Sanders is the problem

#152
#152
The only thing I will add to this discussion is the one area that I could not understand, tell me why 8 minutes to go in the fourth, ball on our own 24 yardline, up by 7, and UAB with no timeouts. We pass the ball 3 straight times??? and in the flat for two of these??? WTH??? Knowing that our QB's were off, knowing that our receivers forgot to wipe their hands for the buttered popcorn??? We have to run in that situation!!!?? No? Kill the clock! Avoid the errant pass in the flat to be intercepted for an easy touchdown to tie it!!! Granted it worked out but I think that the odds were against us keeping them from having great field position and plenty of time.

Is it just me? Did anyone else have an issue with this play calling situation?
 
#153
#153
Originally posted by holdemvol@Sep 6, 2005 11:00 AM
I still can't beleive some of these posts.  IF WE CATCH THE BALL ON STAURDAY AND MAKE DECENT THROWS WE BLOW OUT UAB!!!!!!! The offensive problems had nothing to do with playcalling or UAB's defense.  We did not need to spread anything out to win big, we just needed to EXECUTE!  We are not going to pull everything out against UAB, especialy when we can't even catch short passes.  I am not even a big RS fan, but he was not the one dropping the ball or throwing 5 feet over a WR's heads.  And yes Weis and Chow are great coordinators, that is why one is a head coach at one of the most storied programs in football and the other is in the NFL...but guess what? Every team does not have to run that type of offense to win. This is Fulmer's system and it has not changed since Sanders got the job but I guess you are right, it does not work, I mean Fulmer only has the highest winning % of any active coach with 10 years experience or more so he must not know what he is doing.  One of the best ways to use big, fast receivers is to throw a short pass and let him make something happen, and they had that chance Saturday but you HAVE TO CATCH THE BALL!!!!  Things will be spread more in two weeks, you don't show everything in the first game.  The plays we ran were plenty to just kill UAB IF WE EXECUTE!
[snapback]137753[/snapback]​
Click to expand...



I cant believe people want to come in here and point out that we need to stop dropping passes and execute, like that is suppose to be some kind of revelation. Is there anybody who watched that game who doesnt know already we should not drop passes and execute better??????? :banghead:

What is the point of coming in here and pointing out the blindingly obvious??? What revelation are you going to have for us next game? That we shouldn't fumble or jump offsides? Like we all already don't know that. :banghead:

Just because they didnt execute that means no one is allowed to comment on the game plan?? The whole job of the offense coordinator is to find the weakness of the opposing defense and devise a game plan that exploits that. Thats teams weakness was pass defense, thats why they played a 2 deep zone the entire game. They couldn't cover us man to man and they knew it. Instead of playing 4 and 5 wide receivers which is a real strength of this team, depth at wide receiver. Instead of trying to exploit that we never forced them to try and cover 4 and 5 wide receivers which everyone knows they couldnt.
 
#155
#155
I've stayed relatively quiet, largely because there isn't much to say. It's obvious where we need work. Ainge's 2 INT's were A-W-F-U-L. Not even close. The drops are inexcusable and will cost us a game in the near future if a repeat performance occurs. I'm not talking about tough, one-handed, sprinting dives, folks. . . . these were "turn around and get hit in the numbers" drops. And they were SORRY. All in all, a lack of focus by the offense nearly cost us the game.

I have trouble pointing a finger at the play-calling. We weren't executing on simple routes with 2 or 3 receivers, so you want to throw in 5? Who would've refrained from a "Fire Sanders" thread if he had opened the 4th quarter with an empty backfield and 5 wideouts, only to lead to an INT for a TD return and possibly a loss? We were conservative, but usually are. We didn't open the book for UF to study. And. . . .we got it done.

The D stepped up and saved the game for us. We moved the ball at the end when we had to. Let's just hope that 2 weeks can get the QB's heads straightened out, the receivers catching the ball, and a little something "special" going for the non-offense-non-defense teams.

Enough with the bashing: we're 1-0 after a tough opener and it's time to take on the Gators. GO VOLS.
 
#156
#156
Originally posted by oklavol@Sep 6, 2005 11:50 AM
I cant believe people want to come in here and point out that we need to stop dropping passes and execute, like that is suppose to be some kind of revelation.  Is there anybody who watched that game who doesnt know already we should not drop passes and execute better???????    :banghead:

What is the point of coming in here and pointing out the blindingly obvious???  What  revelation are you going to have for us next game? That we shouldn't fumble or jump offsides?  Like we all already don't know that.    :banghead:

Just because they didnt execute that means no one is allowed to comment on the game plan??  The whole job of the offense coordinator is to find the weakness of the opposing defense and devise a game plan that exploits that.  Thats teams weakness was pass defense, thats why they played a 2 deep zone the entire game. They couldn't cover us man to man and they knew it.  Instead of playing 4 and 5 wide receivers which is a real strength of this team, depth at wide receiver.  Instead of trying to exploit that we never forced them to try and cover 4 and 5 wide receivers which everyone knows they couldnt.
[snapback]137787[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

My point was that you want to rant about the gameplan being so bad but if we would have executed the gameplan it would have worked just fine. Why spread out when we don't have to against a team like UAB? I agree that our wideouts are a strength and I have commented that in 2 weeks I believe that things will be spread out and they will be used differently. You act like the gameplan was the problem which is exactly why I felt the need to point out the "blindingly obvious"....the gameplan worked when executed. I don't understand how going 4 or 5 wide helps when they are not catching the ball to begin with. :dunno:
 
#157
#157
Originally posted by kiddiedoc@Sep 6, 2005 12:04 PM
I've stayed relatively quiet, largely because there isn't much to say.  It's obvious where we need work.  Ainge's 2 INT's were A-W-F-U-L.  Not even close.  The drops are inexcusable and will cost us a game in the near future if a repeat performance occurs.  I'm not talking about tough, one-handed, sprinting dives, folks. . . . these were "turn around and get hit in the numbers" drops.  And they were SORRY.  All in all, a lack of focus by the offense nearly cost us the game.

I have trouble pointing a finger at the play-calling.  We weren't executing on simple routes with 2 or 3 receivers, so you want to throw in 5?  Who would've refrained from a "Fire Sanders" thread if he had opened the 4th quarter with an empty backfield and 5 wideouts, only to lead to an INT for a TD return and possibly a loss?  We were conservative, but usually are.  We didn't open the book for UF to study.  And. . . .we got it done.

The D stepped up and saved the game for us.  We moved the ball at the end when we had to.  Let's just hope that 2 weeks can get the QB's heads straightened out, the receivers catching the ball, and a little something "special" going for the non-offense-non-defense teams.

Enough with the bashing:  we're 1-0 after a tough opener and it's time to take on the Gators.  GO VOLS.
[snapback]137798[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

very well said :post-20645-1119625378:
 
#158
#158
I know I am necessarily bashing, just posing a question. Anyone have any input?
 
#159
#159
people have been posting the "obvious" because the problem was painfully obvious and it had nothing to do with the gameplan , and that is my "opinion" just like you have your "opinion" that RS gameplan sucked, go back and read the board rules bud this is a forum of free speech and everyone is entitled to their opinion even if you think it is too "obvious"
 
#160
#160
Originally posted by ncvol@Sep 6, 2005 1:46 PM
I know I am necessarily bashing, just posing a question.  Anyone have any input?
[snapback]137816[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

I'll answer. It was a little strange to throw 3 passes in that situation. My guess is that they were trying to get Ainge an easy completion to help his confidence. The first down play was a rollout to the right that should have been an easy pass if not for the pressure. Then on second down it was a simple quick hit to the WR. At that point it's third and long and they tried the same play that Ainge completed eariler in the game to get out of deep in their own territory.

They were really easy passes that were designed to gain a few yards (the first two passes anyway).

The real question is: Was that the best time to put Ainge back in the game?
 
#161
#161
Originally posted by ncvol@Sep 6, 2005 12:46 PM
I know I am necessarily bashing, just posing a question.  Anyone have any input?
[snapback]137816[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Sure. We supposedly have one of the best classes of wideouts in the nation. Run the ball 3 times in an attempt to "run the clock down," and without a first down, you're left with a freshman punter kicking it back to one of the best QB's we will face with about 6 minutes left and good field position. My guess is that the OC or HC saw something in the defense that he wanted to exploit (like stacking the line to prevent a rushing first down). Had the receivers performed or Ainge been the marksman we have been touting, we should have been able to march methodically down the field for a game-preserving drive. Instead, dropped balls and an errant toss create a turnover. IF we had run the ball unsuccessfully, we would all be griping that UT should have "opened it up" with the defense crowding the LOS.

It never ceases to amaze me that we can post on the same board COMPLETE contradictions regarding coaching and playcalling. If you are going to bash Fulmer or Sanders for being conservative, then why the heck would you rant about passing in the 4th quarter with the lead? Was THAT conservative? Our coaches, believe it or not, want to win even more than we do, and they call plays accordingly. If anyone 'round here can do better, please feel free to apply for a position at a no-name school and work your way up to a national powerhouse like UT. But before you do: check the winning percentage of the current regime. You might not want to give up your day job.
 
#162
#162
The problem has already been mentioned, but apparently needs to be stated again...we couldn't move the ball very well because we had no deep threat. UAB was not scared of us going deep. Therefor, after the first quarter, they stacked the box, and we couldn't run. It didn't help that the receivers were dropping easy balls when they were open. Sure, those 5-6 yard outs are somewhat boring, but completing those would have helped some. We couldn't even complete those for a time.

Will that change? It should, but who knows. It might not. I don't think that we'll play as bad in 2 weeks. I could be wrong, however.

I heard alot of people complaining about the defense. I thought the d played pretty well. Sure, there were blown coverages, and Wade got beat badly on their td. But the d tackled extremely well, better than they have in a long time.

IMO, we will be OK. Are we a top 5 team right now? No, but there is potential there. Whether they live up to that potential, I dunno. We'll begin to find out on 09/17.
 
#163
#163
I agree Freaky. The load should have shifted under that situation to who was in the best position to complete the game for a win and that was Clausen hands Down!!! I just know that if I have a QB that could not hit the side of a barn with a bass fiddle I would not 1) have him in there (Cooter was still available right? Just kidding) 2) would not be throwing anything and 3) if I were throwing they would not be in the flats where one wrong throw is an easy TD for UAB. :twocents:
 
#164
#164
Don't get me wrong I like RIck but Ainge is our future. He will be fine and starting again within the month.
 
#165
#165
Originally posted by vol_freak@Sep 6, 2005 2:13 PM
The real question is: Was that the best time to put Ainge back in the game?
[snapback]137822[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


I wondered the same thing. My theory is that they wanted to give Ainge another series, but probably didn't intend on it being that late.
 
#166
#166
Kiddiedoc, Calm down!!! If you will read through this thread I have never said anything about being too conservative, other maybe but not me!!! I said I was not bashing only curious. I have gotten civil responses to my questions from other but not you. I don't need that and neither does the board. If reading this gets your dander up so much maybe this is not the place for you. Read for understanding and make sure you respond appropriately to other's questions and don't mistake one poster for another, thanks!
 
#167
#167
Originally posted by GAVol@Sep 6, 2005 1:23 PM
I wondered the same thing.  My theory is that they wanted to give Ainge another series, but probably didn't intend on it being that late.
[snapback]137829[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Agreed, and on that INT Hannon had his man beat badly but Ainge never looked the safety off so he got a great jump on the ball...and then it was overthrown. I think Ainge will be fine but he needs to just settle down a little, I think overthrown balls are usually "nervous" throws. We had plenty of opportunities in the passing game and just could not connect.
 
#168
#168
holdemvol, if that is the roll-out to the left int you are referring to, I would agree entirely. That one sailed bad. I don't think he was feeling the pressure so much but just got happy feet and never planted to throw. That is a difficult throw for a righty in any situation.
 
#169
#169
I think he was talking about the third down play that was slightly overthrown down the right sideline. The one you are thinking of was in the first half and was WAY overthrown.
 
#170
#170
On that second int, it also looked like Hannon stopped running for a second or 2 as well. Not making an excuse for Erik, just stating what I saw.
 
#171
#171
Originally posted by orangetd88@Sep 6, 2005 12:06 PM
On that second int, it also looked like Hannon stopped running for a second or 2 as well.  Not making an excuse for Erik, just stating what I saw.
[snapback]137853[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Well, if you throw to where your receiver is going but he doesn't get there for no reason, I'd put that miss on the receiver.
 
#172
#172
The int on the rollout left-- Fulmer blamed that one on a wet ball, or wet hands. He said it slipped out of Ainges hand.
 
#173
#173
Originally posted by milohimself@Sep 6, 2005 2:08 PM
Well, if you throw to where your receiver is going but he doesn't get there for no reason, I'd put that miss on the receiver.
[snapback]137856[/snapback]​
Click to expand...



It was a little of both, I think. It wasn't a great throw, but it looked like Hannon could have run trhough the route and at least knock it down, had he not hesitated. But of course, he was not expecting it to be overthrown like it was, either.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top