UT Defense-Mythbusters Edition

#26
#26
gobravesvols16 said:
The point I was trying to make is that speed, or lack thereof, may not be the guilty culprit we thought it was.
Click to expand...

I don't think you get it I want you to edit the original post and put there GPA in there also. I think we are on to something!
 
Last edited:
#27
#27
keckjm said:
Stanford won because their players are smart and understand leverage, angles, and technique. They are very well coached, and they play at a very high intensity and with a lot of confidence. Most of our players aren't very football smart or they would have picked up by now that when they take bad angles over and over again teams get big gains. Our football players don't understand football techniques, and they don't understand how to contain the edge. They also haven't been taught jack s*** since Wilcox and crew left so CBJ and staff have their work cut out for them.
Click to expand...

Stanford won because they were able to control the ball on offense and Oregon turned it over like 4 times. A couple when they (Oregon)were about to score. Using Stanford as a measure when Oregon played a simply horrible game is comparing apples to oranges. Not sure about those 40 times but make no mistake about it our defense is slow. It will get better though so just give it a year or two before everyone jumps off the bridge. You are 100% correct about development too.

Edit: Oregon still almost came back and won that game in the fourth quarter at which time they were clearly exposing Stanford for their inferior speed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#28
#28
The only numbers that ae accurate come from the NFL combine. There's a reason C Patt went from 6'4" 220 at UT to 6'1" 205 at the combine.
 
#29
#29
Besides if we our 40 speeds are the same as other teams we are still slow in our turn around and sideline to sideline speed is slower than most we need pleura with a quick first step.
 
#30
#30
I'm convinced these guys are lost as last year's Easter Egg after Kiffin, Dooley and Sal. I think Jancek has done nothing to "unlearn what they have learned" but at this stage, I like Butch enough to see what Jancek has next year. These kids have had Kiffin and Dooley as coach. It's a wonder they know how to put the pads on and shower properly.

Right now, Chief and Wilcox look like demi-gods relative to where we are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#32
#32
40 times are the most overrated stats in football. Quickness is the most important physical tool. Quickness in making the right read, quickness in the first step at the right angle to the ball, quickness in changing direction and getting back to full speed. These kids are in their 3rd system in 3 yrs for crying out loud. They are still thinking out there. It will get better.
 
Last edited:
#33
#33
GBOVOLS said:
Dude there is a huge difference between your 40 time and the speed you play at. Coleman is a great example of that. He gets beat on go routes all the time
Click to expand...
For some reason this reminds me. I played against Coleman and another football player a few years ago at the TRECS. I guarded him in three games of two-on-two basketball. I was 5'8" 230lbs at the time and beat him pretty easily. Granted this was basketball, but I was able to blow by him with ease.
 
#34
#34
I think the point that the OP is making is that the reason we suck to the abysmalth power is not pure athleticism. It's coaching, technique and footbal iq. We may not be LSU or Bama in terms of talent on defense but we shouldn't be THIS bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#35
#35
ESPNHATESUS said:
Besides if we our 40 speeds are the same as other teams we are still slow in our turn around and sideline to sideline speed is slower than most we need pleura with a quick first step.
Click to expand...

However recorded 40 times are measurable data that contradicts the "no-speed" excuse that a lot of posters are throwing to try to explain why the defense is doing so poorly. So now when someone presents that "data" a poster such as yourself makes another excuse to explain why our poorly coached defense is getting beaten up and down the field.

If the defense is slow in lateral movement then how did we beat USCa and almost beat UGa? How do you explain that one when comparing defensive play for those two games compared to the the last 3 fugly losses and defensive showings.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#36
#36
gobravesvols16 said:
Our D being "too slow" is just a myth and I have the numbers to prove it. Below is the 40 times of our starters and Stanfords starters. We know that Stanford shut down the Oregon juggernaut 2 years in a row while they went thru our D like a hot knife thru butter.

UT

DE Smith 8.3
DT McCullers 10+
DT Hood 8.7
DE Miller 7.5
LB Johnson 10+
LB Sapp 4.9
LB Brewer 4.8
CB Sutton 4.6
CB Coleman 10+
S McNeil 5.1
S Moore 10+

Stanford

DE Mauro 4.7
DT Parry 5.2
DE Anderson 4.8
LB Murphy 4.8
LB Skov 4.6
LB Tarpley 4.7
LB Vaughters 4.6
CB Carter 4.5
CB Lyons 4.5
S Reynolds 4.5
S Richards 4.5

According to the facts above we are just as fast or faster at some positions than Stanford so what gives? I think it comes down to player development. The previous staff did a poor job developing players on that side of the ball. A player coming out of HS is going to be raw and needs to be taught the fundamentals. This is what HAS to happen and it is a slow process.
Click to expand...

fixed your post with the "official" laser timed 40 times
 
Last edited:
#37
#37
I haven't seen Stanford, but my eyes saw our D time and again. We are slow. I don't care what those numbers say. Moore is no 4.5. No way.
 
#38
#38
It is possible for one player to accelerate to his max running speed with 15-20 yards and hold it for the back half of the 40 yards while another accelerate less quickly but continue to do so completely through the dash.

While those two runners might post the same dash time, their speed would serve them very differently on the playing field.
 
#39
#39
BigOrangeTrain said:
The ball boy wasn't wearing all the football gear and had not been actually playing the game. I can guarantee that a ball boy would not outrun one of our special teams guys. Take off the uniform and line them up, the UT player outruns him 10/10.
Click to expand...

You say UT's special teams players could outrun a suited-up Auburn ball boy? And that's supposed to make me feel good how?
 
#42
#42
patrick said:
However recorded 40 times are measurable data that contradicts the "no-speed" excuse that a lot of posters are throwing to try to explain why the defense is doing so poorly. So now when someone presents that "data" a poster such as yourself makes another excuse to explain why our poorly coached defense is getting beaten up and down the field.

If the defense is slow in lateral movement then how did we beat USCa and almost beat UGa? How do you explain that one when comparing defensive play for those two games compared to the the last 3 fugly losses and defensive showings.
Click to expand...

We'll Patrick if you look at the rush yards for both games they still rushed over 200 yards on us and if you watched the games you will remember both QBs ran on us. GA we almost won because we took out half their team and Murray couldn't pass USC we got a lucky catch from North (if you don't admit it was luck then your crazy) and Shaw was hurt when they needed him the most. I am not saying speed it the sole reason we are bad on defense but when you our out of your gaps and read the play wrong them yes that .2 seconds on speed makes a big difference. We get slaughtered on the run period and the other teams have learned that we can pick a pass off until our two safeties got hurt.
 
Last edited:
#43
#43
MWAVolfan said:
those guys are starting QBs not backups. We made Maty Mauk look like Johnny Manziel, which he is not.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the insite now let me see if I got this, only white "back up qb's" are slow right?


Also I gota ask, what if a kid is mixed race will he run in a circle because one leg is faster than the other?
 
Last edited:
#44
#44
ESPNHATESUS said:
We'll Patrick if you look at the rush yards for both games they still rushed over 200 yards on us and if you watched the games you will remember both QBs ran on us. GA we almost won because we took out half their team and Murray couldn't pass USC we got a lucky catch from North (if you don't admit it was luck then your crazy) and Shaw was hurt when they needed him the most. I am not saying speed it the sole reason we are bad on defense but when you our out of your gaps and read the play wrong them yes that .2 seconds on speed makes a big difference. We get slaughtered on the run period and the other teams have learned that we can pick a pass off until our two safeties got hurt.
Click to expand...

How many rush yards did Mizzou have and Auburn's QB?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#45
#45
ESPN said repeatedly that "Stanford is a smart football team". Soooooo....

I wonder what a GPA by position comparison would net you? We're not privy to that, but we are to graduation rates and probably average SAT scores. Maybe some of the difference is between the ears and not all in the foot speed.
 
#48
#48
utvols74 said:
ESPN said repeatedly that "Stanford is a smart football team". Soooooo....

I wonder what a GPA by position comparison would net you? We're not privy to that, but we are to graduation rates and probably average SAT scores. Maybe some of the difference is between the ears and not all in the foot speed.
Click to expand...

Well I have been saying this all day.
 
#50
#50
gobravesvols16 said:
Our D being "too slow" is just a myth and I have the numbers to prove it. Below is the 40 times of our starters and Stanfords starters. We know that Stanford shut down the Oregon juggernaut 2 years in a row while they went thru our D like a hot knife thru butter.

UT

DE Smith 4.7
DT McCullers 5.18
DT Hood
DE Miller 4.6
LB Johnson 4.7
LB Sapp 4.6
LB Brewer 4.6
CB Sutton 4.45
CB Coleman 4.4
S McNeil 4.5
S Moore 4.5

Stanford

DE Mauro 4.7
DT Parry 5.2
DE Anderson 4.8
LB Murphy 4.8
LB Skov 4.6
LB Tarpley 4.7
LB Vaughters 4.6
CB Carter 4.5
CB Lyons 4.5
S Reynolds 4.5
S Richards 4.5

According to the facts above we are just as fast or faster at some positions than Stanford so what gives? I think it comes down to player development. The previous staff did a poor job developing players on that side of the ball. A player coming out of HS is going to be raw and needs to be taught the fundamentals. This is what HAS to happen and it is a slow process.
Click to expand...

Nice job! Now that you've debunked the "lack of speed" excuse I see that the Vollyannas have moved on to new excuses like "Stanford is smarter" or "we are younger" ... lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top