Clawson

#105
#105
JohnsonCityVol said:
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.
Click to expand...


So yes the difference between a crappy offense and a great one depends on someone who can get his throws down...
 
#106
#106
we had more talent then UCLA starting their 3rd string QB.

There's no excuse for getting 4 interceptionss in the first half and not having more then 14 pts to show for it.
 
#107
#107
g8terh8ter_eric said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#108
#108
volfanbill said:
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
Click to expand...

exactly. tennessee's traditional pound the rock offense was non-existant tonight. i'm sure it would have worked alot better than crompton going 18-40 or whatever it was in passing. why people are defending clawson's gameplan tonight is beyond me. why keep throwing the ball over and over and over again when it obviously isn't working.

at least, if you're going to do that, let him get comfortable with screen passes and curl routes to ease him into a rhthym. it seemed like almost all crompton's passes tonight were posts and long out patterns. he never could establish anything.
 
#109
#109
volfanbill said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly... if something's not working, change, Run the ball, movie him out of the pocket, run the hurry up... something.
 
#110
#110
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.
 
#111
#111
colliervillecard said:
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:
Click to expand...


Vols have talent, they have SEC talent, they even have all american talent!
This was a game where our defense played well and the offense didnt do much to protect Crompton, not even the OC, who should have rolled him out more.

The defense and running game were both great(sans Arians fumble). He nearly had 100 yards on 11 carries before they took him out of the game.

I think many fans are asking too much of Crompton. He is only a 2 game starter coming into tonights game. He didnt wow UT fans, but given in a few weeks, now he knows what to expect, he can get it together.

The OL didnt do a great job in the interior. They kept the DEs at bay, but the MLB and DTs ate JC up all night long!!! No wonder he was throwing too high.

The scapegoat of this game is NOT Daniel Lincoln. If your defense gives you 4 interceptions at the half, and all you can manage is 14 points, you deserve to lose. Most of this was shabby playcalling by the braintrust!!!
 
#113
#113
Not enough talent?? Man, we go from Knoxville to Russia for players, while ignoring many great high schoolers in Tennessee because in UT's mind, we have to go out and get these players who supposedly are top dogs, but in reality, it takes a great coach to pull the top dog out of a player and Fulmer ain't got it. We are a big enough program where we recruit some of the top players. It's these sorry QB's and the coaching that kills us every year.
 
#114
#114
g8terh8ter_eric said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#115
#115
JohnsonCityVol said:
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.
Click to expand...

i've never wanted to back away from a power running game. Do you really think Tennessee has had one of those since Cutcliffe came back? If so, you're beyond delusional.
 
#116
#116
Volholic said:
So yes the difference between a crappy offense and a great one depends on someone who can get his throws down...
Click to expand...


Yes, that has a lot to do with it.

EDIT: this is from an entirely different thread. the board must be screwing up again. <!-- / edit note -->
 
Last edited:
#117
#117
volfanbill said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#118
#118
Yeah how many times on 2nd and 6 or less did they throw a stupid pass? It's like Clawson was playing the odds and figured Crompton would hit one deep pass eventually. Best looking drive was the one Foster fumbled on because they ran the freakin ball.
 
#119
#119
vols kick balls said:
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.
Click to expand...

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??
 
#120
#120
g8terh8ter_eric said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#121
#121
g8terh8ter_eric said:
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??
Click to expand...
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.
 
#122
#122
volfanbill said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#123
#123
vols kick balls said:
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.
Click to expand...

The whole team is ultimately the reason, but to say Clawson has a majority stake in the loss isn't right.
 
#125
#125
g8terh8ter_eric said:
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.
Click to expand...

i'm concerned about execution as well. But as a coach you adjust to go with what's working. You don't consistently continue to do what was failing. Spread it out a little better for Crompton and see what he does. Clawson and Fulmer didn't do that. They continued to keep Crompton under center and under that constant blitz from UCLA. Horrible game planning and adjusting. And that my friend is the fault of the coaches
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top