re: What do you think was the cause for the arse whooping in the trenches?

Bama DLinemen appeared to be doing a lot of stunts with either the other Dlineman or LB filling the gaps.

quote:

---

Definitely not. There are certainly mental aspects involved, but most of that was physical domination.

Alabama is simply better in the trenches. It's okay to admit that.

---

bullshite. How do you explain all the other teams able to do better than we did against them?

Bama played over their heads that night.

I submit that holding was a big problem. Check out Beckwith being held by Alabama's guard which then resulted in a personal foul against Beckwith.

LINK

Whenever I was watching the game and I seen 5 d-lineman and 4 lb's in the camera frame for Alabama I knew it was going to be a long night. The play calling was so predictable you could sit there and watch the 5 lineman and the lb's immediately shoot the gaps and that will cause a nightmare for any oline

quote:

---

No. No they aren't. 

Mingo Montgomery Brockers Logan are vastly more talented than this d line

---

I meant other teams that have played bama this year, not previous LSU teams

One team was bigger and stronger than the other.

quote:

---

What do you think was the cause for the arse whooping in the trenches?

---

bama has bigger and stronger athletes in the trenches and at LB.

Also our offense scheme and the plays we call out of it are custom made to be destroyed by a team like Alabama

Lot of posters say we should have done this or done that vs Bama but you can't just change your whole offense around over the course of a bye week. OUr offense is designed around the I formation and using the run to set up the pass. You can't just throw out your scheme and start from scratch in week 7 of the season. All the things we should have been doing on offense should have been installed in the offense 3 years ago and by now would be like smooth running highly efficient machine.

Miles/Cam (and many of the posters) seem to think there is no problem with our offense scheme and philosophy. That's a pretty scary thought.

It is a curiosity. Most think that LSU has a better OL and DL than last year's team. However both of those lines more than held their own with 'Bama, which was mostly the same guys as this season. Just a poorly prepared group the other night and that includes the coaches. A few more well-executed play-action passes could have done wonders. Also, BH missed a couple of wide-open receivers which could have added points in the first half, one of which was Fournette. Not to mention, the interception throw was horribly off; had a man wide-open on that play as well.

quote:

---

bullshite.

---

Okay, bengal. Tell me what part of it was "bullshite".

If you can't admit that Alabama is better in the trenches, then you might be delusional. And I'm not trying to be rude about this. I understand that people feel strongly about LSU, and emotion is a huge part of what makes the game great, but your judgment is really clouded if you can't see that Alabama is better.

I saw your thread last week about Alabama's Run D being overrated, and I thought about posting in it to explain that you cannot simply look at statistics to see why Alabama is so good, and that I thought there were flaws in your statistical breakdown, but you posted it the day before the game, so I just said, "f it, they'll see".

quote:

---

How do you explain all the other teams able to do better than we did against them?

---

Well, each case that you're talking about would have its own factors and circumstances to consider. And you have to consider that Saban is an NFL-style coach in many ways. His game plans change when the opponent changes. He puts emphasis on doing certain things with different personnel against different teams. A stats-only outlook that throws a statistical blanket over every different team isn't going to work. You've got to look at the matchups, and LSU was overmatched in the trenches vs. Alabama.

If you look at Alabama's previous game against Tennessee, one important factor is that I think they had a superior game plan in attacking Alabama's D. It wasn't enough to win, but it kept them closer, and they had more success on O with their game plan. They didn't find much success running between the tackles against Alabama. However, as I noted last week, they did find some success with the read option, especially on the perimeter. Harris had his longest run (16 yards) of the night vs. Alabama on a read option. I don't know why LSU didn't go to it more often. Tennessee also had a successful play (12 yards) on a jet sweep with Alvin Kamara. I don't know why LSU didn't utilize the jet sweep. One of the benefits of perimeter running plays is that they can also affect the inside-running game, and LSU simply was not able to win individual matchups up front to make the running game successful between the tackles.

We could look at other teams, but it really is not very relevant to talking about what happened in the trenches in the LSU-Alabama game. Scrap the statistical outlook -- watch the game, and don't watch the ball. Watch the linemen and TEs, and watch how they perform. That is the truest way to evaluate the trenches. Most people gloss over this, or try to use stats to measure it. That's insufficient if you want to know what's really going on. Now, I know a lot of people want to watch the ball, and focus on different positions, and that's fine. I'm just saying this is the best way to judge the trenches. And when you look at the game this way, LSU was physically dominated by Alabama.

Relating this to the game plan -- I like Les Miles' offensive philosophy (or general scheme, whatever you want to call it). I really do. But, the effectiveness of the run blocking of the offensive linemen and TEs and FBs are critical to that philosophy. Those guys aren't going to beat the Alabama front. Alabama has LBs that can routinely beat LSU's offensive linemen. Routinely. So, when people talk about making adjustments, and looking for different things in the passing game vs. Alabama, I think there is a lot of merit to that. Just from a physical standpoint, the basic Miles-style running game that was utilized against Alabama on Saturday is not a good game plan.

The defensive line is young, and I think a lot of the issues there are about recruiting (Relative to beating Alabama. If you think LSU shouldn't be able to beat Alabama, then it's not an issue. I'm not saying you think that, but I've seen that expressed on the board.), but I think there are a lot of developmental issues and personnel issues on the OL (and at TE).

Could those guys play better than they did in a different situation with a different mindset? Yes, I'm sure they could, but not to the point that they would be better than the Alabama front. Not this year. And I'm not saying LSU couldn't beat Alabama in some different scenario. Wild things can happen in games, but in the trenches, Alabama is a lot better.

quote:

---

Bama played over their heads that night.

---

They played great, but their front plays like that consistently. In terms of who really raised their game against LSU, I think it was the Alabama DBs in the run game. They were fast, aggressive, physical, and sure tacklers. I think the Alabama front was fired up to go against Fournette and the LSU running game, but they regularly play at an extremely high level.

They were a lot better.