Recruiting Forum Football Talk XXXVI

[Smokey'sHandler]

This article right here:

http://vflinsider.com/butch-dormady/

Talks about playcalling and the offense. Personally if there weren't a few drops the play calling would have looked a little better, but there were still some head scratchers. 2nd half was more of what we should expect, a healthy dose of Kelly.

I agree with the overall theme of the piece in that the game plan should have relied on the run a lot more especially in the first half but if you go back, re-watch the game especially all the series in the first half and you will see the play calls were working. Our receivers were open for big plays all Dormady had to do was 1.) see them 2.) hit them. Poor Tyler Byrd would have had two biguns in the first half if Dormady would have just set his feet and hit him. The forced throw to JJ in the middle of half of their defense, if Dormady would have progressed to the left Brandon Johnson had a dude toasted on a post route that would have been an easy six. These are a couple of the many cases in the game.

We do have to remember that this was Dormady's first start and it was a first start against a good seasoned secondary. Should the play calling have been so pass heavy with a first time starter? If he makes the right reads and throws decent balls we aren't having this conversation instead talking about how dominant the passing game looked with Tyler Byrd/Brandon Johnson being possibly just as dominant as Callaway.

These will all be teaching moments in the film room this week. If there's one thing they will look at on film and know is that we have at minimum three guys who were essentially uncoverable vs. man coverage and need to exploit that in the future.

 

[bpvol]

Then even more players would've been tired. The defense was on the field for 3/4 of the game. Part of that is on the offense. Part of that is on the defense. Part of that is on the coaches. Part of that is playing a gimmick offense led by a coach that knows how to throw off a defense that isnt used to defending that gimmick offense.

We took 70 players on the travel roster. If you take out offense and special teams, that leaves about 30 guys on defense. Now take out the ones they are trying to red shirt or are banged up and they were only going to play if injuries piled up and you are left with about 25 guys. If you look at the participation roster, that's about how many played. If they all played equal minutes, that is still 20 minutes each in a hot closed dome stadium against a grinding physical offense that runs the ball 90% of the time.

THEY WERE ALL GASSED! GET OVER IT!

Liked!

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

Does being a complete butt just come natural to you brubear..or do you really have to work at it?..just curious. 😁

 

[BruinVol]

What exactly was the injury to vickers ?

 

[InVOLuntary]

I've always thought it is pretty common knowledge that the way to stop that offense from grinding out yards is to attack it, but you also risk giving up huge plays when doing that, which is something that did not happen in this game for the most part. The biggest plays they had were because Justin Martin is not a good football player. Also without looking I'm wondering how far in the hole did Clemson put them? Did they start out sputtering on O like we did?

It's a risk reward type thing. You also increase the chances of forcing turnovers due to bad pitches, quick throws etc. I think the biggest gain they had was a throw over the top with Abernathy covering.

The Clemson offense didn't sputter. Got the ball and marched it right down the field. The game as a whole was low scoring though. I think it was like 24-0. I'm sure our D was at a disadvantage from being on the field so long and our offense or lack thereof to begin the game was a big reason for that. I'm of the mindset if your going to get hit, go down swinging. I think the game plan played right into their hands and took away our advantages.

 

[JCP201]

Vols fans should be the proudest fans in the SEC now-- Marcus Spears.

I'll agree with him. Apparently, in the fourth quarter we had a three percent chance of winning that game.

 

[jordan4vols]

I'm reserving judgment on our defense until we play a more standard offense because it's not just a fact of a gimmicky offense, if you watch our defensive ends never even got down in a normal stance. Let's see what kind of pressure we can get when they are in a normal stance and we're not worried about a triple option

 

[Nashvegas31]

I will sadly and unfortunately agree with Bruin about one thing... outside of a handful of players, I felt like we looked extremely soft Monday night. They were easily the more physical team all night long, and they looked to hit us hard no matter what side of the ball they were on. Because the game plan was so conservative, I am hoping that made our defensive players play tentative which caused the softness. I am not going to fully judge them based off of one game, but if this continues over the next couple games, I will be extremely concerned.

If our OL looked Soft then I'd worry about being soft. Our OL was anything but soft especially in the middle.

Also last year we looked soft to start games. Wasn't the case Monday night. Soft didn't have anything to with it for me. Fatigue, plan and just flat out great execution by Ga tech QB. At some point give that kid and the Ol credit as well. He ran it to perfection. We aren't going to look tough lined up yards off the ball.

If we look bad next two weeks then I'll worry. Until then not worried

 

[drvenner]

McDowell made plays that got us off the field on third down. He also recovered a fumble. This is a prime example of stat watching. Jumper was exposed constantly last night. GA Tech scores 2 times with a healthy Kirkland.

I agree with you about McDowell. However, there is no way to know how much better, if any (though it is very likely) our defense would have been with Kirkland. You definitely cannot quantitate it by stating they score 14 less.

 

[drvenner]

It worked out because we won, but it was absolutely stupid to schedule the game.

VQ hinted that the game was scheduled in large part due to UT brass thinking Paul Johnson would be fired by the time the game was played, but it was actually announced in July 2015--right after GT had gone 11-3 and before they had their 3-9 season just a few months later.

So we willingly scheduled a triple-option team that finished No. 8 in the nation.

I agree it was very stupid. No foresight at all.

 

[drvenner]

I know facts are frowned upon in here but I just did a quick search of all current SEC head coaches and their number of conference titles. The debate is often whether or not Butch can successful coach/develop players. Here's what I found:

1. Saban 9 conference titles in his head career

2. Butch 4

3. Bielema 3

4. Malzhan 2

5. Freeze 2

Every other current head SEC Coach with 0.

The problem with this argument is that none of them have been here. I think it is noteworthy, but not earth-shaking. If he had won the East either of the last two years (or definitely both), then there would still be a large amount of grousing, just not as much in social media.

 

[BruinVol]

If our OL looked Soft then I'd worry about being soft. Our OL was anything but soft especially in the middle.

Also last year we looked soft to start games. Wasn't the case Monday night. Soft didn't have anything to with it for me. Fatigue, plan and just flat out great execution by Ga tech QB. At some point give that kid and the Ol credit as well. He ran it to perfection. We aren't going to look tough lined up yards off the ball.

If we look bad next two weeks then I'll worry. Until then not worried

Hard not to be excited about the OL.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

It's a risk reward type thing. You also increase the chances of forcing turnovers due to bad pitches, quick throws etc. I think the biggest gain they had was a throw over the top with Abernathy covering.

The Clemson offense didn't sputter. Got the ball and marched it right down the field. The game as a whole was low scoring though. I think it was like 24-0. I'm sure our D was at a disadvantage from being on the field so long and our offense or lack thereof to begin the game was a big reason for that. I'm of the mindset if your going to get hit, go down swinging. I think the game plan played right into their hands and took away our advantages.

That particular play was just a great throw and catch. I believe if our offense had come out and put two scores on them early in the game, that it would have drastically altered the flow.

 

[BruinVol]

We feel certain Gaulden goes back to nickel?

Did Wiggins play at all?

 

[barrylee]

nah those jokes are all in fun bc everybody here has big time respect and admiration for Paul i promise you. Im glad hes with us. He came up with a big play and i was proud as hell for that kid.

True that!! If I was a multi-millionaire I would give that kid a scholarship!

 

[Outofmyvolcanmind]

Thanks a lot. Didn't plan on dicing onions this morning.

The footage of small children firing machine guns really hit me. I'm glad he got out.

 

[drvenner]

You're a very good and positive poster. Being part American Indian decent, I love your screen name.

I just realized that you have Volcan in your screen name. You had it way before it was cool to have a Vol can

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

I've always thought it is pretty common knowledge that the way to stop that offense from grinding out yards is to attack it, but you also risk giving up huge plays when doing that, which is something that did not happen in this game for the most part. The biggest plays they had were because Justin Martin is not a good football player. Also without looking I'm wondering how far in the hole did Clemson put them? Did they start out sputtering on O like we did?

they jumped out 14-0 first quarter and were up 23-0 at halftime. They never really ran away with it on offense, but their defense destroyed GT that game. Venables is just a great DC and who's done a pretty great job with the talent they've recruited.


Personally I'm kinda starting to worry that Brent Pry was the brains behind Shoop's defenses when he was with Franklin. I'm not ready to completely give up on the defense. I definitely think facing more common offenses will let some of our guys shine a bit more. But man, for a guy who was supposed to be a top 10 DC , had 3-4 SEC teams trying to hire him away from PSU, and is earning over a million dollars per season, he sure hasn't flashed much since he came here.


When we hired Shoop, I'd never have believed it if someone had told me his defense still wouldn't have an identity 14 games into his stint in Knoxville. Hopefully the game this weekend will let everybody settle in and work on establishing one.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Y'know, unlike some people on here who would ***** if we won the NC by 4 TD, some of us can take solace in this little tidbit:

"An ugly win beats a pretty loss any day".

 

[ionaVOL]

I agree with you about McDowell. However, there is no way to know how much better, if any (though it is very likely) our defense would have been with Kirkland. You definitely cannot quantitate it by stating they score 14 less.

This is where i'm at, I think that losing Kirkland and Smith at LB hurt the most and had a huge impact on the defense. I think its a much different defense Monday night with them on the field/in the rotation.

 

[BruinVol]

they jumped out 14-0 first quarter and were up 23-0 at halftime. They never really ran away with it on offense, but their defense destroyed GT that game. Venables is just a great DC and who's done a pretty great job with the talent they've recruited.


Personally I'm kinda starting to worry that Brent Pry was the brains behind Shoop's defenses when he was with Franklin. I'm not ready to completely give up on the defense. I definitely think facing more common offenses will let some of our guys shine a bit more. But man, for a guy who was supposed to be a top 10 DC , had 3-4 SEC teams trying to hire him away from PSU, and is earning over a million dollars per season, he sure hasn't flashed much since he came here.


When we hired Shoop, I'd never have believed it if someone had told me his defense still wouldn't have an identity 14 games into his stint in Knoxville. Hopefully the game this weekend will let everybody settle in and work on establishing one.

Venables is a good story. He was bad at the end of his tenure at OU.

 

[Outofmyvolcanmind]

I just realized that you have Volcan in your screen name. You had it way before it was cool to have a Vol can

I am a trend setter.

 

[BruinVol]

This is where i'm at, I think that losing Kirkland and Smith at LB hurt the most and had a huge impact on the defense. I think its a much different defense Monday night with them on the field/in the rotation.

I don't think smith was going to start ether way.

 

[drvenner]

yet with all those good things you mention it wasn't good enough to win the game without their kicker failing to make an easy kick. He gifted us the game by not being able to get the ball above the line. Sorry you guys can't handle the fact we got our ass kicked all night and were lucky to win but that's the facts. Look at the stat sheet.

Ulysses has been talking about flagellation in a couple of posts. You should look that word up. Because, you are full on, flagellating the living horse crap outta that horse that is already dead.

 

[OGbabyaviVol]

If our OL looked Soft then I'd worry about being soft. Our OL was anything but soft especially in the middle.

Also last year we looked soft to start games. Wasn't the case Monday night. Soft didn't have anything to with it for me. Fatigue, plan and just flat out great execution by Ga tech QB. At some point give that kid and the Ol credit as well. He ran it to perfection. We aren't going to look tough lined up yards off the ball.

If we look bad next two weeks then I'll worry. Until then not worried

That was basically what I said in my OP. I'm not worried now but will be if we look the same way in the next 2 weeks.