The CardBoard
Alabama and Richardson - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Alabama and Richardson (/thread-2402.html)


Alabama and Richardson - Renaissance Man - 11-21-2011

While all of the talking heads are waxing poetic about the Alabama defense and Trent Richardson, there are a couple of glaring facts from this weekend that are not being mentioned at all about the Tide's matchup with an FCS opponent this weekend; The vaunted Alabama defense gave up 302 yard rushing, Georgia Southern AVERAGED 7.7 yards per carry, and Richardson managed a meager, by comparison, 5.5 yards per carry against the much less ballyhooed Georgia Southern D.  Richardson DID get 35 carries to try to pad his numbers.

Re: Alabama and Richardson - JohnR34231 - 11-21-2011

I wouldn't put a lot of credence in those numbers.

Georgia Southern runs an option offense that Alabama hadn't seen before and probably didn't spend much time preparing for because they knew they were going to win the game and not see it again.

IMHO, anyone who thinks that means that Alabama's defense is overrated and not really that good is kidding themselves.

Re: Alabama and Richardson - bulldogbigred - 11-21-2011

I think Alabama would have a tough time against those military academy schools such as Air Force, who run the option to perfection.

Re: Alabama and Richardson - fullmetal - 11-21-2011

Hmm.  LSU has two really good backs.  If a rematch happens...

Must be something in the water - Redrum - 11-21-2011

...or maybe the Kool-Aid.  You know, that makes you say stuff  interchangeable with SEC fanatics when they rip on other conferences.  Change team names and it's all there.  Trust me.  I live in SEC country and married into a family with Bama ties.  Hear it every week.  You could be my co-workers or my in-laws.

JPRI got it right:  "anyone who thinks that means that Alabama's defense is overrated and not really that good is kidding themselves."    Alabama held the (deserved) #1 team in the country to six points in regular time and lost ...by a field goal.  If you think that's a defense that is overrated,  then you need to seek mental counseling.  You're hallucinating. Badly

Through 11 games, Alabama leads the nation in 5 defensive categories,  allowing an average of 74.6 yards per game on the ground. Alabama remains No. 1 in the following categories: total defense (195.9 ypg; No. 2 LSU - 247.9), scoring defense (8.36 ppg; No. 2 LSU - 10), passing efficiency defense (84.7 rating; No. 2 LSU - 92.3), passing defense (121.2 ypg; No. 2 South Carolina - 137.5).

If you need an explanation for Ga. Southern, it is an FCS team.  It runs the triple option developed by Paul Johnson,  who then turned Navy into a winner with it before moving onto Ga. Tech.  It is a ball control offense adopted specifically because it maximizes the chances for a team with lesser athletes to play against more talented teams.  Guess which school wearing red and white experienced it first hand.    It is based on execution consistency that can be implemented by average players.  As JPRI mentioned,  hardly anyone sees it in Div. 1.  They scored,  but still the game was never in doubt.  So, besides trying to build up Trent Richardson's numbers,  Alabama got a chance to play a lot of guys who don't see the field much.  Nice reward for them after a long season of practice without much playing time.  So Ga. Southern scored three touchdowns.  Big deal.  Alabama came out unscathed and rested for the game that really counts,  the Auburn game this week.

And just to bounce the rubble,  I'm not sure why some people around the Stanford program think that denigrating Trent Richardson is an intellectually honest activity.  Richardson really  IS all that.  I don't want him to win the Voldemort,  I want our guy to win the Voldemort.  But trying to diminish him is just bogus.  I watched a lot of Richardson  (no choice in the matter)  If he were playing for Stanford he would be the starting.  And if that were the case you'd love him.  Toby kind of love.  Taylor is good.  Richardson is better.  Not by leaps and bounds, but better.  He's also got 322 yards receiving for a 12.4 per catch average.  Stanford doesn't have some receivers who have that.  And, like Taylor he's  good in traffic.  Runs really tough. Moves the pile. 

So...sober up.  Alabama has a superb defense.  And go easy on Richardson.  He's a threat to Luck because he's very good,  not because he's some poseur.  Luck will make his own destiny in the Voldemort.  A good game against ND is key.  He has to show he's good against good competition and only he can do that.

Rant over.




Re: Alabama and Richardson - GoodGrief - 11-21-2011

Nobody likes a realist, Redrum.

Re: Alabama and Richardson - Renaissance Man - 11-21-2011

So if a team with "lesser athletes" can average 8 yards per carry against the fiercest defense in the land, why aren't teams with Alabama-level athletes running the same offense and averaging 25 yards per carry?  And my point on Richardson has nothing to do with his ability--it is simply that, beings SU does not face two or three FCS opponents, the equivalent would be having Luck throw 75 times in the San Jose State game, something that everybody at Stanford (including Luck)has said they have no interest in doing. My point is that there is a difference in philosophical approaches. As far as the game "never being in doubt," it was 24-14 at halftime and GSU had put up over 180 yards rushing vs. Alabama's first-team defense.

Re: Alabama and Richardson - MDKern123 - 11-21-2011

Alabama's defensive weakness is speed to the outside.  Thats where LSU finally made some progress in their game, and where Ga. Southern running the option play this past weekend had success.  If you can make their larger then life linebackers run from side to side all night long, you can have an impact.... they are remarkably strong in all other areas.... 

Re: Must be something in the water - jayasena - 11-21-2011

(11-21-2011, 01:04 PM)Redrum link Wrote:And just to bounce the rubble,  I'm not sure why some people around the Stanford program think that denigrating Trent Richardson is an intellectually honest activity.  Richardson really  IS all that.  I don't want him to win the Voldemort,  I want our guy to win the Voldemort.  But trying to diminish him is just bogus.  I watched a lot of Richardson  (no choice in the matter)  If he were playing for Stanford he would be the starting.  And if that were the case you'd love him.  Toby kind of love.  Taylor is good.  Richardson is better.  Not by leaps and bounds, but better.  He's also got 322 yards receiving for a 12.4 per catch average.  Stanford doesn't have some receivers who have that.  And, like Taylor he's  good in traffic.  Runs really tough. Moves the pile.

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. First, you (rightly) claim that we shouldn't denigrate Richardson. Then you go and say he's marginally better than a Stanford guy who's not even remotely in the discussion for the Voldemort. Are we witnessing some sort of a discussion between your Stanford-loyal personality and the Alabama-brainwashed personality unfolding on a public forum?

Why isn't Alabama using the triple option? - Redrum - 11-21-2011

Because the triple option had it's day in the sun.  In the '70's.  The wishbone.  Texas, Oklahoma and Alabama used it to win NCs.  Other teams used it too.  But eventually two things happened: 

1.  Defenses figured it out and a team with good athletes on defenses could disrupt the consistency of execution.  The one great defect of the wishbone/triple option is that it's designed for ball control.  Grinding out 1st downs.  Eating the clock.  You can pass out of it,  but because the formation is geared to optimized run blocking,  the pass game is handicapped.  (and so it proved in practice).  If a wishbone/triple option team falls significantly behind later in a game,  it is harder to catch up.    But wishbone teams with really good athletes (like Oklahoma)  mopped up for a while.

2.  Some other things happened on the offensive side.  For one thing, a guy named Walsh built on some other ideas and debuted the West Coast offense in the pros.  Suddenly the options for making yardage,  high percentage completion yardage, through the pass became apparent.  The WCO passing game provided more offensive options.  The Air Coryell/  Al Davis long bomb passing game became less prominent.  The WCO was dismissed as dink and dunk,  but Walsh proved his point with some Super Bowl rings.  The number of options,  passing to the backs,  controlling the ball via short passes  became  the vogue.  Don't think it really has passed out of fashion.  Elements of the WCO are in practically every team's (pro and college)  playbook.  Now we're seeing the spread and pistol in the mix.

Vastly simplified,  that's why the triple option became less and less prominent.  It is now a kind of boutique presence in college ball.  Paul Johnson's variant found a way to use H-backs to get more passing back into it and Navy used it to great effect.  His results at GT,  against better competition  is less dramatic.

P.S.  It ain't just about scheme. Elite athlete recruits don't seem to want to play in a system that doesn't showcase their talents.  Would the University of South Central's Robert Woods want to play in the Navy triple option?  Keenan Allen?  Justin Blackmon?  Andrew Luck as an option QB with Zach Maynard the Voldemort favorite? OTOH,  Mark Ingram,  Trent Richardson,  South Carolina's Lattimore,  LaMichael James  thrive in the T-formation/ WCO variants These kids want their share of glory and  the triple option doesn't offer as  much personal or team glory.  Nick Saban, being no fool,  uses his own version of the WCO, t-formation.

For somnambule - Redrum - 11-21-2011

jeez.  Try to not be dumping on Taylor,  who I love as our starter, and you stand it on its head.  I don't know by what measurement system one could quantify the difference  or  subsequently quantify why Richardson is a legit Voldemort candidate and Taylor isn't.  Does Taylor have any significant (or any) Voldemort voter support?  Can't accurately quantify degrees of separation.  Can list stats.  In eleven games Richardson had 1380 yards for a 5.8 ypc.  322 yds receiving, 20 TDs He's currently #4 ranked in Div. 1 rushing for the season.  Taylor has 1036 for a 5.6 ypc. 161 yds receiving and 8 TDs.  He's currently not in the top 10.    Which differences are decisive?  Beats me.  Don't want to play that game just with numbers and projections tortured to make supposedly "even" comparisons.

Just from watching the two,  I'd say Richardson has a quicker change of direction and accelerates out of those cuts faster than Taylor.  No idea whether that's a lot quicker and faster or just a bit quicker and faster.  That's subjective,  but, well...there it is.


Re: For somnambule - jayasena - 11-21-2011

(11-21-2011, 04:43 PM)Redrum link Wrote:jeez.  Try to not be dumping on Taylor,  who I love as our starter, and you stand it on its head.  I don't know by what measurement system one could quantify the difference  or  subsequently quantify why Richardson is a legit Voldemort candidate and Taylor isn't.  Does Taylor have any significant (or any) Voldemort voter support?  Can't accurately quantify degrees of separation.  Can list stats.  In eleven games Richardson had 1380 yards for a 5.8 ypc.  322 yds receiving, 20 TDs He's currently #4 ranked in Div. 1 rushing for the season.  Taylor has 1036 for a 5.6 ypc. 161 yds receiving and 8 TDs.  He's currently not in the top 10.    Which differences are decisive?  Beats me.  Don't want to play that game just with numbers and projections tortured to make supposedly "even" comparisons.

Just from watching the two,  I'd say Richardson has a quicker change of direction and accelerates out of those cuts faster than Taylor.  No idea whether that's a lot quicker and faster or just a bit quicker and faster.  That's subjective,  but, well...there it is.

I was kidding -- sorry I left out the smiley (didn't think you needed it; normally you have a finely tuned humor/sarcasm sensor).

No disrespect to Stepfan intended -- I'm big fan of his, as I've said in other threads. I was simply alluding to the fact that I haven't seen him on any top-N Voldemort lists.