Climer Actually Positive

#26
#26
UT IE 95 said:
Grrrrr.

Actually I haven't posted on what to expect next year. I have no idea. The homer in me says undefeated baby!

But there is a respected contingent here that are very positive on the outlook next year for the exact reasons Climer used. And they were posting it months ago.
Click to expand...

Who else is Mr. Optimistic.... ok utmba93...... but you two are the biggest homers that have ever lived!

That is saying something!

:thumbsup:

Honestly, you two are the only people who can find something positive with the 2005 season!

:salute:
 
#27
#27
Guys, remember that sometimes a low score posted by the offense doesn't necessarily mean they had a poor performance. Remember that play calling depends alot on what the defense gives you, in terms of field position and how things are going in the game. For example, I bet we would have posted better than 17 points against Alabama if we could have stayed balanced. Instead, we spent the bulk of the game playing from behind and having to pass alot.
 
#28
#28
JReagan73 said:
Guys, remember that sometimes a low score posted by the offense doesn't necessarily mean they had a poor performance. Remember that play calling depends alot on what the defense gives you, in terms of field position and how things are going in the game. For example, I bet we would have posted better than 17 points against Alabama if we could have stayed balanced. Instead, we spent the bulk of the game playing from behind and having to pass alot.
Click to expand...

We abandoned the run, which was killing it, long before the game was out of reach.
 
#29
#29
OrangeEmpire said:
Who else is Mr. Optimistic.... ok utmba93...... but you two are the biggest homers that have ever lived!

That is saying something!

:thumbsup:

Honestly, you two are the only people who can find something positive with the 2005 season!

:salute:
Click to expand...

You don't think, in retrospect, getting rid of Sanders was a positive of 2005?

And I honestly don't remember ever saying anything positive about 2005. Maybe I did, but I don't recall.

And seriously - the board gushes over Clawson and the opportunity we have next season. Just click through some old threads with Clawson in title.
 
#30
#30
UT IE 95 said:
You don't think, in retrospect, getting rid of Sanders was a positive of 2005?

And I honestly don't remember ever saying anything positive about 2005. Maybe I did, but I don't recall.

And seriously - the board gushes over Clawson and the opportunity we have next season. Just click through some old threads with Clawson in title.
Click to expand...
gushes may not be the right word, but i know what you're talking about.

i think it has more to do with the newness of it all.....everyone enamoured, self included, with the IDEA of what Clawson brings to the table.......which is a new, fresh set of ideas.

how long that lasts........let's see what the w/l record is after the 1st half of the season. i think most understand there's enough there right now to win, but also understand where we really are in the grand scheme of things this year....--capable, but not expected. make sense?
 
#31
#31
jakez4ut said:
gushes may not be the right word, but i know what you're talking about.

i think it has more to do with the newness of it all.....everyone enamoured, self included, with the IDEA of what Clawson brings to the table.......which is a new, fresh set of ideas.

how long that lasts........let's see what the w/l record is after the 1st half of the season. i think most understand there's enough there right now to win, but also understand where we really are in the grand scheme of things this year....--capable, but not expected. make sense?
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:

And for the record, gushes=enamoured in my book
 
#32
#32
sjt18 said:
It certainly didn't help that UF had the ball about 35 minutes to UT's 25 minutes... nor when the D gives up scores on 9 of 13 drives.

The athletes weren't subpar compared to past UT teams? Who was the equivalent to Meachem, Stallworth, Price, etc?
Click to expand...

That was one year. The offense the prior year had Meachem, Swain, and Smith.
 
#33
#33
sjt18 said:
The O's in both 06 and 07 were good enough to win the SEC.
Click to expand...

The second half meltdowns of our offense nearly made us finish last in the East. Because of complete second half collapses we very nearly lost to SC, Vandy, and Kentucky.
 
#34
#34
UT IE 95 said:
You don't think, in retrospect, getting rid of Sanders was a positive of 2005?

And I honestly don't remember ever saying anything positive about 2005. Maybe I did, but I don't recall.

And seriously - the board gushes over Clawson and the opportunity we have next season. Just click through some old threads with Clawson in title.
Click to expand...

See....... you are the man!

:good!:
 
#35
#35
kptvol said:
The second half meltdowns of our offense nearly made us finish last in the East. Because of complete second half collapses we very nearly lost to SC, Vandy, and Kentucky.
Click to expand...

Your argument kinda doesn't hold water considering we finished....oh.....FIRST in the East. Last time I checked, thats not almost last.
 
#36
#36
Midfielder10 said:
Your argument kinda doesn't hold water considering we finished....oh.....FIRST in the East. Last time I checked, thats not almost last.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware we finished first in the East solely because of our offense.
 
#37
#37
Midfielder10 said:
Your argument kinda doesn't hold water considering we finished....oh.....FIRST in the East. Last time I checked, thats not almost last.
Click to expand...

He said almost and he is correct. They no showed against Vandy until they realized they may loose (even i will admit most of that probably falls into Fulmer's lack of prep for that game). Also against UK we scored 24 in the first half then our offense decided to only score 7 in the second half. Of course a 24-7 lead should be substantial, but we totally went to sleep in the second half even when we needed scores. Ainge also threw 3 ints of which i know at least 2 were after halftime.
 
#39
#39
Midfielder10 said:
3 games is a pretty big difference.
I wouldnt call 3-0 almost 0-3
Click to expand...

Go watch those games and tell me how close we were to losing. We were lucky as hell to win all three. It wasn't like the offense was some unstoppable force that totally bailed out our inept defense.
 
#41
#41
kiddiedoc said:
Reminder: Close to losing = winning
Click to expand...

The original argument was that the offense last season was good enough to win the SEC. I'm not buying it. We went virtually scoreless or scoreless for 2 quarters against Bama, SC, UK, Vandy, and Florida. That caused us to almost lose to three of those games and lose the other two. Our defense had some problems last season, but the offense wasn't perfect either.

I feel if our offense was good enough to win the SEC, we wouldn't have needed miracles to beat three teams over which we held significant leads at half time.
 
#42
#42
You don't have to buy anything. All you have to do is look at the facts. The offense got them to the championship game and within a Freshman drop or Sr INT of upsetting the eventual NC.

The D was the worst of Fulmer's tenure in PPG.

BTW, I didn't say the offense was perfect nor did I say it was always stellar. I said it was good enough... and that it was NOT "good enough" because it had above avg talent for a UT O. It was good enough because Cut demanded disciplined execution and found something that worked in spite of Ainge's injuries.

Put that O with the 05 defense... or even an avg Chavis D and they win the SEC.
 
#43
#43
sjt18 said:
You don't have to buy anything. All you have to do is look at the facts. The offense got them to the championship game and within a Freshman drop or Sr INT of upsetting the eventual NC.

The D was the worst of Fulmer's tenure in PPG.

BTW, I didn't say the offense was perfect nor did I say it was always stellar. I said it was good enough... and that it was NOT "good enough" because it had above avg talent for a UT O. It was good enough because Cut demanded disciplined execution and found something that worked in spite of Ainge's injuries.

Put that O with the 05 defense... or even an avg Chavis D and they win the SEC.
Click to expand...

I'd say we'd still lose to LSU and Florida. As far as "the offense getting them to the championship game", that wouldn't have happened without tremendous defensive performances against UGA and Arkansas. As for the freshman drop, if I recall correctly, a catch merely would have given us more chances to score, not a guaranteed victory.

I also don't understand how the offense was good enough to win the SEC when they managed to lose a championship game in which the defense had its best performance scoring-wise of the season. The offense completely bombed in that game just like the defense did against Cal. Just like both sides did against Florida. If we want to win the SEC anytime soon, we're going to have to be better on both sides of the ball. Or I suppose we can pray we block 50 field goals and our running backs learn how to fumble the ball beyond the first down marker to where our players can recover it.
 
#44
#44
sjt18 said:
You don't have to buy anything. All you have to do is look at the facts. The offense got them to the championship game and within a Freshman drop or Sr INT of upsetting the eventual NC.

The D was the worst of Fulmer's tenure in PPG.

BTW, I didn't say the offense was perfect nor did I say it was always stellar. I said it was good enough... and that it was NOT "good enough" because it had above avg talent for a UT O. It was good enough because Cut demanded disciplined execution and found something that worked in spite of Ainge's injuries.

Put that O with the 05 defense... or even an avg Chavis D and they win the SEC.
Click to expand...

Our D played well enough to win the SEC championship game.
 
#45
#45
Scoring wise. Yes. But they couldn't get off the field and give the ball back to the O. LSU had a 13 minute possession advantage.

The O produced 343 yards. They moved the ball decently well against one of the best defenses in the country. For the most part, they weren't the beneficiaries of great field position. LSU avg'd allowing 289 total ypg.

By comparison yardage vs LSU: UF- 314, tOSU- 353, Aub-296, Ark-385 (3 OT's), UK-375 (2 OT's), USC-261, Bama- 254... MSU, Va Tech, MTSU, and Tulane all had less than 200 yds.

The O didn't "bomb". However I will admit that the mistakes that cost UT the game were made by Ainge. The pick while going in for a score and the pick 6 made a 14 pt swing. It didn't help that Lincoln was 0/2 either.

If we want to win the SEC anytime soon, we're going to have to be better on both sides of the ball.
Click to expand...
Playing better on on both sides will definitely help.

I don't want to kick the D too hard and especially for the LSU game. That was a near heroic effort against a NC. Their effort and performance in that game are part of what gives me hope for this year... but they weren't a championship caliber D last year.

FWIW, UT avg'd more ppg last year than UF in 06 even with their routine fluff opponents... and only .5 ppg less than the 98 NC team. Points allowed 2007- 27.3 ppg, 1998- 14.5
 
#46
#46
kptvol said:
The second half meltdowns of our offense nearly made us finish last in the East. Because of complete second half collapses we very nearly lost to SC, Vandy, and Kentucky.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping that will be the big difference this year. I was talking with a friend today, and I really feel like our losses to UF and Bama were as much the fault of the offense not staying on the field as it was the defense giving up TDs.
 
#47
#47
TreeGreen said:
I'm hoping that will be the big difference this year. I was talking with a friend today, and I really feel like our losses to UF and Bama were as much the fault of the offense not staying on the field as it was the defense giving up TDs.
Click to expand...

Agreed!
 
#48
#48
sjt18 said:
The O didn't "bomb".

I don't want to kick the D too hard... they weren't a championship caliber D last year.
Click to expand...

What was our offensive output? 14 points? And we gave them 7 points. I'd say that's about as close to bombing as you can get without being shutout.

I never argued that the defense was championship caliber. They certainly weren't. They did, however, show up strong in certain games - but definitely not in all games. That's why they weren't championship material. The offense was exactly the same in my opinion.
 
#49
#49
sjt18 said:
FWIW, UT avg'd more ppg last year than UF in 06 even with their routine fluff opponents... and only .5 ppg less than the 98 NC team. Points allowed 2007- 27.3 ppg, 1998- 14.5
Click to expand...

You're talking about two offenses playing with defenses the likes of which the SEC hasn't seen since. If you've got the 2000 Ravens defense, I could play QB and UT would still be national champions. We can't count on our defense being all-world. We need an offense that's capable of winning big with a defense that is in the good to great range. Last year I don't think we had that.
 
#50
#50
kpt, UT's point total last year was the second highest in the CPF era to the 93 team.

Only once in all the Sanders years did UT avg over 30 ppg. Cut had UT back at that level in just his second season back. Also if Cut didn't do a very good job, how do you explain that this year's team was so much more productive than the 06 team? About 800 more total yards and close to a TD more in ppg.

OTOH, UT has never had a D allow more than 300 pts. Last year, UT as a team gave up 382 pts.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top