Breakdown On Signees

#26
#26
rexvol said:
I dont see Andreson ever seeing the field, even if he's a weight room warrior. There have been a ton of guys that were physical freaks that couldnt play football.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't classify Anderson as a weight room warrior.
 
#27
#27
justingroves said:
I wouldn't classify Anderson as a weight room warrior.
Click to expand...

He was talking about the fact that I said he needed to be a weight room warrior in order to be a contributor.

rex, why do you not think he can't contribute if he was to become a weight room warrior? OL is by far the hardest postion to predict success in at the high school level. He has the height and frame to hold the neccesary weight to be an OL. I said he has a lot of work to do to get to that point. But I will stick by my assessment that he at least has that possibility available to him.
 
#28
#28
rexvol said:
I dont see Andreson ever seeing the field, even if he's a weight room warrior. There have been a ton of guys that were physical freaks that couldnt play football.
Click to expand...

Michael Frogg probably shouldn't have played either but he did. Anderson's Dad and Uncle played at UT, I think he comes in with the right mind set, redshirts and does contribute at C.
 
#29
#29
Frogg played out of sheer need. Just because a guy plays doesnt mean he's qualified to do so. Every day of my lfe I encounter guys that are working in positions because they are the best available option, but they are horrible at their job. Football is no different. Austin Rogers starts for UT, would he start for USC? No. He starts on the Hill because he's what we have at that time. So dont equate talent and ability with a guy that gets playing time, sometimes you just have to pulg in a warm body because the rules say 11 on 11.
 
#30
#30
therickbol said:
He was talking about the fact that I said he needed to be a weight room warrior in order to be a contributor.

rex, why do you not think he can't contribute if he was to become a weight room warrior? OL is by far the hardest postion to predict success in at the high school level. He has the height and frame to hold the neccesary weight to be an OL. I said he has a lot of work to do to get to that point. But I will stick by my assessment that he at least has that possibility available to him.
Click to expand...

I have seen guys in the gym that look like Tony Manderich, but cant walk and chew bubblegum. This was a legacy scholarship and nothing more. He is and will be practice field fodder.
 
#31
#31
He played in his states all-star game. He can walk and chew gum at the same time. I guarantee you he is as athletic as Frogg. And Frogg was not an All-American but he was a servicable back up. Anderson has the potential to work his butt off and become a servicable back up.
 
#32
#32
Atlvol313 said:
Sad but true. I think he signed to play football to pressure MLB teams to up the signing bonus. I really feel his focus is on baseball. Look at his rivals bio, he has on what is on his mind. I think he is a good kid but baseball will win out with him.

Casey Kelly - Football Recruiting
Click to expand...

The picture that is on rivals says it all. He has that baseball cap on and I think he'd rather be playing pro baseball.
 
#33
#33
Jaytrain5 said:
I think Waggner's too low.

Fulmer said he thinks Waggner's the best athlete they signed in the entire class.
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken, Coach Scott is already talking like AW is a WR also... I'd say he's not going to be seen at LB for awhile if at all.

I'm also thinking that Hughes is still being underestimated. Everytime someone evaluates him they use the term "high motor". A 6'5" guy with a year to bulk up to 285 or so with a high motor sounds pretty good to me.
 
#34
#34
therickbol, I read somewhere that Kelly had a staff infection in his arm during football season that might also have kept his rating down. What do you know about that?
 
#35
#35
rexvol said:
Football is no different. Austin Rogers starts for UT, would he start for USC? No. He starts on the Hill because he's what we have at that time.
Click to expand...

Everyone always picks on this guy... and yet every team seems to be looking for a tough receiver willing to catch the ball over the middle and block well.

Before the season and Ainge's double injury, Trooper called him a "deep threat". IMO, he looked more athletic than Lucas, Briscoe, Hancock, or really anyone else except for GJones.

In Roger's first full healthy year, he was second on the team in receiving and had a better ypc avg than everyone on the team with over 15 catches except for Lucas Taylor. here are his stats:

Rec-56
Yards-624
ypc- 11.14
TD- 4
ypg- 44.6

Those aren't the stats of a guy who was nothing better than a default receiver... much less a talentless WR playing for a team that made it to the SEC CG.
 
#36
#36
BTW, Roger's 56 receptions rank as 3rd over the last 4 YEARS behind Meachem in 06 and Taylor in 07.

His 624 yards are 4th in the past 4 years behind Taylor 07, Meachem 06, and Swain 06 (49 rec, 688 yards).

Notable names he outperformed: Swain (except for last year), Smith, Hannon, Tony Brown, Fayton, and Meachem (except for last year).

If what he did last year doesn't win you over... what exactly would it take? He had a few drops... but most of the names I mentioned came nowhere close to 56 opportunities much less 56 catches.
 
#37
#37
Is that because he's good, or because he was one of the 2-3 recievers on the field? (IMO the answer is choice B)
 
#38
#38
Only if you are trying to say he played against poor competition. IMO "bad players" don't catch 56 balls against SEC defenses. What do you think?

He doesn't have to be evaluated against some hypothetical and speculative standard. He played against some of the best D's in the country and caught 56 passes for over 600 yards.

Give me 11 "bad players" that perform like that any day.
 
#39
#39
sjt18 said:
Only if you are trying to say he played against poor competition. IMO "bad players" don't catch 56 balls against SEC defenses. What do you think?

He doesn't have to be evaluated against some hypothetical and speculative standard. He played against some of the best D's in the country and caught 56 passes for over 600 yards.

Give me 11 "bad players" that perform like that any day.
Click to expand...

You should pay attention to YPC. I've seen tight ends score higher on that stat.
 
#41
#41
you also have to look at his high number of receptions as having more to do with out poor running game. we had to throw far more than we wanted to so natually he's going to have more opportunities.
 
#42
#42
sjt18 said:
therickbol, I read somewhere that Kelly had a staff infection in his arm during football season that might also have kept his rating down. What do you know about that?
Click to expand...

That is also correct. It limited him a lot because it took him quite awhile to get over it and then get his strength back. If he wanted to focus on baseball in college he would have gone to Arizona State. So if he doesnt get drafted high enough in the draft he will play football at UT. But it just depends on whether he falls in the MLB draft or not.
 
#43
#43
lacrossepro70 said:
You should pay attention to YPC. I've seen tight ends score higher on that stat.
Click to expand...

And your point is? He averaged over 10 ypc. If I'm not mistaken, in his Soph season he avg'd about as much as Bret Smith ever did. Was he a bad, undeserving receiver too?
 
#44
#44
rexvol said:
you also have to look at his high number of receptions as having more to do with out poor running game. we had to throw far more than we wanted to so natually he's going to have more opportunities.
Click to expand...

UT rushed for 500 more yards this year than 2006. Again, were Swain and Smith that bad too?
 
#45
#45
Quit blowing their ill-concieved opinions away with facts! Emotion and perception is all that matters and you know it...
 
#46
#46
what is everyones problem with austin rogers i think he is a very good possession reciever who liked mentioned before does go across the middle..i wouldnt be suprised to see him be in the top 3 rotation next yr even with the loaded class at wr the yr before
 
#47
#47
Coaches Clawson and Scott spoke convincing about their ability to get the ball in the hands of the playmakers. It makes sense that Abrams-Ward will see playing time at receiver due to his size and his athleticism (ups/hands). Likewise for Bartholomew; if he stays at FB (or TE/FB) and he's that much of a stud, I have the feeling he'll get a chance to prove it.

I hope we get a lot of players in early and often. IMO that's the best way to create depth.

I love the role of UT as underdog, especially with a new OC/system. I like our chances.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top