Yep. It's a soft team. They got punched in the mouth by a Vandy team which ran their mouth all year about what they were going to do to us and this was our response. Our lines got bullies all season and lacked toughness and strength. It doesn't seem to be a priority to have dogs on the DL and OL. No one is there to force the issue. Just soft, mentally and physically. Soft as [uck fay].
Yes. It was obvious the year after he left that the team was different. It’s just becoming more and more obvious each season.
I think he was or it was Golesh, something changed. He doesn't look healthy and his energy seems low. He probably needs to fix some things with himself.
In the post mortem analysis, missing a FG to eventually lose to UGA in September is what knocked Vandy out of the playoffs. Think about it and read what the committee chair said. Tennessee would have been the signature win vandy needed.
I think the UGA and OK games knocked us out. I also think we would have kicked the Vandyboys' azz had we not screwed the pooch on those 2 games. We did not have the mental toughness or want-to. I think someone else said it, we (as a team, players and coaches) were too soft.
Okay, I do kinda find it entertaining that we're so ass that we don't even count as a good enough win.
I'm not sure I consider that entertaining. But I suspect that storyline might be lost on some. It was more of a "bless your heart" assessment that sucked.
First off, [uck fay] Vandy. But the committee lauded Oregon for their tough win at Penn State and Bama for their tough win at Auburn, while saying Vandy's win at Tennessee wasn't very good. They can't go 15 seconds without contradicting themself, just like the bball committee.
