Should Tim Banks be replaced at end of season?

#276
#276
volinthenorth said:
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)?
Click to expand...
Are you drunk? Did you not know that that defense was supposed to be a liability this year for numerous reasons? Seriously dude. Chill tf out.
 
#279
#279
90 Vol said:
Overall, the defense has exceeded expectations considering our depth and talent issues. However, I was disappointed in our defensive game plan tonight. I thought we should have stacked the box more and brought more pressure.
Click to expand...

The Mildcats got away with about a hundred and fifty holding calls last night, too.
 
#280
#280
volinthenorth said:
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)?
Click to expand...
What are you smoking!
 
#283
#283
I would say no but last night was his worst game as far as game planning goes. Defense was not agressive like it has been all season and we just sat back in a soft zone while we made an average QB look like a Heisman candidate. The third down defense has been atrocious all season as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LTVol
#286
#286
Seems like he is getting the most out of a depleted roster. Lets see how it goes with a full roster in another year or two before we discuss his future as a Vol coach.
 
#287
#287
volinthenorth said:
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)?
Click to expand...
He's doing a pretty good job considering how many SEC caliber players we are short of on that side of the ball. Until we get at least a couple of recruiting classes under our belt things won't get a lot better. I want them to win as bad as anyone but I also understand the situation they are in. We're probably gonna win 7 games this year or at least 6 and go to a bowl game, that's not to shabby imo.
 
#288
#288
The game was EXACTLY like everyone predicted this team would be before the season. Most everyone said we would score a ton of points but give up a ton and the games would be shootouts. Well...that's exactly what we have become. Heupel has at least brought this offense into the modern era and out of the old school......outdated way of doing things. Seems we should have been blitzing alot more though...cuz it worked every time...but Banks deserves another year. I'd worry more about losing him to be quite honest.
 
#289
#289
volinthenorth said:
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)?
Click to expand...
You are a prime example of what is wrong with part of this fan base. Completely blind to the facts with ridiculous ideas of what is “right”. Just quit posting and wasting our time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tennessee Lead
#290
#290
vol445 said:
He has done a spectacular job. Took a rag tag bunch of guys and made a serviceable unit. This thread title has to be a joke. He ought to get dc of the year with what he has to work with
Click to expand...

Some people like to throw a load of crap on the wall to see what sticks. These are folks you hope does not come into your house, unless you own a serious house cleaning business.
 
#291
#291
umm...seriously? How about you look at the task he was asked to accomplish with the personnel on hand. We get a pass rush and the defense will be lights out. It isn't always pretty but I can't think of any other coach than hasn't done more with less.
 
#292
#292
No.

Defense won the game at the end when everything was on the line. Recruit better players on defense for Banks to work with. Kentucky's offense was good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vegasvolfan
#293
#293
I thought in past games he was fairly good at changes in-game coverages and schemes as needed.

Last night he coached like Sal Sunseri.

I'm not sold on him by any means.
 
#294
#294
volinthenorth said:
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)?
Click to expand...
Heck no. This is year 1 with a D that has flashed a lot of positives this year. I did put a post out there posing the question whether or not we recruit a of a lopsided roster to create more depth on D.

Huepel’s O and Banks’ D are both great for recruiting. The O for more obvious reasons, but the defensive guys are going to get a lot of PT regardless of whether or not they are first string or 3rd string with the O scoring so quickly like it has all year. It will take time to stack the roster with blue chippers, but that is what Banks will need to do in order to sure up the defense.
 
#297
#297
volinthenorth said:
Errbody loving Banks here but that wasn't happening on the running game thread tonight. Lots of criticism of the scheme and coaching decisions.
Click to expand...
Doug Mathews today called last night the worst zone defense he's ever seen. When we finally blitzed late in 4th qtr we got three sacks. Wonder how it woulda worked if we'd blitzed a lot sooner
 
#299
#299
ABINGDON VOL FAN said:
True but they are skewed toward our lesser opponents. Against Florida, Alabama and Ole Miss, very little.
Click to expand...
This is true but also, when your defense is on the field for 80-90 plays every game, you’re gonna have plenty of chances to “beef up” the stat sheets.
GBO!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: bpalmer28
#300
#300
volinthenorth said:
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)?
Click to expand...
No defensive coordinator alive will be able to actually THRIVE in this system. Too much time spent on the field due to the quick strike offense. So I think the judgement standards will need to be a little lower.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cobbwebb0710
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top