09-04-2016, 04:59 AM
I wonder what to make of the first quarter. Anyone who watched the first quarter and then tuned out would have been shocked at the outcome of the game. For a quarter it looked like both offenses were rusty and both defenses were dominant, and that the game was going to be one of those defensive slugfests that ended 6-3. Alabama could not move the ball at all. The Alabama O-line looked very bad at run blocking.Â
U.SC was not a lot better in that quarter, but the announcers and Saban himself before the game harped on how Alabama had less depth than previous years and how U.SC had better depth than it has had. But it did not look that way. Was the U.SC meltdown after the 1st quarter the result of better Alabama conditioning? Or did U.SC just get lucky for a quarter? Or is U.SC the kind of team that falls apart when it hits a little adversity--i.e., it had a psychological meltdown?
It could be all of the above. But it looks like we could do ourselves a lot of good by getting out to an early lead against them and contributing to the demoralization of their team, which hopefully will feel its dream season further slipping away at Stanford Stadium.
U.SC was not a lot better in that quarter, but the announcers and Saban himself before the game harped on how Alabama had less depth than previous years and how U.SC had better depth than it has had. But it did not look that way. Was the U.SC meltdown after the 1st quarter the result of better Alabama conditioning? Or did U.SC just get lucky for a quarter? Or is U.SC the kind of team that falls apart when it hits a little adversity--i.e., it had a psychological meltdown?
It could be all of the above. But it looks like we could do ourselves a lot of good by getting out to an early lead against them and contributing to the demoralization of their team, which hopefully will feel its dream season further slipping away at Stanford Stadium.