News Article: NY Times article comparing '09 "D" to '92...
- Thread starter TIDE-HSV
- Start date
The potential for greatness is certainly there. My only question (I don't want to say concern) is the pressure being put on the QB that the bookends brought on a consistent basis. There wasn't really a great need to blitz as often because they could bring it with just a four-man rush.
I've noticed a lot of these comparisons lately, and nothing could be more complimentary...
But aside from defense, any other similarities with the '92 NC team stick out to anyone? (Like the older, more experienced posters - I was eleven in '92 and don't profess to know it all).
Yet I still remember sitting in my bedroom watching the Alabama/Vandy game and one play has stayed in my memory. It was a run, I think, early in the first half, and the Bama defensive players absolutely swarmed the Vandy ball-carrier and practically carried him back ten or fifteen yards.
From then on that's what I've considered "gang-tackling."
RTR
But aside from defense, any other similarities with the '92 NC team stick out to anyone? (Like the older, more experienced posters - I was eleven in '92 and don't profess to know it all).
Yet I still remember sitting in my bedroom watching the Alabama/Vandy game and one play has stayed in my memory. It was a run, I think, early in the first half, and the Bama defensive players absolutely swarmed the Vandy ball-carrier and practically carried him back ten or fifteen yards.
From then on that's what I've considered "gang-tackling."
RTR
Last edited:
I read the article last night and they made comparisons about the front 7, but one thing they forgot to mention was the secondary. I, too, was a young pup in 92 (10 years old), but I remember all of this stuff. We had 3 future NFLers in the defensive backfield in Langham & Teague on the corners and Shade & Donnelly at safety.
I like Jackson and Javy. Each of them have their strong points, but neither of them is Langham or Teague in terms of big play ability from the corner position. Langham & Teague took way more chances. But I think that has more to do with the style of defense we play now. Back then it was "if the play is there, get it and take it to the house". Now it's more like "I may not pick it, but I'll knock it down and trust my offense to score when we get them the ball back". Both methods work...they're just different.
And looking at the safety positions, I think they're more comparable. Woodall & Shade were both 2nd year starters while Barron/Green & Donnelly were first year starters. You didn't hear about Shade & Donnelly much and that's a good thing. That means they didn't get beat a lot. I don't expect our safeties to be as quiet this season as I think Woodall and especially Barron are more than capable of bringing the lumber from the safety position.
All that being said, I'm with Coach Saban. We gave up 31 points the last two games we played. And against 3 (UGA, UF, Utah) of the top 4 (LSU being the 4th) teams that we faced last season we gave up 30 or more points. Before we can even start to talk about comparisons, we have to correct that. And the most important thing to note is that our 92 defense delivered a ring. This defense can be ranked #1 in the country throughout the year and yield only single digit points on average, but if it doesn't (help to) deliver a ring, what difference does it make?
I like Jackson and Javy. Each of them have their strong points, but neither of them is Langham or Teague in terms of big play ability from the corner position. Langham & Teague took way more chances. But I think that has more to do with the style of defense we play now. Back then it was "if the play is there, get it and take it to the house". Now it's more like "I may not pick it, but I'll knock it down and trust my offense to score when we get them the ball back". Both methods work...they're just different.
And looking at the safety positions, I think they're more comparable. Woodall & Shade were both 2nd year starters while Barron/Green & Donnelly were first year starters. You didn't hear about Shade & Donnelly much and that's a good thing. That means they didn't get beat a lot. I don't expect our safeties to be as quiet this season as I think Woodall and especially Barron are more than capable of bringing the lumber from the safety position.
All that being said, I'm with Coach Saban. We gave up 31 points the last two games we played. And against 3 (UGA, UF, Utah) of the top 4 (LSU being the 4th) teams that we faced last season we gave up 30 or more points. Before we can even start to talk about comparisons, we have to correct that. And the most important thing to note is that our 92 defense delivered a ring. This defense can be ranked #1 in the country throughout the year and yield only single digit points on average, but if it doesn't (help to) deliver a ring, what difference does it make?
Last edited:
:biggrin2:[/QUOTE]
I believe the NY Times owners also own the Tuscaloosa News and they have several news staff members with strong ties to UA. That's probably why they occassionally do a piece on Bama.
Last edited:
Thanks Earle for the read.
I'll never forget the 92 defense and how special those group of players were, however if this group were to come close to them this year, then I'll find room in my heart to put them up their too. But they have got a long row to hoe and the crops are far from coming in yet.
Thanks for that article link Earle. I agree with Jackson...
Alabama blockers will be tested by Hokie defense | TideSports.com | The Tuscaloosa News | Tuscaloosa, AL
Alabama blockers will be tested by Hokie defense | TideSports.com | The Tuscaloosa News | Tuscaloosa, AL
I read the article last night and they made comparisons about the front 7, but one thing they forgot to mention was the secondary. I, too, was a young pup in 92 (10 years old), but I remember all of this stuff. We had 3 future NFLers in the defensive backfield in Langham & Teague on the corners and Shade & Donnelly at safety.
I like Jackson and Javy. Each of them have their strong points, but neither of them is Langham or Teague in terms of big play ability from the corner position. Langham & Teague took way more chances. But I think that has more to do with the style of defense we play now. Back then it was "if the play is there, get it and take it to the house". Now it's more like "I may not pick it, but I'll knock it down and trust my offense to score when we get them the ball back". Both methods work...they're just different.
And looking at the safety positions, I think they're more comparable. Woodall & Shade were both 2nd year starters while Barron/Green & Donnelly were first year starters. You didn't hear about Shade & Donnelly much and that's a good thing. That means they didn't get beat a lot. I don't expect our safeties to be as quiet this season as I think Woodall and especially Barron are more than capable of bringing the lumber from the safety position.
All that being said, I'm with Coach Saban. We gave up 31 points the last two games we played. And against 3 (UGA, UF, Utah) of the top 4 (LSU being the 4th) teams that we faced last season we gave up 30 or more points. Before we can even start to talk about comparisons, we have to correct that. And the most important thing to note is that our 92 defense delivered a ring. This defense can be ranked #1 in the country throughout the year and yield only single digit points on average, but if it doesn't (help to) deliver a ring, what difference does it make?
UGA actually score a TD on a kick off, one that should have been call back due to a hold that the refs preferred to overlook..
IMO,the UGA game was a wash because we were up so much in the 1st half, the D got sloppy and complacent. otherwise, the Bulldogs would not even score 21 points that night.
I remember the 1992 team like it was yesterday, and happy memories they are.
In August of 1992, I believed we would be in the hunt for the NC at the end of the season. Our preseason ranking was #8, which I believed was too low. This year, I believe we are overrated at #5. I'm thinking more like #10. Obviously, I would prefer to be wrong this time around.
Both the 1992 and 2009 defenses were built around a base 3-4 scheme.
Someone already pointed out that we lack the kind of pass rush from our down linemen that we had back then. Or more to the point, we had that better in 1991 than we had it in 2008. I believe/hope that the emergence of Marcel Dareus and maybe one or two others will change this. But as it stands right now, the 2009 DEs are decidedly inferior to the 1992 DEs.
The 1992 team had no one in the middle who compared to Cody.
Our inside linebackers now are better than the ones we had then, but not by a country mile.
Our outside linebackers were definitely better in 1992.
Our CBs now are comparable to the ones we had then. Unless somebody surprises me this year, back then our safeties were better.
On offense, we have better talent among the RBs and WRs than we had going into the 1992 season, but not by much. QB was a question then as now.... Barker had more game experience than McElroy, but was younger and not especially proven either. Often in '92, we won games in spite of him rather than because of him, the Sugar Bowl win over Miami being an excellent example of this, as he had an awful night.
Unlike this year, our OL was seasoned and experienced going into the '92 season, although our S&C back then was not what it is today.
The 1992 team had no significant injury issues. This was huge!! Other than the loss of ILB Michael Rogers for the Sugar Bowl due to an automobile accident, I don't recollect a single starter missing any significant amount of time due to an injury. (David Palmer did serve a suspension for his DUI issues.) If we get the same kind of injury luck in 2009 that we had in 1992, we've got a chance to make some noise.
In August of 1992, I believed we would be in the hunt for the NC at the end of the season. Our preseason ranking was #8, which I believed was too low. This year, I believe we are overrated at #5. I'm thinking more like #10. Obviously, I would prefer to be wrong this time around.
Both the 1992 and 2009 defenses were built around a base 3-4 scheme.
Someone already pointed out that we lack the kind of pass rush from our down linemen that we had back then. Or more to the point, we had that better in 1991 than we had it in 2008. I believe/hope that the emergence of Marcel Dareus and maybe one or two others will change this. But as it stands right now, the 2009 DEs are decidedly inferior to the 1992 DEs.
The 1992 team had no one in the middle who compared to Cody.
Our inside linebackers now are better than the ones we had then, but not by a country mile.
Our outside linebackers were definitely better in 1992.
Our CBs now are comparable to the ones we had then. Unless somebody surprises me this year, back then our safeties were better.
On offense, we have better talent among the RBs and WRs than we had going into the 1992 season, but not by much. QB was a question then as now.... Barker had more game experience than McElroy, but was younger and not especially proven either. Often in '92, we won games in spite of him rather than because of him, the Sugar Bowl win over Miami being an excellent example of this, as he had an awful night.
Unlike this year, our OL was seasoned and experienced going into the '92 season, although our S&C back then was not what it is today.
The 1992 team had no significant injury issues. This was huge!! Other than the loss of ILB Michael Rogers for the Sugar Bowl due to an automobile accident, I don't recollect a single starter missing any significant amount of time due to an injury. (David Palmer did serve a suspension for his DUI issues.) If we get the same kind of injury luck in 2009 that we had in 1992, we've got a chance to make some noise.
Last edited:
Way too soon to even start thinking about comparing them to the '92 defense, which IMHO is one of the greatest defenses of all-time. This year's defense obviously has a lot of potential but there are still some question marks concerning it. One thing I'm quite confident in however is that this year's defense will have a ton more help from the offense than the '92 defense had, which means they won't have to be nearly as good in order to get the job done.
The thing that impresses me about this years defense is the size of the players. Our D-Line will outsize every O-Line we play, I'm not sure that's ever happened for any team. I didn't realize Deaderick was up to 306, that's unbelievable. Even our two best back ups, Dareus and Chapman are 296 and 313 respectively. This may be the biggest D-Line in the history of college football.
Not to mention Hightower and McClain at 255 apiece.
Compare the Tide to the New England Patriots D-Line.
LDE - Ty Warren - 6'5" 300
DT - Vince Wilfork - 6'2" 325
RDE - Richard Seymour - 6'6" 310
LDE - Zo Washington - 6'5" 290
DT - Terrence Cody - 6'5" 354
RDE - Brandon Deaderick - 6'4" 306
Our defensive line actually outweighs the Patriots. When people go against our Base 3-4, they're playing an NFL sized line.
Compare the Tide to the Ravens Secondary.
S - Dawan Landry - 6'0" 210
S - Ed Reed - 5'10" 200
CB - Domonique Foxworth - 5'11" 180
CB - Fabian Washington - 5'11" 180
S - Justin Woodall - 6'2" 221
S - Mark Barron - 6'2" 215
CB - Javier Arenas 5'9" 195
CB - Kareem Jackson 6'0" 193
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying our Secondary is as good as the Ravens (far from it.) But when teams play us, They're facing an NFL sized Defense all across the field. And a defense that is not only big, but extremely fast for their size and very, very deep.
I keep hearing these comparisons between '09 and '92, but if these guys perform up to their potential, '09 could be the new benchmark.
Not to mention Hightower and McClain at 255 apiece.
Compare the Tide to the New England Patriots D-Line.
LDE - Ty Warren - 6'5" 300
DT - Vince Wilfork - 6'2" 325
RDE - Richard Seymour - 6'6" 310
LDE - Zo Washington - 6'5" 290
DT - Terrence Cody - 6'5" 354
RDE - Brandon Deaderick - 6'4" 306
Our defensive line actually outweighs the Patriots. When people go against our Base 3-4, they're playing an NFL sized line.
Compare the Tide to the Ravens Secondary.
S - Dawan Landry - 6'0" 210
S - Ed Reed - 5'10" 200
CB - Domonique Foxworth - 5'11" 180
CB - Fabian Washington - 5'11" 180
S - Justin Woodall - 6'2" 221
S - Mark Barron - 6'2" 215
CB - Javier Arenas 5'9" 195
CB - Kareem Jackson 6'0" 193
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying our Secondary is as good as the Ravens (far from it.) But when teams play us, They're facing an NFL sized Defense all across the field. And a defense that is not only big, but extremely fast for their size and very, very deep.
I keep hearing these comparisons between '09 and '92, but if these guys perform up to their potential, '09 could be the new benchmark.
I believe barker was better than just adequate, I remember our running game got stymied against Ole Miss and Barker threw for like 300 yards and allowed us to sail past the rebs.....
I saw that '92 defense twice in the Superdome. The first time was early in the season against Tulane. It was sort of weird. There weren't a whole lot of people in the Dome. People knew this was a good Bama team, but probably no one was thinking national championship yet.
The odd thing about that team was, if I remember correctly, these two big defensive ends, and ONE guy in the middle (maybe there were two in the middle, but I only remember one). I seem to remember Curry on the strong side (LDE). He would make contact with a Tulane runner, the result being an abrupt smackdown. It was as if no Alabama defensive player ever hit the ground, but the Tulane players kept getting smacked to the turf. I remember thinking, how can this be, when there are only three players on the Alabama defensive line?
Tulane ran the Fumblerooski on the Poydras Street end of the field, and it was about the only thing Tulane did all evening that gained anything.
Then there was the embarrassment of Miami in January. Eleven men on the Bama defensive line? Either Copeland or Curry has recalled that when he looked Torreta in the eye and saw fear, he knew Alabama was going to win that game. I still see Torreta on his butt. He looked like no Heisman winner. In fact, that performance probably marked the end of Toretta's glory days.
I don't expect the present Bama defense to have as many sacks as the Curry-Copeland team did. This defense may not even be as good as that defense was. But you know, then again, it might be just as good, in its own way. Even the New York Times has noticed that possibility.
The odd thing about that team was, if I remember correctly, these two big defensive ends, and ONE guy in the middle (maybe there were two in the middle, but I only remember one). I seem to remember Curry on the strong side (LDE). He would make contact with a Tulane runner, the result being an abrupt smackdown. It was as if no Alabama defensive player ever hit the ground, but the Tulane players kept getting smacked to the turf. I remember thinking, how can this be, when there are only three players on the Alabama defensive line?
Tulane ran the Fumblerooski on the Poydras Street end of the field, and it was about the only thing Tulane did all evening that gained anything.
Then there was the embarrassment of Miami in January. Eleven men on the Bama defensive line? Either Copeland or Curry has recalled that when he looked Torreta in the eye and saw fear, he knew Alabama was going to win that game. I still see Torreta on his butt. He looked like no Heisman winner. In fact, that performance probably marked the end of Toretta's glory days.
I don't expect the present Bama defense to have as many sacks as the Curry-Copeland team did. This defense may not even be as good as that defense was. But you know, then again, it might be just as good, in its own way. Even the New York Times has noticed that possibility.
TideFans.shop - 25% off Fan Favorites!
TideFans.shop - 25% off!
Get this and many more items at our TideFans.shop!
Purchases may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.Latest threads
-
-
The transfer portal is hurting my son's chances of playing on the college level.- Started by Bamabuzzard
- Replies: 5
-
-
-
-
