Vols by the numbers compared to 129 FBS teams

#4
#4
The defense is surprisingly higher than I thought it would be. We suck in scoring defense, but not bad in everything else. That's attributed to the fact that we had turnovers that game teams short fields. Thus, they got points, but didn't get a lot of yards. Had those turnovers not occurred, you'd have to think things would be different. The defensive stats are very encouraging. Especially the 3rd down conversion rate. I wouldn't have thought we'd be ranked Top 40 in any positive category. Good info.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KSBleedingUTOrange
#9
#9
Unfortunately, these rankings probably not going to improve much over next two weeks, and two below categories have direct effect upon the D rankings. Got to eliminate TO's and get first downs to keep other team off the field and give our D a break so they're not gassed in the 4th quarter. If I'm Helton, I'm concentrating on getting the ball in Chandler's hands. He's no Kamara but he's the closest thing we have, and need to get him in space...only got 9 touches vs UGA (5 run/4 pass)
Turnovers lost

Tied-97th ranked nationally — 9 turnovers

First downs

Tied-86th ranked nationally — 91 first downs
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokeytom
#12
#12
Well thats a bunch of eye opening stats. Too bad they didn't include passing completion %, I hear UT is like the best at that.
funnneeee!!! I guess laughing is preferable to crying over these numbers. I'd like to see the stats "As compared to same team play last year", they may be telling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lexkyvol
#15
#15
Wonder if talent alone is the sole reason for these numbers?

Hmmm, well what teams, just in the SEC, do we think of when we say best defensive teams? Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Florida right? Well name one defensive starter we have that would start on any of those teams.
 
#16
#16
Hmmm, well what teams, just in the SEC, do we think of when we say best defensive teams? Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Florida right? Well name one defensive starter we have that would start on any of those teams.
Hmmm well, do we only use what benefits.us or no? There are lots of other team, with less talent ranked ahead of us....especially on offense. Defensive ranking isnt too bad, all things considered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NomadVol
#17
#17
Hmmm well, do we only use what benefits.us or no? There are lots of other team, with less talent ranked ahead of us....especially on offense. Defensive ranking isnt too bad, all things considered.

I think the coaches are doing the best they can with what they got. Interestingly talking about offense. I wonder why teams like Stanford and UCLA, teams with great coaching, are struggling? UCLA is ranked 119th and Stanford is 113th. Both teams have proven, good coaching. One team has a great WR corp, OL and one of the best RBs in the nation. Yet, for some reason, neither team is good offensively.

Yes our defense is not that bad. I think they are improving. Next few games will cause their stats to go way down. But all and all, not bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lexkyvol and Alto1
#18
#18
I think the coaches are doing the best they can with what they got. Interestingly talking about offense. I wonder why teams like Stanford and UCLA, teams with great coaching, are struggling? UCLA is ranked 119th and Stanford is 113th. Both teams have proven, good coaching. One team has a great WR corp, OL and one of the best RBs in the nation. Yet, for some reason, neither team is good offensively.

Yes our defense is not that bad. I think they are improving. Next few games will cause their stats to go way down. But all and all, not bad.
You think the coaching staff is getting the most with these players...lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: cheftrapgod
#21
#21
How bad is it that I’ve been conditioned to believe .359 is a pretty good third down allowance?

Misread. .317 is our defense ranked at 27. That makes more sense.
 
Advertisement













Back
Top