Reality

[DD4ME]

Allow me to beat a dead horse.
You give me sh*t.
You ask me to make banana pudding from it.
Is it my fault that I cannot?

You have a draftable O line, you have 2 good RB's. You have a great run stuffing MLB. You have sizeable receivers who have shown they can catch the ball, though not consistently. You have 2 more QB's on the roster.

What you are telling me is that you have a pantry with goods but refuse to crack it open or simply make another dessert than the one you set out to make in the first place.

 

[DD4ME]

I don't know enough of the information to Judge Bajakian or Butch but it's not much of a leap for me that they are set on installing their system at UT the same way they rolled their entire Cincy staff in here. In some ways it will work, in some ways it may not. I liken this to the criticisms of Chaney. His offense was effective in putting up points it was not effective at winning games. Some of that was on him at different times, some was on players, and some was on other coordinators. Either way it was on the head coach.
Jones/Bajakian will not be immune to the same scrutiny.

 

[volgr]

Fair enough.
What should we do then?

Not much we can do is there? We are about as out of options as any program can be. Just hope and pray the administration gets fixed, including Hart, and Butch continues to recuit like he is. Therefore if Butch isn't the ultimate answer we will have an administration in place that can handle hiring a top notch coach at that point.

 

[DD4ME]

Not much we can do is there? We are about as out of options as any program can be. Just hope and pray the administration gets fixed, including Hart, and Butch continues to recuit like he is. Therefore if Butch isn't the ultimate answer we will have an administration in place that can handle hiring a top notch coach at that point.

There in lies the debate. We could resign to throw this year away and keep 2 redshirts and keep installing the wrote system. We could muck with it all season long and maybe make it worse. Or we could do something somewhere in the middle and hope we find some balance and success.

I sure hope they are doing the later. At times in games though it hasn't been apparent, which is what some fans are questioning.

 

[Doyle Hargraves]

You have a draftable O line, you have 2 good RB's. You have a great run stuffing MLB. You have sizeable receivers who have shown they can catch the ball, though not consistently. You have 2 more QB's on the roster.

What you are telling me is that you have a pantry with goods but refuse to crack it open or simply make another dessert than the one you set out to make in the first place.

You are telling me that the OL is the cure all?
They should overcome a lackluster passing attack? They should dominate despite the passing deficiencies with a ground attack that is bottom half of the SEC talent wise? Look, I want to be at the top of the conference as much as you, but we ain't there. We aren't anywhere close. If our previous staff had recruited on the level that they should have, then your argument would have legs. They didn't and that's a fact. We are at ground zero.

 

[volgr]

I liken this to the criticisms of Chaney. His offense was effective in putting up points it was not effective at winning games. Some of that was on him at different times, some was on players, and some was on other coordinators. Either way it was on the head coach.
Jones/Bajakian will not be immune to the same scrutiny.

I was mostly a fan of Chaney's offense in general. Did he get sloppy with play calling at times? Yes. Then again he had a stable of weapons all of which were varying degrees of headcases and his head coach was probably only making those problems worse and not better. It's hard to call plays when you don't know what to expect from your playmakers.

 

[volgr]

Look, I want to be at the top of the conference as much as you, but we ain't there. We aren't anywhere close.

No one is saying we should be at the top of the conference right now. That is a straw man. What some of us are saying is that the offensive system is not playing to the strengths of our team.

 

[volgr]

There in lies the debate. We could resign to throw this year away and keep 2 redshirts and keep installing the wrote system. We could muck with it all season long and maybe make it worse. Or we could do something somewhere in the middle and hope we find some balance and success.

I sure hope they are doing the later. At times in games though it hasn't been apparent, which is what some fans are questioning.

I don't like the system in general. As recent history has shown, unless you have an unreal talent at QB (Tebow, Cam) this offensive scheme doesn't win SEC titles.

 

[Doyle Hargraves]

No one is saying we should be at the top of the conference right now. That is a straw man. What some of us are saying is that the offensive system is not playing to the strengths of our team.

Mods please overlook me on this one...
We have no gatdamned strengths!
We are what we are.
Can you not see that we are in dire straights?
You keep saying play to something that we do not have.

 

[Merlot]

Reality. I think, therefore I think I am.

 

[Doyle Hargraves]

Reality. I think, therefore I think I am.

That's some deep stuff right there.

 

[volgr]

Mods please overlook me on this one...
We have no gatdamned strengths!
We are what we are.
Can you not see that we are in dire straights?
You keep saying play to something that we do not have.

Come on. Get real. Our offensive line does have strengths, our WR's...umm not much, our RB's have strengths, Worley does have some strength's, just as Compton did. Running the read option is not one of them however. These players were recruited for and have played in a pro style system for the last however many years they have been here.

 

[Aday25]

I'm taking a different tack though.

I'm saying it should have been up to Bajakian to realize that Worley has gone from "Good but with 1-2 bad decisions" in the first half to "bad decisions and bad throws".

Bajakian shouldn't have put the game in Worley's head/hand late in the 3rd Quarter/4th Quarter. We needed to have more than a combined 8:15 Time of Possession in the entire 2nd Half minus our opening drive.

If you include our opening drive our 2nd half TOP is roughly 11:00 of a 30:00 period. For a very thin depth defense... that's a recipe for disaster.

Nobody sees a problem with the playcalling? Nobody sees a problem with the fact that we had to go to the wire against SOAL?

You don't have to be an aeronautical engineer to look at a rock with balsawood wings and say "that thing won't fly".

I see your point to an extent. But if players aren't executing the plays it really doesn't matter what you call.

Look at it from SOAL perspective: Their QB is struggling, force the QB to beat us.

And it almost worked. We needed Worley to complete passes because SOAL was keying on the run...but he under threw and over threw most of the throws. I would say the play call in most of those situations was the correct one. Our WRs were getting open Worley couldn't deliver. We just couldn't execute.

I do agree that I would have liked to seen a more successful run game late in the game, but if the defense is giving you an obvious passing situation then often that will dictate what kind of play you'll run.

Please don't take this the wrong way. I think there can be improvement on the play calling side of things too. No team is ever perfect. And this team has a lot of things to work on. So i'm not with holding blame on the coaching staff. Because you win or lose as a team, which includes coaching staff. All I can say is, at least we won, despite Worley throwing 3 ints, a botched field goal kick (which was almost returned for a TD, a running game that was ineffective (2nd half) and a defense being constantly on the short end of the field. Most of the time that spells disaster for most teams even against a team like SOAL...

 

[BanditVol]

Hell, Kiffin had this team playing head and shoulders better than when Fulmer left. Also Kiffin implemented a style of offense that maximized our strengths. We beat UGa, SC and should have won at Bama even though our talent was not up to par with those teams.

We were 7-6 under Kiffin. Had Fulmer not been fired, we almost certainly beat Wyoming (ugh) go 6-6, and maybe even win a bowl game.

And UGa and USC did not have more talent. Not by much. As recently as 2007, Fulmer was 2nd in recruiting. Saban's recruits had started kicking in at bammer though.

And as much as people like to point to uga and USC that year, which were satifying wins, hell, Fulmer crushed UGa in 2007, so what's the big deal?

Finally, you can't ignore that Ole Miss humilated...absolutely HUMILIATED us later in the year, likely exposing Monte's inabiliy to stop the spread, and that we completely flopped in the bowl game.

Hell, if Fulmer hadn't been under a cloud all of 2008 from the UCLA game on, he might have had the team playing better anyway.

Yes, there was a step up in execution in 2009...in SOME GAMES, but let's not get carried way.

Going from a 5-7 team that likely was at least 6-6 without Fulmer getting fired to 7-6 should never be pointed to as anything, especially at the University of Tennessee.

 

[Aday25]

Come on. Get real. Our offensive line does have strengths, our WR's...umm not much, our RB's have strengths, Worley does have some strength's, just as Compton did. Running the read option is not one of them however. These players were recruited for and have played in a pro style system for the last however many years they have been here.

The reality is that we won't haver the personnel to run this offense for another year or so. But Butch wants to implement it now for the sake of the future. We are young in most positions. Why not run the offense that you intend to run later?

Dooley made a huge mistake in trying to implement a Defensive system too late in the maturation process of his players. Sometimes it take growing pains to adjust to a new way of doing things. Might as well do it now- we're are going to struggle regardless of system.

Plus I dont think, with this team, that a pro-style would work much better. We simply lack the talent that we need to compete regularly in the SEC- that or we're just too young in major positions- in places where other teams can exploit easily. When you don't have a QB that can make the necessary throws in any offensive system, what make you think he can make the throws in a pro-style offense?

 

[DD4ME]

You are telling me that the OL is the cure all?
They should overcome a lackluster passing attack? They should dominate despite the passing deficiencies with a ground attack that is bottom half of the SEC talent wise? Look, I want to be at the top of the conference as much as you, but we ain't there. We aren't anywhere close. If our previous staff had recruited on the level that they should have, then your argument would have legs. They didn't and that's a fact. We are at ground zero.

We have more options at QB and there are other schemes than a run option with a Qb afraid to run. Blame who you want I'm not specifically blaming Butch or anyone but he's like any human he can make mistakes too. My belief is we aren't getting the max out of this team we could but we are getting more than Dooley would.

 

[volgr]

Look at it from SOAL perspective: Their QB is struggling, force the QB to beat us.
And it almost worked. We needed Worley to complete passes because SOAL was keying on the run...but he under threw and over threw most of the throws. I would say the play call in most of those situations was the correct one. Our WRs were getting open Worley couldn't deliver. We just couldn't execute.

Another problem, besides the errant throws, the QB's and WR's just don't seem to be on the same page very often. That is to be expected to a certain extent with a new QB and new system but the coaches also have to shoulder some of this.

 

[DC Vol]

I'll put it into an analogy we all should be able to remember.

2006, 2007, 2008 Crompton was bad.

Kiffin took over in 2009, as we all know, and through 5 games in 2009 Crompton was at 41% comp with 9 TDs and 8 INTs. He was uncomfortable in the pocket and was being overwhelmed with having to make too many reads. I don't know if it was due to him being a SR in his first year in a system (his 3rd in 4 years) or what. Regardless, he was supremely uneffective. Kiffin/Chaney saw this and started designing the Offense around his skillset. His capabilities. More designed roll-outs were placed into the offense. That helps him clear out of the pocket and cuts the field in half. No more complicated reads. He just had to make 2-3 reads or just throw it away.

Georgia is where a trimming to the offense was made and Crompton was vastly more effective with almost 62% comp and 17 TDs against 4 INTs from that game forward.

This is why people were so high on Kiffin. We had all witnessed a very bad Crompton at QB under Cutcliffe and Clawson. Kiffin comes in and, in 5 games, turns Crompton from a failure into a drafted QB. Remember we all laughed at Kiffin when he said Crompton was an NFL draftable QB?

The problem is you can't just say "they are what they are". That doesn't work. Coaches must tailor their system, as Kiffin did, to suit whatever they have on roster. Jones said that was their goal... simply put, to this point, that isn't what they've achieved.

While Crompton was a gifted QB, as we all know, nobody would have blamed Kiffin if Crompton just stayed supremely mediocre and hovered at 45-50% comp and 1-1 TD/INT and people would have just continued to accept "(*&# pudding" as Doyle so aptly said. You have other ingredients in the cabinet you're forgetting.

Worley surely could complete a screen pass regularly to be able to put up yards like he did in HS. He can't now.

Why can't he complete one of the easiest passes in a college QBs arsenal? My guess is he's uncomfortable. That's on the coaching staff, IMO.

 

[volgr]

We were 7-6 under Kiffin. Had Fulmer not been fired, we almost certainly beat Wyoming (ugh) go 6-6, and maybe even win a bowl game.

And UGa and USC did not have more talent. Not by much. As recently as 2007, Fulmer was 2nd in recruiting. Saban's recruits had started kicking in at bammer though.

And as much as people like to point to uga and USC that year, which were satifying wins, hell, Fulmer crushed UGa in 2007, so what's the big deal?

Finally, you can't ignore that Ole Miss humilated...absolutely HUMILIATED us later in the year, likely exposing Monte's inabiliy to stop the spread, and that we completely flopped in the bowl game.

Hell, if Fulmer hadn't been under a cloud all of 2008 from the UCLA game on, he might have had the team playing better anyway.

Yes, there was a step up in execution in 2009...in SOME GAMES, but let's not get carried way.

Going from a 5-7 team that likely was at least 6-6 without Fulmer getting fired to 7-6 should never be pointed to as anything, especially at the University of Tennessee.

There were a lot of "ifs" in that excuse making party for Fulmer. This team suffered from Fulmer fatigue when Kiffin took over. Kiffin and staff brough a lot of energy to the team and program. On the field you say we matched up talent wise with UGa and SC? Who were our playmakers? Crompton at QB. Hardesty at RB. OL was a patchwork unit with the Sullins twins playing. At WR Lane was playing different freshman athletes just trying to find a spark there. We were not on par with UGa or SC and certainly nowhere near Bama. You were right about one thing, spread option teams gave Monte fits. The Ole Miss game was a low point in an otherwise decent year.

 

[DD4ME]

The Peterman experiment should tell anyone with some critical thinking ability exactly where the bulk of the problem currently resides. You don't make a QB change headed to the best D in the SEC's house unless you really aren't comfortable with what you have.

Since that experiment was an absolute flop at this point we appear to be at a cross roads. Either a new QB comes in or we start settling in and molding the offense more around Worley. We'll see what happens.

 

[DD4ME]

I'll put it into an analogy we all should be able to remember.

2006, 2007, 2008 Crompton was bad.

Kiffin took over in 2009, as we all know, and through 5 games in 2009 Crompton was at 41% comp with 9 TDs and 8 INTs. He was uncomfortable in the pocket and was being overwhelmed with having to make too many reads. I don't know if it was due to him being a SR in his first year in a system (his 3rd in 4 years) or what. Regardless, he was supremely uneffective. Kiffin/Chaney saw this and started designing the Offense around his skillset. His capabilities. More designed roll-outs were placed into the offense. That helps him clear out of the pocket and cuts the field in half. No more complicated reads. He just had to make 2-3 reads or just throw it away.

Georgia is where a trimming to the offense was made and Crompton was vastly more effective with almost 62% comp and 17 TDs against 4 INTs from that game forward.

This is why people were so high on Kiffin. We had all witnessed a very bad Crompton at QB under Cutcliffe and Clawson. Kiffin comes in and, in 5 games, turns Crompton from a failure into a drafted QB. Remember we all laughed at Kiffin when he said Crompton was an NFL draftable QB?

The problem is you can't just say "they are what they are". That doesn't work. Coaches must tailor their system, as Kiffin did, to suit whatever they have on roster. Jones said that was their goal... simply put, to this point, that isn't what they've achieved.

While Crompton was a gifted QB, as we all know, nobody would have blamed Kiffin if Crompton just stayed supremely mediocre and hovered at 45-50% comp and 1-1 TD/INT and people would have just continued to accept "(*&# pudding" as Doyle so aptly said. You have other ingredients in the cabinet you're forgetting.

Worley surely could complete a screen pass regularly to be able to put up yards like he did in HS. He can't now.

Why can't he complete one of the easiest passes in a college QBs arsenal? My guess is he's uncomfortable. That's on the coaching staff, IMO.

TL but well stated.

 

[oregonvol]

The reality is that we won't haver the personnel to run this offense for another year or so. But Butch wants to implement it now for the sake of the future. We are young in most positions. Why not run the offense that you intend to run later?

I see this argument alot on here and it seems odd to me. If we don't have the personnel to run the system, then does running it now necessarily benefit us in the future?

Does it help us, in the future, for our offense to look inept now? Does that help keep fans on board? Does it help us get the recruits we need for the future?

If we're just focused on building for the future, then why are the young quarterbacks not getting any playing time? Does anyone really think Worley is a long-term answer at QB in this system? Would it help with recruiting wide receivers for them to maybe have some confidence that we'll have a QB who can get them the ball?

Also, doesn't this all sound eerily like what was said to excuse the defense Sal Sunseri was running? Didn't loads of posters come on here and say that the 3-4 was usually bad in the first year, but greatly improved in the 2nd and we would see an improvement in the future once we had the right personnel?

 

[DD4ME]

Serious question, is Bajakian well known for being a QB developer. I've never heard anything either way. I believe it was a strength of Chaney's and Kiffin's I'm not sure it's a weakness or a strength here.

 

[Doyle Hargraves]

I'll put it into an analogy we all should be able to remember.

2006, 2007, 2008 Crompton was bad.

Kiffin took over in 2009, as we all know, and through 5 games in 2009 Crompton was at 41% comp with 9 TDs and 8 INTs. He was uncomfortable in the pocket and was being overwhelmed with having to make too many reads. I don't know if it was due to him being a SR in his first year in a system (his 3rd in 4 years) or what. Regardless, he was supremely uneffective. Kiffin/Chaney saw this and started designing the Offense around his skillset. His capabilities. More designed roll-outs were placed into the offense. That helps him clear out of the pocket and cuts the field in half. No more complicated reads. He just had to make 2-3 reads or just throw it away.

Georgia is where a trimming to the offense was made and Crompton was vastly more effective with almost 62% comp and 17 TDs against 4 INTs from that game forward.

This is why people were so high on Kiffin. We had all witnessed a very bad Crompton at QB under Cutcliffe and Clawson. Kiffin comes in and, in 5 games, turns Crompton from a failure into a drafted QB. Remember we all laughed at Kiffin when he said Crompton was an NFL draftable QB?

The problem is you can't just say "they are what they are". That doesn't work. Coaches must tailor their system, as Kiffin did, to suit whatever they have on roster. Jones said that was their goal... simply put, to this point, that isn't what they've achieved.

While Crompton was a gifted QB, as we all know, nobody would have blamed Kiffin if Crompton just stayed supremely mediocre and hovered at 45-50% comp and 1-1 TD/INT and people would have just continued to accept "(*&# pudding" as Doyle so aptly said. You have other ingredients in the cabinet you're forgetting.

Worley surely could complete a screen pass regularly to be able to put up yards like he did in HS. He can't now.

Why can't he complete one of the easiest passes in a college QBs arsenal? My guess is he's uncomfortable. That's on the coaching staff, IMO.

Which coaching staff do you pin it on?

 

[DD4ME]

I see this argument alot on here and it seems odd to me. If we don't have the personnel to run the system, then does running it now necessarily benefit us in the future?

Does it help us, in the future, for our offense to look inept now? Does that help keep fans on board? Does it help us get the recruits we need for the future?

If we're just focused on building for the future, then why are the young quarterbacks not getting any playing time? Does anyone really think Worley is a long-term answer at QB in this system? Would it help with recruiting wide receivers for them to maybe have some confidence that we'll have a QB who can get them the ball?

Also, doesn't this all sound eerily like what was said to excuse the defense Sal Sunseri was running? Didn't loads of posters come on here and say that the 3-4 was usually bad in the first year, but greatly improved in the 2nd and we would see an improvement in the future once we had the right personnel?

I think the issue is when they started it was 6 of one and 1/2 dozen of the other with no way to know which would end better. I will say Butch has repetitiously and fervently established that he is a "plan" guy. From bringing in his coaches to his "scheme" working at all stops. I'm sure it does work but it should be noted they only won 4 games his 1st year at Cincy. Other factors surely contributed but I would also count Worley's current play as a contributing factor.