything aligned. That is because some possessions were deliberately wasted to set up plays to run later. Get the opponent reading plays a certain way.

You might be familiar with the concept of "you only get so many chances." When all the scoring chances require tons of setup, you do only get a few.

In a 16-possession football game, you get sooooooo many chances.

It is much harder to stop somebody 16 times than to stop them 10 times.

[hawgfan4life]

Alabama, a more talented team, lost to Clemson because its offense squandered most of its opportunities. It should not have been a close game, but Clemson's strategy beat Bama's.

Spread offenses ARE more efficient. They do not require super-long possessions to move downfield, but they move the ball more predictably with fewer three-and-outs.

You seem to be confused about efficiency vs. time of possession. Time of possession is a byproduct not a goal. Should not be a goal. Goal should be to create an offense that minimizes the number of negative plays and maximizes the probability of success.

When you're playing to set up a handful of big plays, inherently you get a large number of bad outcomes. It's all about the setup.

This is the way old-school offenses run. They are designed to set up big-play opportunities. Old-fashioned play-action passing was low completion % but very high yards per completion. Does not have to be like that. You can have efficiency in play-action -- but you have to design a great route tree AND teach the QB to spread the football around to all his receivers. Old-fashioned play-action passing was one target, elaborate setup, spring it on 'em. Low chance of success, high reward.

If you and your opponent are going to have 16 possessions, the offense has to be more efficient. Alabama's offense was very inefficient, and that was the only way the Tide was going to lose to Clemson. Waste a ton of chances + leave the defense on the field too long. Down the stretch, Bama's defense was not 100%. Blame the offense.

What the heck difference does the offensive philosophy matter?  There are hundreds of spread teams out there that are so pitiful it is a shame to call them football teams.  Clemson running Spread and Bama using older methods didn't win or lose anything.

Football boils down to who blocks and who gets off the blocks.  Who makes penalties and turnovers and who makes fewer game changing mistakes.  Who has the better athletes and executes.  None of those things are dependent on style or philosophy.

Bama struggled running efficiently enough to control the game and its passing game was average.  Clemson struggled running efficiently enough but made several pass completions that kept the drives going and ultimately 4 more points on the next to last offensive play of the game. 

Had Bama not gotten a ticky-tack PI call placing the ball on the 2 yard line, this conversation might have been different.  Had Clemson gotten called for a much more blatant Offensive Pick, then the conversation might hve been different.

The idea a team must be spread and play tempo to be successful is BS!  The idea that going spread gives lesser talented teams a chance to be successful is the exact same argument option teams used and still use to run the ball.  GA Tech, Navy, and even Army this year do pretty well offensively with little to zero passing threat.

Biggus,

Your stats are outstanding and I truly appreciate a lot of what you post.  However, in this case, you are using selected stats to support your opinion you are already convinced is correct.  If Spread is so successful, Oregon would have won against Auburn in the NC game.  OU would have more NC trophies than AL the past ten years.  Baylor, TCU, OK State, etc. would be in NC games because that is about as "Spread" as teams can get.

The fact is that the teams that the more traditional team with a sound running game has won almost all of the NC games going back several years.

I don't need stats to tell me that Clemson won because they have an amazing college QB with a lot of primetime experience and he had a couple of big time WRs that caught several balls that were tough catches.  Clemson also had an amazing defense and everything else to play on a high level with Bama.  Bama couldn't catch a pass, keep their defense off the field, and got tired in the second half.  That boiled down to players executing and had little to do with philosophy.

[GoHogs1091]

To me, the following is some reasons why Alabama lost.

Hurts is simply not a good enough deep passer.  Perhaps, that will change as he gets more experienced, but his inability to consistently throw efficiently deep becomes more exposed against a good Defense.  During the regular season, he only faced 2 good Defenses (LSU's Defense and Auburn's Defense).  Then in the NC game, he faced a very well coached Defense and Hurts was not able to pose a threat to stretch the field vertically.

Alabama's Offensive Guard play finally caught up to them.  Over on an SEC Message Board right after Clemson won against Ohio State, an Alabama fan posted "Clemson is going to own our Guards."  Alabama's Offensive Guard play needed to be better last night than it had been during the season.  Clemson has 1 All-American Defensive Tackle (Watkins), and 2 other Defensive Tackles who could be All-Americans in the future (Wilkins and Lawrence).  Wilkins though might have already been named to some All-American lists after the conclusion of the regular season.

Alabama's Secondary play caught up to them.  Their Secondary play had times this season in which it got exposed.

Saban is going to have to get more speed on his Defense.  His bulky Defensive players (particularly his bulky Linebackers) works against the mediocre Offenses in the SEC, but last night his bulky Defense faced elite speed that forced his bulky Defensive players to have to defend the entire field sideline-to-sideline.

[12247]

There are a very few simple reasons why BAMA lost the game.  The BAMA O did not hold onto the ball long enough to hold down the # of plays run by Clemson, thus putting the BAMA D having to make too many plays that they usually make without fail.  The BAMA D hammered the Clemson O into submission in the 1st half hurting #4 and #7 with 7 having to leave the game.  BAMA failed to use their #2 RB enough.  He was pretty good.  Using him would have increased the BAMA TOP, tired out the Clemson D more over time, gave the BAMA D time to rest and likely BAMA would have won the game with just that change alone.

There was certainly plays that most of us believe were on the refs, the phoney PI call late against BAMA, the 2 illegal picks Clemson made and TDs were produced on both.  But then there was the tireless BAMA D-backs riding the Clemson WRs all night long or at least until they got so tired they couldn't catch up to ride them anymore.

There was one play in the game that no one has mentioned.  I doubt it made any difference.  With one second left, the kickoff only traveled 9.98 yards according to the video before Clemson downed it.  The refs gave the ball to Clemson and I believe that was the wrong call.  If I am correct, BAMA had one more play coming that they didn't get.  Anyone else notice that??

[lumphog]

Saban's ARROGANCE lost the game......and he got out coached

[HogimusMaximus]

Saban's ARROGANCE lost the game......and he got out coached

True!

[Exit Pursued by a Boar]

I don't need stats to tell me that Clemson won because they have an amazing college QB with a lot of primetime experience and he had a couple of big time WRs that caught several balls that were tough catches.  Clemson also had an amazing defense and everything else to play on a high level with Bama.  Bama couldn't catch a pass, keep their defense off the field, and got tired in the second half.  That boiled down to players executing and had little to do with philosophy.

This is where I am right now.

EFBAB

[Cinco de Hogo]

What the heck difference does the offensive philosophy matter?  There are hundreds of spread teams out there that are so pitiful it is a shame to call them football teams.  Clemson running Spread and Bama using older methods didn't win or lose anything.

Football boils down to who blocks and who gets off the blocks.  Who makes penalties and turnovers and who makes fewer game changing mistakes.  Who has the better athletes and executes.  None of those things are dependent on style or philosophy.

Bama struggled running efficiently enough to control the game and its passing game was average.  Clemson struggled running efficiently enough but made several pass completions that kept the drives going and ultimately 4 more points on the next to last offensive play of the game. 

Had Bama not gotten a ticky-tack PI call placing the ball on the 2 yard line, this conversation might have been different.  Had Clemson gotten called for a much more blatant Offensive Pick, then the conversation might hve been different.

The idea a team must be spread and play tempo to be successful is BS!  The idea that going spread gives lesser talented teams a chance to be successful is the exact same argument option teams used and still use to run the ball.  GA Tech, Navy, and even Army this year do pretty well offensively with little to zero passing threat.

Biggus,

Your stats are outstanding and I truly appreciate a lot of what you post.  However, in this case, you are using selected stats to support your opinion you are already convinced is correct.  If Spread is so successful, Oregon would have won against Auburn in the NC game.  OU would have more NC trophies than AL the past ten years.  Baylor, TCU, OK State, etc. would be in NC games because that is about as "Spread" as teams can get.

The fact is that the teams that the more traditional team with a sound running game has won almost all of the NC games going back several years.

I don't need stats to tell me that Clemson won because they have an amazing college QB with a lot of primetime experience and he had a couple of big time WRs that caught several balls that were tough catches.  Clemson also had an amazing defense and everything else to play on a high level with Bama.  Bama couldn't catch a pass, keep their defense off the field, and got tired in the second half.  That boiled down to players executing and had little to do with philosophy.

The reason Bama has won is because of consistent #1 recruiting classes.  What other "power" team has won?  Every other top team runs variations of the spread.  Truth is there aren't enough "Bama" type players to field very many other teams.  Other teams do what they have to do to combat Bama's power and it's getting harder and harder to stay with the true power concepts.  As you well know even Saban is trying to diversify.   

Other than that the qb position won this game for Clemson pure and simple and thats because of coaching to operate a more versatile offense.

[Youngsta71701]

The reason Bama lost tonight is the same reason we lost our last two games.  We both couldn't sustain drives in the second half which over-tired our defense.  Am I saying Arkansas = Bama -- not all!   Just making an observation that I found interesting.

And don't let that make anyone think I am saying Robb Smith shouldn't have been fired.  With our defensive numbers this season, I don't see how was was going to survive.  In fact, I think he lost some of his DC powers after the Auburn game.  I do feel that Rory Segrest should be encouraged to leave too.

Hard to sustain drives when you fumbling and throwing interceptions.