Posted by threesdown on September 3, 2007 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is this Tennessee's (Specifically Coach Chavis) Tragic flaw? It seems to me that it has been since I have been a fan...We always assume our front four on the defensive line will be able to disrupt enough. Let's do the math shall we? Four D-lineman to 5 offensive lineman, not counting tight ends or fullbacks...Doesn't really make sense does it? Every time we got to Longshore he made a mistake...In the past, every time we got to the Florida QB he would make a mistake. WHY DO WE CONTINUALLY DO THIS TO OURSELVES... BLITZ SOMEONE YOU IDIOTS! AT LEAST ONE PERSON!!! PLEASE I DON'T WANT TO LOSE FAITH IN TENNESSEE!!! What a brilliant defensive mind Chavis has and STILL he cannot see what I see...Maybe if someone can show me the negatives...I don't know

Posted by 5forVols on September 3, 2007 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree. When we stopped Cal on downs it was because we forced longshore to pass too soon and off the mark. This is how interceptions are made. You have to bring extras in and go man to man once in a while. Surely we can cover receivers for 2.5 seconds.

Posted by jhenson on September 3, 2007 at 4:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

omg...CAL just scored again!

I agree with you threesdown. let's take some chances on D. It beats sitting back and getting picked apart drive after drive after drive...

...oops CAL has a recevier running free in the seam, ohhhh crap...they just scored again...

Posted by Plasticman on September 3, 2007 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Chavis typically blitzes on most downs. I'm surprised we tried to play this game by only rushing 4 lineman. I bet he goes back to his old ways after the Cal game. However, if he is not comfortable with man coverage, that may not happen.

Posted by mtnvol on September 3, 2007 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

threesdown, you have convinced me of reincarnation....nobody can know as much as you do and only live one life! It's time some of the posters dust off their extensive football resumes and head to the complex. I'm sure you can do a much better job!

Posted by Plasticman on September 3, 2007 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Everyone remember, Cal's offense scored 31 points. Tenn. offense scored 31 pts. Our special teams and left tackle gave up 14 pts.

Posted by gaVOLman on September 3, 2007 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Covering man to man for a couple of seconds until someone gets to the QB has to be easier than trying to cover speedy recievers for 5 or 6 seconds until any QB in the country can find someone that is open. If we get pressure on the QB this game is a lot lot lot different.

Posted by williams7977 on September 3, 2007 at 6:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cal's Tedford said it best; when he said that "last year they didn't know anything about the Vols. But after playing them once they learned all they needed to and it became easier".

Posted by GreerVol22 on September 3, 2007 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Once again everyone missed the point. WE DO NOT HAVE THE PLAYERS NECESSARY TO COMPETE, NOR THE APTITUDE FOR CALLING THE RIGHT SETS WITH THE UPPER TEERS OF ANY BCS CONFERENCE. It was obvious with every blitz we threw at them as their O-line or TBs threw us off like cotton candy. And for those of you who think, we had good defensive stops in the 3rd to "make a comeback"...please. Like any coach, including Fulmer, Tedford was trying to kill clock with simply plays that are easy to defend. When Cal needed more points...look what happened...

A sign of being out coached...
When Ainge got hammered in the first series, what happened?....a Cal linebacker line up in a corner blitz opposite where Foster lined up and came unblocked, spearing Ainge...not a clean hit but hey, the media and especially a well thought out coaching staff got what it wanted.

Posted by invisiblekid on September 3, 2007 at 7:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

With the way Bolden played last night, I am all for Williams getting many more reps. Most important thing that came out of last night's game was the news that Mitchell is OK. Looking back to Inky Johnson, some things are more important than football and I am glad to hear that news.

Posted by Medalist on September 3, 2007 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This fair weather fan of 33 years is having second thoughts about renewing season tickets. Recruiting success hasn't prevented special teams errors, inability to stop the run, ongoing failure against ranked opponents, you pick it. Defensive and SP coaching might help.

Perhaps sending some unused tickets to trustee Jim Haslam might convey the message, "the job is not getting done".

Posted by CrankE on September 3, 2007 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ainge with a more extensive brace. Hmmmm, I just knew there was a reason we didn't stretch the field.

Their freshman, Best won the California 100 yd. dash. DeSean Jackson returned 4 of 26 punts for TDs. How can this be a surprise to a team that's had 8 months to get prepared? Fail to plan, plan to fail.

While Cal may be the best that UT will play all year, we won't know until December. We'll take care of the wildly optimistic/pessimistic comments, Ryan. You just lean into it with your shoulders and make some hits and tackles.

Posted by Buckley on September 3, 2007 at 7:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Football is a game of different sets. Why do we read where our players say they ran stuff we hadn't seen, such as Ryan Carl's comments. Give me a break, there is not that many different sets,so it is our coaching.

Posted by invisiblekid on September 3, 2007 at 7:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ditto CrankE, shouldn't have been any suprises for Karl or the rest of the team with regards to speed. Jackson played last year, Forsett played last year, track and field records for Best were common knowledge. "Last year they had some wrinkles, and it was the first time we'd seen it,'' said Tedford, who didn't call Cal's plays last season. "After playing them once, it was easier.'' Seems pretty obvious Tedford took some notes after last year, hopefully our staff learns something from this game.

Posted by utallvol on September 3, 2007 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Speed kills. I have to give it to Cals play calling that got the ball to people in space, something we didn't do. Why all the talk about speed in the 2007 class if we don't use it. Defense was just disappointing I've never seen a John Chavis defense look like that. I Love Coach Chief but we wasn't prepare for there speed. Look for a great D the rest of the year no more surprises from the other teams here on out Chief will be ready the rest of the year. Go Vols!!!

Posted by nicavol on September 3, 2007 at 8:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I told a friend that we would know if Tennessee was truly going to have a strong team when we ha our first third & 2. When we had a strong running game an OL thaty was a running play. But our first 3 & 1 aganst Cal we tried the same ole toss to the flat to Foster. One we showed no confidense in our OL or backs, and the play was so typical a moron would know to expect it. As long as UT must pass on 3 & 2 we will never win another CHAMPIONSHIP. Even with a weak defense we could have won the Cal game by converting some short third downs and not getting cute from the 3-yard line and getting kept out of the endzone. From the 3 you lower your head and bull in a yard at a time and its seven. The key to any UT season is the OL and we still can't run on 3rd & 2. The last time we had a good OL it was under Mike Barry!

Posted by Ironcity on September 3, 2007 at 8:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To many people think Blitzing will cure our ill's. The problem is we did blitz and we blitzed often. Its amazing to me how poor our blitz packages have become. We have been running the same blitzes now for 15 years and everyone in the country can see them long before the snap. Its one of the reasons draws and slants kill us now. The reality is our Dee Line is horrible. Especially our defensive ends. It might be time to quit converting linebackers into ends and start actually recruiting Ends. Cal had a lot of team speed but they had the same guys last year. One other thing our linebackers are great athletes but I am not sure they are great football players. I think its time they start trying to recognize what the other team is doing to them instead of going hell bent across the line only to be made a fool of by a play fake a reverse or a cut back by the halfback.

Posted by CrankE on September 3, 2007 at 8:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Random note: I guess if 30 people comment on an article/column, the little "hot" symbol on GVX appears.

Posted by jhenson on September 3, 2007 at 9:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The Chief" will be ready the rest of season...LOL! What was he doing up to the CAL game...fightin' Fulmer and the special teams coach for position in the buffet line? The apologists on this site are hilarious. "CAL was just better", "Tennesse just doesn't have the talent anymore"...Give me a break. For sure CAL was better but it had very little to do with the talent.

Beginning with this last recruiting class, we've had classes ranked 3rd, 23rd, 3rd, 10th, 12th, 7th.

What has our illustrious staff done with said talent (other than get them ready for the NFL...and I'll admit, they're darn good at that)?...

2002...We started the season ranked 4th We lost to Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Miami, then got drilled by Maryland in the Peach Bowl.

2003...We were ranked 7th when we lost to an unranked Auburn team, got drilled 41-13 by Georgia and got embarassed in the Peach Bowl again by Clemson

2004...(In retrospect, this was a great season) We were ranked 10th when Auburn beat us 34-10, We had climbed back to 9th when an unranked Notre Dame team beat us. At least we made a good showing in a loss to Auburn (moral victories don't count for much, though). Then in a what has sadly become a rarity in Tennessee, we looked awesome against A&M in the Cotton Bowl.

2005...This was the lovely 5 - 6 season. You know...the one where we were pre-season National Title "contenders". Losses to Fl, Ga, SC, AL, ND, and VANDERBILT...are you serious?

2006...losses to Fl, LSU, Arkansas and another embarassing performance against a meiocre Penn State team. (A decent bounce-back season after the debacle of 2005, but still the same predictable conclusion)

Are there a 100+ D-1 schools that would take those results?...ABSOLUTELY! Do they consistently recruit like we do, and have the facilities and resources we have?... ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! And that's my issue with the current state of affairs and those who continue to defend the status quo. Remove your emotions and look strictly at the facts...I don't know of another coaching staff, over the last six years, that has gotten less out of more than has Fulmer and his staff.

Nothing personal...just the facts!

Posted by TurboFan on September 3, 2007 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

“If I could have fought those double teams a little bit harder, I could have gotten off and made plays,” Bolden said. Was everyone double teamed on the D line, Demonte? Sounds like one of those lines you use in an interview: "my biggest flaw is I care too much and work too hard"

Posted by 72vol on September 3, 2007 at 10:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think Ryan made one tackle the whole game. He probably is our smartest player on defence, but he also has to be the slowest!

Posted by vol4good on September 3, 2007 at 10:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ditto to everything Jhenson said! I would add one thing. Fullmer has tried to right the ship(Cutt, Trooper Taylor, firing Randy, and of course the bribe, errr donation money he gave!)

Posted by vol4good on September 3, 2007 at 10:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That donation was timed really well dont you think! Like--O.K. here's a Million $'s Just in case we suck

Posted by jhenson on September 3, 2007 at 10:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Invisiblekid and I had a discussion last week relative to the futility of debating Fulmer's future. Unfortunately, Invisible is right...Fulmer isn't going anywhere this year and probably not the next, so getting all worked up over it is probably useless. But wow...it's difficult to look at the numbers and not get worked up...

Having said that,I also want to make it clear that I admire Fulmer as a person, and while I have infinite doubts about his ability to take Tennessee beyond mediocrity as a football program, I haven't quite become so cynical as to allow myself to believe his donation was anything more than a grateful Tennessee boy saying thanks to the University that has done so much for him.

Posted by leedsvol2007 on September 3, 2007 at 10:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened with 3 new guys in the secondary what might have happened if we played man to man against Cal if a blitz did not work.

Next to Florida and maybe Arkansas we will not see anyone with close to the skill position talent that Cal has. And by the time we play them hopefully guys like Eric Berry who looked outstanding on Saturday will have stepped it up to the point we can run some better blitz packages.

Or better yet Bolden, Mapu and company will have raised there game to a level where we can run blitzes as a total surprise.

We will know as the season progresses but there is the possibility that Cal is that good on offense and simply made us look bad.

This week will provide some answers.

GoVols!

Posted by jhenson on September 3, 2007 at 10:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

leeds...I suppose it's possible! Here's hoping you're right! (as I raise a frosty mug in a symbolic toast to the VOLS and all my fellow VOL fans)

Posted by volfan39 on September 4, 2007 at 12:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I've waited 2 days to try and sift thru and make my analysis of the inept Tenn. Vols -- here goes The Cants --1. cant run 2. cant stop the run 3. cant tackle 4.cant throw deep 5. cant pick up 1st. down throwing dink 2 yd. passes at least 2 series in row on 3rd and 11 6. cant kick away fron nations leading punt returner 7. cant coach and it all adds up to#8 ---CANT WIN BIG TIME FOOTBALL GAMES. tEN YRS OF THIS IS ENOUGH . I HEAR MICH. IS LOOKING FOR A COACH, PHIL. Tn.-- MIch. and FLa. St. only losers in top 25. Any similarities in head coaches? The rest of fooball have passed them by. Let,s review --Ga. goes down hill-- hires new coach Fla starts to fall what happens? hires new coach -- South Carolina hits bottom quess what-- hires new coach . Does "Rocky Top" have to fall on Tenn admin. before the solution to our mediocrity becomes evident. If its broke fix it!!! All of the above schools are suddenly-- or slowly,but surely, are dominating us instead of the other way around. Take back your million PF, and just fade away while we have some reputation as a football power left. There has got to be several quality coaches out there that would just love to coach at a great football school such as Tennessee. jhenson your are all over this problem --well said!!

Posted by newtonrail on September 4, 2007 at 1:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I may be a minority, but I believe Coach Chavis and ALL of the Defensive ASST. Coaches are one of the top groups in the country coaching people, and making game adjustments. THE PROBLEM, and it starts with Coach Fulmer, the Recruitig Coor., and the Def. Coaches who give input is: FILLING RECRUITING NEEDS. If you look backward toward '98, you will see a weak area in the DB's, DT's, LB's, or DE's. Sometimes we have have 2 or 3 positions carry the others, but without Juniors and Seniors starting in the majority of the Defensive spots, you won't see the dominance we all want.

Posted by bpear on September 4, 2007 at 1:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am a long time Bear fan ... close to 50 years, ever since I was in grade school. I've seen a lot of ups and downs during that period. Cal is riding pretty high these days. But, we haven't been a consistent top tier team since the late 1940's. The last visit to the Rose Bowl was in 1959.

I think that it is wonderful that so many Vols fans travel to games. In the Tedford era, the average attendance has grown to more than 64,000 folks, most of them are "bandwagon" fans, though. So while the Cal fans will outnumber the visiting fans these days, I remember a few years ago during the Halmo era (very sad days) that Nebraska came to Berkeley and the 25,000 Cornhusker fans almost outnumbered the Cal fans. That was humiliating.

Anyway, I spoke to some Vols fans on the way to the stadium. We all agreed that we would like a good, competitive game without anyone getting hurt.

I remembered that conversation, when Xavier Mitchell went down in the 4th quarter. I sit in the North endzone close to where Mitchell was down on the turf. I was pretty worried when Mitchell got carted off the field. I will admit that I was pretty scared for him and his family. [Just think about how it would feel if you were watching from the stands or at home on TV and you saw your son go down hard. And, then not even twitch!] Anyhow, I guess he only got concussed. I hope he'll be back on the field soon. His injury could have been much worse. His injury should let us keep the game and the performance of both the Bears and the Vols in perspective about what's important.

I noticed that most of the Vols fans that were leaving were seated in the Southeast quadrant, while the fans in the Soutwest stayed put. Can anyone explain that to me?

Stadium-wise ... it's a great venue to watch a game, but I will admit that it is a bit shabby and needs renovation. The bathrooms and concession stands are awful.

As far as the game goes, Ainge looked pretty good to me. Although the Bear defense had a few good stands, I think that the Bear defense looked porous a lot of the time. There were a number of times when a Vols receiver was alone without a Bear defender within 10 yards.

Anyhow ... here's to a successful and entertaining season for both the Bears and the Vols.

Posted by DannyVol on September 4, 2007 at 1:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ryan Karl would be impressed by the speed of a turtle - as it pulls away from him in a race.

We better beat Florida AND Georgia this year or things will get very interesting.

Posted by 55Vol on September 4, 2007 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Danny Vol..... Karl would be impressed by the speed of your mouth as it out runs whatever brain you have... Best and Jackson were FAST...just a fact.
Jhenson....maybe you could make a muppet that could coach the Vols. Since we have so much talent and it is clear to you they are not coached but anyone can coach them to a 14-11 record in America, make us a coach who can do better. You know, someone nasty like Oscar the Grouch...someone who will get in the grill of each player, make them mad, and have them perform to all of the expectations of the Spurrier/Saban/Meyer/Miles/Richt fans who frequent this site.

Posted by jhenson on September 4, 2007 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ilove_football--judging by the IQ with which you write, I'm not in the least bit surprised that the best take you could come up with was a muppet reference. My name actually is Jim Henson, so good call! You made me laugh. If you spent half as much time watching football as you do watching Big Bird and the Kermit, you'd understand why so many fans admire the consistent play that coaches such as Saban/Meyer/Spurrier/Richt and others get out of their teams year after year.

Oh and by the way, I don't need to "make a muppet to coach the Vols." I'm quite certain I saw Bert and Ernie roaming the sidlines on Saturday.

Posted by LazhilUT on September 4, 2007 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What a moronic comment that Karl made. Instead of talking to the press you idiot, go back on the field and play HARD. Our D was out there looking like teenage girls trying to wear their mom's heels for the first time.
It was pathetic!!!

Part of me wants us to go 0-4 to get Fulmer out of Neyland Stadium but I love you UT too much.

Posted by 55Vol on September 4, 2007 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Gee I thought you and CRVol were Big Bird and Kermit? Opps... nope ...your right... Bert and Ernie. Just not sure which one you are......

Big Bird?? now whose IQ is really in question here?

Go lobby Hamilton to just fire Fulmer and get on with it. That seems to be the answer to everything that's wrong with the Vols according to you and many others on this site.

As for watching football, yep Cal had better team speed on both sides of the ball. Why did Heffney miss so many tackles? Could it be that Parrish was so far out of position on most plays that Heffney was trying to make tackles and wasn't quite in the position to do so after coming off his coverage area? Why did Colquitt punt directly to Jackson, who runs 25% of the punts he fields for TD's against everyone he plays against? He wasn't coached to do that. Why didn't Bolden defeat the double teams more often? He is supposeed to have the backbone and talent to do that. Was Mapu back on his mission of 2 years ago? He certainly didn't play like he did before the mission. Why did Arian not run to the end zone but stop to look at the guy at the five and got tackled? That cost us a touch down you know. Why didn't Hardesty just run over the Cal defenders to the endzone whether he got blocking or not? If we have WR's who all run 4.4 or better why couldn't they get open? I mean with that much speed, they should be able to get open. Harvin at Florida does, as does DJ Hall at Bama.
Do you really think Fulmer and staff coaches them to make the screw-ups they made on Saturday?
We got outplayed, out-hustled, and out-coached on Saturday. Having got run out of the stadium in Knoxville last year, maybe the redemption factor played a HUGE factor for Cal. On Saturday, they were the better team.

Anytime you want to analyzethe other coaches and the losses they have had that makes their fans call them inconsistent, let's go for it dude.

Posted by volsthunder on September 4, 2007 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Another performance by a head coach who thrives on mediocrity. With the exception of Ainge, who Cut got ready to play, the rest of the squad played like their head coach coaches. The current edition of the Vols football squad has little front line or secondary defense, no downfield threat on offense, and couldnt tackle a bunch of Jr Pros. Chavis has been hanging around Fulmer to long and has a substantial amount of work to do. Fulmer has always had work to do. Fulmer just doesnt know how to do it. Absolutely, positively, the worst game day coach in the country is Phillip Fulmer.

Posted by waterskier3 on September 4, 2007 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

FACE it Vols FANS.. we are an average team and have been for over 5 years now.... we can no longer compete with anyone that's a true top 15 team... the SEC is down a little so fulmer will still squeak out 8 wins and they will break out the orange cool-aid and celebrate... I'm tired of being average in a sport that is so important to the vol nation.

Man ol man what's a vol fan to do......

Posted by sjt18 on September 4, 2007 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

volsthunder, The defense played very poorly but the place to start isn't the guys who were getting double teamed... it is with the LB's that were free to roam but consistently lost one on one battles with their RB's.

They didn't light UT up that badly passing either. If the LB's had snuffed the run, the D would have stopped most of their drives.

It wasn't the supposed weaknesses that beat UT. It was the supposed strength.... and the fact that UT doesn't have a kicker that can get the ball anywhere near the goal line.

Posted by jcvet on September 4, 2007 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

They said kind of the same thing about Air Force last yr. HAHAHAHA!

Posted by leedsvol2007 on September 4, 2007 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened with 3 new guys in the secondary what might have happened if we played man to man against Cal if a blitz did not work.

Next to Florida and maybe Arkansas we will not see anyone with close to the skill position talent that Cal has. And by the time we play them hopefully guys like Eric Berry who looked outstanding on Saturday will have stepped it up to the point we can run some better blitz packages.

Or better yet Bolden, Mapu and company will have raised there game to a level where we can run blitzes as a total surprise.

We will know as the season progresses but there is the possibility that Cal is that good on offense and simply made us look bad.

This week will provide some answers.

GoVols!

Posted by johnlg00 on September 4, 2007 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have a theory about poor tackling--not just ours, but on a lot of teams these days. Call it the "coach-em-up" fallacy. In high school, big, strong, fast players dominate with their physical gifts and show up on all the multi-star recruiting lists. If coaches don't recruit that kind of player, then all the recruiting junkies jump on them. If the guy doesn't pan out, at least the coaches can say, "Well, he sure looked like a good prospect; look at all those other big powers who recruited him." If coaches see that some "can't-miss" prospect has some flaws in his techniques, they quite naturally tell themselves, "Well, when we get him we will teach him proper techniques." After all, isn't that what coaches get paid for--to coach?

The problem is that they don't have time to spend on a lot of fundamentals because of NCAA limitations on practice time. Also NCAA restrictions on recruiting numbers mean that there is less full-contact tackling in practice because teams can't afford getting players hurt. Modern players all grow up watching sports highlights shows on TV. Think about how many of those emphasize the "big hit", the big knock-out blows, usually delivered with the shoulder from a 20-yard sprint. Proper technique--3/4 speed approach, "sit-down", drive through the ball carrier, wrap him up, take him down--never appears on such shows. Most young players are never taught how to do this before getting to college, if then. Even then, it looks "wimpy" compared to the kill-shots they grew up thinking were the ideal.

I like a good "kill-shot" as much as anybody, but I would MUCH rather see a sound fundamental tackle executed every time than a bunch of whiffs wrapped around the OCCASIONAL kill-shot. More proof of the "big-play" fallacy? Look at basketball. Highlight shows show slam-dunks and dipsy-do scoops exclusively. Result? No one can make a free-throw or an 18-foot jumper, because the players spend their youth trying to perfect what the media shows them, what they already KNOW are the things that get them noticed. Coaches think they can correct a lifetime of bad habits in a year or two of practice, only to realize that they don't have the time to drill on those fundamentals. The players aren't sold on those fundamentals because the players they see on TV all the time don't have them, so they must be a waste of time.

The fact is that training facilities and methods have improved so much that players now can more easily be MADE bigger, stronger, and even faster than they can be trained out of poor techniques. The answer, then, is to recruit players who know how to PLAY and how to WIN, and THEN build them up physically, rather than the reverse, which is what all the "big-time" programs are trying to do. Yeah, right, like that'll happen!

Posted by sjt18 on September 4, 2007 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Cal looked good offensively but UT did some things very poorly. They obviously didn't tackle well... except for Berry no one tackled Forsett. Alot of people are throwing this at the feet of the DL's. They could have played better I'm sure but the double teams they got meant that LB's were free or being blocked by WR's. The LB's simply didn't show up.

Posted by hueypilot on September 4, 2007 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Excellent points johnig00. The best tackler we have had in some time was Jason Allen. He used proper technique as you described. If you want to see a clinic on tackling properly watch most NFL secondary players and especially guys like Bob Sanders of Indy. Generally they are going to be smaller but certainly no bigger than most NFL runners so they use the shoulder, arms, and wrap the ballcarrier's legs up and use the ball carrier's momentum against their body to put the ball carrier on the ground and in a hurry. Altho many times in the Cal game, the runners were bouncing it outside and we were tackling from behind or the side, seldom in front of the ball carrier and that is a surefire indicator that your line and linebackers are getting handled by the offensive team's blockers. Reminded me very much of our effort against Arkansas last year and Auburn at their place a few years ago when their offensive line and Ronnie Brown put on a blocking clinic. BTW, we don't seem to be able to execute that kind of blocking out of our offense, thus the passes on third and short.
This could be a very disappointing season. I see a lot of parallels between Bobby Bowden and Phillip Fulmer since 1998-99 National Championship years.

Posted by marc_ash on September 4, 2007 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

sjt, come on man just call it like it was. It happened just as I predicted it to happen. They had better talent...period. Does all the talk of Fossett putting up his numbers against sub-par talent apply here? I think almost 170 yards against UT shows that he is pretty good. And please don't use the argument that he had a good O line and ours D line wasn't as good. Fossett found the holes. He made folks miss. I got so sick and tired of Sportscenter making the "whope" sound when he would juke a player it wasn't even funny.

And SJT, the LB's didn't have anything to do with DB's and safetys getting twisted and turned around. Jackson and Co. made our secondary look like swiss cheese. Their skill players (jackson/fossett) were more talented and won this game on experience/skill.

We can talk about weak linebackers, D linemen, etc, but the bottom line is they were a very good team with more skill on the O side of the ball than we had on the D side of the ball. Our offense did a great job. 31 pts is enough to get it done. But something needs to happen quick on the D side. The secondary playing all freshman just isn't going to cut it.

Posted by LazhilUT on September 4, 2007 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm glad more people are starting to see that Fulmer brought us a championship and after that we had mediocre seasons but he's a good ole boy from Tennessee and still gets lots of support, unfortunately. Do you guys realize that at the same time we had Jason Witten and Daunte Stalworth on O and Jason Henderson on D...in the same year and we went nowhere? If that's not wasted talent, I don't know what that is.
I hate Casey Clausen for his attitude, big mouth, not being able to back up on the field and cockiness but I'm realistic enough to know that Fulmer did not develop all the potential that Casey had...
Enough! Someone said that we got outcoached...uh...who is our head coach? Phil Fulmer...who is also the person who go outcoached. Just last year, how many games did we get out coached? Air Force, Florida, Arkansas, LSU, Penn St., Kentucky...

Posted by 55Vol on September 4, 2007 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LAZhilUTDelt.... how much should we win by every week? 7 points...14 points?? Tell us....

Posted by invisiblekid on September 4, 2007 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jhenson, scary to see you posting from beyond the grave, figured you'd be too busy making Kermit the Flesh Eating Zombie muppets instead. Try not to think about what might have been for the Vols too much over the past ten years or so, that way lies madness.

Posted by sjt18 on September 4, 2007 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Does all the talk of Fossett putting up his numbers against sub-par talent apply here? I think almost 170 yards against UT shows that he is pretty good."

He performed much better than I thought he would... and we'll know how good he is when he plays someone with a defense. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be UT this year.

Posted by invisiblekid on September 4, 2007 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nice post johnlg00, there is one thing to add in talking about the time factor that I believe may be relevant to the situation though. If memory serves, going back to 2005, Caldwell was listed as the "special teams coordinator" and it turned out to be a disaster. Last season, and as far as I know this season, Cutcliffe handles the kickoff and punt returns while Chavis handles the kickoff and punt coverage. I think it is quite possible, especially with the rule changes on kickoffs and the uncertainty of who would be kicking off, that some of the fundamentals like tackling may have gotten lost in the shuffle a bit. It sure looked that way on Saturday.

Posted by sjt18 on September 4, 2007 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"And SJT, the LB's didn't have anything to do with DB's and safetys getting twisted and turned around. Jackson and Co. made our secondary look like swiss cheese. Their skill players (jackson/fossett) were more talented and won this game on experience/skill."

Yes they do... but FTR, how many receiving yards did Jackson have? In fact, how many times did Cal go down field for big gains? They didn't. They threw underneath where the LB's that weren't blitzing were. Had the LB's played even average football, the Vols would have won the game. They didn't do it.

The secondary was far from perfect but they weren't getting burned all over the place either. Their two big WR's, Jackson and Hawkins, combined for 11 catches for 135 yards. That's not terrible. The longest pass play of the day for them was when they hit Forsett underneath (against the LB's you know) and he went 49 yards with it.

BTW, I didn't say they weren't impressive Sat. They surprised me with how good they were and in particular Forsett's play. Jackson had the punt return but not alot on offense.

As far as vast superiority of athletes, UT didn't play well but Cal still isn't vastly superior athletically. Better than I thought... but not like what you're trying to suggest.

Absent the fumble that jumped up into their guy's hands and the inexplicable failure to score from the three... or better yet the failure of Foster to finish that run... you have a tie ball game.

BTW, on that Forsett catch and run, did anyone else see Cal's receiver bear hugging one of UT's DB's? Not that the game hinged on one call but that was a big no call to occur right in front of one of those Pac 10 officials. It wasn't a hold only if wrapping both arms around someone and grasping the back of the jersey on both sides isn't holding.

Posted by jhenson on September 4, 2007 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

invisiblekid...LOL!!! Madness indeed, my friend. BTW...you might be on to something with that "Zombie Kermit" idea...hmmmmmm.... Wonder what the licensing rights would cost?

Posted by marc_ash on September 4, 2007 at 4:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sjt, I agree...they didn't go down the field with a lot of big plays because they didn't have to. And the main reason was Fossett. While he was having a field day on the Vols it required the LB's to come up further in the box. Longshore threw to the areas that were vacant (i.e. where the linebackers should have been) because thats the area that was open. Those linebackers couldn't blitz because they were trying to chase Fossett all day in the holes that the "bigger" Cal D linemen were making all day.

Its a domino effect. LB's have to play up to stop the run=single coverage in the secondary. Fossett goes Forrest Gump on front 4 that can't blitz because they are too slow to catch him. Longshore plays catch in the backyard because he has all day and everyone is wide open.

I'm sorry but UT's secondary got DESTROYED. You talk about Jackson and Hawkins, but mention the other guys that contributed. Every receiver they had averaged at least 7 yards per catch. There were plays of 25, 49, 17, 23, 15 and 10 yards. You telling me UT's secondary wasn't burned all night? Having 3 WR's all put up 45+ yards is horrible.

"The longest pass play of the day for them was when they hit Forsett underneath (against the LB's you know) and he went 49 yards with it." Lets not forget the 15, the 17, the 23 and 25 yard plays that were run on that secondary either.

Posted by marc_ash on September 4, 2007 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"BTW, I didn't say they weren't impressive Sat. They surprised me with how good they were and in particular Forsett's play. Jackson had the punt return but not alot on offense.
As far as vast superiority of athletes, UT didn't play well but Cal still isn't vastly superior athletically. Better than I thought... but not like what you're trying to suggest."

SJT, exactly what would it take for you to be "impressed" or to say that Forsett was "vastly superior athletically"? The points I made last week held true in that Forsett and Jackson were far more talented than any of our defense. All you have to do is look at our squad trying to tackle those guys! Hell, its all over Sportscenter, shouln't be that hard to find.

Forsett rushed for 156 yards and 49 receiving. My goodness, 205 yards for goodness sakes. You now downplay UT's defense and say they aren't as good as _________. When will it be enough for you to give credit man? He rushed for more yards than he EVER has before against an SEC school and still he's "not like I'm trying to suggest".

As a football fan, you have to look at things as they are. I love the Vols and I bleed orange. But their offensive players were much better athletes than our D. You are always posting stats to back up your argument, I'm doing the exact same thing. Can't have a double standard just to make a point.

Forsett 156 rushing yards 49 receiving
Lavelle Hawkins 90 yards receiving 12.9 yard average
DeSean Jackson 45 yards rushing 11.2 yard average (also 21 yards rushing)
Jahvid Best (backup Freshman) 4 rushes 49 yards 11.5 yard average

6 players with double digit receiving yardage.

Posted by Volinar_21 on September 4, 2007 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Can someone explain to me why we punted at the end of the game? What did we have to loose? 7 points?

And why did Ainge dump off the passes on the last couple of drives to the running backs? Did his finger get aggrevated when he got knocked down or were all of the receivers covered up down field? TV only showed the line of scrimmage play on those last two series.

Posted by brdteton on September 4, 2007 at 7:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think FLA is faster............