Does this offense really need 10 receivers?

#1
V

Vfl2407

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
10,255
Likes
18,171
#1
Remember at the start of the year hearing our coaching staff say that this style of offense needs to use a large number of receivers...9 or 10....to be effective.
Obviously, that hasn't happened with all of the injuries.
Do we really need this many?
Do other teams that run our offense shuttle that many?

I would much rather see us settle this spring on 6 or 7 go to guys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2
#2
Vfl2407 said:
Remember at the start of the year hearing our coaching staff say that this style of offense needs to use a large number of receivers...9 or 10....to be effective.
Obviously, that hasn't happened with all of the injuries.
Do we really need this many?
Do other teams that run our offense shuttle that many?

I would much rather see us settle this spring on 6 or 7 go to guys.
Click to expand...

Considering half of them are on the injury list on any given week...short answer...yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 11 people
#3
#3
I think that with the way our offense is schemed there is much required of our receivers on every play. I'm pretty sure 6 or 7 would not be adequate but maybe 9 or 10 is too much. We definitely need to get better in the passing game but I have loved how hard our receivers work in the run game and the way they work for each other down field after a reception.
 
#5
#5
Vfl2407 said:
Remember at the start of the year hearing our coaching staff say that this style of offense needs to use a large number of receivers...9 or 10....to be effective.
Obviously, that hasn't happened with all of the injuries.
Do we really need this many?
Do other teams that run our offense shuttle that many?

I would much rather see us settle this spring on 6 or 7 go to guys.
Click to expand...

Agree. No we don't need that many WRs. 6 or 7 TOPS. I'm thinking more 5-6 in the regular rotation (not 10) with 3-4 on the roster for depth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6
#6
I'd rather them recruit 2 more quality OL in place of 2 receivers. OL is what wins games in this league.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7
#7
Dragon18 said:
I think that with the way our offense is schemed there is much required of our receivers on every play. I'm pretty sure 6 or 7 would not be adequate but maybe 9 or 10 is too much. We definitely need to get better in the passing game but I have loved how hard our receivers work in the run game and the way they work for each other down field after a reception.
Click to expand...


So.....8 and exactly 8? :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 people
#8
#8
Crazy Ivan said:
Considering half of them are on the injury list on any given week...short answer...yes.
Click to expand...

The question isn't how many WRs do you need on the roster for depth, it's how many do you need in the regular rotation to develop a rhythm with the QB, the get the number of reps needed to get "into the game", to be effective. I think the argument can be made that our WR corps became more effective this season when we only had 4-5 to play. Trying to rotate 9-10 out there is just too many IMO. And listening to Joey Kent and Jayson Swain, they seem to agree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9
#9
Timing and rhythm is a big part of a effective passing game. Too many personnel groupings with this offense has been one of things i dislike the most about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#10
#10
Cartervol said:
Timing and rhythm is a big part of a effective passing game. Too many personnel groupings with this offense has been one of things i dislike the most about it.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. There have been way too many times the last 3 seasons when we didn't have our best WRs on the field at critical times in the games. This point is one that I've heard Doug Mathews point out with a fair amount of incredulity several times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#11
#11
KBVol said:
Agree 100%. There have been way too many times the last 3 seasons when we didn't have our best WRs on the field at critical times in the games. This point is one that I've heard Doug Mathews point out with a fair amount of incredulity several times.
Click to expand...
We all know Dobbs isn't the best passer in the world. They need to try and make it easier for him somehow. 9 or 10 guys to get on the same page with doesn't sound easy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#12
#12
Vfl2407 said:
Remember at the start of the year hearing our coaching staff say that this style of offense needs to use a large number of receivers...9 or 10....to be effective.
Obviously, that hasn't happened with all of the injuries.
Do we really need this many?
Do other teams that run our offense shuttle that many?

I would much rather see us settle this spring on 6 or 7 go to guys.
Click to expand...
We really have really 3 that produce right now...
 
#14
#14
We just don't seem too want to establish that go to receiver. You would think Malone, Pearson, North would be that guy.. We seem to have settled on WR by committee which is why i think we struggle so bad with it in a lot of ways.

The middle of the field is open a lot and we throw a token ball to the TE every now and then. He's like the forgotten man.

A slant seems to be out of the question also.

This passing game is a mess and the guy coordinating it seems to have no clue what to do with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#15
#15
Yes. All that blocking makes them tired. Actually, all kidding aside, they block very well. Maybe soon they'll catch and run routes well
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#16
#16
KBVol said:
Agree 100%. There have been way too many times the last 3 seasons when we didn't have our best WRs on the field at critical times in the games. This point is one that I've heard Doug Mathews point out with a fair amount of incredulity several times.
Click to expand...


Gave you a like for using "incredulity". I'm guessing 80% of the knuckleheads on here have no idea what that word even means.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#17
#17
Here are two interesting stats from the '97 season, our most prolific passing offensive season in the history of the program....

-we ran 68 plays per game compared to 75 this year. So, the offensive pace back then was very close to how fast Jones likes our offense to run today.

-Peyton threw for 3800+ yds and 36 tds, and he did so primarily with only 4 WRs...Marcus Nash (76 catches), Jermaine Copeland (58 catches), Peerless Price (48 catches), Andy McCullough (22 catches). No other WR had more than 7.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#19
#19
I think you answered your own question.........Yes. Injuries have plagued UT because they have freshman starting and they have not had a chance to physically develop to take the punishment of the SEC. Now if all we played was B10 opponents, then 5 or 6 are adequate.

GBO!!
 
#21
#21
Vfl2407 said:
Remember at the start of the year hearing our coaching staff say that this style of offense needs to use a large number of receivers...9 or 10....to be effective.
Obviously, that hasn't happened with all of the injuries.
Do we really need this many?
Do other teams that run our offense shuttle that many?

I would much rather see us settle this spring on 6 or 7 go to guys.
Click to expand...


Wow. Not sure why people do not know who our main targets are at this point. Maybe that is why we need 10...INJURIES.:vava:
 
#22
#22
fade route said:
Gave you a like for using "incredulity". I'm guessing 80% of the knuckleheads on here have no idea what that word even means.
Click to expand...

I'm still trying to get up to speed on 'physicality' since it seems to be all color analysts new favorite word to use the last couple of seasons.
 
#23
#23
FlyFishnVol said:
I think you answered your own question.........Yes. Injuries have plagued UT because they have freshman starting and they have not had a chance to physically develop to take the punishment of the SEC. Now if all we played was B10 opponents, then 5 or 6 are adequate.

GBO!!
Click to expand...

Jennings is the only WR who has started this season and he's only missed one game due to injury, and that was game 11. PWill has been injured the last 4 weeks, but he's not been relied on much at all/has played sparingly all sesson long with only 7 catches. Our WR injuries have been suffered primarily by our upperclassmen....RSJr Croom, Jr North and Sr Johnson, and, our course, Sr Pig Howard was dismissed from the team.

Also, please see my earlier post outlining the passing game success of the 1997 team....did it with essentially only 4 WRs that year.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#25
#25
KBVol said:
Jennings is the only WR who has started this season and he's only missed one game due to injury, and that was game 11. PWill has been injured the last 3 weeks, but he's not been relied on much at all/has played sparingly all sesson long with only 7 catches. Our WR injuries have been suffered primarily by our upperclassmen....RSJr Croom, Jr North and Sr Johnson, and, our course, Sr Pig Howard was dismissed from the team.

Also, please see my earlier post outlining the passing game success of the 1997 team....did it with essentially only 4 WRs that year.
Click to expand...

My post was more to spoof on the B10 and how weak they are as a conference.........I agree with your post. :dance2:

I would add, that the WRs you mentioned did have injury problems when they were freshmen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top