I'm not upset at all. It's just football. It's just a game. It's supposed to be fun to follow the team.
I'm having fun. I LIKE debating and jousting over various things. I like watching the games. When I get the chance, I love going to games. I re-watch games just for the enjoyment of it.
You seem pretty upset that I won't agree with you on Banks. Sorry. But you being upset or taking shots at me or telling me how I should think/feel or what I can or cannot do and when I can do it... just isn't going to change that.
"The question is if Banks is the right guy to take the D to the level the O has achieved or at least something close."
OK, if this is the question, then here is my answer:
The offense is #1 in the country and in the SEC. For a new coach to do that in year 2 of a rebuild after inheriting a blown up program is near miraculous. That kind of performance is once in a generation kind of thing; an anomaly, an outlier. To expect another coach to match or near match that kind of brilliant performance - especially a coordinator who inherited the same blown up program - is an unrealistic expectation.
Yes. What Heupel has done compares to what Saban, Carroll, and a handful of others have done. It is likely better since they started from a much better place talent wise.
No. It isn't an "unrealistic" expectation if your goal or expectation is championships. It is not only not "unrealistic"... it is prerequisite. So if UT is to take its place alongside OSU, Michigan, UGA, Bama, et al as contenders for NCs... UT needs an top shelf DC to go along with that O. That might be Banks but what he's done so far doesn't indicate that it is. Either way, that will be a major test for Heupel. His future success will depend on either keeping him because he's the right guy or making the right change at the right time.
Heupel is going to have a good insight. One simple question can tell him which way to go: "Would I find him difficult to beat if he were the opposing DC?"
Besides, when you have the #1 offense in the country and the genius who produced it as part of your program going forward you don't need an elite defense. You need a good defense - good enough to keep the other team from scoring enough to overcome our game scoring total. Banks did that 11 out of 13 times in year two of the rebuild of the blown up program. That's 85% win rate in year two of the rebuild. That's an excellent performance GIVEN THE CONTEXT OF THE SITUATION, imho.
You need something very close since it is "unrealistic" to expect the O to carry you in every game and situation. But aside from that... why would your goal EVER be anything less than elite in any phase of the game?
And no, repeating the same thing doesn't make it true. It was not 85% of the time. Just because the O was able to compensate does not mean that the D was good.
Excellent is maximizing your talent and opportunity. UT's defensive performance was not favorably comparable to teams that did better with less talent. That may not always be the case with or without Banks. It has been across the first two years. Again, the talent is not and was not ideal. It wasn't on O either. Great coaches however find ways to optimize talent... to get synergy from players with less individual talent.
In addition, it's more difficult to maintain a good defense for four quarters when your offense scores quickly or goes 3 and out so often, as others have pointed out.
Is it? Does the O scoring quickly mean that the D has to come onto the field and give up a long drive? How exactly does a quick strike O mean a D cannot get off the field? There are ways an O that puts up that many points makes an opposing O a lot more predictable. A great coach should be able to use that in his scheming and playcalling, right? Early opponents will often try to sustain drives and keep UT off the field. If UT gets a lead then that leaves them with little choice but to throw.
So how is the O the disadvantage to the D that you think?
There was a point in this season when there were "whispers" of Heupel being frustrated. Heupel starting the season promised a pressure, aggressive D. Banks was giving him a "bend, don't break" D. Shortly after that report UT started playing more aggressive. Banks has to align with Heupel's philosophy. Banks at times continues to show those tendencies though.
BTW, I have frequently said that PPG or YPG are not the right measures or at least they aren't without more context. Better measures to look at are yds/play, 1st downs allowed, 1st downs/drive, and 3rd/4th down conversions. The better UT's D is at getting off the field without allowing long drives... the greater their advantage from having an O that makes the opponent predictable.
You have to have built exceptional quality depth to withstand that kind of stress for 60 minutes of football.
Which is why you CANNOT allow sustained drives over and over. Your DC has to get his unit off the field. It is "unrealistic" to expect to have success when opponents drive the field as consistently as Clemson did. UT made plays and got away with it in that game. But like one youtuber said, if you looked at the final stats and the score without the team names... you would have assumed that Clemson won. They drove up and down the field. They had over 300 yds passing. They dominated TOP. But they could not finish.
It is "unrealistic" to expect to play a lot of teams that do that.
It's unrealistic to expect anyone to have done that by year two of a rebuild of a blown up program. That's another part of the context of the situation.
The context of the situation is that UT was fortunate that Clemson couldn't finish drives. UT made plays but Clemson also shot themselves in the foot repeatedly. The context is what AR, Rattler, and Cook among others did to UT's pass D.
The context is giving up 63 points and over 600 yds of offense to USCe who otherwise averaged 29.6 ppg and 360 ypg... They averaged 5.92 ypp on the season and 7.97 vs UT. They were only better vs Vandy and Charlotte. They avg'd 17.7 first downs per game against everyone else and had 35 vs UT. They doubled their 3rd and 4th down conversion rates vs UT also. That was an EPIC meltdown. It was a historic failure... I cannot find UT EVER allowing 63 or more points in a game in over 100 years of football. The only other game UT allowed more than 60 was against one of Spurrier's offenses in 1995.
It is "unrealistic" to use words like "excellent" in reference to a DC that gives up that many points to a team the quality of this year's USCe team.
In sum, your question is unfair, because it's based on a couple of false premises, as explained above.
Nope. You didn't prove any false premises. You did use some false premises and attempted to poison the well by using the word "unrealistic" without in any way proving the subject was "unrealistic".
