Auburn Looked Like the Old Auburn in Win On Thursday
With the cowbells ringing, everyone expected a high octane offensive game on both sides with the spread that Auburn and Mississippi State runs.
Well what we got was a 17-14 victory for Auburn that was more from Pat Dye and Rocky Felker era.
Neither side could get momentum and maintain it. Auburn took the first drive and scored. With the offense they run, I'm sure a lot of people were thinking blowout.
But the Mississippi State defense stepped up and Malzahn seemed to be more conservative as the game went on. Being backed up in the shadows of his own goal, Malzahn played very vanilla with three running plays and gave the ball back to state. Much like Coach Dye would have done.
The Tigers played great defense only to have the special teams come up with a punt fumble that allowed for a short field and a State score.
Both teams had their share of mistakes.
Mississippi State had missed or dropped passes when they needed them and Auburn dropped punts, along with defensive backs still having trouble getting off blocks on screens.
Cam Newton was once again Auburn's leading rusher. That's an element that Auburn hasn't had in many years but will have to change to protect him as the season goes on.
Dyer looks like the running back Auburn is used to having. Once he learns the offensive protection schemes, he'll be one of the better backs in the league.
A bright spot for the defense was Nick Fairley. He was a beast on the defensive front that Auburn has needed. The secondary still needs work but I see potential there if the defensive front keeps getting pressure on the quarterback with a four man front.
It wasn't a pretty game but Auburn won and they are now 1-0 in league play. Any win in the SEC is huge
Winning old school is better than a loss against any team. And until Newton gets sharper with his passes and the defense gets better, Auburn will have to win it coach Dye's way "play 60 minutes."
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?