3-4 takes time? so why sacrifice this record setting offense?

#51
#51
UTVOLKeith said:
If the common wisdom is it takes time to convert to a "3-4"

Why pick this year to change?

We have probably the most potent offense ever at UT and we were likely to lose much of that offense next year.

This offense with an average UT defense is an East winner or contender at the very least.

Why not make big changes next year?
Click to expand...

That has to be the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. You're either really stupid or about 5 years old.
 
#52
#52
PACKERVOL said:
Dooley wanted an attacking defense as some have said. So putting in the 3-4 knowing the learning curve would be steep this year was a risky move. Also as some have said, I think Hart knows this, and Dooley will get another year. Unless we fall completely on our face the rest of the year, I think the staff will be intact next year, and next year will be the real make or break year for Dooley.
Click to expand...

My only concern would be paying two coaches to coach db's with this years results.

It's still early tho....they may improve.
 
#53
#53
Chief ran a 4 - 3.

Won a bunch of games.

Good enough for me.

Especially since we've lost two games we should have won this year switching around.
 
#54
#54
UTVOLKeith said:
If the common wisdom is it takes time to convert to a "3-4"

Why pick this year to change?

We have probably the most potent offense ever at UT and we were likely to lose much of that offense next year.

This offense with an average UT defense is an East winner or contender at the very least.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, and I agree that switching this year was a bad move, and I think the coaching scatter is a poor reflection on Dooley.

But 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2006, 2007 may disagree with the bold above.
 
#56
#56
Ttucke11 said:
I guess it means we're going to be very mediocre for the next 3 seasons if you are insinuating Dooley will be here that long.
Click to expand...

Apparently so. Guess you'll have to keep whining and crying (like it's going to do any good) for the next couple years. :cray:
 
#60
#60
keckjm said:
I understand your logic and I respect your opinion, but I totally disagree here. The 3-4 when ran the right way can be the most explosive defense there is. It's made to disguise blitz packages to confuse the offense. It also allows the defense to play more athletic players at one time with 4 LB instead of 3. The 3-4 can easily shut down a power run game easily. We even have the front three to shut down the run, but the key to a 3-4 is having outstanding secondary players who can man up and cover there zones and a Jack LB who can pass rush, hold the edge, play up or down, and can cover in pass protection. Our secondary and outside LB play has caused this 3-4 to fail. Maggit is hurt and we have zero depth at LB. Smith is not the jack LB we need, and our secondary is slow. Add on to this that our secondary cant grasp the defense schemes and seam to always be out of position or taking horrible angles on the ball. Every person in the 3-4 must cover their gaps for it to work. One mess up and the whole coverage is blown unless you have outstanding athletes to make up for the mistake.
Click to expand...

Good response. Loss of Randolph doesn't help matters, but McNeil might do a little toward making up for it (against the run, that is ... he'll get beat in coverage a time or two, while also making some good plays back there.)
 
#61
#61
armchair said:
Let's drop all this "it takes time" nonsense. It doesn't take time--it takes good players, playing hard. It's not the system--it's the players and, also, coaching.
Click to expand...

Volnation is chock block full of members who know more than the experts. Here's another one
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#63
#63
not much of a choice. venables is lame , steele said no wilcox left and took the best recruiter of LB's in sirmon. too late now
 
#64
#64
I'd say he more than likely chose the switch with this offense because he knew of the transition. He felt this offense could keep them in the games (which it has), while the defense picked up the new schemes.
 
#65
#65
Sometimes you gotta think long term dominance over short term growing pains I guess.. And hope:crossfingers:
 
#66
#66
TheBigOne10 said:
Sometimes you gotta think long term dominance over short term growing pains I guess.. And hope:crossfingers:
Click to expand...

i've been thinking long term for a long time and that's got me to where i am now,

now i know that i value my "time"

and i realize the present is more important than the future or the past
 
#67
#67
UTVOLKeith said:
i know you are bad with numbers man

what was the best?

numbers wise?
Click to expand...

Screw the numbers. It's about being efficient. It's about being unstoppable. It's about being able to score in 3 seconds, from several different people. It's about being able to beat you in any fashion. The running game, The short passing game, the deep game. It's about being durable enough to be able to score like lightning, and still be able to burn 7-9 minutes off the clock, in the 4th quarter, as you jam the ball down Bama's throat, driving a dagger into their hearts. Destroying any sign of fight remaining in them. It's about not only the ability to begin fights....but TO FINISH THEM. Their may have been teams with better numbers.....but the Heath Shuler days, UT's offense was unstoppable.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top