DiderotsGhost
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 4,627
- Likes
- 23,503
It was probably inevitable. We knew going into the Bowling Green game that BG had an incredible passing attack, led by a likely future NFL QB, a strong and experienced O-line, and several incredible receivers. We also knew their defense was horrific last year.
Yet, when we struggled against one of the best passing attacks in the nation, but ran at will against one of the worst defenses, Vol fans, football analysts, and other commentators immediately have jumped to the conclusion that the Vols offense is much better than expected and the defense has major issues. Both assessments are premature and ignore our opponent.
Defense: Better than Realized
Let's start off with the defense. It's easy to say that the secondary looked terrible, but that analysis misses what was going on. This was a perfect storm and an almost worst case scenario for our secondary and they actually held up OK given the circumstances.
I've already pointed out that BG was loaded in the passing game. I don't think it's a stretch to say that BG's passing offense would be competitive in the SEC, Big 12, or Pac-12. (It's their D and lack of balance that would hold them back.)
But let's also point out one of the main functions of the Art Briles styled hurry up, no huddle offense: to neutralize strong pass rushing teams. It's not a coincidence that Alabama's excellent defensive front struggled against Texas A&M's passing attack in the Johnny Manziel years.
Without a strong pass rush, this style of offense puts tremendous pressure on the secondary. As it so happens, our secondary had been decimated by injuries, illnesses, and other problems over the past few weeks. Add in a suspended coach, and you really have a perfect storm.
Given all this, I think our secondary performed relatively well. Yes, it's impossible to ignore BG completing several long passes against our DBs in the late 1st Quarter / early to mid 2nd Quarter, but what's important to note is that we managed to make excellent adjustments after that disastrous period.
We were up 21-3 before that. During that period, they outscored us 17-0. From the 3rd Quarter on, we outscored them 24-10.
From this, I conclude that we played them very well early on. They found a weakness and exploited it mercilessly for about 10 minutes of game time. We adjusted after that and once again dominated them.
I tend to agree with sjt that people are ignoring a bigger issue: our D-line not getting much pressure. Sure BG's offense is designed to neutralize pressure, but given our depth and talent on the D-line, I think it was a pretty big disappointment that we weren't able to get more pressure anyway. Matt Johnson was mostly sitting back there comfortable with time to throw to his speedy WRs. I'm not sure what the issue was, but I thought that the D-line looked like a bigger issue of concern than the secondary.
Hopefully, we see some improvement in the coming weeks. It should at least be noted that our defense did a very good job defending the run.
Offense: Issues Lurking Beneath the Surface
Our offense looked like world beaters against Bowling Green, but I think some of the issues are being ignored. First off, I will say that the O-line looked much better in rushing situations than last year. It's true that BG is not the best defense out there, but our O-line struggled in the running game even against inferior opponents last year. We looked dominant in the run game against BG, which is a positive sign, even if we won't have as easy of a time against teams like Bama, UGA, and Florida.
That said, I thought our pass protection looked problematic. We only gave up one big sack, but there were a few hurry situations, and the O-line seemed to be barely hanging on at times against a very weak pass rush. When you add in the fact that we ran the ball in 64 out of 87 plays (or about 75% of the time), and the defense was much more focused on stopping the run, than getting a good pass rush, I would say that this could be a bad sign.
Overall, I think it's a mixed bag for the O-line. If we don't improve in pass protection, we could struggle against teams like Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mizzou, and Oklahoma, where we might not be able to simply line up and cram the ball down their throats 3 out of 4 plays.
Stat-wise, Dobbs played well, but missed too many opportunities to hit open receivers. It didn't really matter against BG, but it could matter against much better competition. Can't really fault Dobbs too much, because it was clear that the rushing game was generally the superior, lower-risk option against BG, but it still leaves some question marks for us in the future. Hopefully, Dobbs shows us a bit more in the upcoming weeks.
Tough to say anything bad about the rushing game, though. It looked like one of our dominant attacks from the late 90s.
Overall Synopsis
In spite of the grand pronouncements about this game, I think we only learned so much. The offense was not tested at all, whereas the defense was tested big-time. the offense looked incredible, while the defense struggled at times, but found a way to make the right adjustments.
Overall, there's no reason to panic about the D. I would still be concerned about the depth in the secondary with McNeil and Gaulden out (those injuries looked big in this game), and I would have some concerns about the pass rush (it needs to improve for us to compete for the SEC East). Our LBs didn't always look great, either, but this is a BG team that will likely put up 40 and 50 points against some other teams, so no reason to get too worried here.
The line in the Oklahoma game currently favors Oklahoma by about 1 point. Based on what we saw in Week #1, I think that's about right. This should be considered a toss-up game for now. Oklahoma dominated in Week #1, but it was against weak competition. We looked mostly impressive, but struggled at times, but it was against a team that much higher quality. I'm kind of happy we played BG the first game, because I think it will help us against Oklahoma's passing attack.
Can't wait for next Saturday. GO BIG ORANGE!
Yet, when we struggled against one of the best passing attacks in the nation, but ran at will against one of the worst defenses, Vol fans, football analysts, and other commentators immediately have jumped to the conclusion that the Vols offense is much better than expected and the defense has major issues. Both assessments are premature and ignore our opponent.
Defense: Better than Realized
Let's start off with the defense. It's easy to say that the secondary looked terrible, but that analysis misses what was going on. This was a perfect storm and an almost worst case scenario for our secondary and they actually held up OK given the circumstances.
I've already pointed out that BG was loaded in the passing game. I don't think it's a stretch to say that BG's passing offense would be competitive in the SEC, Big 12, or Pac-12. (It's their D and lack of balance that would hold them back.)
But let's also point out one of the main functions of the Art Briles styled hurry up, no huddle offense: to neutralize strong pass rushing teams. It's not a coincidence that Alabama's excellent defensive front struggled against Texas A&M's passing attack in the Johnny Manziel years.
Without a strong pass rush, this style of offense puts tremendous pressure on the secondary. As it so happens, our secondary had been decimated by injuries, illnesses, and other problems over the past few weeks. Add in a suspended coach, and you really have a perfect storm.
Given all this, I think our secondary performed relatively well. Yes, it's impossible to ignore BG completing several long passes against our DBs in the late 1st Quarter / early to mid 2nd Quarter, but what's important to note is that we managed to make excellent adjustments after that disastrous period.
We were up 21-3 before that. During that period, they outscored us 17-0. From the 3rd Quarter on, we outscored them 24-10.
From this, I conclude that we played them very well early on. They found a weakness and exploited it mercilessly for about 10 minutes of game time. We adjusted after that and once again dominated them.
I tend to agree with sjt that people are ignoring a bigger issue: our D-line not getting much pressure. Sure BG's offense is designed to neutralize pressure, but given our depth and talent on the D-line, I think it was a pretty big disappointment that we weren't able to get more pressure anyway. Matt Johnson was mostly sitting back there comfortable with time to throw to his speedy WRs. I'm not sure what the issue was, but I thought that the D-line looked like a bigger issue of concern than the secondary.
Hopefully, we see some improvement in the coming weeks. It should at least be noted that our defense did a very good job defending the run.
Offense: Issues Lurking Beneath the Surface
Our offense looked like world beaters against Bowling Green, but I think some of the issues are being ignored. First off, I will say that the O-line looked much better in rushing situations than last year. It's true that BG is not the best defense out there, but our O-line struggled in the running game even against inferior opponents last year. We looked dominant in the run game against BG, which is a positive sign, even if we won't have as easy of a time against teams like Bama, UGA, and Florida.
That said, I thought our pass protection looked problematic. We only gave up one big sack, but there were a few hurry situations, and the O-line seemed to be barely hanging on at times against a very weak pass rush. When you add in the fact that we ran the ball in 64 out of 87 plays (or about 75% of the time), and the defense was much more focused on stopping the run, than getting a good pass rush, I would say that this could be a bad sign.
Overall, I think it's a mixed bag for the O-line. If we don't improve in pass protection, we could struggle against teams like Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mizzou, and Oklahoma, where we might not be able to simply line up and cram the ball down their throats 3 out of 4 plays.
Stat-wise, Dobbs played well, but missed too many opportunities to hit open receivers. It didn't really matter against BG, but it could matter against much better competition. Can't really fault Dobbs too much, because it was clear that the rushing game was generally the superior, lower-risk option against BG, but it still leaves some question marks for us in the future. Hopefully, Dobbs shows us a bit more in the upcoming weeks.
Tough to say anything bad about the rushing game, though. It looked like one of our dominant attacks from the late 90s.
Overall Synopsis
In spite of the grand pronouncements about this game, I think we only learned so much. The offense was not tested at all, whereas the defense was tested big-time. the offense looked incredible, while the defense struggled at times, but found a way to make the right adjustments.
Overall, there's no reason to panic about the D. I would still be concerned about the depth in the secondary with McNeil and Gaulden out (those injuries looked big in this game), and I would have some concerns about the pass rush (it needs to improve for us to compete for the SEC East). Our LBs didn't always look great, either, but this is a BG team that will likely put up 40 and 50 points against some other teams, so no reason to get too worried here.
The line in the Oklahoma game currently favors Oklahoma by about 1 point. Based on what we saw in Week #1, I think that's about right. This should be considered a toss-up game for now. Oklahoma dominated in Week #1, but it was against weak competition. We looked mostly impressive, but struggled at times, but it was against a team that much higher quality. I'm kind of happy we played BG the first game, because I think it will help us against Oklahoma's passing attack.
Can't wait for next Saturday. GO BIG ORANGE!
Last edited:
