VERY telling Bama stat

[SaintDeuce]

If you've thought over the past 3 or 4 years that Bama absolutely gets no breaks at all, you're probably right.

Since the 2000 season, Bama has the most losses in the SEC by 7 pts or less vs. teams with WINNING records with 11 and the second fewest wins by 7 pts or less vs. teams with winning records with 2.

On the flip side, Bama has the second MOST wins by 10+ pts. over teams with winning records with 13, trailing only UGA, who has 16. So, we haven't had trouble blowing out teams, it's just been when we've been in competetive games that we've struggled.

Think about that, 2-11 over four years by 7 pts or less vs. teams with winning records. Compare that to the rest of the teams in the SEC over the same four year period...

Arkansas: 7-6
Auburn: 10-7
Ole Miss: 7-6
LSU: 8-2
Georgia: 6-7
Florida: 6-6
Tennessee: 6-5
S. Carolina: 6-9

and then the cellar dwellers...

Miss. State: 2-10
Vanderbilt: 1-9
Kentucky: 1-8

and Bama... 2-11

We absolutely HAVE to be able to win the close games this year because we DO NOT have a team that is going to go out and blow out. Games vs. Ole Miss, Arkansas, Tennessee, Auburn, LSU, South Carolina, Kentucky are ALL potentially close games. If Bama wants to have an 8 win season like it seems everyone seems to think we'll have, we have to win the close games, now more than ever.

And just in case you're curious...

In games decided by 10+ pts. vs. teams with winning records since 2000....

Georgia: 16-5
ALABAMA: 13-11
Florida: 12-8
LSU: 12-10
Tennessee: 9-9
Ole Miss: 6-10
S. Carolina: 6-11
Auburn: 5-11
Kentucky: 2-15
Miss. State: 2-16
Vanderbilt: 0-22

 

[Spot Dailey]

Athough I find your stats interesting, they just don't mean diddly once you hear the big ROOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLL TIDE ROLL and the ball's kicked off. Then it's decided in the hearts of the players, not some "interesting" stats.

 

[SaintDeuce]

I didn't post those stats because I thought they were interesting, I posted them to reaffirm a fact that I think we all know is true; Bama has struggled in close games and it's critical for Bama to overcome their recent struggles in close games to have a successful season because it is VERY unlikely that we'll be blowing the better teams on our schedule out.

 

[Spot Dailey]

We haven't played a down of football and already folks are burying us. Last season was a one time thing. We should be more cohesive this coming season regardless of being thin simply because the players have had a year to work under the system. Even so, last season's offense was bastardized just to get a team on the field. Sorry, but last season's stats don't mean squat. It doesn't tell anything about this coming season.

 

[Crimsongator]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Spot Dailey:
We haven't played a down of football and already folks are burying us. Last season was a one time thing. We should be more cohesive this coming season regardless of being thin simply because the players have had a year to work under the system. Even so, last season's offense was bastardized just to get a team on the field. Sorry, but last season's stats don't mean squat. It doesn't tell anything about this coming season.</font>

Thanks Spot - I could not have said it better

Rock & ROLL TIDE

I Remember 55 *JS*

 

[SaintDeuce]

You are missing the point. The stats I posted are not a reflection of LAST SEASON ALONE. On the contrary, the stats I posted reflect a reoccuring theme for Bama for a while now; the inability to close out a game.

The stats are dating back from the 2000 season. I started at the 2000 season not because we royally sucked in 2000, but because it just makes since to start at the beginning of a new decade. Am I burying Alabama by directing your attention to a stat that reflects Bama's recent problem of closing out games? No. I love Alabama just as much as any Bama fan, and I'm not one of those "doom and gloom" fans, I just like to look at things realistically and a 2-11 record the past 4 seasons in games decided by 7 pts or less should tell you something; that we've STRUGGLED to close games out. The reason I posted is because we don't have a team that is going to blow you away, and it's likely we'll see a lot of close games this season. If we want to have a good 7-8 win season that everyone expects we need to win these close games. I know that's stating the obvious, but it's something that hasn't been acknowledged that often.

So no, no one's "burying" Bama for the upcoming season. I think Bama will be a solid unit on both sides of the ball next season, but, again, we're going to have a lot of close games and what's usually the difference in close games? SPECIAL TEAMS. The special teams are absolutely the key to winning the close games, and we need them to really step up this season.

 

[Bama 13-0]

How 'bout a glass half full look at those stats. We've experienced a great deal of turmoil since, and including, 2000. We've played some good teams to close finishes, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and UT. I'll even give Northern Illinois their due. Some of these games we shouldn't have been in at all. But we were in those games because our players and coaches are dedicated to winning. Despite the turmoil Alabama represented a significant challange to them.

Obviously, we have to find a way to win those games. In the mean time, I'll hang my hat on the fact that Bama is tough to beat even when we are down.

 

[SaintDeuce]

That's very true. Bama has undergone a number of coaching changes that has obviously affected the chemistry of our team, especially last season. But yeah, it still is great how hard our players play even when we are out numbered against teams like Oklahoma, Arkansas, and even Auburn last season after being down 18-2 at the half.

Our players have a lot of character and I do think the LACK of breaks we recieved last year will balance out this year, but still, it would be nice if we could have the special teams be a strength for once rather than a liability.

 

[wastedmason]

Two words! "Special teams"! Or to be more direct, kicking game. The close losses can be directly or indirectly traced back to the poor special teams play.

We are hurting in this area of the game for one big reason. NCAA sanctions! Although it hasn't been a strong point for way too long.

In blowouts you don't have to rely on a fieldgoal or extra point, not to mention poor kickoffs, kickoff coverage, punting and punt coverage.

What are we to expect in the near future? Sadly to say, most likely more of the same.
Not till we get back to full strength in numbers with more talent will the problem of losing close games turn around.

 

[jdpas29]

thanks for the stats, saint!

i enjoy these little tidbits in the offseason.

 

[CrimsonTusk]

Ditto jdpas, thanks for the stats St Deuce... wasnt too hard to figure out it wasnt just for last year..... and yeah, the kicking game has been a major factor as has th O line, dropped passes, missed tackles... and even conditioning of the players... fundamentals need to be re-installed, as I'm sure they are being. We have been spoiled for so long... it just hard for us, well me, having grown up in the Bryant years, to accept any defeat, much less a losing season. For myself, I've got to remember that this probation things still gonna sting for awhile... and Deuce, i dont think you were being negative at all... those are facts you posted... not just an opinion... thanks again.... just wishin for a better season.... Roll Tide!!

 

[bamamoss2]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by SaintDeuce:
I didn't post those stats because I thought they were interesting, I posted them to reaffirm a fact that I think we all know is true; Bama has struggled in close games and it's critical for Bama to overcome their recent struggles in close games to have a successful season because it is VERY unlikely that we'll be blowing the better teams on our schedule out.</font>

We struggle in close games because we have little depth and talent. They would not be close if we were not poorly staffed and deeper. It will likely not be better for 2 more years.



------------------
"May the Tide Be with You"

 

[jdpas29]

i think, as far as last year is concerned, BAMA struggled in the close games due to the inability of the defensive line to make an impact on the running game OR the passing game. the linebackers were doing all the tackling.... hence the gaudy numbers from last years LB squad. they were taking up slack from the line. McKay-Loescher was just too small too be effective against most OTs. Bryant's legs were so big he couldn't move laterally fast enough to catch anyone. BAMA basically had one outstanding DE in Odom... and then two interior linemen who were sporadically effective.

2004's defensive line is an entirely different animal. You will have two experienced and effective DE's. Todd Bates is a better DE than Odom. Mark Anderson has great wingspan and speed. These guys are good! and their backup, Wallace Gillberry, made a meal out of the QB at A-Day. Jeremy Clark and Dominic Lee have shown talent, but do need to step it up and make a mark this year. Everyone knows how strong Anthony Bryant is, but we're still waiting on him to show his ability to pressure the QB. I think, after losing the amount of weight he has and having endured the new S&C regimen, he is going to be much more of a force. The middle of the D-Line will have inexperienced backups and that means that the DT position is the weakest part of the defense.

 

[HITIDE]

With the comparison to the celler dwellers, maybe you should have included the blowout losses. Actually, the stats you quoted show exactly what the ncaa sanctions are supposed to, and will, do to a program. In the close games is where the depth and injuries come in to play. I'd say those stats are just what the ncaa, corky and the fatman designed.

RTR

 

[SaintDeuce]

I'm just not sold on our Defensive line at all. Our DE's have one thing in mind; getting up field and sacking the qb. Anderson is around 245 at best, Bates is around 255, Gilberry is around 245, and Harris is also in the 240 range. While I do think the sack total will increase, there is nothing stopping teams like Arkansas, Tennessee, LSU, Auburn, South Carolina, and even Ole Miss, who's running game has gotten significantly better, from running AT our DEs and overpowering us. Our DTs seem to be in decent shape with Bryant, Clark, and the human bowling ball, Lee. Seems to me that we'll have to be run blitzing a little more this season to prevent teams from gashing us on the edges.

 

[blindbuzzard]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Spot Dailey:
Athough I find your stats interesting, they just don't mean diddly once you hear the big ROOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLL TIDE ROLL and the ball's kicked off. Then it's decided in the hearts of the players, not some "interesting" stats.</font>

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion so fast there spot. The stat may not tell the entire truth but it does shed some light.

Personally I think the stat may shed some light on the coaching we've had here at Bama since 2000 and really even before that. I'd like to see that same stat from about 98 to 2003. Winning the "close games" IS an important element in football. It tells alot about a team and the coaching staff. Sure, the talent you have on the field and the execution by the players play a huge role in the outcome of the game. But at some point coaching does too. How a coach prepares his players not only physically but mentally plays A HUGE HUGE role in winning the "close games". Coaching moves during those "close games" also plays a big factor. Our record in "close games" haven't been that great.

If this team wants to get back to any kind of championship ways that stat BETTER change. You might not think that stat means "diddley squat" but that stat tells what is happening and more importantly what IS NOT happening on the field in those types of games.

Winning close games during a season could give a team two maybe three more wins during a year. So instead of being 4-9 you could be 7-6 by winning two or three of those "close games" during the year. I think the stat carries some credibility to it.



------------------
"What the Patriots did to Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison in the AFC championship game was remind us again that whatever else football is, it is first a contest of man-to-man physical strength. He who hits hardest, fastest and most often wins."-Dave Kindred

 

[AnXmarine]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by wastedmason:
Two words! "Special teams"! Or to be more direct, kicking game. </font>

You've hit the nail on the head with this one. I'm not a big fan of using stats to predict, but the only way to see trends a be able to understand the past is through stats.
When it comes to close games the winner is almost always the one with the best special teams play. Just go back and tack on all those points from missed field goals and see what happens to the scores (and outcomes) of bama's games the past few years. For that matter how would the outcome have changed if punts weren't blocked or botched, or if return coverage had been better.
It's all just ifs I know, but to all those who think it's a waste of a scholarship to give one to a placekicker/punter just think about this set of stats.

 

[tidetudabone]

nice stats on your first post saint...rtr

 

[Squall]

very nice stats, very telling too

 

[BamaSkins]

Deuce, thanks for the stats...they point out the one thing I have known all along...close games in the SEC can't be won by playing a soft - bend, but don't break - passive defense...period! and our DC is hung up on that style of play...if we continue to play that style, we will continue to stink and lose the close games...IMHO...