I was really excited that we hired Clawson. He has the kind of offensive mind that is needed to suceed in todays SEC. He was going to be the one that breaks the 'conservative offense' tag that has hobbled Tennessee since the late 90's.
However, when his offense is not executed correctly, it will look foolish and amatuer. Actually, there's not much difference between him and what Spurrier does. And when the Fun 'n' Gun, or the Cock 'n' Fire don't execute, it looks much the same way.
Only difference is that Spurrier would have yanked Crompton about half way through the 2nd quarter. Which means we must have nothing backing up Crompton.
You can argue the calling if you would like, but it's the same in basketball when the PG doesn't execute the play called the team is in trouble. Which is what happened tonight.
outside of Foster's fumble (go figure) the running game looked good. Over 5 yards per carry. yet we decide to throw the ball 42 times
we simply do not have enough SEC talent on the team. I know it's just the first game but I do not understand anyone thinking Crompton can compete at this level. I hope I am wrong but I don't see any possible way to have a winning season let alone compete in the SEC.:dunno::dunno::dunno::dunno:
Did I not say a decent passing attack? It's not hard to stop a passing attack centered around a QB with the accuracy of an infant. Any average BCS conference QB exploits that hole in the middle of their coverage for huge success. Crompton couldn't do it.Cromp sure didn't show us that tonight. He had the opportunity and he didn't come through. Sure could of fooled me though if they didn't have a good core D, because unlike us they adjusted for the most part and shut us down Passing the ball and got pressure on Cromp.
It's almost amusing that so many chided against Tennessee for being too conservative on offense for so long, now that we are not, all the calls come in saying 'run the ball! run the ball!'
Almost.
not even close to being comparable. If the running game is working, RUN THE FREAKING BALL. it's that simple. That's why it's Clawson and Fulmer's fault above all esle.
Did I not say a decent passing attack? It's not hard to stop a passing attack centered around a QB with the accuracy of an infant. Any average BCS conference QB exploits that hole in the middle of their coverage for huge success. Crompton couldn't do it.
If running the ball worked everytime then we would. We ran the ball effectively yes, but this is D1 and if you go to the well too many times in becomes ineffective more often than not and will make the entire offense stale.
No, Clawson is in charge of the offense and the offense failed. It is his job to get them ready. He abandoned the only thing that was working. He is the QB coach and the QB play was pitiful. He isn't the only reason (there are many) but he is most definitely a reason we lost this game.Exactly. That's also an excellent post. So would you agree that Clawson didn't have as much to do with the loss as some on here would lead you to believe??
but if you use the run to set up the pass and force UCLA to back off the blitz, the entire offense becomes more effective. Using the pass to set up the run (or just abandoning the run) has failed for the past 5 years or so.
Get the ball moving effectively on the ground, go for some play action deep stuff, spread the field and voila, you have a working offense. Stop trying to pretend throwing the ball 42 times wasn't a bad gameplan from the coaches.
No, Clawson is in charge of the offense and the offense failed. It is his job to get them ready. He abandoned the only thing that was working. He is the QB coach and the QB play was pitiful. He isn't the only reason (there are many) but he is most definitely a reason we lost this game.
Like I said before, I wanted to run the ball more but when Cromp looked like a more inaccurate version of Casey Clausen tonight I am more concerned about the execution than the calling.