Fowler out for Bama, what does that mean for LSU?

Ooooo!

 

Yeah, but to be fair he had enough pairs of sneakers to be 3 or 4 quarterbacks worth.

 

And the year before.

 

I understand what you're saying. It does have to be taken in the context of what LSU has done, and in this case what Bama has done specifically in terms of recruiting for the position.

While you've had that position in your arsenal for 15 years or so, we've not recruited a true fullback since around the early 90's. We've had one guy who could have played a fullback role, but he was used in a single back attack as a true RB.

It seems at a cursory glance that it's just a matter of "plugging in the next body." The problem lies in the point mentioned; we've not recruited for that skill set. Another way to put it is "we don't have another kid who is 250+lbs that is a threat receiving, running, and is a good blocker" meeting the needs in mind with the implementation of the I form.

What I said isn't inaccurate and it's far from silly.

The intent of integrating the I-form with Jalston was based on getting offensive production from Fowler in more than just one way. It wasn't move specifically designed to have him as a blocking back; that was merely a plus.

The goal was having the ability to line up in an Ace formation with a H-back and being able to switch to the I-form without personnel changes. Or, lining up in the I and switching to the Ace with the FB moving from his slot to the H-back position.

Both of these without any changes in personnel—which is the key phrase here.

It does have an impact on what the staff had in mind. And, it's one of the reasons the team was back in a set this past weekend that was more reminiscent of what we ran in 2008 and 2009.

 

There's an established precedent in the SEC that overtime losses don't mean as much as games lost in regulation. I want to say that was adopted by the conference in...what was it...2007?

 

Man I have to admit that is a great comeback.

 

There's someting to be said for being undefeated in regulation time!

 

indeed, was a solid comeback

 

That precedent stands for only games that extend into a third period of overtime or longer.

BTW, Terry, your explanation of how Bama planned to use Fowler is well put but what you said was absolutely inaccurate.

The I formation isn't a useless part of the Alabama offense because of Fowler's injury. Now, as a tool they planned to exploit based on not having to substitute personnel due to Jalston's skillset then I would agree that is no longer available or useless to the offense.

You made an inaccurate statement in that you claimed for any true I formation to have any success the fullback has to be three-dimensional in talent. That's patently false. You are now stating a completely new proclamation about a three-dimensional talent at fullback giving Alabama a personnel advantage with multiple formations possible from a substitution perspective which is an entirely different premise entirely and one I agree with being accurate.

Enjoy your posts, by the way.

 

I

You're mixing two posts together as I see this.

I did say you need a running threat for the FB position to be used to its fullest potential. Sure, it can be used for the simple point of a blocking back and be used effectively. But, if you have a FB who isn't a legitimate running threat you're going to have the defensive back seven relying on one guy to take the block and the other six centering on the ball carrier. Without that player being able to contribute running the ball, you don't have that "surprise element" of the FB gaining 5-7 yards on a quick hand off. We could move a body into the position. But, the next guy in line is no running threat.

That's the point I was trying to make originally.

Again, this goes back to the scheme. A lead blocker in the backfield for the RB isn't something the I form was installed to accomplished with this years team. That's been accomplished two ways in the past without the I form: either the TE in motion hitting the gap or the H-back doing the same.

It seems we're both talking apples, but from different trees. (If that analogy makes sense at all.)

In our scheme, without the running threat the formation loses its value. With another team and their scheme it wouldn't as much; like red mentioned earlier.

We're on the same page about the FB. But, looking at it from the viewpoint of how Bama is using it versus what, say, LSU has in the past. Another example that comes to mind is Arkansas. What was the guys name, Hollis? The lead blocker for the McFadden / Jones tandem. He was a threat in all three phases and that threat was definitely a contributing factor to what those two were able to accomplish the year they had that trio.

Bottom line: it does have an impact. By my count—strictly off the top of my head—it's shelving at least five uses Bama had in mind this year. Flexing him out in a 3/4/5 wide set, in a broken back formation, split backs out of the gun, moving to a 2nd TE and creating a strong side of the line, as the regular FB in a true I-form...