Simms, Bad Play Calling , and Another Thing or Two

[motown vol 09]

thank you vegas vol for insight on the matter. what will your next novel be titled

 

[Squoshua17]

Very correct, but it's even worse -- the "brilliant" game plan was to only have one-third of the field to throw the ball to, often only one wideout running a route on that third, the QB not even faking like he could throw the ball anywhere else, and then Simms delayed decision-making and release (throwing the ball only after the receiver had fully turned rather than on their break, which will lead to many more picks against Florida, and killed many possible 1st downs & big plays against Oregon), with a general inability to recognize pressure consistently from blitz packages.

Remember -- Chaney couldn't get a HC job anywhere despite the coattails of Tiller, Brees & Orton; his only NFL gig was at TE coach of one of the worst teams in the NFL hired by someone he put in coaching; and he has no proven track record of offensive consistency (given Tiller called the plays at Purdue).

Also remember -- Simms was looked at extensively in a high-profile high school community (b/c of his last name) by recruiters, coaches and analysts across the board, and all the good ones passed on him; then he goes to Louisville, and fails again so badly he leaves for JC; he then is so mediocre in JC, few offer him, his consistency continues to be a problem, and now he's in the SEC. Nothing about his past points to likely success in the SEC.

Finally -- Dooley's QB decisions generally stunk at La Tech and there's no reason they'll get better now.

This scares the crap out of me. Not only are you right about Dooley's QBs making poor decisions, but often times Dooley himself couldn't decide who his QB was (see La Tech Hawaii game). To address some of the previous posts.... I hate play-call complaining almost as bad as bad-ref complaining. However, I really do feel like our offensive scheme was pretty bad in the 2nd half. I sure hope we call something besides out patterns this week, because Simms doesn't have the arm for one... And two, Florida's secondary will be a good deal better than Oregon's. I bet Florida's defense/special teams score more than their offense in this game.

 

[BloodRUNZOrange]

i think your pretty much spot on. everyone says we are finally getting out of the same tennessee football we have seen for years. if you think about it we had johhny majors for 14 or so years then 17 years of fulmer (pretty much the same play book) but chaney runs a pro style that isint very radical or inventive.

i think we hounestly need to consider (if dooley doesint work out after several years) of hiring a spread offensive coach. we all know that the spread makes it so that teams who dont have the BEST talent can compeate and win against power running teams (alabama). that offense only works when you have supirior talent. look at how much auburn improved with gus M taking over. he took the same players and team that had one of the worste offenses in the country and went to the spread and "fun and gun " offense and is now being talked about being a darkhorse sec west champion.

we really are not seeing anything different than what we have seen for the past 30 years. pro style is good for some teams but the state of tennessee football and our talent and having our state not filled with much talent, i think the future for us to be competative again we need to totaly shake up our offensive philosophy and get a inavative spread playbook..

 

[Squoshua17]

i think your pretty much spot on. everyone says we are finally getting out of the same tennessee football we have seen for years. if you think about it we had johhny majors for 14 or so years then 17 years of fulmer (pretty much the same play book) but chaney runs a pro style that isint very radical or inventive.

i think we hounestly need to consider (if dooley doesint work out after several years) of hiring a spread offensive coach. we all know that the spread makes it so that teams who dont have the BEST talent can compeate and win against power running teams (alabama). that offense only works when you have supirior talent. look at how much auburn improved with gus M taking over. he took the same players and team that had one of the worste offenses in the country and went to the spread and "fun and gun " offense and is now being talked about being a darkhorse sec west champion.

we really are not seeing anything different than what we have seen for the past 30 years. pro style is good for some teams but the state of tennessee football and our talent and having our state not filled with much talent, i think the future for us to be competative again we need to totaly shake up our offensive philosophy and get a inavative spread playbook..

This is sooooooo true. Here's another thing I don't understand. Why did Chaney decide to get away from the spread? I know he was quoted as saying that a good pro-style offense can be much more effective, but those Purdue offenses were ridiculous. Their short passing game was essentially like other teams' running game. It opened up things down field. Heck, look at Mike Leach's Texas Tech teams. They weren't stacked with all american talent, but they averaged 400+ yards a game. I know it'll never happen, but I'd love to see a more imaginative offense.

 

[utgibbs]

i think your pretty much spot on. everyone says we are finally getting out of the same tennessee football we have seen for years. if you think about it we had johhny majors for 14 or so years then 17 years of fulmer (pretty much the same play book) but chaney runs a pro style that isint very radical or inventive.

i think we hounestly need to consider (if dooley doesint work out after several years) of hiring a spread offensive coach. we all know that the spread makes it so that teams who dont have the BEST talent can compeate and win against power running teams (alabama). that offense only works when you have supirior talent. look at how much auburn improved with gus M taking over. he took the same players and team that had one of the worste offenses in the country and went to the spread and "fun and gun " offense and is now being talked about being a darkhorse sec west champion.

we really are not seeing anything different than what we have seen for the past 30 years. pro style is good for some teams but the state of tennessee football and our talent and having our state not filled with much talent, i think the future for us to be competative again we need to totaly shake up our offensive philosophy and get a inavative spread playbook..

Fulmer hired Clawson, but we didn't give it time. Despite having a QB in complete vapor lock, we still go 6 - 6 with a winnable bowl. We get invaluable continuity and experience for Crompton, and he may not be looking for work right now with that kind of scenario.

Instead, the Hambone Experiment. Ugly.

 

[VegasVol]

i think your pretty much spot on. everyone says we are finally getting out of the same tennessee football we have seen for years. if you think about it we had johhny majors for 14 or so years then 17 years of fulmer (pretty much the same play book) but chaney runs a pro style that isint very radical or inventive.

i think we hounestly need to consider (if dooley doesint work out after several years) of hiring a spread offensive coach. we all know that the spread makes it so that teams who dont have the BEST talent can compeate and win against power running teams (alabama). that offense only works when you have supirior talent. look at how much auburn improved with gus M taking over. he took the same players and team that had one of the worste offenses in the country and went to the spread and "fun and gun " offense and is now being talked about being a darkhorse sec west champion.

we really are not seeing anything different than what we have seen for the past 30 years. pro style is good for some teams but the state of tennessee football and our talent and having our state not filled with much talent, i think the future for us to be competative again we need to totaly shake up our offensive philosophy and get a inavative spread playbook..

Agreed. I don't think we can compete trying to get pro-style offensive talent all the time. We need to look at a Leach-style or Kelly-style offense. Even Notre Dame (with Kelly) and Nebraska (now going back to a wildcat style run offense) figured this out as well.

 

[tm3]

majic73 and sjt18 have given the best analysis in this thread that i have seen on this board since the game.

i sure hope VV isn't right with all of his comments, but he might be. i do agree that UF's D is going to crush us.

i think CDD and cheney are limited in what they have to work with (especially simms) and are trying to dumb it down and limit mistakes. simms' decision to throw across the field off of his back foot with the blitz in his face was an idiotic decision of cromptonesque magnitude -- i don't understand how someone who grew up in the football culture that he did and is at the junior level does that. i could understand it if he was a freshman and just underestimated the speed of the college corner.

i hope bray grows up real quick.

 

[RhodeIslandVol]

1. Simms arm is strong enough to throw out patterns.

2. Any offense you run will succeed if you have the right personnel, who have been in that system for a good amount of time.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[VolsFanRJ]

A few observations I wanted to share ...and maybe others who were at the game noticed the same things.

The biggest reason that we failed was because we gave Oregon 76 offensive snaps. The biggest reason we gave them the ball that much was because our offense failed.

The offense failed and it is a tough kind of failure...because our offensive line was blowing Oregon off the ball . The running attack early on , showed the O line dominance. Then O started stacking the box. They were in a cover 1 look after we began to have our way with them , 1 safety back and 10 guys within 7 yards of the line of scrimmage. I think the blame goes to the offensive play calls ( I am a Chaney fan but um..) It then went 2 runs , pass. Some times they would call the same 2 runs in a row. It was very predictable. The formations had little varience. The Orgeon defenders were cheating to the run lanes before the snap. The passes were predicatble. The threw out routes and go routes. No come backs , no crossing routes , the allstar tight end we have and the great freshman tight end was all but forgotten. At the end of the first we get all Fulmerish. 3 mins left , Oregon calling time outs , we run into a crown of 10 guys 3 times and punt. With 1 minute to go ...same thing.

The defense was excellent the 1st half ...but were left on the field way too long in the second , considering the offensive monster they were up against. They did a very admirable job until the 4th quarter ( at the end of the 3rd you are behind by only 7 )

The second half was pass after pass in a massive overcorrection. Oregon switch from cover 1 to cover 2 ...pick 6 resulted. Simms staring down the receivers was part of it but from Os coverage , thy knew what he was going to do before he did it .

I hope they can get a good blend of playcalling in that keeps a defense off balance . I hope to never see 3 runs into a crowded box and the level of predictablity that we showed. That who Fulmer- like , sit on the half time lead and give up points anyway thing needs to go.

The defense did a great job down the stretch , you have to expect to give up a couple of big plays to a team like Oregon ...but they can't be left on the field as long as they were ( see Ole Miss , Auburn , and Va Tech from last season ) Any defense will fold against good competition.

If Simms and Chaney can't figure this out ....we will lose games we don't expect to lose and have no chance at an upset. It is not the O line , they are actually a bright spot. It is the play calling and trigger man

Uh, maybe he was forgotten because we don't have a great freshman TE. Who are you talking about?

 

[KB5252]

Fulmer hired Clawson, but we didn't give it time. Despite having a QB in complete vapor lock, we still go 6 - 6 with a winnable bowl. We get invaluable continuity and experience for Crompton, and he may not be looking for work right now with that kind of scenario.

Instead, the Hambone Experiment. Ugly.

Fulmer hired a guy who was wrong considering the players we were putting on the field. If Clawson had been given a chance and time to get the type of players he needed to run his style offense then results would have come over time. The problem was that Fulmer failed to see patience was growing short and failure to meet reasonable expectations (along with some very ugly losses) didn't afford him that time. Fulmer didn't bring the right person in who would bring immediate results, that was his failure, not Clawson's.

Bad losses against bad teams spelled Fulmer's end and as much as I appreciate what he did for the university earlier in his career he had become mediocre and he became either unable to evaluate talent or simply could not pull the caliber of athletes needed to compete at high levels in the SEC.

Pining over Fulmer is useless, he might of had us as a viable contender for an SEC title one out of every 4 or 5 years but at this point in his career the game and coaches around him had simply passed him up and it was time to move on.

 

[sjt18]

Clawson was a victim of Fulmer's mess... not a cause of it.

 

[sjt18]

I think in some respects what you are seeing with Simms and the playcalling is a difference in coaching philosophies when it comes to building an identity. DD and incidentally CLK believed that you form a foundation of fundamental things you are going to be and do. You perfect those before building on top of that foundation.

I absolutely hated the phrase "Throw it all at them and see what sticks" that Fulmer used to use. I think the minute he demanded that approach from Clawson he sealed both their fates. I really don't know where that non-sense came from. When you do that, you have limited room for improvement and no ability to adjust. Execution generally suffers as well.

Can you imagine taking that approach to building an Army? General Mo Rhon: "Just throw the training manuals at them and we'll do what sticks"... Maybe the unit can march great but no one can operate a machine gun. Great for the parade field... not so great for the battle field.

I personally believe DD is still doing foundation work on O. That is why Simms is limited so much more than a typical college QB. I don't think it is just him either. I think they are limiting the whole O until they master those fundamentalt "identity" types of plays. They must do some fundamental things well then can build on that.

 

[GordonGekko]

Clawson was a victim of Fulmer's mess... not a cause of it.

agreed. and for all the people on here complaining about our offense and how it needs to be "more open", Tennessee apparently will not hire the people who run that type of offense. they seem to be trying to do the same thing over and over and hoping that the reults will be different.

for as dumb as the commentators for ESPN were Sat, they were right about one thing - TN is trying to find their identity. they a arent good enough to over power people in the PRO offense but they arent going to throw the ball. they dont know who they are

 

[VegasVol]

Fulmer hired a guy who was wrong considering the players we were putting on the field. If Clawson had been given a chance and time to get the type of players he needed to run his style offense then results would have come over time. The problem was that Fulmer failed to see patience was growing short and failure to meet reasonable expectations (along with some very ugly losses) didn't afford him that time. Fulmer didn't bring the right person in who would bring immediate results, that was his failure, not Clawson's.

Bad losses against bad teams spelled Fulmer's end and as much as I appreciate what he did for the university earlier in his career he had become mediocre and he became either unable to evaluate talent or simply could not pull the caliber of athletes needed to compete at high levels in the SEC.

Pining over Fulmer is useless, he might of had us as a viable contender for an SEC title one out of every 4 or 5 years but at this point in his career the game and coaches around him had simply passed him up and it was time to move on.

Clawson was a completely debacle hiring given our personnel and the lengths it takes for his offense to work. In Fulmer's defense, MH wouldn't cut a check for any of the people Fulmer actually wanted as OC.

 

[VegasVol]

I think in some respects what you are seeing with Simms and the playcalling is a difference in coaching philosophies when it comes to building an identity. DD and incidentally CLK believed that you form a foundation of fundamental things you are going to be and do. You perfect those before building on top of that foundation.

I absolutely hated the phrase "Throw it all at them and see what sticks" that Fulmer used to use. I think the minute he demanded that approach from Clawson he sealed both their fates. I really don't know where that non-sense came from. When you do that, you have limited room for improvement and no ability to adjust. Execution generally suffers as well.

Can you imagine taking that approach to building an Army? General Mo Rhon: "Just throw the training manuals at them and we'll do what sticks"... Maybe the unit can march great but no one can operate a machine gun. Great for the parade field... not so great for the battle field.

I personally believe DD is still doing foundation work on O. That is why Simms is limited so much more than a typical college QB. I don't think it is just him either. I think they are limiting the whole O until they master those fundamentalt "identity" types of plays. They must do some fundamental things well then can build on that.

Unfortunately, in his La Tech days, that "foundation building" never got past just having a running game.

 

[utgibbs]

Clawson was a completely debacle hiring given our personnel and the lengths it takes for his offense to work. In Fulmer's defense, MH wouldn't cut a check for any of the people Fulmer actually wanted as OC.

Did he want the Michigan guys? Was it a non-starter because Hambone had the checkbook?

And to think we paid Daddy Kiffin $1.5M

 

[kptvol]

Clawson was a completely debacle hiring given our personnel and the lengths it takes for his offense to work. In Fulmer's defense, MH wouldn't cut a check for any of the people Fulmer actually wanted as OC.

Yeah, Rob Spence clearly would have been much better. How did his 2008 season go?

 

[kptvol]

Did he want the Michigan guys? Was it a non-starter because Hambone had the checkbook?

And to think we paid Daddy Kiffin $1.5M

I highly doubt the Michigan guys made more in their subsequent gigs than Clawson got at UT.

 

[sjt18]

Clawson was a completely debacle hiring given our personnel and the lengths it takes for his offense to work. In Fulmer's defense, MH wouldn't cut a check for any of the people Fulmer actually wanted as OC.

Either A) that's not true or B) Fulmer's own salary was the reason he couldn't... and that is no defense for Fulmer.

 

[sjt18]

Unfortunately, in his La Tech days, that "foundation building" never got past just having a running game.

I'm not exactly sure how that matters at all since A) he's no longer at La Tech and B) he has a different OC who has proven his worth many times over.

 

[kptvol]

Either A) that's not true or B) Fulmer's own salary was the reason he couldn't... and that is no defense for Fulmer.

We cut a pretty big check for Clawson and gave Chavis a big raise after 2 pathetic defensive seasons. We had money to get an OC. Fulmer couldn't identify one worth paying.

 

[majic73]

This is sooooooo true. Here's another thing I don't understand. Why did Chaney decide to get away from the spread? I know he was quoted as saying that a good pro-style offense can be much more effective, but those Purdue offenses were ridiculous. Their short passing game was essentially like other teams' running game. It opened up things down field. Heck, look at Mike Leach's Texas Tech teams. They weren't stacked with all american talent, but they averaged 400+ yards a game. I know it'll never happen, but I'd love to see a more imaginative offense.

This is not Chaney's offense ...that's why . This is a spittin' image of Dooleys offense from La Tech. Every thing is bunched ...the defense clinches in and then you pick which offensive guys go out and hopefully create matchups in space , getting behind the defense. It is also easy to add power to the running game.

The down side...you have more defenders at the point of attack and less space for the short stuff and underneath stuff.

Not a big fan of this stuff ...you might as well be an I form team . It is more balanced short , middle and deep

 

[fla orange]

execution, execution, execution, I'm not a Lions fan, anybody remember Detroit? In their hay day (Hey! where the hell is the team) they weren't noted for their O line. Barry sanders ate people up. Poole is really good but not sanders. I hope that moore see's that I'm lost wandered on to the field blocking, and the rest of the guy's take note, even the commentators noted taking plays off. sorry guys we don't have the level of desire in the back ups.(Yet)

 

[orangebloodgmc]

Want to make sure I understand this...its known that Simms stares down his receiver, throws 80% of his passes to high, can't check down, and has a telegraphed hitch in his throwing motion. Yet we wonder why the OC doesn't call a crossing route, comeback or deep slant. All plays where the DB or Safety could easily jump (i.e. the pick 6). Some of you are geniuses.

Our only passing hope is screens or single coverage where the receiver gets wide open. I don't even think Simms has a quick enough release to throw an inside slant.

Go back to UT Martin and see the difference in play calling when Bray got in the game. Bray is too young to start but hopefully his time will come.

I did not get to see that game, so how did the play-calling change when Bray came in? Did they go more conservative to "protect" him or did they attempt different routes/throws that they felt he could make that Simms couldn't?

 

[majic73]

I think in some respects what you are seeing with Simms and the playcalling is a difference in coaching philosophies when it comes to building an identity. DD and incidentally CLK believed that you form a foundation of fundamental things you are going to be and do. You perfect those before building on top of that foundation.

I absolutely hated the phrase "Throw it all at them and see what sticks" that Fulmer used to use. I think the minute he demanded that approach from Clawson he sealed both their fates. I really don't know where that non-sense came from. When you do that, you have limited room for improvement and no ability to adjust. Execution generally suffers as well.

Can you imagine taking that approach to building an Army? General Mo Rhon: "Just throw the training manuals at them and we'll do what sticks"... Maybe the unit can march great but no one can operate a machine gun. Great for the parade field... not so great for the battle field.

I personally believe DD is still doing foundation work on O. That is why Simms is limited so much more than a typical college QB. I don't think it is just him either. I think they are limiting the whole O until they master those fundamentalt "identity" types of plays. They must do some fundamental things well then can build on that.

I agree with all that you said. As a side note ...I think the defense looked great ...but much like a few instances last season they were left on the field way to many times against a much too capable opponent.

I definately agree that with a young QB you have to keep things simple. Steve Mcnair , for most of his career, was only asked to read half the field. Some guys are just not good at reading the field ...but in Macs case he was good at a whole lot of other things. So it is agreed that you have to ask your guys to do what is within their ability.

What I have have been trying to put into words and I think others have as well ...there are more things that could have been done. Some variety on first down ...odds are you will have to throw on third if you are not successful on 1st and 2nd. You have to do something with the middle of the field to make the defense respect it. Oregons safeties were keying on the outside runs and the backers were blitzing dang near every play in the second half. They had no fear of anything being thrown in the short middle.

I listed to Wycheck and Joey Kent on 104.5 the other morning talking about this same thing in a constructively critical fashion about what a tight end or young receivers can do in the short middle of the field for a young QB. I am not taling about a 15 yard cross ...how about a tight end 4 yard waggle , or sneaking the FB out 4 yards wre the backers have vacated . Where was the HOT read when the blitz was coming ? Back to Mac ...he made a killing off the hot read ...manning does too.

You have to turn Simms loose to an extent and as STJ18 said keep it simple. There is no risk really ....you just lost real bad and have the opportunity to do it again weekly doing what you did. I would like to see more variety on first down , more hot reads or outlets , and use the whole field.