The Tennessee Debacle: Out-played or Out-coached? Part III
The Tennessee Debacle: Out-played or Out-coached? Part I
The Tennessee Debacle: Out-played or Out-coached? Part II
Continuing on with the Tennessee Debacle series, here is the third and final part:
Offensively, Dunbar’s playcalling was actually pretty decent given the circumstances. Now I know a bunch of you ol’ Blues who are still bitter over the loss are probably thinking I’m blowing smoke up Dunbar’s ass, but I’m not.
Dunbar maintained an good variation in his personnel packages in liberty situations. Below is a pie chart to show his personnel packages in 20 liberty plays.
As you can see, Dunbar does have a tendency to use 21 personnel (two runningbacks, one tight end, [2 wide receivers is implicit]). But this package is the main I-Formation personnel set, so a tendency to use this personnel package is expected. In fact, the fact that Dunbar is putting 21 personnel on the field in liberty situations shows his adherence to Tedford’s philosophy of using a pro-style offense.
The occasional use of 12 personnel (one back, two tight ends) is also a reflection of Dunbar’s utilization of another pro-style personnel package. If you watch the NFL, you might know that many NFL teams are currently carrying two quality TEs on their roster for use in twin TE packages.
The most significant part of the personnel package pie chart above is the fact that Dunbar utilized 11 personnel (one back, one tight end) in liberty situations. You’re probably wondering why this is significant. First of all, 11 personnel utilizes 1 RB, 1 TE, and 3 WRs. Second, every time Dunbar utilized 11 personnel he put the QB in shotgun. Third, remember that the statistics showed that Dunbar passed 89% of the time from shotgun. Putting those three facts all together: if 11 personnel -> QB in shotgun -> 89% chance of pass. Showing a passing personnel package, and a passing formation in liberty situations keeps the defense off balance as long as you run occasionally.
Imagine that you are the defense. It is 1st and 10 and the offense comes out in a personnel package and a formation that you know they are extremely like to pass. Are they going to pass? It certainly seems like it but it’s 1st and 10! It’s not 3rd and long. It’s first and 10. Ultimately, the offense has the choice to run or pass on first down. So what are they going to do? You don’t know. In fact, shotgun spread teams such as West Virginia thrive on this very confusing look.
So obviously, Dunbar is attempting to keep the defense off balance by mixing in some shotgun spread in liberty situations. Because obviously, if you only utilize 11 personnel with the quarterback in shotgun and pass in must-pass situations, then the defense will know that you’re going to pass. But if you use 11 personnel with the quarterback in shotgun in liberty situations, things get confusing for the defense. Things get even more confusing and threatening when you can run a deadly shotgun option (once again, think West Virginia).
Another statistic that will vouch for Dunbar’s playcalling abilities is the fact that he adjusted to the horrible offensive linemen protection and Tennessee’s constant pressuring of Longshore. In Cal’s 4th possession - by which time it became very apparent that Cal’s OL was being dominated - Dunbar began rolling out the pocket. From that possession on, Dunbar sprinkled in seven plays that rolled the pocket either left or right in an effort to alleviate pressure on Longshore (7 roll out plays out of 34 total plays for Longshore is 20.6% roll out percentage).
The only fault Dunbar might have made in the Tennessee game was the fact that he did not call enough deception plays. When I say deception plays, I’m talking about playaction plays, draws, and screens. These are deception plays because they deceive the defense. For example, on a playaction play the defense is deceived into thinking it’s a run play when it’s really a pass play. A draw play looks like a pass but is a run. And a screen looks like a bad protection play, but it’s really a good protection play.
During last year’s Tennessee game, Dunbar only called 6 deception plays (out of Longshore’s 34 snaps). Four were screens, one was a draw, and one was a hard play action (hard playaction defined as when the QB turns his back to the defense as opposed to light play action where his back is never fully turned and he gives a quick and less deceiving hand-off pump with his arms). Essentially, about two in every eleven plays were deception plays. This number should probably be a little bit higher. Utilizing more playaction plays could have taken advantage of Tennessee’s aggressive defense. On the other hand, Dunbar’s calling of four screen plays was clearly an attempt to take advantage of Tennessee’s frequent blitzing. Obviously, he knew that the Tennessee D was being aggressive and getting penetration, so he attempted to exploit it.
Regarding any tendencies that Dunbar had in terms of down and run/pass, there weren’t any. On twelve 1st down plays, Dunbar called 7 runs and 5 passes (58.3% run, 41.7% pass). On five 2nd and medium distances (4 to 8 yards), Dunbar called 3 runs and 2 passes (60% run, 40% pass). On a single 2nd and short play (inches to 3 yards), Dunbar played it safe and ran the ball (100% run).
Regarding any tendencies that Dunbar had in terms of personnel package and down, there were a few. But keep in mind that a personnel tendency is not that bad (having a run/pass tendency during a specific down and distance is worse).
On first downs Dunbar came out with 21 personnel 50% of the time, 12 personnel 25% of the time, 11 personnel 16.7% of the time, and any other personnel sets 8.3% of the time. Obviously these statistics show that Dunbar is attempting to use a pro-style offense in liberty situations.
On 2nd and medium distances, Dunbar came out with 21 personnel 75% of the time, and 12 personnel 25% of the time. Again, Dunbar is attempting to utilize a pro-set offense in liberty situations.
On 2nd and long distances, Dunbar came out in 11 personnel 100% of the time. Recall that 11 personnel = 1 RB, 1 TE, and 3 WRs. Recall that 11 personnel = QB in shotgun = 89% pass. Obviously, Dunbar is conceding all run efforts when faced with 2nd and long, and doing so with the QB only in shotgun and in a pass heavy personnel set. A more balanced approach to passing on 2nd and longs would be to either use 11 personnel with the QB under center, or pass using a different personnel package.
On 3rd and longs, Dunbar came out in 11 personnel 100% of the time (9 out of 9 instances to be specific, and also with the QB in gun all 9 times too!). I find this to be somewhat troubling. While I do acknowledge the advantages of a shotgun snap, the fact that Dunbar showed no variety in the location of the QB on 3rd and long plays leads me to believe that for some reason the coaching staff didn’t want Longshore dropping back on obvious passing situations. Why? I don’t know. Maybe the coaching staff just wants Longshore to concentrate on the reads and not the drop. Maybe his dropback technique and rhythm were not what it should have been at the time. Or maybe nothing was of concern, and it’s just that the coaching staff felt that having a QB take a drop on 3rd and long situations was playing into Tennessee’s hands and strengths.
All in all, the failure of Cal’s offense against Tennessee’s defense was because of the losing battle in the trenches. The offensive line could not provide adequate protection, Longshore became rattled, and the pressure hampered Longshore’s effectiveness. As for the run blocking, the run blocking was fair, no huge holes were opened up but Marshawn was able to grind out some tough yardage on occasion.
So in conclusion, Dunbar’s playcalling was decent and I would have to reject the hypothesis that Dunbar was at fault for the Tennessee loss. If I had to give it a grade I would give it a B (please note that I am not grading him on how well he attacked Tennessee’s weaknesses and tendencies. I did not scout Tennessee’s tendencies or their players. I do not know what Dunbar’s gameplan was, but I am simply grading him on the results of what he chose to do). I know you guys must think I’m crazy but Dunbar did what he could given the circumstances. With the OL not protecting and blocking like normal, it put the offense - and Dunbar - in difficult situations. Like the saying goes, "games are won in the trenches". Last year’s Cal @ Tennessee game was truly a case of "games are won in the trenches". Tennessee won in the trenches and stymied Cal’s offense.
Check back on Saturday as I will address the audibling situation that Ken Crawford brought up in the comments section of The Tennessee Debacle: Out-played or Out-coached? Part I.
I enjoyed your wonderful analysis throughout your 3 part series! As a Tennessee alum/fan, I’d like to point out a few things to touch on that weren’t really addressed, or at least expand on some of your conclusions.
Your conclusion that Tennessee outplayed Cal is dead on. However, you shouldn’t necessarilly attribute it to dropped passes, false starts, and other “we shot ourselves in the foot” scenarios. Cal just happened to be the first team to play an angry Tennessee team after their dismal 5-6 season they suffered in 2005. There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that we would have abused and had our way with any team in the nation that particular night.
With respect to the ‘outcoaching’ analysis, personally I find it difficult to dissociate poor coaching from poor execution. They are directly related to (and feed) one another in that a poorly executed play is generally a result of poor coaching, and there is rarely a properly executed bad call that gains yards/points. You stated that Dunbar was left in multiple “tough positions” that made some of his calls extremely predictable. A 2nd-and-18 passing situation in last year’s game was generally the result of an 8 yard sack on 1st down…not a “coaching induced” situation.
I’m a commenter at the unofficial UT blog“Rocky Top Talk” so please check out the site and feel free to comment and/or trash talk, particularly as we near this year’s rematch. I look forward to similar results as in 2006!
Best wishes.
Comment by Aerobab — May 25, 2007 @ 5:33 am
Aerobab, thank you for your kind words.
You do bring up a good point that Tennessee had a lot to prove that season and would have played angry against any other team too. As for poor coaching being tied to poor execution, I see your point. Afterall, throughout the week coaches prepare their players for the plays they intend to call, thus coaching is tied to execution. But also I believe there is a second aspect of coaching that is disassociated from execution and that is the playcalling decisions. What plays Dunbar called and didn’t call, or what plays he didn’t call enough of are totally on him, and have nothing to do with the players. I will admit that sometimes the performance of players on certain plays can affect playcalling decisions (and I believe I touched upon this in my analysis) thus player performance/execution has a small affect on playcalling. Nevertheless, I still believe there is sufficient data to suggest that Dunbar’s playcalling coaching was decent despite the dismal player performances.
Once again, thank you for your support and opinion. Please feel free to come back and comment on our blog!
Comment by HydroTech — May 25, 2007 @ 8:22 am
Great analysis. I’m still a believer that the shotgun is bad news because you JUST CAN’T run effectively out of it. Maybe I can buy into the idea that in situations where everyone knows you have to pass, jump into the shotgun, but Cal used it much more regularly than that, including the Tennessee game.
Aerobab, nice to see a opposing fan who is willing to have a good discussion, instead of just talk trash. I’m all for the joy of trash talking, within reason, and these days it is hard to find a mixed-fan discussion board where the trash talk stays within reason.
Along those lines, combining some of the analysis and Aerobab’s comments, mis-direction plays are a great way to deal with angry teams. Angry teams tend to be over-aggressive and bite at seemingly good opportunities. Mis-direction can be very effective at combating that by getting those players out of position through their aggresiveness. It also has the benefit of getting them tired by running them all over the field in their aggressiveness. The lack of mis-direction, particularly early in the game, probably hurt Cal in that regard.
But that’s to take nothing away from Tennessee. They played a great high-intensity game with very few mistakes and that had a lot to do with why it seemed Cal was constantly “shooting itself in the foot”.
Comment by Ken Crawford — May 25, 2007 @ 9:30 am
Ken, that’s an excellent point. Florida has absolutely killed us (multiple deaths!) in the past by first making us very angry and then using that aggression against us with misdirection. Our speed factor also works against us in that regard. Fast and mad can be very good. Or very bad.
Comment by Rocky Top Talk — May 25, 2007 @ 10:06 am
Well my orignal comment didn’t post so here is the condensed try:
1. Cal was overconfident - touted for MNC game and UT coming off a 5-6 year.
2. Cal completely underestimated or disregarded the effect of the crowd noise on its offense. Tedford said something to the effect of “we’ve played on noisy plces before” about 2 weeks before the game. Wrong. If they really thought they’d be able to vocally audible, they should give their paycheck for that week back. Believe it or not the swamp is louder.
3. Putting the redshirt freshman with a cast on an island was insane.
4. Cal simply was not used to seeing the overall team speed week in and week out that UT has.
5. Obviously Longshore playing in really his 1st game ever (1st half @ home against cupcake in ‘05 doesn’t really count does it) was a big deal.
6. Cal needed to score early to shake UT’s confidence and failed to do so.
All in all a complete team implosion after being kicked in the teeth on the opening kickoff.
Comment by puterbac — June 5, 2007 @ 9:17 am
Cal was dead the minute they stepped into Neyland Stadium. As a Tennessee fan who has been going to big games for over 20 years I can tell you that the crowd that day was the most incredible I have ever seen. Nobody would have beaten UT that day. I completely disregard that game when judging either team. Cal wasn’t nearly that bad and Tennessee wasn’t that good.
Comment by The Crayon — June 5, 2007 @ 10:59 am
I truly enjoyed reading your thorough and insightful analysis of last year’s game. However, by way of explaining Cal’s poor play I would add that it appeared Cal’s players were stunned by the scale and intensity of Neyland Stadium. Having attended UT games for more than 50 years, I can tell you that Cal isn’t the first team to suffer a spell of bewilderment when first visiting Knoxville. On a normal night, Neyland Stadium is a difficult environment for veteran SEC teams to handle; as evidence, remember that last year in Knoxville UT lost to the eventual National Champions by a single point. Like Aerobab says, both the Tennessee team and fans had very large chips on their shoulders when Cal came to town. One of the major differences between the SEC and other football conferences is the massive and rabid home crowds faced by every road team in the SEC. The southeastern passion for college football can scarcely be imagined by “outsiders”. The talk I heard leading up to the game convinced me that Cal’s coaches tried to prepare the team for what they were to face in Knoxville; but unfortunately for them and fortunately for us, experience is the best teacher. Cal, I am confident, learned a lesson; but by the time Cal recovered its composure the Vols had them down for the count.
Today, last year’s game is past history that I am sure the Cal coaches, team and fans will employee as an incentive to play much better when Tennessee comes calling this year. I expect an exceptional game, but I can assure you that the Vols will not be awed by the Cal experience. Tennessee is a very good road team tempered by many trips to Athens, Ga., Baton Rouge, La., the Swamp, Tuscaloosa, Al and etc.
So, tighten your chinstraps Cal; the Volunteers are coming!
Comment by BYOUNG4UT — June 5, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
Thanks i like your blog very much , i come back most days to find new posts like this.
Comment by abercrombie milano — May 28, 2011 @ 12:51 am