'07 Speed over Brawn Strategy?

#1
MemphisVol

MemphisVol

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2003
Messages
4,329
Likes
0
#1
Sorry if this was discussed while I've been playing possum.

Last year during certain games- particularly the blowout losses- I wondered what if any role the Vols new '07 emphasis upon lighter, faster players had in certain teams seeming to have our number (playing us better than their talent vs. ours justified).

Was it not a factor, a good idea but something new the coaches & players were still adapting to (especially smash-mouth loving Fulmer), etc., etc.

What do y'all think?
 
#2
#2
we have been speed over brawn as long as Fulmer has been here. We play in the SEC, not the Big 10.
 
#4
#4
I'm just saying. The Big 10 is considered "Size and strength", a bunch of big linebackers and running backs and the SEC is "southern speed" as its referred to. I think the SEC is tops in both categories though.
 
#5
#5
I saw a fundamental change in how we utilized our our more speedy players from the beginning of last season compared to the end. The obvious examples is the ever so popular "G Gun". We also began mixing in some of the younger but quite fast wide receivers.

If what is being said about Clawson is true in regards to utilizing talent, we have the horses to do a lot of crazy things on offense this year.
 
#6
#6
That wasn't my own subjective take on things, it was something that Fulmer, Chavis, and Cutcliffe formally announced- a sort've "meet the new leaner, meaner Vols" spin they pushed in the '07 preseason.

So, sure, compared to the corn-cob conferences the Vols were always faster and less likely to become involved in a sumo-impersonator prostitution ring. But Fulmer has always had a stronger streak of O-lineman mentality that most of the SEC, so it was definitely a noteworthy play for him to make. So much so, in fact, that if you stoners could still remember, we actually had arguments in Spring whether it was such a noticeable departure from form it was intentionally geared toward quieting critics.

So, if we haven't comepletely killed the question....?

If we did, whose fore-toes are longer than their big toes and whose are shorter? I think I heard it's a sign of a tendency to grow man-titties, though I can't remember which it was right now.
 
#7
#7
MemphisVol said:
That wasn't my own subjective take on things, it was something that Fulmer, Chavis, and Cutcliffe formally announced- a sort've "meet the new leaner, meaner Vols" spin they pushed in the '07 preseason.

So, sure, compared to the corn-cob conferences the Vols were always faster and less likely to become involved in a sumo-impersonator prostitution ring. But Fulmer has always had a stronger streak of O-lineman mentality that most of the SEC, so it was definitely a noteworthy play for him to make. So much so, in fact, that if you stoners could still remember, we actually had arguments in Spring whether it was such a noticeable departure from form it was intentionally geared toward quieting critics.

So, if we haven't comepletely killed the question....?

If we did, whose fore-toes are longer than their big toes and whose are shorter? I think I heard it's a sign of a tendency to grow man-titties, though I can't remember which it was right now.
Click to expand...

What in the hell is going on?
 
#9
#9
Yeah I understand what you are saying. I think after 2005 they made an effort to get everybody "in shape." While I think that is good at some positons, I think it is hurtful with some of the bigger guys. They took it overboard a bit. Dan Williams is fine weighing 310 pounds and doesn't need to lose any weight. Demonte Bolden needs to be playing at least 295-300+ pounds at 6'6. We were better when our D-line and O-line were heavier. I can understand having the DE's a little lighter and more athletic than in the past because that position has changed a lot over the pat 10 years. But DT's and the O-line do not need to lose a ton of weight. The philosohpy they use helps the skill position players, (like Jayson Swain who lost some weight), as well as the DE's and TE's who are required to be very athletic in this day and age. But I say keep the big uglies big and strong and fat! Keep them mean! I like it that way. We need to realize our lineman have much different responsibilities than the rest of our guys. Bottom line
 
#11
#11
Yes. They did make a big deal out of having guys lighter and faster about this time last year. No. It didn't work and especially with the DL's. I think it contributed to the failure of Mapu to play well. I think it contributed to UT's DL being blown back at times. I think it contributed to UT's inability to pick up short yardage on the ground.

Hopefully, there's been an "adjustment" to that strategy.
 
#12
#12
MemphisVol said:
That wasn't my own subjective take on things, it was something that Fulmer, Chavis, and Cutcliffe formally announced- a sort've "meet the new leaner, meaner Vols" spin they pushed in the '07 preseason.

So, sure, compared to the corn-cob conferences the Vols were always faster and less likely to become involved in a sumo-impersonator prostitution ring. But Fulmer has always had a stronger streak of O-lineman mentality that most of the SEC, so it was definitely a noteworthy play for him to make. So much so, in fact, that if you stoners could still remember, we actually had arguments in Spring whether it was such a noticeable departure from form it was intentionally geared toward quieting critics.

So, if we haven't comepletely killed the question....?

If we did, whose fore-toes are longer than their big toes and whose are shorter? I think I heard it's a sign of a tendency to grow man-titties, though I can't remember which it was right now.
Click to expand...
What?
 
#13
#13
csheaton said:
Yeah I understand what you are saying. I think after 2005 they made an effort to get everybody "in shape." While I think that is good at some positons, I think it is hurtful with some of the bigger guys. They took it overboard a bit. Dan Williams is fine weighing 310 pounds and doesn't need to lose any weight. Demonte Bolden needs to be playing at least 295-300+ pounds at 6'6. We were better when our D-line and O-line were heavier. I can understand having the DE's a little lighter and more athletic than in the past because that position has changed a lot over the pat 10 years. But DT's and the O-line do not need to lose a ton of weight. The philosohpy they use helps the skill position players, (like Jayson Swain who lost some weight), as well as the DE's and TE's who are required to be very athletic in this day and age. But I say keep the big uglies big and strong and fat! Keep them mean! I like it that way. We need to realize our lineman have much different responsibilities than the rest of our guys. Bottom line
Click to expand...

I think it was a better idea with the O-line. That group got seriously bloated under coach Jimmy Ray and were getting beat by quicker d-linemen. Slimming those guys down a bit was a good thing IMO.

As far as the DTs, can't say that I've seen any benefit with weight loss. DEs a little lighter/quicker makes sense against the spread... but we need some big hoss run stuffing DTs like we used to have.
 
#14
#14
General Jack said:
I think it was a better idea with the O-line. That group got seriously bloated under coach Jimmy Ray and were getting beat by quicker d-linemen. Slimming those guys down a bit was a good thing IMO.

As far as the DTs, can't say that I've seen any benefit with weight loss. DEs a little lighter/quicker makes sense against the spread... but we need some big hoss run stuffing DTs like we used to have.
Click to expand...

Yeah I guess I can agree with you there. It probably was a better idea for the O-line than the D-line. We were a little out of shape on the O-line. It has seemed to help our pass protection which is good. Now that I think about it we did have some guys who were a little too big, Cody Douglas comes to mind.
 
#15
#15
Make those two guys in the middle as big and nasty and unmovable as possible. Let everyone else be light, fast and strong.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top