Tennessee ran for 299 yards against Georgia Tech. If Glen Elarbee had coached them better, they probably would have gotten 300 yards.
Furman didn’t count. Furman was Furman. The line had to prove it against grown-ass Power Four humans.
Fine. Whatever.
So Tennessee went on the road, beat Georgia Tech 45–24, ran for 299 yards, averaged 6.6 yards a carry and gave up one sack.
The offensive-line thread reviewed the evidence and requested additional testing.
VFL83 asked the question that should have ended the meeting: how many rushing yards would have been acceptable? Four hundred? Five hundred?
The board’s answer was essentially: yes, but did you watch the offensive line?
This is where Tennessee message-board coaches and analysts achieve escape velocity. Statistics count until they disagree with whatever somebody saw from Section Couch, Row Recliner.
The Glen Elarbee coaching analysis is wonderfully self-sealing.
If Tennessee can’t run, Elarbee can’t coach. If Tennessee runs for 299, the opponent wasn’t good enough. If the opponent was good enough, Tennessee should have run for 300.
Another solution appeared: change the starting right guard, and Tennessee probably allows “1–2 less TFLs.”
Somewhere on the UT campus, a graduate assistant can delete the film software. A guy with a username and a Samsung tablet has solved offensive-line football to within one tackle for loss.
Then the thread turned 299 rushing yards into evidence of Elarbee’s incompetence. Competent coaching, apparently, would have produced 300.
The Ethan Davis injury brought another question: should Tennessee use more 11 personnel?
Then came the diagnosis:
“The only way our OL is going to be able to function is with TE’s and RB’s staying in to block.”
OrangeSince78: “We’ve been using double TE to mask for Glenn for 2 years.”
OakVol: “Look at our run sets with our condensed formations. We are running out of a goal line formation to get yards. O line is not good.”
There it was. Tennessee hadn’t run for 299 because the line blocked. Josh Heupel had apparently constructed an elaborate concealment system around it.
Two-tight-end sets? Camouflage.
Condensed formations? Protective custody.
Running backs getting downhill? Evidence that the scheme is hiding Glen Elarbee in plain sight.
If the run game fails, the line sucks. If it works, the offense is masking how much the line sucks.
A self-licking ice cream cone.
None of this means the line was flawless. Georgia Tech got penetration. The interior got moved on some snaps. There are things to fix before Texas rolls into Neyland with a defensive front that will make this conversation considerably less theoretical.
“Tennessee ran for 299 yards and I still saw some problems” is reasonable.
“Tennessee ran for 299 yards, therefore those yards don’t count because the offense schemed them into existence” is theology.
The line was supposed to prove itself against better competition. Georgia Tech arrived. Tennessee ran the ball all over the place.
Now we need better competition than the better competition.
Eventually the discussion stopped pretending to be civilized.
“Do u watch football? Honest question.”
Then the closer:
“You have no idea what you are watching. Hey, football isn’t for everyone.”
Tennessee: 45.
Georgia Tech: 24.
Rushing yards: 299.
One sack allowed.
One lousy yard short of competent coaching.
The board entered all of it into evidence against the offensive line.
Leave a Reply