A thought occurs to me...the Heupel trap.

[VFL92]

While I think you've taken some SIGNIFICANT liberties here, I've said all along that I think one of the keys to Heupel's success is a strong run defense. A Heupel-coached team cannot be bad against the run, or it really sets him up for failure by allowing the opponent to control the clock. I think you've taken this a step (or 3) too far by saying he's "offering a soft underbelly" but I do think there is (and should be) some merit to his defensive scheme aiming to stack up and stop the run. The worst thing that could happen to our offense is to face a team that can control the clock and grind out 7-8 minute drives. I think our defense will continue to put our DBs on an island. That doesn't mean we're inviting failure or handing anything to our opponents, but we will (and should) continue to prioritize stopping the run.

 

[JCHateSteve]

I think CJH plays really aggressive because he has to with this Secondary. Tennessee has a much better chance of winning a shootout than a grind it out style game.

If the other team can stop his offense, he's got a problem. So far no one has been able to do that. I don't know that he's "luring" then into anything. They just don't have much choice if they get behind a score or two, because Tennessee won't slow down until it hits 50.

If anything the tendency to start the game fast has more to do with it than the secondary IMO. Tennessee's opponents don't try to run clock as much because they are usually behind.

 

[DeepSpringsVol]

While I say I in no way believe this is happening here. I will say strategist in competitions do sometimes concede something weak to capitalize on their strength.

 

[peachtreecornersVOL81]

We're not very good on the backend of the defense but we benefit from an improved defensive line that is very aggressive and the fact that we have the best offense in the country. Not sure how that would be part of an overall plan or strategy? Just kind of is what it is back there I think. For now anyway.

 

[mtvols]

It’s really about we get a lead in the 1st quarter that is significant and teams have to abandon their plans to run the ball. They are forced to try to catch-up by passing the ball.

 

[CSVol]

*Strategery

 

[Gandalf]

This is chess! Lure them...offer them ... the poisoned pawn ... I love it!!!!
And then when they take it ... it is all I can do not to smile.

Precisely! You get it.

The one time I was able to play Asa Hoffman in blitz (his strength) to a draw, it was by offering a poisoned piece (Queen for a knight IIRC) to gain movement, which I then used to sacrificing a knight and a bishop to blow up his King side castle. Unfortunately for me, he was just too good in the end game and while he had to sacrifice all his advantages to stay alive, he played the clock better and I ran out of time and had to settle for a draw.

 

[kckempf]

So reading through other fan boards to get a different read on our strengths and weaknesses I had something of an epiphany. To whit:

What if our weakness in the secondary is part of the overall strategy?

FOLLY! you say, but hear me out. Yes, I am aware that our secondary was not the strongest (sucked) even before we lost a number of starters there and I am not saying that the weakness was intended nor that it wont be gladly fixed once we have the talent to fill it.

But WHAT IF CJH has used the expected weakness of our secondary as part of the game plan by offering a soft underbelly for our opponents to target with passing attacks?

Everyone in CFB knows how explosive our Offense is and so key is for opposing defenses to keep our O off of the field as much as possible. The plan for that generally is to run run run and run some more, eating up clock and wearing down our defense. The problem for them is that we have a fantastic defensive line and are tough against the run (#8). Our secondary is very soft though and much more vulnerable.

So what if CJH essentially dares them to largely abandon plans to run (slow clock) and focus on the passing game, making it more of a shootout? Meanwhile, our Dline pass rushes probably 40% of the time, seeking sacks, TFLs and TOs. Our offense, on the other hand has a stout Oline and HH and the WRs are spreading the field to move the ball virtually at will with very few mistakes. Our Dline is good enough to hurt their offense FAR more often than theirs Dline can hurt us and even though they can score back, it takes them longer. Meanwhile, a single TO or 3 and out is met with another score by us and they are even further behind the 8 ball, so they have to rely even MORE on the passing game while we focus on that pass rush.

The point is, Huepel is using our known weakness to lure teams into a shooting war with us, because they are going to lose that - rather than sticking with the time of possession battle to keep it our of our hands. Sure they try it at first - everyone does - but then just one mistake and they get behind and they are forced to abandon it go pass heavy, playing into his main strategy. Alabama got behind and only because they have a fantastic QB, more slippery than a greased eel, were they able to catch back up.

Once teams decide to go to a shootout with us, their fate is likely sealed. Granted, there is a danger that we might make more mistakes on our O (and indeed several times we did and it allowed the other team to get back in the game) but most of the time, Huepel is depending upon other teams simply not being able to match our offensive production.

Our weak secondary:

In the sense that we're going to sacrifice coverage for pressure no matter who we have back there, that is by design. And I suspect that some of the zone defenses we have are not pattern matching in part because our backs aren't trained enough for it and in part so that they stay facing forward to assist the run defense. But I think we're really hoping to get more interceptions and fumbles than we have generated so far. The general idea is that we favor possession over position, since we can score from anywhere and possession is almost always more valuable.

 

[DC_Vol]

So reading through other fan boards to get a different read on our strengths and weaknesses I had something of an epiphany. To whit:

What if our weakness in the secondary is part of the overall strategy?

FOLLY! you say, but hear me out. Yes, I am aware that our secondary was not the strongest (sucked) even before we lost a number of starters there and I am not saying that the weakness was intended nor that it wont be gladly fixed once we have the talent to fill it.

But WHAT IF CJH has used the expected weakness of our secondary as part of the game plan by offering a soft underbelly for our opponents to target with passing attacks?

Everyone in CFB knows how explosive our Offense is and so key is for opposing defenses to keep our O off of the field as much as possible. The plan for that generally is to run run run and run some more, eating up clock and wearing down our defense. The problem for them is that we have a fantastic defensive line and are tough against the run (#8). Our secondary is very soft though and much more vulnerable.

So what if CJH essentially dares them to largely abandon plans to run (slow clock) and focus on the passing game, making it more of a shootout? Meanwhile, our Dline pass rushes probably 40% of the time, seeking sacks, TFLs and TOs. Our offense, on the other hand has a stout Oline and HH and the WRs are spreading the field to move the ball virtually at will with very few mistakes. Our Dline is good enough to hurt their offense FAR more often than theirs Dline can hurt us and even though they can score back, it takes them longer. Meanwhile, a single TO or 3 and out is met with another score by us and they are even further behind the 8 ball, so they have to rely even MORE on the passing game while we focus on that pass rush.

The point is, Huepel is using our known weakness to lure teams into a shooting war with us, because they are going to lose that - rather than sticking with the time of possession battle to keep it our of our hands. Sure they try it at first - everyone does - but then just one mistake and they get behind and they are forced to abandon it go pass heavy, playing into his main strategy. Alabama got behind and only because they have a fantastic QB, more slippery than a greased eel, were they able to catch back up.

Once teams decide to go to a shootout with us, their fate is likely sealed. Granted, there is a danger that we might make more mistakes on our O (and indeed several times we did and it allowed the other team to get back in the game) but most of the time, Huepel is depending upon other teams simply not being able to match our offensive production.

Our weak secondary:

I cannot agree with it being the strategy. But I will say I have come to appreciate how Banks has adjusted to the teams strengths and weaknesses. I talked not so good about him early this season, but came to realize he is doing very well given the issues in the secondary.

 

[Manchester Vol]

I’ll have some of that.

 

[JoAllan]

The thing is everyone except Pitt has been “forced” to do this.

Because everyone except Pitt has gotten down by 3 scores, and 141 yards rushing is the most Tennessee has given.

Teams get down by 3 scores, teams can’t run, teams HAVE to pass.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

I’ll have some of that.

Yeah
Hot blonde elf chicks are something else.

 

[Jax_Vol]

yeah yeah yeah....you got it.

wut we do is lose to kensucky. that puts UGA to sleep.

Then, we beat them and run the table

 

[JRich]

I think most coaches make the most of what they have. This guy is high.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

Making a strength (of sorts) out of a weakness. Make the best out of a bad thing. Lemonade out of lemons. The silver lining of the cloud. Sacrifice tactically for a strategic advantage.

It makes sense.

We'll never know if Josh did this purposefully or not. Let's go ahead and assume he probably did, because he's a smart guy.

Go Vols!

JP, does this interpretation, if correct, sound like something straight out of Sun Tzu? And, out of curiosity, were you exposed extensively to his teachings at West Point?

 

[Rifleman]

Sounds crazy, but there's a grain of truth here.

1) Many QBs now have total leeway with pre/post snap reads in heavy RPO offenses.
2) Our coaches absolutely know what their QB will do from a certain set if he sees a certain defensive look, therefore
3) you can actually call all their plays for them if they stay in a RPO game plan to greater degree than any time in recent history.

We still had trouble against Anthony Richardson and Bryce Young, but even then a lot of big plays were just those guys playing as good as anyone possibly can. We weren't busted at the snap like under Sal Sunseri and some other DCs here.

So while Stoops might want Will Levis to keep a balance of pass and run this weekend, how much of the decision making has been taken out of Stoops' hands? Is he willing to slow it down by calling a lot of run only plays? I think he has to if he wants to keep us under 40 and have a chance.

 

[malinoisvol]

So reading through other fan boards to get a different read on our strengths and weaknesses I had something of an epiphany. To whit:

What if our weakness in the secondary is part of the overall strategy?

FOLLY! you say, but hear me out. Yes, I am aware that our secondary was not the strongest (sucked) even before we lost a number of starters there and I am not saying that the weakness was intended nor that it wont be gladly fixed once we have the talent to fill it.

But WHAT IF CJH has used the expected weakness of our secondary as part of the game plan by offering a soft underbelly for our opponents to target with passing attacks?

Everyone in CFB knows how explosive our Offense is and so key is for opposing defenses to keep our O off of the field as much as possible. The plan for that generally is to run run run and run some more, eating up clock and wearing down our defense. The problem for them is that we have a fantastic defensive line and are tough against the run (#8). Our secondary is very soft though and much more vulnerable.

So what if CJH essentially dares them to largely abandon plans to run (slow clock) and focus on the passing game, making it more of a shootout? Meanwhile, our Dline pass rushes probably 40% of the time, seeking sacks, TFLs and TOs. Our offense, on the other hand has a stout Oline and HH and the WRs are spreading the field to move the ball virtually at will with very few mistakes. Our Dline is good enough to hurt their offense FAR more often than theirs Dline can hurt us and even though they can score back, it takes them longer. Meanwhile, a single TO or 3 and out is met with another score by us and they are even further behind the 8 ball, so they have to rely even MORE on the passing game while we focus on that pass rush.

The point is, Huepel is using our known weakness to lure teams into a shooting war with us, because they are going to lose that - rather than sticking with the time of possession battle to keep it our of our hands. Sure they try it at first - everyone does - but then just one mistake and they get behind and they are forced to abandon it go pass heavy, playing into his main strategy. Alabama got behind and only because they have a fantastic QB, more slippery than a greased eel, were they able to catch back up.

Once teams decide to go to a shootout with us, their fate is likely sealed. Granted, there is a danger that we might make more mistakes on our O (and indeed several times we did and it allowed the other team to get back in the game) but most of the time, Huepel is depending upon other teams simply not being able to match our offensive production.

Our weak secondary:

I'm beginning to think CJH has some evil genius in his DNA. Just saying.

 

[ThreatLevelOrange]

Long post just to ask a question. I say it’s not a trap. It’s a weakness that a competent opponent will try to exploit.

 

[Remy]

So reading through other fan boards to get a different read on our strengths and weaknesses I had something of an epiphany. To whit:

What if our weakness in the secondary is part of the overall strategy?

FOLLY! you say, but hear me out. Yes, I am aware that our secondary was not the strongest (sucked) even before we lost a number of starters there and I am not saying that the weakness was intended nor that it wont be gladly fixed once we have the talent to fill it.

But WHAT IF CJH has used the expected weakness of our secondary as part of the game plan by offering a soft underbelly for our opponents to target with passing attacks?

Everyone in CFB knows how explosive our Offense is and so key is for opposing defenses to keep our O off of the field as much as possible. The plan for that generally is to run run run and run some more, eating up clock and wearing down our defense. The problem for them is that we have a fantastic defensive line and are tough against the run (#8). Our secondary is very soft though and much more vulnerable.

So what if CJH essentially dares them to largely abandon plans to run (slow clock) and focus on the passing game, making it more of a shootout? Meanwhile, our Dline pass rushes probably 40% of the time, seeking sacks, TFLs and TOs. Our offense, on the other hand has a stout Oline and HH and the WRs are spreading the field to move the ball virtually at will with very few mistakes. Our Dline is good enough to hurt their offense FAR more often than theirs Dline can hurt us and even though they can score back, it takes them longer. Meanwhile, a single TO or 3 and out is met with another score by us and they are even further behind the 8 ball, so they have to rely even MORE on the passing game while we focus on that pass rush.

The point is, Huepel is using our known weakness to lure teams into a shooting war with us, because they are going to lose that - rather than sticking with the time of possession battle to keep it our of our hands. Sure they try it at first - everyone does - but then just one mistake and they get behind and they are forced to abandon it go pass heavy, playing into his main strategy. Alabama got behind and only because they have a fantastic QB, more slippery than a greased eel, were they able to catch back up.

Once teams decide to go to a shootout with us, their fate is likely sealed. Granted, there is a danger that we might make more mistakes on our O (and indeed several times we did and it allowed the other team to get back in the game) but most of the time, Huepel is depending upon other teams simply not being able to match our offensive production.

Our weak secondary:

I think you may be on to something but I think it's more about playing with the chess pieces he has. We have a very weak secondary, There is no doubt he almost invites or requires teams to boat race with us. That's not the typical character of most of the SEC teams we play. Florida and Bama both fell victim to that strategy, neither one are known for being pass happy but Bama almost abandoned their run game against us entirely which is not their character at all. It worked. Now let's see if the dawgs fall for it. They want to run the ball but they can throw it effectively so do they boat race with us? Time will tell, but know you this our team is used to that type play including our defense. Bama had tongues hanging out on defense by games end, could very easily happen to the dawgs as well.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

JP, does this interpretation, if correct, sound like something straight out of Sun Tzu? And, out of curiosity, were you exposed extensively to his teachings at West Point?

"Amid the turmoil and tumult of battle, there may be seeming disorder and yet no real disorder at all; amid confusion and chaos, your array may be without head or tail, yet it will be proof against defeat." -- Sun Tzu
[application: what appears disordered and chaotic to our opponents masks a higher-level purpose and order...Gandalf's "trap"]

It started at West Point, yes, Rex, we were issued The Art of War and had to study passages for one or more of our military science courses.

But I was still carrying it around in a cargo pocket (thankfully it's a thin book) a decade or more later, thumbing through it from time to time.

We covered Sun Tzu's lessons at the officer basic course, again at the advanced course, again at staff school (CAS3), and again at the Command and General Staff College. It is pretty much present throughout an American officer's career, along with some other classics like Clausewitz' On War. Well, for soldiers and marines, at least. Not sure about the Navy, Air Force, or Coast Guard.

Why do you ask, brother?


EDIT: Heh, as is often the case with Sun Tzu, the more I look into the pages, the more passages I find that can be useful to Gandalf's thoughts:

"By holding out advantages to him, he can cause the enemy to approach of his own accord...."
[application: draw the opponent out of the game plan that most favors him--in Kentucky's case, a plodding, ball control ground game--and encourage him to instead seek advantage in a passing attack that actually will not help him]

and

"Hence that general is...skillful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack."
[sow confusion, leave the Kentucky offensive coordinator chasing phantasms of opportunities that aren't real]

and one more:

"The clever combatant looks to the effect of combined energy, and does not require too much from individuals."
[application: this is an aspect of the "bend but don't break" defensive approach we've talked about so often this season -- it also underscores the complementary nature of the defensive line and defensive backfield. Strength in one can provide strength in the other, so that no individual has to win any play on his own]

 

[Volosaurus rex]

Here are a couple of statistical nuggets to chew on. Last year, the blue bellies ran 99 plays against us, gained 612 yards and possessed the pigskin for 46:08 and still lost. The Big Orange ran only 47 plays, gained 461 yards and had the football for less than a quarter, 13:52 to be precise. Our defense is playing significantly better against the run, yielding 148.54 ypg last year, which ranked 60th nationally, versus 90.9 ypg this year, which ranks 8th nationally, tied with Ohio State (see NCAA College Football FBS current team Stats | NCAA.com).

Conversely, despite enormous improvement from 2020, our offense averaged roughly 39 ppg last year. In 2022, Tennessee leads the nation in scoring with 50.1 ppg against stronger competition than most other teams that are undefeated or highly ranked. Ultimately, all I can say is good luck to Kentucky, regardless of their strategy, because methinks they are going to need it.

 

[jmcarr33]

More like the secondary is Gollum, whom we know was a pitiable and miserable creature but it is his irredeemable failure which ends up bringing the Enemy's defeat - which I of course, had foreseen.

And we have already turned the Tide



And the strategy I mentioned above only works by having not only the highest powered offense but a nasty pass rush better than the other team so we can create more mistakes on their end than they do on ours.

So instead of Star Wars analogies it’s now Lord of the Rings? I love this board!

 

[KnoxRealtorVOL]

The fact is, if a QB has time to throw, he’s going to complete the pass. That’s just the reality of our secondary play right now.

Now the good news about this weekend is that I don’t think we plan on giving little Willie much time to throw.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

"Amid the turmoil and tumult of battle, there may be seeming disorder and yet no real disorder at all; amid confusion and chaos, your array may be without head or tail, yet it will be proof against defeat." -- Sun Tzu
[application: what appears disordered and chaotic to our opponents masks a higher-level purpose and order...Gandalf's "trap"]

It started at West Point, yes, Rex, we were issued The Art of War and had to study passages for one or more of our military science courses.

But I was still carrying it around in a cargo pocket (thankfully it's a thin book) a decade or more later, thumbing through it from time to time.

We covered Sun Tzu's lessons at the officer basic course, again at the advanced course, again at staff school (CAS3), and again at the Command and General Staff College. It is pretty much present throughout an American officer's career, along with some other classics like Clausewitz' On War. Well, for soldiers and marines, at least. Not sure about the Navy, Air Force, or Coast Guard.
Why do you ask, brother?


EDIT: Heh, as is often the case with Sun Tzu, the more I look into the pages, the more passages I find that can be useful to Gandalf's thoughts:

"By holding out advantages to him, he can cause the enemy to approach of his own accord...."
[application: draw the opponent out of the game plan that most favors him--in Kentucky's case, a plodding, ball control ground game--and encourage him to instead seek advantage in a passing attack that actually will not help him]

and

"Hence that general is...skillful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack."
[ditto--sow confusion, leave the Kentucky offensive coordinator chasing phantasms of opportunities that aren't real]

and one more:

"The clever combatant looks to the effect of combined energy, and does not require too much from individuals."
[application: this is an aspect of the "bend but don't break" defensive approach we've talked about so often this season]

To answer your question, sheer curiosity. I suspected that might be the case. Weapons systems and logistical capabilities change immensely over time but strategic principles, if they are sound, can be timeless. I wonder if, then cadet, Neyland was exposed to them more than 100 years ago at West Point and, if so, whether, they impacted the formation of his maxims to any extent.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

To answer your question, sheer curiosity. I suspected that might be the case. Weapons systems and logistical capabilities change immensely over time but strategic principles, if they are sound, can be timeless. I wonder if, then cadet, Neyland was exposed to them more than 100 years ago at West Point and, if so, whether, they impacted the formation of his maxims to any extent.

That's a really great question about whether the US Army was using Sun Tzu's writings a century ago when Neyland was being educated and trained. I have no idea.

I think it would take a deep dive into some research or an actual military historian to figure it out. Wonder if @OneManGang knows...?