I want some of what Chavis is having....

#1
LadyinOrange

LadyinOrange

Trophy Mod
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2003
Messages
29,188
Likes
6,155
#1
"I've had some good groups, but I wouldn't trade this group for any I've had," Chavis said. "When you say that, you know you had Al Wilson, Raynoch Thompson and Eric Westmoreland who played together.


"This group is as fine as any I've been around."






:blink:
 
#3
#3
Maybe he is just saying it was much more boring when it was always 3 and out on defense. Now Chavis stays a little more busy, having to pick more than 3 plays at a time... Ya, that must be it.
 
#5
#5
LadyinOrange said:
"I've had some good groups, but I wouldn't trade this group for any I've had," Chavis said. "When you say that, you know you had Al Wilson, Raynoch Thompson and Eric Westmoreland who played together.


"This group is as fine as any I've been around."






:blink:
Click to expand...

I'd trade all 11 of our starters for those three guys.
 
#8
#8
incredible... almost like Cutty saying we could have scored 40 or 50 on Bama if we wanted to...

This coaching staff is a reporters dream because they come up with some humdinger quotes.
 
#12
#12
I would say that this group, when it is on, is as fun to watch as any. The glaring problem is in the d-line. There just is no depth, and no big playmaker that requires a double-team. It trickles down. No line play = little LB pass support and inefficient blitzes = young DBs left on an island against a QB with unlimited time in the pocket.

That said, these guys find a way to muster up stops. They didn't at first, but more and more I'm starting to gain a little confidence in their ability to adjust and get some stops and turnovers.

I wouldn't TRADE the group, but I wouldn't deny any additions that could help us out, especially on D-line.
 
#13
#13
Well chavis might trade them after next week. Woodson has to be chomping at the bit to get after these guys. The football gods smiled on us today for sure. Man i just cringe knowing what woodson will do next week.
 
#14
#14
"I think we played smarter in the second half," UT defensive end Xavier Mitchell said. "You can't really put your finger on it. We didn't make a ton of adjustments at halftime. We just came out and did what we needed to do."
Click to expand...

That's from today's Tennessean.
 
#16
#16
That's coachspeak for "I miss the days when we had a bunch of nfl players on defense."
 
#17
#17
Cartervol said:
Well chavis might trade them after next week. Woodson has to be chomping at the bit to get after these guys. The football gods smiled on us today for sure. Man i just cringe knowing what woodson will do next week.
Click to expand...


Well...how best to say it?

On the one hand, if the "UGA" or "Arkansas" version of UT shows up next week, we're in good shape.

On the other hand, if it's the "UF" or "Bama" package, the 'Dogs are headed to Atlanta.

I watched the game yesterday, and while it was a very exciting win, I was left with two distinct impressions:

(1) Vandy lost that game more than UT won it;
(2) UT should never, ever, be in a position to make a come-from-behind one point win against Vandy.

We'll see who shows up in Lexington.

go vols.
 
#18
#18
I did watch the game and it seemed to me that three things played into UTK's success on defense for most of the second half.

1. Earl Bennett's injury was for real. He hardly played at all in the second half and without him on the field the Vols were able to play more man coverage and get an extra man in the box to stuff the run.

2. Vandy went conservative too early trying to sit on a 15 point lead with 24 minutes of football left to play.

3. UTK picked up the tempo in the 4th quarter. Part of this I attribute to the inevitable slip in the quality of 4th quarter play that you see from teams with a lack of depth, such as Vandy. I also give the Vols credt for making some plays.

I am sure that on the Monday talk shows in Nashville there is going to be a lot of debate about the roughing the kicker penalty. It was hard to tell whether the contact rose to the level that a flag should've been thrown. If not, Colquitt did his job and sold it to the refs.
 
#19
#19
i think Chavis made that statement to try and keep his D's confidence at some form of competetive level for next week, after another very bad showing yesterday. i know they stepped up in the 4th when it counted, but next week every quarter is going to count. plus, he cant really ridicule the defense that he built, himself.
 
#24
#24
VolunteerHillbilly said:
I did watch the game and it seemed to me that three things played into UTK's success on defense for most of the second half.

1. Earl Bennett's injury was for real. He hardly played at all in the second half and without him on the field the Vols were able to play more man coverage and get an extra man in the box to stuff the run.

2. Vandy went conservative too early trying to sit on a 15 point lead with 24 minutes of football left to play.

3. UTK picked up the tempo in the 4th quarter. Part of this I attribute to the inevitable slip in the quality of 4th quarter play that you see from teams with a lack of depth, such as Vandy. I also give the Vols credt for making some plays.

I am sure that on the Monday talk shows in Nashville there is going to be a lot of debate about the roughing the kicker penalty. It was hard to tell whether the contact rose to the level that a flag should've been thrown. If not, Colquitt did his job and sold it to the refs.
Click to expand...

From where I was sitting it looked like colquitt took a pretty big hit.
 
#25
#25
LadyinOrange said:
"I've had some good groups, but I wouldn't trade this group for any I've had," Chavis said. "When you say that, you know you had Al Wilson, Raynoch Thompson and Eric Westmoreland who played together.


"This group is as fine as any I've been around."


:blink:
Click to expand...

You've obviously never heard of coach speak.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top