DowntownVol
Stylin' and Profilin'
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,584
- Likes
- 865
I've been lurking all season; haven't had much time to post, as I've been busy with work and a new lady in my life, but... that was pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Hat already made most of the points I was going to make (and it's good to see you're still here telling it like it is and owning the newbies in the face of withering amateur criticism), but I will add this:
At a certain point, you have to start playing to win, as opposed to playing not to lose. This goes double if you're already playing from behind.
Call me a blasphemer, and yes, I realize that all fourth down situations are not created equal, but if you're trailing in the game, your defense is getting chewed up, and you're facing a 4th and 1 or 4th and 3 at or near midfield, why WOULDN'T you go for it? For one thing, it sends the message to your offense - particularly your offensive line - that you have no confidence in them, which has to be somewhat demoralizing. Saban had no problem going for it in similar situations, with a patchwork (and generally inferior) OL due to suspensions. Rich Brooks rolls the dice, and it pays off for him more often than not. And Les Miles seems to be doing just fine, thank you, with staying aggressive.
There's a modern school of football thought that says that punting is an overused and overrated tool. If you go for it on 4th and 1, 4th and 2, you would hope that your odds are better than 50/50 of getting the first down. That's another chance for your offense to score, and at least four more plays that your defense gets to rest on the sidelines. (look at the time of possession stats from today's game - not defending the godawful play of our defense, but it's hard to stop a team for four quarters when you're on the field 15 minutes longer than your offense is.) So you punt, and what happens? From midfield, touchbacks are common - bring the ball to the 20, and your punt results in a net field position gain of only 30 yards. There's always the possibility (especially with our craptacular special teams play) of a long punt return, even a return for a TD. The best case scenario is to pin them deep, inside their 5 yard line, but even if that happens, you are still surrendering a scoring opportunity and putting your defense back on the field. (okay, actually, I suppose the best case scenario is that their return man fumbles the punt, and you recover and score, but how often does that happen?)
Sorry for the long, rambling post, but the distillation of my point is this: this is 2007, not 1957. Football continues to evolve. The winning programs and winning coaches tend to be the ones willing to stay aggressive, rather than conservative. If UT wants to maintain its reputation as an elite program (assuming it still has said rep), our football philosophy MUST evolve. It's clear that the current coaching staff has no interest in evolving, so it's time (and I'm hardly a NegaVol) for a regime change in Knoxville, and never has that been more clear to me than after today's game.
At a certain point, you have to start playing to win, as opposed to playing not to lose. This goes double if you're already playing from behind.
Call me a blasphemer, and yes, I realize that all fourth down situations are not created equal, but if you're trailing in the game, your defense is getting chewed up, and you're facing a 4th and 1 or 4th and 3 at or near midfield, why WOULDN'T you go for it? For one thing, it sends the message to your offense - particularly your offensive line - that you have no confidence in them, which has to be somewhat demoralizing. Saban had no problem going for it in similar situations, with a patchwork (and generally inferior) OL due to suspensions. Rich Brooks rolls the dice, and it pays off for him more often than not. And Les Miles seems to be doing just fine, thank you, with staying aggressive.
There's a modern school of football thought that says that punting is an overused and overrated tool. If you go for it on 4th and 1, 4th and 2, you would hope that your odds are better than 50/50 of getting the first down. That's another chance for your offense to score, and at least four more plays that your defense gets to rest on the sidelines. (look at the time of possession stats from today's game - not defending the godawful play of our defense, but it's hard to stop a team for four quarters when you're on the field 15 minutes longer than your offense is.) So you punt, and what happens? From midfield, touchbacks are common - bring the ball to the 20, and your punt results in a net field position gain of only 30 yards. There's always the possibility (especially with our craptacular special teams play) of a long punt return, even a return for a TD. The best case scenario is to pin them deep, inside their 5 yard line, but even if that happens, you are still surrendering a scoring opportunity and putting your defense back on the field. (okay, actually, I suppose the best case scenario is that their return man fumbles the punt, and you recover and score, but how often does that happen?)
Sorry for the long, rambling post, but the distillation of my point is this: this is 2007, not 1957. Football continues to evolve. The winning programs and winning coaches tend to be the ones willing to stay aggressive, rather than conservative. If UT wants to maintain its reputation as an elite program (assuming it still has said rep), our football philosophy MUST evolve. It's clear that the current coaching staff has no interest in evolving, so it's time (and I'm hardly a NegaVol) for a regime change in Knoxville, and never has that been more clear to me than after today's game.
