Kiffin on if Butch's program is in the right direction

#151
#151
508mikey said:
what was the term for the ref calling Gaffneys TD ?
Click to expand...

Poor judgement. That was before instant replays being used to make the right call.

The Ky loss was the worst call I can remember. They may have beat us anyway, but it was a fumble and we did recover it.
 
#152
#152
IknoxvolsI said:
Luck is the QB (Arkansas-98) dropping the ball.
Breaks is a LB jarring it loose.

Luck is a starting RB (Florida-01) being put out the week before.

Breaks is your team putting the starting QB & RB (LSU-01) out of the game. Lol-but still couldn't win.

Luck is the Referee calling a personal foul (Florida-04) even though both teams had players slap each other.

There are plenty of other examples.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with your logic but Sterner dropping the ball was a bad example. Go watch the play again.
 
#154
#154
Iam4utalways said:
Poor judgement. That was before instant replays being used to make the right call.

The Ky loss was the worst call I can remember. They may have beat us anyway, but it was a fumble and we did recover it.
Click to expand...

And that Memphis player being down, but ruled not down was a bad call -- just pointing out to that poster, breaks and luck go both ways
 
#155
#155
508mikey said:
And that Memphis player being down, but ruled not down was a bad call -- just pointing out to that poster, breaks and luck go both ways
Click to expand...

That was a bad break.

It seems like the 1st few times instant replay was used in our games they all worked against us.

The way the ball bounces introduces luck.

I'd like more please. We have gotten a bunch of lucky bounces over the past 2 years, but more lucky ones would be fine and fewer unlucky.

Go Vols!
 
#158
#158
I've always said if you were good enough to win a/any (particular) game one play should not make a difference.
 
#159
#159
IknoxvolsI said:
I've always said if you were good enough to win a/any (particular) game one play should not make a difference.
Click to expand...

There are so many games decided by 1 play. To say the losing team wasn't good enough to win since they lost doesn't seem to be completely accurate.
 
#160
#160
IknoxvolsI said:
I've always said if you were good enough to win a/any (particular) game one play should not make a difference.
Click to expand...

You should change your pet phrase.

If you're good enough to dominate the other team, no one play should matter.

But close games between peer competitors often turn on a few key plays, any one of which could directly change the outcome. You see it every Saturday during football season, in one game or another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#161
#161
d67d5d2af4ff10d5899cd3d7d177d90a.jpg
 
#163
#163
My point more closely relates to one call or one play. If you are good enough to win one catch in the second quarter should not make a difference. Same as a catch in the third or fourth.

People like to blame the reffs alot in sports. But, a pass interference call in the second quarter shouldn't make a difference. Neither should one in the fourth.

Now, if the refs were constantly call holding, pass interference, off sides, etc the entire game and it could be proven they were biased, now that would be different.

Look at the '04 Fla game. Yeah, we got lucky with that one-way personal foul call and the refs stopping the clock. But, if Fla was that good, good enough to have won, then they would have made the needed first down or stopped us from getting into FG range.

On that same token, a few years earlier against Fla and the phantom TD catch. If we were good enough to have won that game they would not have been able to cover the field in that time.

My point is: No ody likes to lose but stop blaming the refs, or one player or one play.
 
#164
#164
IknoxvolsI said:
My point more closely relates to one call or one play. If you are good enough to win one catch in the second quarter should not make a difference. Same as a catch in the third or fourth.

People like to blame the reffs alot in sports. But, a pass interference call in the second quarter shouldn't make a difference. Neither should one in the fourth.

Now, if the refs were constantly call holding, pass interference, off sides, etc the entire game and it could be proven they were biased, now that would be different.

Look at the '04 Fla game. Yeah, we got lucky with that one-way personal foul call and the refs stopping the clock. But, if Fla was that good, good enough to have won, then they would have made the needed first down or stopped us from getting into FG range.

On that same token, a few years earlier against Fla and the phantom TD catch. If we were good enough to have won that game they would not have been able to cover the field in that time.

My point is: No ody likes to lose but stop blaming the refs, or one player or one play.
Click to expand...

A competitive game can be decided by one game changing play. The players involved deserve the credit/blame. If it's a blown/missed call by the refs then they get the credit/blame.
 
#165
#165
IknoxvolsI said:
Well, some or maybe most of us do. We'll all know at the end of this season.
Click to expand...

No.. we don't know.. we are guessing. He may surprise us. I honestly doubt he will but it's possible. He had brought in some good assistant coaches and maybe they make the difference.

And you're right.. the end of the season will tell the tale..
 
#166
#166
Iam4utalways said:
A competitive game can be decided by one game changing play. The players involved deserve the credit/blame. If it's a blown/missed call by the refs then they get the credit/blame.
Click to expand...

I see your point. My point is that if your team was better, had a better athlete at (that) position or players athletic enough to make up for it, then a specific play would not happen. Or, if that player was better then he would have made the play.

Look at last years Ga game. Our reciever was just better than who they had, hence we caught the Hail Mary. If Ga was better, then they would have knocked it down. In reality, if Ga was better we would not have returned the kickoff as far.

Theoritics can go on forever, even in this example. If we had not let their WR run by us, they would not have scored on that one play. But, we were good enough to overcome that.

One play can change momentum, that's for sure.
 
#168
#168
IknoxvolsI said:
I see your point. My point is that if your team was better, had a better athlete at (that) position or players athletic enough to make up for it, then a specific play would not happen. Or, if that player was better then he would have made the play.

Look at last years Ga game. Our reciever was just better than who they had, hence we caught the Hail Mary. If Ga was better, then they would have knocked it down. In reality, if Ga was better we would not have returned the kickoff as far.

Theoritics can go on forever, even in this example. If we had not let their WR run by us, they would not have scored on that one play. But, we were good enough to overcome that.

One play can change momentum, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

I guess if a team is better enough then the score won't be close enough that one play would matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#170
#170
Iam4utalways said:
CBJ is conservative. He relies on proper execution of his conservative game plans to win games. There is little room for error due to his conservative nature.

121 may be the team he loosens the chain.

#RTB
Click to expand...

Which is why his HUNH and conservativism are a contradiction.
 
#172
#172
Iam4utalways said:
He uses HUNH to get the matchup he wants and to have a competative advance due to having a team that is in better shape than the competition
Click to expand...

But if you're playing a field position game, it means a lot of 3 and outs. Look at Stanford, what they want is a HUNH team to play a field position game because the HUNH team's defense gets exhausted. Having multiple 3 and outs in less than 2 minutes will make for a long day.

Actually, that's ultimately how we lose to Muschamp.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#173
#173
Burger said:
But if you're playing a field position game, it means a lot of 3 and outs. Look at Stanford, what they want is a HUNH team to play a field position game because the HUNH team's defense gets exhausted. Having multiple 3 and outs in less than 2 minutes will make for a long day.

Actually, that's ultimately how we lose to Muschamp.
Click to expand...

Bingo!
 
#174
#174
IknoxvolsI said:
Bingo!
Click to expand...

I'll add this also. Our offense since Jones arrived is insanely predictable. You can tell where the ball is going by how the back is positioned. We will see how good of a chess player Larry Scott is but when Debord and Bajakian were off script our offense tended to falter. It faltered when defenses caught on.

Debord was actually great at setting up defenses to trick them.
 
#175
#175
Burger said:
But if you're playing a field position game, it means a lot of 3 and outs. Look at Stanford, what they want is a HUNH team to play a field position game because the HUNH team's defense gets exhausted. Having multiple 3 and outs in less than 2 minutes will make for a long day.

Actually, that's ultimately how we lose to Muschamp.
Click to expand...

Seems his game plan is to have long grinding drives that wear down the opposing defenses while putting points on the board. I'm comfortable saying if CBJ could win games without throwing the ball he would. But he realizes he can't so he puts in a few WR screens and quick throws on the edge to loosen up the defense. All along he is wanting to hand it to the RB and march down the field 4 yards at a time.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top