thistime
No matter where you're at there you are.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 3,126
- Likes
- 14,564
TL;dr. May be worth it for some.
Some like Ainge and some don't. I have generally always liked Ainge's analysis, especially when he gets to the actual playing of the game and not all the silliness. If you have been listening earlier this week he has been direct and explanatory on what happened. DC Banks. To summarize, he did not even give his players the opportunity to fail on their own. It was scheme and play calling. Add in some missing of Jeremy Banks, the D's leader.
He said it was obvious that they needed to play press man and blitz. Soft zone and soft man were recipes for disaster because without a strong pass rush and with that much time to throw any QB would pick us apart. No holding calls from Birmingham's hit squad meant making quick defensive adjustments to the game plan. They did not make those adjustments. They kept doing the stupid, thinking it night change because Rattler has never shown he could do what he did while expecting a pass rush to develop.
Me: The scheme and play calling were game planned to play safe and it failed in spectacular fashion like most "prevent" defenses. In my book, third or fourth and Chavis will change forever to third or fourth and Banks.
No Jeremy Banks to make the pass rush happen or set the toughness tone. Having Mitchell in the game to replace him means it is 11 guys on 10, he is useless. The drop off at LB after Banks and Beasley is that bad. Herring is talented, just needs experience and yet, they kept trotting the useless out there like Mitchell and Page.
Nobody wants to hear that Heup approved that defensive game plan beforehand. All HC's have the final say on that. Banks does not have unilateral authority to do whatever he wanted. Nobody wants to hear that the defensive game plan should have been changed after the second TD in the first quarter, it was that obvious. Heup did not have it changed. I will never believe he does not know defense well as an excuse. He could never design an O like ours without also knowing defenses well. That man has football blood running through his veins.
So they lost due to fear by the coaching staff, overconfidence by some players, team morale with Jeremy Banks out, and actual play on the field by missing Jeremy Banks.
Which is why nobody was fired this week. Heup is complicit with the D's bad performance. What's done is done. They hope to recover against Vandy and in the bowl game. I believe both Banks and Martinez are on the clock, particularly Martinez. Banks just had his welcome to the SEC moment. He may be given more rope to hang himself with another year on the big contract.
JMO - the worst case scenario if they lose to Vandy: The early signing day is soon, recruits are on the line and they need continuity in the staff. I believe both Banks and Martinez are on the clock. If they are over Martinez he will be gone after December's signing day. The die is cast on high end secondary recruits for it. I doubt any high end 4 and 5 stars are going to show up to sign with us. Banks would be terminated after the bowl. The portal and late signing period might be more productive with staff changes.
If they beat Vandy and the D is OK to good, Banks is given another year and Martinez' job may still be shopped. They would wait to pull the trigger until after the bowl game. If Heup still wants Willie at that point, he stays.
If they win out and look decent to good on D, both probably return.
After reading this post something just occurred to me and to be honest I almost had some kinda of a flashback to our Defensive scheme from years ago........WE RAN THE MUSTANG PACKAGE FOR A WHOLE GAME.....Tim must have got some advice from John.
Last edited: