what would colt mccoy do?
(wrapping up)


is it frustrating? sure,...a little bit. i think most alabama fans are already tired of hearing how things may have been different had texas not lost their starting quarterback. the implication with that particular choice of words making it sound like someone stole colt mccoy as he was getting off the bus, or he was kidnapped in the tunnel prior to the team running out onto the field. something that would lead the uneducated reader to believe that colt mccoy did not, in fact, play in the national championship game.

quite the contrary. he played. he was just too much of a girl to finish it.

i am not getting too bent out of shape at the immediate revisioning of the history, for most of the kneejerk journalism will give way in the coming months and years to a more realistic perspective of the title game and the big picture that will paint alabama for what they currently are and will always be...national champions of the 2009 college football season.

years from the now, the story will read in this way. colt mccoy, the winningest college quarterback ever, was knocked out of the championship game, leaving a true freshman to pick up the pieces, find himself quite quickly halfway through what will end up being the biggest game of his life, make the game interesting and then allowing destiny to write the proper ending. being "knocked" out paints a different image than "lost", now doesn't it?

it is, to those that watched the game, a more accurate representation of the story. and it will play a bigger role in the retelling down the line.

i see it in this way. teams that run the ball look at their strategy like they were chopping down a tree. the first few times you swing the ax, the tree doesn't seem to budge. but damage is being inflicted even if you can't tell a major difference right from the jump. eventually, the axman will inflict so much damage that the tree will fall, the last few whacks being no more or no less important than the first few unless you spin the story that they were. doing so would be quite ridiculous, but doing so would be no different than retarded baseball columnists trying to convince you that games in april are meaningless and games in september are huge. how insane is that logic??? all games count equally in the standings, correct? the teams that are able to take their aprils as seriously as their septembers usually are the better teams. now back to football teams that run the ball and then hopefully i can find my way back to my point. teams that run the ball will run it in the first quarter and second quarter and third quarter, figuratively trying to wear and chop down the tree that is the opposing defense. how many times this year did alabama make this scheme pay off in spades? remember the south carolina game? mcelroy struggled, so they stuck with the run. stuck with the run. stuck with the run, and then, in the fourth quarter, ingram was able to take over and impose his will in the wildcat drive that started his heisman campaign. similar strategy worked to a tee in the virginia tech, lsu and florida games. some trees are tougher than others. but you see the idea. punish the opponent 'til they can take no more. 'til they begin to armtackle. 'til they don't want to hit you anymore. 'til they don't want you to hit them. punish them. be tougher than them. if you can win this tug of war, you will usually win the game.

this particular brand of gameplan can be applied on the defensive side as well. physical defenses want to push the opposing offense out of their comfort zone with toughness. if you are playing a running team, hit them hard in the first quarter so they might tippy-toe to the line of scrimmage late in the game on an important third or fourth and short. if the quarterback likes to sit in the pocket, bring pressure and make him move. if the quarterback fancies himself a runner, hit him and remind him he is a quarterback. again, if your will, your plan can be imposed over your opponent, you will usually win the game.

alabama knew mccoy would be dangerous out of the pocket if he chose to run. unfortunately for texas fans, it only took one running attempt for alabama to impose their will over their opponent. the hit on mccoy by dareus could not have been any cleaner. but it was damaging. and it changed the way texas would have to play the rest of the game.

is that alabama's fault? of course, and that is exactly the point. they didn't take mccoy out. they kicked his ass, and he wasn't strong enough to fight back. in football, the idea is to hit your opponent.

hypotheticals such as "it would have been different if mccoy was in the game" are not applicable if you are not able to play by the rules of the game. injuries happen and it was unfortunate if you were a texas fan to see your all-american go down. i am fairly sure your team counted the victory against oklahoma when bradford was knocked out, correct? yes, they did. you can't have it both ways. you just have to tip your hat and say, "yep. they were better and tougher than we were tonight."

mccoy's injury was unfortunate, not unlucky. to claim as much only draws attention to your ignorance about football. alabama was the better team thursday night, just as they were every time they stepped on the field this perfect season. 14-0. national champions.

goodness gracious. and roll tide.