and the result is TD.
Fedora would have played Hurts not until the cows came home, but until they died.
Fedora would have played Hurts not until the cows came home, but until they died.
Saban replaces his RB playing QB with a natural QB
- Thread starter WoadBlue
- Start date
I don't think the Bama receivers recall how to play with a QB who truly can pass to get the team out of scrapes. Tagovailoa should have tossed it out, but even Ridley was focused on blacking rather than being a receiver. If Ridley had turned around, he would have been open.
Everyone complained that Fedora didn't know who the best qb on our team was.
The great Nick Saban apparently didn't either.. just saying
The great Nick Saban apparently didn't either.. just saying
Yeah, that Saban must be a total idiot for starting the wrong quarterback all those games. SMH
Saban must be the worst coach in america to not have play Tua T until the last game of the yr. They should fire him immediately.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/boxscore?gameId=400953415
Natural my azz. Tua carried the ball TWELVE times in a SINGLE half. For the entire game the other RBs had a total of NINETEEN carries.
Saban addressed an issue at halftime. Made an adjustment and came back to win the game. Making in game adjustments is something our staff needs to do a better job of.
Here is what matters: If Saban had been stupid enough to stick with Hurts for the game, Bama loses by at least 20, and probably never gets into the end zone.
Larry Fedora is indeed that stupid.
Saban didn't play Tua vs Auburn and they LOST. == Saban is a stupid, stubborn, horrible coach.
Tua rushed 12 times in a single HALF.
Marquise averaged 12 carries per ENTIRE game (http://www.espn.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/2577118/type/college)
Tua didn't play a snap in Bama's loss to Auburn.
Your evidence via Tua/Hurts/Saban, for your eternal argument of Mitch/Marquise/Fed, is invalid and factless.
Marquise averaged 12 carries per ENTIRE game (http://www.espn.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/2577118/type/college)
Tua didn't play a snap in Bama's loss to Auburn.
Your evidence via Tua/Hurts/Saban, for your eternal argument of Mitch/Marquise/Fed, is invalid and factless.
I'm not getting caught up in the QB discussion, the HC/OC should play the one the think gives them the best chance to win. My point/wish is that we start making more and better in game adjustments to take advantage of what's working or to remove what's not.
Not a keyboard jockey on a message board? Hmm, interesting development.
Saban said he made the switch to give Bama a better chance to move the ball down the field. It worked and Bama wins NC!!!
One of the great coaching moves i've ever seen!
BBS .... Bama Be Super!!!
No. They should play the one that will get drafted the highest. Everyone knows that
I believe the main point was that he adapted and changed something that wasn't working. Which is indeed something we haven't seen for awhile in Chapel Hill
Maybe you aren't referring to Marquise, but the OP is... saying "RB playing QB with natural QB" and then saying that Fed would keep playing the original QB.
Regarding that, my response to you is this:
Marquise won 11 games in a row, what "wasn't working" during that time?
LOL. No, just tired of the same stupid discussion being trotted out at every opportunity.
Mitch was crap in the opener vs UGA. Doubt he would've done any better than MW.
That Scar game was MW's worst game ever... those INTS were probably the worst passes of his tenure. But again, Mitch wasn't good in his opener, so net-even.
If you could guarantee me that after the 11 win streak Mitch would beat EITHER clemson or baylor, i'd take your guarantee, but otherwise you're a fool to try and do better than 11 straight. That O was dominant... remember how we smacked Miami and Dook?
I wasn't saying that Mitch would have done any better in that situation. I'm saying that it was clear throwing the ball in the red zone was a recipe for disaster, and we should have adapted and ran the ball with Hood more rather than stubbornly making the same mistakes.
Got it, playcalling is a different topic or a different thread though because Tua ran the same stuff Jalen does, he just executed better.
Let's also not forget Tua threw a horrible interception, he threw to the wrong guy in the the endzone, and took a sack in OT that almost cost them the game. He made a few nice throws, but it was his feet that moved the offense.
The Fedora haters are so funny.
The Fedora haters are so funny.
the jalen-tua marquise-mitch analogy is kind of interesting. it is the same basic situation: a talented runner but inconsistent passer stays on the field while a more talented newcomber sits on the bench. a key point i think is that both hurtz and williams have excellent leadership qualities, with their team rallying together around that leadership. this raises a dilemma for the coach. starting the younger guy based on talent alone could damage team morale. dissension and divided loyalties among teammates can be a total disaster.
It is partly the same, but different because Bama's O was struggling, while our offense rarely struggled. Maybe it could apply to Scar, but our offense was strong in every other game.
O was even strong vs Baylor. MW was 22/36 for 243 yards, threw 3 TD, rushed for 2 TD, the O was 9-13 on third down and we averaged 6.8 yards per carry. O wasn't a problem that game.
So MW was awful vs Scar, mediocre vs Clemson, but MT was bad vs UGA 2016. We were only down 21-16 at half vs Clemson which is very different than being down 0-14 at half for Hurts/Tua. They started crushing us in the third quarter, but we were more close with Marquise vs Clemson than Hurts was vs Uga.
Not sure the 2 QB situations are apples to apples. And the sample size is extremely small but it did result in a NC for Bama. I prefer to focus on the in game change that allowed Bama to win the game. The long term impact of the Bama QB change isn't known yet but I'm guessing one of the two QBs will not be there next season. But I don't understand the QB game that much - why would a good HS QB go to a team with a sophomore starting at QB already when he is already established.
As for knocking Tua for a couple of mistakes - I'm not sure that's fair. Take a kid with no expectation of playing, hasn't played a meaningful snap all year and throw him into the NC game at halftime down 2 scores, with no offensive momentum - well I think he performed great. Sure the INT was a bad decision, so was the sack - but he bounced back from both and won the game. As for the one TD pass, I'm not really sure who the target was but it could have been Ridley. That's where a good receiver who doesn't give up on a play can sometimes make something great happen.
Saban was smart enough (or desperate enough) to make the change. Knowing that Tua's ability to throw would force GA's LBs to stay back, honor the pass and open the field up for more runs. That's making a change and imposing your will on another team - a really, really good team. All coaches should be watching how Saban handles his team, assistants, and game management and trying to be more like him. It's obviously working.
As for knocking Tua for a couple of mistakes - I'm not sure that's fair. Take a kid with no expectation of playing, hasn't played a meaningful snap all year and throw him into the NC game at halftime down 2 scores, with no offensive momentum - well I think he performed great. Sure the INT was a bad decision, so was the sack - but he bounced back from both and won the game. As for the one TD pass, I'm not really sure who the target was but it could have been Ridley. That's where a good receiver who doesn't give up on a play can sometimes make something great happen.
Saban was smart enough (or desperate enough) to make the change. Knowing that Tua's ability to throw would force GA's LBs to stay back, honor the pass and open the field up for more runs. That's making a change and imposing your will on another team - a really, really good team. All coaches should be watching how Saban handles his team, assistants, and game management and trying to be more like him. It's obviously working.
