Tommy Rees with a fresh coat of paint: ‘Bama’s first down problem is holding back the offense

I don’t think it’s a secret that as the season has worn on, the Tide’s offense has become a shell of itself. The same offense that can move the ball at will on the likes of Georgia, has evaporated during the second half of the year.

But what’s going on?

In a word, ‘Bama has a first down problem. Specifically, it has first down running problem, one that is notably feast-or-famine on the scoreboard, and that has also led to far too many game-changing plays and missed opportunities. It has a cascade effect too — it has made Jalen Milroe regress.

I charted every Alabama drive this season, and then the results of what has happened to ‘Bama when it has attempted to play “old school football,” and run on first down in standard territory.

My suspicion was that the offense had been pretty bad at cobbling together drives that didn’t involve haymakers through the air; that the offense couldn’t just string together 5- and 7-yard plays consistently on the ground, and that JM’s passing was suffering as a result.

There are are some assumptions and omissions made in here, but they don’t change the bottom line terribly. I omitted clock-killers and kneeldowns. I further omitted drive data during those blowout drives, where the Tide was up by 24 or more points and just diving into the LOS against an overmatched opponent. For the purposes of the analysis, I wanted to look at meaningful drives, outside of plus-territory — just standard field position, where the Tide would have to drive the field.

The results were even starker than I had thought. It’s best to just show you. In a word, Alabama has a Nick Sheridan problem.

Here’s a quick key for you:

Team
Drive X / Number of 1D runs in series and No. First Down opportunities in series (A/B) /Outcome / Game Situation

Touchdown %

Punt %

Turnover %

Scoring from standard field position with 1D runs (total points scored)

Total 1DR scoring series / Total 1DR series %

WKU

• Drive 1 / 1DR / Punt / 0-0
• Drive 5 / 1/3DR / TD / 21-0
• Drive 6 / 1DR / Fumble / 21-0

Touchdown % on standard series with 1DR: 33%
Punt % on standard series with 1DR: 33%
Turnover % on standard series with 1DR: 33%
Total scoring from standard field position with 1D run series: 7 (63)
Total 1DR scoring series / Total 1DR series: 1/3 (33%)

This is an easy game to get a look at what we’re going to examine. Alabama had few meaningful drives from their own field position before the game got out of hand (and were far more aggressive even on their side of the field). But, when the Tide decided they wanted to play paleoball, it didn’t work out so hot: there were equal odds of scoring as there were that Alabama would turn the ball over or punt. All told, the Tide put up just 7 points when they started from their own side of the field, and tried to manball over even this badly outmatched team. FTR: WKU is 91st in rushing defense, and surrenders almost 5 YPC on first down…and even then, the Tide couldn’t move very much from its side of the field.

Lost in this blowout was that the running game was anemic in minus-territory when it tried to run on first down. The mismatch of offensive linemen-to-scheme was evident early.

USF

• D1 / 1DR / Punt / 0-0
• D2 / 2/3DR / TD / 7-0
• D3 / 1DR / Punt / 7-0
• D4 / 1DR / Punt / 7-3
• D5 / 1/3DR / TD 14-6
• D6 / 1DR / Punt / 14-6
• D8 / 1DR / Fumble / 14-13
• D9 / 1DR / Punt / 14-13
• D10 / 1DR / Punt / 14-13
• D11 / 2/4DR / Fumble / 14-13
• D13 / 1/3DR / TD / 28-16

Touchdown % on standard series with 1DR: 27%
Punt % on standard series with 1DR: 55%
Turnover % on standard series with 1DR: 18%
Total scoring from standard field position with 1D run series: 21 (42)
Total 1DR scoring series / Total 1DR series: 3/11 (27%)

Aside from the personnel mismatch, it only took two game to see where one of Sheridan’s two primary weaknesses emerge: A stubbornness to adjust to the flow of the game and call plays off-script on UA’s side of the field, no matter what the scoreboard may read. Alabama decided they were going to try and run over USF on first down, despite the Bulls playing for that. And it gummed up the Tide offense for 50 minutes of the game. In fact, not once did Alabama throw on first down to begin a series in the first half.

Wisconsin

• D1 / 1/3DR / M FGA / 0-3
• D2 / 1/3DR / TD / 7-3
• D3 / 1DR / Punt / 7-3
• D5 / 1DR / Punt / 14-3

Touchdown % on standard series with 1DR: 25%
Punt % on standard series with 1DR: 50%
Turnover % on standard series with 1DR: 25%
Total scoring from standard field position with 1D run series: 7 (42)
Total 1DR scoring series / Total 1DR series: 1/4 (25%)

Notice the score here: In four of five first-half drives, the Tide tried to bully-ball the Badgers, and came up empty 75% of the time. When the Tide opened it up on first down, they poured it on in the second half.

Georgia

• D1 / 1/4 DR / TD / 7-0
• D2 / 2/4DR / TD / 14-0
• D6 / 1/4DR / TO on Downs / 28-7
• D7 / 1/2DR / INT / 28-7
• D10 / 1DR / Punt / 30-7
• D11 / 1/3DR / FG / 33-15
• D12 / 1DR / Punt / 33-15
• D13 / 2/2DR / Punt / 33-21
• D14 / 2/3 DR / Punt / 33-28

Touchdown % on standard series with 1DR: 22%
Punt % on standard series with 1DR: 44%
Turnover % on standard series with 1DR: 22%
Total scoring from standard field position with 1D run series: 17 (42)
Total 1DR scoring series / Total 1DR series: 3/9 (33%)

It is this game where the second Sheridan weakness emerges: An inability to correct course and account for defensive adjustments, particularly after halftime. And damn the scoreboard or consequences. If you recall, almost everything was working for the first 20 minutes of the game. But after UGA adjusted to Milroe, Sheridan stubbornly kept trying to run the ball on ‘Bama’s side of the field on first down, even as UGA was chewing up yards and making rapid gains on the scoreboard. Pay attention to that score up there: After halftime, Sheridan tried to start series with first down runs five times in a row. Against Georgia, and after the Dawgs had adjusted much earlier. Predictably, it failed miserably: Alabama mustered just 3 points in those five drives. While ‘Bama was getting fluffed after the win, I think it was the second half of this game where I began to have serious concerns about the offensive coaching, Sheridan’s stubbornness on one hand and lack of adjustments on the other.

Photo by Todd Kirkland/Getty Images

Vanderbilt

• D1 / 1DR / INT / 0-7
• D3 / 1/2DR / TD / 7-13
• D4 / 2/4DR / TD / 14-23
• D7 / 1DR / Punt / 21-23
• D8 / 1/3DR / TD / 28-30
• D10 / 1/2DR / Fumble / 28-33
• D11 / 1/3DR / TD / 35-40

Touchdown % on standard series with 1DR: 57%
Punt % on standard series with 1DR: 14%
Turnover % on standard series with 1DR: 28%
Total scoring from standard field position with 1D run series: 28 (35)
Total 1DR scoring series / Total 1DR series: 4/9 (57%)

In terms of 1DR running from negative territory, this was the Tide’s best outing, relative to putting points on the board. Vandy, as has been documented several times before, was an aberrant game in so many ways. Alabama dominated per-play efficiency, and practically every metric aside from the two that would cost the game: third-downs allowed and turnovers. There’s no way Alabama should have lost this game, since almost everything was working. And I say “almost” because as humans are pattern recognition machines, hopefully you are beginning to see one emerge: Almost all of Alabama’s turnovers are occurring on series where the Tide has buried itself on failed first down rush attempts on its side of the field. We’ll have more to say on that later, and if you’ve not noticed yet, this will prime you.

South Carolina

• D1 / 1/3DR / TD / 7-0
• D2 / 2/4DR / Punt / 7-0
• D3 / 1/3DR / Punt / 7-0
• D4 / 1/3DR / TD / 14-0
• D6 / 1DR / INT / 14-9
• D8 / 2/3DR / Punt /

Touchdown % on standard series with 1DR: 57%
Punt % on standard series with 1DR: 14%
Turnover % on standard series with 1DR: 28%
Total scoring from standard field position with 1D run series: 28 (35)
Total 1DR scoring series / Total 1DR series: 4/9 (57%)

The game seemed to start out fine. The Tide ran well on its first few drives in negative territory, scoring twice against a defense that many had feared. Or, you can take a step back and look at this as the Tide going through the motions, running on 1st down on their own side of the field to start 75% of its possessions, and being even money on turning over versus scoring. But even if you’re a glass-half-full person, after the break, the Tide would go to the same well again and again, despite opponent adjustments, and after burying itself on 2nd/3rd and longs. In the process, it would commit two turnovers and was forced to punt in four of five later possessions. The Tide bookending the opening and closing possessions with scores is disguising a lot of playcalling slop that practically handed South Carolina free possessions or shorter fields for 77% of the game. This game plan, such as it was, made Tommy Rees look practically libertine.

It would get worse, far worse. And it only took one week to get there.

Tennessee

• D1 / 1/2DR / Punt / 0-0
• D2 / 2/3DR / Punt / 0-0
• D3 / 2/3DR / INT / 0-0
• D4 / 1/4DR / TD / 7-0
• D5 / 1/2DR / Punt / 7-0
• D6 / 1DR / Punt / 7-0
• D7 / 1/3DR / Missed FGA / 7-0
• D8 / 2/3DR / Punt / 7-0
• D9 / 1/4DR / FG / 10-7
• D11 / 1DR / Punt / 17-14
• D12 / 1DR / DR 17-21

Touchdown % on standard series with 1DR: 9%
Punt % on standard series with 1DR: 63%
Turnover % on standard series with 1DR: 18%
Total scoring from standard field position with 1D run series: 10 (17)
Total 1DR scoring series / Total 1DR series: 2/11 (18%)

This is it, fellas. The Sheridan magnum opus.

Want to know one of the reasons that Milroe had a crap day? Being buried on second- and third-long passing, in Neyland, on ten of eleven series will do it. The Tide was forcing turnovers, largely in their own territory, and then did absolutely nothing with them except squat on the most damned conservative playcalls you’ll ever see. No testing the secondary, no first down killshots. Sheridan wasted opportunities against a team that Alabama is simply better than. And as frustrating as Vanderbilt was, flukes happen. But this is the one that still pisses me off. Zero adjustment, stubbornly sticking to things that simply did not work, and being badly outcoached in the second half.

Want to know bad this really is? Tennessee is second in the conference in rushing defense, second in YPA allowed, and had surrendered just three rushing scores all year going into TSIO…and Sheridan landed on contesting that for sixty minutes. Despicable doesn’t cover it. It was the worst game mismanagement since B’oB sharted away the 2022 LSU game and 2021 TAMU contest by stubbornly insisting on “attacking” the opponent’s greatest strength.

How did it work out in Knoxville: 35 carries, 74 yards, three wasted turnovers, and an L on the schedule. This loss was 70% coaching; Sheridan never put this team in position to win.

Missouri

• D1 / 1/3DR / FG / 3-0
• D3 / 1DR / Punt / 3-0
• D4 / 2/3DR / Punt / 3-0
• D5 / 2/4DR / FG / 6-0
• D7 / 1/3DR / TD / 20-0

Touchdown % on standard series with 1DR: 20%
Punt % on standard series with 1DR: 63%
Turnover % on standard series with 1DR: 0%
Total scoring from standard field position with 1D run series: 13 (34)
Total 1DR scoring series / Total 1DR series: 3/5

Thank goodness for turnovers, because the Tide’s offensive coordinator still hadn’t learned from the previous debacle and near-misses. Alabama had dominated the Tigers, but entered halftime clinging to a fragile 13-0 lead, because in four of its five first half possessions, all in negative territory, Sheridan yet again decided to run on first down…and gave the Tigers a trio of three-and-outs.

He realizes teams scout that stuff, right? Anyone with eyeballs and a laptop can do so…and certainly one of the SEC’s better coaching staffs can.

I suppose if there’s any saving grace here, it’s that the Tide did not commit a turnover after being put in long down-scenarios….for the first time all season.

These numbers are all well and good, but they’re not the end of the story. What’s underlying this lack of success, and what does it mean?

Simply put: Alabama tries far too often to run the ball on first down in standard territory, it is remarkably predictable doing so, and it has negatively affected Jalen Milroe (as well as the entire offense).

Predictability:

This year, Bama has called 285 runs — 147 of them have been first down runs, and 97 of those have come on ‘Bama’s own 20-35 yard line. That’s right: One third of the Tide’s total running plays have come on first down with ‘Bama on its own side of the field, often buried deep. That’s even more stark when you realize that Alabama has ran just 504 plays this season — 20% of all of Alabama plays have been a 1st and 10 runs in negative territory. And almost 70 of those Milroe carries have been when the game is within a touchdown either way.

It’s taking the ball out of the deep, talented backfield, as well: Last year, Jalen Milroe received 29% of the Tide’s carries. This year, it’s an ungodly 42%. Teams can scout this stuff, and they do. Alabama’s second-half rushing with Milroe falls off an absolute cliff: from 5.31 YPC to 3.17 YPC. Yet, ‘Bama does not adjust to it (see above Tennessee, Sakerlina etc.)

The inverse of that is true as well. Jalen Milroe is one of the best first down passers in the country. Last year, he completed 71% of this throws and scored 8 strikes on first down passes. This year, he’s even better — when he gets to throw early, that is: 81% with six scores and a QBR 30 points higher.

But taking the ball out of his hands, the lack of a first-down passing threat, has made the defense’s job easier than it should. Teams know (especially in close games,) on their own side of the field, there is a 50-50 shot Alabama is going to dial up a run on first down — probably Milroe, and generally between the gaps or a slow-developing counter to the left side of the field.

Defensive coordinators and analysts know that. That’s why ‘Bama went from averaging 5.29 YPC last year inside its own 35 yard line all the way down to 3.36 YPC this year: The Tide’s offensive coordinator may as well be pulling double duty for the opponent’s staff.

Alabama should not telegraph a 1-in-4 shot that the defense can guess the play without a single player even being on the field.

Negative Impact on Milroe and the Offense:

The modern defensive scheme is predicated on making teams march the field, sustain drives, and then garner stops on third down or force turnovers. But for those of you into pattern recognition, mark this one down: The result of all these 2nd-and-longs that ‘Bama is forced into must-pass downs, and consequently gives up far too many turnovers — 8 of Alabama’s 11 giveaways this year have been on drives where the Tide is on its side of the field, and starts its possession with a predictable running play.

Look at the above again: In seven of eight games, Alabama has turned the ball over on its side of the field by wasting a down (and I say waste, because as noted above, the predictability has scouted the play for the defenses already). And, when the Tide is not committing a turnover, it is making the 2nd and 3rds much longer. As a result, ‘Bama’s 3rd down conversion rate has dropped from almost 46% to 40% this year. It’s also why Milroe’s 3rd down completion percentage has dropped from 61% to 44%

Look at these efficiency numbers too: Last year, Alabama was 7th in rushing efficiency, 33rd in negative drives, 44th in passing efficiency (which tabulates explosive plays). And this year? Just 40th in negative drives, 17th in rushing efficiency, and 16th in passing efficiency (thank you, Ryan Williams).

Explosiveness? That’s the big one, right? Nope. Alabama has seen its explosive plays actually be almost identical to last season: 14.75 per game vs. 14.28 last season.

Sure, that’s math and all. But what about the bottom line? Points?

Alabama has also regressed there. The Tide has seen its conference scoring decline by almost 10%, nearly 3 PPG, over last season (just 30.2 PPG) — and posting a gross 15.4 PPG after halftime, when the team is supposed to have adjusted. At best, Alabama is holding serve. And against the elite teams on the slate, it did not even do that; it was outcoached miserably. Georgia? 11 points after half. Tennessee? 10 points.

Teams are adjusting, Alabama is not. And it’s showing up on the scoreboard. It’s that simple. And, despite the lack of success that the Tide has on standard down, negative territory rushing, Nick Sheridan is going to keep going to the well, and keep going to the well, and keep going to the well.

Stubbornness, inability to call plays with the flow of the game, inability to get off-script, predictability. It’s an offense with a lot of talent that is not even close to living up to its potential, because it is staring at 2nd and 7 on damn near every meaningful series that begins on its side of the field. And that is, as you are aware, not standard down offense.

It is a helluva indictment when Tommy Rees kept defenses off-balance better than an alleged high powered offensive coordinator. But that’s exactly what we have here — a dynamic freshman wide receiver who has been bailing the Tide out of a lot of bad situations, Jalen Milroe being forced into too many predictable runs, and the Tide facing far too many non-standard down long-down passes.

And, aside from the flash, when it has mattered most, this is an offense that has otherwise been Tommy Rees-bad…only with a fresh coat of paint.

Alright, tee off below. Roll Tide.