Ok let's say we concede the fact that

[tm3]

interesting points.

CBJ has a fat pitch over the middle of the plate opportunity this Saturday to substantially answer some of these questions.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Did you just seriously try to put Mizzou and Aub on the same level as Oregon offensively?

I said they were very similar styles-- which is the actual point of my argument, that you either ignored, or didn't get. If you can't see the similarities of these teams' offenses, then I don't know what to say. If you don't see the overarching point that our current talent has seemed to struggle against this style of offense all year, then... Oh well. It's no skin off of my back.

In any event, none of the three have had much trouble putting points up this year. If a team's defensive talent is susceptible to this type of offense, it stands to reason they'd be scored against by anyone running that scheme, and repeatedly scoring the numbers below.

Oregon

Date Opponent Ducks Rank Opp Rank Location Time (PT) Results Media

Sat, Apr 27 Spring Game - - Eugene, Ore. 11:00 a.m. 65 - 10

Sat, Aug 31 Nicholls 3 - Eugene, Ore. 1:00 p.m. 66 - 3 (W)

Sat, Sep 07 Virginia 2 RV Charlottesville, Va. 12:30 p.m. 59 - 10 (W)

Sat, Sep 14 Tennessee 2 RV Eugene, Ore. 12:30 p.m. 59 - 14 (W)

Live Stats
Sat, Sep 28 California * 2 - Eugene, Ore. 7:30 p.m. 55 - 16 (W)

Sat, Oct 05 Colorado * 2 - Boulder, Colo. 3:00 p.m. 57 - 16 (W)

Sat, Oct 12 Washington * 2 16 Seattle, Wash. 1:00 p.m. 45 - 24 (W)

Sat, Oct 19 Washington State * 2 - Eugene, Ore. 7:00 p.m. 62 - 38 (W)

Sat, Oct 26 UCLA * 2 12 Eugene, Ore. 4:00 p.m. 42 - 14 (W)

Thu, Nov 07 Stanford * 2 6 Stanford, Calif. 6:00 p.m. 20 - 26 (L)

Mizzu

08/31/13 vs. Murray State TV Columbia, Mo. W, 58-14

09/07/13 vs. Toledo TV Columbia, Mo. W, 38-23

09/21/13 at Indiana TV Bloomington, Ind. W, 45-28

09/28/13 vs. Arkansas State TV Columbia, Mo. W, 41-19

10/05/13 at Vanderbilt * TV Nashville, Tenn. W, 51-28

10/12/13 at Georgia * TV Athens, Ga. W, 41-26

10/19/13 vs. Florida * TV Columbia, Mo. W, 36-17

10/26/13 vs. South Carolina * TV Columbia, Mo. L, 27-24 (2OT)

11/02/13 vs. Tennessee * TV Columbia, Mo. W, 31-3

Auburn
08/31/13 vs. Washington State TV Auburn W, 31-24
09/07/13 vs. Arkansas State TV Auburn W, 38-9
09/14/13 vs. Mississippi State TV Auburn W, 24-20
09/21/13 at (6) LSU TV Baton Rouge L, 35-21
10/05/13 vs. (24) Ole Miss TV Auburn W, 30-22
10/12/13 vs. Western Carolina TV Auburn W, 62-3
10/19/13 at (7) Texas A&M TV College Station W, 45-41
10/26/13 vs. Florida Atlantic TV Auburn W, 45-10
11/02/13 at Arkansas TV Fayetteville W, 35-17
11/09/13 at Tennessee TV Knoxville W, 55-23
11/16/13 vs. (25) Georgia TV Auburn W, 43-38

 

[Sandvol]

I said they were very similar styles-- which is the actual point of my argument, that you either ignored, or didn't get. If you can't see the similarities of these teams' offenses, then I don't know what to say. If you don't see the overarching point that our current talent has seemed to struggle against this style of offense all year, then... Oh well. It's no skin off of my back.

In any event, none of the three have had much trouble putting points up this year. If a team's defensive talent is susceptible to this type of offense, it stands to reason they'd be scored against by anyone running that scheme, and repeatedly scoring the numbers below.

So did Auburn run the spread option during their punt and kick-off returns?

 

[SaintLouisVol]

interesting points.

CBJ has a fat pitch over the middle of the plate opportunity this Saturday to substantially answer some of these questions.

At least something hittable in the strike zone.

I think it will take a great effort for our Vols to beat Vandy. It will not be an easy task by any means, but it is absolutely a winnable game. In light of the circumstances, I be will disappointed if they do not win.

Well, MORE disappointed. Other than Ga (and only then because of how it went down), I have not really been too upset this year. They haven't really lost a game that I thought they should have won or even had a REAL chance of winning. (maybe Fla in hindsight, but I didn't see it at the time) I think that have a good chance this week, and they need to exploit it.

 

[sjt18]

I said they were very similar styles-- which is the actual point of my argument, that you either ignored, or didn't get. If you can't see the similarities of these teams' offenses, then I don't know what to say. If you don't see the overarching point that our current talent has seemed to struggle against this style of offense all year, then... Oh well. It's no skin off of my back.

Yet less athletic teams have done better... but you all want to argue that the problem is not coaching but athleticism.

In any event, none of the three have had much trouble putting points up this year. If a team's defensive talent is susceptible to this type of offense, it stands to reason they'd be scored against by anyone running that scheme, and repeatedly scoring the numbers below.

And NONE of what you have posted justifies UT performing at or near the bottom of the teams that have faced these O's. If a teams' COACHES struggle with this type of O and FAILS to get better then it stands to reason....

You are living in denial of even the suggestion that coaching could be an issue here. I and others have acknowledged that there ARE talent and depth issues that contribute. But it is NOT all talent and depth.

 

[Sandvol]

Yet less athletic teams have done better... but you all want to argue that the problem is not coaching but athleticism.



And NONE of what you have posted justifies UT performing at or near the bottom of the teams that have faced these O's. If a teams' COACHES struggle with this type of O and FAILS to get better then it stands to reason....

You are living in denial of even the suggestion that coaching could be an issue here. I and others have acknowledged that there ARE talent and depth issues that contribute. But it is NOT all talent and depth.

I think we'll be able to tell a lot Saturday. When Dooley's teams were at this point Dools couldn't turn it around and right the ship. Let's see what happens with Jones. Can Jones recognize his weaknesses and turn it around? I want to see a disciplined hard-nosed effort. If we lose to Vandy even with that then that's OK. Jones can rectify a talent issue. If we're still running around on punt coverage like a bunch of lost geese then dire times are still ahead.

 

[sjt18]

You are missing the entire point. This defense can not defend the spread option offenses.

No. I am not missing that point at all. IT is simply convenient for you all to pretend that I am. The problem I have is that have not improved against this type of O... they've gotten worse if anything.

Simple as that.

Yep. Pretty much simple as that.

If you factor in the speed factor, it is a recipe for disaster.

There are SEVERAL D's that have performed better than UT against these opponents that are SIGNIFICANTLY less athletic. The "speed factor" is far less important than the coachng factor and especially as you continue to fail or fail worse rather than making effective changes.

You can either continue to pine over Dooley or move on and get behind this ENTIRE coaching staff.

No. I will not buy your fallacy of limited alternatives. I am neither pining for Dooley nor am I going to simply "get behind the ENTIRE" staff until they ENTIRELY earn it. Jancek... is headed in the other direction.

The season is not over yet, we have two games left against two teams that DO NOT run the spread option.

And? Beating Vandy and UK with their talent levels should somehow redeem Jancek? I am sorry you are in this position in this argument... but you are. The two possible outcomes for you is that your argument will not be helped because UT's D SHOULD be able to stop both teams with relative ease... OR your argument will be destroyed if one or both of these teams run over Jancek's D.

Anyone can see that UT does not have the athletes to defend that type of offense.

Right but these teams have better athletes to defend that kind of O, right?

Ark St
Utah
FAU
Wash St
Arkansas

Now if you really want a swirly... check out how many others did a better job than UT on rush D or total D.

And before YOU bring up Stanford, those kids have been in that system for how many years?

I didn't need to. Stanford has been in a similar system on D for awhile and has some good players.

 

[sjt18]

FWIW, please point to where I said UT's D should have "stopped" Oregon, MU, or Aub. I am almost certain that you can't. What I have said is if the coaching had been effective.... they would not have been beaten like an FCS homecoming opponent. If you want to believe that UT's D talent is in the same level as UVA, Nicholl's State, Ark St, Utah, FAU, WSU, Arkansas or severl others that could be listed... then I'm not sure how to shake you out of that delusion.

 

[sjt18]

Honestly fellas... the weakness of your argument is very apparent when you exaggerate in an attempt to set up straw men.

 

[Tarkus]

Hey genius, have you even watched the games. The regression is in how we have been playing, not that we're losing. We haven't even been remotely competitive. We've been totally obliterated. Our defense is the same sorry sad sack pitiful piece of crap that we watched last year. No improvement whatsoever. Furthermore, we have performed worse on offense, defense, and special teams as the year has gone on. We haven't seen progress, we're seeing each week a bigger crap performance than the week before.

Good grief, I think the majority of our fan base must be alumni of Tennessee School for the Blind !!!

Has it ever occurred to you that the only thing this years team and last years team has in common is the same players. Maybe, just maybe, they aren't very good players and it is going to take better players before we have a better team. The more talented teams, like the ones we just played can exploit our lack of talent and make us look much worse.

 

[tm3]

I consider it a fat pitch because all excuses are now off the table.

Mental fatigue, depression: 2 weeks is plenty of time for CBJ et al to get them focused and fired up about senior day, bowl, etc.

Physical fatigue: 2 weeks is plenty of recovery time for young athletes

Talent: UT has the talent advantage

Speed: VU does not have a speed advantage

QB: CBJ has his best QB now under center, one that he hand picked to run his O and said QB now has valuable game experience

O line: best in the SEC or best in the USA depending on whose analysis you read

New system: 10 games in the system is no longer new

Home field: check

Precedent: CDD beat VU his first year, on the road, with freshmen at critical positions such as O line and with only 65 scholarship players compared to CBJs 82

If CBJ really "get's it" and if he truly has the greatest coaching staff in America then he gets a W this week. Plain and simple.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yet less athletic teams have done better... but you all want to argue that the problem is not coaching but athleticism.



And NONE of what you have posted justifies UT performing at or near the bottom of the teams that have faced these O's. If a teams' COACHES struggle with this type of O and FAILS to get better then it stands to reason....

You are living in denial of even the suggestion that coaching could be an issue here. I and others have acknowledged that there ARE talent and depth issues that contribute. But it is NOT all talent and depth.

Wait a minute... Are you changing the point in contest? I thought the point was about regression. At least, that's what it was about when I made it.

The point being: UT has struggled all year against spread/option rushing offenses. If that be the case, struggling early, and struggling late would not be regression.

Secondarily, if UT's talent is especially susceptible to this offense, and Oregon pointed it out for those that followed, it may make sense that other defenses that aren't as susceptible to it (perhaps less talented, but built to stop that type of speed), may perform better against it.

But that's a red herring to my point. Struggling early, and struggling late, does not equal "regression".

 

[Reverend Bubba Flavel]

Who have the Vols lost to that they weren't supposed to? They actually beat a ranked team & have a chance to make a bowl game. Most of you clowns would ***** if you were hung with a new rope (not a bad idea for some)

Florida for sure.
Georgia.

Unless you are talking about expectations at the beginning of the year - then Missouri and maybe Auburn.

 

[SaintLouisVol]

Florida for sure. Georgia. . . .

We were double-digit underdogs to both of those teams. How is it we weren't supposed to lose?

Florida is not as good as was thought at the beginning of the year. But, they're ahead of Tennessee on the talent and experience scale, and the game was in their house. In hindsight we probably had a better chance that we thought, but hardly was it a "should have won" game. Circumstances turned it into a "could have won" game. It didn't work out.

If we could have closed the deal with UGA, it would have been the headliner upset of the week. We absolutely were "supposed" to lose that game.

Unless you are talking about expectations at the beginning of the year - then Missouri and maybe Auburn.

So the inability of the media to predict the play of certain teams means we weren't supposed to lose? Missouri (and even Auburn on paper) still has a very real chance of playing in the SEC championship, yet we should have beaten them?

 

[volfan411]

Wait a minute... Are you changing the point in contest? I thought the point was about regression. At least, that's what it was about when I made it.

The point being: UT has struggled all year against spread/option rushing offenses. If that be the case, struggling early, and struggling late would not be regression.

Secondarily, if UT's talent is especially susceptible to this offense, and Oregon pointed it out for those that followed, it may make sense that other defenses that aren't as susceptible to it (perhaps less talented, but built to stop that type of speed), may perform better against it.

But that's a red herring to my point. Struggling early, and struggling late, does not equal "regression".

I think the question should be what are we basing regression on. If we are basing our opinion on the defense based on the way they played against SC then you may think they have regressed but if you look at it the way I do and think the SC game was the exception and not the rule you will have a different opinion.


Does anyone think they played any better against Oregon than they did MO? I do not think they did and may have played a little worse against Oregon so if you believe that then we have seen improvement.

 

[87Vol]

Has it ever occurred to you that the only thing this years team and last years team has in common is the same players. Maybe, just maybe, they aren't very good players and it is going to take better players before we have a better team. The more talented teams, like the ones we just played can exploit our lack of talent and make us look much worse.

Well Tarkus,
Since you say that we have mostly the same players "in common" as last year's team, is it not reasonable to expect that Butch should be able to get at least a little bit better results than Derek Doofus? That is, since we all assume him to be a far far better coach than Doofus. Wouldn't that be a reasonable expectation in this circumstance? We'll guess what, it didn't happen, even with supposedly a far superior coach. Yes, we lost some really good talent on offense, so you might expect them to be a little worse, but on defense, we have the same cast of characters, and not a single smidgen of improvement at all. That raises a bit of a red flag for me, along with the fact that we are getting worse and not better as the season progresses.

That does not mean it's even close to time to give up on Butch. After all, he is recruiting like gangbusters! Nevertheless, Butch still needs to know that he has underperformed slightly in getting individual players and Team 117 to improve on the field.

 

[volfan411]

Well Tarkus,
Since you say that we have mostly the same players "in common" as last year's team, is it not reasonable to expect that Butch should be able to get at least a little bit better results than Derek Doofus? That is, since we all assume him to be a far far better coach than Doofus. Wouldn't that be a reasonable expectation in this circumstance? We'll guess what, it didn't happen, even with supposedly a far superior coach. Yes, we lost some really good talent on offense, so you might expect them to be a little worse, but on defense, we have the same cast of characters, and not a single smidgen of improvement at all. That raises a bit of a red flag for me, along with the fact that we are getting worse and not better as the season progresses.

That does not mean it's even close to time to give up on Butch. After all, he is recruiting like gangbusters! Nevertheless, Butch still needs to know that he has underperformed slightly in getting individual players and Team 117 to improve on the field.

I am not sure these players can improve as they have made the same mistakes under 2 different DC's and position coaches. I have to think that both sets of coaches have tried to correct their mistakes and make them better.

I do think it is fair to question why we continue to leave them in the game and not put in some of the younger guys and give them a shot and if the answer to the question is they are not ready after 10 games then I have to wonder if they are not being developed and that is a coaching issue.

 

[SaintLouisVol]

. . .I do think it is fair to question why we continue to leave them in the game and not put in some of the younger guys and give them a shot and if the answer to the question is they are not ready after 10 games then I have to wonder if they are not being developed and that is a coaching issue.

I think this is the catch 22 CBJ is in. The starters are struggling but the fall-off at the 2 and 3 deep is so bad, he feels like they give the team no chance. He is obligated to try to win every game. It isn't that they are not ready. They are not able. Why else would so many freshmen have played already?

If he continues to recruit at his current level, I honestly believe a most all of the current roster won't even be on the team in two years.

 

[Reverend Bubba Flavel]

We were double-digit underdogs to both of those teams. How is it we weren't supposed to lose?

Florida is not as good as was thought at the beginning of the year. But, they're ahead of Tennessee on the talent and experience scale, and the game was in their house. In hindsight we probably had a better chance that we thought, but hardly was it a "should have won" game. Circumstances turned it into a "could have won" game. It didn't work out.

If we could have closed the deal with UGA, it would have been the headliner upset of the week. We absolutely were "supposed" to lose that game.



So the inability of the media to predict the play of certain teams means we weren't supposed to lose? Missouri (and even Auburn on paper) still has a very real chance of playing in the SEC championship, yet we should have beaten them?

Florida is a bad team. Those circumstances in our game with them seem to happen with them. Its obvious the impression most, including myself, had of them at the beginning of the year was way off.
And that is the point I was making about early season expectations. Many of us thought we had a good chance in Columbia and a decent shot at Auburn. As the season played out we realized both those teams far exceeded expectations. The reverse is true for Florida. So to say because of the point spread and whatnot that were weren't "supposed" to beat them appears to me to be talking out of both sides of a mouth.

Florida is nowhere near as good as most everyone thought in September. Neither is Georgia. Florida is a bad team, Georgia is mediocre.

Having said that, I think we "stole" one from USC. So the record is probably about where proper "expectations" would place it. Although the level of play in the games we have lost is well below expectations imo.

 

[volfan411]

I think this is the catch 22 CBJ is in. The starters are struggling but the fall-off at the 2 and 3 deep is so bad, he feels like they give the team no chance. He is obligated to try to win every game. It isn't that they are not ready. They are not able. Why else would so many freshmen have played already?

If he continues to recruit at his current level, I honestly believe a most all of the current roster won't even be on the team in two years.

He has certainty recruited better than I expected and do believe this years class will over take the current players in due time.

I am a Jones supporter and did not want that statement to sound critical of him or the staff but I do wonder why we do not see more of Vereen or Reeves-Maybin. I do not have the luxury of watching practice to know if they are ready or not and have faith in the staff to put the best 11 on the field as their job is to wins games.

 

[sjt18]

Has it ever occurred to you that the only thing this years team and last years team has in common is the same players. Maybe, just maybe, they aren't very good players and it is going to take better players before we have a better team. The more talented teams, like the ones we just played can exploit our lack of talent and make us look much worse.

Yes. To be perfectly frank, that is EXACTLY what occurred to me. You hit the nail right on the head... then ignored the implications. No matter how bad you want to believe the talent is (and it is NOT as bad as many of you are determined to believe) better coaching should lead to better results if that is the only real variable.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Florida is a bad team. Those circumstances in our game with them seem to happen with them. Its obvious the impression most, including myself, had of them at the beginning of the year was way off.
And that is the point I was making about early season expectations. Many of us thought we had a good chance in Columbia and a decent shot at Auburn. As the season played out we realized both those teams far exceeded expectations. The reverse is true for Florida. So to say because of the point spread and whatnot that were weren't "supposed" to beat them appears to me to be talking out of both sides of a mouth.

Florida is nowhere near as good as most everyone thought in September. Neither is Georgia. Florida is a bad team, Georgia is mediocre.

Having said that, I think we "stole" one from USC. So the record is probably about where proper "expectations" would place it. Although the level of play in the games we have lost is well below expectations imo.

When we played Florida they were nowhere near as bad as they are now. Georgia was hampered by injuries already when we played them. They are not a mediocre team by any stretch. They almost beat Auburn. If Georgia had all of their offense healthy the whole season, they are a one loss team that would be playing in the SEC title game again.

We didn't steal the SC game. They had their full compliment on both sides of the ball. Our team played the better game. We beat them straight up. That should not be trivialized as stealing a game.

 

[sjt18]

That is what happens when you are tired. When you are tired, the first thing that happens is that you don't use proper technique. The missed tackles are not an indictment against the coaching staff. If the players are worn down, what is the coaching staff to do.

Well, at least this is a new excuse.... not a valid one but at least it isn't the same old worn out ones.

Some of the UT fans have unrealistic expectations. The stated goal before the season was to make it to a bowl game. As far as I see it, we are still on track for that.

So low balling a "goal" then making it is a good way to approach life?

The losses were bad, but they still only counted as one loss. If we would've lost by 1 or 100 it is still one loss. The win loss column doesn't care about how many points you lose by.

Yes. Margins of losses and competitiveness of player ARE very important.

Answer honestly. If I took the time to look up your preseason posts... would I find one that says any of the following?

I just want to see improvement over last year.

I just want to see the team compete and not quit.

I just want to be competitive in every game

I just want to see improvement over the season.


My bet is that I would if you were posting then. If you are re-building "brick by brick" then competitiveness matters ALOT.

As CBJ would say, focus on the end result and the process.

Three consecutive blow outs is not an end result? They do not say anything about the success of the process? Being completely uncompetitive is indicative of good process?

 

[SaintLouisVol]

. . . So to say because of the point spread and whatnot that were weren't "supposed" to beat them appears to me to be talking out of both sides of a mouth. . .

I fail to see the hypocrisy. I would allow that if team isn't favored and wins, it wasn't "supposed" to happen.

As sordid as Vegas is, the guys that do that stuff are remarkabley good at it. There are billions at stake, and they get it pretty dang close an awful lot of the time.

Yes, Florida is bad. I think they are worse now than they were early because it snow-balled and their coach couldn't handle it. But there's little that points to the idea that Tennessee should have won that game.

 

[volfan411]

Well, at least this is a new excuse.... not a valid one but at least it isn't the same old worn out ones.

So low balling a "goal" then making it is a good way to approach life?

Yes. Margins of losses and competitiveness of player ARE very important.

Answer honestly. If I took the time to look up your preseason posts... would I find one that says any of the following?

I just want to see improvement over last year.

I just want to see the team compete and not quit.

I just want to be competitive in every game

I just want to see improvement over the season.


My bet is that I would if you were posting then. If you are re-building "brick by brick" then competitiveness matters ALOT.



Three consecutive blow outs is not an end result? They do not say anything about the success of the process? Being completely uncompetitive is indicative of good process?

sjt18 I have a question do you think the defense played better earlier in the season and regressed or do you think they played not up to their potential for the entire season?