One thing I haven't seen mentioned

[Todd4State]

And this is speculation/conspiracy theory and I haven't seen it discussed.

But, what if Geoff and Dan had issues over the 1A/1B stuff? As far as Dan goes, he doesn't sub out wholesale on the offense and prior to Collins arriving, we never did wholesale subbing on defense either. That leads me to believe that 1A/1B was Collins idea. I do think Dan went along with it because supporting his staff is part of his job and ultimately everything falls back on him. That doesn't mean Dan agreed with it behind closed doors.

Geoff's defense was good- with the 1A's. With the 1B's- not so much. And Dan even mentioned as much during the season after the Kentucky game.

Playing the 1B's too much made the scores closer in the UAB, LSU (some of that on Dan with the offense subs) Kentucky, and Texas A&M games and IMO I think you could make a strong argument that the 1B's were the difference in the Egg Bowl. Case in point- Walton's 90+ yard TD was on the 1B's, and at least one of Ole Miss's long pass plays was on the 1B's. I'll give Market a pass on his blown assignment since he was injured on the play. Take away the other two TD's, and it's a 17-17 game and remember- we had the ball last. So, instead of going for a desperation drive at the end, all we would have needed was a field goal opportunity. And yes, I do have faith that Sobiesk would have made it because he was hitting at 80% of FG's and we were inside the 20 well within his range at the end of the game. Even if he doesn't, we go to OT.

Now, true- the offense didn't have a great day either, however Ole Miss was at home and they have a very, very good defense. 17 points on them is not unacceptable this year.

So, as far as the defense it may actually not be a case of Dan micromanaging, but rather the opposite. He may have trusted Collins too much with the 1A's and 1B's and got burned. He may have told Geoff to stop the mass subs and Geoff decided to go somewhere else rather than adjust. Something I am going to watch in the Orange Bowl is how we sub on defense. That could be very interesting to watch.

All of this is pure speculation on my part.

[BrunswickDawg]

Good points Todd. While I'm not a coach, I manage a number of departments and responsiblities as a division head. When juggling multiple projects, issues, and the day to today I have to trust my staff to do their jobs. Sometimes that works, sometimes you get burned. You correct, change personnel and move on. I doubt we will ever really know because for all the good and bad, these guys are pros who aren't going to burn a bridge by airing dirty laundry.

[MabenMaroon]

Hmmmm ... could be!

That will be something to watch for. I do believe that there is merit in the 1a/1b strategy but not as literally as it was done this year. I have often said on this board and on others, that the difference between our personnel and that of the Bama's and LSU's of the world is our depth and endurance. Our first teams talent on either side of the ball is not surpassed by any team in the nation when they are totally focused and giving relentless and maximum effort. When they tire and begin to lose focus is when the elites of the conference had pulled away from us in the past. We are getting closer and closer to having the quality depth that we will need to beat the Bama's of the world and they have to have the in-game experience in order to be successful. I think 1a/1b was a way to expedite the process and overcome some of the lack of depth and as the program develops even further we will able to substitute in the quality depth as needed, hopefully on an as necessary basis only going forward.

[SDDawg]

Might explain why Dan was so mad after the Egg Bowl. I think you're onto something here...

[SDDawg]

On the 1A/1B thing, if you have quality depth you don't even need to name it. It's just a lot of folks getting reps, starters probably get a few more but you just rotate and keep people fresh. this position group and defensive unit rotating has got to stop. It really doesn't make sense to me. And it is on the road headed to Gainesville, I don't think we'll ever see it again next year (unless we're in a blowout late in the game, then it's just garbage time).

[BrunswickDawg]

I think the 1a/b thing works in theory in the "off" games. I really had no problem doing it against USA, USM, UTM and even Vandy. There is value in getting our second unit in against those teams 1s. Those games were never in doubt. But, it was obvious to everyone after our first 3 games that 1b had no business being in prime game situation as a wholesale unit. If we had subbed a normal rotation pattern in SEC games, I think we have better results and fewer complaints.

[Todd4State]

I think I am in agreement with most people on here- there is some merit to the 1A//1B system. I'm OK with doing NHL style subs against Troy, Vanderbilt, etc. But against Bama, LSU etc. we need to leave the 1A's in more like 75%-80% of the time- and mix and match guys rather than do wholesale changes.

And some players like McKinney, Redmond, etc. I would probably even have them play the whole game if necessary depending on the game situation in the "big games".

And I was trying to think back to the Alabama game and I can't remember which units they scored touchdowns on. But if the 1B's did allow a TD in that game, you could argue that they cost us that game as well.

[Todd4State]

I think the 1a/b thing works in theory in the "off" games. I really had no problem doing it against USA, USM, UTM and even Vandy. There is value in getting our second unit in against those teams 1s. Those games were never in doubt. But, it was obvious to everyone after our first 3 games that 1b had no business being in prime game situation as a wholesale unit. If we had subbed a normal rotation pattern in SEC games, I think we have better results and fewer complaints.

Exactly. And plus, we limited ourselves as a defense. Like we could have used Chris Jones some as both a DE in a 3-4 and a DT in a 4-3. McKinney could have played some OLB and some DE as well as MLB which would have put him more on display to the NFL. But we never did that because everyone was limited to playing the same position in their 1A or 1B unit except for a few times when I actually did see Chris Jones playing DE. And one of the time I saw him playing DE he got a key sack against Arkansas.

We could have possibly used Matt Wells some at safety and that would have masked some issues there. Heck, Wells is better in coverage than Coman and Evans as it is.

[bluelightstar]

Didn't Dan pull that 1a/1b stuff with the offense early in the season, or was that just to protect Dak? Really can't remember.

[Dawg61]

I'd like to believe the 1B's were just Collins idea but I don't. I don't necessarily think the 1B's are that terrible of an idea either I just think the idea was mismanaged.

[Todd4State]

Didn't Dan pull that 1a/1b stuff with the offense early in the season, or was that just to protect Dak? Really can't remember.

He tried it against UAB because Dak was banged up, but at least Dan had the sense to put Dak out there and not jeopardize the game when he saw it wasn't working. But again, that was against UAB. The only other time I would say that the offensive personnel was grossly mismanaged was against LSU at the end of the game. But again, Dan admitted that he made a mistake and we didn't see it the rest of the year.

Honestly, I don't have a problem doing 1A/1B against teams like UAB, as I have said.

[TUSK]

I think 'Lightstar is on to something...

No way a coach like Mullen is "lyin' down".....

sometimes ya get the benefit of the call, sometimes, you don't....

[Todd4State]

I'd like to believe the 1B's were just Collins idea but I don't. I don't necessarily think the 1B's are that terrible of an idea either I just think the idea was mismanaged.

Maybe. We'll find out. It seems to me that more than likely history suggests otherwise.

I can definitely see Dan's side of it if my theory is correct though. You're the head coach and you're DC is putting guys out there that simply aren't getting the job done about 50% of the time in huge games when you have better players on the bench. And it was especially frustrating when the starters were doing really well. Dan does have to answer to all of that at the end of the day. And I'm pretty sure Dan has caught a ton of flack since the Egg Bowl over it.

I just think if it were Dan's idea, we would have seen it on offense and special teams with our kickers as well. It's normal to rotate WR's in, and we don't anything weird there. We didn't do 1A/1B with our o-line or running backs.

I could see Geoff saying, "hey this is what we do" and feeling strongly about it. I'd be willing to bet that Dan has brought this up to him before.

[TUSK]

Maybe. We'll find out. It seems to me that more than likely history suggests otherwise.

I can definitely see Dan's side of it if my theory is correct though. You're the head coach and you're DC is putting guys out there that simply aren't getting the job done about 50% of the time in huge games when you have better players on the bench. And it was especially frustrating when the starters were doing really well. Dan does have to answer to all of that at the end of the day. And I'm pretty sure Dan has caught a ton of flack since the Egg Bowl over it.

I just think if it were Dan's idea, we would have seen it on offense and special teams with our kickers as well. It's normal to rotate WR's in, and we don't anything weird there. We didn't do 1A/1B with our o-line or running backs.

I could see Geoff saying, "hey this is what we do" and feeling strongly about it. I'd be willing to bet that Dan has brought this up to him before.

interesting take, Todd... do you think Collins was "sandbagging" early on with the thought he knew that if (with a HUGE lead) He'd be in the game/?

[Todd4State]

interesting take, Todd... do you think Collins was "sandbagging" early on with the thought he knew that if (with a HUGE lead) He'd be in the game/?

I don't think he was sandbagging at all. I think he truly believes in the 1A/1B system. We did it against everybody.

[Westdawg]

there is one MAJOR positive to the 1A/1B stuff, and one MAJOR negative, at least for us this year:

Positive:
you build QUALITY experience in your depth chart. you cannot replicate in game experience. I talked about that at length earlier this year. I liked the idea and have seen coaches do it that i served under. This prepares the lower depth players for playing time should an injury/ejection/...anything, come along to a starter.

negative:
if your 1B is not as good as or has deficiencies at key positions as opposed to the 1A, you will get exposed pretty bad eventually. in BOTH of our losses, the key scores that put the other team up for good came against our 1B units. Sucks, but it is what it is.

[maroonmania]

I don't think he was sandbagging at all. I think he truly believes in the 1A/1B system. We did it against everybody.

Dan definitely did it early on at least on the offensive skill spots most noticeably giving Damien Williams every other series during our early non-conference games. The difference was that Dan stopped doing that crap when either a game was somewhat in doubt OR we were playing a worthy opponent. Collins on the other hand did not and the 1B stuff burned us in some of the biggest games of the season. I remember this board having posters going on and on about why would people bitch about the 1A/1B stuff on defense when Mullen and Staff would NEVER do that in our big SEC games. Well, those people had to shut their piehole because we absolutely continued doing that and there is no doubt that the stupidity of it may have gotten WAY under Mullen's skin if it was Collins who kept insisting on doing it. Unfortunately we will probably never know but the fact we did it only on defense in games that mattered and not offense is likely a good clue.