About the zero sacks

#32
#32
DonDiego said:
It wouldn't surprise me if we purposely didn't show too much on either defense or offense to not give Pitt too much to look at.
Click to expand...
In almost 5 decades of Vol fandom, i have lost count of the number of times I have heard this reasoning, especially as regards not wanting to show too much before Florida
 
  • Like
Reactions: Remy, ursaminotaur, TitanicVolz and 7 others
#35
#35
onevol74 said:
Look at the game overall.
Click to expand...

They did pretty well in the second half running the ball. Let's be honest, Tennessee could have scored 80 points if they wanted to. We aren't a dominate team so to expect overly dominating performances against anyone is setting yourself up for disappointment. Are we improving? Absolutely, especially on offense overall but the defense is and will continue to be a question mark simply based off of our style of offense. Time will tell whether or not this style of play can win 9-10 games in the SEC but right now no one knows the answer to that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DD4ME
#38
#38
Do not understate the lack of defense. This wasn't a case of "hold back. don't show Pitt what we got...". We were "vanilla" on defense because that's what we are. This entire season was/is going to be built around the D being significantly improved. I'm not sure we have. On another note, Our passing game is looking way to predictable. Ball State was sitting on some of our routes. They just didn't have the athletes and skill to shut it down. Hooker is going to have several interceptions this year if they don't mix it up.
 
#40
#40
Honestly, I don't care that there were zero against Ball State. Had there been ten, I would have said it's Ball State. The line was not mauled, and they were in the backfield consistently.
Pitt will be the measurement of how far we have come on the defense. I don't think Pitt can keep Hooker and company under 40, and I think Tennessee holds them to less than 30 with the same pressure they got against Ball State. Pitt is not a title contender, but they are well-coached and talented, and beating them down will do wonders for the season while speaking volumes about the depth improvements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#43
#43
The notion that Ball State should have been dominated up and down the field for 60 minutes and lost 75-0 is a fantasy land. I can't think of the last time we beat an opponent, any opponent that badly from start to finish. Maybe Western Kentucky in 2009 or Tennessee Tech in 2016 but they are a bad D2 program. Every year this happens after every opponent Volnation feels should be beaten by 100 points, it doesn't happen and the gnashing of teeth begins. We are in no position yet to be beating a team that went to a bowl game the year before by a huge margin with total domination. We just aren't there yet as a program.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coach_Z and marcusluvsvols
#44
#44
xpsyclonex2002 said:
Do not understate the lack of defense. This wasn't a case of "hold back. don't show Pitt what we got...". We were "vanilla" on defense because that's what we are. This entire season was/is going to be built around the D being significantly improved. I'm not sure we have. On another note, Our passing game is looking way to predictable. Ball State was sitting on some of our routes. They just didn't have the athletes and skill to shut it down. Hooker is going to have several interceptions this year if they don't mix it up.
Click to expand...

We were vanilla on offense because we chose to be not because Ball State's defense forced into being vanilla. That is a ridiculously bad take and we have no idea if the defense has improved. We played a ton of guys on defense who likely won't see the field very often this year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and orangebloodgmc
#45
#45
Erik Ainge stated on the radio that he charted the game and that we brought pressure (more than 4 rushers) the majority of the snaps. Stated we brought five 80-90% of the time that we did bring pressure. I think the pass rush is the biggest concern I saw. The second biggest concern was that our OL looked exhausted by the pace and was hardly firing off on many snaps; they were mostly just leaning on people. So, both lines is what I was most concerned with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coach_Z, Seattle Hillbilly, marcusluvsvols and 2 others
#46
#46
JohnnyJava said:
Erik Ainge stated on the radio that he charted the game and that we brought pressure (more than 4 rushers) the majority of the snaps. Stated we brought five 80-90% of the time that we did bring pressure. I think the pass rush is the biggest concern I saw. The second biggest concern was that our OL looked exhausted by the pace and was hardly firing off on many snaps; they were mostly just leaning on people. So, both lines is what I was most concerned with.
Click to expand...

Did UT bring pressure? Yes. Did they bring pressure 80-90% of the game? Absolutely not that is a ridiculous statement especially in the second half. He worded it like Anchorman "80-90 % of the time we brought 5 blitzers when blitzing some of the time" lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol in Buckeye Land, marcusluvsvols, titansvolsfaninga and 1 other person
#48
#48
landscapingvol said:
Did UT bring pressure? Yes. Did they bring pressure 80-90% of the game? Absolutely not that is a ridiculous statement especially in the second half. He worded it like Anchorman "80-90 % of the time we brought 5 blitzers when blitzing some of the time" lol
Click to expand...
I mean it is a high number, but we did bring 5 or more the overwhelming majority of the time. It was frequent enough that I was frustrated by not having an opportunity to see what our DL would like without the help of a blitz.

This not directed at you lsv but I'm not buying the whole "we didn't show anything" argument from earlier in this thread. We shouldn't HAVE to show anything to occasionally get pressure on the quarterback against Ball State or anyone else for that matter. The way it looks to me is that we don't have a defensive lineman capable of winning a 1-on-1 battle. That is a problem no matter how you slice it. The one time I saw Simmons win a battle on a passing down he just stopped pursuing the QB after he beat his man. It's like he couldn't believe it. We need him and everyone else on the DL to play up to their ability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Remy and titansvolsfaninga
#49
#49
Forever151 said:
Our D-Line will be the difference in 8 or 10 wins
Click to expand...

Correct but this is not a 10 win team barring a couple miracles, 8-9 at most. Jones, Taylor, and Jackson were big losses especially Taylor and Jackson in the secondary. We weren't great in pass coverage last year.
 
#50
#50
volfan_28 said:
I mean it is a high number, but we did bring 5 or more the overwhelming majority of the time. It was frequent enough that I was frustrated by not having an opportunity to see what our DL would like without the help of a blitz.

This not directed at you lsv but I'm not buying the whole "we didn't show anything" argument from earlier in this thread. We shouldn't HAVE to show anything to occasionally get pressure on the quarterback against Ball State or anyone else for that matter. The way it looks to me is that we don't have a defensive lineman capable of winning a 1-on-1 battle. That is a problem no matter how you slice it. The one time I saw Simmons win a battle on a passing down he just stopped pursuing the QB after he beat his man. It's like he couldn't believe it. We need him and everyone else on the DL to play up to their ability.
Click to expand...

I never said we didn't show anything on defense. We were vanilla on offense. Our defense will continue to be a major concern simply because the style of football we play and depth. We will have to outscore people
 
  • Like
Reactions: bpalmer28
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top