The UT offensive game plan

#26
#26
I've been saying this for a while now, if you try to put up as many points as you can the offense will improve. If you can do it running the ball that's all good. If not then you have to throw for it. I think this is why were falling back when other teams are getting better. Games against lousy opponents should be looked at as practice time. With the talent that we have year after year there shouldn't be any reason we can't score 40+ on most of our opponents.
 
#27
#27
Like I've said time and again. The lines beat us. Not the play calling. We can look at plays after they occur and say that they didn't work. But when you play good teams you have got to do certain things. You have got to tackle, block and run the ball. If you don't do that then you don't win. Even when Spurrier was at UF they ran the ball and had good defenses. Most people forget about that. I don't like it one bit. But guys they whipped us on both lines. Period!
 
#28
#28
No one is saying the line play didn't cost the Vols the game, because it pretty much did.I'm just saying that 3 or 4 straight series with 3rd and 5+ yards to go right off the bat after getting the 10 point lead didn't help much.
 
#29
#29
tidwell said:
No one is saying the line play didn't cost the Vols the game, because it pretty much did.I'm just saying that 3 or 4 straight series with 3rd and 5+ yards to go right off the bat after getting the 10 point lead didn't help much.
Click to expand...


I know what your saying. And what I mean is that I don't think the play calling was bad. They only used 4 down linemen for the most part with some stunts and a few blitzes but for the most part EA was chased by the front four and there was good coverage. One of the best plays against an aggressive D line is the run. Our O line could not ever give a crease. You should call the right play for the D package that is in front of you. Then you expect your players to make it happen. Ours didn't.

I guess I'm surprised that some want to blame the O game plan when to me it was obvious that our D plan was a lot different than I expected. Very passive.
 
#30
#30
VolBeef88 said:
I know what your saying. And what I mean is that I don't think the play calling was bad. They only used 4 down linemen for the most part with some stunts and a few blitzes but for the most part EA was chased by the front four and there was good coverage. One of the best plays against an aggressive D line is the run. Our O line could not ever give a crease. You should call the right play for the D package that is in front of you. Then you expect your players to make it happen. Ours didn't.

I guess I'm surprised that some want to blame the O game plan when to me it was obvious that our D plan was a lot different than I expected. Very passive.
Click to expand...
without rehashing everything, i think most of us agree the pìaycalling wasn't what lost the game. Those of us that have issues with the play calling simply question the continued attempts to run late in the game when we had the lead, when we haven't been able to run all game long....but again, the play call it self didn't lose the game...it was the fact that we couldn't execute it, or rather, Florida stopped it each time they needed to.
 
#31
#31
HERE'S A THOUGHT- SINCE THE TRICK PLAY WORKED SO WELL, WHY NOT GO BACK TO IT AND RUN THAT AND SOME OTHER PLAYS OFF OF IT-LlIKE A REVERSE ETC. SINCE THEY WERE IN OUR BACKFIELD ALL NIGHT COULD WE NOT HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THAT BY RUNNING DRAW PLAYS, SWEEPS OR LITTLE DUMP PASSES OVER THE MIDDLE. JUST WONDERING. THEN AGAIN MAYBE OUR LINE COULDN'T HOLD IT FOR THESE PLAYS EITHER. UP THE GUT SUREWASN'T WORKING THOUGH.
 
#32
#32
alavolfan said:
HERE'S A THOUGHT- SINCE THE TRICK PLAY WORKED SO WELL, WHY NOT GO BACK TO IT AND RUN THAT AND SOME OTHER PLAYS OFF OF IT-LlIKE A REVERSE ETC. SINCE THEY WERE IN OUR BACKFIELD ALL NIGHT COULD WE NOT HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THAT BY RUNNING DRAW PLAYS, SWEEPS OR LITTLE DUMP PASSES OVER THE MIDDLE. JUST WONDERING. THEN AGAIN MAYBE OUR LINE COULDN'T HOLD IT FOR THESE PLAYS EITHER. UP THE GUT SUREWASN'T WORKING THOUGH.
Click to expand...
i think they will....the fact that play is on tape is just another thing our opponents will have to account for....i think we may see some more of that....maybe take a lesson from the Steelers...a well timed, well executed trick play does wonders....not that we should rely on them, but throw one in once and a while and you never know....plus it sends a message to our team that we are playing to win, and we are going to be the aggressor....everyone likes that. well, as long as they work that is....:)
 
#33
#33
*Note this discussion does not have to relate specifically to the Florida game, it relates to Tennessee in general.

The lines were terrible......I do not think that any one would dispute that.......Florida dominated the line of scrimmage.

Lex and I were talking about two specific notions.

1.) Does Tennessee have a sense of urgency?
*Can be offensive or defensive strategy......we were focused on the offensive side.

2.) Does Tennessee have a killer instinct?
*Again, this may be offensive or defensive, we were focused on the offensive side.

I argued Steve Spurrier's tactics when it comes to calling a football game. Such as a turnover, automatically go for the throat, etc.

Or is Spurrier's style to aggressive?

If you want to relate it to defense, is Chavis too aggressive or passive?
 
#34
#34
Just to add to the thought.

The real question is how do we get a win?

I live in Delaware, Ohio, so I am exposed to Ohio State football. I even worked at OSU for two years.

Any who, Tressel Maxims are:

1.) Punting
2.) Kicking
3.) Field Position
4.) Defense
5.) Turnovers For and Against
6.) Clock Management

If we could win with our special teams and defense and let the offense manage the game, so be it.......as long as we win, who cares how we play in terms of style.

Tressel coaches his teams to their strenghts, the past few years it has been defense, this year his defense is young and his offense is unbelievable......he has changed, not completely, his coaching style to suit his players.

This also can do deeper on a personnal level, I tend to lean toward wide open attacks, like Spurrier's system. I am an expressive person, a more reserved person may tend toward defense and running the ball. This breaks down to so many levels but in the end, all we want is wins!
 
#35
#35
OrangeEmpire said:
*Note this discussion does not have to relate specifically to the Florida game, it relates to Tennessee in general.

The lines were terrible......I do not think that any one would dispute that.......Florida dominated the line of scrimmage.

Lex and I were talking about two specific notions.

1.) Does Tennessee have a sense of urgency?
*Can be offensive or defensive strategy......we were focused on the offensive side.

2.) Does Tennessee have a killer instinct?
*Again, this may be offensive or defensive, we were focused on the offensive side.

I argued Steve Spurrier's tactics when it comes to calling a football game. Such as a turnover, automatically go for the throat, etc.

Or is Spurrier's style to aggressive?

If you want to relate it to defense, is Chavis too aggressive or passive?
Click to expand...

Very good post OE. As a fan I do have a sense of urgency, especially when UT has potential to get beaten in the trenches by some of its SEC foes this year. IMO that is all the more reason to have a goal to put the ball in the endzone on every offensive possession. It could be that the Vols have simply relied on its defense for too long now. (And I am a defense guy)
 
#36
#36
OrangeEmpire said:
*Note this discussion does not have to relate specifically to the Florida game, it relates to Tennessee in general.

The lines were terrible......I do not think that any one would dispute that.......Florida dominated the line of scrimmage.

Lex and I were talking about two specific notions.

1.) Does Tennessee have a sense of urgency?
*Can be offensive or defensive strategy......we were focused on the offensive side.

2.) Does Tennessee have a killer instinct?
*Again, this may be offensive or defensive, we were focused on the offensive side.

I argued Steve Spurrier's tactics when it comes to calling a football game. Such as a turnover, automatically go for the throat, etc.

Or is Spurrier's style to aggressive?

If you want to relate it to defense, is Chavis too aggressive or passive?
Click to expand...


Answers.

1. Yes. They played with a sense of ugency and played hard. They didn't play as smart and got whipped but they played hard and there is a difference. An offensive line is like a fist. All pieces have to work right in order to make a fist. If you hit someone with a bad fist you hurt yourself as much if not more than the other guy. The o line was my worry coming in and still is. I think they have an opportunity to get it together before we play another SEC team.
On the D side of the ball I say yes as far as the players go. The D game plan baffles me a bit. I would have thought that CHief would have hit and hit and hit some more on Leak. Instead we didn't.

2. I think we had a killer instinct on the O side of the ball as far as the play calling goes. Many people seem to think that the only way to "kill" a team is to go for the big play and score quickly. Many times that is not as good as control. There is no way I'm gonna complain about calling a run when you are in a game like that. Your D is tired, yet they have prevented the "big play". A pick would have been more devistating than a punt in a very big way. It boils down to this. We run the ball and pick up 5 yards and we don't talk about this game. I liked the call. I just didn't like the outcome. I have seen UT in games many times have a hard time running the ball and then in the 4th it opened up. I liked the call, not the outcome.
We did not play killer intinct like on Defense. That is the most baffling part to me. We have a ton of speed and size on that side of the ball and did't use it like I would have liked to see. I think we should have used more blites and hit him a lot. Chief is one of my favorite coaches in a big way. Usually he plays a much more aggressive style. Against UF he chose not to.
 
#37
#37
Lexvol said:
Very good post OE. As a fan I do have a sense of urgency, especially when UT has potential to get beaten in the trenches by some of its SEC foes this year. IMO that is all the more reason to have a goal to put the ball in the endzone on every offensive possession. It could be that the Vols have simply relied on its defense for too long now. (And I am a defense guy)
Click to expand...


Lex the goal is to put it in the endzone everytime they get the ball. To think otherwise is foolish. Now if you wanna debate how to get it there then fine. But trust me, they want it in the endzone.
 
#38
#38
VolBeef88 said:
Lex the goal is to put it in the endzone everytime they get the ball. To think otherwise is foolish. Now if you wanna debate how to get it there then fine. But trust me, they want it in the endzone.
Click to expand...

Do you really think it is that obvious. On more than one occasion I have gotten the feeling that taking time off of the clock is more important to this coaching staff than scoring points.

I don't consider that a foolish thought at all. In fact, were a poll taken, I think you would find yourself in among a small, very very very small minority of people who think this coaching staff continues to take chances once they have a lead.
 
#39
#39
Do you really think it is that obvious. On more than one occasion I have gotten the feeling that taking time off of the clock is more important to this coaching staff than scoring points.

I don't consider that a foolish thought at all. In fact, were a poll taken, I think you would find yourself in among a small, very very very small minority of people who think this coaching staff continues to take chances once they have a lead.
Click to expand...

I would never advocate not running the ball. I am a proponent of running the ball to the point a wearing a team down to the point of despair. At that point, go for a large play from the passing game to break their back or spirit.

I would love some sort of balance 45-48% run 52-55% pass. When I am saying this I do not mean plays, I mean balance of yards.
 
#40
#40
Lexvol said:
Do you really think it is that obvious. On more than one occasion I have gotten the feeling that taking time off of the clock is more important to this coaching staff than scoring points.

I don't consider that a foolish thought at all. In fact, were a poll taken, I think you would find yourself in among a small, very very very small minority of people who think this coaching staff continues to take chances once they have a lead.
Click to expand...

First I don't base my decisions in life over what others think. I go with what I know and see.

As far as just running the clock goes. That is not always a bad thing to do. There have been many teams lose because they didn't do that.
But as far as calling the runs. If people understand football and defensive sets then they could see exactly why Cut was calling for the run. UF had very good coverage down field and LB's to cover the middle. Couple that with the fact that EA was running for his life with only the UF down linemen rushing and that was a perfect set to call a run. If it doesn't work then you have atleast ran the clock and didn't throw a pick. But I think that Cut was expecting the RB to pick up a few yards. Hell I thought they would have. Calling a play depends on a lot of things. Often the right plays are called and they just don't work.

Also, I was not calling you foolish and apologize if it looked so. I meant the assumption that the coaches were not wanting to score was a foolish assumption.
 
#41
#41
OrangeEmpire said:
I would never advocate not running the ball. I am a proponent of running the ball to the point a wearing a team down to the point of despair. At that point, go for a large play from the passing game to break their back or spirit.

I would love some sort of balance 45-48% run 52-55% pass. When I am saying this I do not mean plays, I mean balance of yards.
Click to expand...

I proponent of running the ball as well...if you are averaging at least 3 or 4 yards a carry. I am not in favor of an overmatched team running the ball just to kill the clock. I consider that a passive strategy.
 
#42
#42
I am not in favor of an overmatched team running the ball just to kill the clock. I consider that a passive strategy.
Click to expand...

Agreed.....................it is all about balance! Either feed off of each other.
 
#43
#43
Well the problem is that you assume that they were JUST trying to kill the clock. I think they were trying move the ball and kill the clock while at the same time not putting the QB in a situation of being forced to either force a throw or throw it away. Forcing a throw can cost you a pick and throwing it away stops the clock. Neither of which is what was needed in that game.
 
#44
#44
I think they were trying move the ball and kill the clock while at the same time not putting the QB in a situation of being forced to either force a throw or throw it away.
Click to expand...

Do you not have to adapt to your surroundings and or situtations?

There are safe passing plays, risk is a factor running or passing.

*Specifically addressing the Florida game.*

First down, Tennessee gains 4-5 yards on a short pass. Do you not like your odds of converting a third down better at 2 and 5 or 6 than 2 and 10?

Of course, the assumption by Cut, was that his running game would have produced those 4-5 yards, but do you not adapt to game situations?

We were not running the ball not matter how badly they wanted the kids too............Frogg was beat before he snapped the ball.
 
#45
#45
VolBeef88 said:
Well the problem is that you assume that they were JUST trying to kill the clock. I think they were trying move the ball and kill the clock while at the same time not putting the QB in a situation of being forced to either force a throw or throw it away. Forcing a throw can cost you a pick and throwing it away stops the clock. Neither of which is what was needed in that game.
Click to expand...

Ah, you have finally gotten to the original question of the thread. You see, I would be willing to give a pass on taking a chance and throwing the ball (if a mistake were made I would understand). While I assume you would prefer they not take that chance and continue to pick up 1 yard per carry.

Now when speaking specifically, I think my assumption is closer to reality than your assumption, but that is just my opinion.
 
#46
#46
Lexvol said:
Ah, you have finally gotten to the original question of the thread. You see, I would be willing to give a pass on taking a chance and throwing the ball (if a mistake were made I would understand). While I assume you would prefer they not take that chance and continue to pick up 1 yard per carry.

Now when speaking specifically, I think my assumption is closer to reality than your assumption, but that is just my opinion.
Click to expand...


Not at all.
 
#47
#47
OrangeEmpire said:
Do you not have to adapt to your surroundings and or situtations?

There are safe passing plays, risk is a factor running or passing.

*Specifically addressing the Florida game.*

First down, Tennessee gains 4-5 yards on a short pass. Do you not like your odds of converting a third down better at 2 and 5 or 6 than 2 and 10?

Of course, the assumption by Cut, was that his running game would have produced those 4-5 yards, but do you not adapt to game situations?

We were not running the ball not matter how badly they wanted the kids too............Frogg was beat before he snapped the ball.
Click to expand...


Of course you adapt. That is why Cut is up in the box so he can also see the D sets. He saw the LB's lining up to go after those short passes. I just think that the run was the call to make at the time. Now looking back I'm sure Cut would do differently. But when you are in the 4th and they are only rushing 4, you gotta run the rock. JMHO. I think 99% of these other coaches you guys all hold so high would have done the same.
 
#48
#48
i thought Cutcliffe said his playcalling philsophy was, "Run when they think you are going to pass, pass when they think you are going to run."
 
#49
#49
oklavol said:
i thought Cutcliffe said his playcalling philsophy was, "Run when they think you are going to pass, pass when they think you are going to run."
Click to expand...

So he thought, that they thought, we were going to pass on every first down.
 
#50
#50
VolBeef88 said:
Well the problem is that you assume that they were JUST trying to kill the clock. I think they were trying move the ball and kill the clock while at the same time not putting the QB in a situation of being forced to either force a throw or throw it away. Forcing a throw can cost you a pick and throwing it away stops the clock. Neither of which is what was needed in that game.
Click to expand...

I'm picking up in the middle here, but I think the conservative play calling issue starts at the beginning of the 3rd quarter and into the 4th somewhat. You don't start milking clock on the 1st drive of the 2nd half. Middle of the 4th qtr? Maybe.

We ran on 8 of 9 first downs in the 2nd half. That, mind you, was against a team that we could not run on. Cutcliffe has since admitted that he was too conservative and hard-headed about the run in the 2nd half, saying that he should have gone to more of a three step short passing game. He wasn't saying it in hindsight as a second guess, but that he made a mistake.

With that said, I'm not advocating that's why we lost. But I am saying he got "pucker syndrome" and didn't call the game he KNEW AT THAT TIME to call.

BTW, I've watched the game a couple of time and we didn;t always get whipped. There were several busted blocking assignments and communication erros that made it appear FL was getting off on our OL.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top