Defensive Post season thought

[sjt18]

That's a good point and one that I don't really have a good answer for. Maybe he didn't trust their ability? No idea. Also, somewhat related, I'm not sure why our corners and safeties didn't turn around for the ball most of the season but that's probably more on the defensive backs coach than Banks.

Could be. Many here are pointing their finger at CWM. To me, you have to look at it from scheme down to execution/skill.

 

[VOLINVONORE]

Just not buying that he did as well as could be done with what he had. I'm not denying that they had less than ideal talent or didn't get hit with injuries. But the same can be said about the O. When the staff was hired, Banks seemed to have the most questionable resume. He had been the "co-DC" at Penn State but had not called plays.

I believe in Heupel. I don't think he will let a DC stop the Vols from success if Banks is the problem. But at this point... I just want to see proof that he can get it done.

I think in the next two years, we will know a lot more about Bank's coaching ability. I am willing to wait and see how he can coach and develop higher rated players.

 

[LAVol1]

That's a good point and one that I don't really have a good answer for. Maybe he didn't trust their ability? No idea. Also, somewhat related, I'm not sure why our corners and safeties didn't turn around for the ball most of the season but that's probably more on the defensive backs coach than Banks.

The only DB that consistently turned to look for the ball was Slaughter. IMO, he was our best CB by far for that reason alone.

 

[cherokeeeVOL]

The only DB that consistently turned to look for the ball was Slaughter. IMO, he was our best CB by far for that reason alone.

Agreed. Slaughter was pretty good and I'm hopeful that the next crop of recruits will work out.

 

[FollowTheLeader]

Just not buying that he did as well as could be done with what he had. I'm not denying that they had less than ideal talent or didn't get hit with injuries. But the same can be said about the O. When the staff was hired, Banks seemed to have the most questionable resume. He had been the "co-DC" at Penn State but had not called plays.

I believe in Heupel. I don't think he will let a DC stop the Vols from success if Banks is the problem. But at this point... I just want to see proof that he can get it done.

......your motives are more questionable than coach Banks resume. Why would Coach Heupel hire a DC who had never called plays before?

Coach Banks has 2 conference championship rings as a player, 3 conference championship rings a PLAY-CALLING DC and 1 conference championship ring as a co-DC at PENN STATE, how is that the most questionable resume .....

 

[youcancallmeAl]

But comparable things could be said about the O and it has been stellar.

What comparable transfer out losses did the O lose when the conehead was fired, i.e. - compared to D losses?

The O immediately created an "identity". Can anyone actually say what UT's identity is on D after 2 full seasons?

Yes, they are an attacking defense.

 

[sjt18]

......your motives are more questionable than coach Banks resume. Why would Coach Heupel hire a DC who had never called plays before?

Just reporting what was said in the media when he was hired. Pray tell... what are my "motives"? I want UT's D to be coached as well as UT's O is? Check- you busted me. That's exactly what I want.

Coach Banks has 2 conference championship rings as a player, 3 conference championship rings a PLAY-CALLING DC and 1 conference championship ring as a co-DC at PENN STATE, how is that the most questionable resume .....

Again, just going off what I heard when he was hired. I'm actually more concerned about his success or lack thereof so far at UT.

Perhaps I misunderstood and the comment was that he did not call plays at Penn State? I've been wrong before so this wouldn't be the first time. IIRC though... Franklin had the opportunity to make Banks his sole DC and chose not to do so.

I hope you aren't giving him "credit" for Illinois' D? In his 4 years there... they were never better than 9th in the Big 10.

 

[sjt18]

What comparable transfer out losses did the O lose when the conehead was fired, i.e. - compared to D losses?

Two starting OL's who went on to start at OU and TAM. Two RBs- one led UNC in rushing and was 4th in the ACC the following year, the other was 2nd in the Big 12 this past year with over 1300 yds. Brandon Johnson who was 2nd the following season in receiving at UCF and led their team with 11 TD catches.

Yes, they are an attacking defense.

So that's what you see when DB's are playing 10 yds off the LOS and never seem to jam anyone?

 

[youcancallmeAl]

Two starting OL's who went on to start at OU and TAM. Two RBs- one led UNC in rushing and was 4th in the ACC the following year, the other was 2nd in the Big 12 this past year with over 1300 yds. Brandon Johnson who was 2nd the following season in receiving at UCF and led their team with 11 TD catches.

The D lost 4 DL's, 3 OLB's (including 1 to Miami and one to Auburn), 4 ILB (including To'o to'o to Bama and Crouch to Mich St), 3 DB's (including one to OK), and the kicker. Losing To'o To'o was huge, I doubt more devastating to the D than anyone who left the offense.

So that's what you see when DB's are playing 10 yds off the LOS and never seem to jam anyone?

That's what I see when DL's are stunting and attacking nearly every down and LB's are blitzing. The secondary had it's own peculiar issues. They would have been attacking if they had the ability to do so. Just because the secondary played soft doesn't mean the rest of the defense wasn't attacking. That is the identity of this defense, and it is the identity of the defensive recruits coming in and will be more so next season with the new additions. If you watch the Orange Bowl D you'll see what I mean.

 

[sjt18]

That's what I see when DL's are stunting and attacking nearly every down and LB's are blitzing. The secondary had it's own peculiar issues.

And that's the thing that keeps hanging me up from a scheme/playcalling perspective. Why would you give a 10 yd cushion on the outside and then blitz? Seems you wouldn't want a quick, easy throw or to allow some kind of timing route?

They would have been attacking if they had the ability to do so.

Why do you think that? It was too consistent to be incidental.

Just because the secondary played soft doesn't mean the rest of the defense wasn't attacking.

But how much sense does that make? Play aggressive at the front to get quick pressure then give the QB an easy out?

That is the identity of this defense, and it is the identity of the defensive recruits coming in and will be more so next season with the new additions. If you watch the Orange Bowl D you'll see what I mean.

I watched it. I wasn't as impressed as many of you. Clemson drove the field and couldn't convert when they got close. Their misses, failed 4th down, and faked FG cost them 12 points, right?

If the strategy is to give up 500 yds and hope the opponent will choke and only score 14 points... they may want to rethink.

 

[FollowTheLeader]

Just reporting what was said in the media when he was hired. Pray tell... what are my "motives"? I want UT's D to be coached as well as UT's O is? Check- you busted me. That's exactly what I want.

Again, just going off what I heard when he was hired. I'm actually more concerned about his success or lack thereof so far at UT.

Perhaps I misunderstood and the comment was that he did not call plays at Penn State? I've been wrong before so this wouldn't be the first time. IIRC though... Franklin had the opportunity to make Banks his sole DC and chose not to do so.

I hope you aren't giving him "credit" for Illinois' D? In his 4 years there... they were never better than 9th in the Big 10.

Why do you insist on just making garbage up and throwing it out there as facts? When did Franklin choose NOT to make Banks the sole DC. Brent Pry was the DC for Franklin for many year and was there at Penn State before Banks got there and was there after Banks left Penn State. Was Franklin suppose to demote Pry and make Banks the sole DC......is that what you're referring to when you say Franklin CHOOSE NOT to make Banks the sole DC.........if so.....that's just really dumb.

 

[youcancallmeAl]

And that's the thing that keeps hanging me up from a scheme/playcalling perspective. Why would you give a 10 yd cushion on the outside and then blitz? Seems you wouldn't want a quick, easy throw or to allow some kind of timing route?

If the blitz doesn't work quickly, and you give no cushion, the receivers run right by your mediocre dbs.

Why do you think that? It was too consistent to be incidental.

?? Our db's weren't good enough to attack.

Play aggressive at the front to get quick pressure then give the QB an easy out?

The easy out for the qb would be to watch his WR's beat our dbs off the line and gain separation after three steps and get behind the defense immediately.

 

[youcancallmeAl]

Clemson drove the field and couldn't convert when they got close.

Our attacking defense had something to do with that.

If the strategy is to give up 500 yds and hope the opponent will choke and only score 14 points... they may want to rethink.

They will be refitting the defense this spring with an influx of talent and experience that will attack the qb and an influx of talent and experience in the secondary. They will continue build a defense better suited to attacking the offense in 23 than they had in 22.