Disjointed Thoughts on a Disjointed Team
There are no right answers. Not now, at least.
There's a lot of study on the relative merit of favorite vs. underdog strategies in football. While there are various degrees of detail on what those strategies entail - and there's plenty of discussion on that - the general idea is simple: favorites need strategies that limit potential variance in performance. Underdogs need the exact opposite. It's a painful admission for us, but we're underdogs right now against most of our opponents. We need variance in performance on both sides to have a chance in most of our games.
This is why Justin Worley started. This is why we're attempting onside kicks. This is who we are, at least for now. It won't always be that way. Hopefully, it won't be that way next year, or two years from now, or three, four, and five years from now. Hopefully, we won't need to resort to those kind of tricks. We were transitioning from an underdog to a favorite before Justin Hunter got injured, before Tyler Bray got injured, before we faced the LSU Tigers and Alabama Crimson Tide murderer's row.
The problem we're having now has propagated over a few seasons. The easy answer is depth; it started with the 2007 class and the lone shooting star in that group. 2008 wasn't any better, and we'll probably continue to write about the unholy massacre that was Kiffin's only class here. Last year and this year seem decent. By the numbers - and by the sight test - we have some key talent. We don't have enough yet, though. Doc Saturday had a great post this past Friday (that I can't seem to find now) about the relative attrition at Florida - among a potential 85 scholarships, only 60 guys were actively recruited - the rest were comprised off of walk-ons. Although I haven't seen a similar study for Tennessee, I can't imagine it's much different.
The hard answer is leadership. In soccer, the phrase "off form" is used to describe a striker that can't find goals. (Fernando Torres - until recently - was a textbook example of how to deploy this phrase.) After a while, it starts to propagate; the confidence to score has to come from somewhere, and the belief you can win has to come from somewhere. Who among the players has seen a big win? Do we count the Jonathan Crompton game? The 2009 Halloween-a-thon against South Carolina, where everything went right for long enough to put the game out of reach?
We need the coaching staff to provide leadership, the idea that you can indeed win the Big Game. The big three have done this, but not recently. Derek Dooley was on a championship winning-LSU coaching squad - in 2004. Jim Chaney's taken teams to the Rose Bowl - a decade ago. Justin Wilcox has led defenses to undefeated seasons - in Boise. It's not their fault that the previous regimes couldn't get the players the evidence that they can win a Big Game - any Big Game - but it falls to them to instill that belief. It has nothing to do with scheme, and it has everything to the nebulous mental characteristics that I hate because there's no easy way to quantify them or tell that they exist. We know they exist, or we at least would like to think they do.
The harder answer is coaching. When mistakes are made with a team that has no margin for error, they're obvious. I don't begrudge making risky calls in this environment, but we're one smack to the face away from folding. It's a rough path to ask a coaching staff to not let that happen, but it's a path that we need to take. It won't fall on Dooley or Chaney or Wilcox yet, but a fanbase that wilts when we get down 7-3 needs a reason to believe. That reason should've come last year - twice - but it didn't. That reason should've come against Florida - one bad third down - but it didn't. That reason should've come against Georgia - one bad snap - but it didn't.
The hardest answer is in our head. At some point, the bandages don't work anymore. At some point, the problems have to be righted. This might not be solved by a QB change, or a RB change, or a WR change, or a CB change, or maybe even a coaching change. At some point, everyone needs to step up and show that there is a spine, there is a need, there is a desire. Until then?
There are no right answers.
18 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Let's look at it this way
We’re missing:
-The best QB in the SEC
-A future first-round NFL WR
-A defensive back that would’ve been All-SEC at the lowest
-A solid leader at the linebacker spot, which is sorely needed
24 starts lost to injury/other factors so far this year, which would factor out to 40 by season’s end.
"I don't think it's me personally, I really don't." - JaMarcus Russell after losing 38-0 to the Jets
by WhiteWinterHymnal on Oct 30, 2011 6:32 PM EDT reply actions
As far as roster attrition:
according to the roster on this site, there are 10 juniors/seniors on offense and 42 freshmen/sophomores. The juniors/seniors:
Seniors
Tauren Poole
Matt Simms
Juniors
Carson Anderson
Ben Bartholomew
Chris Cates
Cory Eichholtz
Darin Gooch
Mychal Rivera
Zach Rogers
Dallas Thomas
It’s like a couple years back when the Lady Vols attrited the Candace Parker gang and were left with a pack of freshmen and sophomores, and there was only one junior/senior: Alex Fuller (senior). It turned into a 22-11 year and a first-round NCAA tournament exit (that never should have happened, even with that crew) because the team just didn’t have the on-court focus and clarity to play to their potential, and Fuller wasn’t enough to hold their heads together.
Losing Bray and Hunter to this year’s offense is basically like losing Angie Bjorklund to that year’s Lady Vols squad. Actually, it was probably more like losing Cait McMahan, who should’ve been the point guard were it not for her career-ending injury issues.
Someone has the Ladies on their mind.
Formerly 'snail. You get used to it after a while.
by Chris Pendley on Oct 30, 2011 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm a Ladies man. ;-)
Actually, I’ve been waiting for an appropriate time to analogize that. Didn’t want to pull it up out of the blue, but I’ve seen this song and dance before.
by David Hooper on Oct 30, 2011 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Most, if not all, of this is right
the thing that’s frustrated me most about some of the post-USC talk has been slamming Dooley for underdog strategy. IMO, those criticisms are just a refusal to admit that we are in fact the inferior team.
Heel for school, Vol for life!
Bolts, Preds, Canes (childhood team, home state team, hometown team). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity!
by Incipient_Senescence on Oct 30, 2011 6:47 PM EDT reply actions
That's the hard part, isn't it?
Formerly 'snail. You get used to it after a while.
by Chris Pendley on Oct 30, 2011 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I absolutely do not think we were inferior to USCe team they trotted out there last night
I believe we were at least as good.
Holdin' it down on enemy grounds.
Anti-Snail on offense; Give me a slobberknocker, or give me death!
by Brad Shepard on Oct 30, 2011 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Based on my expectations of Tennessee football and what I saw on the field last night.
Holdin' it down on enemy grounds.
Anti-Snail on offense; Give me a slobberknocker, or give me death!
by Brad Shepard on Oct 30, 2011 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions
All due respect, this is kind of what I_S was talking about
I’m not gonna argue with you about what you saw, though I strongly disagree that there was any evidence that the team on the field was anywhere close to South Carolina talentwise.
As far as the other bit goes, though, your (our) expectations of Tennessee football are not especially relevant to whether the Tennessee team on the field was better than the South Carolina team on the field.
by nirwin on Oct 30, 2011 11:37 PM EDT via iPhone app up reply actions
What I saw on the field
Was the team we trotted out there could have and maybe should have won that game. We didn’t. Moving on.
Holdin' it down on enemy grounds.
Anti-Snail on offense; Give me a slobberknocker, or give me death!
by Brad Shepard on Oct 31, 2011 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions
Expectations have nothing to do with it
That’s an emotional response versus fact based analysis. Their D is better than ours and their O is no worse and probably a bit better. You’re letting your expectations get ahead of your objective analysis. Talent potential is different than actual performance when you’re dealing with so much youth.
This is exactly right and is what I've trying to articulate
We ARE the under dog in these games including Georgia and USC do to youth and injury. These are not games that we SHOULD have won. Yes USC has issues on offense but we have more and their D is better.
pretty much
Heel for school, Vol for life!
Bolts, Preds, Canes (childhood team, home state team, hometown team). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity!
by Incipient_Senescence on Oct 30, 2011 9:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Respectfully agree to disagree
Georgia is probably marginally better, though. They really played great against Bray.
Holdin' it down on enemy grounds.
Anti-Snail on offense; Give me a slobberknocker, or give me death!
by Brad Shepard on Oct 30, 2011 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions
and Richt was coaching for his life
when you go for a 4th down in your own territory on the opening drive, it says something. That set the tone, and I was actually afraid we’d lose it quicker than we did
Heel for school, Vol for life!
Bolts, Preds, Canes (childhood team, home state team, hometown team). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity!
by Incipient_Senescence on Oct 30, 2011 10:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Based on what facts???
Like it or not, Georgia’s defense is legit and becoming beastly. Their QB is good and they have weapons. They’re a better team than richt’s coaching has allowed. That doesn’t we could not have won, but there’s no reason to think we should have won.

by 
























