Worely was concussed.

#1
V

volumnus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
232
Likes
0
#1
I have it upon very good authority that Worley was asked several questions and was unable to answer them after getting his bell rung during his last series in the Arkansas game. Dooley did not mention Worley's compromised condition after the game. He said he replaced him because he was struggling. Therefore Dooley left himself open to criticism. A lot of people, myself included, and Erik Ainge questioned yanking Worley in favor of Sims when Worely needs every snap he can get in order to further his development. For what it's worth, I spoke to a friend/insider today (who was on the sidelines during the game) who said Worley would have gone back into the game, but he was very "woosey".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3
#3
This makes no difference at all to me. I couldn't have cared less that they played the 2nd string qb in a game that was clearly over. That's called football. People crying and whining about it need to stop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 33 people
#6
#6
LawVol13 said:
This makes no difference at all to me. I couldn't have cared less that they played the 2nd string qb in a game that was clearly over. That's called football. People crying and whining about it need to stop.
Click to expand...

This. Its like people thought Worley gave us a shot to get back in the game. Rather humourous if you ask me.
 
#8
#8
LawVol13 said:
This makes no difference at all to me. I couldn't have cared less that they played the 2nd string qb in a game that was clearly over. That's called football. People crying and whining about it need to stop.
Click to expand...

Then he should've just left the redshirt on. I know we wouldn't have won anyways but wasn't the whole point of burning the redshirt for him to gain experience? Besides the thought that he gave us the better chance to win, of course. Yet he's been benched in 2 of the 3 games he's played.

Edit: The benching in the South Carolina game was more understandable because we still had a shot at winning.

All of this is irrelevant of course if what the OP posted is true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#9
#9
Why does he have to answer to every little friggen thing? "Coach, do you open your zipper with your left hand, or your right hand? You do??? Why coach?? Why do you use that hand?" Good grief. He put Simms in because he calls the shots. I think that's what I would say. "Hey coach, why did you put Simms in?" "Because I call the shots, that's why".

:mf_surrender:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 12 people
#10
#10
voldawgforever said:
Why does he have to answer to every little friggen thing? "Coach, do you open your zipper with your left hand, or your right hand? You do??? Why coach?? Why do you use that hand?" Good grief. He put Simms in because he calls the shots. I think that's what I would say. "Hey coach, why did you put Simms in?" "Because I call the shots, that's why".

:mf_surrender:
Click to expand...

"Coach, given the mediocre performance of your left index finger when zipping, are you considering replacing it?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#12
#12
DrunkJohnny said:
Then he should've just left the redshirt on. I know we wouldn't have won anyways but wasn't the whole point of burning the redshirt for him to gain experience? Besides the thought that he gave us the better chance to win, of course. Yet he's been benched in 2 of the 3 games he's played.

Edit: The benching in the South Carolina game was more understandable because we still had a shot at winning.

All of this is irrelevant of course if what the OP posted is true.
Click to expand...

Worley played a decent game. He probably left the game with a little confidence. There was absolutely no reason to trot him out there and let him throw a pick 6 that destroys what progress he made.
 
#13
#13
LawVol13 said:
This makes no difference at all to me. I couldn't have cared less that they played the 2nd string qb in a game that was clearly over. That's called football. People crying and whining about it need to stop.
Click to expand...

Devil's Advocate, Law: Why burn Worley's redshirt unless you're going to give him AS MANY meaningful snaps that you possibly can against SEC caliber defenses? Especially in light of the fact that Bray will be coming back soon?

IMO, the fact that the game was basically over is all the more reason NOT to put Simms out there.

Since Worley's RS is gone, to me it makes the most sense to give him every single snap to continue live work in big games, to try to develop some sort of rhythm with his receivers, and to get him as much experience as possible until Bray returns.

If you think it's ridiculous for people to question the move to bench Worley, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But I disagree - I think it's a legitimate argument..

Now, if Worley had symptoms of a concussion and that's the reason for Simms being out there, then the decision is clearly justifiable. My 2 cents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#15
#15
DrunkJohnny said:
Then he should've just left the redshirt on. I know we wouldn't have won anyways but wasn't the whole point of burning the redshirt for him to gain experience? Besides the thought that he gave us the better chance to win, of course. Yet he's been benched in 2 of the 3 games he's played.

Edit: The benching in the South Carolina game was more understandable because we still had a shot at winning.

All of this is irrelevant of course if what the OP posted is true.
Click to expand...

Redshirt or no redshirt, he's 100 times better than the other option we have.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#17
#17
Coaches don't have to answer questions about players unless they want to. Dooley knows he will be criticized by the "chattering class" regardless of what he does. Maybe he didn't want next week's opponent to know of Worley's condition. Who knows?
 
#18
#18
volinexile17 said:
"Coach, given the mediocre performance of your left index finger when zipping, are you considering replacing it?"
Click to expand...

"Well, I'm not sure Mr. Press. I will first have to clear things with the press and with the UT fans, and if they say it's ok, then I will consider replacing my left index finger. We're not very deep at that position."
 
#19
#19
Carlitovol said:
Devil's Advocate, Law: Why burn Worley's redshirt unless you're going to give him AS MANY meaningful snaps that you possibly can against SEC caliber defenses? Especially in light of the fact that Bray will be coming back soon?

IMO, the fact that the game was basically over is all the more reason NOT to put Simms out there.

Since Worley's RS is gone, to me it makes the most sense to give him every single snap to continue live work in big games, to try to develop some sort of rhythm with his receivers, and to get him as much experience as possible until Bray returns.

If you think it's ridiculous for people to question the move to bench Worley, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But I disagree - I think it's a legitimate argument..

Now, if Worley had symptoms of a concussion and that's the reason for Simms being out there, then the decision is clearly justifiable. My 2 cents.
Click to expand...

You burn Worley's redshirt to try to win. He outperformed Matt Simms. If Bray stays healthy next year, let Worley redshirt then. I don't think it's a legitimate argument at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#20
#20
LawVol13 said:
Worley played a decent game. He probably left the game with a little confidence. There was absolutely no reason to trot him out there and let him throw a pick 6 that destroys what progress he made.
Click to expand...

But wouldn't it hurt his confidence even more to relegate him to the bench and put Simms back out there?

Another thought I had is that maybe the coaches still feel bad for all that Simms has gone thru and wanted to give him some PT (since the game was clearly out of reach)..

I do know that both Chaney and CDD genuinely like Simms as a person and a competitor. It's obvious that they wanted him to succeed as the starter, and you know they hate for him to be on the sidelines the entire game..
 
#21
#21
Carlitovol said:
But wouldn't it hurt his confidence even more to relegate him to the bench and put Simms back out there?

Another thought I had is that maybe the coaches still feel bad for all that Simms has gone thru and wanted to give him some PT (since the game was clearly out of reach)..

I do know that both Chaney and CDD genuinely like Simms as a person and a competitor. It's obvious that they wanted him to succeed as the starter, and you know they hate for him to be on the sidelines the entire game..
Click to expand...

No, you bring him to the sideline and you tell him, "nice job tonight. You took a step tonight." It's not that hard to figure out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#22
#22
LawVol13 said:
You burn Worley's redshirt to try to win. He outperformed Matt Simms. If Bray stays healthy next year, let Worley redshirt then. I don't think it's a legitimate argument at all.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying to a degree. I guess from a coaching perspective, with a game already decided, I would be playing "for the future" and I'd want to give Worley every opportunity to take 'live' snaps - regardless of whether or not he gets significant playing time next year.

Matt Simms is not the future of UT football. Justin Worley is.. so give him every snap possible to continue to get him acclimated to SEC football..

At some point, Worley is going to be THE GUY. Simms had his opportunity and it passed him by. You gain absolutely nothing by playing Simms in lieu of Worley. That's the crux of the argument IMO.. JMO TIFWIW etc.
 
#23
#23
LawVol13 said:
Worley played a decent game. He probably left the game with a little confidence. There was absolutely no reason to trot him out there and let him throw a pick 6 that destroys what progress he made.
Click to expand...

Would he have to leave the game with some memory of it to have confidence? :)
 
#24
#24
There is no guarantee that Worley will ever be "the guy". He may be but he may get recruited over too. Regardless, you want him to get as much experience as he can if he is able.
 
#25
#25
LawVol13 said:
No, you bring him to the sideline and you tell him, "nice job tonight. You took a step tonight." It's not that hard to figure out.
Click to expand...

I buy that argument if he had played in several games and had already seen significant playing time. But he's still extremely green and he needs all the experience he can get - especially a conference game on the road.

We all know CDD keeps playing the "youth/inexperience" card - and I agree that's a valid point. But if that's such a big issue, then put your money where your mouth is and play the young and inexperienced guys at every possible opportunity to allow them to grow/mature/develop into solid SEC football players as soon as possible.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top