The Tennessee Volunteers are reelin' in the years

by Joel Hollingsworth on Oct 13, 2008 7:28 AM EDT in Tennessee Volunteer Football

Your everlasting summer
You can see it fading fast
So you grab a piece of something
That you think is gonna last
You wouldn't know a diamond
If you held it in your hand
The things you think are precious
I can't understand

Are you Reelin' In The Years?
Stowin' away the time
Are you gatherin' up the tears?
Have you had enough of mine?

You been tellin' me you're a genius
Since you were seventeen
In all the time I've known you
I still don't know what you mean
The weekend at the college
Didn't turn out like you planned
The things that pass for knowledge
I can't understand

Reelin' in the Years -- Steely Dan

Yeah. I don't get it. This whole latching on to something shiny and new to preserve our youth ain't really turning out the way we thought it might.

Shoot, even the Tennessee stats guy must have given up on the season, as nobody's uploaded the drive chart information to the NCAA yet. It's just as well, as I can't imagine it would look very pretty. The words sure aren't:

On the Vols' first drive, Nick Stephens hit on an excellent, anticipation-building 25-yard strike to Gerald Jones. Three plays later he was sacked on third down, and we punted. Georgia promptly went 79 yards in five minutes for a TD.

Okay, okay. Do over. On the Vols' next drive, we gave the ball to Manterio (keeping that typo because I like it) Hardesty, who went for seven yards. Two incomplete passes later, we punted, and Georgia got an even three minutes and a field goal.

Well, then. Let's try No. 3 on the third drive. Maybe we can get some numerology happening or something. No gain, two yards, sack. Punt. And just like that, the first quarter was gone. Oh, and three minutes into the second quarter, the Bulldogs had another field goal. The defense was keeping Georgia out of the end zone but letting them stay on the field.

All right, so how about Arian Foster? Eleven yards, three yards, incomplete, complete but short, punt. Georgia munched five minutes and then one of the good things happened. Robert Ayers intercepted a Matthew Stafford pass while Georgia was in its red zone. Yeehaw.

Momentum is a funny thing. Hardesty rushed for a first down on Tennessee's ensuing drive just before Stephens threw a 60-yard bomb to Denarius Moore, who really needs to get the ball more often. Stephens then tossed a quick two-yard TD to Gerald Jones, and we were in bizznass.

Especially since Georgia blew the kickoff and started its next possession on its own three yard line. They went two yards and then no yards and then called a timeout with something like two minutes left on the clock. If we could have forced a punt, we'd have had good field position and time to score again to really make it a game. Of course, it was third down, and Georgia instead converted with a 14-yard pass to Knowshon Moreno. Two personal fouls and 97 yards later, and Georgia was taking momentum and a 20-7 lead into the locker room.

We forced a punt to begin the second half, so woo. But then we punted and piled on another personal foul. All right. No big deal, because although Georgia once again was driving toward its end zone, this time Stafford made the mistake of throwing in Eric Berry's direction. Berry intercepted the thing and took it 54 yards in the other direction. The man is now first in Tennessee history in interception return yards. As a sophomore. Anyway, the offense rode that spark into the end zone again, and it was a game again.

Just not for long. The Bulldogs ate another 5:36 and hit a field goal. We helped with yet another personal foul.

Us? Punt.

Them? An astounding 10:55 drive and a field goal, which leads to an observation. "Bend" may result in more threes than sixes and sevens, but it sure does take a lot of time, and time too often leads to "break." I don't understand.

The ending: punt, punt, time. Game.

Georgia had the ball for 42:04 of the sixty minute game. Our offense was on the field for less than seven minutes in the second half.

They had 81 plays. We had 45.

They converted 9 of 17 third downs and had 10 rushing, 15 passing, and four penalty first downs. We had ten first downs total.

We rushed for one yard, probably because they knew which way we were going to run the ball 80% of the time. We gave them nearly 100 yards in penalties.

This season hasn't turned out at all like we planned. We had a solid, experienced offensive line and a stable of good to great running backs. We turned them into the Incredible Flipping O-Line and gained one yard on Saturday. We have what has been heralded as one of the greatest secondaries in Tennessee history, yet we play deep zone coverage with relatively few blitzes in a bend-but-don't-break scheme, and allow an opposing offense to stay on the field for nearly three-quarters of a game.

The things that pass for knowledge . . . well, do you understand?

Tweet Comment 18 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

INT return yards

Does anyone know who has the record for the most in college? And what that record is?
We really need to get that guy the ball on offense. Right now, I feel better about our chances of scoring when we’re on defense. Alas, relying on the pick six as your staple means of putting the points on the board is generally not a formula for success.

by kidbourbon on Oct 13, 2008 8:59 AM EDT reply actions

Terrell Buckley

Deferring is for p_ssies. Make a decision!

by wvvol on Oct 13, 2008 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions

501 yards

Deferring is for p_ssies. Make a decision!

by wvvol on Oct 13, 2008 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions

Thank you and thank you

Berry will break it.

by kidbourbon on Oct 13, 2008 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions

Is my glass always half-empty?

Am I the only one who was a little disappointed that Berry let himself get taken out by the QB on that return? Someone with his speed and skill with the ball in the open field should take that to the house, shouldn’t he?

Lou Brock loves Lamp.

by birdjam on Oct 13, 2008 9:46 AM EDT reply actions

He was probably tired

He’d been on the field all day and then sprinted 50 yards.

by rblakeh on Oct 13, 2008 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions

I prefer half full

I wasn’t disappointed. When he got the pick, he quickly found a seam and broke a nice tackle at the 25. He was back in full stride at the 35 but was on the sideline with Stafford at the 50 about 15 to 20 yards off the sideline. Stafford had the angle, in other words. And, still, Berry almost spun out of that tackle.

There is no doubt that the man is electric with the ball in his hands. Every time he gets it, I feel like he has a chance of taking it to the house. How might tennessee go about getting the ball in his hands more often? Hmmmm….interesting question.

by kidbourbon on Oct 13, 2008 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions

Any Chance?

To see Will Muschamp as the DC next year? I used to like Chavis and his “bend but don’t break” philosophy, but that was in the days of good UT offense and longer games. These new clock rules are killing us. At this point we’d be better off giving up a touchdown on a 50 yard strike that takes 1:55 off the clock than 3 points that takes 5+ minutes off the clock. He’s either got to change his ways, or he has got to go. We are far, far too talented on the defensive side of the ball to have them playing in soft coverage. Sure we’ve got some inexperience at corner and they will get burned a few times, but they’ve got to learn somehow.

Anyway, back to my original point… any chance to see Will Muschamp as the DC next year? Or do you think he’s going to sit tight at the other UT until someone offers him a HC position? Fulmer is not going anywhere (not convinced that he should, either), but it would be great to get this guy into the UT family.

by rblakeh on Oct 13, 2008 10:22 AM EDT reply actions

No chance.

He was an effective DC at Auburn and is now an effective DC at Texas. If he makes another lateral move to DC at a major school, his stock as a potential HC candidate will actually take a hit. Continual moves like that begin to make AD’s skeptical of a guy – it’s one of those instances where they’re looking for a reason to not hire you, and drifting has an odd feel to it. Besides, UTexas has more resources available than UTennessee; they could easily match any UTennessee offer to Muschamp with the added benefit of not having to move. His next move is to a HC position, and it’s a matter of when rather than if.

I like Muschamp too; he’s young, energetic, fundamentally sound, and he gets his players to play as a unit. He has also made amends for the infamous expletive-laden rant that was caught on TV and no longer swears on the sideline. He’s now a very values-friendly guy who’d settle well with any booster club.

My feeling is this: if UTennessee wants Muschamp, they’ll probably have to hope that stays at UTexas for one more year. I don’t see Fulmer getting bought out this year and I don’t see Fulmer stepping down voluntarily. His contract will lose one year due to a lack of extension (there’s no way he’s winning 8 now), so the buyout would be easier to negotiate a year from now. That’d also give the boosters an extra year to come up with the cash, which will likely make things much easier on them.

by David Hooper on Oct 13, 2008 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions

That's what I figgered...

And it’s too bad, too. In all, I’m most disappointed with our defense. That’s not to say that the players don’t play their butts off every game, but they are rarely put in a position to make a play (it seems like). I watch other defensive schemes, and I see DBs lining up 7 or 8 yards off of the receiver sometimes, but when the ball is snapped, they usually move forward or laterally… rarely do I see them drop straight back (unless of course that is where the receiver is going). On UGAs 10 minute drive, they read our defense like a book. There was no need to even run the ball. They could throw screens (weren’t really even screens… just extremely short passes), and the WR could be guaranteed at least a 4 – 5 yard gain, and that was if our exhausted defense didn’t miss a tackle! I’m very careful about second guessing the coaching (because it’s always easy to look at things in hindsight), but sometimes things just seem so obvious to me… and John Chavis forgets more about football in a day than I will ever know in my entire life! Either we have the athletes to play man coverage, or we don’t. I don’t want to be told that we do, and then watch them drop back into a soft zone.

I think John Chavis is a great coach and a great developer of talent. His record speaks for itself. But it seems to me that he is unwilling to consider new defensive schemes to combat new offensive schemes. I could be way off on that, and I welcome any correction. I would much prefer a change of philosophy than a change of coach, but if they are mutually exclusive, I choose the former.

by rblakeh on Oct 13, 2008 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions

choose the latter

Any chance of an “edit comments” feature any time in the future? I guess I should just be more careful :)

by rblakeh on Oct 13, 2008 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions

Probably not.

There’s that nasty “accountable for what you write” thing that is so big anymore. No worries though; let he who is without typos…

by David Hooper on Oct 13, 2008 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions

I think the key is mixing it up

The zone has its advantages. It keeps players facing toward the QB and able to read him, making it more likely that they can break on a ball and make an interception that way. Of course, it also leaves spaces wide open for receivers to run to space and catch the ball. I would think it would work best when combined with blitzes so that the QB doesn’t have a lot of time to make a decision and has to make it under duress. Mixing in a little man or blitzes, I think, would solve some of the frustration. I don’t not like the zone b/c, like I said, I think it’s designed to allow the guys to get INTs, but if you play the same thing over and over and over again, it’s asking for adjustments and trouble.

I don’t really know much about football strategy, either, so I, like you, tend to defer to the coaches. But sometimes simple is good, and that I can do.

Go Vols!

by Joel Hollingsworth on Oct 13, 2008 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions

Agreed on the defense.

If you look at UT’s defensive performance, you’ll see that they tend to rank very highly but they are horrible at 3rd-down stops. That points to two things. First, opposing teams are settling for short gains on 1st and 2nd. You don’t see many efforts to create big plays because the opportunities aren’t there. However, the opposing teams get in position where they only need about 3-4 yards on 3rd down, which is manageable enough to allow both run and pass plays (i.e. they’re not 1-dimensional on 3rd down). When it’s 3rd and 4, it’s a killer to line the DBs up 5 yards behind the first-down marker. That’s nearly 10 full yards of running room to set up a pass designed for 5 yards. There’s not enough time for pressure on the QB, and the success rate is going to be very high.

Second, teams tend to pull their “special” plays out on 3rd down, when getting a first is of utmost importance. It is at those times that a defense has to be unpredictable so the OC doesn’t tee off on tendencies. When the OC knows the defense is going to run a soft zone on 3rd and modest, it’s almost like Christmas in the booth.

I don’t know enough about Chavis’s history at UT to know if it’s a matter of stagnation or if he’s trying to hide some critical flaw, but the regularity of the defense is a big problem. Like Joel noted, the zone has tremendous applications, but those applications run dry when it’s the only thing you do.

by David Hooper on Oct 13, 2008 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions

This is similar to Chavis' mode of operation

Normally the defenses do a better job of holding on third down, but I suspect we’re seeing better-than-average short passing games forcing the third-down conversion problem.

Second hypothesis: weaker-than-normal third down packages are covering a slightly-below-average linebacking corps.

by Chris Pendley on Oct 13, 2008 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions