What Buck Fitzgerald said

Spartacavolus said:

I hear all of that. Just don't know where he could go at this stage. This year if something gets shut down, we should have better responses. We'll see.

I will say that even though it was just one player, #11 was a gameplan changer. With him, the DC's and db's couldn't sleep at night and they had to cover the whole field in every offensive formation. Without him, the DC's could shrink the gameplan and field. No other WR's in the SEC, that I recall, would require such attention.

Click to expand...

True. But it all goes back to the change in the run game. The change of the blocking scheme was a terrible decision that offered no reward for the change, but provided a huge risk should someone get injured.

King Webbsticles said:

Hell yeah I'm qualified to offer criticism. Our Offense last year, after Hunter, was one of the worst ones in the nation. It doesn't take an NFL HC to see that.

Chaney gets paid a lot of money to figure out ways to move the ball. He failed at doing that.

And the bolded section isn't what I said at all. I understand what he had to work with and what they could do. I could also see that that personnel couldn't do what Chaney wanted them to do. That is why you adapt to the situation. Chaney didn't... for the rest of the year.

Click to expand...

Offering criticism and being qualified to do so are two different things. Recognizing less than desired results is easy. All one has to do is compare expectations with results. Developing realistic expectations based on an understanding of situational specifics is where qualification is needed.

Even if the Vols had been a 9 win team last year, I could have been pissed that they didn't go undefeated to the National Championship game.

In that circumstance, I could have offered criticism, but it would not have been informed, rational, credible criticism.

King Webbsticles said:

True. But it all goes back to the change in the run game. The change of the blocking scheme was a terrible decision that offered no reward for the change, but provided a huge risk should someone get injured.

Click to expand...

That proved to be a bad idea. Coaches don't go 100% positive results when changes are made, and I bet they don't do it again. You can't change that midseason though.

Orange_Crush said:

Offering criticism and being qualified to do so are two different things. Recognizing less than desired results is easy. All one has to do is compare expectations with results. Developing realistic expectations based on an understanding of situational specifics is where qualification is needed.

Even if the Vols had been a 9 win team last year, I could have been pissed that they didn't go undefeated to the National Championship game.

In that circumstance, I could have offered criticism, but it would not have been informed, rational, credible criticism.

Click to expand...

My realistic expectation: An offense that doesn't remind me of a middle school football team.

It isn't that hard to see that our offense was terrible. It isn't my job to fix it. That person didn't do their job. When you have something that doesn't work, it isn't smart to continue trying it. You look to adjust to the situation and put players in the position to succeed.

Teams deal with injuries every year. Our injuries destroyed the entire season. You have to have a back up plan.

Spartacavolus said:

That proved to be a bad idea. Coaches don't go 100% positive results when changes are made, and I bet they don't do it again. You can't change that midseason though.

Click to expand...

Exactly, Spartacus. I'm not saying that the scheme change was a good idea. They made the decision based on the potential of the personnel that they had.

However, it was a change that they could not "roll back" mid-season when their personnel options were limited.

Spartacavolus said:

That proved to be a bad idea. Coaches don't go 100% positive results when changes are made, and I bet they don't do it again. You can't change that midseason though.

Click to expand...

That one decision probably cost Dooley a year of leeway with the fans and possibly the AD. I'd be curious to see whose idea it was. I would doubt it was Dooley, since he really doesn't do the whole X's-and-O's of the game. I wonder if Chaney or Hiestand suggested it.


And I disagree to an extent. If you come in the Monday after UF game and say "Alright guys, our run blocking is changing. Full on, man-to-man, hit the guy in front of you and push" that after 3 weeks, they can do that well enough to not be a complete disaster in the running game. All of the OL had been OL for 4-5 years, including high school. They know what running a man blocking scheme is. Hell, they all did it the year before pretty well.

Btw, I can't tell if we are in agreement in reality or you are just starting to feel the effects of the medicine for your finger.

King Webbsticles said:

My realistic expectation: An offense that doesn't remind me of a middle school football team.

Click to expand...

Nice. That sounded more like a middle school tantrum than a well-thought response to the questions asked.

King Webbsticles said:

It isn't that hard to see that our offense was terrible. It isn't my job to fix it. That person didn't do their job. When you have something that doesn't work, it isn't smart to continue trying it. You look to adjust to the situation and put players in the position to succeed.

Click to expand...

Nope. Wasn't hard at all to see that. But what you are doing is placing blame on a person while also admitting that you don't know what tools they were given to do the job. Again, it takes a bit of insight to develop expectations of what a person should or should not be able to do.

King Webbsticles said:

Teams deal with injuries every year. Our injuries destroyed the entire season. You have to have a back up plan.

Click to expand...

Yes. Teams deal with injuries every year. When they have enough talent to fill the gap, sometimes it works out. When they are thread bare to begin with... Well, it seems prudent to reset expectations instead of just looking for someone to blame.

Again... What intimate knowledge do you have concerning the program that should tell us that your expectations of the team (post-injuries) are the expectations that performance should be judged against?

Orange_Crush said:

Exactly, Spartacus. I'm not saying that the scheme change was a good idea. They made the decision based on the potential of the personnel that they had.

However, it was a change that they could not "roll back" mid-season when their personnel options were limited.

Click to expand...

The majority of the players that would have been asked to change were the same personnel as the previous year. The entire OL and Poole, add in Rivera, Bartholemew and Bray and that is 9 of your starters that were active in the previous years offense.

Is it just me or was there not a lot of difference in Chaney's gameplan than CPF's without CDC? I mean straight forward and unimaginative? I know we were down personnel but counters, traps, slants, hurry up offense.....these are all things that I just didn't see a lot of last year after JH went down. Some things like that could have helped move the ball. Just trying to pound it straight ahead or the same ole off tackle plays were easily defended.

Orange_Crush said:

Again... What intimate knowledge do you have concerning the program that should tell us that your expectations of the team (post-injuries) are the expectations that performance should be judged against?

Click to expand...

We had nearly the exact same personnel as the previous year, when our offense worked fine. We actually had more talent and better depth.

TNGlen said:

Is it just me or was there not a lot of difference in Chaney's gameplan than CPF's without CDC? I mean straight forward and unimaginative? I know we were down personnel but counters, traps, slants, hurry up offense.....these are all things that I just didn't see a lot of last year after JH went down. Some things like that could have helped move the ball. Just trying to pound it straight ahead or the same ole off tackle plays were easily defended.

Click to expand...

I don't know if it was unimaginative or just easily figured out. I'd like to see the numbers of when we ran in the I formation and how much we passed from the Shotgun. It seemed very obvious rather than unimaginative.

But you are correct, slants and screens seemed to disappear from the playbook post-UF.

King Webbsticles said:

The majority of the players that would have been asked to change were the same personnel as the previous year. The entire OL and Poole, add in Rivera, Bartholemew and Bray and that is 9 of your starters that were active in the previous years offense.

Click to expand...

To ask a similar question to previous ones: Do you know the intricacies of the scheme and how interdependent they are to one another?

For instance, each of the running plays were designed to be timed to the blocking scheme. Passing routes are designed based on blocking scheme and timing. Receiver and tight end blocking assignments are coordinated.

With the lack of depth and the amount of youth on the team, you expected the coaches to come in and say: "OK guys. You know all the timing drills, assignments, etc... The playbook we worked on all off-season and all season up until now is scratched. In the next three weeks, we will learn another playbook, assignments, and build new timing to face the toughest opponent of the year so far. Let's get to work."

That's actually what you are recommending the coaches should have done?

King Webbsticles said:

The majority of the players that would have been asked to change were the same personnel as the previous year. The entire OL and Poole, add in Rivera, Bartholemew and Bray and that is 9 of your starters that were active in the previous years offense.

Click to expand...

What about all the youngsters/backups that were expected to interchange throughout games?

Were they just going to "fake it"? Were you expecting the 9 returning starters to play the 11 defenders all game, every game?

Orange_Crush said:

To ask a similar question to previous ones: Do you know the intricacies of the scheme and how interdependent they are to one another?

For instance, each of the running plays were designed to be timed to the blocking scheme. Passing routes are designed based on blocking scheme and timing. Receiver and tight end blocking assignments are coordinated.

With the lack of depth and the amount of youth on the team, you expected the coaches to come in and say: "OK guys. You know all the timing drills, assignments, etc... The playbook we worked on all off-season and all season up until now is scratched. In the next three weeks, we will learn another playbook, assignments, and build new timing to face the toughest opponent of the year so far. Let's get to work."

That's actually what you are recommending the coaches should have done?

Click to expand...

You are overstating everything. It isn't beyond reality to think that college aged athletes can revert back to the offense from the previous year, especially when there is no change in personnel.

Passing plays wouldn't be affected nearly as much as you are exaggerating it to be. These are aspects of the game that the players have known throughout their football careers. The playbook doesn't have to change, just the method of the play.

"We've sustained an injury to one of our gamechanging players. However, instead of trying to adapt to a bad situation, we'll just continue trying the same thing with players who don't fit in this offense nearly as well. We'll just throw Zack Rogers or a freshman in Hunter's spot and everything will be fine."

King Webbsticles said:

You are overstating everything. It isn't beyond reality to think that college aged athletes can revert back to the offense from the previous year, especially when there is no change in personnel.

Passing plays wouldn't be affected nearly as much as you are exaggerating it to be. These are aspects of the game that the players have known throughout their football careers. The playbook doesn't have to change, just the method of the play.

"We've sustained an injury to one of our gamechanging players. However, instead of trying to adapt to a bad situation, we'll just continue trying the same thing with players who don't fit in this offense nearly as well. We'll just throw Zack Rogers or a freshman in Hunter's spot and everything will be fine."

Click to expand...

So, if these things are so automatic and carry over so well, why do you think the off-season practice time is so important? Do you think that Soph, Junior, Senior athletes in stable systems should be able to just take the off-season off?

Or, do you think that the timing and familliarity that even seasoned athletes develop during off-season practice is important to their continued performance throughout the season?

Orange_Crush said:

What about all the youngsters/backups that were expected to interchange throughout games?

Were they just going to "fake it"? Were you expecting the 9 returning starters to play the 11 defenders all game, every game?

Click to expand...

You mean our backups like Bullard or Tiny backing up the OL?

Or Clear or Downs backing up Rivera?

What about Fugate backing up Bartholomew?

Or Zack Rogers starting again, like in the previous year?

Or Neal and Lane getting some carries to spell Poole?

Or Simms taking over when Bray gets hurt?

Again, you are overstating things. Development continues like it would normally. It is better than asking players like Worley and Arnett to step in and be huge contributions or asking Z. Rogers to be JH-lite.

Orange_Crush said:

So, if these things are so automatic and carry over so well, why do you think the off-season practice time is so important? Do you think that Soph, Junior, Senior athletes in stable systems should be able to just take the off-season off?

Or, do you think that the timing and familliarity that even seasoned athletes develop during off-season practice is important to their continued performance throughout the season?

Click to expand...

Of course it is important.

So you think all of our OL forgot how to run a man blocking scheme because it wasn't the offensive gameplan?

You think Poole forgot how to run behind an OL that is blocking man-to-man?

Or Bray forgot how to turn around and hand a ball off to a RB behind an OL that is blocking differently?

If you are sold out on something and have really dedicated your pre-season time to it then it is very difficult to change during the season. Usually all practice time is needed to prepare for the next game. That is especially true of a young team trying to master basic things.

I agree that the gamble ended up costing Dooley credibility. It was probably a worthwhile gamble but he didn't hit the jack pot.

A think it is a legitimate criticism that they should have scrapped the idea after last spring. It didn't work well then but they stayed with it. Apparently the staff was convinced it just needed more time. If it had worked, it would have covered the physical weakness of the OL's.

sjt18 said:

If you are sold out on something and have really dedicated your pre-season time to it then it is very difficult to change during the season. Usually all practice time is needed to prepare for the next game. That is especially true of a young team trying to master basic things.

I agree that the gamble ended up costing Dooley credibility. It was probably a worthwhile gamble but he didn't hit the jack pot.

A think it is a legitimate criticism that they should have scrapped the idea after last spring. It didn't work well then but they stayed with it. Apparently the staff was convinced it just needed more time. If it had worked, it would have covered the physical weakness of the OL's.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just missing this somehow, but how was our OL considered physically weak? They were fine the year before, not great, but serviceable.

In changing back to running style, it shouldn't take that much time. A little, sure, but they didn't really have to offensively prepare for Buffalo. We could have done anything and beaten them. Then add to that, two more weeks of preparation just to change to a blocking style to one that everyone knows.

CobbVol said:

Th UGA game was tied 6-6 at the half. We had two 14-play drives to open the game hitting one FG and missing another. Is that coming out "flat and dead"?

Click to expand...

Yeah, they did.

The offense especially. UGA just sucked the first half. Go watch the third quarter of that game.

Spartacavolus said:

-we didn't bring in 4 sr badass OL to block during the game?
-we didn't put Trent Richardson in the backfield instead of Poole?
-we didn't throw it to #11 on crutches
-our backup qb's couldn't get it done with no blocking, no running back and Z Rogers as the only open man?

And btw, I really haven't liked Chaney and some of his game plans anyway, but I would like to know what you expected him to do against Ga with worley/simms finishing the game, poole in the backfield, Stone snapping snaps on the ground, d rogers getting doubled and z rogers and true freshmen on the outside. What adjustments does he make. We were outmanned and outgunned, which is why we couldn't put it in the endzone.

Click to expand...

1) Simms didn't come in till late in the 4th and actually led us to a touchdown in the GA game.

2) Who decided to start Stone at center and completely change him? The coaching staff.

3) Um, isn't the coaching staff suppose to figure out how to get not only D. Rogers doubled, but the other wideouts open, since, ya know, he's doubled?

zjcvols said:

1) Simms didn't come in till late in the 4th and actually led us to a touchdown in the GA game.

Click to expand...

Simms as a #2 is why the staff wasted a RS for Worley. He flat out stinks. He may be the greatest guy in the world but he was a terrible QB.

2) Who decided to start Stone at center and completely change him? The coaching staff.

Click to expand...

Probably a mistake but was it a chance worth taking to get your best 5 on the field and your smartest guy at C?

3) Um, isn't the coaching staff suppose to figure out how to get not only D. Rogers doubled, but the other wideouts open, since, ya know, he's doubled?

Click to expand...

Pretty sure the WR coach was shown the door.

sjt18 said:

Simms as a #2 is why the staff wasted a RS for Worley. He flat out stinks. He may be the greatest guy in the world but he was a terrible QB.

Probably a mistake but was it a chance worth taking to get your best 5 on the field and your smartest guy at C?


Pretty sure the WR coach was shown the door.

Click to expand...

Again, much like the blocking scheme change, it was completely un-needed. Change it because the ball spun a different direction? Come on!

King Webbsticles said:

Of course it is important.

So you think all of our OL forgot how to run a man blocking scheme because it wasn't the offensive gameplan?

You think Poole forgot how to run behind an OL that is blocking man-to-man?

Or Bray forgot how to turn around and hand a ball off to a RB behind an OL that is blocking differently?

Click to expand...

No. My point is that the change is not as easy to do mid-season as you seem to think. A LOT in football depends, not just on familiarity, but on timing, trust that your teammates will cover their assignments, etc... This is the kind of thing bult over the off-season.

And as much as you would like to minimize it, the blocking scheme effects everything on the offense, including rushing style/timing, routes, etc...

It would have been a MAJOR change, and one which would have been a guaranteed, abject failure if tried mid-season.

King Webbsticles said:

Maybe I'm just missing this somehow, but how was our OL considered physically weak? They were fine the year before, not great, but serviceable.

In changing back to running style, it shouldn't take that much time. A little, sure, but they didn't really have to offensively prepare for Buffalo. We could have done anything and beaten them. Then add to that, two more weeks of preparation just to change to a blocking style to one that everyone knows.

Click to expand...

I'm honestly not trying to be a DB here. I promise. But...

Have you ever played organized football? Seriously. I have formed the opinion from reading your most recent posts that you just have no understanding of the interrelationships of the blocking scheme with how the running backs and wide receivers play in the offense, nor the significant impact that pre-season drills have on how well an offense runs its schemes at game time.

If I am wrong about your familiarity with organized football, I apologize in advance.

zjcvols said:

1) Simms didn't come in till late in the 4th and actually led us to a touchdown in the GA game.

2) Who decided to start Stone at center and completely change him? The coaching staff.

3) Um, isn't the coaching staff suppose to figure out how to get not only D. Rogers doubled, but the other wideouts open, since, ya know, he's doubled?

Click to expand...

King Webb... Would you like to take this one? Having admitted that you're at a loss for what they should have changed; they just should have changed something... Will you accuse or defend them for changing something.

King Webbsticles said:

Again, much like the blocking scheme change, it was completely un-needed. Change it because the ball spun a different direction? Come on!

Click to expand...

I love the quotes like the one immediately above. Folks crucify our staff for attempting a (over-risky?) change in the offseason and refer to it as "completely unneeded", while also crucifying the staff for their win/loss record-- not just last year but the year before.

Their argument is that results from year-before-last were unacceptable, while also making the argument that the blocking scheme change was "unneeded".

Some (Webb) also make the argument that they don't know what needed to be changed with the offense last year, but they should have changed something, while also claiming that a change made at center was "unnecessary".

This is why I love Volnation. It's a laugh a minute.

TNGlen said:

Is it just me or was there not a lot of difference in Chaney's gameplan than CPF's without CDC? I mean straight forward and unimaginative? I know we were down personnel but counters, traps, slants, hurry up offense.....these are all things that I just didn't see a lot of last year after JH went down. Some things like that could have helped move the ball. Just trying to pound it straight ahead or the same ole off tackle plays were easily defended.

Click to expand...

Well when you're down to a true Frosh QB and a Snr QB who sucks out loud, it kind of limits your OC's options to be creative.