Vols Defense: What's Coming

[Vol8188]

And yet... that's not the problem. The problem is when two of the SEC's worst QBs in terms of INTs and QBR have "Heisman moments" vs your D. Rattler literally has ONE... ONLY ONE 400 yd game in his career. Wanna guess who couldn't stop him even with mediocre or worse WRs? Richardson was downright awful most of the year... except for the 453 he put up against UT.

These aren't elite QBs playing on elite rosters.

Richardson is going to be called in the first round of the NFL draft this year and Rattler is a 5* QB and former preseason Heisman favorite. They're elite, rather you want to accept it or not. Rattler's total QBR is middle of the pack. If you look at the 1st half of the season vs the 2nd you'll see a major difference in his QBR also. He played better against us, Clemson, Notre Dame, and Kentucky in the back half of the season than he did against South Carolina St, Charlotte, and Georgia St in the beginning of the season. So taking the season average there for a guy with a new OC at a new school he was clearly far better as the season went out just doesn't make sense at all.

 

[WoodsmanVol]

Nor me... nor should it. The topic being discussed though isn't pride about past overachievement. The conversation that YOU started is about "what's coming" on D. I understand the attraction of simplistic answers. But it likely isn't a simple problem. UT did not have ideal talent on D. No question about it. But they didn't have ideal talent on O either. They did amazing things on O with what they had and not so much on D.
The other "simple" answer is that it is all Martinez's fault. I just don't buy it. Banks is in charge of the D. If you have a problem with the D then you start your review at the top, right?

Well, instead of beating up Banks, I will say I think he got our front four/five playing well. He had them doing quite well against the run a lot of times. And getting pressure when it really mattered. We'll get better. So, I'll watch for the orange ogre defense to return and terrorize the SEC and OOC opponents. We've had two decades of badmouthing our team. I'm ready for some optimism.

 

[WaywardVol]

Richardson is going to be called in the first round of the NFL draft this year and Rattler is a 5* QB and former preseason Heisman favorite. They're elite, rather you want to accept it or not. Rattler's total QBR is middle of the pack. If you look at the 1st half of the season vs the 2nd you'll see a major difference in his QBR also. He played better against us, Clemson, Notre Dame, and Kentucky in the back half of the season than he did against South Carolina St, Charlotte, and Georgia St in the beginning of the season. So taking the season average there for a guy with a new OC at a new school he was clearly far better as the season went out just doesn't make sense at all.

View attachment 538428

Come on man (Biden voice). Rattler scored TDs on all but one offensive possession. Rattler has had one elite game in his careee, and it was against us.

 

[Ashevillevol]

Seems likely we should also consider that the nature of our offense puts a lot of extra pressure on the defense. When the defense is forced to defend up to 100 plays in a game, they are going to get worn down and need even more good players to compensate.

 

[Vol8188]

Come on man (Biden voice). Rattler scored TDs on all but one offensive possession. Rattler has had one elite game in his careee, and it was against us.

He followed it up with 360 yards against Clemson. Don't get me wrong, he's not an all time great QB to this point in his career for sure. But the second half of the season, he was a much better QB than he was the first half, and he's a former 5* for a reason. The guy has a lot of talent and potential.

It's a mix of everything in that game. Some of it is he played at a very high level that game. Some of it is that we couldn't get to him. Some of it is that we were basically out of corners by that point in the season. It's one of those games if you play it over 100x he probably repeats that performance 0/100.

 

[Kngsport VFL]

If anyone wants to save themselves from reading this article:

We are hiring football coaches and recruiting football players. That’s it

The article starts out promisingly by saying we’ve made changes to our defensive front. Which makes you think, “maybe they’ll discuss different fronts we’ve been playing and break down some x’s and o’s”.

And then nothing

When they share x'S and o'S with the fans, they are sharing with the opponents. Let's all be surprised.

 

[sjt18]

The first problem with your argument is that you're randomly cherry picking whichever service has them as a 4* instead of using the consensus average.

No. Like I stated I'm just using what seems like the common practice here. When lists of commits are made, they're listed as 4* if they have that rating on any site. I'm not a "star gazer" by any stretch. Just pointing out an inconsistency of using one rule at one time and then using another when it is convenient to an argument.

Why would you pick "one expert" as opposed to a consensus? It would be like pretending you expected Tom Brady to be good because "one expert said so" or you knew Isaiah Wilson was a bust because of the opinion of "one expert". If you want a fair idea of how talented a roster is you shouldn't cherry pick the guy who said they're the best, but rather take the consensus average. Our secondary lacked talent. If you take consensus ratings we only had more 4/5* DBs than Vandy. It's a simple fact. If you think I'm wrong, find me the SEC team with less DB talent. There wasn't another team with less talent in the secondary last season.

To the extent the recruit rankings are accurate... and to the extent the experts favored to make that argument are better and more accurate than the other experts.

The other thing you're ignoring is positional value. DB is the most valuable position on defense, specifically corner. We had 1 4* corner (Turnage) on our entire roster last season. That's horrific.

Not ignoring anything. And according to the recruiting sites, you are wrong. Rucker at least was a 4*.

Being thin was a problem. They ended up playing safeties at CB.

Bumphus was a composite 3* LaTrell Bumphus, Tennessee, Defensive Line

One Garland was a walk on (the LB).

Slaughter was a composite 3*

McDonald was a composite 3*

Terry was very low ranked as a recruit but had more value in the portal because he went to a really, really bad team and got immediate playing time.

Looking at offers is a flawed metric because you have no way of knowing how many of those are committable. Every school in the country offers far more than 25 guys every year.

I don't know specifically whether you have done it or not. But the general practice in the recruiting forum seems to be to call a player by his highest ranking. Offer lists are often cited as the BEST measure of how good a player is. And if you really want to talk about "flawed" metrics... "stars" are that.

I get it. I don't understand it. But I get it. You want to make excuses to avoid simply acknowledging that Banks may not be the guy UT needs to put the D together. I'm not saying that he isn't... only that I'm not buying yet. And again, if he'd only flopped vs great teams I'd be more inclined to your position. But that's not the case.

 

[Vol8188]

When they share x'S and o'S with the fans, they are sharing with the opponents. Let's all be surprised.

There's plenty of good x and o articles written. I don't think this reporter has any reason not to share such things if he had an understanding of them. But was this article not a big nothing burger?

 

[utvols74]

I thought Banks was a liability but I do agree with you about pass rush. As a rusher and as a spy, he was really good.

He was just prior to the USCe game from the multiple sources citing friends/colleagues close to the situation.

 

[sjt18]

Well, instead of beating up Banks, I will say I think he got our front four/five playing well. He had them doing quite well against the run a lot of times. And getting pressure when it really mattered. We'll get better. So, I'll watch for the orange ogre defense to return and terrorize the SEC and OOC opponents. We've had two decades of badmouthing our team. I'm ready for some optimism.

So being an honest and respectful critic who simply says, "I'm not convinced that we have the right million dollar DC" means I'm badmouthing?

I hope he is the right guy. Obviously better for UT if he is. I'm not really into optimism vs pessimism. I want the Vols reality to match the highest expectations. Whatever it takes to get there... I support.

I am very happy with Heupel btw... and don't have a lot of doubt that he will do the right thing concerning the D.

 

[Vol8188]

No. Like I stated I'm just using what seems like the common practice here. When lists of commits are made, they're listed as 4* if they have that rating on any site. I'm not a "star gazer" by any stretch. Just pointing out an inconsistency of using one rule at one time and then using another when it is convenient to an argument.

To the extent the recruit rankings are accurate... and to the extent the experts favored to make that argument are better and more accurate than the other experts.

Not ignoring anything. And according to the recruiting sites, you are wrong. Rucker at least was a 4*.

Being thin was a problem. They ended up playing safeties at CB.



I don't know specifically whether you have done it or not. But the general practice in the recruiting forum seems to be to call a player by his highest ranking. Offer lists are often cited as the BEST measure of how good a player is. And if you really want to talk about "flawed" metrics... "stars" are that.

I get it. I don't understand it. But I get it. You want to make excuses to avoid simply acknowledging that Banks may not be the guy UT needs to put the D together. I'm not saying that he isn't... only that I'm not buying yet. And again, if he'd only flopped vs great teams I'd be more inclined to your position. But that's not the case.

None of what you said in bold addressed the actual issue. You're welcome to think anyone is hypocritical, but your opinion of whoever has 0 to do with this debate. If we are going to discuss overall talent, composite ratings are our best way to measure that. Are they not?

Rucker was a composite 3*. De'Shawn Rucker, Tennessee, Cornerback

I'm not avoiding anything, because you've not asked my opinion on if Banks is the guy. Rather you're ignorantly and arrogantly assuming my position. The truth is with Banks it is too early to tell.

 

[Vol8188]

He was just prior to the USCe game from the multiple sources citing friends/colleagues close to the situation.

Even on the field he was slow to react and out of position a lot. That's probably why he was a great blitzer because there was less read/react involved.

 

[sjt18]

Richardson is going to be called in the first round of the NFL draft this year and Rattler is a 5* QB and former preseason Heisman favorite. They're elite, rather you want to accept it or not. Rattler's total QBR is middle of the pack. If you look at the 1st half of the season vs the 2nd you'll see a major difference in his QBR also. He played better against us, Clemson, Notre Dame, and Kentucky in the back half of the season than he did against South Carolina St, Charlotte, and Georgia St in the beginning of the season. So taking the season average there for a guy with a new OC at a new school he was clearly far better as the season went out just doesn't make sense at all.

View attachment 538428

You wrote a post... then posted a graphic that disproved your post. You are deluding yourself. Ninth is "middle of the pack"?

Rattler's recruit ranking still matters? How is that? He got beat out at OU and was awful until the UT game at USCe. But he was a 5* and that makes him "elite"? And he still has one and ONLY one 400 yd game in his 4 year college career. Just one makes him "elite"?

Richardson sucked. The NFL may take him on athletic potential but he was never a good QB at UF... except it seems against UT.


I'm really not sure what's motivating you. I say I'm not convinced that Banks is the right DC or that blaming the D problems only on Martinez or the players makes sense... and you get triggered?

 

[WoodsmanVol]

So being an honest and respectful critic who simply says, "I'm not convinced that we have the right million dollar DC" means I'm badmouthing?
I hope he is the right guy. Obviously better for UT if he is. I'm not really into optimism vs pessimism. I want the Vols reality to match the highest expectations. Whatever it takes to get there... I support.
I am very happy with Heupel btw... and don't have a lot of doubt that he will do the right thing concerning the D.

Relax. You got your opinion, I got mine. You know, I think the old hippie favorite saying is right:
I do my thing and you do your thing. I am not in this world to live up to your expectations, And you are not in this world to live up to mine. You are you, and I am I, and if by chance we find each other, it's beautiful. If not, it can't be helped.

 

[VolNRaleighNC]

Just a reminder that Willie Martinez is still on the coaching staff

 

[Vol8188]

You wrote a post... then posted a graphic that disproved your post. You are deluding yourself. Ninth is "middle of the pack"?

Rattler's recruit ranking still matters? How is that? He got beat out at OU and was awful until the UT game at USCe. But he was a 5* and that makes him "elite"? And he still has one and ONLY one 400 yd game in his 4 year college career. Just one makes him "elite"?

Richardson sucked. The NFL may take him on athletic potential but he was never a good QB at UF... except it seems against UT.


I'm really not sure what's motivating you. I say I'm not convinced that Banks is the right DC or that blaming the D problems only on Martinez or the players makes sense... and you get triggered?

Lol 7 vs 9 for middle of the pack? I was so far off. If that's the best you can do, pretending 9th out of 14 isn't "middle of the pack", then I'm not impressed.

He got beat out at Oklahoma by a Heisman winner and future first round draft pick. Yes, his ratting matters because it's based on his athletic ability and arm talent. He didn't lose those things. They're still there and he likely has a much better season this year. He's an elite talent. Similar to the DE SC just lost. An elite talent who has yet to consistently play at an elite level, yes. Similar to the WR we got from Oregon this year.

Lol that's what it is, I'm just so triggered by stupidity.

 

[89 VOLS grad]

They weren't just exciting to watch. Even with a bad D, the O propelled the Vols to 11 wins. He and the offensive staff have done more with less. The D staff... has not. Excuse it any way you like but coaching and development on the D side has not held up its end.

They're definitely getting more talented. Banks is getting a chance to "slow build" the D. But there is still a risk that he's just not the right guy and the D will remain a sore spot until a DC is brought in who more closely matches Heupel as an O coach.

I agree. I don't see Banks getting it done. I hope he proves me wrong in 2023. If not, let him go and get a stud DC.

 

[Rocky Top T]

As long as McCullough doesn't start at safety, I'm good!

 

[sjt18]

Lol 7 vs 9 for middle of the pack? I was so far off. If that's the best you can do, pretending 9th out of 14 isn't "middle of the pack", then I'm not impressed.

He got beat out at Oklahoma by a Heisman winner and future first round draft pick. Yes, his ratting matters because it's based on his athletic ability and arm talent. He didn't lose those things. They're still there and he likely has a much better season this year. He's an elite talent. Similar to the DE SC just lost. An elite talent who has yet to consistently play at an elite level, yes. Similar to the WR we got from Oregon this year.

Lol that's what it is, I'm just so triggered by stupidity.

He was overrated based on what he's done so far. That's really not that hard unless you have a need to support another "point".

Triggered? Yes. You've been that. Stupidity? Nope... unless you're confessing?

 

[sjt18]

I agree. I don't see Banks getting it done. I hope he proves me wrong in 2023. If not, let him go and get a stud DC.

I'm not even there yet. I hope he's as great as his defenders are acting like he is. He seems likeable. I think he's a guy who has paid his dues so I would love to see him succeed.

However I'm just not one for simplistic answers and especially when they don't seem to be sufficient.

Rattler and Richardson pretty much sucked against every other credible team... then destroyed UT's D. I personally like Brady Cook but he didn't play that well against any other good team. None of these guys were surrounded by WRs that many of us have every heard of.

Blaming talent or Martinez also make little sense when you consider that the same guys who played pretty well vs Daniel, Levis, and even Young played so poorly at other times. Position coaches generally coach skills. They don't strategize how their groups will play against opponents. That's generally the DC with input from others. I don't think it is reasonable to say that the DBs were skilled vs UK then completely forgot what they were doing. There were some injuries but I don't think that answers the UF game.

 

[LittleVol]

And yet... that's not the problem. The problem is when two of the SEC's worst QBs in terms of INTs and QBR have "Heisman moments" vs your D. Rattler literally has ONE... ONLY ONE 400 yd game in his career. Wanna guess who couldn't stop him even with mediocre or worse WRs? Richardson was downright awful most of the year... except for the 453 he put up against UT.

These aren't elite QBs playing on elite rosters.

Facts...

 

[Vol8188]

He was overrated based on what he's done so far. That's really not that hard unless you have a need to support another "point".

Triggered? Yes. You've been that. Stupidity? Nope... unless you're confessing?

Overrated based on current production? Sure.

But that still doesn’t address the overall issue. You tried to pretend a guy who threw for 360 against Clemson and a guy who’s going in the first round were trash.

The second issue is you refuse to accept the two basic facts that CB is the most important position on defense in todays game and that we had almost no talent at DB. Especially at CB. When you have Vandy level DBs and still are ranked around 40th in ppg and have given up less points than the previous year in back to back years with that level of talent, despite playing far more snaps per game than under the previous staff, it’s hard to claim the defense has underachieved

 

[FollowTheLeader]

No. Like I stated I'm just using what seems like the common practice here. When lists of commits are made, they're listed as 4* if they have that rating on any site. I'm not a "star gazer" by any stretch. Just pointing out an inconsistency of using one rule at one time and then using another when it is convenient to an argument.

To the extent the recruit rankings are accurate... and to the extent the experts favored to make that argument are better and more accurate than the other experts.

Not ignoring anything. And according to the recruiting sites, you are wrong. Rucker at least was a 4*.

Being thin was a problem. They ended up playing safeties at CB.



I don't know specifically whether you have done it or not. But the general practice in the recruiting forum seems to be to call a player by his highest ranking. Offer lists are often cited as the BEST measure of how good a player is. And if you really want to talk about "flawed" metrics... "stars" are that.

I get it. I don't understand it. But I get it. You want to make excuses to avoid simply acknowledging that Banks may not be the guy UT needs to put the D together. I'm not saying that he isn't... only that I'm not buying yet. And again, if he'd only flopped vs great teams I'd be more inclined to your position. But that's not the case.

.......it's funny!! You take so much time and energy to try to "prove" how bad the defense is. Just because you believe something in your head and put it on a message board, will NEVER make it true......but carry on with your rants. It's great comedy

 

[sjt18]

.......it's funny!! You take so much time and energy to try to "prove" how bad the defense is. Just because you believe something in your head and put it on a message board, will NEVER make it true......but carry on with your rants. It's great comedy

That's an interesting response. You worked very hard to put as little thought into dismissing an idea that made you feel bad as you could. Congratulations.

I don't have to "prove" it was bad. Most rational fans know that the D was awful at times. Do you think what they did vs UF and USCe last year in particular are "good"?

 

[Devo182]

We were top half in the SEC last year and that's based on volume scoring, which very clearly punishes this defense having to defend more plays than nearly any other.

If we can move up from 5th (vs SEC opponents) or 6th (vs all opponents) to top 3 or 4 in the SEC...look out.