Should Tim Banks be replaced at end of season?

[bpalmer28]

Errbody loving Banks here but that wasn't happening on the running game thread tonight. Lots of criticism of the scheme and coaching decisions.

Block everyone in that thread

 

[sjt18]

No. UT needs better players on D.

I will say again that I think it is a mistake to keep dropping 8 or going into zone on 3rd and long. Just blitz and stunt and accept the big plays if they come. This D does well when they play aggressive. They're awful trying to play "catch".... bend don't break.

 

[Vol737]

I was a little irked at some of the defensive calls, but let’s get a full compliment of 4* or better, 2 and 3 deep at every position and see what Banks does. I’m pretty disappointed in the lack of fundamentals (hitting, tackling, not wrapping up, bad angles and out of position) and our guys not being ball hawks. Seemed to do a little better second half. Lots to work on.

 

[Voltopia]

I get frustrated with their calls sometimes but absolutely not. The only one who needs to make those decisions is Heupel, and if he's fine with it, then that's what we ride with.

 

[CR-vol]

Looked to me like guys were in position to make plays. Kentucky was playing very physical and I did see a lot of missed tackles but nobody looked confused and flummoxed by Kentucky's offense.

 

[VolnJC]

No but I think Rodney Garner has to go...the DL got almost zero rush tonight ..its clear that Garner is over his head and not ready for SEC offenses

 

[Birdie]

No... not his best gameplan but overall he's done well this year given the circumstances. Made stops against Pitt to give us a chance to win. Made multiple stops again Ole Miss to give us a chance to win and ultimately made the stop against UK to win the game.

 

[PharmDVFL]

No. Banks should not be replaced at the end of the season.

 

[Birdie]

I would like to see us actually make the changes we need to deal with quarterbacks running all over the field seemingly at will. Every QB we face must look forward to all the rushing yards he is about to rack up

Need better LB's

 

[ABINGDON VOL FAN]

Tonight was an outlier. For most of the season, this defense has played better than any of us had even remotely expected. I definitely want to see what Banks is able to do with a squad of his own players with decent depth

Beasley is not an outlier.

 

[OLEVOLFAN]

Yes, I know, my VN friends: (1) "We just won a big game, why go negative?" (I'm not being negative, this is just a question in direct response to our objectively bad defensive play) (2) "The D just had a huge TOP discrepancy, they were gassed!" (Agreed, but were they partly gassed because our coaching scheme didn't get them off the field?) (3) "We are low on scholarships and bodies who can play!" Yes, again, I know all that. My question (and it's just a question, not a call for a march on the athletic facility with torches or for a nocturnal visit to the rock with spray paint) is this: DOES TIM BANKS's DEFENSIVE SCHEME HOLD US BACK? Are we going to be able get to the next level with this lack of pressure from our 3 man rushes and infrequent blitzing or stunting, combined with a soft zone in the second and third levels? This impotent combo seems to give the opposing QB that extra second to find the receiver who turns and sits down in a hole in the secondary or breaks into a gap between our flat-footed DBs.

So do we stick with our guy and hit the portal for better players? Or do we find a coach with a better scheme (and still hit that portal)?

Seriously you gonna start a Thread with a Stupid Ass question like this? What are you Smoking??

 

[volinthenorth]

Worst take of the season. Banks is crushing it.

Again, go back and read the game thread tonight. There was a tidal wave of criticism of our poor play, especially after a bye week to get ready. We were getting gashed every play. We couldn't figure out how to stop 3rd down conversions. Once again the opposing QB was running free or looking like a Heisman candidate. When we blitzed, it worked, but we hardly ever did that. Our cover guys were always a yard or two away from the reciever when he caught the ball. Even our DL was getting pushed back tonight, unlike earlier this season. So it's not crazy to ask if there's any culpability for the coach. I think winning a close one tonight is making people forget how frustrated we were when the defense was looking like hot garbage. Kensucky just put up an insane amount of yards on us. The question about the DC is worth asking. That said, I do think we should keep the guy. But if I am Heupel, I require him to make some schematic changes.

 

[Sudden Impact]

OP Give me 15 more players at least 7 on defensive side and a few less plays vs 99 and then you can complain. otherwise, STFU and your thread starting privileges should be revoked or suspended.

 

[SlipKidVol]

No

 

[windrider]

Not no, but HELL NO! What he has done with this depleted roster and the amount of snaps our D has played he has done a more than adequate job! GBFO!

This, about a thousand times. A defense is gonna look pretty ragged if they are on the field 45 out of 60 minutes.

 

[LadyinOrange]

No.

Scheme ain’t the problem. Ain’t got no fresh legs.

Sure we do!

 

[VolunteerCeltic]

No, give that man some depth and talent, I think he will do a good job

 

[uncle chewii]

No he just needs a good second string of guys on the roster. Our roster is depleted badly.

 

[CAVPUT]

Absolutely the most ridiculous post of the night.

 

[airvols]

Yes, I know, my VN friends: (1) "We just won a big game, why go negative?" (I'm not being negative, this is just a question in direct response to our objectively bad defensive play) (2) "The D just had a huge TOP discrepancy, they were gassed!" (Agreed, but were they partly gassed because our coaching scheme didn't get them off the field?) (3) "We are low on scholarships and bodies who can play!" Yes, again, I know all that. My question (and it's just a question, not a call for a march on the athletic facility with torches or for a nocturnal visit to the rock with spray paint) is this: DOES TIM BANKS's DEFENSIVE SCHEME HOLD US BACK? Are we going to be able get to the next level with this lack of pressure from our 3 man rushes and infrequent blitzing or stunting, combined with a soft zone in the second and third levels? This impotent combo seems to give the opposing QB that extra second to find the receiver who turns and sits down in a hole in the secondary or breaks into a gap between our flat-footed DBs.

So do we stick with our guy and hit the portal for better players? Or do we find a coach with a better scheme (and still hit that portal)?

 

[volinthenorth]

OP Give me 15 more players at least 7 on defensive side and a few less plays vs 99 and then you can complain. otherwise, STFU and your thread starting privileges should be revoked or suspended.

How about you STFU since I can start whatever thread I want whether you like it or not.

 

[volinthenorth]

Absolutely the most ridiculous post of the night.

Provide some reasonable discourse as to why. I have no problem with refutation and counterpoints. That's why I started the thread. The irrational need to insult people on VN is what is ridiculous here, not the raising of a point like this.

 

[CINCYVOL]

How about you STFU since I can start whatever thread I want whether you like it or not.

Getting butthurt after starting a stupid thread is so you.

 

[Vol865]

Absolutely not. We need players that fit the scheme.

 

[orchidvol]

So do we stick with our guy and hit the portal for better players? Or do we find a coach with a better scheme (and still hit that portal)?

We heard talk before the season that this was going to be the worst Tennessee defense in history. They've play very hard and, for the most part, very solid all season long despite losing some good players to the portal over the last year. They played well enough tonight to beat a very good Kentucky team on the road. They look like they're very well coached. Are you joking about getting rid of Banks?