'17 TN OT Obinna Eze (Memphis commit)

[Ulysees E. McGill]

The only reason Neal even sniffed 1000 yards was because he had such a good OL opening run lanes for him.

And I get the whole "it's Vandy" argument, but that's ignoring the fact that they were better than us that year and the talent levels were the most equal they've been in most TN fans' lifetimes.

My question for people who downplay that OL is this: would you not trade them in a second for what we have? In almost every measurable category, they were the best OL we've seen since Fulmer left (and arguably since his later years as well). If we'd had that OL last year, we'd have been in Atlanta and our rushing totals would have been even more impressive.

Nope..they were not recruited for the offense we run. Yes they were good olinemen. But not at running this offense.

 

[JacketVol]

Nope..they were not recruited for the offense we run. Yes they were good olinemen. But not at running this offense.

This is true.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

This is true.

Then give me a like Ebenezer.

 

[JacketVol]

Then give me a like Ebenezer.

I did. Now give me a like for liking Tiny Tim.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Nope..they were not recruited for the offense we run. Yes they were good olinemen. But not at running this offense.

They still performed at a much higher level than what we have now, though. People hold the the lack of offensive production in 2013 against them when it had a lot more to do with piss poor QB and WR play and average at best RBs.

People don't realize how much of our running success in 2015 had to do with Debord scheming so well to cover for our OL's inadequcies. if we'd had an OL on or with 2013 last year, we'd really have been able to open up the playbook.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

They still performed at a much higher level than what we have now, though. People hold the the lack of offensive production in 2013 against them when it had a lot more to do with piss poor QB and WR play and average at best RBs.

People don't realize how much of our running success in 2015 had to do with Debord scheming so well to cover for our OL's inadequcies. if we'd had an OL on or with 2013 last year, we'd really have been able to open up the playbook.

I disagree. That line, especially Tiny with his busted knees, was never going to be athletic enough or conditioned enough to run this offense. Also this past year we were still breaking in young guys all the time because of injury, and the line got better as the year went on. You have conveniently left the injuries we suffered out of your narrative. It was a big reason for the inconsistency.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

I disagree. That line, especially Tiny with his busted knees, was never going to be athletic enough or conditioned enough to run this offense. Also this past year we were still breaking in young guys all the time because of injury, and the line got better as the year went on. You have conveniently left the injuries we suffered out of your narrative. It was a big reason for the inconsistency.

Even at their best and healthiest, they still weren't as good as the 2013 line. You keep saying they weren't athletic enough to run the offense...but they still did it at a much higher level than the 2015 line and most likely the 2016 line as well. Our 2017 line might finally have the experience and talent to match them.

You can say injuries was the reason for inconsistency all you want, but even the guys we had who were healthy all year had moments where they were treated like scrubs. If Dobbs wasn't so good at scrambling, they'd likely have given up 10-15 more sacks.

As far as them fitting the scheme, you're kidding yourself if you don't think Debord would figure out a way to make great use of them. He did great work with a much less talented and experienced group in 2015. He'd have made great use with a more talented and experienced OL as well.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

Even at their best and healthiest, they still weren't as good as the 2013 line. You keep saying they weren't athletic enough to run the offense...but they still did it at a much higher level than the 2015 line and most likely the 2016 line as well. Our 2017 line might finally have the experience and talent to match them.

You can say injuries was the reason for inconsistency all you want, but even the guys we had who were healthy all year had moments where they were treated like scrubs. If Dobbs wasn't so good at scrambling, they'd likely have given up 10-15 more sacks.

As far as them fitting the scheme, you're kidding yourself if you don't think Debord would figure out a way to make great use of them. He did great work with a much less talented and experienced group in 2015. He'd have made great use with a more talented and experienced OL as well.

Ok then. I guess we will just never have a OL as good as 13 again. As far as "moments" go. DB treated some really good opponents OLinemen like scrubs too. The other teams talent does have something to do with that. You know there are some really good DL we play. The inconsistency got better as the year went on. That is something I saw with my own two eyes. It is kind of crappy of you to just assume that they can't achieve consistent quality this year.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Ok then. I guess we will just never have a OL as good as 13 again.

Were you able to read my whole post? I pointed out that the 2017 OL stands to be a unit that will finally perform as well as the 2013 OL. The talent level/experience combination bodes well for that unit.

As far as "moments" go. DB treated some really good opponents OLinemen like scrubs too. The other teams talent does have something to do with that. You know there are some really good DL we play.

And the 2013 OL didn't play against good DLs? This argument is beyond weak. Derek Barnett treating an opponent like a scrub doesn't make our OL getting merked by Bama on the final drive of that game any less bad.

The inconsistency got better as the year went on. That is something I saw with my own two eyes.

1. Our opponents also got weaker as the year went on. Did your own two eyes see that?
2. I never said they didn't improve throughout 2015. I said they weren't on the same level as the 2013 OL.

It is kind of crappy of you to just assume that they can't achieve consistent quality this year.

Yeah? Well you know, that's just like, your opinion, man.
I think it's kind of crappy of you make strawman arguments and completely misrepresent my argument. I never said they "can't achieve consistent quality." I said they most likely won't play as well as the 2013 line did. Which, considering how good that OL was, is not an insult.

 

[JacketVol]

They still performed at a much higher level than what we have now, though. People hold the the lack of offensive production in 2013 against them when it had a lot more to do with piss poor QB and WR play and average at best RBs.

People don't realize how much of our running success in 2015 had to do with Debord scheming so well to cover for our OL's inadequcies. if we'd had an OL on or with 2013 last year, we'd really have been able to open up the playbook.

They were not made for this offense. Actually pass protected well which they were built for. Hands in the dirt guys. This offense is for guys like Coleman. I will take a former Vol linemens word on it.
Also Mahoney like it or not has a lot to do with as well. Once this scheme had the players recruited for it and they learned it, it will be beautiful to watch. Those were his words not mine. You are right that 2017 should be when they will have the right players matured into the right scheme.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

They were not made for this offense. Actually pass protected well which they were built for. Hands in the dirt guys. This offense is for guys like Coleman. I will take a former Vol linemens word on it.

Im not arguing that they weren't suited for a different type of offense. I'm arguing that despite that, they still played at a higher level than we're likely to see for another year or two and that they were underrated by our fans at the time.

 

[JacketVol]

Im not arguing that they weren't suited for a different type of offense. I'm arguing that despite that, they still played at a higher level than we're likely to see for another year or two and that they were underrated by our fans at the time.

Read my edit to be more clear on what I am conveying.

 

[InVOLuntary]

:hi:

Get'm Baldy!

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

Were you able to read my whole post? I pointed out that the 2017 OL stands to be a unit that will finally perform as well as the 2013 OL. The talent level/experience combination bodes well for that unit.



And the 2013 OL didn't play against good DLs? This argument is beyond weak. Derek Barnett treating an opponent like a scrub doesn't make our OL getting merked by Bama on the final drive of that game any less bad.



1. Our opponents also got weaker as the year went on. Did your own two eyes see that?
2. I never said they didn't improve throughout 2015. I said they weren't on the same level as the 2013 OL.



Yeah? Well you know, that's just like, your opinion, man.
I think it's kind of crappy of you make strawman arguments and completely misrepresent my argument. I never said they "can't achieve consistent quality." I said they most likely won't play as well as the 2013 line did. Which, considering how good that OL was, is not an insult.

Yeah well..I was sleep posting last night. When I'm loopy like that, most of what I say makes very little sense. I get on and see stuff I posted and just SMH. On another note, you really like the phrase "strawman argument" don't ya. Seriously Darth you pull that one out ever time you argue..c'mon man mix it up a little.

 

[BaldBiker]

Get'm Baldy!

That was just me being my normal 'ol lovable self.

 

[JacketVol]

Yeah well..I was sleep posting last night. When I'm loopy like that, most of what I say makes very little sense. I get on and see stuff I posted and just SMH. On another note, you really like the phrase "strawman argument" don't ya. Seriously Darth you pull that one out ever time you argue..c'mon man mix it up a little.

After this weak sauce post, no more likes for you.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Yeah well..I was sleep posting last night. When I'm loopy like that, most of what I say makes very little sense. I get on and see stuff I posted and just SMH. On another note, you really like the phrase "strawman argument" don't ya. Seriously Darth you pull that one out ever time you argue..c'mon man mix it up a little.

If people didn't rely on strawman arguments so much, I wouldn't have to point it out

Logical fallacies are just a pet peeve of mine.

 

[butchna]

Im not arguing that they weren't suited for a different type of offense. I'm arguing that despite that, they still played at a higher level than we're likely to see for another year or two and that they were underrated by our fans at the time.

They ran out of eligibility. :cray:

 

[VOLtilldeath]

Im not arguing that they weren't suited for a different type of offense. I'm arguing that despite that, they still played at a higher level than we're likely to see for another year or two and that they were underrated by our fans at the time.

The reason us fans don't look at that line with as fantastic is because of the talent .that was a 4 and 5 star offensive line and in most cases the Vole could not get a yard on fourth down.but they were fabulas at pass protection .but could have been better over all .

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

After this weak sauce post, no more likes for you.

Ah c'mon Jacket..it was a dumb argument, but it won't be the last one. My original thought was right. That 13 Line, while technically more talented, and more proficient in certain areas, was not ever going to run this particular offense well. Lets see how they do this year, hopefully without losing three fifths of the starters early on. Then lets revisit this argument. I think the OL is primed to open a very large can of whup a** this year.

 

[JacketVol]

Ah c'mon Jacket..it was a dumb argument, but it won't be the last one. My original thought was right. That 13 Line, while technically more talented, and more proficient in certain areas, was not ever going to run this particular offense well. Lets see how they do this year, hopefully without losing three fifths of the starters early on. Then lets revisit this argument. I think the OL is primed to open a very large can of whup a** this year.

I agree but then you backtracked and called it sleep posting or something. Very disappointing.

 

[LouderVol]

I'm talking starting 5 for starting 5. If you wouldn't make that trade, you're crazy. Even if the 2013 line was "lacking nastiness" or couldn't get a yard against Vandy (which wouldn't be a problem with our current backs anyway), you never had to worry about them completely falling apart like this

I'll trade that "nastiness" for the ability to not crumble against a four man rush every time.

the starting 5 that includes a true freshman on his first start getting beat by an all american. Why am I not worried by that particular play, hmm. If you are purely taking our top 5 Jack Jones isn't in it. Which is exciting and not a slight on Jack, its how good we are. Were those guys NFL players their first year? I remember them giving up tons of sacks. and this years line didn't.

different scheme sure I take 2013 over what we are bringing back. In butch's offense I want Butch's players.

 

[LouderVol]

They still performed at a much higher level than what we have now, though. People hold the the lack of offensive production in 2013 against them when it had a lot more to do with piss poor QB and WR play and average at best RBs.

People don't realize how much of our running success in 2015 had to do with Debord scheming so well to cover for our OL's inadequcies. if we'd had an OL on or with 2013 last year, we'd really have been able to open up the playbook.

pretty sure that scheme of pulling a Guard/backside player is part of this OL talent and what separates it from 2013. who was it this year that said they had never seen a blocking scheme like ours? Bama maybe? only way that scheme works is off the talent of our players.

 

[LouderVol]

Were you able to read my whole post? I pointed out that the 2017 OL stands to be a unit that will finally perform as well as the 2013 OL. The talent level/experience combination bodes well for that unit.



And the 2013 OL didn't play against good DLs? This argument is beyond weak. Derek Barnett treating an opponent like a scrub doesn't make our OL getting merked by Bama on the final drive of that game any less bad.



1. Our opponents also got weaker as the year went on. Did your own two eyes see that?
2. I never said they didn't improve throughout 2015. I said they weren't on the same level as the 2013 OL.



Yeah? Well you know, that's just like, your opinion, man.
I think it's kind of crappy of you make strawman arguments and completely misrepresent my argument. I never said they "can't achieve consistent quality." I said they most likely won't play as well as the 2013 line did. Which, considering how good that OL was, is not an insult.

yeah that Clemson O line sucked too. and just how good was our 2013 line against Bama

Tennessee vs. Alabama - Team Statistics - October 26, 2013 - ESPN

Tennessee vs. Alabama - Team Statistics - October 24, 2015 - ESPN

so despite a "clearly inferior OL" we put up almost as many yards, more first downs, more rushing yards. and thats after factoring in giving up 59 million sacks in the 2015 game. and once again oh yeah 2 true freshman getting their first against bama. when did the 2013 line have to do that?

and oh yeah we doubled our TD production (by a whole whopping 1)

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

I agree but then you backtracked and called it sleep posting or something. Very disappointing.

Some nights I have trouble actually going to sleep even though I'm completely exhausted. I really was loopy the other night because of that. I wasn't backtracking on my feelings about this particular argument, just that some of what I said in that particular post was indeed dumb. I was just explaining why. I had only slept six hours total in the previous two nights. I am on some medicine that causes me to get a little stupid when I'm in that sort of fugue state. I originally thought you were kidding with me, I still think you are, but I just wanted you to understand why I do have some off color or aggressive posts sometimes that are out of character for me.