2025 Target List

#1,252
#1,252
walkenvol said:
You may end up being right - not saying you’re wrong. Was just surprised to see you questioning Barnes’ decision making. We will all see what happens. GO VOLS!
Click to expand...
It’s hard to argue against it when every metric suggests it’s true, it’s not like it’s 1 stat or a small sample size. I’ve questioned Barnes before on things, no coach is perfect, and many are stubborn to a fault.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FeelVol and Lankykong
#1,253
#1,253
walkenvol said:
You’re an informed and reasoned poster here and I tend to agree with most of your points, same with BTO. I think we can all agree Barnes is a HOF coach. He and his staff spend countless hours with the team year round. Barnes knows more about this team than anybody, especially fans like us. I trust him to play the guys who give him the best chance to win games. As staunch of a Barnes supporter as BTO has been, I found it surprising for him to infer Barnes wasn’t choosing the best lineup and if I understood your post, you agree with BTO. It’s a fan discussion forum so it’s all good, but to me this topic is akin to calling for the backup QB when the offense isn’t working perfectly. JMO, TIFWIW
Click to expand...
First off, I appreciate the reasoned tone with which you've engaged in this topic of debate.

Sometimes the backup QB is the right answer and until the opportunity comes about, the coach responsible for making that decision, though he has all the information and has been involved in all of their daily activities, practice habits, and work they've put in, stubbornly plays the wrong guy because he believes in him. We have coincidentally seen this very scenario played out at Tennessee with Joe Milton and Hendon Hooker. It took an injury to Milton for Hooker to get that opportunity and then Heupel never looked back.

Barnes has shown an immense amount of loyalty to Mashack, and vice versa. Shack does well the things that Barnes values, and yes, Barnes has seen all of those guys in practice and knows what they bring. But, rather than one person at a position, like the QB example, injecting Gainey over Mashack in the lineup has created all kinds of dynamics that affect the entire team on both ends. Simply put, the drop-off defensively from Mashack to Gainey is much less than the offensive drop-off from Mashack to Gainey. Seeing that play out on the floor may have been enough to convince Barnes that he may need to make a move to make our offense more efficient. And if so, kudos to Barnes for adjusting on the fly instead of being stubborn to change.

Edit: Lol...Just seeing that BTO used the same example and basically said the same thing. Could have saved myself a lot of typing and just said "ditto" if I had read ahead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FeelVol and Lankykong
#1,255
#1,255
cncchris33 said:
First off, I appreciate the reasoned tone with which you've engaged in this topic of debate.

Sometimes the backup QB is the right answer and until the opportunity comes about, the coach responsible for making that decision, though he has all the information and has been involved in all of their daily activities, practice habits, and work they've put in, stubbornly plays the wrong guy because he believes in him. We have coincidentally seen this very scenario played out at Tennessee with Joe Milton and Hendon Hooker. It took an injury to Milton for Hooker to get that opportunity and then Heupel never looked back.

Barnes has shown an immense amount of loyalty to Mashack, and vice versa. Shack does well the things that Barnes values, and yes, Barnes has seen all of those guys in practice and knows what they bring. But, rather than one person at a position, like the QB example, injecting Gainey over Mashack in the lineup has created all kinds of dynamics that affect the entire team on both ends. Simply put, the drop-off defensively from Mashack to Gainey is much less than the offensive drop-off from Mashack to Gainey. Seeing that play out on the floor may have been enough to convince Barnes that he may need to make a move to make our offense more efficient. And if so, kudos to Barnes for adjusting on the fly instead of being stubborn to change.

Edit: Lol...Just seeing that BTO used the same example and basically said the same thing. Could have saved myself a lot of typing and just said "ditto" if I had read ahead.
Click to expand...
This is very well said. And accurate. It's not a zero-sum scenario. Gaining one thing does not require us to lose an equal amount. Gainey is probably 70% of the defender that Mashsck is. But Mashack is about 40% of the offensive player that Gainey is. Net positive. However it is a great luxury to have both of those options available. Some times you need the extra defense. Other times the extra offense is more important. It is a positive that the coaching staff appears to be doing a better job of recognizing when each is needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Golf freak, Lankykong and cncchris33
#1,260
#1,260
bleedingTNorange said:
Weren’t you begging for a couple of those guys? Especially Ballo, but feels like Rice & Carlyle were 2 you were also campaigning we needed to pursue.
Click to expand...

Isn’t it also easier for you to say this now? Anyways, it could be a multitude of things as to why they aren’t jelling.


But to answer your question:
- Ballo, yes…he’s playing pretty well.
- Rice, yes…he’s playing pretty well.

If I said Carlyle, then I was wrong.

2/3, not too shabby.
 
#1,261
#1,261
TrippieRedd said:
Isn’t it also easier for you to say this now? Anyways, it could be a multitude of things as to why they aren’t jelling.


But to answer your question:
- Ballo, yes…he’s playing pretty well.
- Rice, yes…he’s playing pretty well.

If I said Carlyle, then I was wrong.

2/3, not too shabby.
Click to expand...
Definitely wouldn’t trade Lanier for Rice, regardless my bigger point was every year you’re the portal king in each sport and want us to load up on guys and gush about the other teams that are landing a bunch of guys. IMO we’ve seen enough data to suggest that that’s probably not the best strategy and adding a couple guys to complement your roster/fill some holes is better than building half your roster that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vawlz, HeadVol77, Kas232323 and 1 other person
#1,262
#1,262
bleedingTNorange said:
Definitely wouldn’t trade Lanier for Rice, regardless my bigger point was every year you’re the portal king in each sport and want us to load up on guys and gush about the other teams that are landing a bunch of guys. IMO we’ve seen enough data to suggest that that’s probably not the best strategy and adding a couple guys to complement your roster/fill some holes is better than building half your roster that way.
Click to expand...

A good majority of the guys I gush about turn out pretty good. I’ll bat .666 any day!

Thanks for calling me King!

I get what you’re saying though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol49er
#1,263
#1,263
bleedingTNorange said:
It’s hard to argue against it when every metric suggests it’s true, it’s not like it’s 1 stat or a small sample size. I’ve questioned Barnes before on things, no coach is perfect, and many are stubborn to a fault.
Click to expand...
Like I said previously, I love Mashack, but he needs to be the gritty off bench guy or come in and stop an opposing teams run. Our imo "killler" lineup is Z, Gainey, Chaz, Igor, and Felix. Hope that lineup gets a majority of run come March.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top