The Bama game and finally thoughts. We can move on folks

I was at the game Saturday night and, after thinking about it, I believe Alabama won as much through strategy and patience as execution. Defensively, Bama showed a five-man front but varied who rushed and dropped into coverage, generally keeping three or four deep. They were willing to concede short passes, using their speed to limit yards after the catch and betting LSU couldn’t consistently finish drives. Offensively, Bama wasn’t trying to establish a dominant rushing attack. They wanted enough snaps to get comfortable with Baker’s defensive looks, frustrate the pass rush, and identify opportunities for big plays. LSU’s failure to turn first-half yardage into points was critical. Give LSU another 10 points and it’s 13–10 at halftime. Give them 17 and it’s 20–10. Suddenly the crowd, both locker rooms, and the decisions each coaching staff makes are very different. Instead, Bama had the lead and confidence its strategy was working.

In the second half, Leavitt’s limitations became increasingly apparent. He struggled with intermediate and deep throws, waiting for receivers to be visibly open rather than anticipating an open area and trusting them to get there. The improvisation and athleticism that worked at Arizona State don’t work nearly as well against Alabama’s speed. This effectively shrank LSU’s playbook, made the offense predictable, and allowed Bama to become more aggressive. Meanwhile, Alabama had seen enough of LSU’s defense to exploit opportunities, and the pass rush became less effective. LSU still took the lead in the third quarter, but Bama’s immediate answer was decisive. To me, Alabama didn’t physically dominate LSU. They stayed patient, denied LSU the early points that would have forced a change in strategy, and eventually took control. LSU had opportunities to dictate the game and failed to capitalize.

You can say all wins or losses are due to 4 to 5 plays.

I rather see the game in its entirety, as a chess match. Our offense could not response to Bama’s game plan on defense. It allow Bama’s big play offense to work vs our defense, which is an attack style that can get burned on big plays. Bama offense never had to play from behind really. It always had its entire playbook to work with, making LSU defense work extra hard. LSU’s offense did not have that luxury. Bama never had to adjust its defense from what it practiced. LSU become more and more predictable. Sam needs work on his passing game. If he made less check downs and through to open spots for receivers to get, no one is talking O-line issues today. O-line game him enough time to work with.

quote:

---

Meanwhile, Alabama had seen enough of LSU’s defense to exploit opportunities, and the pass rush became less effective. LSU still took the lead in the third quarter, but Bama’s immediate answer was decisive. To me, Alabama didn’t physically dominate LSU. They stayed patient, denied LSU the early points that would have forced a change in strategy, and eventually took control. LSU had opportunities to dictate the game and failed to capitalize.

---

This is exactly how Alabama beat Kentucky and Texas A&M as well. It's the nature of their team. Both of those games looked close at half but ended up being blowouts. Now, Kentucky is good and Texas A&M isn't, but Bama's ability to dominate the second half has been impressive in their wins. (UGA might be the best in the nation and Bama had 4 players out against Tennessee who played LSU.)

I don't know how far they will go in the playoffs, but they are a very dangerous team for anyone who can't get a big lead on them.

GEAUX TIGERS!