Our talent and speed in a game of inches

#26
#26
angles always are determined by speed. Slower guys have less room for error and almost have to overpursue a guy that can cut off their hip. Faster or quicker guy can not only get to the spot quicker, but can react to a cutback or a move outside because they are simply faster and quicker. Simple common sense that some are making difficult.
 
#27
#27
Lord no Toeflood... Speed just gets you there in time so that you can actually utilize proper technique. :peace2:

I agree that speed is extremely beneficial. But, to say that it's the main reason our defense is lacking is hard for me to accept. Is Palardy really faster than auburn's return man? Doubtful. Yet he made a tackle or 2 in open space Saturday. Why? Because he used proper ANGLES. Sure, bein faster than the guy with the ball helps. But, there's no way a tenth of a second is the reason our defense can't tackle. My opinion is that our fundamentals are crap. Now, whether the coaches are at fault or the players are at fault, I have no clue.
 
#28
#28
You can have great technique and angles in a drill on Tuesday and still look like crap on Saturday. We're not just talking speed, the Vols have a talent and depth gap as well. Being a good defensive player is a talent. It shows up more on the offensive side of the ball like when Johnny Manzeil looks like he could make a guy miss in a phone booth. To tackle him in space you have to be as athletic as he is. Technique and angles only help if you can play at the level athletically that your opponent brings.

I agree completely. Manziel is a great example. But, I have a hard time accepting the fact that any player in our secondary or others with speed comparable to Johnny couldn't tackle him in the open field. Another example, would you not agree that Oregon is probably faster and more athletic than Stanford? Technique. Fundamentals. Angles.
 
#29
#29
I agree completely. Manziel is a great example. But, I have a hard time accepting the fact that any player in our secondary or others with speed comparable to Johnny couldn't tackle him in the open field. Another example, would you not agree that Oregon is probably faster and more athletic than Stanford? Technique. Fundamentals. Angles.

Haha. Sorry. Obviously they wouldn't be able to tackle him. I meant to say there's no way that they SHOULDN'T be able to. With proper techniques...
 
#31
#31
And the big problem is that we are lacking in speed in the worst two places - the ends of the DL (meaning we never get consistent pressure on a QB and can't keep up with a mobile QB) and the secondary (where we get torched by breakaway RB's and QB's and can't defend the deep ball).
 
#32
#32
Speed specifically on the edges, Auburn did not gash us inside the tackles. They got outside where our extremely slow DE's cannot make up ground due to lack of SPEED. We have been killed ALL year on the edges.

What is the fix? because surely d**k head Franklin will go out side ALL NIGHT LONG..............He aint stupid and surely watches the film. Time for Jancek to earn his money and GET THIS FIXED. Try Reeves Maybin out there instead of Smith maybe, :bash:

yeah...if only vandy had auburns speed. That they aveage 126 yards per game and Auburn 320 is maybe a hint?
 
#33
#33
This Auburn game was not a game of inches, it was a game of feet...our defense was a few feet from the ball carrier when they ran by.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#34
#34
I apologize in advance for the length of this post.

Ok, so I have been on the site most days since our latest embarrassment to Auburn on Saturday. And yes it was indeed embarrassing. It is unacceptable for UT to get thrashed like that by any team. That being said I would like to post the following:

First, just for credibility's sake I will tell you that I am an ex D1 football player. I did in fact play linebacker. Not an all star by any stretch but in some ways that makes what I am about to say even more credible because I have been there and really know what it is like to be at physical disadvantage to my opponents. These players today are even more physical and fast than what I competed against. I can't even imagine what it must feel like to be on an SEC field of play today.

The common theme of those critical of our current coaches is that our current lack of speed (almost universally agreed that this exists) is no excuse for lack of proper pursuit angles, lack of proper tackling technique and the lack of a proper "scheme" to counter said lack of speed. The fact is that lack of speed in a controlled environment, IE drills or practice in general, typically does not impede technique, angles etc... However, a game is far from a controlled environment. $hit happens really fast and is constantly changing. If a team lacks speed in most of its positions, it becomes increasingly more difficult to adapt to these changes. Anyone who has played the game can tell you there is no worse feeling than being on your heels on the defensive side of the ball. Throw in a HC/OC that is great at exploiting weakness, a book of nine prior games for study and an offense with blazingly fast skilled players, it is a recipe for a long day.

Regarding angles- Your game angles, especially early, are predicated on the speed you have practiced against. AUs qb torched us repeatedly and we did indeed take poor angles. But when you are practicing day in and day out against 4.6 speed and gameday is at 4.5 you are already on your heels. I was told that that .1 on a forty is almost no difference in speed at all. It is in fact a very big deal and usually equates to about a yard in space. That's easily the difference between making or missing a tackle. Hell, six inches at this speed can do that. You can try to adjust and hope that the entire team adjusts along with you, but then you get hung up thinking too much and you start from an even farther point behind. Never mind that a good OC immediately begins to exploit this more and more. Keep in mind also that if you need to take an angle, you are already beat. The key to good defense is to beat your opponent to the spot and hammer them there. Auburn did a great job of getting their skilled guys into space really quickly and we just were incapable of responding adequately.

Technique- I'll try to keep this short- If you are slower than your opponent you will not meet them in a proper position to make a tackle with sound technique. It's just not going to happen. If they beat you to the spot, you will be glancing off of them or whiffing altogether. We saw a lot of that. couple that with our difficulty controlling the LOS and it was clear we were going to get blistered. I could see it even early when we were supposedly in the game. I could just feel the damn was about to break and that AU was capable of exploiting us at will.

Scheme- There was no way to scheme our way out of such a HUGE speed disparity. They seemed as fast or faster than Oregon in the skill positions to me. I've heard "load the box", "play a nickel", "bring in Saulsberry and some of our quicker DL" etc. etc. etc. every change you make in scheme creates a new weakness that given our inexperience and lack of depth was going to and did expose us to some different method of attack.

The bottom line in all of this is that Auburn is simply better, a lot better than we are right now. I don't even think you can begin to judge coaching against these faster teams when we are so inadequate from a speed perspective. I'm not sure next year will be much better because even though we are bringing in some really fast players, there is such a HUGE difference in the speed of the game that there will be a serious adjustment period. It will help that many are EE.

I remain very hopeful, but not entirely sold on CBJ. I will tell you this though. That man is a football coach and I would LOVE to have played for him and this staff. They are energetic, positive, tough and totally engaged all of the time. He doesn't make excuses but goes back to work immediately to get better and prepared for the next game. To compare him to the loser that Dooley was is totally ridiculous as I've seen so many try to do.

Again, I apologize for the length of this.

Oh, and a preemptive :moon2: to those of you that find joy in immediately trashing someone new that decides to start a thread haha.

I certainly know that you can't replace or coach speed. I do have some questions about how we play the zone read and a teams counter scheme.

On Saturday, Auburn continually had success with the QB counter and QB keep. I saw an endzone shot of the QB counter on one of Auburn's TDs. Our DE stepped outside w/ the RB, as did our outside LB. That would have meant AJ Johnson would've had to scrape and fit the C gap all the way from the front side of the defense, much less defeat a down block from the playside Tackle. Neither the DE, nor the WLB wrong shoulder the pulling guard and spilled the ball to the perimeter.

Now, I know you can say it was simply a bust on the field and I don't truly know who has what responsibility in regards to force and spill rules, but I do know this was a repeated problem and (I think) the weakside safety was even supposed to take QB at one point, but got his eyes stuck in the backfield.

Oh well, I enjoy a mixture and variety in scheme, but we are having problems communicating/executing and that falls back on the defensive staff.
 
#35
#35
I agree completely. Manziel is a great example. But, I have a hard time accepting the fact that any player in our secondary or others with speed comparable to Johnny couldn't tackle him in the open field. Another example, would you not agree that Oregon is probably faster and more athletic than Stanford? Technique. Fundamentals. Angles.

David Shaw is a hell of a coach, and I don't want to take anything away from the job he and his staff have done out there. But don't get it mixed up: Oregon lost to Stanford because they lost the turnover battle. The most athletic players in the world aren't very good when you repeatedly hand the ball over to the other team.
 
#36
#36
Speed is an issue but not the greatest issue with the defense. Football knowledge, i.e., knowing WHEN to go WHERE on the field during defensive plays is the greater issue, IMO.
 
#38
#38
Simple SPEED KILLS we don't have very much on the back seven we are decent up front, but still saying all that it still looks like we would have made a adjustment for those 2 plays ran over and over.
 
#39
#39
David Shaw is a hell of a coach, and I don't want to take anything away from the job he and his staff have done out there. But don't get it mixed up: Oregon lost to Stanford because they lost the turnover battle. The most athletic players in the world aren't very good when you repeatedly hand the ball over to the other team.

Stanford is what the Gators is to Tennessee, before they take the field they are already down by 14 in there head.
 
#40
#40
Speed specifically on the edges, Auburn did not gash us inside the tackles. They got outside where our extremely slow DE's cannot make up ground due to lack of SPEED. We have been killed ALL year on the edges.

What is the fix? because surely d**k head Franklin will go out side ALL NIGHT LONG..............He aint stupid and surely watches the film. Time for Jancek to earn his money and GET THIS FIXED. Try Reeves Maybin out there instead of Smith maybe, :bash:

I'm sure Franklin will try to exploit the exploitable but I believe that Vandy and KY are also lacking in speed. Vandy has Jordan Matthews and that is about it for speed.
 
#42
#42
In addition to speed, we must get off of blocks better. If I didn't know better, I would say in the last three weeks, the DB's and LBs looked like they were handcuffed to a blocking WR or lineman.
 
#43
#43
Sorry if someone already suggested this, but why not use one of our faster players- Devrin Young, for example- as a 'dual threat QB' in practice and let the defense practice against him? The simulation would help them learn the proper angles and techniques against a much faster opponent..
 
#44
#44
I agree completely. Manziel is a great example. But, I have a hard time accepting the fact that any player in our secondary or others with speed comparable to Johnny couldn't tackle him in the open field. Another example, would you not agree that Oregon is probably faster and more athletic than Stanford? Technique. Fundamentals. Angles.

Stanford was much bigger and stronger on offensive line vs. Oregon defense and The Cardinal has a great RB. So they nullified Oregon's offense by mashing the Ducks and keeping the ball for 42 minutes. Stanford's D line was also able to get pressure with only 4 rushers. They were very disruptive accounting for several negative plays. Oregon has a hand full of really fast, great athletic guys on offense that they try to get in space. They are not a top 10 team on their O or D lines. That's why they can't beat Stanford or top SEC teams. So to answer your question; Oregon has 3 guys or so that are faster than anyone on Stanford's team, but Stanford has 40+ other players that are better athletes than Oregon's next 40.
 
#45
#45
Sorry if someone already suggested this, but why not use one of our faster players- Devrin Young, for example- as a 'dual threat QB' in practice and let the defense practice against him? The simulation would help them learn the proper angles and techniques against a much faster opponent..

Might be worth it if you had unlimited practice time but the coaches only get these guys 20 hours a week and that includes film, conditioning, everything. Successful programs have a system and stay with it because you simply don't have time to "experiment".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#46
#46
Might be worth it if you had unlimited practice time but the coaches only get these guys 20 hours a week and that includes film, conditioning, everything. Successful programs have a system and stay with it because you simply don't have time to "experiment".

I didn't know that.. definitely makes more sense now. Thanks!
 

VN Store



Back
Top