My Dearest Writer32/Griff come take your medicine (merged)

#76
#76
tim said:
A good article he could write would be one drawing the parallels between Richt and Fulmer. Both coaches with talented teams who regularly underachieved.
Click to expand...

Fulmer won a 'Ship. In the end, that may be the only time these 2 coaches were different.
Both seem to have the Good Ol' Boy system
Both seem to have God on their side
Both seem to underachieve
 
#77
#77
TENNaciousUTfan said:
Like a man! :vava: Try and throw Monte under the bus and it comes back to bite you in the:shaking2:
Click to expand...

I respect Mike Griffith for the work he does, but thought he was VERY premature to criticize Monte Kiffin for a defense that is an upgrade (IMO) over the defense Chavis has fielded the past several years.

Everyone agreed that this defense was supposed to take a step back this year in the talent department... Thin on the DL, mediocre at LB, and talented, but unproven at with DB besides Berry. We have had to rely heavily on true freshmen to contribute thus far. How could Griff expect more when that's the hand he was dealt?

The two biggest differences I have seen so far with this Defense is pass rush and 3rd down defense. Chavis's defenses always put up good numbers on the stat page but IMO couldn't get off the field in meaningful drives on 3rd down.

Griffith's biggest beef with Monte (besides $$, a common crutch used in the media) seemed to be 3 INT's in 5 games... Now, it's 5 INT's in 6 games... Good enough? With that said, certain stats like INT and Sacks are overrated and DO NOT always define how good a defense is. Pressures/Hurries, Missed Tackles, Yards allowed per rush (incremental), etc tell more about how a defense is playing.

Last point: I don't think Griffith acknowledged how much of a major adjustment CMK is going through going from coaching pro ball to college ball. Defending different schemes with players of lesser ability and knowledge of the game takes some getting used to. Especially when you haven't faced any of these opponents before.

Not ripping Griffith, but I bet he would like to have his comments back. Especially the way he has apologized for and sugar coated sub par coaching performances on the UT campus in the past.
 
#79
#79
crusse10 said:
How many times did you call for the benching of Crompton?

I think your vote/opinion caries less and less weight by the minute.
Click to expand...
For your information smart @$$, Crompton gave NOBODY reason to be optimisitic before today. I give him credit where credit is due, but neither you or anyone else would've expected him to break out of his shell today (much of that was due to CLK's play calling).

I'm never going to apologize for hoping our team fixes a glaring problem. Griff on the other hand never misses a chance to take a cheap shot at the staff...and b!tching aobut how much they make.

Oh, BTW.... :Bbiteme:
 
Last edited:
#80
#80
crusse10 said:
Our defense gave up 5.5 yards per play.
No matter what, you have to write the article. You have to at least look into what happened.
With the money Monte makes, and the expectations behind that money, it has to be investigated.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't...genius.:rolleyes: Anytime your offense goes 3 and out that many times, it makes a great defense look average, or a good defense seem pathetic.

How old are you, and how long have you been following football? Since this summer?
 
#82
#82
crusse10 said:
I'm not talking points. I'm talking yards. It was similar, in my eyes, to Chavis. They made it all the way down, then settled for 3.
They shredded us for 460 yards on offense.
(That's almost 300 yards more than UCLA, and 130 yards more than Florida)
Click to expand...

One thing it does say is that we have a great red zone D. THAT is something we have not seen in quite awhile. I don't care is we give up 800 yds/game..(for now)... if we hold them to 3 or less every time they go down the field.. we will win ballgames.
 
#83
#83
crusse10 said:
Our defense gave up 5.5 yards per play.
No matter what, you have to write the article. You have to at least look into what happened.
With the money Monte makes, and the expectations behind that money, it has to be investigated.
Click to expand...

Are you for real? It has been 6 GAMES... SIX... and you are calling for Watergate?
 
#84
#84
SpaceCoastVol said:
One thing it does say is that we have a great red zone D. THAT is something we have not seen in quite awhile. I don't care is we give up 800 yds/game..(for now)... if we hold them to 3 or less every time they go down the field.. we will win ballgames.
Click to expand...

We actually saw that a lot the last few years. We'd allow guys to get all the way to our red zone, then get stuffed. That was commonplace.
 
#85
#85
crusse10 said:
We actually saw that a lot the last few years. We'd allow guys to get all the way to our red zone, then get stuffed. That was commonplace.
Click to expand...


Maybe you are right. My memory is sometimes clouded by having my head in my hands when I couldn't watch us give up the inevitable 3rd and Chavis....
 
#87
#87
just in case griff shows up and knowing that he loves to keep putting everything in the context of money, whether relevant or not ...

CMK annual salary: $1.5mil

UT defensive staff payroll: one of the highest in the NCAA

having UGA never get deeper than the UT 35: priceless
 
#88
#88
Griff,
Lofton4Three is spot on...

you need to step up and take your medicine on this call out to preserve what credibility you have left on this board.
 
#89
#89
tm3 said:
just in case griff shows up and knowing that he loves to keep putting everything in the context of money, whether relevant or not ...

CMK annual salary: $1.5mil

UT defensive staff payroll: one of the highest in the NCAA

having UGA never get deeper than the UT 35: priceless
Click to expand...

Dude...you know if Griff answers this thread it'll just be to say something like...

"Oh, I wasn't trying to say blah blah blah, I was just saying blah blah blah and I stand by that even though I was obviously wrong....Oh yeah, and here's a link to my blog"
 
#92
#92
GreatWhiteNorth said:
Defense is solid and extremely well-coached, especially when you look at how many underclassmen/2nd or 3rd stringers we have on the field.

Coaching staff earned every penny today.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Griff will spew out that the UT defense did not have a sack again this game.

However, I would be willing to bet a year's salary that Ginger Boy Cox is very sore this morning.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#93
#93
thunder5 said:
Dude...you know if Griff answers this thread it'll just be to say something like...

"Oh, I wasn't trying to say blah blah blah, I was just saying blah blah blah and I stand by that even though I was obviously wrong....Oh yeah, and here's a link to my blog"
Click to expand...

you are correct, sir.

and don't forget multiple references to last year's D that won on statistics.
 
#97
#97
You guys only make this fool more money clicking his article each week. If you dont like what he puts out, stop clicking the links. He posts them on all the sites for that reason. No clicky = no check for him.
 
#98
#98
Godfatha said:
Maybe follow Chavis and go root for LSU with Griff?
Click to expand...

You misunderstood me. I'm not meaning our defense is the same, or that last year was better. I was just saying that using the "yes but they don't score on us" defense is useless as it's how we played last year on D.
 
Last edited:
#99
#99
SpaceCoastVol said:
Are you for real? It has been 6 GAMES... SIX... and you are calling for Watergate?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not saying that. I'm not saying an investigation must be done on the state of our defense. I was saying that what happened in that game had to be studied. Something that Auburn did on offense slashed our defense. I'm in no way saying our D is bad and needs to be changed. I'm only saying that with the stats as they were, and how Auburn handled us when they had the ball, questions had to be asked. I don't want to see the new staff leave, nor do I want the old staff back in place. All I was saying was that it was legit to want to get answers to what happened when we didn't have the ball.
 
#100
#100
crusse10 said:
No, I'm not saying that. I'm not saying an investigation must be done on the state of our defense. I was saying that what happened in that game had to be studied. Something that Auburn did on offense slashed our defense. I'm in no way saying our D is bad and needs to be changed. I'm only saying that with the stats as they were, and how Auburn handled us when they had the ball, questions had to be asked. I don't want to see the new staff leave, nor do I want the old staff back in place. All I was saying was that it was legit to want to get answers to what happened when we didn't have the ball.
Click to expand...

Sometimes emotion is a bad thing. See Auburn and blown lane assignments as proof. They have to teach the kids to focus their emotions into controlled thought processes. They are kids still and have to be taught not to let it get the best of themselves.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top