And it may be true. But I don’t find the idea that we needed national humiliation and perhaps the worst loss in school history to provide proper motivation to be very comforting.
This may be faulty rationale but here goes... I think that the 0-2 start had a major effect on the team and it's ramifications are proving to be beneficial. It forced coaches to accept the fact that for various reasons, you had a fair number of guys that couldn't be depended on to make up the core of a 9 win ball team in the SEC. Without any knowledge outside of what I see on my television, it appears that they've found guys that they feel like they can trust to be prepared and give the effort needed to grind out 7-8 wins this season and even more the next year. I know for a fact that game reps have changed dramatically for some and I'd be willing to bet that practice reps are being distributed very differently than they were in early September. The area where this is most prevalent is on the defensive side of the ball where it's obvious who the staff knows they can get the most from, and in kind, those players responding with their play. Anyways that's just how I see things....
We've had years where we narrowly win those games and it's done purely on talent with nothing to build on. If those losses somehow contribute to the development of a winner, so be it.
The bama loss propelled us more than anything. I think that was a game we could have been in at the end and the refs [uck fay]ed us and it pissed Pruitt off.
I think we first flashed signs of life against Georgia. That’s when they the current upward tick began on both sides of the ball, and which they’ve since sustained and improved upon. Well, why that week? What happened between the spanking at Florida and the fighting game against UGA? What was different or changed? I think three things: 1. UGA was the first game after JG was benched 2. We were coming off a BYE week 3. It was the first game after three players left(?) the team. As Tennessee has continued play at a notably higher and consistently better level, even despite Maurer’s multiple injuries and JG once again getting the lion’s share of snaps, and on consecutive weeks (Kentucky will be our 6th game in a row)....I don’t think those reasons explain improved play, or which drove them to occur. Instead, I think this team turned the corner when Pruitt finally cleaned house and shit-canned those three players.
The season turned around at the exact moment that Maurer avoided pressure in the pocket against UGA and dropped a dime to Callaway for a TD.
I'm just not sure we aren't still 4-5 and 0-5 in conference if we win those first two games. I mean, I get the other side, I just think we learned a lot those two games that will benefit us in the long run. JMO
With all due respect, it makes no sense that those 2 losses: 1. Caused some change in our coaching approach that ultimately made us better. That would mean our coaches were not properly prepared or motivated to win at the beginning of the year. And, the motivation to win was only there following humiliating losses. If that is the case, why does being smoked by Mizzou and Vandy to end last season not create the same impact? If your answer is that it didn’t create the air of impending job loss then we have a coach who is motivated to do just well enough to keep his job. That can’t be a positive. 2. Meant we had to make them up elsewhere as it was either pre-ordained we would win 7 or Pruitt’s floor and ceiling were 7 all along. That would suggest we would have lost games we won, presumably 2, since we could still get 7. Hard to believe. 3. If we finish with 6 or 7 wins, could have had 8 or 9. No way 7-5 is better that 9-3. There is no spin whatsoever that there was any benefit to losing those 2 games. I can’t go there.
The losing sucks. I do think it's helped turn Pruitt into a better coach, he [uck fay]ed up and he knows it. He seems to learn from mistakes quickly.