99 Sports Animal

[gonygonygo]

I love for the host of the show (I'm not sure what show, but it was around 4:00) to tell off the fans that were complaining about the offense the last 5 years, and that it was all Randy Sanders's fault. The guy's name was Ed. He said the offense has declined the last 5 years and the defense has been saving the team over and over.

Once again, it proves my point that there are so many ignorant, disillusioned fans out there. They look at everything about the team that's superficial without giving any thought.

The host made some good points. They had a good offense in 2001, 2003, and 2004. Who was behind the offense?? Randy Sanders! Nobody saw this season coming. We routed Texas A&M last year in the bowl game, and were returning 17 or 18 starters, had two freshmen quarterbacks playing well that won 10 games, and had everything going for them.

The defense has struggled the last several years. People talk about how the defense has always saved the offense (besides this year), when actually it has been the other way around.

No matter what you think about UT's "decline" offensively, we have averaged close to 30 points a game against the same SEC defenses that we faced this year. Things just went south this year, but you can't say that the offense has always been our downfall with Randy Sanders as OC.

It was just a good feeling to know that the host of the show actually corrected many of the fans who just emotionally look for a scapegoat for one bad season. It was a thing of beauty. They'd call and talk their trash about Randy Sanders. Then the host would make some points, and then the caller would have nothing to say...

I agree changes should be made after a season like this, but for those people (and I addressed them in a previous thread) that want to use Randy Sanders for a scapegoat, then try to act like the offense has been the NCAA's worst since Randy Sanders has been OC, despite the accomplishments of the team, winning the SEC East twice, and tying for first in 2003 (but losing the tiebreaker).

Many of you are very informed, moreso than I, but just as many are ignorant and need to see past their bias of the Cutcliff years, as if Randy Sanders has to be the blame for everything.
LOL :yes:

 

[dan4vols]

So you propose we re-instate RS back to offensive coordinator. You mentioned you thought other changes needed to be made, what other changes? I agree RS isnt the whole problem, just part of it. Ill go further than that, at times he was sharp. However you face a man enough times you get aquainted with his tendencies and he won't keep you off balance by fooling you....and that is the only real weapon the offense has over the defense. Thats why I felt the move on RS was warrented, same with other coaching positions, because position coaches need replacing every 5 years or so or re-invent themselves. So what other changes would you make?

 

[GenNeyland9]

No matter which way you want to slice it, there has been a remarkable offensive decline in both numbers and overall execution and point production since Cutcliffe left in 1998. I won't point all the blame on Sanders, but it certainly seems plausible that the fact that the decline began in his first season as Offensive Coordinator is not merely coincidence.

I agree that last season the offense actually made up a lot of slack for an unusually porous defense. I submit that every other year since '99, however, is an exercise in offensive underachieving.

Your point about SEC East Divison championships is well taken, however, keep in mind that we won two outright SEC championships with Cutcliffe, and that we have won ZERO since '99.

When a business department doesn't keep up the pace over time with its expectations based upon potential, you have to make a change, and this change falls chiefly upon those most directly responsible for the department's operation. In the context of the Vol offense, this is Randy, like it or not. I think he's a great and loyal guy, but you have to hold him accountable for his offense's failings.

 

[Lexvol]

Originally posted by dan4vols@Nov 14, 2005 4:55 PM
So you propose we re-instate RS back to offensive coordinator. You mentioned you thought other changes needed to be made, what other changes? I agree RS isnt the whole problem, just part of it. Ill go further than that, at times he was sharp. However you face a man enough times you get aquainted with his tendencies and he won't keep you off balance by fooling you....and that is the only real weapon the offense has over the defense. Thats why I felt the move on RS was warrented, same with other coaching positions, because position coaches need replacing every 5 years or so or re-invent themselves. So what other changes would you make?

[snapback]191653[/snapback]​

Totally agree DV. The fact remains that RS, were he qualified, would have been offered a HC job somewhere similar to the way Cut was offered at Ole Miss.

Now I have heard that RS was offered position jobs for some NFL teams, but that is really a lateral move IMO. I think he lacks primary management skills that may have nothing to do with Xs and Os. Seems like none of his offenses get along well, and this offense is divided among themselves. With this management style the inmates often end up running the assylum.

As far as other changes go, CPF should seriously consider taking on the OL. He says he doesn't have time, but I think it is too much liability for him. If it doesn't do well there is no one else to take the blame for poor performance.

If I subscribed to GGGs theory, I am not qualified to make suggestions, and CPF is really the only one qualified to make those hires. I am quite dissapointed that he is currently sidestepping this responsibility as well. He continues to say he doesn't have the time to do it. IMO this should be his primary responsibility right now. This team SHOULD be able to beat Vandy and Kentucky and pick an OC before the bowl game for recruiting purposes.

 

[orangetd88]

Whoever said the offense was good in 2003 was a bit mistaken. They were OK, but not what I would consider good.

2001 and 2004 are the only seasons in which we had a good offense. 2 out of 7 isn't a good percentage.

 

[CSpindizzy]

It's not like we won the east those times on our own. it usually takes someone else beating whoever was tied or ahead of us to get us there. I know that's semantics but we didn't really win because of a great team.

 

[OrangeUAVol?]

Originally posted by GenNeyland9@Nov 14, 2005 5:01 PM
I think he's a great and loyal guy, but you have to hold him accountable for his offense's failings.

[snapback]191660[/snapback]​

He shouldn't be held entirely accountable if part of the reason his offense failed was because it wasn't completely his offense. I won't pretend to know the inner workings of the UT coaching staff, but the impression I've gotten for several years is that it's Randy's offense shaped by Fulmer's mold.

Now, I'm not saying we should beg him to reconsider his resignation, but I worry for the future that he might not have been as responsible for poor offensive outings as UT fans want to think he is.

And before anyone accuses me... NO - I don't think we should get rid of Fulmer instead. In fact, I think anyone even considering that move should check themselves into Lakeshore tomorrow, but I'll spare you all that soapbox.

GO BIG ORANGE!!!

 

[WA_Vol]

Originally posted by GenNeyland9@Nov 14, 2005 6:01 PM
No matter which way you want to slice it, there has been a remarkable offensive decline in both numbers and overall execution and point production since Cutcliffe left in 1998.  I won't point all the blame on Sanders, but it certainly seems plausible that the fact that the decline began in his first season as Offensive Coordinator is not merely coincidence.

[snapback]191660[/snapback]​

I'm not sure if the lack of offensive production is a reflection on our coaching or the qb play. Most of those pre 98 years we had Manning, the best UT qb ever. Manning and Shuler were very good qb's who had great numbers. Since then the qb play has not been at that level again. You can argue that the qb weren't developed or the talent wasnt there, but it all seems to fall back on the qb position. We need a HC or OC who can develop that position.

 

[gonygonygo]

Originally posted by CSpindizzy@Nov 14, 2005 5:25 PM
It's not like we won the east those times on our own. it usually takes someone else beating whoever was tied or ahead of us to get us there. I know that's semantics but we didn't really win because of a great team.

[snapback]191690[/snapback]​

Well, the bottom line is how good you are compared to your opposition THAT year. If we go 7-4 and win the SEC every year, I'll be happy.

And as far as needing help to win the SEC East, I dont understand your point. It's always about who finishes first when it's all said and done. Whether you have a tie-breaker or win by a landslide, first is first.

A team can lose their first game or their last game of the season. If it helps us win the SEC East, that's great. But I dont see the relevance in taking away from the accomplishment because the other team lost at the end. IMO, 9-2 = 9-2 whether those two losses came early or late in the season. Get my grip?

15 years from now, nobody is going to remember that we had to wait for Georgia to lose (or whomever) in order to go to the SEC championship game. We'll just remember that we got there. So HOW we get there means nothing to me.

 

[Chingchongchang]

2003 the offense was terrible. Even in 2004 I would say the offense wasn't great. In RS' tenure he had one great year. Look at the team we had! Witten had a lot to do with that. I am so glad our coaching staff learned from that season. WHO IS OUR TIGHT END AGAIN?

Sanders might be a somewhat escape goat but in the end he really did suck. Next up is special teams, O line, and wide receivers.

 

[gonygonygo]

Originally posted by oklavol@Nov 14, 2005 5:28 PM
I'm not sure if the lack of offensive production is a reflection on our coaching or the qb play.  Most of those pre 98 years we had Manning, the best UT qb ever.  Manning and Shuler were very good qb's who had great numbers.  Since then the qb play has not been at that level again.  You can argue that the qb weren't developed or the talent wasnt there, but it all seems to fall back on the qb position.  We need a HC or OC who can develop that position.

[snapback]191697[/snapback]​

Very true, most of the time, our success has been a reflection of the play at the QB position.

 

[Liper]

Originally posted by gonygonygo@Nov 14, 2005 4:36 PM
Once again, it proves my point that there are so many ignorant, disillusioned fans out there.  They look at everything about the team that's superficial without giving any thought. 

The host made some good points.  They had a good offense in 2001, 2003, and 2004.  Who was behind the offense??  Randy Sanders!  Nobody saw this season coming.

[snapback]191641[/snapback]​

CS,

If our offense was good in 2001, 2003, and 2004, what criteria are you are Hyams using to make that evaluation?

 

[gonygonygo]

Originally posted by Chingchongchang@Nov 14, 2005 6:03 PM
2003 the offense was terrible.  Even in 2004 I would say the offense wasn't great.  In RS' tenure he had one great year.  Look at the team we had!  Witten had a lot to do with that.  I am so glad our coaching staff learned from that season.  WHO IS OUR TIGHT END AGAIN?

Sanders might be a somewhat escape goat but in the end he really did suck.  Next up is special teams, O line, and wide receivers.

[snapback]191741[/snapback]​

If he sucked, it wasn't his play calling, IMO.

BTW, look around the SEC. Have you guys seen those games lately?? EVERYONE IS STRUGGLING ON OFFENSE. I think that's one reason why the SEC gets a big rep on its defenses. But if you ask me, I think the SEC overall has deficiencies on offense.

I would dare to say that our offense hasn't been much better or worse than anyone else's in the SEC (except this year).

 

[gonygonygo]

Originally posted by Liper@Nov 14, 2005 6:06 PM
CS,

If our offense was good in 2001, 2003, and 2004, what criteria are you are Hyams using to make that evaluation?

[snapback]191744[/snapback]​

Well, it sure wasn't our defense that got us to SEC Championship games those years... Maybe, I could bargain with you on 2001's defense, but the offense was extremely explosive.

 

[gonygonygo]

Originally posted by Liper@Nov 14, 2005 6:06 PM
CS,

If our offense was good in 2001, 2003, and 2004, what criteria are you are Hyams using to make that evaluation?

[snapback]191744[/snapback]​

The defense was horrible two of those years. We couldnt stop a high school running game. The defense just got good again this year. We had been giving up 30+ over and over. So, for us to still win the SEC East, something had to make up for it....

AND IT SURE WASN'T SPECIAL TEAMS.

Last year featured 2 1000 yard rushers, etc. We scored 30 to beat Florida (defense gave up 28), Auburn ran all over that defense, twice. Vandy and Kentucky BOTH put up 30+ points on us.

Years before, we've had shootouts with other teams because the defense was giving up play after play. What took us to overtime?? Casey Clausen's arm. (I know you Clausen haters didn't want to hear that.)

We also had some top notch talent those past years on offense. Donte Stallworth, Kelly Washington (like him or not, he was dominant and required a double team), Jason Whitten, Eric Parker, Cedric Wilson, Travis Henry, Travis Stephens, David Martin, Scot Wells, Cedric Houston, etc. etc.

All of those guys have been on our offense in the last 5 years. Guys on offenses you guys claim to be stinking it up every year.

 

[Jmxvol]

Our offense was not good in 2003, and even though we were loaded in 2001 our offense was still only like 50th nationally.

 

[Jmxvol]

Also, the caller is correct in that the offensive points per game have dropped every year since he became the OC in 1999.

 

[jwells]

While our offense hasn't been great, I don't think the rankings of total offense and what not are representative of the best offensive team.

Pac-10 teams, because of their style of play will rack up more yards than SEC teams that rely on more of a pound the ball down the field mentality.

 

[swami2302]

Anyone can look at the numbers and tell that this team has been in a gradual decline. Not sudden but gradual. All the close games, the OT games etc. It's not all Randy Sanders, but it starts with him. The terrible bowl losses have given us a glimpse of the overall lack of dicipline on our teams.

Jimmy Hyams will defend Randy Sanders and say he is not to blame for this season but then he goes on to say that we will be much better with David Cutcliff as OC and QB coach. If he thought Sanders was doing such a great job then why would he say we will be better with Cutcliff?

I think the sport talk folks are in a tough situtation. They aren't on the UT payroll but I'm sure they get some pretty good perks in K-town. They refuse to blame coaching or coaches for UT's failures because they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them.

 

[Liper]

Originally posted by gonygonygo@Nov 14, 2005 6:09 PM
Well, it sure wasn't our defense that got us to SEC Championship games those years...  Maybe, I could bargain with you on 2001's defense, but the offense was extremely explosive.

[snapback]191751[/snapback]​

SEC RANKINGS
Total offense and total defense

2001 off=6 def=?
2003 off=7 def=4 rush def=5
2004 off=6 def=7 rush def=5

Our defense was stout in 2001, well above average, don't you think?:

DEFENSE (made rosters)
DL John Henderson (NFL starter)
DL Al haynesworth (NFL starter)
DL Rashad Moore (NFL starter)
DL Will Overstreet (NFL)
DL Demtrin Veal (NFL)
DL Omari Hand (NFL)
DL Aubrayo Franklin (NFL starter)
LB Eddie Moore (NFL)
LB Kevin Burnett (NFL)
LB Dominique Stevenson (NFL)
LB Keyon Whiteside (NFL)
DB Rashad Baker (NFL)
DB Julian Battle (NFL)
DB Andre Lott (NFL starter)

OFFENSE (made rosters)
WR Kelly Washington (NFL starter)
WR Dante Stallworth (NFL starter)
WR Eric Parker (NFL starter)
WR Mark Jones (NFL)
TE Jason Witten (NFL starter)
RB Travis Stephens (NFL)
RB Troy Fleming (NFL)
OL Fred Weary (NFL)
OL Scott Wells (NFL)

OK - I forgot why I was posting. I just got really pissed off that we didn't win anything with this team. How in the hell did we lose 2 SEC games with that team? Pathetic, frankly.

Of course, I went back and looked at MIA from 2001-2003. UNBELIEVABLE amount of talent they had. Probably the best run of talent in the history of college football. Get this, from 2001-2003 team they had 16 1st round draft choices!

From my rough research, the following three teams dominated the talent landscape of college football from roughly 1998-2003:

1.Miami
2.Tennessee
3.Florida State

Sadly, if I asked which team doesn't seem to fit, what we say? Hmmm...

 

[Liper]

Originally posted by jwells@Nov 14, 2005 9:17 PM
While our offense hasn't been great, I don't think the rankings of total offense and what not are representative of the best offensive team.

Pac-10 teams, because of their style of play will rack up more yards than SEC  teams that rely on more of a pound the ball down the field mentality.

[snapback]191924[/snapback]​

Yeah, but we haven't finished in the top 5 in total offense in the SEC in about 8 years. That doesn't have anything to do with other conferences.

 

[Jmxvol]

Some of us call 990 the snooze button for a reason.

 

[smokedog#3]

i disagree with the host. 2001 was a good offensive year. 03 and 04 i really didn't think we were all that impressive. i don't give sanders any credit for the 01 team either when you have that kind of talent on your team we probably should have been better than we were. on that same note i don't give cutcliffe alot of credit either. he was blessed with great talent that made him look great. now if he comes in now and turns the team around i think he may be the best OC in the nation. during the cutcliffe years we should have had atleast 2-3 national championships.

 

[Jmxvol]

Originally posted by smokedog#3@Nov 14, 2005 9:58 PM
i disagree with the host.  2001 was a good offensive year.  03 and 04 i really didn't think we were all that impressive.  i don't give sanders any credit for the 01 team either when you have that kind of talent on your team we probably should have been better than we were.  on that same note i don't give cutcliffe alot of credit either.  he was blessed with great talent that made him look great.  now if he comes in now and turns the team around i think he may be the best OC in the nation.  during the cutcliffe years we should have had atleast 2-3 national championships.

[snapback]192011[/snapback]​

Agreed ......other teams with that kind of talent have won 2 or 3 titles within a 5 year span.

 

[Liper]

Originally posted by Jmxvol@Nov 14, 2005 10:01 PM
Agreed ......other teams with that kind of talent have won 2 or 3 titles within a 5 year span.

[snapback]192015[/snapback]​

See the last post I put up on page 1...then you'll get really upset about it.