Posted by TNvolunteer on September 6, 2007 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sad story for Fletcher...Looks to me like Fletcher was another one that got away from Tennessee...Whatch UT, he could be playing with a chip on his shoulder...and who knows the kid could have a career day if our defense plays like it did last week.

Posted by orangebloodgmc on September 6, 2007 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We just can't sign 'em all. Wish the young man well every other week except this one.

Posted by Dirtdobber on September 6, 2007 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

if we run a 4 man front sat. night or mustang package, with our linebackers about 8 yards off the line, Mr.Fletcher could become the front runner for Heisman Trophy.

Posted by tractoronthepole on September 6, 2007 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Stopping the run starts up front. We seem to stockpile tight ends who rarely get that many balls in a season (exception Chris Brown vs Cal). Perhaps we could find a disrupter/run stopper in that group? Phil said it himself, when experimenting moving linebackers (during Ben's knee scare) to end, it dosen't take a lot of study to be a DE.

Posted by marc_ash on September 6, 2007 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It looks like another day of facing the run. Teams will pound UT all season. Better get it together quick Chavis.

Posted by vol4jesus on September 6, 2007 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

CRVOL het the meds and take a breath...remember to exhale also. Don't want to lose you for future posting opportunities. Ha..Ha!

Posted by TNvolunteer on September 6, 2007 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

evey team we paly against this year will have a potential heisman trophy winner running the ball if our D plays the way it did against cal...just imagine we have arkansas coming to town with two heisman front runners in Felix Jones and Darren McFadden!!

Posted by Dirtdobber on September 6, 2007 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

eric13915- i have imagined it and it does not look good- what is the most yards gained by a back in a single game?

who knows maybe the defense and fulmer can get it together before Florida- oh...that sounds like a vanderbilt fan- we need to get it together this weekend. are there any easy games this year?

Ark state took texas to the wire...

Posted by TNvolunteer on September 6, 2007 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Tennessee has no easy games this year...all of their non-confrence foes played some good games...Ark St. nearly beat Texas and Louis. Laf. lost by 14 to South Car....so as for our non-confrence games..let the challange begin...Our SEC schedule looks tough to..Kentucky looks good...Vanderbuilt could beat us again( not likely )...Tennessee could very easily go 6-6? maybe worse if the D doesnt get straighten up and play like they are capable of...I agree we should let some other guys have a crack at DE...Maybe we have a diamond-in-the-rough guy some where.

Posted by mdvol on September 6, 2007 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Right now, ANY human being with a jersey lined up behind the quarterback is a threat.

Posted by TNvolunteer on September 6, 2007 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

First things first...our starting corners should be Berry and Willingham..Safties McKenzie and Hefney...LB'S Mayo and McCoy on the outside and Ellix Wilson or Chris Donald at middle...Line should be Mitchell and Ayers(maybe) and Willians and Bolden(maybe)......Arian Foster did an ok job returning kicks but isnt the purpose of returning kicks the object to let you fastest guy get the ball in his hands and let him run...anyone else returns the one Foster did for a long return..scores..that simple....Boys we are hurting for a kicker who can kick off...with this new rule pressure will be on our D all year...kicking off from the 30...that puts and average starting field position around the 40 everytime....Our guys cant kick it past the 10....Maybe we should put the 10 fastest guys on kick team and let them run down there and see what happens...it's worth a shot...couldnt hurt the way our special teams has played the last 5 years.

Posted by 55Vol on September 6, 2007 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

CRVol.... I understand your frustration, but I will attest to the fact that Johnson will be just fine. I have watched him through his HS career and watched him grow into the type of player that had offers not only from TN but also from other D-1 schools. He will get beat from time to time as Berry will get beat also, but he will be in the grill of those reciever's he covers. I wish the DL played with the same intensity Johnson plays with.....we might stop the run every now and again.

Posted by sjt18 on September 6, 2007 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

eric, The coaches apparently did all they could to give Willingham and McKenzie a shot. They blew too many assignments in practice.

You're right. That should be the line-up because those guys have the talent to come in and win the jobs... they just haven't proven they can use it yet.

Donald probably isn't ready to play MLB in the SEC. However, I'm hoping they don't move him outside or worse to DE. Let him gain up to 245 or so and be a solid MLB.

BTW, what makes you think that McCoy looked better than Karl on Sat? The biggest probably is that Chavis didn't put them in a position to be successful. You can't build a develop a defense based on speed and attacking then play reactive. If you want to be reactive then you need the 330 lb DT's and 250 lb MLB's to keep teams from running it down your throat.

Posted by 55Vol on September 6, 2007 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Speed kills..... Cal had it and we didn't. It will interesting to see if we have found some defensive speed this week.

Posted by sjt18 on September 6, 2007 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cal's skill players are fast but their OL is slow. They put both in situations to be successful. UT's defense is fast. Chavis set them up to fail by allowing Cal's skill players to get one on one open field matchups and by letting Cal's slow OL's double team UT's DL with the help of backs and TE's.

They don't have to "find" speed. It is there. They just have to put them in positions to use it effectively.

If they play reactive defense this Saturday, they'll give up a bunch of offense again.

Posted by sjt18 on September 6, 2007 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Johnson and Gaines faced a couple of guys that everyone thinks are special. They didn't get burned down field a single time.

Posted by DannyVol on September 6, 2007 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's obvious to me that the only way we win a lot of games this year is ball control on offense. I think that is a majority of the reason for the no-huddle. Besides time of posession, the only other thing that will kill us is special teams breakdowns. With that so glaringly obvious, you would think our special teams would seem to have improved vs. Cal instead of looking terrible as usual.

I say, if you have to put some starters on specials teams to keep containment, you have to do so...like a lot of other teams...at this point.
The logic of "It's the way we do it at Tennessee" has to be shelved for a more proactive approach. Otherwise, those making that statement may not be "doing it at Tennessee" much longer.

Posted by sjt18 on September 6, 2007 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Concerning the punt return, the clip is available on YouTube. I first thought CPF was making an excuse by claiming that there were blocks in the back. After seeing the play again and being able to stop and re-run it, there were two definite blocks in the back and one questionable one. All three were critical to springing Jackson. Those guys were in position until they were hit from behind.

If you find the video, you'll see the obvious illegal blocks at :11 and :12. The other one comes a little earlier.

Posted by sjt18 on September 6, 2007 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The problem on kick offs is that neither Lincoln nor Cunningham can get the ball near the goal line or particularly high. Colquitt can but may not be able to hold up physically. Another paper is reporting that a walk-on playing on the scout team may be kicking deeper and higher than either of the guys who kicked Saturday.

Posted by TNvolunteer on September 6, 2007 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When UT has brought in JUCO kids recently...they have all panned out....Maybe Willingham and McKenzie have blown some assignments in practice but who hasnt....Let them play and see what they can do on the field...History shows that the JUCO kids we have had in the past are playing right know in the NFL( Maholona, Battle,G. Wilso ).....Someone said in another comment, get Kenny O'Neal the ball on a screen pass or a little 3 yard hitch and let him make plays...He is by far the most expereinced WR on the team...He may not know all the routes and things but it doesnt take a rocket scientist to know to run a screen play or 3 yard hitch...If you cant get on the field at WR, let him return kicks and use his speed and play making ability that he had in the JUCO ranks...All i heard all of fall camp is that he made long catch after long catch but couldn't run the right under neath route?? Fellas O'Neal is the deep threat that we are missing.

Posted by eefor10c on September 6, 2007 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WOW!!!!!!!!! So much coaching knowledge. How many games have you guys won as a coach at a D-1 school? My guess is a big ZERO!!

Posted by TNvolunteer on September 6, 2007 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh yeah..someone posted Johnson and Gaines played well and didnt give up any deep balls..well cal didnt have to throw a deep pass when our front 7 were letting Forsett and Best run wild..and the one that Longshore did throw around 20 yards down field, Johnson was called for pass interference..the call was questionable..it looked to me to be good D, but Johnson never turned to see where the ball was..if he had he was in good position for the int.

Posted by GreerVol22 on September 6, 2007 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Again, speculation about stopping the run, getting downfield on offense, or how bad the pinky is hurting does not mean a darn thing unless we can cover a kick, punt or kick off. Allowing the 42 as a average starting field position automatically changes our defensive schemes and the opposing offense has the upper hand on play calling, from there its only about 30 yards or so to field goal range.

Posted by sjt18 on September 6, 2007 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

eric, The point was that Cal had speed while UT didn't. UT might have lost due to being burned deep had UT blitzed to pressure Longshore and stop the run... but we'll never know. On their only shot downfield, they caught UT in man coverage and Johnson was step for step... and there was no interference on that play. The reason Johnson didn't turn is that Jackson didn't make a real strong play on the ball. His forte is getting the ball in space and using his quickness... not being physical and taking the ball away from DB's.

Posted by sjt18 on September 6, 2007 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dead on Greer. But the kick off coverage was behind the 8 ball when the kickers neither kicked it high or deep. One of the kicks had no hang and their guy took it on the run at the 15.

Maybe that walk on will be the answer. Maybe Cunningham punts so that Colquitt can kick off. Maybe Colquitt does it all once healthy... but somehow they've got to give the coverage team some time to get down field.

Posted by sjt18 on September 6, 2007 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You are right about the offensive validation TDTN. USM returned 10 on D if I'm not mistaken. They only allowed 20 ppg last year which is respectable considering they played UF and Va Tech plus Houston twice.

Posted by fryed004 on September 6, 2007 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CRVol...your validation comment gave me a great laugh this morning...I hate to say it, but you're spot on. I wish I was in K-town to see the game this weekend, but I'm suffering in Hawaii and thus will hit the pay-per-view option!! Here's to hoping that the Vols right the ship before traveling to Gaytor town! GOVOLS!

Posted by TurboFan on September 6, 2007 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sjt, I thought the same thing on the Johnson interference play until I saw the replay. What I thought I saw the second time around was Johnson's hand going up in front of the receiver's face effectively shielding, didn't touch him but shielded his face which I think is what caused the flag.

Posted by TurboFan on September 6, 2007 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CR, "best"? don't disagree. Nobody else is better at his respective position than Colquitt is at punter/kicker. Most valuable? Colquitt has yet to put a point on the board.

Posted by TurboFan on September 6, 2007 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wouldn't mind being fryed in Hawaii while watching the Vols. What I want to know is what job does CR have that he can hang out on these boards all day and night?

Posted by newtonrail on September 6, 2007 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CRVol, Dr. No., DSa's sister? Who cares. I'll be in Row 36, Section Q for the kickoff, instead of my Mother's basement, typing negative comments 24 hours a day. Geeesh!

Posted by sjt18 on September 6, 2007 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CR, I'd say the kick off situation is pretty desperate. Last year, the rule change would have been an advantage. It would've gone 5 yards deep anyway.

Line drive kicks to the 15 won't get it done.

Posted by cksauereisen on September 6, 2007 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Two questions...

1. What ever became of the 3-4 Defense plans? It works pretty well stopping the run for my Steelers, perhaps partly because it's not the norm.

2. Wasn't Coach Bowers in line to move on to a major program? I used to hear his name among candidates for more prominent programs, but not anymore.

Posted by sjt18 on September 6, 2007 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is face guarding now a penalty in the NCAA? If so, when did that change?

Posted by GreerVol22 on September 6, 2007 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Tonight , at the Tennessee Theatre, featuring JT Mapu and others in....."A POROUS LINE". A gut wrenching story of a rejected scatback from Mississippi that cuts through a wall of linemen big as a house but that hit like mouse."

Posted by sjt18 on September 6, 2007 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd trade Chavis for one of them if he continues to call games the way he did last Saturday.

Posted by 55Vol on September 6, 2007 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CRVol... I somewhat disagree, IF that walk-on kicker can put the ball close to the endzone and high enough for coverage to get there. If so, Fulmer can recognize that. If not, then yes, why even try.

Posted by sjt18 on September 6, 2007 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Greer, I wouldn't be surprised by high O output by USM... but if Chavis calls it right, I wouldn't be surprised by a shut out either.

They need to do what UT does best or design the defense differently. If you want to play reactive, assignment defense then your D needs to look like Penn St and play alot of zone.

Maybe UT could hire Kines to show them how to play 3-4. His defenses were always good.

Posted by sjt18 on September 6, 2007 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Walk-on kickers aren't uncommon in CFB. It is probably the best position for a walk-on to succeed at.

Disappointing that these scholarship players can't get it done though.

Posted by marc_ash on September 6, 2007 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ok crvol, if your saying it can't be fixed short term, then why give Fulmer so much hell? I agree with you, can't be done all at once but we are in the stew pot now.

Fulmer made some changes, so lets see how they work. I'm not so convinced that with the folks we have on the field that anything will work.

Posted by sjt18 on September 6, 2007 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Think about what you just said. The kick offs weren't high and were fielded no deeper than the 10. They really didn't give the coverage team a chance.

CR, CPF wanted to use Colquitt on kick offs but he got hurt. When did the rule change? Was it in time for UT to go out and find a new leg?

I don't know but how exactly was he supposed to solve the situation if the only guy he has that can kick deep gets hurt?

I know this is a problem. Do you have a specific idea for fixing it?

I'd probably hold Colquitt out of USM at this point then have him ready to kick off and punt against UF. Lincoln could do PAT's and short FG's. Maybe let Cunningham take some punts.

Posted by sjt18 on September 6, 2007 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CR, Colquitt wasn't the kicker last year... and UT had a touchback on virtually every play. The kicker (whose name eludes me) was so good that CPF sometimes had him kick down to the goal line on one side of the field with enough hang time to pin the opposition deep. That guy graduated and they already had 3 kickers on scholarship.

Posted by TNvolunteer on September 6, 2007 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sjt18...i have been asking the question all week about our db's coming up to the LOS to face gaurd a receiver...I dont think Fulmer likes that...He needs to use it because we are gonna be playing against some tough play makers at WR this year...Particully Florida.

Posted by sjt18 on September 6, 2007 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My point was that it was passed after signing day. Hopefully they would have made space for a strong leg if they'd known.

eric, that's not face guarding. That's press coverage. Face guarding is what WD40 suggested might have caused the interference on Johnson.

Face guarding is when the defender puts his hand in front of the WR's face to block his view while the ball is in the air.

I found out a little while ago that it isn't against the rules in college. You can do anything so long as you don't touch the receiver including waving your hand in front of his face. It used to be against the rules in the pros- not certain about now.

Johnson and Gaines can't play press coverage very well at their size. Berry and Willingham/McKenzie would have a better shot.

Press coverage is a high risk/high reward way to play. Arkansas played press coverage against UT last year and got good dividends.

Posted by sjt18 on September 6, 2007 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Those aren't bad ideas CR... we'll probably see them if they can't find someone to kick deep. I'm not sure that Lincoln can get a pooch kick that high though.

Posted by invisiblekid on September 6, 2007 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Easterling could turn into this week's version of Best, a true freshman with speed and talent that ends up burning us a few times. I hope the defense doesn't get too caught up in the talk about stopping the run, the LB's still need to play disciplined and keep containment on Young on the outside. At this point, switching Williams to the starting lineup is like putting gum on the dam that's about to break. Maybe he'll come through though. Hindsight being 20-20, those scholarships that went to Lincoln and Cunningham might have been better spent on a couple of defensive tackles.

Posted by TNvolunteer on September 6, 2007 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But what I cant understand is that if Cal didnt have these physical receivers then why was we giving them 7 yards of cushion for them to make a 3 yard catch and turn it into a 2nd and short situation, i mean they take a 3 yard hitch and turn it into a 9 yard gain or longer...why didnt we make them go deep and a few times.....Johnson wasnt flagged for waving his hands in Jacksons face...he never turned his head to see where the ball was in the air...If he had turned his head he probably would not have been flagged, none the less it was good coverage...Even at 5'7 or 5'8...You can still press cover and be affective..Georgia had a corner who was at best 5'8 with his spikes on and was a great cover corner, so dont say that their size is a problem.

Posted by sjt18 on September 6, 2007 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

eric, the contact before the ball arrived was incidental if it existed at all. Having his head turned doesn't matter unless he runs into the guy or grabs him or something like that. There's no rule that says you have to turn your head if you're playing tight coverage.

To answer your question... that's the question. Why didn't UT man up more and blitz to stop Cal's running game and to pressure Longshore. I know the coaches are paid professionals who get to make those decisions... but it sure looked obvious enough.

CR, if USM does have better DT's then, yes, that will be sad.

invisible, They did recruit some DT's. Vlad Richard was recruited as a DT and for some reason I don't understand was moved to offense. It seems a 300+ lb guy who everyone agrees is a physical specimen might be somewhat helpful plugging the middle right now.

I don't even quite understand why they don't swith him back. He's probably the fourth back up at this point.

Posted by TNvolunteer on September 6, 2007 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Officials will call it ever time if you dont turn your head to see the ball, even if the contact was incidental, plain and simple...how many times has it happened in the past and it still will continue to happen.

I do agree with you on Vlad Richard...why is he an offensive lineman? He was ranked i think in the top 50 DT's coming out of high school and he hasnt seen the field yet? That is Fulmer for you, move a talented guy from his natural position and play him somewhere he has no clue to play.

Posted by TNvolunteer on September 6, 2007 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sounds about right CRVol....Like I said before...Fulmer is too buddy-buddy with guys over there. He's afraid to hurt one of the kids feelings who isnt getting the job done. So what if one of the kids he benches transfer..That means he is a quitter, but the ones who stays routinely get better.

Posted by sjt18 on September 6, 2007 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not sure it was Fulmer's decision. If Chavis had wanted him to stay a DT... then I doubt he would have lost him. If he wanted him back, I'd say that would be a difficult argument for Cut to win.

Chavis has a history of taking Safeties and making them LB's, LB's and making them DE's, and DE's and making them DT's. Bolden and Langley are the only two DT's on the roster that were recruited as DT's as far as I know. Fisher, Mapu, and Nelson were DE's. Williams was an OL.

I don't know how they make that decision... but it would seem to their advantage to get Richard out there putting a helmet on someone. From a physical standpoint, Richard, Bolden, Williams, and Mapu sound like a pretty good group from a size and strength standpoint.

Posted by cookvol1 on September 6, 2007 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you noticed since coach Cut came back we are getting the same thing we used to get,d-linemen going to offense

Posted by sjt18 on September 6, 2007 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They've even talked about moving Brimfield to O. I forgot about him being recruited as a DT.

Posted by fryed004 on September 6, 2007 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TouchdownTN...I've been here in Hawaii for 3 years (Air Force), trust me, I hit the beach and all the other spots when I'm off duty...great life here. I do watch every Vol game I can get my eyes on and fortunately we have a nice cable company here.

Posted by sjt18 on September 6, 2007 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Williams switched to D though... which undercuts the idea that Cut is causing all of it to happen by himself.

Posted by TNvolunteer on September 6, 2007 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why isnt Langly playing...He was a very highly recruited DT..He was in for spring practice...went through the drils and is good size 6'2, 300..Just wodering why they havent given him a chance yet?

Posted by sjt18 on September 6, 2007 at 5:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I really don't know eric. I haven't seen anything one way or the other on him. During his recruitment, the UT coaches said they liked him as well as Marvin Austin. Austin was rated the best DT by Rivals.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing Langley, Brimfield, and Richard all get their shot.

Posted by marc_ash on September 6, 2007 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

see you in knoxville fellas. I"ll be at BW-3 with stumblin around with the rest of the Vol nation.

Lets hope we can stop the run, or it will be a long night.

Posted by invisiblekid on September 6, 2007 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SJT, think it has been pretty well covered about Richard at this point but it is a pretty interesting situation with him. Met him at the O&W game year his freshman year and he was impressive from a physical standpoint. It hasn't made any sense to me either why they thought switching him to O line was a good idea. They haven't exactly had quality depth at tackle the past few years. I am to the point of just hoping they can find some bodies to throw in there that can stand their ground. I tried to tow the company line leading up to the Cal game regarding Mapu and Bolden, but they were humiliated along with the rest of the defense last week. I'll give Cal credit, Mack is a fine center and the rest of the guys up front looked pretty athletic, but I honestly believe we'll see just as good from several other teams this year. Unless someone makes that mythical leap between the first and second game, the defense is in for another long year up front.

Posted by newtonrail on September 6, 2007 at 11:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

With all the collective intelligence on this board, can someone tell me why we hear nothing about Willingham and/or McKensie playing? That's what JUCO's are for. Can't those two and Hefney and Berry give us a better Def Backfield? I guess we'll be told they don't know the assignments. Well, Berry is a Frosh and they are Juniors. Duh!!!

Posted by volguy on September 7, 2007 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder why Phil Fulmer hasn't hired all these folks as assistant coaches? It's obvious they know more football than does Fulmer, Chavis, Cutcliffe, et al!

Posted by orangebloodgmc on September 7, 2007 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Newtonrail, good question about the jucos. I hope we see 'em play significant role this week.

Posted by sjt18 on September 7, 2007 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

volguy, We're for the most part just venting and throwing ideas out. None of our jobs are dependent on whether the Vols win or lose... their jobs are so I don't suspect that we're smarter than they are or care more about success. This is part of the fun of being a college football fan. Sorry if it offends you. I lived near Chicago for awhile... this griping and criticism is nothing compared to what they do to the teams they're passionate about.

invisiblekid, I've beaten this to death but it is pretty hard to be effective against a decent OL led by a guy like Mack when the DC doesn't scheme to keep them from double teaming you the whole game and the LB's don't even make the freedom you bought them good.

IMO, most of the blame lies in the way the defensive game plan was developed and called. Cal doubled at the point of attack and usually had 6 or 7 blocking 4 on pass plays. UT apparently thought if they could keep Cal's stars from catching long passes they'd be able to "bend but not break". They were bent, contorted, broken, and stomped into scrap.

I don't think the DL's are without talent. They just can't be set up to fail like that.

CRVol, Melancon is a true DT. He needs to add some weight but that was his recruited position. You forgot Gerald Williams. As far as I know, if those guys get their academics in order they can transfer early.

If UT isn't going to get those 4 or 5 star DT's and leave them at DT then they need to recruit guys they can build. Take someone like Jeff Cottam at 6'8", bulk them up to 320, and they're probably a very good DT.

I'm generally supportive of Fulmer. Very supportive of Cutcliffe. But Chavis makes me scratch my head concerning player decisions.

Posted by sjt18 on September 7, 2007 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BTW, IMO Mapu's inability to get off blocks may be a direct result of having lost too much weight. He'll be more effective against some OL's than others. But he won't be good against all of them til he gets back close to 300.

Posted by LazhilUT on September 7, 2007 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Another one that slipped through our fingers right Fulmer?
Just like you missed out on Rex Grossman and made Ken Dorsey mad because we didn't pay any attention to him who wanted to play for us and then ended up with Casey Clausen...
Can you guys imagine our 2001 team with Ken Dorsey at QB? WOW

Posted by orangeblood on September 7, 2007 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Did nobody take into account actually how awesome Cal's O-line is? Watch USC's defense not do much better.

Posted by sjt18 on September 7, 2007 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

CR, I didn't say anything positive or negative about GW... only that you didn't mention him. "If" he ever gets to campus, he could be a very good football player. As far as getting out of HS, no problem for me either. I had an appointment to AFA available if I'd wanted it but they declared me non-flight qualified due to allergies.

I'm more impressed when "electronic timing" is involved in 40's. Supposedly, UT has several kids that have been electronically timed at 4.4 or better. O'Neal is said to have run an electronically timed 4.29. I wasn't there so it is hearsay and I won't be offended if you don't believe it.

Posted by sjt18 on September 7, 2007 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Cal's line is not awesome. Chavis let them get away with double teaming UT's DL... Carroll won't do that.

Posted by invisiblekid on September 7, 2007 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TDTN, I think what you are talking about is "football speed". Not sure that how fast a guy runs in a straight line always translates into being a great football player, see Leonard Scott as an example.

Posted by invisiblekid on September 7, 2007 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SJT, going back to the defensive tackle discussion again, point taken, the gameplan was flawed and execution by the LB's and safeties was worse. But, if you look at the body of work between Mapu and Bolden since last year, it isn't impressive. When is the last time either of these guys showed enough anticipation and quickness to split a double team? When have either one of them managed to get low enough to stand their ground or wipe out a couple of blockers and open the middle up for a big hit by an LB or safety? In passing situations when they are facing one on one blocking, when has either one of them gotten a sack or at least pressured the QB? If you look at stats from last year, Harrell had 1 less tackle in 3 games, one of which was played essentially with 1 arm, than Mapu in 13. Last year is done and over but I would have expected to see some improvement over the summer and the first game and it didn't happen. Hopefully, Williams starting is the answer but it begs the question of if he was better, than why didn't he start in the first place? Not being argumentative, but I think there is much more to it than a problem with either the gameplan by Chavis or the opposing coaching staff. After all, it's been 7 games in a row now that the Vols have given up at least 100 yards rushing.