Everybody that wants a exciting OC

[thebiglowboski]

Listen i have read on here in alot of different places about people wanting a OC that is exciting!! Well who knows what will happen!! But do you guys really think that phillip fulmer is going to hire some guy that well really do that!! I truely dought it i mean come on this is a run first offense and always will be prolly!!!! I mean i just dont see fulmer doing this guys.. maybe a new head coach would do it!! Im not saying we need one.. Fulmer has alot to do with the way this offense is ran and always will.. We are not about trick plays and all that. I mean like i said i wish we were an offense like usc or somehting but we have to face the facts!!! And that is that fulmer will never hand is offense to some big exciting person!! UT is just a simple run first offense!!

 

[Jasongivm6]

Originally posted by thebiglowboski@Nov 16, 2005 7:49 PM
Listen i have read on here in alot of different places about people wanting a OC that is exciting!!  Well who knows what will happen!!  But do you guys really think that phillip fulmer is going to hire some guy that well really do that!!  I truely dought it i mean come on this is a run first offense and always will be prolly!!!!  I mean i just dont see fulmer doing this guys..  maybe a new head coach would do it!! Im not saying we need one..  Fulmer has alot to do with the way this offense is ran and always will..  We are not about trick plays and all that.  I mean like i said i wish we were an offense like usc or somehting but we have to face the facts!!! And that is that fulmer will never hand is offense to some big exciting person!! UT is just a simple run first offense!!

[snapback]193622[/snapback]​

I wish we could go back to being a run-first offense. I didn't understand the rest.

 

[wncvolfan]

A run offense can be just as exciting as a bombs away passing game. I think the best run first coaches were Vince Lombardi and Tom Osborne. Lombardi stressed simplicity with everybody executing perfectly. Osborne's offense on the other hand was extremely complex. But the results were usually the same. The opposition's defense knew what was coming, they were just powerless to stop it. It just amazed me how the Huskers could rip off 10 to 15 yards, running play after running play on a drive. They were relentless. Having supermen carrying out the plays doesn't hurt either.

That'd be a dream come true, to have an OC who could teach the Vols to march down the field in 10 play all running scoring drives, completely demoralizing the likes of Florida, Bama, and Georgia.

 

[U-T]

Whoever runs our offense next year better get ready for unrealistic expectations and the full burden of accepting a loss even if he gets UT scoring 50 a game.

 

[smokedog#3]

i agree big, that is the reason i think we will not improve and why i think we will be 6-5

 

[GAVol]

Originally posted by U-T@Nov 16, 2005 8:42 PM
Whoever runs our offense next year better get ready for unrealistic expectations and the full burden of accepting a loss even if he gets UT scoring 50 a game.

[snapback]193661[/snapback]​

Ain't that the truth. If you think people used Randy Sanders as a scapegoat, just wait until the first time we score less than 20 under the new guy.

 

[Liper]

We've got top 5 talent and we ought to get top 5 results. If we don't it means our coaches aren't doing the job. It's really that simple.

Question: over the last 5 years (a full cycle) have we had a top 5 program?

Check yes or no.

 

[holdemvol]

Originally posted by Liper@Nov 18, 2005 12:55 PM
We've got top 5 talent and we ought to get top 5 results.  If we don't it means our coaches aren't doing the job.  It's really that simple.

Question: over the last 5 years (a full cycle) have we had a top 5 program? 

Check yes or no.

[snapback]194929[/snapback]​

I would argue that we have not had top 5 talent in the last 5 years.

 

[holdemvol]

Originally posted by thebiglowboski@Nov 16, 2005 7:49 PM
Listen i have read on here in alot of different places about people wanting a OC that is exciting!!  Well who knows what will happen!!  But do you guys really think that phillip fulmer is going to hire some guy that well really do that!!  I truely dought it i mean come on this is a run first offense and always will be prolly!!!!  I mean i just dont see fulmer doing this guys..  maybe a new head coach would do it!! Im not saying we need one..  Fulmer has alot to do with the way this offense is ran and always will..  We are not about trick plays and all that.  I mean like i said i wish we were an offense like usc or somehting but we have to face the facts!!! And that is that fulmer will never hand is offense to some big exciting person!! UT is just a simple run first offense!!

[snapback]193622[/snapback]​

USC runs a similair offense, they just get different results. USC does not go 5 wide and chuck the ball all day, the run game is very important to thier offense. We do not need a complete revamp of the offense but rather better coaching all around starting with fundamentals and some solid QB coaching. Every sports writer in the Nation was talking about Meyer's spread attack when he was hired and has his philosophy worked in the SEC? The offense was very productive under coach Cut using the same playbook, but Fulmer needs to let whoever comes in have complete control of the offense and get some position coaches on staff who know what they are doing.

 

[bigdaddy]

Here is my argument. We have talent. We have coaches. Unfortunately the talent that we recruited is more interested in being a pro talent than a college talent. They use us as a stepping stone for the combine. I would like to see us get some guys that want to play for UT (ex. Faulkner, Stevens, Stewart, Tee Martin) not just for the NFL. This season's comments from some of the WR have let me down (Hannon, Meachem). I can't blame the coaches for a kid's mindset to hold off till the NFL, but I can blame them for not sitting his ass on the bench for someone who wants to play for UT. :twocents:

 

[holdemvol]

Originally posted by bigdaddy@Nov 18, 2005 1:09 PM
Here is my argument.  We have talent.  We have coaches.  Unfortunately the talent that we recruited is more interested in being a pro talent than a college talent.  They use us as a stepping stone for the combine.  I would like to see us get some guys that want to play for UT (ex. Faulkner, Stevens, Stewart, Tee Martin) not just for the NFL.  This season's comments from some of the WR have let me down (Hannon, Meachem).  I can't blame the coaches for  a kid's mindset to hold off till the NFL, but I can blame them for not sitting his ass on the bench for someone who wants to play for UT. :twocents:

[snapback]194938[/snapback]​

I agree on Hannon....he thinks he is a lot better than he is, but meachem could have gone to ANY school he wanted. I think Meachem has at least put forth effort this year but he has been bothered by injury all season. Hannon, on the other hand should have been benched a long time ago IMO.

 

[Liper]

Originally posted by holdemvol@Nov 18, 2005 12:58 PM
I would argue that we have not had top 5 talent in the last 5 years.

[snapback]194932[/snapback]​

It's subjective, but the NFL would disagree with you. We've had the most players drafted since 1994. We have the 2nd most players in the NFL. From 1999-2003 we had the most players drafted.

Since then we've had teams led by sophs and juniors.

We make great players good, good players average, and average players bad.

 

[Low Country Vol]

whatever happened to the run and shoot offense. Seemed to work with the houston oilers and houston cougers.

 

[jakez4ut]

Originally posted by Liper@Nov 18, 2005 3:54 PM
It's subjective, but the NFL would disagree with you.  We've had the most players drafted since 1994.  We have the 2nd most players in the NFL.  From 1999-2003 we had the most players drafted.

Since then we've had teams led by sophs and juniors.

We make great players good, good players average, and average players bad.

[snapback]194992[/snapback]​

Nice Pic of the Bandit. East bound and down brother!

now on to the more serious issue...talent vs. coaching...you need both. And don't even compare us to USC. No one is comparable to them except maybe the three or four worst teams in the NFL...hell, USC could probably win the NFC North this year...

The truth of the matter is, we've made a living over the years by just having better talent than most everyone we play in a given season. Where we get in to trouble is when we play comparable teams with better coaches. I.e. the Floridas of the 90's and UGA's of the past 5 years...

THe new OC whoever that may be, nudge, nudge, grin, grin, wil have their work cut out. You got two young qb's, one who hasn't seen a snap of a CFB game, and one that has a damaged psyche. We supposedly have this great group of receivers (never in my wildest imagination did i think that RM, BS, CH would turn out not to be great) that need to learn how to make plays. We have an Offensive line that isn't deep enough to be consistent enough to support a running game that we desparately need to have. We have no real options at FB or TE, at least today.

The new OC will have to do some culture changing.

1. Run, run, run...i got NO problem with running the ball, so long as you are not averaging 2.5 ypc. We should never be in a 2nd down and worse than 6 if we are a "power running" team.
2. Play action. see point 1. You have to have that first.
3. run, run run. 2nd and short, 3rd and short. we should be able to p/u 2nd or 3rd and 3 or less the vast majority of the time.
4. f/b, h/b screens on 2nd and 3rd down and longer than 4. these are HUGE plays when done correctly. but again, are only effective if you can run the ball first, and show some ability to throw out of the pocket, so you get the biltzes you want...reduce the number of WR screens, period.
5. We shouldn't need trick plays. I hate them....unless they work, obviously..
6. Theres no shame in punting. So long it's not a 3 and out. If we can keep our offense on the feild for 8 or more plays per possession, that usually means by the 3rd and 4th qtr, the defense has been getting pounded on and should be getting a little winded...
7. The big play. you don't have to have 5 or 6 a game. But you do need 1 or 2. We need to know, as does the opposing defense, that it can be done. that we can in fact p/u 30+ yards in one play, running or passing, either way.

And Also keep in mind, for me, this year, it wasn't the play calling that sucked for us. it was the execution of the plays called, period. Execution does go back to coaching ultimately, but dont' think by hiring a new OC we're going to re-invent the wheel from a scheme, game planning, or play calling standpoint. we don't need to do that, we need people that can simply block, run, throw and catch, and coaches that can get them to do it. :banghead:

 

[CSpindizzy]

I don't think most of the people wanting change are wanting some high-speed 180 degree change in offense. I think the main issue is let's get away from basic, easy to predict football. Defenses can read the formations before the ball is hiked. There used to be jokes about Kelley Washington on when the ball was going to be passed to him merely based on his stance at the line. When the other team has an ear in the huddle you know your offense needs change.

Again, we're not talking West Coast offense here but we are asking for something different than the fans in the stand calling the play and seeing it happen.

 

[Volstorm]

Just give me an OC that will get the job done.

 

[Liper]

Originally posted by jakez4ut@Nov 18, 2005 4:18 PM
now on to the more serious issue...talent vs. coaching...you need both.  And don't even compare us to USC.  No one is comparable to them except maybe the three or four worst teams in the NFL...hell, USC could probably win the NFC North this year...

The truth of the matter is, we've made a living over the years by just having better talent than most everyone we play in a given season.  Where we get in to trouble is when we play comparable teams with better coaches. 

[snapback]195046[/snapback]​

Good analysis. Fair and balanced.

I think USC has better talent than we do THIS YEAR. But over the course of the entire period, I do not believe that to be true. MIA in 2001 and 2002 was better than USC. is now.

Regardless, it is too subjective to splice up. But in the aggregate, TN has had top 5-10 talent without any question. The production has been borderline top 20.

UCS has great skill players playing in a league with no defense. Overall they have some weaknesses. Our defense is much more talented than USC's; not even close.

 

[jakez4ut]

Originally posted by Liper@Nov 18, 2005 5:52 PM
Good analysis.  Fair and balanced.

I think USC has better talent than we do THIS YEAR.  But over the course of the entire period, I do not believe that to be true.  MIA in 2001 and 2002 was better than USC. is now.

Regardless, it is too subjective to splice up.  But in the aggregate, TN has had top 5-10 talent without any question.  The production has been borderline top 20.

UCS has great skill players playing in a league with no defense.  Overall they have some weaknesses.  Our defense is much more talented than USC's; not even close.

[snapback]195070[/snapback]​

I'll agree with that, but our D hasn't played an offense, except MAYBE Notre Dame's, as talented as that. I still think USC could hang 30+ points on our D. At least in a one and done situation. If USC had to play week in and week out against SEC defenses, it would wear them down over time, and they would probably slip up at least once against someone...

And that MIA team was good, but not that good. I think the only team i've seen in the past 15 years that could hang with them is the Nebraska teams of 95/97...they could line up and punch you in the mouth. FAst, tough, mean defenses, and an offense that just ran at you and thru you. They could probably out physical USC and pummel them in to a submission tap out.

 

[holdemvol]

Originally posted by CSpindizzy@Nov 18, 2005 4:41 PM
I don't think most of the people wanting change are wanting some high-speed 180 degree change in offense. I think the main issue is let's get away from basic, easy to predict football. Defenses can read the formations before the ball is hiked. There used to be jokes about Kelley Washington on when the ball was going to be passed to him merely based on his stance at the line. When the other team has an ear in the huddle you know your offense needs change.

Again, we're not talking West Coast offense here but we are asking for something different than the fans in the stand calling the play and seeing it happen.

[snapback]195058[/snapback]​

I guess my question is....what was wrong with the offense under coach cut? No doubt the offense has gone downhill recently but I think that was a combination of poor position coaching, Sanders, and Fulmer's refusal to let someone take complete control of the offense. I think if coach Cut were to come back, Fulmer would be comfortable enough to let go of the reins, and after some solid QB/position coaching the offense is rght back on track.

 

[U-T]

Originally posted by thebiglowboski@Nov 16, 2005 6:49 PM
But do you guys really think that phillip fulmer is going to hire some guy that well really do that!!

If Fulmer took his OC advice from people like us, he would be working as the waterboy instead of as our coach.

Some people amaze me. Act as if Fulmer hasn't coached a single season in his life.

 

[KYVolFan]

Originally posted by GAVol@Nov 16, 2005 10:24 PM
Ain't that the truth.  If you think people used Randy Sanders as a scapegoat, just wait until the first time we score less than 20 under the new guy.

[snapback]193704[/snapback]​

I think the "Bleecher Bubbas" will call for the new OC's head if we don't score on the first series of plays in the first quarter of the first game.

If we score on that first series and don't put up 70-80 points in the first game, the Bubbas will kick in again. Everyone one of the Bubbas will be saying the coach is too conservative, too predictable, incompetent, doesn't know how to motivate, can't create a game plan, can't call plays, has no discipline, is underweight, can't recruit, doesn't like turnip greens, uses gleem toothpaste, doesn't chew Red Man, doesn't drink Jack Daniels; etc., etc., etc.

A coach that fears relentless, ignorant, pointless and uninformed criticism had better reconsider any desire to come to Rocky Top.

Go Vols, beat the Commode Doors

 

[JasonCajun]

Originally posted by jakez4ut@Nov 18, 2005 5:04 PM
I'll agree with that, but our D hasn't played an offense, except MAYBE Notre Dame's, as talented as that.  I still think USC could hang 30+ points on our D.  At least in a one and done situation.  If USC had to play week in and week out against SEC defenses, it would wear them down over time, and they would probably slip up at least once against someone...

[snapback]195080[/snapback]​

Against ND, you have to admit our offense was not helping out our defense at all. When you can't sustain drives and turn the ball over, that means the other team is going to have more of an opportunity to score. Our defense has been on the field a lot this year.

If USC were to hang 30+ on our D, you could be it was because the offense turned the ball over close to our own end zone and the offense could not keep our defense off of the field.

 

[holdemvol]

Originally posted by JasonCajun@Nov 19, 2005 10:23 AM
Against ND, you have to admit our offense was not helping out our defense at all. When you can't sustain drives and turn the ball over, that means the other team is going to have more of an opportunity to score. Our defense has been on the field a lot this year.

If USC were to hang 30+ on our D, you could be it was because the offense turned the ball over close to our own end zone and the offense could not keep our defense off of the field.

[snapback]195494[/snapback]​

True, the offense did not help a bit, but still no excuse for the big plays they ripped off.