On the Banks debate... it's less about his coaching ability and more about the scheme that's causing issues

[KnoxRealtorVOL]

Which is why I think we, as a fanbase, can't reach an agreement here. Simply put, the offense and defense need to complement each other. I'll do my best here to make this make sense:

We have a very aggressive offense. This offense is either going to score quickly, or punt quickly, that's just the reality of it.

On defense however, we run a very conservative "soft zone" defense. This defense is designed to not give up the big 40-50 yard play, and for the most part, does a great job at that. We rarely give up the big play. What we do give up, however, is the 2nd/3rd and medium-to-long at a really high rate. That's the downfall of this scheme, it leaves guys running wide open at mid to long range.

So what you end up with is an offense that gets off the field quickly, one way or another, and a defense that stays on the field for a long time in the interest of not giving up the huge downfield shot. This is not a good combination. A good combination would be an aggressive, press-man defense to go with our offense. Would we get burned more often? Absolutely, but we would also get off the field quicker one way or another.

We lose the game when the offense gets off the field quickly several times in a row, which it's built to do, and the defense stays on the field for the better part of a quarter.

So in summary:

Aggressive O + Aggressive D =
Aggressive O + Conservative D =
(That's us)
Conservative O + Conservative D =
Conservative O + Aggressive D =
(This was what Mason did at Vandy, Jimbo did at A&M, etc)

Supposedly Heupel isn't a big fan of this defensive scheme and that's caused some friction (per a couple of reputable insiders on 247), and this would be why.

TL;DR - Banks isn't bad, but we have to change the scheme.

 

[oUTraged]

Which is why I think we, as a fanbase, can't reach an agreement here. Simply put, the offense and defense need to complement each other. I'll do my best here to make this make sense:

We have a very aggressive offense. This offense is either going to score quickly, or punt quickly, that's just the reality of it.

On defense however, we run a very conservative "soft zone" defense. This defense is designed to not give up the big 40-50 yard play, and for the most part, does a great job at that. We rarely give up the big play. What we do give up, however, is the 2nd/3rd and medium-to-long at a really high rate. That's the downfall of this scheme, it leaves guys running wide open at mid to long range.

So what you end up with is an offense that gets off the field quickly, one way or another, and a defense that stays on the field for a long time in the interest of not giving up the huge downfield shot. This is not a good combination. A good combination would be an aggressive, press-man defense to go with our offense. Would we get burned more often? Absolutely, but we would also get off the field quicker one way or another.

We lose the game when the offense gets off the field quickly several times in a row, which it's built to do, and the defense stays on the field for the better part of a quarter.

So in summary:

Aggressive O + Aggressive D =
Aggressive O + Conservative D =
(That's us)
Conservative O + Conservative D =
Conservative O + Aggressive D =
(This was what Mason did at Vandy, Jimbo did at A&M, etc)

Supposedly Heupel isn't a big fan of this defensive scheme and that's caused some friction (per a couple of reputable insiders on 247), and this would be why.

TL;DR - Banks isn't bad, but we have to change the scheme.

It's Banks' scheme, so it's Banks' coaching.

 

[_ryan01]

the secondary is to slow to play man to man. Hopefully, the portal will help out next year.

 

[KnoxRealtorVOL]

the secondary is to slow to play man to man. Hopefully, the portal will help out next year.

They probably are. But that's irrelevant if Banks doesn't change his scheme to compliment the offense.

 

[papatomany]

Banks' defense is designed to disrupt in the backfield. When it's working, the defensive backs don't have to be elite shut down guys. I don't know what happened (maybe excessive injuries and fatigue), but halfway through the Alabama game, we stopped being able to get into the backfield, with or without extra rushers. We haven't been the same since. One Reggie White would make this a great scheme.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

This is an interesting hypothesis, this idea that an aggressive offense must be joined by an aggressive defense to succeed.

First thought is, the term "aggressive" could use more definition. Because Tim Banks' scheme is very aggressive up front. So much so that we've become known for it. Frequent blitzes and schemes to get into the opposing team's backfield and cause havoc, sacks, TFLs, QB pressure causing errant throws, disrupting timing, etc.

Some would say our defense has been super aggressive.

But you're right that in the defensive secondary, Banks tends to play soft, giving up the short yardage completions in order to prevent any home runs.

Just not sure what to call that combination: "conservative" doesn't seem to fit. Maybe more like a hybrid.

So terminology is point one.

Point two is, we seemed to do very well in 2022 with our offense/defense combination: 11-2. The Kentucky game in particular, I remember, time of possession was skewed way toward the Wildcats, our defense was on the field a lot...and we beat them something like 44-6.

So an aggressive offense, offset by a hybrid defense (unique defense, really), can work beautifully. We leave them on the field a long time so that the opposing offense can make a mistake and have to punt or kick a FG. Then we go get 7 again, and the process repeats.

That seemed to work really well. When we had a prolific offense.

So maybe the problem in 2023 wasn't all on the defense, or on an offensive-defensive mismatch.

Maybe we also need a QB and WRs who can execute Josh Heupel's O at a high level. Maybe that's what was missing. Maybe it is all built on that.

So not really sure I agree with your hypothesis yet. Ready to keep an open mind, though, if there's more evidence for it.

Go Vols!

 

[TNVOLFN]

Which is why I think we, as a fanbase, can't reach an agreement here. Simply put, the offense and defense need to complement each other. I'll do my best here to make this make sense:

We have a very aggressive offense. This offense is either going to score quickly, or punt quickly, that's just the reality of it.

On defense however, we run a very conservative "soft zone" defense. This defense is designed to not give up the big 40-50 yard play, and for the most part, does a great job at that. We rarely give up the big play. What we do give up, however, is the 2nd/3rd and medium-to-long at a really high rate. That's the downfall of this scheme, it leaves guys running wide open at mid to long range.

So what you end up with is an offense that gets off the field quickly, one way or another, and a defense that stays on the field for a long time in the interest of not giving up the huge downfield shot. This is not a good combination. A good combination would be an aggressive, press-man defense to go with our offense. Would we get burned more often? Absolutely, but we would also get off the field quicker one way or another.

We lose the game when the offense gets off the field quickly several times in a row, which it's built to do, and the defense stays on the field for the better part of a quarter.

So in summary:

Aggressive O + Aggressive D =
Aggressive O + Conservative D =
(That's us)
Conservative O + Conservative D =
Conservative O + Aggressive D =
(This was what Mason did at Vandy, Jimbo did at A&M, etc)

Supposedly Heupel isn't a big fan of this defensive scheme and that's caused some friction (per a couple of reputable insiders on 247), and this would be why.

TL;DR - Banks isn't bad, but we have to change the scheme.

It’s not complicated, great defense isn’t called or developed, great defense is played by great players. Saban, Smart, Donahue had great defenses because they had great players, bottom line.

 

[KnoxRealtorVOL]

This is an interesting hypothesis, this idea that an aggressive offense must be joined by an aggressive defense to succeed.

First thought is, the term "aggressive" could use more definition. Because Tim Banks' scheme is very aggressive up front. So much so that we've become known for it. Frequent blitzes and schemes to get into the opposing team's backfield and cause havoc, sacks, TFLs, QB pressure causing errant throws, disrupting timing, etc.

Some would say our defense has been super aggressive.

But you're right that in the defensive secondary, Banks tends to play soft, giving up the short yardage completions in order to prevent any home runs.

Just not sure what to call that combination: "conservative" doesn't seem to fit. Maybe more like a hybrid.

So terminology is point one.

Point two is, we seemed to do very well in 2022 with our offense/defense combination: 11-2. The Kentucky game in particular, I remember, time of possession was skewed way toward the Wildcats, our defense was on the field a lot...and we beat them something like 44-6.

So an aggressive offense, offset by a hybrid defense (unique defense, really), can work beautifully. We leave them on the field a long time so that the opposing offense can make a mistake and have to punt or kick a FG. Then we go get 7 again, and the process repeats.

That seemed to work really well. When we had a prolific offense.

So maybe the problem in 2023 wasn't all on the defense, or on an offensive-defensive mismatch.

Maybe we also need a QB and WRs who can execute Josh Heupel's O at a high level. Maybe that's what was missing. Maybe it is all built on that.

So not really sure I agree with your hypothesis yet. Ready to keep an open mind, though, if there's more evidence for it.

Go Vols!

Yeah for clarity, I mean a more aggressive scheme in the secondary. I should have been more specific about that to begin with.

And you're absolutely right that when it clicks, it works fine. But the offense/defense philosophy mismatch we have leaves no room for error. If both sides aren't playing great, we either lose big (2022 SC), or win an ugly one against a bad team. (2022 Florida, 2023 Texas A&M).

In 2022 they both played well pretty often. But there's no question if the secondary hadn't sat back in our baby soft zone and let Rattler shred them to pieces, we're in the playoffs.

 

[orangemadam]

The all have to be on the same page. Even the OC in calling the correct
plays, especially on 2nd and 3rd downs. If you always run off-tackle
run on every 2nd down, it gets easy to defend.

 

[VolBricks]

we have an aggressive offense for sure. I think the front 7 on defense is aggressive but the DB are playing soft zone because they are not capable of playing press/man. With better DB's this defense could be great.

 

[Butch s]

Which is why I think we, as a fanbase, can't reach an agreement here. Simply put, the offense and defense need to complement each other. I'll do my best here to make this make sense:

We have a very aggressive offense. This offense is either going to score quickly, or punt quickly, that's just the reality of it.

On defense however, we run a very conservative "soft zone" defense. This defense is designed to not give up the big 40-50 yard play, and for the most part, does a great job at that. We rarely give up the big play. What we do give up, however, is the 2nd/3rd and medium-to-long at a really high rate. That's the downfall of this scheme, it leaves guys running wide open at mid to long range.

So what you end up with is an offense that gets off the field quickly, one way or another, and a defense that stays on the field for a long time in the interest of not giving up the huge downfield shot. This is not a good combination. A good combination would be an aggressive, press-man defense to go with our offense. Would we get burned more often? Absolutely, but we would also get off the field quicker one way or another.

We lose the game when the offense gets off the field quickly several times in a row, which it's built to do, and the defense stays on the field for the better part of a quarter.

So in summary:

Aggressive O + Aggressive D =
Aggressive O + Conservative D =
(That's us)
Conservative O + Conservative D =
Conservative O + Aggressive D =
(This was what Mason did at Vandy, Jimbo did at A&M, etc)

Supposedly Heupel isn't a big fan of this defensive scheme and that's caused some friction (per a couple of reputable insiders on 247), and this would be why.

TL;DR - Banks isn't bad, but we have to change the scheme.

Wow. Thanks captain obvious

 

[Volbrando]

the secondary is to slow to play man to man. Hopefully, the portal will help out next year.

This. There’s the problem. So they try to keep everything out in front of them. Sometimes it works but it also leaves receivers pretty much wide open until they decide to go defend/tackle them

 

[VFL-82-JP]

So Knox-town, I've thought about your ideas a bit more.

Circling back to terminology, I think "aggressive" and "conservative" may not be the best framework for such discussions. I mean, consider that all offenses, every single one, are by their nature aggressive. If you are on offense, you are attacking. Ideally, every coach wants every run play to end this way: 75 yard gain, and a TD. Same for every pass play: 75 yards, and a TD. Runs and passes are equally aggressive, in that sense. Offenses are always attempting to invade the opponent's ground, to take territory. Heck, "aggressive" and "offensive" are practically synonyms.*

On defense, "aggressive" vs "conservative" makes more sense, though as we saw earlier in this conversation, it's sometimes tough to fix any defense as just one thing or the other.

Perhaps a better framework for the conversation is the idea of "risk."

Tim Banks takes risk up front by blitzing so often, and by his creative gap schemes. He opens the possibility of getting gashed by the draw, or by the quick pass underneath. Meanwhile, he avoids risk downfield, keeping everything in front of his DBs. More risk here, less risk there.

Seems there's a lot of potential for good discussion of offensive vs defensive fit using those terms.

Anyway, sorry to keep jumping in with TLDRs, but you've got me thinking this morning. Heh.

Go Vols!



* In contests, I mean. In social settings, "offensive" is closer in meaning to "insulting"...but in contests such as sport and war, "offensive" and "aggressive" could be considered synonymous.

 

[Checker_the_Shire]

A glaring problem that OP didn’t address is the inconsistency we see both game-to-game and within games themselves. It’s as if Banks cannot decide if he wants to be aggressive, conservative, or a nice balance. We’ll have an incredible quarter or half where you think he’s a genius, then the next quarter or half, no adjustments are made or we change the scheme altogether. That, to me, is what’s so frustrating about Banks.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

A glaring problem that OP didn’t address is the inconsistency we see both game-to-game and within games themselves. It’s as if Banks cannot decide if he wants to be aggressive, conservative, or a nice balance. We’ll have an incredible quarter or half where you think he’s a genius, then the next quarter or half, no adjustments are made or we change the scheme altogether. That, to me, is what’s so frustrating about Banks.

So yeah, we know this is a multi-variable problem.

There's scheme (offensive/defensive philosophy, the playbook, adjustments in game, risk decisions, etc.).
There's player talent (raw stuff, like speed, quickness, strength, playmaking ability, so on).
There's execution, which is the application of talent (includes discipline, development, mental agility, etc.).
And so on.

Problem is, each of these can hide the others. For instance, a team lacking discipline, not executing well, can LOOK a lot like bad scheme. And the players can appear to be less talented than they are. Because of poor execution.

And a relative lack of talent can make the scheme seem poor, when it might have worked great if better players were available.

Similarly, a faulty scheme, whether not suited well to our players, or not suited to the opponent's game plan, or just flawed in general, can make good players seem less competent.

It's all one big mix, and us outsiders are always going to be awful at figuring out which is which. Primarily because we don't know what any of the play calls actually were.

So I'm all for treating coaches holistically. I'm not going to nitpick. I'll judge them entirely by their results. Because in addition to scheming, they're also responsible for recruiting, and developing. So they ultimately have their hands on the levers of all the variables.

But for that holistic way of judging to be fair, we have to give them time. Ostensibly, a full 5-year cycle, so that THIS coach's recruiting, and development, training, scheming, playcalling, and adjusting are all in the mix.

Then we can judge, and it's as simple as: are we competing for championships? If so, good coach. If not, he's not good enough.

We'll know this about Heupel, Banks, et al in another two years or so. Things are looking pretty good so far, but there's plenty of room for improvement, too.

Go Vols!

 

[Jimmyandjoes]

Banks defense is designed to get pressure, get tackled for loss, sacks, and turnovers. It's designed to stop the run. He runs a 4-2-5 or 3-3-5 look a lot, and some traditional 4-3. Pruitt ran a 3-4,which is why some of the growing pains with the defense at the beginning. Our defense gives up more plays, as it try to limit big plays. By having more plays, we have more opportunities for turnovers. Also, by stopping the run at an elite level, it keeps the 4th down percentage low. When our offense is clicking, it forces the opponents offense to go for it on 4th and to not kick field goals. All of these, when you can stop the run in the red zone and short yardage, are what this defense are set up to do. We're going to outscore you, force you to try and score, and capitalize on mistakes. Our defense, by design, needs help from our offense. It's complimentary football.

 

[VOLfrombama]

My problem with the scheme is the lack of pressure on 3rd down. Playing soft and not bringing any pressure or extra pass rushers is basically conceding first down. Dropping your best pass rusher on 3rd down is conceding a first down. Pearce needs to eat every down he’s in the game. He was the second best pass rusher in the league for a reason. Not one person ever said his coverage skills were even remotely good.

Also, why no spy? His scheme allowed Qbs to run roughshot in multiple games.

This is stubborn imo and shows a lack of awareness in the heat of the moment.

 

[GAVol]

Scheme, scheme, scheme.

it’s not the scheme.

 

[madbamahater]

The Vols don't get enough pressure with 4 or sometimes just the front 7 in general. This is due LARGELY because the secondary can't play man coverage at all. Some of this is a talent issue, but saying none of it is a coaching issue is just lazy and wrong. It is both.

This is why the Vols give up continuous 3rd downs and especially 3rd and long......

 

[madbamahater]

Banks defense is designed to get pressure, get tackled for loss, sacks, and turnovers. It's designed to stop the run. He runs a 4-2-5 or 3-3-5 look a lot, and some traditional 4-3. Pruitt ran a 3-4,which is why some of the growing pains with the defense at the beginning. Our defense gives up more plays, as it try to limit big plays. By having more plays, we have more opportunities for turnovers. Also, by stopping the run at an elite level, it keeps the 4th down percentage low. When our offense is clicking, it forces the opponents offense to go for it on 4th and to not kick field goals. All of these, when you can stop the run in the red zone and short yardage, are what this defense are set up to do. We're going to outscore you, force you to try and score, and capitalize on mistakes. Our defense, by design, needs help from our offense. It's complimentary football.

Thanks Butch

 

[tennrich1]

It’s not complicated, great defense isn’t called or developed, great defense is played by great players. Saban, Smart, Donahue had great defenses because they had great players, bottom line.

We have a winner! Defense is such a reactionary sport whereas offense is establishing HOW the defense must react. It’s much easier to react at a high level with smart, fast, agile, aggressive athletes and that really shows up on defense. I agree with your assessment.

 

[kptvol1452]

Banks' defense is designed to disrupt in the backfield. When it's working, the defensive backs don't have to be elite shut down guys. I don't know what happened (maybe excessive injuries and fatigue), but halfway through the Alabama game, we stopped being able to get into the backfield, with or without extra rushers. We haven't been the same since. One Reggie White would make this a great scheme.

Defense has been bad from 2nd half Alabama game secondary cannot cover receivers and they have 10 yd cushion and tackling especially in open field horrible......

Banks' defense is designed to disrupt in the backfield. When it's working, the defensive backs don't have to be elite shut down guys. I don't know what happened (maybe excessive injuries and fatigue), but halfway through the Alabama game, we stopped being able to get into the backfield, with or without extra rushers. We haven't been the same since. One Reggie White would make this a great scheme.

 

[KeyVol14]

Banks in game adjustments are horrible. Also safety play has been terrible since he's been here and that's the position group he coaches.

 

[Jimmyandjoes]

Thanks Butch

Building it brick by brick 5* hearts

 

[savannahfan]

the secondary is to slow to play man to man. Hopefully, the portal will help out next year.

Slow footed and I fell slow witted.