Does this offense really need 10 receivers?

#27
#27
Of course we do. The purpose behind our offense is that our recievers get lost in the shuffle. Seems that often we have a receiver so wide open, that it becomes just a throw and and catch opportunity. With all recievers expected to know how to read the defense too, with proper execution, somebody will be open and if the defense blows the coverage it might be 2 or 3 that are open, then Josh can take his pick.

Go Vols!
 
#28
#28
Been saying this for awhile:

I'd like ONE wide receiver to step up and become The Man and for the throw game coordinator to keep him on the field.
 
#29
#29
KBVol said:
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.
Click to expand...

Seems Coach has yet to define or locate his Cooper. In general, I'm not for this coaching philosophy going in to a season -- maybe it's planned, based on what was seen in summer/fall, b/c the 9-10 twindled to fewer (receivers):

RECEIVING STATISTICS
NAME REC YDS AVG LONG TD
Josh Malone 29 388 13.4 75 (TD) 2
Von Pearson 33 337 10.2 45 1
Ethan Wolf 21 277 13.2 34 2
Josh Smith 19 257 13.5 39 (TD) 2
Alvin Kamara 29 220 7.6 23 3
Preston Williams 7 158 22.6 49 2
Jalen Hurd 17 155 9.1 37 (TD) 2
Jauan Jennings 13 142 10.9 30 0
Johnathon John 9 107 11.9 24 0
Joshua Dobbs 1 58 58.0 58 (TD) 1
Marquez North 5 46 9.2 16 0
Alex Ellis 5 43 8.6 24 0
Pig Howard 1 8 8.0 8 0
Totals 189 2196 11.6 75 15
(per espn)

There was also lots of extra yardage left on the field, by dropped passes (more/same/less than avg, ??).
 
#32
#32
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...

"Obviously, that hasn't happened with all of the injuries."

You answered why with your own question.. We are down to playing 2 true freshmen WRs in our rotation who are both banged up, and still learning their position and 2 more who are coming off surgery from last spring. We have 4 or 5 who would be starting who have played at best 10% of the season..
 
#33
#33
Cartervol said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agree with many things you typed. Especially the disappointment with Azzani and the general performance of the receiving corps. It was a bad sign for ZA that CBJ chose to work with that group halfway into the season; an even worse sign that the position group improved immediately.

Our offense has run 828 offensive plays in 11 games. 316 were pass plays and 189 of those plays were completed. We average roughly 17 (there's that number, again) pass completons per game.
 
#34
#34
McDad said:
Agree with many things you typed. Especially the disappointment with Azzani and the general performance of the receiving corps. It was a bad sign for ZA that CBJ chose to work with that group halfway into the season; an even worse sign that the position group improved immediately.

Our offense has run 828 offensive plays in 11 games. 316 were pass plays and 189 of those plays were completed. We average roughly 17 (there's that number, again) pass completons per game.
Click to expand...

Agree. Azzani needs to be replaced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#35
#35
Imagine if we just lined up with Pearson,Malone,Williams, Smith. Those should be our top 4 with North being hurt.

That would be a scary tandem for opponents DC's to scheme for.

Have Johnson and Jennings sub in for injuries or fatigue but not every other play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#36
#36
KBVol said:
Agree. Azzani needs to be replaced.
Click to expand...

I've never played or coached so I readily admit to ignorance. But it seems that of all the positions in the game, the WR would be the easiest to transition from high school to college. Obviously, there are blocking assignments and route discipline to learn. However, Shouldn't a young man's size, speed, and God given athleticism constitute 90% of his game?
 
#37
#37
McDad said:
I've never played or coached so I readily admit to ignorance. But it seems that of all the positions in the game, the WR would be the easiest to transition from high school to college. Obviously, there are blocking assignments and route discipline to learn. However, Shouldn't a young man's size, speed, and God given athleticism constitute 90% of his game?
Click to expand...

To an extent yes, but in highschool these kids were the best athletes on the field.Now they are being covered by Athletes of similar skill and in a more complex scheme.
 
#38
#38
McDad said:
I've never played or coached so I readily admit to ignorance. But it seems that of all the positions in the game, the WR would be the easiest to transition from high school to college. Obviously, there are blocking assignments and route discipline to learn. However, Shouldn't a young man's size, speed, and God given athleticism constitute 90% of his game?
Click to expand...

One would certainly think so. Our WRs have all the measurables/talent needed. It's Azzani's job to teach technique and scheme to his group so as to maximize their collective potential and effectiveness. That hasn't happened.

To me, the ultimate indictment is how much worse the passing game is this year as Azzani's influence increased....with more experienced, talented WRs and a more experienced QB. He went from WR coach to passing game coordinator and our WR production has deteriorated. Add to that the reports that Jones essentially took over the WR group a few weeks back with almost instantaneous improvement (although it's still an user performing group). IMHO, his days in Knoxville should be numbered....we'll see in fairly short order.
 
#39
#39
Well we don't really need 10 WR but with a scholarship limit of 85 I could see us having 10 on the roster but not necessarily in the regular rotation. There should be about 7 in the regular rotation. I'd rather have too many than not enough with all the injuries we keep having.
 
#40
#40
KBVol said:
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.
Click to expand...

I believe Jones actually said that he would like to have a feature WR or two and then 9 guys who could rotate in.

He has failed to keep WR's healthy so neither has happened. I'm not sure there is a true, do-it-all feature WR on the roster. Hopefully that will be Williams but he has to stay healthy.

And yes for those who react to hints of criticism of Jones, I DID say that Jones had failed to do keep them healthy. Three years in and EACH year UT has NOT been able to keep WR's healthy. This year they entered the season as deep as anyone in CFB at WR... and are struggling to field a unit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#41
#41
McDad said:
I've never played or coached so I readily admit to ignorance. But it seems that of all the positions in the game, the WR would be the easiest to transition from high school to college. Obviously, there are blocking assignments and route discipline to learn. However, Shouldn't a young man's size, speed, and God given athleticism constitute 90% of his game?
Click to expand...

This may sound critical but is intended as a neutral comment. Jones' scheme seems to make the WR's job more difficult than other schemes. He depends on precise execution over plays that "scheme" WR's open. I think it is a more "NFL" way of looking at the position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#42
#42
Nocleats said:
"Obviously, that hasn't happened with all of the injuries."

You answered why with your own question.. We are down to playing 2 true freshmen WRs in our rotation who are both banged up, and still learning their position and 2 more who are coming off surgery from last spring. We have 4 or 5 who would be starting who have played at best 10% of the season..
Click to expand...

Same last year. Same the year before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#43
#43
McDad said:
I've never played or coached so I readily admit to ignorance. But it seems that of all the positions in the game, the WR would be the easiest to transition from high school to college. Obviously, there are blocking assignments and route discipline to learn. However, Shouldn't a young man's size, speed, and God given athleticism constitute 90% of his game?
Click to expand...

Actually WR is pretty hard to learn.. Running perfect routes, ( being EXACTLY where you are supposed to be WHEN you're supposed to be there takes time.. and,, Several routes and check offs on each play.. Knowing those and being on same page with QB takes time.. lastly playing physical, being able to shed defenders, block for others and take the pounding takes time in the weight room... Normally takes a season and a spring practice to start getting there and that's IF you avoid injury.. JMO... Good ? though
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#44
#44
sjt18 said:
This may sound critical but is intended as a neutral comment. Jones' scheme seems to make the WR's job more difficult than other schemes. He depends on precise execution over plays that "scheme" WR's open. I think it is a more "NFL" way of looking at the position.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. You alluded to this (or said it outright) in another thread, I think.

Odd though. I looked at the WR stats for Cincinnati in CBJ's tenure. They were a productive unit.
 
#45
#45
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...

Well you have to think, with that motion WR coming across about every snap he has run 40 yards before the ball is even snapped.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#47
#47
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...


The offense that we currently run, is not receiver orientated. Just imagine if we had Dormady, Ainge, Clausen, etc. as the q.b.
Any of those q.b.'s would have 4,000 this season and we would still have 2 different 1,000 yard running backs.
Look at the receivers that we have! Some could start on other S.E.C. teams roster and others could start at non S.E.C. schools. We are not lacking talent but we are lacking a q.b. who is a gun slinger and an offense that pushes the receiving part of the playbook.
 
#48
#48
My question is, and maybe some of you offensive guru's can answer, is do teams that run similar offenses rotate that many receivers? Doesn't Texas A&M run a similar offense?
 
#50
#50
McDad said:
I agree with you. You alluded to this (or said it outright) in another thread, I think.

Odd though. I looked at the WR stats for Cincinnati in CBJ's tenure. They were a productive unit.
Click to expand...

Kind of a Catch-22. At Cincy, you get mostly under-recruited guys who need to develop. They don't expect to play right away most of the time so while you are developing them physically... they're learning the complex skills.

When you get the top tier WR recruits/athletes, they expect to play right away... long before they're likely to have mastered those skills.

You are unlikely to win at UT with WR's that are willing to develop for 3 years before playing a lot... but you really can't accelerate the learning of the top recruits very much... so you may not be able to win with them either.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top