W
Wes Mitchell
Guest
In a lot of ways this game -- especially with Auburn's offense on the field -- played out similarly to the way we expected it to. Auburn is a really good offense, that at times can make many defenses look bad, but the most disappointing thing about the contest from a Carolina perspective is that the Gamecocks were unable to put up any kind of real deterrent for what Auburn wanted to do on offense. Everyone knew Auburn was going to score points and we knew Auburn would move the football, but the Gamecocks needed to make them earn every yard and I don't feel that was the case. It was way too easy for Auburn and they averaged 8.9 yards per play -- you're just not going to win many games when the opponent is picking up that many yards with relative ease.
On the other side of the ball, I thought Steve Spurrier called one of the finest games I've ever seen from him. Time after time, he pushed the right buttons, had the right calls on and his players responded to his aggressiveness by picking up fourth down after fourth down until the very end. There's something to be said for having a coach that's willing to risk getting blown out (if those don't work) in order to give his team a chance to win. Spurrier reached deep into the bag of tricks and just about pulled it off. He kept Ellis Johnson on his toes all night long and the Tigers never really had much of an answer for the Carolina offense. That offense is the reason that Carolina could actually conceivably win the remainder of its games. Though it could clearly lose the rest of its games too (other than South Alabama)
I've always said that you can look at any game and point out multiple reasons a team lost. While Dylan Thompson's play throughout the night was a big reason that the Gamecocks could have won the game, he obviously will want back those two throws in the red zone that were picked off. That said, it's a lot to ask an offense to literally score almost every time it has the football, and that's what Carolina was going to have to do to win the game.
Red zone interceptions usually can't be defended, but I do think it's worth pointing out that this offense has to take chances from time to time just to try and keep up in a shootout like this one. Field goals weren't going to win it, and the Gamecocks needed touchdowns on those trips. Auburn scored 42 in order to win it, but if they were forced to score more (because of Gamecocks' scores) could they have? The answer is obviously yes. When I look at the way the game went, Carolina needed at least 49 and maybe even more points to win that game. To go on the road against a defense that does have some talented players and do just that, just isn't going to happen very often.
Auburn's defense obviously struggled for much of the night, but the biggest difference between the two defenses, in my opinion, is the Tigers made the Gamecocks earn what they got. That added up over time. Carolina may have converted five straight fourth downs, but that's eventually going to catch up to you, and when they finally didn't convert one, it was one of the differences in the game.
From this perspective, it's only natural to put the two red zone interceptions on the quarterback, but in comparing the two defenses it's also worth pointing out that Auburn's defense forced those plays. Auburn's front four wasn't able to produce much pressure on the quarterback all night long. And when Ellis Johnson blitzed, the Gamecocks usually gashed them even more. But both interceptions involved pressure on the quarterback, and one interception was made on a very impressive diving catch. Mistakes by Carolina? Certainly. Forced by Auburn? Absolutely.
My point is, not only did the defense struggle, but it was unable to put Auburn in a position to potentially make game-changing mistakes. The Tigers had easy yardage on the ground on first down all night long. Nick Marshall was never really hit hard. And Marshall was only forced to throw the ball 14 times. Most of which were very easy throws.
There's no doubt that Ellis Johnson is upset about his defense's performance. But they made the Gamecocks earn most every yard, and that eventually led to mistakes, and that's something the Carolina defense could not do. To me, that's the biggest difference in a game that we already knew was a bad matchup for Carolina.
On the other side of the ball, I thought Steve Spurrier called one of the finest games I've ever seen from him. Time after time, he pushed the right buttons, had the right calls on and his players responded to his aggressiveness by picking up fourth down after fourth down until the very end. There's something to be said for having a coach that's willing to risk getting blown out (if those don't work) in order to give his team a chance to win. Spurrier reached deep into the bag of tricks and just about pulled it off. He kept Ellis Johnson on his toes all night long and the Tigers never really had much of an answer for the Carolina offense. That offense is the reason that Carolina could actually conceivably win the remainder of its games. Though it could clearly lose the rest of its games too (other than South Alabama)
I've always said that you can look at any game and point out multiple reasons a team lost. While Dylan Thompson's play throughout the night was a big reason that the Gamecocks could have won the game, he obviously will want back those two throws in the red zone that were picked off. That said, it's a lot to ask an offense to literally score almost every time it has the football, and that's what Carolina was going to have to do to win the game.
Red zone interceptions usually can't be defended, but I do think it's worth pointing out that this offense has to take chances from time to time just to try and keep up in a shootout like this one. Field goals weren't going to win it, and the Gamecocks needed touchdowns on those trips. Auburn scored 42 in order to win it, but if they were forced to score more (because of Gamecocks' scores) could they have? The answer is obviously yes. When I look at the way the game went, Carolina needed at least 49 and maybe even more points to win that game. To go on the road against a defense that does have some talented players and do just that, just isn't going to happen very often.
Auburn's defense obviously struggled for much of the night, but the biggest difference between the two defenses, in my opinion, is the Tigers made the Gamecocks earn what they got. That added up over time. Carolina may have converted five straight fourth downs, but that's eventually going to catch up to you, and when they finally didn't convert one, it was one of the differences in the game.
From this perspective, it's only natural to put the two red zone interceptions on the quarterback, but in comparing the two defenses it's also worth pointing out that Auburn's defense forced those plays. Auburn's front four wasn't able to produce much pressure on the quarterback all night long. And when Ellis Johnson blitzed, the Gamecocks usually gashed them even more. But both interceptions involved pressure on the quarterback, and one interception was made on a very impressive diving catch. Mistakes by Carolina? Certainly. Forced by Auburn? Absolutely.
My point is, not only did the defense struggle, but it was unable to put Auburn in a position to potentially make game-changing mistakes. The Tigers had easy yardage on the ground on first down all night long. Nick Marshall was never really hit hard. And Marshall was only forced to throw the ball 14 times. Most of which were very easy throws.
There's no doubt that Ellis Johnson is upset about his defense's performance. But they made the Gamecocks earn most every yard, and that eventually led to mistakes, and that's something the Carolina defense could not do. To me, that's the biggest difference in a game that we already knew was a bad matchup for Carolina.
