UT's football offensive woes.

#51
#51
oklavol said:
Per UT sports

www.utsports.com | Official Web Site of The University of Tennessee Men's Athletic Department

Coker
108 carries
696 yards
6.4 yds/carry

Foster
91 carries
322 yards
3.5 yds/carry

Hardesty
107 carries
384 yards
3.6 yds/carry

That is a huge difference in production. Coker was much more productive.
Click to expand...

Like I said, Coker is the better back, but you take away those big runs against bad teams (89 against Marshall, 87 against Vandy) and that average goes down to about 5 yards a carry. Still a very good average. He also didn't run against Florida or LSU which would have brought his average down a good bit more.

My point still stands, and that is that none of these guys has done squat against a real SEC defense. Until they do, I don't see the point in getting really excited about them.
 
#52
#52
oklavol said:


A pro set with split backs is better for running inside, its easier to run outside in the offset I formation that UT uses. The running back doesn't have as good of vision in a split back formation and isn't able to freelance as much. I don't think Coker would be as effective in that formation. I think it might be hard to convince Hardesty or Foster to play Fullback instead of Halfback, that was a problem with Jarbari Davis a few years ago.

Hardesty, or Foster can catch the ball out of the backfield and occasionally run the ball in a misdirection play with a fake to Coker but I think it would be a mistake to take carries away from Coker to give to Hardesty or Foster from what I saw last year.
Click to expand...


Just because an image on the internet says that there is a fullback in the formation doesn't mean you have to stick on back there and call him "fullback".

You have totally taken a conversation that was about theoretical assumptions and blow it to living hell.

Listen. I agree that Coker is our best running back and he should get the majority of our carries. I was simply saying Hardesty needs to find somewhere to fit in our offense (because Coker is getting the carries). If he doesn't he might not play much at UT.

Do you understand? 3 posts later?
 
#53
#53
oklavol said:


A pro set with split backs is better for running inside, its easier to run outside in the offset I formation that UT uses. The running back doesn't have as good of vision in a split back formation and isn't able to freelance as much. I don't think Coker would be as effective in that formation. I think it might be hard to convince Hardesty or Foster to play Fullback instead of Halfback, that was a problem with Jarbari Davis a few years ago.

Hardesty, or Foster can catch the ball out of the backfield and occasionally run the ball in a misdirection play with a fake to Coker but I think it would be a mistake to take carries away from Coker to give to Hardesty or Foster from what I saw last year.
Click to expand...


Since when did Pro Set hinder teams from running outside? Did you get that off Wikipedia too?
 
#54
#54
Business said:
You have totally taken a conversation that was about theoretical assumptions and blow it to living hell.

Do you understand? 3 posts later?
Click to expand...

I was trying to have a civil discussion and you have to get offended just because someone doesnt agree with you?

Business said:
Since when did Pro Set hinder teams from running outside? Did you get that off Wikipedia too?
Click to expand...

When did I say you couldnt run outside in a pro-set? I said it was easier to run outside in an offset I formation thats one of the advantages of using the formation. I guess you believe you can run inside easier with split backs and outside easier with split backs too? Then why would anyone ever use an offset I formation?? Don't you think all teams would use a pro-set with split backs?

Business said:
Listen. I agree that Coker is our best running back and he should get the majority of our carries. I was simply saying Hardesty needs to find somewhere to fit in our offense (because Coker is getting the carries). If he doesn't he might not play much at UT.
Click to expand...

Your whole arguement started with getting Hardesty and Foster more involved in the offense. Again, why when Coker was so much more productive?
 
#55
#55
Your whole arguement started with getting Hardesty and Foster more involved in the offense. Again, whats the point neither of them are as an effective runner as Coker?
Click to expand...

1. Coker is injury-prone. He redshirted because of a high school injury, he got hurt this past season while splitting carries.

2. Hardesty and Foster are stronger. For all the love Coker gets, he doesnt really break any tackles. Hardesty and Foster do have that ability, however.
 
#56
#56
TravisHenryCBlockedMe said:
1. Coker is injury-prone. He redshirted because of a high school injury, he got hurt this past season while splitting carries.

2. Hardesty and Foster are stronger. For all the love Coker gets, he doesnt really break any tackles. Hardesty and Foster do have that ability, however.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, all of our running backs are injury-prone. I wouldn't be shocked to see Lennon Creer get some playing time, cause those guys just can't seem to stay healthy.
 
#57
#57
TravisHenryCBlockedMe said:
1. Coker is injury-prone. He redshirted because of a high school injury, he got hurt this past season while splitting carries.

2. Hardesty and Foster are stronger. For all the love Coker gets, he doesnt really break any tackles. Hardesty and Foster do have that ability, however.
Click to expand...

Foster is bigger and stronger like you say. Hardesty is the most injury proned IMO. I would take Coker's speed over Foster's stength.

I think Foster should get some carries as the 2nd back behind Coker. I just think Coker should be the featured back and get the majority of them, he played well last season. Its been a while since UT had a back average over 6yds/carry.
 
#58
#58
oklavol said:
Foster is the biggest and strongest like you say. Hardesty is the most injury proned IMO. I would take Coker's speed over Foster's stength.

I think Foster should get some carries as the 2nd back behind Coker. I just think Coker should be the featured back and get the majority of them, he played well last season. Its been a while since UT had a back average over 6yds/carry.
Click to expand...

Foster has had like 5 surgeries since he's been at UT. I don't think Hardesty has been hurt with the exception of the torn ACL. Coker is also pretty injury prone. Fulmer himself said not that long ago that Lamarcus just wasn't tough enough.
 
#60
#60
kptvol said:
Foster has had like 5 surgeries since he's been at UT. I don't think Hardesty has been hurt with the exception of the torn ACL. Coker is also pretty injury prone. Fulmer himself said not that long ago that Lamarcus just wasn't tough enough.
Click to expand...

I'm not too sure on the exact injuries, but I think you pretty much nailed it. Hardesty just had the one big injury. Coker was injured coming into the 2005 season and again last year. Foster was injured in about 18 places after the 2005 season.
 
#65
#65
oklavol said:
I was trying to have a civil discussion and you have to get offended just because someone doesnt agree with you?
Click to expand...

I never disagreed with you. I was saying your rebuttle, to what I was saying, wasn't even in the same ballpark. I said Hardesty needs to find a niche to play. You went all out and said Coker will get all the carries and Hardesty is an inferior back to Coker. I never disagreed with that.

oklavol said:
Your whole arguement started with getting Hardesty and Foster more involved in the offense. Again, why when Coker was so much more productive?
Click to expand...

Again the whole argumnent was "How can Hardesty make himself useful on the field other than running the ball?" How's that? Assuming the kid can progress he can be a Marshall Faulk/ Brian Westbrook type player. That was my argument and the whole thing was all theory. I think that is the only way he can get in the lineup if Coker comes out like he was last year. It didn't seem like you understood what I was saying. That's all. I think I was pretty clear in saying that 2 times.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top