2 things: Thoughs on Bajakian and Jason Croom...

#127
#127
oregonvol said:
Huh? Where did I say it wouldn't be successful without Tebow? I've never made that statement that I can recall. Are you just trying to put words in my mouth?

I have in the past pointed to multiple examples where it wasn't successful in the SEC without a big running quarterback and I can't think of an example where it was, so I've wondered why you think it would be. All you have offered is that we have freshmen that may get bigger. But you haven't offered any evidence that they are running threats or that they will be able to run an offense next year that they can not run now.



Last I checked we are all talking about opinions, here. No one has any scientific proofs for what will happen in the future, these are all educated guesses and impressions based on observable fact. So, if you don't want to discuss those, I'm not sure why we're trading essays here.

I wish I could share your belief that a system that results in wins now will continue to result in wins despite how it looks. I've been down this road before. I remember folks saying how because we pulled out a victory with shaky play from someone like Rick Clausen, we were bound to get better and better. It doesn't always work out that way.

Right now we seem to be relying on our defense and limiting mistakes on offense, and hoping to pull out a narrow victory and that's a good strategy at this point, given how limited our offense has been. But that said, I don't understand the reasoning that because we are succeeding now, largely in spite of our offense, that means that our offense will necessarily improve in the future. One has nothing to do with the other.








You took the result (offensive success) and used it as proof of something different (talent). You offered no other evidence. Your logic is sound only if talent and success are the same things and talent necessarily produces success (and conversely success is always the result of talent) regardless of other factors. And if that's the case and you truly believe that, then why are you even on here discussing the offensive system?



Yeah, same deal as above. Now we're just going in circles.

"If coach A is successful with their system it's because they had the right talent"

"But if coach B is not successful with their system it is because they did not have the right talent"

That's your stance, right? Got it. There's really nothing further for me to discuss with you if you don't believe the system itself or who implements it should be considered a factor.






Seriously, does any non-Vol fan out there think of our system as remotely comparable to Oregon's?



Where did I say Butch Jones doesn't like to pass?



Yeah, sure, you've been the very model of logical and polite debate. Rather than offer any evidence beyond success=talent, it's always best to just say your opponent doesn't understand what they are talking about. Well done.
Click to expand...

Actually, you obviously don't understand. And I'm beginning to feel a bit helpless in the matter. I really don't know what else to say to you.

Are you really positing that a team that had success with players didn't have the players to be successful?

That's really what you want to go with?

Again. Good day to you.:hi:
 
#130
#130
Orange_Crush said:
Actually, you obviously don't understand. And I'm beginning to feel a bit helpless in the matter. I really don't know what else to say to you.

Are you really positing that a team that had success with players didn't have the players to be successful?

That's really what you want to go with?

Again. Good day to you.:hi:
Click to expand...

No. I never made such a statement (and yet you complain of me putting words in your mouth).

But you have posited multiple times that when an offensive system is successful it is proof that they had the talent to run it and that when an offensive system is not successful it shows that they did not have the talent to run it, disregarding any other factors like, you know, coaching.
 
#131
#131
You should have noticed that the offense expands a bit each game. They are still putting it in.

Also, CBJ has preached since day one that part of his model is to avoid mistakes and especially turnovers. He's not going to take chances unless the return is really high, and he feels like he has to (see: 4 downs against GA) I would think he sees installing too much and running it in live games with limited reps as high risk. Makes sense to me.

All that said, I will continue to withhold option and especially criticism of the offense on the OC. I just don't think we are seeing what we will ultimately see. It's not fair criticism at this point, IMO.

As long as they continue to stay in games with a chance to win, they can run the veer on every down for all I care.
 
#134
#134
oregonvol said:
No. I never made such a statement (and yet you complain of me putting words in your mouth).
Click to expand...

Actually, I asked you for clarification.

oregonvol said:
But you have posited multiple times that when an offensive system is successful it is proof that they had the talent to run it
Click to expand...

Sigh...

I have stated multiple times that when an offensive system has success with their roster, they obviously have the roster to be successful. To deny that is to state that "a team that had success with players didn't have the players to be successful".


oregonvol said:
and that when an offensive system is not successful it shows that they did not have the talent to run it, disregarding any other factors like, you know, coaching.
Click to expand...


Actually, I've denied that assertion many times. I wrote a couple of novels trying to make distinction between that point and the one I'm making. As a matter of fact, please look through my posts today and find once that I made that point.


Sigh. So much energy wasted.

Again... Good day.



Please stop.



:hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#135
#135
BleedingOrangeFan said:
Yep. That is our "amazing" offense from last year compared to this year's. I will try to post the D's stats. That is really amazing
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

That is striking... So, after losing all of our offensive skill players/firepower... In our first year in a new system that we didn't recruit to, and starting underclassmen at the skill positions... This is the result in comparison?

And we're debating whether this offense will work?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#136
#136
Orange_Crush said:
Actually, I asked you for clarification.



Sigh...

I have stated multiple times that when an offensive system has success with their roster, they obviously have the roster to be successful. To deny that is to state that "a team that had success with players didn't have the players to be successful".





Actually, I've denied that assertion many times. I wrote a couple of novels trying to make distinction between that point and the one I'm making. As a matter of fact, please look through my posts today and find once that I made that point.


Sigh. So much energy wasted.

Again... Good day.



Please stop.



:hi:
Click to expand...

...and yet, you keep going...

So now we're saying "players to be successful" rather than "talent", huh? But still, not factoring in how the system takes advantage of these players, or how adaptable it is, or whether it actually works against high level defenses or any of the actual game-planning or coaching, right?
 
#137
#137
oregonvol said:
...and yet, you keep going...

So now we're saying "players to be successful" rather than "talent", huh? But still, not factoring in how the system takes advantage of these players, or how adaptable it is, or whether it actually works against high level defenses or any of the actual game-planning or coaching, right?
Click to expand...

Player, talent, roster... Insert whatever you like.

A team that was successful with talent/roster/players had the talent/roster/players to be successful.

A team that was successful with talent/roster/players did not have the talent/roster/players to be successful.

(Hint: I never said anything about other influences on success; just that by definition a team that is successful has the players to be successful. You are inventing the rest of my supposed argument. We were only talking about talent and system implementation. So, that's two things I'll ask you to search back and quote. One is still outstanding. Ready... Go!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#138
#138
He does wear you down huh?...did they legalize meth in Oregon?...sounds like Badger and Skinny Pete arguing with Walt on a lost episode of Breaking Bad :blink:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#139
#139
I think Butch should fire Coach Jake and hire some of you future OC's. He don't know what the hell he doing. All these experts on here I don't know which one to choose.
 
#140
#140
:peace2:
darkgable said:
I think Butch should fire Coach Jake and hire some of you future OC's. He don't know what the hell he doing. All these experts on here I don't know which one to choose.
Click to expand...

Hey DG...post more often...you've been scarce lately :search:
 
#142
#142
oregonvol said:
...and yet, you keep going...

So now we're saying "players to be successful" rather than "talent", huh? But still, not factoring in how the system takes advantage of these players, or how adaptable it is, or whether it actually works against high level defenses or any of the actual game-planning or coaching, right?
Click to expand...

It'd be smart to go take a nap. You've struck out more than Adam Dunn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#144
#144
butchna said:
He does wear you down huh?...did they legalize meth in Oregon?...sounds like Badger and Skinny Pete arguing with Walt on a lost episode of Breaking Bad :blink:
Click to expand...

I think he lives in Knoxville which is sad. Reading comprehension is a problem also. Hard headed and will try to impose his will. Stay strong may the force be with you.
 
#145
#145
butchna said:
He does wear you down huh?...did they legalize meth in Oregon?...sounds like Badger and Skinny Pete arguing with Walt on a lost episode of Breaking Bad :blink:
Click to expand...

resizedimage600298-Jesse-vows-vengeance.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#146
#146
We have to execute the passing game to the ability that we have. We have to pass effectively enough to keep defense's from pressing us in coverage and stacking the box against the run. Our strength is our offensive line, Neal, and Lane. Our receivers, and Worley have had to be brought along slowly. We run the zone read, but Worley is not much of a threat to run. The offense is set up for Worley to hand if off to Neal or Lane, or fake it and throw. Worley is now taking more shots down field, and becoming more vertical in the passing game. Alabama will dare us to throw and attempt to stop the run. They will ignore Worley in the running game and dare him to try to throw over the top.
 
#148
#148
One reason Coach Jake has been so vanilla is he cannot afford for Worley to be injured. I know everyone wants him to run more and I know many are complaining about his play at times, but we saw at Florida why he is the No. 1. He is getting better each week andI think even this week we will be opening more of the playbook, but one goal for Saturday will be to keep Worley healthy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#149
#149
Orange_Crush said:
Player, talent, roster... Insert whatever you like.

A team that was successful with talent/roster/players had the talent/roster/players to be successful.

A team that was successful with talent/roster/players did not have the talent/roster/players to be successful.

(Hint: I never said anything about other influences on success; just that by definition a team that is successful has the players to be successful. You are inventing the rest of my supposed argument. We were only talking about talent and system implementation. So, that's two things I'll ask you to search back and quote. One is still outstanding. Ready... Go!)
Click to expand...

What? So you've decided to stop going in circles and now you're just posting two contradictory statements? Okay, I guess your argument has reached its "logical" conclusion...
 
#150
#150
Orange_Crush said:
A team that was successful with talent/roster/players had the talent/roster/players to be successful.


A team that was successful with talent/roster/players did not have the talent/roster/players to be successful.
Click to expand...

oregonvol said:
What? So you've decided to stop going in circles and now you're just posting two contradictory statements? Okay, I guess your argument has reached its "logical" conclusion...
Click to expand...

The second statement is the inverse of the first. It was given to show how illogical it is for you to deny that the first statement is self-evident, because the denial is self-contradictory. The team that was successful was was not successful.

Get it?

Do you ever get tired of missing the point?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top