Keep in mind that one bad call by the refs (dead ball whistle) basically would have changed the outcome...then three missed field goals, which is almost a fluke (2/3) would have won it. We should have won this game.
What I don't understand is why they benched Ifanse after a questionable fumble. They changed the game plan (unless there is …
Keep in mind that one bad call by the refs (dead ball whistle) basically would have changed the outcome...then three missed field goals, which is almost a fluke (2/3) would have won it. We should have won this game.
What I don't understand is why they benched Ifanse after a questionable fumble. They changed the game plan (unless there is something else we don't know). And I understand the idea of trying to soften the Dline, but they should have adjusted when it became clear that the middle was clogged. This looked like the Toyota Tercel, again.
The refs were irritating, however the number of bad calls was still way less than the number of golden opportunities the offense were gifted thanks to stellar defensive play and Auburn’s unforced errors. How many takeaways in that game? 4? 5? One of Tedford’s average teams would have run that Auburn team off the field with that turnover margin.
Agree on Ifanse. If we were going to grind 3 yard run game, Ifanse is our guy. Yet we kept going with Stredick. And Ifanse's elbow was down before the ball came out.
And if you are going power, you give Ifanse and Stredick as many touches as Ott. You make Ott your big play back...and don't train wreck him into traffic. This is on Spav!
I think with Ott their strategy was/is: the more you give him the ball, the more likely it is he breaks a big play. It's like buying multiple lottery tickets to increase your odds (and really needing to win because you quit your job).
Keep in mind that one bad call by the refs (dead ball whistle) basically would have changed the outcome...then three missed field goals, which is almost a fluke (2/3) would have won it. We should have won this game.
What I don't understand is why they benched Ifanse after a questionable fumble. They changed the game plan (unless there is something else we don't know). And I understand the idea of trying to soften the Dline, but they should have adjusted when it became clear that the middle was clogged. This looked like the Toyota Tercel, again.
The refs were irritating, however the number of bad calls was still way less than the number of golden opportunities the offense were gifted thanks to stellar defensive play and Auburn’s unforced errors. How many takeaways in that game? 4? 5? One of Tedford’s average teams would have run that Auburn team off the field with that turnover margin.
Totally agree on the run game tactics.
Agree on Ifanse. If we were going to grind 3 yard run game, Ifanse is our guy. Yet we kept going with Stredick. And Ifanse's elbow was down before the ball came out.
And if you are going power, you give Ifanse and Stredick as many touches as Ott. You make Ott your big play back...and don't train wreck him into traffic. This is on Spav!
I think with Ott their strategy was/is: the more you give him the ball, the more likely it is he breaks a big play. It's like buying multiple lottery tickets to increase your odds (and really needing to win because you quit your job).
LOL. This is a perfect comparison.