Here you go;
Excellent Clay. Thanks for your insights.
Thanks Clay, since we are of similar vintage, we might see certain things similarly, so the toughness mantra sure works for me (not that I consider myself tough, but like my sports teams tough). I have often been amused by the scheme fans, thinking that is the magic formula to winning football and I have to acknowledge that play calling and scheme have influence on outcomes, but to me it seems that toughness can trump scheme. Regarding a coach who a lot of us do not like, who has most generally thought to be a system/scheme coach is Gus, but if you watched much Auburn football, most generally they were pretty tough when they were winning, especially defensively.
The good Auburn teams were very physical and tough. I often admired the physicality of the Auburn secondary and longed for the day our secondary would, as D-Mac would say, “bring the wood” the way it appeared Auburn would. There was not a lot of arm tackling going on or ball carriers knocking the tackler backwards.
Danny Ford was a tough coach and a lot of the groundwork for Nutt’s early success was built on the toughness that Ford brought to the program. If Ford would have been able to develop some offensive consistency and explosiveness, we might have really made noise under his tenure. I see some of this style and toughness with Coach Pittman and hopefully Briles will be the component missed in the Ford era.
We will have to be physical and run the ball for this offense to be successful.i just don’t see us throwing well enough to complete very high %. Looking forward to seeing if we can be physicaL against these big SEC DL.
I love this:
I see more complexity on both sides of the ball this spring, but just as much emphasis on getting things correct. It’s just as important as playing tough or hard. You can play hard, but if you beat yourself, the scoreboard will look ugly.
Clay, I enjoyed the article but it begs the question, did you report on the softness of this team and what it didn’t do do that was needed during the Beliema and Morris era and I missed it. I see you wrote about the offense moving too quickly under Morris and problems being repeated and I don’t recall reading that under Morris. Maybe it was reported and I missed it. But that’s not my point of this post. The real question begging is what is Pitman doing wrong? What will you write about in the future that we are ignoring now. I’m interested in what you see as a potential problem and why?
I don’t know when Clay reported it, but I do remember him talking about the repetition of mistakes during speedy practices.
Thanks but it was rhetorical in a sense. Wanting to know what Pittman is doing wrong so I can see how improvement progresses. What I see to be a problem is the coordinators don’t seem to blend styles well. I’m wondering what we’ve done in the off-season to help that.
You state your interest, but you come across as someone trying to poke Clay in the eye. You’re pretty much calling him out for identifying our warts AFTER the fact.
Truth be told, I’d prefer Clay NOT advertise the shortcomings of our program prior to, and during the season; make our adversaries figure those out for themselves.
I’m more interested in reading how we’ve changed (for the better) from previous seasons/coaching regimes.
I neither wear hog-colored glasses nor drink the Kool-Aid, but I do prefer to read about areas where we’ve improved … a basis for hope that the upcoming season might be more successful.
Now AFTER a season/regime … it IS nice to have a critical look back at areas where we can improve moving forward.
Piggus, you hit that nail on the head.
Clay — as a former sportswriter gotta say I love your writing style: short, insightful digestible paragraphs. Reminds me so much of OH. I know it’s easier said than done.
Yes, I wrote that they lost the ability to run - over and over - and the inability to stop the run. I wrote they were soft during the first year under Morris.
I wrote that they were soft after they blew the lead against Missouri and Virginia Tech. I specifically wrote about the lack of physicality.
I got a complaint from the father of an offensive linemen when I wrote that. He said, “Are you calling my son soft.” I said no, it’s the entire team. For emphasis I wrote it again. I wanted that father to know I wasn’t backing off my thoughts that the team was soft.
Where you been?
You could probably find the follow up column from the Belk Bowl. It was critical of the physical nature and lack of punch on third and 1 and first and 10.
A little sad that you didn’t recall that. I was proud of that column.
My father told me he wrote for the sixth grade reader. That is the reading level for the vast majority of those who read sports. Stay away from complex sentences. You can load up a paragraph but not a sentence.
Probably huntin for a rock to hide under.
Clay this guy is always trying to trying to start something,does it on almost all my posts,messaged him and told I was on to his little gig and I wont waste time dealing with that foolishness.We all know you report what needs to be posted… Well almost all of us
6th grade level might be a little rich for world we live in today. 6 years old might work. Glad to read new staff is not letting the second half of the Missouri game be their standard going forward.
I do recall a lot of those articles. I’ve been right here. My statement was poorly written and I’ve tried to state it a better way but people will read what they want. Maybe I should try shorter sentences. If you don’t understand the question let me know.
What’s the critical look after season one under CSP? I must have missed it. But that’s my question. I’m glad Clay pointed out I need to post like 6th graders are the readers. I’ll do better with my questions.
Not sure we will know what he’s doing right or wrong until Games are being played to be able to see.
I recall that column and the discussion on the board…
A lot of posters thought that loss was on the defense, but it was on the OL! We got whipped !