What Tennessee Must Do to Close Out Games Better in 2016

[UT-Rex]

Butch Jones must simply believe in his team.

It seemed like at times he was surprised they got big leads and instead of continuing doing what was working, he tries to just hang on for dear life.

He needs to believe he has the best team every time they step on the field and coach with that sort of confidence.

Don't forget: on OU's final drive (the tie 17-17), the 2nd and 14 from the 30 hail mary to back of ez penalty on Malik Foreman, auto 1st down; and then, the not-called, blatant OU RG false start on 3rd and 1 from the 7 / which should have become 3 and 6 from the 13.

This penalty + un-called false start went a long way to keeping their offense on the field, not what you're describing as CBJ's supposed lack of faith in his players' abilities.

Also, look at OU's final drive on paper -- lots of rush calls, even on 1st down / looks very similar to DeBord's, imo -- especially look at the rush call, Perine for 2 yrds up the middle, on 1st down call from the 12.

There are 11 players on the field, and 1 HC + 1Coord on the sidelines -- all things given, the weight falls on the players.

 

[savannahfan]

OU was neither players nor playcalling. Jones went into the football equivalent of the 4 corners against a team with too much horsepower.


The mistake was strategic.... not tactical.

Playing not to lose. A mistake many teams make now days.. Years ago it would work, but with rule changes in favor of off., you must go full bore on off. all the time now days.

 

[TN Outlaw]

It's correct the coaches were not goin "full bore" up 17-3 and I think most coaches wouldn't either. Instead electing to go for more sure thing positive gains with less chances of turnovers. Problem IMO is the players lack of execution in those plays that led to the offense goin stagnant. The strategy was sound on the plays being called and would fit what most other coaches would do in the same situation up that amount in the 2nd half of a game u have been dominating. Early in the game not goin for it on 4th and goal, before u know if points will be at a premium some coaches would take the points like we did but most prob would've gone for the score. Maybe u can challenge that strategy but the 2nd half was coached well enough to win. Offense didn't execute, the defense didn't either and gave some bad 1st downs via penalty's and poor execution on a fg kick as well. That game, IMO, was more on the players.

 

[Johnnyreb#VFL]

I'm usually a fan of conservative play, running the ball, milking the clock, and relying on your defense, especially with younger teams against superior opponents. It can keep you in the ball game but does not lead to many wins (leads to respectable losses). But WE are now the veteran team and superior opponent, regardless of the past 10 years. We are now the hunted imo. So that needs to be the chip on our shoulder this year. People are trying to keep us from our rightful place in the SEC and college football. ATTACK and be relentless, no mercy inside the lines. We have the depth for starters to go all out and ignore the clock. Let the coaches figure the rest out. I am now positive our coaches are educated and have the intelligence and experience enough to lead this team.

 

[photovol]

Tackling, comes to mind when thinking of things the Vols must do to close out games in 2016.......just a thought

 

[avolation]

Switch "third down for what" to "fourth down for what". There, problem fixed.

 

[sjt18]

Not true, SJT. As you well know, that game has been dissected several times in these threads over the past ten months. The whole game boils down to 14 plays, any one of which could've flipped the game on its head. Any one of them. Twelve of the 14 were poor execution on the field. Two were play calls or coaching decisions. None of them were strategy, and only one of them could be traced back to strategic direction.

In fact, this is another conclusion that fits the Florida game better than Oklahoma. But we'll forever remember those two games as being "the same" because of the similar basic story line of "2-score lead lost in the fourth quarter."

Yes. I have seen them and been part of them.

And when you run on third down vs a UF D that knows you are going to run and sells out so thoroughly that a CB blitzes without S help with the WR they just left.... That's a STRATEGY problem. When you play it HOPING the clock will run out before the opponent can find a way to beat you.... that's a strategy problem.

Jones tried to crawl under a shell in both of those games. Hopefully he's learned you can't do that with quality opponents and opposing coaches.

 

[sjt18]

It isn't the first time either. He did it in the Vandy loss. He did it in the '14 UF loss.

It seems each time he tries to "manage the game"... he gives opponents opportunity to come back.

 

[sjt18]

Players feed off that kind of attitude from their coach and maybe more so from a high energy "attack" type of coach like Jones. It says, "I don't trust you to make the play that breaks the opponents back.... I have to manage around your inadequacies".

 

[TNinOR]

Duncan, I liked parts of the article, but Brad Shepard makes the same mistake a lot of people do in the Oklahoma game. He blames play calling when it was mostly bad execution. I'll give one example.

Shepard says this:



Okay, it's hard to figure out which drive he means. The one after that interception was only 3 plays long: two runs and a pass (then a punt). So that's not his 7-play drive. There were actually seven Tennessee drives while the score was 17-3, two in the 2nd Qtr, four in the 3rd Qtr, and one in the early 4th Qtr. None of them were 7 plays long, as Shepard describes.

The one that comes closest was an 8-play (plus punt) drive in the 3rd Qtr. So let's look at it:

• 1st & 10 - QB Draw - 5 yd gain
• 2nd & 5 - RB run off-tackle - 7 yds, 1st down
• 1st & 10 - Screen pass to the flat, underthrown by Dobbs, incomplete
• 2nd & 10 - Pass to 8 yd curl on left hash, gain of 9 yd
• 3rd & 1 - RB run off-center - 2 yd gain, 1st down
• 1st & 10 - jet sweep, Pearson slipped and lost footing, loss of 3 yds
• 2nd & 13 - QB sack - Dobbs dropped back to throw downfield, corner blitz got him, loss of 12 yds [note -- this goes in record books as a run, but was a called pass play]
• 3rd & 25 - QB threw ball away out of bounds after no uncovered receivers - incomplete pass
• 4th & 25 - punt

Note that this series included 4 pass plays, and 4 run plays. Hardly the 5 run, 2 pass that Shepard said. The record books would SHOW this series as 5 run, 3 pass because of the sack on one of the called pass plays. So this is probably the series Shepard misdiagnosed.

So bottom line is, DeBord was mixing it up well in the 3rd Qtr, good balance of pass and run, and [this is key] the run plays were generally working WELL...while the pass plays were mostly failing from poor execution (bad throw, broken protection, no receiver open). That's on the players. It's actually a bit surprising that DeBord was still dialing up pass plays as often as he was, given our greater success with the run plays (at least, to that point).

Bottom line: it was mostly about the players getting tired and sloppy later in the game, their execution getting worse (esp. the defenders not wrapping up tackles). Not the coaches' play calling going conservative.

So for the rest of our lives, we're going to see this over and over when Vols-Sooners 2015 comes up: reality (great execution early, going weak by the late 3rd Qtr and into the 4th) vs the fiction (coaches went conservative).

It's a pity that the "conventional wisdom" will not match the reality.

p.s. I think part of the fault for this is that 2 weeks later, the coaches DID go conservative in the 4th qtr...and we retrospectively apply our frustration from the Florida game to both of them. But that's just a theory of mine.

I must disagree. The play calling for the series in question only appears to be "balanced." Why? Not one of the first down plays listed here kept the defense honest by rolling the dice and allowing Dobbs to take a shot down the field. In fact that lack of taking shots down the field, especially on first down, epitomized our whole season. A screen may be a pass, but in my book it's more of a glorified running play. Considering our overall lack of success with the jet sweep, I would also consider that an uber-conservative call. A quarterback draw is a great first down play, but only if you have previously shown a willingness to fling it down the field on first down so that the defense doesn't legitimately know what to expect, which we never did. Three very conservative, indeed predictable, plays on first down.

Don't get me wrong, I cheered when DeBord was hired as the OC because I know that a "pound it down your throat" running game is STILL the way to win football games consistently, but that doesn't mean you have to camp on the ball with a small lead.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

I must disagree. The play calling for the series in question only appears to be "balanced." Why? Not one of the first down plays listed here kept the defense honest by rolling the dice and allowing Dobbs to take a shot down the field. In fact that lack of taking shots down the field, especially on first down, epitomized our whole season. A screen may be a pass, but in my book it's more of a glorified running play. Considering our overall lack of success with the jet sweep, I would also consider that an uber-conservative call. Three very conservative, indeed predictable, plays on first down.

Don't get me wrong, I cheered when DeBord was hired as the OC because I know that a "pound it down your throat" running game is STILL the way to win football games consistently, but that doesn't mean you have to camp on the ball with a small lead.

This is an argument concerning predictability (not conversativism). So it's actually a whole different conversation: predictability on 1st downs (throughout the game, I suppose?), rather than conservative play calling to sit on a lead in the 4th Qtr of games.

Let me demonstrate how the two issues are very different: If DeBord called for a 40-yard bomb down the right sideline every single 1st down in the 2015 season, that would be hugely predictable. If Butch called for an on-side kick every kickoff, that would become very predictable as well. But neither of them are remotely conservative play-calling, designed to sit on a lead. So...the two ideas, predictability and conservativism, aren't really related at all. Apples and oranges.

Net: to prove that DeBord was overly predictable on 1st down, you're going to have to compile (or find someone else who compiled) stats across whole games. What % of 1st downs were run plays? What percent pass plays? And what percent were pass plays not including screens or dump offs to the running back at the LOS? How often was a TE used? How often did the QB have a read option? What % of the time was it a sweep, as opposed to something between the tackles? All runs aren't equal, of course, and there's room for unpredictability within a series of run plays.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm also not saying you're right. I simply haven't seen anyone lay out the facts either way, yet.

Still, and repeating for emphasis: this is a knock on the OC's predictability, not his supposed conservative play calling in the 4th Qtr (which has been the main topic of the thread thus far).

 

[hohenfelsvol]

Between the players relaxing with a lead and the coaches getting conservative with a lead you get what you got. Lessons have been learned, it's gonna be a special year.

I hope so. I'm not convinced on the coaching piece. Not saying he won't. Just haven't seen it yet.

 

[CoaxialOrange]

When that happened I felt we would lose the game.

Calls like that just show the lack of faith Butch had in his team. He coached like he didn't want to get embarrassed rather than coaching to win.

Nobody goes for a FG that early in a game from the 6 inch line. Even if we got stopped, we would've had Oklahoma backed up in their goaline.

That's what I told my wife during the game and the following week

 

[billcox0625]

I don't know all of the facts but from my perspective watching the OU game, I kept wondering why we were playing so conservative after getting a 2 TD lead. FLa was a different feeling all together. I felt as if both the team and coaches were uptight after getting the lead. Defensive calls were WTF toward the end of the game.

I hope a year of experience is going to help this team and coaching staff realize you can't put on the brakes early in this league.

 

[photovol]

Tackle better for a start

 

[Eddie Vol Halen]

Butch Jones must simply believe in his team.

It seemed like at times he was surprised they got big leads and instead of continuing doing what was working, he tries to just hang on for dear life.

He needs to believe he has the best team every time they step on the field and coach with that sort of confidence.

This is exactly right. I was saying this all through the season up to the Alabama game. Jones simply did not trust his team to go out and ball. For some reason he didn't trust his team the first half of the season.

I can't believe the amount of coach hand-wringing this off-season. Every loss last year squarely has game day coaching as the critical element in each loss. OK and Fl should be self-evident. Sending Medley out to kick 40+ field goals after the first double miss is COACHING and cost us the win.

I saw Butch improving week-to-week though.

We shouldn't lose a game this year. Our two-deep is right now better than Bama's two deep. That four game stretch though would challenge some pro teams. A loss to Florida is inexcusable and would mean that preparations for Coach 24 would have to begin. Anything can happen in the SECCG but Team 120 should be playing in that game. Ron Zook could steer this team to the SECCG.

If Butch has raised his Saturday coaching like he's raised the UT profile since Stooley, we should be SECC and play-off bound.

 

[KBVol]

Players feed off that kind of attitude from their coach and maybe more so from a high energy "attack" type of coach like Jones. It says, "I don't trust you to make the play that breaks the opponents back.... I have to manage around your inadequacies".

Exactly. It takes them out of their physical and aggressive style of play and mindset and aids the other team in wrestling away momentum from his team. Pretty much everybody nationally, regionally and locally has recognized and acknowledged it. Not sure why a few on here want to deny it and try to put those collapses primarily on the players. Jones did what he did in all those games and has caught tremendous heat for it. Doesn't make him a bad coach, just makes him a good coach who needs to get better at that aspect to become an excellent or even great coach. Hopefully he's ready to change his late game management philosophy....unfortunately, we're not gonna know until a game is likely on the line.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Exactly. It takes them out of their physical and aggressive style of play and mindset and aids the other team in wrestling away momentum from his team. Pretty much everybody nationally, regionally and locally has recognized and acknowledged it. Not sure why a few on here want to deny it and try to put those collapses primarily on the players. Jones did what he did in all those games and has caught tremendous heat for it. Doesn't make him a bad coach, just makes him a good coach who needs to get better at that aspect to become an excellent or even great coach. Hopefully he's ready to change his late game management philosophy....unfortunately, we're not gonna know until a game is likely on the line.

It's possible. You and SJT are talking about some really subtle stuff, though, stuff that many even among those on the team (coaches and players) might not be fully aware of. You're talking about some of the most subtle aspects of leadership.

I've spent a lifetime studying it, and I'm not sure I could definitively say that was happening to Team 119 even if I were inside the program. Sure as heck can't tell from way out here.

So this is another of those that fits in the "unproven theory" category.

Meanwhile, what's demonstrably proven is that the players threw balls into the dirt at receivers' feet...failed to pick up a blitz so the QB got sacked...whiffed on 4 tackles of the opponent QB in a single play...blatantly ran through a receiver rather than knowing where the ball was and defending the catch...and so on. 12 different times. All on key plays that could flip the game. That's not being complacent or conservative, that's getting tired and playing poorly.

The facts are pretty clear.

 

[Iam4utalways]

JRM said the team relaxed, in response to being asked about having leads and then loseing the game. I wasn't sure if that included the coaching staff, he said they learned from that, still not sure if that includes the coaching staff.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

JRM said the team relaxed, in response to being asked about having leads and then loseing the game. I wasn't sure if that included the coaching staff, he said they learned from that, still not sure if that includes the coaching staff.

And that would be a fascinating question to ask him and the other players, if you wanted to follow up on SJT's theory. Did the players feel like they were getting that from the coaches, or did it just kinda happen simultaneously among all of them, or were they getting relaxed in spite of the coaches continuing to caution/push them? I'd love to see that asked and answered, purely as a student of the game and of leadership.

 

[KBVol]

It's possible. You and SJT are talking about some really subtle stuff, though, stuff that many even among those on the team (coaches and players) might not be fully aware of. You're talking about some of the most subtle aspects of leadership.

I've spent a lifetime studying it, and I'm not sure I could definitively say that was happening to Team 119 even if I were inside the program. Sure as heck can't tell from way out here.

So this is another of those that fits in the "unproven theory" category.

Meanwhile, what's demonstrably proven is that the players threw balls into the dirt at receivers' feet...failed to pick up a blitz so the QB got sacked...whiffed on 4 tackles of the opponent QB in a single play...blatantly ran through a receiver rather than knowing where the ball was and defending the catch...and so on. 12 different times. All on key plays that could flip the game. That's not being complacent or conservative, that's getting tired and playing poorly.

The facts are pretty clear.

Just one of the few times I strongly disagree with you JP. No worries.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Just one of the few times I strongly disagree with you JP. No worries.

Much respect, KB. :hi:

 

[Iam4utalways]

And that would be a fascinating question to ask him and the other players, if you wanted to follow up on SJT's theory. Did the players feel like they were getting that from the coaches, or did it just kinda happen simultaneously among all of them, or were they getting relaxed in spite of the coaches continuing to caution/push them? I'd love to see that asked and answered, purely as a student of the game and of leadership.

CBJ too relaxed ain't his problem. His problem is going conservative and using poor judgement.

Lesson learned, the hard way, 4 or 5 times.
He needs a chart on how to use his timeouts.

Jump higher Butch.