ADVERTISEMENT

Positives taken from our offense (long)

AuburnLegacy

All-American
Jan 23, 2003
1,719
7
38
Regarding the AUBURN crowd, why did we boo our coaches and players on our only scoring drive in first half in a 0-0 game against the No. 2 team in the nation? A much, much better question: Why didn't Clemson's fans boo their coaches and players when their coaching staff took two back-to-back timeouts in order to get a tight end, who was flagged for a false start on the ensuing play, lined up correctly. This Clemson drive did not result in points.

Point being: Our coaches and players were booed on a scoring drive in which a timeout was used effectively, but Clemson received no negative reinforcement for misusing TWO of its timeouts on a wasted drive. We are sending a message at Auburn that we, as fans, eat our own and leave the game early because we give up on our team.

Now, on to the positives:

No. 1, We can run the football with James Franklin at QB. However, we will be ineffective until the coaching staff trusts him with ball security. Our coaching staff won’t even predetermine his keeps (every play was a give), much less let him “read” the DE on the play. That’s why Franklin did not have a carry.

No. 2, I agreed with Jeremy Johnson running the QB Power on 4th-and-2. I thought it was our best option at the time. He has that Cam Newton body to get the first down. If he wants to play, he needs to make plays. I also liked Sean White's throwback to Cox on third-and-2. Cox was wide open. Neither play worked. Had we executed either play, we would have won, or lost, the football game on a last second field goal.

No. 3, At times, White is a serviceable-to-decent-to-good quarterback between the 20s, depending largely on the coverage and pressure he faces. However, he is cursed in the red zone. I watched him from ground level against Mississippi State last year and on the tube last night. His QB rating plummets in the red zone when the field constricts. Stated differently, he becomes a bad quarterback against tight coverage and small windows because he doubts his own abilities based on his previous struggles.

Lastly, if our young offensive players just execute on a couple of Gus's play calls, we win the game: The non-catch by Kerryon Johnson on wheel route, for example. Actually, I was quiet impressed with how our young players on offense fought in the second half. We lost three starting running backs and our best two receivers off last year's team. We had sophomores, redshirt freshman, and true freshmen in key glory positions completing and putting us in position to win against the No. 2 team in the country.

There is much to work on...

No. 1, We need to be able (i.e., become good enough) to take advantage of their other team's mistakes: Two turnovers led to no points. That is the mark of a young offensive team.

No. 2, Our young WRs need to attack the football in the air. The newbees did not exhibit good ball skills on the jump balls with the game on the line at the end.

No. 3, We need to chip the DE on Leff's side. Golson was solid was pretty solid.

No. 4, We need to slide protect to help Dampeer and teach him when it is appropriate to cut block.

(It looked like we shored up the line as the game went on, or we wore down their defensive front with screens.)

No. 5, We need to throw more WR screens (specifically tunnel screens) when the opponent is thin on the DL to wear out their big guys running laterally.

No. 6, We need to have a red zone package for Franklin or Johnson.
 
Well, it's just a case of coulda, woulda, shoulda. Sure, Auburn's offense missed some opportunities, but Clemson's did as well. We dropped 3 TD passes and had a questionable turnover in the red zone. So, I'm not sure what to think.

I know that you guys rushed for 87 yards and passed for 178. Clemson had 4 sacks and 14 TFL. That's not a ton of offense. Clemson on the other hand had 399 yards of offense including 150 yards rushing and 249 passing (which we consider very crappy) with no sacks.

When you look at these numbers, Clemson should clearly have won this game by more than they did.
 
Regarding the AUBURN crowd, why did we boo our coaches and players on our only scoring drive in first half in a 0-0 game against the No. 2 team in the nation? A much, much better question: Why didn't Clemson's fans boo their coaches and players when their coaching staff took two back-to-back timeouts in order to get a tight end, who was flagged for a false start on the ensuing play, lined up correctly. This Clemson drive did not result in points.

Point being: Our coaches and players were booed on a scoring drive in which a timeout was used effectively, but Clemson received no negative reinforcement for misusing TWO of its timeouts on a wasted drive. We are sending a message at Auburn that we, as fans, eat our own and leave the game early because we give up on our team.

Now, on to the positives:

No. 1, We can run the football with James Franklin at QB. However, we will be ineffective until the coaching staff trusts him with ball security. Our coaching staff won’t even predetermine his keeps (every play was a give), much less let him “read” the DE on the play. That’s why Franklin did not have a carry.

No. 2, I agreed with Jeremy Johnson running the QB Power on 4th-and-2. I thought it was our best option at the time. He has that Cam Newton body to get the first down. If he wants to play, he needs to make plays. I also liked Sean White's throwback to Cox on third-and-2. Cox was wide open. Neither play worked. Had we executed either play, we would have won, or lost, the football game on a last second field goal.

No. 3, At times, White is a serviceable-to-decent-to-good quarterback between the 20s, depending largely on the coverage and pressure he faces. However, he is cursed in the red zone. I watched him from ground level against Mississippi State last year and on the tube last night. His QB rating plummets in the red zone when the field constricts. Stated differently, he becomes a bad quarterback against tight coverage and small windows because he doubts his own abilities based on his previous struggles.

Lastly, if our young offensive players just execute on a couple of Gus's play calls, we win the game: The non-catch by Kerryon Johnson on wheel route, for example. Actually, I was quiet impressed with how our young players on offense fought in the second half. We lost three starting running backs and our best two receivers off last year's team. We had sophomores, redshirt freshman, and true freshmen in key glory positions completing and putting us in position to win against the No. 2 team in the country.

There is much to work on...

No. 1, We need to be able (i.e., become good enough) to take advantage of their other team's mistakes: Two turnovers led to no points. That is the mark of a young offensive team.

No. 2, Our young WRs need to attack the football in the air. The newbees did not exhibit good ball skills on the jump balls with the game on the line at the end.

No. 3, We need to chip the DE on Leff's side. Golson was solid was pretty solid.

No. 4, We need to slide protect to help Dampeer and teach him when it is appropriate to cut block.

(It looked like we shored up the line as the game went on, or we wore down their defensive front with screens.)

No. 5, We need to throw more WR screens (specifically tunnel screens) when the opponent is thin on the DL to wear out their big guys running laterally.

No. 6, We need to have a red zone package for Franklin or Johnson.


QONVIyz.gif
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT