Oregon vs Auburn

[Mikey]

It was their defense that really surprised me, or maybe Oregon's lack of offense. I guess somebody figured out how to stop their running game.

Kelly said the Auburn defensive line was the difference in the game.

Both defenses played a lot better than I expected.

The AU front in particular was in the UO backfield all night. Completely disrupted the Ducks attack.

Exactly. And as well as the Oregon defense played overall they rarely put any pressure on Newton when he was passing, except a few times early on. They were able to stop his running for the most part, but that was at the expense of getting any pass rush. He could have smoked a fuckin turkey in the backfield with the time he had to find receivers.

[M Club]

jesus, fast forward to page 7 of this thread and first thing i see is dumbfuckery out of sam. if auburn runs the same gimmicky offense as oregon, and that gimmicky shit doesn't work against physical teams, then how weak does that make the sec as a whole if auburn was able to run right through it? take your time, retard.

congrats, willie and carson.

[Mace]

M club is just a little grouchy this morning knowing that the average IQ in Michigan is going to make a significant drop when Les Miles arrives in Ann Arbor.

[indyfrisco]

I don't get the huge OMG that show has.

This is my main OMG on the show.

[Degenerate]

Nick Fairley ought to travel with a translator full-time. I couldn't understand a single thing that fucker said after the game.

[M Club]

jesus, fast forward to page 7 of this thread and first thing i see is dumbfuckery out of sam. if auburn runs the same gimmicky offense as oregon, and that gimmicky shit doesn't work against physical teams, then how weak does that make the sec as a whole if auburn was able to run right through it? take your time, retard.

Auburn's and Oregon's offenses aren't the same. As fast as Auburn is, their running game is a power game, not a finesse game with guys in motion all the time.

do you even understand football? i'm pretty sure 300 lb lineman aren't "soft" just because their coaches drop a bit of misdirection into their gameplanning. thing i saw cam newton running a bit of zone read, that pussy.

for all that physical football oregon couldn't hang with it took a fluke play for auburn to pull it out. thought they would have lost by 30 or something.

[Killian]

That game showed the liabilities of running a strict spread offense. The spread is great between the 20’s, but once you get inside the red zone and have eliminated the chance of a big play, the spread loses a lot of it’s effectiveness.

[L45B]

Thought I saw it mentioned here during the game, but Oregon could have really used a LaGarrett Blount type of back last night inside the 5-yard line, not to mention somebody to punch Fairley in the mouth.

[Killian]

Sam, don’t play the “Auburn left a ton of points on the field” because so did Oregon. Pick inside the red zone, kicking a FG after being at the 5, getting stopped on downs at the 1, etc.

Newton didn’t read anything better as the game went on, Malzan adjusted to the one safety look that Oregon was giving them and exploited it by getting a WR matched up on a DE, and then a FB matched up on the same DE. Newton had one read on each play. Also, Auburn just started running WR’s up the middle seam out of bunch formations, confusing Oregon until they went to the two safety look, where Newton again started to struggle.

Newton is a physical freak, but he’s working with the best OC in college football.

[Killian]

Sam, come on. Oregon was in Newton’s face on that shitty throw on 4th down and Thomas threw an awful pass in the redzone. As the game went on, he picked apart Auburn’s secondary.

You could just as easily say that Oregon stopped themselves inside the 5 yard line by shitty play calling. And on the first field goal, if Thomas didn’t make the wrong read Oregon’s RB walks into the end zone untouched for a TD. So Oregon stopped themselves on that drive as well.

See, I can play this game all day long.

[Dinsdale]

Overall, I really think Oregon CLEARLY had better players.

But the coaches engaged in the most horrendous play calling I've ever seen.

THATwas the difference in the game.

While adjustments certainly needed to be made against that nasty, nasty D-line of Auburns', who played ridiculously well...

Ducks scored a million points this year by getting the ball the their numerous playmakers in space. They did very little of it last night.


Whaaaa -- a couple of options got snuffedearly -- better completely change the offensive strategy that's been in place all season.

Getting it to Maehl on the outside was working early... and the dipshits didn't exploit that to get it to LaMike on bubble screens and whatnot... dumb.

Casey Matthews played one hell of a game. So did Kenny Rowe, but he was getting left on an island so much, he was covering plays that a DE has no business covering -- when your DE is covering deep routes, you might wanna switch things up.


But Kelley and Co. panicked, the AU staff stayed the course, and they earned a W because of it.

Props the the 2011 NCAA Champion Auburn Tigers.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Will an SEC team ever lose in the MNC? They have too many built-in advantages it seems:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/w ... z1AknLiJcN

"That attitude also results in a questionable practice in February that may give the SEC an unfair advantage in January. Several SEC schools make a practice of signing more players to letters-of-intent than scholarship availability would allow. This can result in messy divorces, as players who have outlived their usefulness get chased off to lower-division schools or placed on medical hardship. In eight of the 10 bowls involving SEC teams, the SEC school had signed more players over a four-year period than its opponent. This allows coaches to cover their recruiting mistakes. In Monday's matchup, Auburn had signed 19 more players than Oregon over a four-year span. In the Capital One Bowl, Alabama had signed 25 more players than Michigan State. In the Sugar Bowl, Arkansas had signed 30 more players than Ohio State."

Win at all costs, baby.

[Felix]

Was it being juggled or something?

he never had control before he stepped out of bounds, but a pretty athletic play none the less.....

Auburn was just better than Oregon last night.....bigger with just as much speed

[King Crimson]

Will an SEC team ever lose in the MNC? They have too many built-in advantages it seems:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/w ... z1AknLiJcN

"That attitude also results in a questionable practice in February that may give the SEC an unfair advantage in January. Several SEC schools make a practice of signing more players to letters-of-intent than scholarship availability would allow. This can result in messy divorces, as players who have outlived their usefulness get chased off to lower-division schools or placed on medical hardship. In eight of the 10 bowls involving SEC teams, the SEC school had signed more players over a four-year period than its opponent. This allows coaches to cover their recruiting mistakes. In Monday's matchup, Auburn had signed 19 more players than Oregon over a four-year span. In the Capital One Bowl, Alabama had signed 25 more players than Michigan State. In the Sugar Bowl, Arkansas had signed 30 more players than Ohio State."

Win at all costs, baby.

Tommy Tuberville started doing over-signing immediately at Tech when he got that job.

[King Crimson]

i don't see how anyone can make conclusive claims about how much more physical or non-wussy Auburn was based on a close game that turned on a freak play freebie of 35 crucial yards....to set up the winning score. unless, of course, it's SECBSH time....where the actual game gets hammered into the pre-existing, rote BSH narrative...which is exactly what's happened here.

mclub is right above. when AU runs the spread, Malzahn is a genius. when UO pulls guards, they are pussies. every variety of option football has pulling OL.....i guess that makes the wishbone a pussy offense that retreats from physicality. that's the logical conclusion here.....if anything UO's OL is out on the corner looking to put a hat on someone vs. Auburn's wimpy back-pedal pass-blocking.

[Dinsdale]

And, Dins, I think you're correct in that UO's coaching staff panicked.

There's an adage they seem to have forgotten:

Dance with them's that brought you.


If you told me before the game that Thomas would have 300+ passing, I would have told you it was a L.

The Auburn D-line was very fast east-to-west, which for the SEC champ should come as a surprise to no one, but there were plenty of seams that played right into Oregon's wheelhouse, like the 12 games before. For some inexplicable reason, they chose not to exploit them.


Oh well, we'll try again next year (lots of seniors, though, might be tough).

[Felix]

Overall, I really think Oregon CLEARLY had better players.

not trying to start anything here Dins (because you know I like Oregon a lot) but at exactly what positions do you think it was clear that oregon was better? The only Oregon players I thought were marginally superior were the d-backs....but the offensive and defensive lines of Auburn were light years ahead of their Oregon counterparts

But Kelley and Co. panicked, the AU staff stayed the course, and they earned a W because of it.

pretty uncharacteristic of Kelly....I thought Kelly outcoached Chizik up until the final few minutes

[Degenerate]

i don't see how anyone can make conclusive claims about how much more physical or non-wussy Auburn was based on a close game that turned on a freak play freebie of 35 crucial yards....to set up the winning score. unless, of course, it's SECBSH time....where the actual game gets hammered into the pre-existing, rote BSH narrative...which is exactly what's happened here.

mclub is right above. when AU runs the spread, Malzahn is a genius. when UO pulls guards, they are pussies. every variety of option football has pulling OL.....i guess that makes the wishbone a pussy offense that retreats from physicality. that's the logical conclusion here.....if anything UO's OL is out on the corner looking to put a hat on someone vs. Auburn's wimpy back-pedal pass-blocking.

Not to mention Kentucky runs the same damn offense Oregon does, the same way, and Auburn needed a FG at the buzzer to beat them, too.

But it's Oregon that isn't physical enough.

[Goober McTuber]

Oh well, we'll try again next year (lots of seniors, though, might be tough).

Hopefully the Ducks will be trying to slow down Trent Richardson, Eddie Lacey, and Jalston Fowler. :D

Sounds like a very entertaining Alamo Bowl matchup.

[King Crimson]

Hopefully the Ducks will be trying to slow down Trent Richardson, Eddie Lacey, and Jalston Fowler. :D

Sounds like a very entertaining Alamo Bowl matchup.

Ouch.

can't happen unless TR, EL, and JF transfer to OK State or Missouri.

[Q, West Coast Style]

My thoughts, (and I apologize if these points have already been raised but I'm not reading 8 pages worth of posts to find out)


Chip was too freaking stubborn with that read option. It's as if Chip refused to concede that the Auburn D line was so vastly superior. Auburn was in the backfield so fast that Thomas didn't even have a chance to make a read. The Ducks found success when they got the ball down the field to Maehl, and when they got the ball to their backs and receivers "into space" (I know, that's such a cliche term these days). They also took to long to get Paulson the TE involved. I know it sounds so typical laymen fan to say "throw the ball more, don't run up the middle so much!) but in this case, well, "throw the ball more, don't run up the middle so much!"

Thomas had a rough first quarter throwin the ball (he had a rough first quarter, period) and so maybe that affected Chip's willingness to take to the air more. But after that bomb to Maehl in the 2nd quarter, Thomas settled in and threw it pretty well. Should've done it more.

In the third quarter when the Ducks were stopped in third and goal, my dad and I both said to each other that Chip would go for it, run it, and get stopped. So stubborn with the play calling. They should've kicked the 3 or thrown it on 4th down. That's not hindsight, that's what we said as they lined up to go for it.

Can't fault the Oregon D for anything. They wish they couldn't had that fluke run back on the last AU drive. But well, it was a fluke. But a nice heads up play by Auburn.

Props to Auburn, props to the SEC. The likes of Notre Dame, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska need to start pulling more of those athletes out of the South again, not for just their own sake, but for the sake of all non-SEC teams. One the SEC schools starting being able hold on to all the Southern talent, they've been lights out.
*********************************

One the SEC schools starting being able hold on to all the Southern talent, they've been lights out.

And do you know why that is?

Sin,

[M Club]

Sam, don’t play the “Auburn left a ton of points on the field” because so did Oregon. Pick inside the red zone, kicking a FG after being at the 5, getting stopped on downs at the 1, etc.

Completely different thing. Auburn stopped Oregon...stuffed them inside the 5. Got a pick. I'm talking about wide open receivers that Newton made bad throws to. Oregon didn't stop AU. AU stopped Oregon.

curious how could've/would've is always applied to the team you're defending. i do it myself when bitching about michigan, but really only to vent since i don't really care about the times the other team shot themselves in the foot. you on the other hand...jesus. great, newton through a low ball that still should have been caught, but what happened on the other three plays from the 8 in, or wherever they had 1st and goal? oh, oregon didn't stop them because newton just ran into the guy trying to tackle him, or something. that's how we do this, right?

any other shit you care to rationalize?

[FLW Buckeye]

Looks like Jonsense is contagious.