Sunseri vs Wilcox

#127
#127
Wilcox 8 defensive back defense was never going to work in the SEC. At least the 3-4 has a fighting chance eventually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#128
#128
volbreaker said:
Most of my posts come when I am shooting down stupid posts after snapping about the grotesque lack of realtime football knowledge. Oh, and many that "like" around here put BOOM or THIS. It seems that with your band of merry men you will start seeing them as ya'll boom each other while rolling through a thread looking like band camp just got out.
Click to expand...

Whatever helps ya feel better friend.
 
#130
#130
ACvol3 said:
Agreed... Like I've been saying, it's about tackling.. Our guys are there to make these stops.. Put there by Sal.. We just gotta tackle!
Click to expand...

We've equalled the same amount of missed tackles through five games to the Arkansas game last year..
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#132
#132
tomq_123 said:
Wilcox left he didn't get fired. So no matter what we were going to be implementing a new defense this year anyway. It usually takes a couple (2-3) years to install a new defense (ask Georgia) and growing pains on a new scheme were/are inevitable. Going forward a 3-4 defense will be better in the long run. Once we get a steady stream of 3-4 LB and good DB recruits we will be solid on D. Sal will get us there, but it will take a year or 2.
Click to expand...


I think your confused, I never stated that he was fired, I only stated that he left. I am just comparing his style scheme, and results to that of Sunseri with five game into this season as compared to last season under Wilcox.

It is apparent to most coaches that Wilcox is a hot commodity, and a young and upcoming coach. Sunseri not so much.
 
#133
#133
#134
#134
Since some of you must have missed this:
Aw hell, one post down and I see you were already doin' it! I feel obligated now. CSS came here to head up the extremely painful, but very necessary task of bringing us into the modern age of defense. It is ALWAYS painstaking and, even with a fully stocked and locked personel grouping, is wrought with game risking gashes, issues with communication and an appearance of collapse in scheme (because that is exactly what you see). First, as the team gains experience these become lessened and you see flashes of what it will eventually be (reference the teeth rattling hits, three consequtive stops at a critical time against an extremely polished offense last night and the picks and turnovers). This will get better, but still have some maddening moments all season long. Then Sal recruits players that are prototypical 3-4 players. They will then be Freshmen, but with the athletes that we have, although, sometimes not exactly what you would want in certain spots or covering a position that is not their real/natural role or best ultimate spot to utilize them as the pups are growing. The pups grow and a new litter is brought in, again, SPECIFICALLY recruited to play in a 3-4 (please, at this moment, reference Bammer). Is everyone getting their arms around this? It, as I said, is painstaking and PAINFUL, but it is the proper call and will pay dividends. Note here: This was a great executive decision by Dooley that is difficult to see at this juncture, but will eventually become obvious. Frankly, it even helps with recruiting said player types that end up being the player types that play on Sundays. Dooley made the decision knowing full well that it was not in the best interest of a coach that inherited crap and, thus, is being ganked by psuedo-fans that THINK that they understand the game, but are not dialed into the minutia of the evolving game and are satified to "putt of the spanking until Daddy gets home vs. evolving to the proven future of defense AHEAD of the curve. The move was made because it is the best decision for the program and Dooley exhibited large cajones by doing this now, at this point, when a change was going to be made anyway due to the vacating of a coordinator that still plays stoneage scheme and with an eye towards the future. Self preservation was eliminated as a factor for the longterm good of the team. That, my friends, is admirable and deserves some reciprocation from all knowledgable fans. Team before self. Surely that is something that we can endure with an eye on the future as well.
 
#135
#135
volbreaker said:
Since some of you must have missed this:
Aw hell, one post down and I see you were already doin' it! I feel obligated now. CSS came here to head up the extremely painful, but very necessary task of bringing us into the modern age of defense. It is ALWAYS painstaking and, even with a fully stocked and locked personel grouping, is wrought with game risking gashes, issues with communication and an appearance of collapse in scheme (because that is exactly what you see). First, as the team gains experience these become lessened and you see flashes of what it will eventually be (reference the teeth rattling hits, three consequtive stops at a critical time against an extremely polished offense last night and the picks and turnovers). This will get better, but still have some maddening moments all season long. Then Sal recruits players that are prototypical 3-4 players. They will then be Freshmen, but with the athletes that we have, although, sometimes not exactly what you would want in certain spots or covering a position that is not their real/natural role or best ultimate spot to utilize them as the pups are growing. The pups grow and a new litter is brought in, again, SPECIFICALLY recruited to play in a 3-4 (please, at this moment, reference Bammer). Is everyone getting their arms around this? It, as I said, is painstaking and PAINFUL, but it is the proper call and will pay dividends. Note here: This was a great executive decision by Dooley that is difficult to see at this juncture, but will eventually become obvious. Frankly, it even helps with recruiting said player types that end up being the player types that play on Sundays. Dooley made the decision knowing full well that it was not in the best interest of a coach that inherited crap and, thus, is being ganked by psuedo-fans that THINK that they understand the game, but are not dialed into the minutia of the evolving game and are satified to "putt of the spanking until Daddy gets home vs. evolving to the proven future of defense AHEAD of the curve. The move was made because it is the best decision for the program and Dooley exhibited large cajones by doing this now, at this point, when a change was going to be made anyway due to the vacating of a coordinator that still plays stoneage scheme and with an eye towards the future. Self preservation was eliminated as a factor for the longterm good of the team. That, my friends, is admirable and deserves some reciprocation from all knowledgable fans. Team before self. Surely that is something that we can endure with an eye on the future as well.
Click to expand...

Wall of Text hits thread for 7 Damage, killing it.
 
#137
#137
volbreaker said:
Since some of you must have missed this:
Aw hell, one post down and I see you were already doin' it! I feel obligated now. CSS came here to head up the extremely painful, but very necessary task of bringing us into the modern age of defense. It is ALWAYS painstaking and, even with a fully stocked and locked personel grouping, is wrought with game risking gashes, issues with communication and an appearance of collapse in scheme (because that is exactly what you see). First, as the team gains experience these become lessened and you see flashes of what it will eventually be (reference the teeth rattling hits, three consequtive stops at a critical time against an extremely polished offense last night and the picks and turnovers). This will get better, but still have some maddening moments all season long. Then Sal recruits players that are prototypical 3-4 players. They will then be Freshmen, but with the athletes that we have, although, sometimes not exactly what you would want in certain spots or covering a position that is not their real/natural role or best ultimate spot to utilize them as the pups are growing. The pups grow and a new litter is brought in, again, SPECIFICALLY recruited to play in a 3-4 (please, at this moment, reference Bammer). Is everyone getting their arms around this? It, as I said, is painstaking and PAINFUL, but it is the proper call and will pay dividends. Note here: This was a great executive decision by Dooley that is difficult to see at this juncture, but will eventually become obvious. Frankly, it even helps with recruiting said player types that end up being the player types that play on Sundays. Dooley made the decision knowing full well that it was not in the best interest of a coach that inherited crap and, thus, is being ganked by psuedo-fans that THINK that they understand the game, but are not dialed into the minutia of the evolving game and are satified to "putt of the spanking until Daddy gets home vs. evolving to the proven future of defense AHEAD of the curve. The move was made because it is the best decision for the program and Dooley exhibited large cajones by doing this now, at this point, when a change was going to be made anyway due to the vacating of a coordinator that still plays stoneage scheme and with an eye towards the future. Self preservation was eliminated as a factor for the longterm good of the team. That, my friends, is admirable and deserves some reciprocation from all knowledgable fans. Team before self. Surely that is something that we can endure with an eye on the future as well.
Click to expand...

I am not questing the 3-4 scheme, it has been around forever. Hell, I can remember Johnny Majors running it with success. Hence, check out the title of this thread, it's not 3-4 vs 4-3 is it?

I am simply stating that Sunseri may not be the defensive guru that some on this board feel that he is or will develop into with more time. I believe that he is in over his head, and it shows on Saturdays.

Wilcox on the other hand did much more with less talent and experience than Sunseri.

It doesn't really matter the scheme if the players don't tackle, and so far Sunser's defense isn't doing a lot of tackling. But, they are (and his supporters) making a lot of excuses for the pitiful defense we have seen so far this season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#138
#138
volbreaker said:
Dang, I'll give ya this, you wear stupid well.
Click to expand...

Feel free to write another page full of BS explaining how good our defense is playing compared to the past. And no, i didnt waste my time reading it.

Im guessing the gaps between your teeth and the gaps in our defense at this point are very similar. Absolutely gaping.
 
Last edited:
#139
#139
mgu7 said:
Sal needs to start doing this


justin-wilcox-9-27-12.gif
Click to expand...

On that note....I'm outta here
 
#140
#140
gunner said:
Let me start by saying I am not a negaVol or a Dooley supporter. I am a Vol and have been since I first caught the bug in 1977 when I was seven years old. I want the Vols to succeed and win each Saturday.

Five games into this season with eight returning starters on defense, and a two new junior college starters. I think it is safe to say that the UT defense has been a complete failure to this point. This has the potential to be the worse defense ever at Tennessee.

I recall how much better the Vols were last year at this point under Wilcox. The Vols weren't dominating on defense last season but they were very respectable. If Wilcox is still at UT would the defense be any better this season? I think so. The scheme last season seemed to be very solid with the Vols giving up a lot less big plays.

This season under Sunseri, the Vols seem to always be out of position, and missing tackles with a few exceptions. Where would the Vols be on defense if Wilcox has stayed at UT?

44 points is enough to win a lot of games in the SEC. No matter who the opponent there is no excuse for the way the Vols have played on defense so far under Sunseri.

If Wilcox had stayed the Vols would have most likely beaten UGA Saturday, and maybe even UF a few weeks ago. Sunseri has been a huge disappointment, and the Vols have taken a few steps in the wrong direction under his leadership on defense.

If Dooley is to survive this season, and return for the next, then Sunseri must improve the defense dramatically or be shown the door.

Just my two cents.

Gunner
Click to expand...

I get your point, but without the defense TN would not have even been in this game.
 
#141
#141
gunner said:
Let me start by saying I am not a negaVol or a Dooley supporter. I am a Vol and have been since I first caught the bug in 1977 when I was seven years old. I want the Vols to succeed and win each Saturday.

Five games into this season with eight returning starters on defense, and a two new junior college starters. I think it is safe to say that the UT defense has been a complete failure to this point. This has the potential to be the worse defense ever at Tennessee.

I recall how much better the Vols were last year at this point under Wilcox. The Vols weren't dominating on defense last season but they were very respectable. If Wilcox is still at UT would the defense be any better this season? I think so. The scheme last season seemed to be very solid with the Vols giving up a lot less big plays.

This season under Sunseri, the Vols seem to always be out of position, and missing tackles with a few exceptions. Where would the Vols be on defense if Wilcox has stayed at UT?

44 points is enough to win a lot of games in the SEC. No matter who the opponent there is no excuse for the way the Vols have played on defense so far under Sunseri.

If Wilcox had stayed the Vols would have most likely beaten UGA Saturday, and maybe even UF a few weeks ago. Sunseri has been a huge disappointment, and the Vols have taken a few steps in the wrong direction under his leadership on defense.

If Dooley is to survive this season, and return for the next, then Sunseri must improve the defense dramatically or be shown the door.

Just my two cents.

Gunner
Click to expand...

neither bama or uga shown any improvement defensively the first season after switching to the 3-4. there's a huge learning curve there.
 
#142
#142
17Vols said:
neither bama or uga shown any improvement defensively the first season after switching to the 3-4. there's a huge learning curve there.
Click to expand...

I am not a Bama fan but I do watch a lot of their games. It is a misconception to say that Bama is exclusively a 3-4 team on defense, it depends on who they line up against, Bama still plays a lot of 4 man fronts.

If you don't believe me watch a few or their games, and pay attention to where the nose guard lines up, and the count the number of linemen who start the play with their hand on the ground. A lot of times they have 4 defensive line men, depending on the situation.

Most Vol fans don't realize this but under Chavis, the Vols ran the 3-4 scheme, on situations. Chavis ran the 4-3 as a base defense but I recall many games where the Vols would run a 3 man front with four backers on the field.

The Vols under Sunseri aren't exclusively a 3-4 team on defense. They play a lot of four man fronts, and when they do, usually McCullars isn't on the field.

It doesn't matter the scheme, if the players don't get off their blocks and make tackles, no scheme will work effectively.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#146
#146
PanicVol said:
72 likes in about 3,000 posts. Looks like you're pretty popular around here. Its probably charming personality and pompous attitude, like your the only one who knows anything about football.
Click to expand...
I know that comparing the Pac 10 to the SEC is as stupid as one can get.
 
#147
#147
spudvol said:
An upgrade that is significantly and demonstrably worse?
Click to expand...
Always.....at first. Dude, seriously. Are you saying that the transition from 4-3 to 3-6 is not ALWAYS difficult? That doesn't even take into account the fact that we are NOT stocked like Ga or others when they switch.
 
#149
#149
tm3 said:
spudvol doing some serious, serious damage in this thread
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I am not seeing what we have done vs. Pac 10 teams during the dark age of our program as effication of anything other than how far down we were and how badly we needed to tighten up this season and make the switch to a 3-4.
 
#150
#150
volbreaker said:
Sorry, but I am not seeing what we have done vs. Pac 10 teams during the dark age of our program as effication of anything other than how far down we were and how badly we needed to tighten up this season and make the switch to a 3-4.
Click to expand...

i'm referring to his posts taken in aggregate.

many here post on emotion and assumption and then vehemently defend it as "fact."

spud has taken the time to look at the data and share it with us, and the data torpedoes many of the "facts because i say so."
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top