re: Canada has probably had the Bama game circled on his calendar

quote:

---

Sadly we just do not have the offensive line to compete with Bama this year.

---

yea, it's hard for me to expect our line composed of two true frosh to contain bama's front 7. we've had better run blocking lines in the past and they couldn't open holes for leonard fricking fornette.

there is always a chance but i'm not optimistic and hope we just don't get injuries from players we need to beat the rest of our schedule.

quote:

---

Nick Marshall 11/16 97yds

---

And 2 of those passes were touchdowns to receivers that are now in the NFL. Marshall also ran for 99 yards - do you see Danny having success running the ball vs Alabama? 20 of their 34 points were on a pass or a 109 yard fg return.

Auburn
Ole Miss
Clemson
Ohio St
A&M
LSU

One of those offenses are not like the other

quote:

---

Like completing a forward pass to our wide receivers?

---

Did it occur to you that a big reason there were no completions to WRs is because of poor pass protection? Ole Miss was able to rush Etling in 2 seconds. Our only other option in the passing game were quick dump offs to RBs and TEs. Seems like a decent coaching move when your OLine can't pass protect worth a damn.

quote:

---

The only way to challenge bama is to spread the field.

---

With a quick passing game. You have to neutralize their pass rush, that's why Clemson did so well against them.

We would probably have a better chance if we played our 2 minute offense all game.

I feel like Canada spends half a game baiting the other team into thinking they know what to do.

quote:

---

So In your convoluted mind having a gameplan that attacked ole miss' weaknesses (doesn't matter what they rank, their run defense was their weakness) means that we won't try to find a gameplan that attacks Bama's weaknesses (however small they might be)?

---

Not at all. Again with the feelings and assumptions. You've done this before to me - you assume something I think, magically make it a fact, and then respond based on your incorrect assumption. Unless you can link my post where I said "we won't try to game plan against Bama's weakness"

All I've said, and it is a fact, is that we haven't yet done what is necessary on offense to beat Alabama. I never said giving Guice the ball against a terrible run d was a bad idea. Or that the offensive performance last game wasn't good. Only that it doesn't in any way equate to winning our next game. We literally average 13 pass completions a game. That won't cut it

quote:

---

Have you ever heard the saying that perception is reality?

---

It's not a matter of perception in accepting that we didn't complete any passes to wide receivers on Saturday, or that we completed 1 pass to a wr vs Florida, or that we average less than 13 completions per game. Those are all facts.

quote:

---

When your comments are along the lines of "we didn't complete any balls to our WRs and that won't beat Bama" the perception is that you are trying to say that since we didn't do something against team A, that we Can't do it against team B

---

You're doing it again. What I said is not vague. There is no room for you to perceive anything different. I'm listing facts. I never said since we didn't pass to wr's vs Ole Miss and Florida then we won't do it against Bama. It is literally what I said we must do.

quote:

---

If you don't like that perception then do a better job at explaining yourself the first time.

---

I don't care if you don't like it. And I'm not required to explain myself better because you're horrific at understanding straight forward comments

How is this a hard concept? OP says what should we do vs Bama. I say pass the ball to receivers. I then list facts about the last 3 games proving that we literally didn't do so at all in one game, and completed 1 pass to a wr in another. This somehow turns into the perception of the reality of comments I never said but you assumed. That's how far down the rabbit hole you are. It's absurd.

quote:

---

You act like we haven't completed a pass to a WR this season.

---

In our last 3 games combined we have literally completed 10 total passes to wide receivers. And our next game is against a team that requires passes to wide receivers in order to beat them. That is all I have been saying for the entirety of this thread.

quote:

---

Are you saying we needed to complete a pass to a WR in order to beat ole miss?

---

Apparently not as we just beat ole miss without doing so. But please link my post where I said otherwise. Or that the offense didn't put up a ton of yards or that handing the ball of to Guice was a bad idea. You guys are incredible.

OP - "Hey what should Canada do vs Bama?"
Me - We should throw the ball to our wr's.
You - OMFG are you saying we can't beat ole miss without a single completion. Are you saying we didn't score many points vs Ole Miss? Are you saying the offense didn't gain 500+ yards vs Ole Miss?

No dude I'm not. That's why I didn't say anything of those things.

quote:

---

Apparently not as we just beat ole miss without doing so.

---

There you go.

quote:

---

OP - "Hey what should Canada do vs Bama?"
Me - We should throw the ball to our wr's.

---

That's not what you did. And you know that.