(12-29-2022 01:01 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote: (12-29-2022 12:48 AM)JRsec Wrote: (12-29-2022 12:44 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote: (12-29-2022 12:26 AM)JRsec Wrote: How many bowls have we had already? I've seen two that were solid. This was one of them. The vast majority have been one sided with one opponent committed and another just punching the clock. I think this game tonight should be an annual between those two. It was, or at least looked to be, the best turnout for one of these so far. Meanwhile Kiffin is eschewing punting and trashing the other one that's on tonight.
I get that fans like to have something to watch, but objectively, most of these games have been pale imitations of what bowl games once were. I've found it to be sad. But, thank you Arkansas and Kansas for an entertaining evening! Kudos to both!
Majority of the games I’ve seen have been great. I think close to 50% of the games have been decided by 1 score or less. Lot of quality competitive games. All this doom and gloom stuff is way overblown. But I guess some people just like to be negative.
Nope. Decades of watching them and the quality just isn't there. Close scores do not necessarily a good game make. Sharp play, solid coaching, good officiating, and hard play make a good game. The game tonight was streaky in a good way with a lot of fight on both sides. Doom and Gloom? Negative? I just call them like I see them in spite of gaslighting by the "We settle for less crowd!"
Been watching the games for decades too and I just don’t see it the same. Not sure how me expressing a different view qualifies as gaslighting. Like I say the majority of games I’ve watched have been enjoyable games. Couple clunkers in there but that’s to be expected. Maybe my standards just aren’t the same as yours.
The gaslighting occurs when you label a differing opinion with a pejorative, which you did "Doom and Gloom" and "Negative". It dismisses the person with the other opinion with what is essentially name calling. Did you play? I don't mind differing opinions. I mind pejoratives and the people who use them! I see the difference between an O Line which looked like a deadly ballet with the precision of blocks #1 and downfield #2 verses fat bellies hanging over belts on legs and lungs which are spent sprinting 10 or 20 yards, or simply use their bulk to push a bit instead of driving the defender out of the way. Saw way too much of that from the OL of Ole Miss all season. Their butts stopped as many of their own ball carriers as the arms of the defenders.
Today's offenses rely, as they do in high school, on the fastest and best athletes at RB, QB, and WR and with fat guys with upper body strength in the lines. The running lanes aren't there because they don't make them. Their bulk partially obscures the running lanes. And it's that way on so many teams. That's not to say the kids playing lack heart, but it is to say they lack proper education in which technique to use, how to coordinate a blocking attack, and in physical conditioning to go with the weight training. It's another reason the passing game is so crucial now.
The balanced teams create running lanes, utilize well orchestrated trap blocks, drive their man out of the lane and their rears with it and it is a thing of beauty to watch.
Most of what I see now looks like a Rugby scrum, especially now that pushing the pile is legal. The rules have followed the lack of skills in order to open the game up.
The skill positions seem to be stronger than those of the past, but the line play has bogged down significantly. And tackling? Yeesh. The matador school of tackling is here. Waive a cape and shout 'Ole as they run by with reaching arms which look like zombie moves and with no leg drive with which to gain momentum and leverage.
Usually, I can expect satisfaction from a Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, and Clemson when it comes to fundamentals and it's no accident that they frequented the final four. I've missed them at Auburn since Dye retired. Look at the amount of talent which seems to go unutilized on some of our rated programs. They fall short because they are sloppy, and usually in the OL and DL. Not picking on A&M but their talent level was solid. Their productivity was not. The issues were in the line and their lack of technique and their lack of blocking philosophy that expected a cohesive effort to open holes for those small but speedy backs. As you look around the country you will see the same over and over again in way too many programs. Somewhere along the way removing the obstacle (blocking your guy out of the lane) was replaced by immovable objects. This is why not enough schools run to the wide side and away from the traffic jam in the middle and the closest sideline. This is why you see sweeps, outside screens, out routes, and a lot more passing. Now that's what I see and why I think what I think, but you are entitled to your opinion too.