UT Defense-Mythbusters Edition

#51
#51
Whenever we are going against players, whose times are anywhere between 4.2 and 4.3, 4.5 to 5.2 are still
TOO DAMN SLOW no matter how you cut it! For example, I would say nearly everybody on Oregon's starting line on Offense runs the 40 somewhere between 4.2 and 4.4. with maybe the exception of the linemen. In like manner, Alabama has a lot of fast players....maybe not to the extent that Oregon has. Auburn is pretty much the same story.
 
#52
#52
I don't think it's about speed as much as it is about depth. You race the same horse at every track and your horse is a loser. Throw in another horse or two and bingo...... We need more horses..
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#53
#53
majorvol said:
I don't think it's about speed as much as it is about depth. You race the same horse at every track and your horse is a loser. Throw in another horse or two and bingo...... We need more horses..
Click to expand...

This. The only game I saw our D get manhandled from the start was AL.
 
#54
#54
Could you imagine how slow we would be if we had uniforms like Penn State?
 
#55
#55
patrick said:
How many rush yards did Mizzou have and Auburn's QB?
Click to expand...

Mizzou's QB had about 140 and Auburn's QB had over 200. It doesn't matter if it was a QB or running back with that many yards rushing. If you watch you will see it is the rush on the outside that kills us. You can't line up all your players on the line and expect tk seal the edge then you leave the middle wide open. There is no doubt that in a 40 yard dash that they are fast but when donyou ever see a flat out sprint on the defense in a straight line. A 40 speed is only good for your running backs and receivers because they are most likely player to run in a straight line without turning around. You need LBs and DBs with quick shuttle times and a fast step so they can cover sideline to sideline. The only way 40 speed is a factor on d is when they do get by the secondary and Lbs
 
#56
#56
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...

Easy. Uga and USCe play traditional T-formation/I drop back passer offenses, not the "spread" or "read option" or whatever. Auburn and Oregon torched us with the read option. Mizzou is not 100% read option but they had a very mobile QB and ran something similar against us. Bammer is just good...they did most of their damage through the air against us, but we had a banged up secondary. McNeil, Moore and Randolph missed most of that game.

So the bottom line is that this team is getting repeatedly burned by fast mobile QBs who can make it to the edge faster than our DEs. Something we need to work on.

Good news...Patton Robbinette is not Marshall or even Mack.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#57
#57
majorvol said:
I don't think it's about speed as much as it is about depth. You race the same horse at every track and your horse is a loser. Throw in another horse or two and bingo...... We need more horses..
Click to expand...

That's a great point...we hung with both Oregon and Auburn for a quarter. No doubt this contributed.
 
#58
#58
The best measurement would be the times of our 2nd string. Your speed slows with more snaps and getting beaten up. Without depth, you play slower as the games wear on.

Also, for defenses, your shuttle times are more indicative of your playing speed than your 40 yd times, as they measure the speed you make cuts.
 
#59
#59
We need to revisit this thread after some of these guys run at the NFL combine....just for giggles.
 
#60
#60
robvol said:
No way Smith runs in the 4's.
Click to expand...

J. Smith is probably one of the fastest DL we have had in a while. Problem is he is always 5-6 yards up the field missing the tackle leaving the lane wide open for the runner. Now Corey Miller is no way close to being 4.6. He looked like he was running in sand trying to catch Mauk in the Mizz game.
 
#61
#61
teeball said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is a troll from another team my guess is uga.

You sir, are no Vol fan I know I can not remove you from VN boards however I can ignore the stupidity of your post's with just one click.:flush:



-->GO VOLS<--
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#62
#62
You are missing the big picture......we lack "QUICKNESS" not speed. Line up and run a 40 yd dash all day doesn't mean crap. Run from point A to point B while getting there thru an obstacle course of blockers and bodies. Lateral QUICKNESS is what is lacking!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#63
#63
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...

If that's the case, then Vandy would beat us every year. :)
 
#64
#64
If McCullers can go 40 yards in less than 6 seconds I'd be surprised. Not saying anything negative, just that he is a mountain of a man. He's be a fun one to wathc run the 40 at the NFL combine.
 
#65
#65
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...

40 times are hardly ever fact until the NFL combine.

Even then its different when your on the field and in pads. There is a difference in straight line speed in shorts and a tee compared to running down an offensive player in pads with a bad angle, etc.

Our D is slow. Really slow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#68
#68
fade route said:
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.
Click to expand...
This.

Those times are hysterical. Corey Miller runs a 4.6. :eek:lol: Tell me more please.

Palardy being one of the fastest guys on special teams should clue most in that we are slow as snail balls on our best day.
 
#70
#70
Doesn't matter how fast you are if you can't shed blocks. I have seen LBs and DBs run and intentionally engage an offensive blocker instead of either trying to attack the hole or space.
I've seen defenders in open space look uncertain and flat footed only to wiff.

The sideline is your 12th defender and this team has not utilized this strategy. There have been a handful of plays that have continually killed this team, one being the underneath drag route. Since this team runs a zone read, you would think the defense would have practice responding. But they continually fall pray to the simplest concepts of what makes that offense work.

Stanford executed some fundamental concepts to take away the lateral advantage. Forced the QB into some uncomfortable spots.

This is one thing Wilcox did so well. Minimize exposure.
 
#71
#71
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#73
#73
#74
#74
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...

Bottom line:

Stats or no stats. Ours ain't as good as theirs.
 
#75
#75
Speed on the D line isn't as important as it is at LB & DB. Every LB we have has been exposed especially AJ. The only formidable DB we have is Sutton.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top