There's plenty of reason to believe in the Tennessee Volunteers this season

#1
K

KBVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
44,947
Likes
45,229
#1
There's plenty of reason to believe in the Tennessee Volunteers this year | FOX Sports

New Tennessee defensive coordinator Bob Shoop was one of the biggest hires of the college offseason. He hadn't been in Knoxville long before he got a sense of the leadership on his defense. His new boss at UT Butch Jones introduced him to the team. Shoop, a former Vandy DC, gave a wave, talked about how it was great to be back in the SEC and in the state of Tennessee. He saw some familiar faces from recruiting. Derek Barnett and Jalen Reeves-Maybin among them.

"I look forward to connecting with you guys over the next couple of weeks," he told the players.

"By the time I got back to my office, Derek Barnett was sitting right there waiting for me," Shoop said Friday. "He goes, 'We gotta get this thing to the next level. You gotta get us there. You can't be nice to these guys. We gotta push these guys.' He's got that mentality. Intense. Focused. I liked everything he said."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 20 people
#4
#4
As fun as we hope the O is to watch this season, I'm more excited to watch the D!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#5
#5
"When I came here, my dream was to be a legendary football player at the University of Tennessee. I have not accomplished anything yet. That's why I'm staying. I'm staying to win. My goal is to have my picture up on these walls." -Reeves-Maybin
 
  • Like
Reactions: 17 people
#9
#9
Nice read.

I have to admit though, that I find the "We're 13-5 in our last 18 games, and those five losses have come by a combined 25 points," line to be quite an example of cherry-picking the stats.

Conveniently leaves out the first part of the 2014 schedule as if it could be excluded from reality. You are either 16-10 over the last two seasons, or you were 9-4 last year, but the 13-5 is just a case of selective scheduling and a classic example of why "statistics" don't always tell the whole story.

In 2014 UT lost to OU by 24, to UGA by 3, to UF by 1 and to Ole Miss by 31...that's another 59 points that were conveniently forgotten, so either you are looking for those 84 points over the last two seasons, or 17 points from last season, but the 13-5 results and 25 points over a season and a half crap that includes the softer part of your schedule twice just rubs me the wrong way. It is technically correct, but why would you need to include beating up the 95-lb weaklings twice to make yourself look good.

And here is the problem with that approach...using that same approach of cherry picking stats the Negavols could also validly point out that over the last two seasons UT was 9-9 over the last 18 games that included the front end of the season, which all would agree is the real meat of the schedule. That doesn't look nearly all that good, does it?

I personally don't see it as motivating, or encouraging at all, instead I just find it to be a case of the "used car salesman" spiel that comes out of Butch every so often.

It isn't needed, the team is talented and appears ready to go, so why attempt to skew reality with selective stats? OK, end of rant.

Edit: And let's not forget that 8 of those points (from 2014) that the slogan says they're hunting for, they already found when Team 119 beat Missouri in 2015.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#10
#10
I have Tampa hotel BOOKED!

BTW...pricing is THROUGH THE ROOF...if you can find a room within 25 miles that weekend...

FYI..Atlanta room booked for SEC Championship, too...
 
Last edited:
#11
#11
Reefa_Madness said:
Nice read.

I have to admit though, that I find the "We're 13-5 in our last 18 games, and those five losses have come by a combined 25 points," line to be quite an example of cherry-picking the stats.

Conveniently leaves out the first part of the 2014 schedule as if it could be excluded from reality. You are either 16-10 over the last two seasons, or you were 9-4 last year, but the 13-5 is just a case of selective scheduling and a classic example of why "statistics" don't always tell the whole story.

In 2014 UT lost to OU by 24, to UGA by 3, to UF by 1 and to Ole Miss by 31...that's another 59 points that were conveniently forgotten, so either you are looking for those 84 points over the last two seasons, or 17 points from last season, but the 13-5 results and 25 points over a season and a half crap that includes the softer part of your schedule twice just rubs me the wrong way. It is technically correct, but why would you need to include beating up the 95-lb weaklings twice to make yourself look good.

And here is the problem with that approach...using that same approach of cherry picking stats the Negavols could also validly point out that over the last two seasons UT was 9-9 over the last 18 games that included the front end of the season, which all would agree is the real meat of the schedule. That doesn't look nearly all that good, does it?

I personally don't see it as motivating, or encouraging at all, instead I just find it to be a case of the "used car salesman" spiel that comes out of Butch every so often.

It isn't needed, the team is talented and appears ready to go, so why attempt to skew reality with selective stats? OK, end of rant.
Click to expand...

If that's what motivates the players, that's what motivates the players.

Don't really care about it 'looking right' or whatever, and neither should you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#12
#12
Nice read, KB, thanks

Love how Barnett welcomed coach. This follow up text too

'That practice wasn't acceptable today. I'll take care of it.'
Click to expand...

And his comments on DT

"He's gonna be really good," said Shoop. "He's really tough and has great work ethic."
Click to expand...

And Dobbs' interaction with a Seal team, it never stops just love this kid
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14
#14
ButchPlz said:
If that's what motivates the players, that's what motivates the players.

Don't really care about it 'looking right' or whatever, and neither should you.
Click to expand...

I'm OK with you not caring about it.

Personally I have a hard time ignoring the transparent use of selective statistics...especially when it isn't needed.
 
#15
#15
Reefa_Madness said:
Nice read.

I have to admit though, that I find the "We're 13-5 in our last 18 games, and those five losses have come by a combined 25 points," line to be quite an example of cherry-picking the stats.

Conveniently leaves out the first part of the 2014 schedule as if it could be excluded from reality. You are either 16-10 over the last two seasons, or you were 9-4 last year, but the 13-5 is just a case of selective scheduling and a classic example of why "statistics" don't always tell the whole story.

In 2014 UT lost to OU by 24, to UGA by 3, to UF by 1 and to Ole Miss by 31...that's another 59 points that were conveniently forgotten, so either you are looking for those 84 points over the last two seasons, or 17 points from last season, but the 13-5 results and 25 points over a season and a half crap that includes the softer part of your schedule twice just rubs me the wrong way. It is technically correct, but why would you need to include beating up the 95-lb weaklings twice to make yourself look good.

And here is the problem with that approach...using that same approach of cherry picking stats the Negavols could also validly point out that over the last two seasons UT was 9-9 over the last 18 games that included the front end of the season, which all would agree is the real meat of the schedule. That doesn't look nearly all that good, does it?

I personally don't see it as motivating, or encouraging at all, instead I just find it to be a case of the "used car salesman" spiel that comes out of Butch every so often.

It isn't needed, the team is talented and appears ready to go, so why attempt to skew reality with selective stats? OK, end of rant.
Click to expand...

Nothing cherry picking about starting from Dobbs first start of 2014.

Our team completely changed when he officially became the full-time starter after the Alabama game. I actually think it's a good benchmark to start from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 people
#16
#16
Reefa_Madness said:
Nice read.

I have to admit though, that I find the "We're 13-5 in our last 18 games, and those five losses have come by a combined 25 points," line to be quite an example of cherry-picking the stats.

Conveniently leaves out the first part of the 2014 schedule as if it could be excluded from reality. You are either 16-10 over the last two seasons, or you were 9-4 last year, but the 13-5 is just a case of selective scheduling and a classic example of why "statistics" don't always tell the whole story.

In 2014 UT lost to OU by 24, to UGA by 3, to UF by 1 and to Ole Miss by 31...that's another 59 points that were conveniently forgotten, so either you are looking for those 84 points over the last two seasons, or 17 points from last season, but the 13-5 results and 25 points over a season and a half crap that includes the softer part of your schedule twice just rubs me the wrong way. It is technically correct, but why would you need to include beating up the 95-lb weaklings twice to make yourself look good.

And here is the problem with that approach...using that same approach of cherry picking stats the Negavols could also validly point out that over the last two seasons UT was 9-9 over the last 18 games that included the front end of the season, which all would agree is the real meat of the schedule. That doesn't look nearly all that good, does it?

I personally don't see it as motivating, or encouraging at all, instead I just find it to be a case of the "used car salesman" spiel that comes out of Butch every so often.

It isn't needed, the team is talented and appears ready to go, so why attempt to skew reality with selective stats? OK, end of rant.
Click to expand...

Understand your points and can agree with a large part of them. But boy oh boy are you about to get it. lol.
 
#17
#17
Reefa_Madness said:
Nice read.

I have to admit though, that I find the "We're 13-5 in our last 18 games, and those five losses have come by a combined 25 points," line to be quite an example of cherry-picking the stats.

Conveniently leaves out the first part of the 2014 schedule as if it could be excluded from reality. You are either 16-10 over the last two seasons, or you were 9-4 last year, but the 13-5 is just a case of selective scheduling and a classic example of why "statistics" don't always tell the whole story.

In 2014 UT lost to OU by 24, to UGA by 3, to UF by 1 and to Ole Miss by 31...that's another 59 points that were conveniently forgotten, so either you are looking for those 84 points over the last two seasons, or 17 points from last season, but the 13-5 results and 25 points over a season and a half crap that includes the softer part of your schedule twice just rubs me the wrong way. It is technically correct, but why would you need to include beating up the 95-lb weaklings twice to make yourself look good.

And here is the problem with that approach...using that same approach of cherry picking stats the Negavols could also validly point out that over the last two seasons UT was 9-9 over the last 18 games that included the front end of the season, which all would agree is the real meat of the schedule. That doesn't look nearly all that good, does it?

I personally don't see it as motivating, or encouraging at all, instead I just find it to be a case of the "used car salesman" spiel that comes out of Butch every so often.

It isn't needed, the team is talented and appears ready to go, so why attempt to skew reality with selective stats? OK, end of rant.
Click to expand...

I agree that perception can be skewed by selective statistics. But, in my opinion, the 25 points in the last 13 games doesn't qualify as "cherry picking". If it was a matter of picking a game here, one there, with gaps in between then, yes, that's skewed and does not represent anything worthwhile. But the 18 games are all contiguous and the most recent. In that sense, I think the 25 points observation is certainly relevant and an accurate indicator of where things currently stand.
 
#18
#18
Caspian said:
I agree that perception can be skewed by selective statistics. But, in my opinion, the 25 points in the last 13 games doesn't qualify as "cherry picking". If it was a matter of picking a game here, one there, with gaps in between then, yes, that's skewed and does not represent anything worthwhile. But the 18 games are all contiguous and the most recent. In that sense, I think the 25 points observation is certainly relevant and an accurate indicator of where things currently stand.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand your point, but while I haven't done it yet, I'm going to go back and calculate the winning % of selecting the last 18 games, compared to say, the last 16 / 17 / 19 / 20 and see if the magic number "18" was because it fit the best.

My point is simply that gimmicks are no longer needed. The roster is built and it is time for UT to get it done on the field. Using statistics straddling SELECTED "heavily skewed in your favor" portions of two seasons for the purpose of motivating the team, or showing how well you've been playing is bush league in my opinion and completely unnecessary. Want to motivate the team...fine...point to the close games in 2015, but pulling in the bulk of the cupcake games from 2014 really has absolutely nothing to do with what Team 120 has to do to change the results from the front end of the 2015 schedule.

KBVol said:
Understand your points and can agree with a large part of them. But boy oh boy are you about to get it. lol.
Click to expand...

Well, you certainly would be one to know what trying to be objective will get you, don't you? :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#19
#19
2500-3000 rushing yards between just Hurd and Kamara!? How would that work? 1500 Hurd and 1000 kamara?

If this happens, Tennessee runs away with the SEC and wins the playoffs. Glad Bruce likes him some big orange Kool-Aid though.
 
#20
#20
Reefa_Madness said:
Yes, I understand your point, but while I haven't done it yet, I'm going to go back and calculate the winning % of selecting the last 18 games, compared to say, the last 16 / 17 / 19 / 20 and see if the magic number "18" was because it fit the best.

My point is simply that gimmicks are no longer needed. The roster is built and it is time for UT to get it done on the field. Using statistics straddling SELECTED "heavily skewed in your favor" portions of two seasons for the purpose of motivating the team, or showing how well you've been playing is bush league in my opinion and completely unnecessary. Want to motivate the team...fine...point to the close games in 2015, but pulling in the bulk of the cupcake games from 2014 really has absolutely nothing to do with what Team 120 has to do to change the results from the front end of the 2015 schedule.



Well, you certainly would be one to know what trying to be objective will get you, don't you? :)
Click to expand...

Yes, the last 18 games give the highest win % at 72%. The last 16 games are 69%, 17 games are 70.5%, 19 games are 68%, and 20 games are 65%.

Following the loss to Bama is when Dobbs took over...again. So, it's not that random of a number but I see your point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#21
#21
OK, while I'll ackowledge the validity of you guys pointing out that was when Dobbs started, I still have to question the partial straddling of the two seasons which includes two stretches against the cupcakes of the schedule.

To me, if you're going to make a case for what impact finding those missing points would have had, you make it based on 2015...a team that more closely resembled what will be fielded in 2016 than Team 118 does.

I guess we'll just have to wait for 7 games into the 2016 season (thru the 'Bama game) to see if those points were found.
 
Last edited:
#22
#22
Reefa_Madness said:
Nice read.

I have to admit though, that I find the "We're 13-5 in our last 18 games, and those five losses have come by a combined 25 points," line to be quite an example of cherry-picking the stats.

Conveniently leaves out the first part of the 2014 schedule as if it could be excluded from reality. You are either 16-10 over the last two seasons, or you were 9-4 last year, but the 13-5 is just a case of selective scheduling and a classic example of why "statistics" don't always tell the whole story.

In 2014 UT lost to OU by 24, to UGA by 3, to UF by 1 and to Ole Miss by 31...that's another 59 points that were conveniently forgotten, so either you are looking for those 84 points over the last two seasons, or 17 points from last season, but the 13-5 results and 25 points over a season and a half crap that includes the softer part of your schedule twice just rubs me the wrong way. It is technically correct, but why would you need to include beating up the 95-lb weaklings twice to make yourself look good.

And here is the problem with that approach...using that same approach of cherry picking stats the Negavols could also validly point out that over the last two seasons UT was 9-9 over the last 18 games that included the front end of the season, which all would agree is the real meat of the schedule. That doesn't look nearly all that good, does it?

I personally don't see it as motivating, or encouraging at all, instead I just find it to be a case of the "used car salesman" spiel that comes out of Butch every so often.

It isn't needed, the team is talented and appears ready to go, so why attempt to skew reality with selective stats? OK, end of rant.
Click to expand...

Straight into the "whatever" file, which is a cylinder sitting in the corner of my office. Nit pick much?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#23
#23
Reefa_Madness said:
OK, while I'll ackowledge the validity of you guys pointing out that was when Dobbs started, I still have to question the partial straddling of the two seasons which includes two stretches against the cupcakes of the schedule.

To me, if you're going to make a case for what impact finding those missing points would have had, you make it based on 2015...a team that more closely resembled what will be fielded in 2016 than Team 118 does.

I guess we'll just have to wait for 7 games into the 2016 season (thru the 'Bama game) to see if those points were found.
Click to expand...

Okay. We're only looking for 17 points then. Not 25.
 
#24
#24
The comments on articles like these just get me more fired up. I'm ready to see this team shut up the naysayers and put Tennessee football back on the map for good!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#25
#25
Reefa_Madness said:
Nice read.

I have to admit though, that I find the "We're 13-5 in our last 18 games, and those five losses have come by a combined 25 points," line to be quite an example of cherry-picking the stats.

Conveniently leaves out the first part of the 2014 schedule as if it could be excluded from reality. You are either 16-10 over the last two seasons, or you were 9-4 last year, but the 13-5 is just a case of selective scheduling and a classic example of why "statistics" don't always tell the whole story.

In 2014 UT lost to OU by 24, to UGA by 3, to UF by 1 and to Ole Miss by 31...that's another 59 points that were conveniently forgotten, so either you are looking for those 84 points over the last two seasons, or 17 points from last season, but the 13-5 results and 25 points over a season and a half crap that includes the softer part of your schedule twice just rubs me the wrong way. It is technically correct, but why would you need to include beating up the 95-lb weaklings twice to make yourself look good.

And here is the problem with that approach...using that same approach of cherry picking stats the Negavols could also validly point out that over the last two seasons UT was 9-9 over the last 18 games that included the front end of the season, which all would agree is the real meat of the schedule. That doesn't look nearly all that good, does it?

I personally don't see it as motivating, or encouraging at all, instead I just find it to be a case of the "used car salesman" spiel that comes out of Butch every so often.

It isn't needed, the team is talented and appears ready to go, so why attempt to skew reality with selective stats? OK, end of rant.
Click to expand...

Here's the deal. Butch and negavols have two different objectives. Butch is trying to build the team's confidence. Negas are... I'm still trying to figure that out. Getting attention? Trolling? Just generally love being miserable?

Anyway... Butch is trying to impart a winning attitude to the team, and has a platform to effect the team. Let him do his job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top