For those who like analytics - Why did Tennessee win 11 games?

[DaddyChad]

Or, we were successful on a higher percentage of our offensive plays, we gained more yards on our successful plays, we did not turn the ball over as much.

I mean you’re not wrong but we can probably more easily improve in some areas with huge talent gaps. Safety and corner are obvious area we have to get better at. Injuries happen, key injuries to key positions happen.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Correct. Recruit better (does not =) more stars. Recruit better = Better talent.

Some folks, like you, lack the ability to distinguish one from the other. Your evasion didn't go unnoticed btw. According to your belief, the recent signees were on whole a step in the wrong direction. Players like Luttrell, Conyer, Slaughter, Telander, Lang, Keith, Duncan, etc simply aren't talented enough for UT to build a championship roster with them on it.

Just show some ba...s and say it. Either you are wrong about stars being the be all, end all in talent or this class sucks.

Recruiting better means more blue chip players. Why is everyone excited about Nico? You think we would feel the same way about him if he wasn’t the #1 player and 5*? No. Most of us fawning over the prospect of getting 5* like Mauigoa and Tate. There for a minute we thought maybe we could get Innis. Another 5*. Everyone got excited when Leacock got a huge numb in the rankings. Same with Hobbs.

But why? Why should anyone get excited when we land a 5*? So I am curious since you don’t think rankings have anything to do with it, how do recruit better without getting more blue chips? Those players might be good players. And no I don’t think we can win a championship with players like you listed. Why? The fact is you have to have more blue chip players than you do 3*s. You cannot debate that.

 

[SpookyAction]

It takes talent. In any year there are as many kids who were worthy of 4/5* ratings as get them. So to get talent... a program like UT can go head to head with OSU, Bama, and UGA and convince players they want to sign with UT instead. Or... you can go find your own which probably WON'T get as much love from the recruiting sites. Clemson broke into the elite ranks with a roster that averaged 11th. @BigOrangeTrain and a few others cannot accept that truth. They also lend credibility to the recruiting sites which doesn't belong to them. 247's top 10 roster talent composite list is- Bama, UGA, OSU, TAM, Clem, Texas, Oreg, LSU, OU, and ND. The four in bold clearly weren't top 10.

The rankings are not predictive. I'm not impressed that they can identify the 3 most successful programs in recent years as the most talented. You and I could do that. Accuracy or lack thereof is proven by how well they do beyond that handful of teams... and it isn't great. That leaves all kinds of room for an up and coming program to assemble a very talented roster and not finish in the "top 10" according to the recruiting sites.

Also, I would argue that a kid like Keith or Duncan or maybe others would have been rated 4* if they'd signed with Bama, UGA, OSU, or Clemson. If Heupel keeps winning then the recruiting sites will give his targets the benefit of the doubt too. As of now though, UT signed guys who appear to be very talented that the recruiting sites just didn't think that much of.

You and I have been around a little while. We've celebrated many "great recruiting classes" at UT. Classes with numerous 4/5* players.... who in time prove to be overrated. It is nice to have that "affirmation"... but FAR better to have a coaching staff that can evaluate talent for themselves.

Exactly.
We need kids that play like 5stars, not who recruited them as 5 stars. We will always need elite recruits, but we will never be a consistent Top 5 in recruiting classes, so there will never be enough. We will have to recruit solid players who can be coached up to elite player status.
So far, this coaching staff has coached up more talent already than we have seen in two decades. Heupel and company have done more with "has beens" and "never were's" that were languishing on our roster than any staff in practically forever. Now they are choosing the players they really want and getting some traction.

 

[tennesseeduke]

That's great. Now how do we win 15?

Not lose 2

 

[Smokey X]

I'm not a very deep analytical guy but I think it is because.......WWTFA...

 

[greenbacknative]

I think we were better on 2nd down. If we tried to run and was snuffed Hooker seemed to back it up with a good gain on 2nd. We stayed ahead of the sticks pretty well this year.

 

[Special Ed]

Analytics are okay, but it's the anal part that smells.

 

[BLUTickbusdriver]

Talent on defense is the most obvious answer.

I would also say that such talent need to be fast…very fast. The biggest problem we have on D is that we need speed.

 

[eVOLUTion16]

That sure is a lot of words and numbers to say Josh Heupel

 

[VOLnMiami]

That's great. Now how do we win 15?

Win 3 more games....

 

[VolBallGuy]

Talent matters, analytics matter.

 

[savannahfan]

Numbers were a lot closer than I expected on the offensive side. But even though the defense seemed less than desirable, these numbers seem to point out the old saying "defense wins games".

 

[ThreatLevelOrange]

I wonder some if we should not look closer at Georgia's defense. The 4-2-5 is nice and Brent Venables ran it like a pro at Clemson but I really like the aggressiveness of Georgia's defense with the weird hybrid 3-4 scheme they do with the one, hybrid edge player and the use of a creeper. If you haven't heard that term a creeper, by design, is using a player at the second level (slot corner, inside or outside linebackers) to be the fourth rusher by blitzing from “depth.” In some designs and out of certain fronts, a traditional-looking rusher can drop out into coverage. I don't want to pretend I understand it all but it always seems Georgia is attacking where I feel like we are defending. A bend don't break more attitude. In all fairness Banks did get more aggressive after the South Carolina fiasco and Klubnick spent the Orange Bowl on his heels. Hopefully he saw how successful that was and works on it during spring and fall camp.

Can’t run it without dominant players. You can get by with 3 DL if you stack War Daddies like Georgia has.

 

[sjt18]

Recruiting better means more blue chip players.

Not necessarily and EVERY proof outside of you STUPIDLY pointing to a handful of programs proves it. The composition of the draft proves it. Program success outside of those few prove it.

Why is everyone excited about Nico? You think we would feel the same way about him if he wasn’t the #1 player and 5*? No.

"Feel"? Maybe that's your disconnect. How you "feel" about a recruit or signee has no bearing on their eventual success.

Most of us fawning over the prospect of getting 5* like Mauigoa and Tate.

And were fawning over dozens of others that were busts.

There for a minute we thought maybe we could get Innis. Another 5*. Everyone got excited when Leacock got a huge numb in the rankings. Same with Hobbs.

So "excitement" means "better talent"? Do you know how completely devoid of reason and even intelligence that suggestion is? I'm glad the recruiting sites make you "feel" good. It is nice for most of us to one extent or another to get some affirmation that others think UT's recruits are talented. But your idea that you can ONLY improve talent if 247 or On3 "blesses it" with their approval is just dumb. Truly dumb.

But why? Why should anyone get excited when we land a 5*?

Because they're 8 and believe in Santa? I'm not sure why anyone gets as "excited" as you get... so much so that you think out of all those 3* players who make the NFL... you can't improve the quality of a college roster if you are good at evaluating talent.

So I am curious since you don’t think rankings have anything to do with it, how do recruit better without getting more blue chips?

Rankings are a "trailing indicator". They are somewhat accurate but NOT to the extent that you believe. Not even close. Not even ballpark close. LOTS of fanbases including this one have been repeatedly "excited" by recruiting classes loaded with 4/5* players only to watch their program go downhill and many of those players turn into busts. But you ignore that and point to Bama, UGA, and OSU. Its insane but you do it over and over.

Those players might be good players. And no I don’t think we can win a championship with players like you listed. Why? The fact is you have to have more blue chip players than you do 3*s. You cannot debate that.

Just did "debate" that and every FACT says you are completely wrong. The recruiting sites simply aren't that good at drawing a line between "blue chip" players and bunches of 3* with the talent to be great, championship players.

But thanks for finally admitting you think UT's recruits suck. It is stupid in the extreme that you do... but thanks for showing it to everyone.

 

[OffTackleVol]

It takes talent. In any year there are as many kids who were worthy of 4/5* ratings as get them. So to get talent... a program like UT can go head to head with OSU, Bama, and UGA and convince players they want to sign with UT instead. Or... you can go find your own which probably WON'T get as much love from the recruiting sites. Clemson broke into the elite ranks with a roster that averaged 11th. @BigOrangeTrain and a few others cannot accept that truth. They also lend credibility to the recruiting sites which doesn't belong to them. 247's top 10 roster talent composite list is- Bama, UGA, OSU, TAM, Clem, Texas, Oreg, LSU, OU, and ND. The four in bold clearly weren't top 10.

The rankings are not predictive. I'm not impressed that they can identify the 3 most successful programs in recent years as the most talented. You and I could do that. Accuracy or lack thereof is proven by how well they do beyond that handful of teams... and it isn't great. That leaves all kinds of room for an up and coming program to assemble a very talented roster and not finish in the "top 10" according to the recruiting sites.

Also, I would argue that a kid like Keith or Duncan or maybe others would have been rated 4* if they'd signed with Bama, UGA, OSU, or Clemson. If Heupel keeps winning then the recruiting sites will give his targets the benefit of the doubt too. As of now though, UT signed guys who appear to be very talented that the recruiting sites just didn't think that much of.

You and I have been around a little while. We've celebrated many "great recruiting classes" at UT. Classes with numerous 4/5* players.... who in time prove to be overrated. It is nice to have that "affirmation"... but FAR better to have a coaching staff that can evaluate talent for themselves.

Spot on 18, there's at least 4-5 kids we signed this year that would get a bump up if they'd signed with Bama, Georgia, or Ohio State.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

I think of it even simpler- we're a quick-scoring team aimed at getting players into big-play positions. Less time to think + less plays = less opportunities for a group of college kids to make mistakes. This is the main reason I don't think this offense is a "gimmick".

That's why when we run into a team with the talent to "take away the layups", we sputter. We need a defense to compete in those games.

 

[CR-vol]

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

View attachment 533411

We are back...we are back...we are getting Doug (Atkins) back...nite this post bitchez.

 

[Ned Ray McWorkher]

 

[KnoxToTheBoro93]

It takes talent. In any year there are as many kids who were worthy of 4/5* ratings as get them. So to get talent... a program like UT can go head to head with OSU, Bama, and UGA and convince players they want to sign with UT instead. Or... you can go find your own which probably WON'T get as much love from the recruiting sites. Clemson broke into the elite ranks with a roster that averaged 11th. @BigOrangeTrain and a few others cannot accept that truth. They also lend credibility to the recruiting sites which doesn't belong to them. 247's top 10 roster talent composite list is- Bama, UGA, OSU, TAM, Clem, Texas, Oreg, LSU, OU, and ND. The four in bold clearly weren't top 10.

The rankings are not predictive. I'm not impressed that they can identify the 3 most successful programs in recent years as the most talented. You and I could do that. Accuracy or lack thereof is proven by how well they do beyond that handful of teams... and it isn't great. That leaves all kinds of room for an up and coming program to assemble a very talented roster and not finish in the "top 10" according to the recruiting sites.

Also, I would argue that a kid like Keith or Duncan or maybe others would have been rated 4* if they'd signed with Bama, UGA, OSU, or Clemson. If Heupel keeps winning then the recruiting sites will give his targets the benefit of the doubt too. As of now though, UT signed guys who appear to be very talented that the recruiting sites just didn't think that much of.

You and I have been around a little while. We've celebrated many "great recruiting classes" at UT. Classes with numerous 4/5* players.... who in time prove to be overrated. It is nice to have that "affirmation"... but FAR better to have a coaching staff that can evaluate talent for themselves.

Sjt has been saying this for years and he is correct… simple math and numbers will tell you that recruiting services cannot be Right on everyone and your staff has to be great evaluators and developers as well… our upcoming class is really good on defense Jalen smith player of the year in GA was a 3 star most of the cycle and is one of the best LBs in the country… it’s not top 5 but it is easily championship level on both sides of the ball…

 

[Tacoma Vol]

Duh... solid QB play.

 

[KTrain]

It takes talent. In any year there are as many kids who were worthy of 4/5* ratings as get them. So to get talent... a program like UT can go head to head with OSU, Bama, and UGA and convince players they want to sign with UT instead. Or... you can go find your own which probably WON'T get as much love from the recruiting sites. Clemson broke into the elite ranks with a roster that averaged 11th. @BigOrangeTrain and a few others cannot accept that truth. They also lend credibility to the recruiting sites which doesn't belong to them. 247's top 10 roster talent composite list is- Bama, UGA, OSU, TAM, Clem, Texas, Oreg, LSU, OU, and ND. The four in bold clearly weren't top 10.

The rankings are not predictive. I'm not impressed that they can identify the 3 most successful programs in recent years as the most talented. You and I could do that. Accuracy or lack thereof is proven by how well they do beyond that handful of teams... and it isn't great. That leaves all kinds of room for an up and coming program to assemble a very talented roster and not finish in the "top 10" according to the recruiting sites.

Also, I would argue that a kid like Keith or Duncan or maybe others would have been rated 4* if they'd signed with Bama, UGA, OSU, or Clemson. If Heupel keeps winning then the recruiting sites will give his targets the benefit of the doubt too. As of now though, UT signed guys who appear to be very talented that the recruiting sites just didn't think that much of.

You and I have been around a little while. We've celebrated many "great recruiting classes" at UT. Classes with numerous 4/5* players.... who in time prove to be overrated. It is nice to have that "affirmation"... but FAR better to have a coaching staff that can evaluate talent for themselves.

This is so true a lot of the sports nerd jockey's that write for those sites are lazy like me. They say dang that dude we had as a 3-star signed with Bama, dang Saban knows let's bump him to a 4 star, yep that would be the safe thing to do. We's got to beat that competition.

 

[sjt18]

This is so true a lot of the sports nerd jockey's that write for those sites are lazy like me. They say dang that dude we had as a 3-star signed with Bama, dang Saban knows let's bump him to a 4 star, yep that would be the safe thing to do. We's got to beat that competition.

That's a lot closer to reality than many here want to admit.

And if you look at it from the perspective of the recruiting sites, it just makes sense. Some seem to think that they are in the business of evaluating talent. They aren't. That's secondary. I worked in printing for several years. "Perfect" is never the goal. Perfect costs way too much. You want to set standards that leave the impression with the customer that they received a quality product.

The recruiting sites are doing the same thing. They could actually be "talent evaluators". They could start competing with programs and recruiting consultants for the best talent evaluators. They could hire enough people to scour the country for the best players. They could come up with elaborate means for evaluating similar players from different states by a single standard that took in both qualitative and quantitative factors. But they couldn't sell that product. It would be far too expensive and even the best recruiting programs make mistakes... so the difference in accuracy wouldn't really change the perceptions of the customer. The short cut to that as you point out... is to simply take note of what top recruiting programs do. It is cheaper to just "copy" Bama's work because it still creates the illusion of great accuracy... made obvious by a few here.

The pure reality is that the recruiting sites do not make money by being highly accurate. They're making money by getting fans to buy subscriptions and give them clicks on line.

 

[sjt18]

Recruiting better means more blue chip players. Why is everyone excited about Nico? You think we would feel the same way about him if he wasn’t the #1 player and 5*? No. Most of us fawning over the prospect of getting 5* like Mauigoa and Tate. There for a minute we thought maybe we could get Innis. Another 5*. Everyone got excited when Leacock got a huge numb in the rankings. Same with Hobbs.

But why? Why should anyone get excited when we land a 5*? So I am curious since you don’t think rankings have anything to do with it, how do recruit better without getting more blue chips? Those players might be good players. And no I don’t think we can win a championship with players like you listed. Why? The fact is you have to have more blue chip players than you do 3*s. You cannot debate that.

The Chiefs are headed to the Super Bowl. Here's their starters by "stars". I used Rivals since the other two don't capture all of the active players.

QB- Mahommes 3*
RB- McKinnon 3*, Pacheco 3*, Jones 4*, Burton unr
TE- Kelce 2*, Gray 2*
WR- Smith-Schuster 5*, Watson unr, Valdes-Scantling 3*
OT- Brown 4*
OG- Thuney 3*
C- Humphrey 4*
OG- Smith 5*
OT- Wylie 3*

LDE- Karlaftis 4*
DT- Nnadi 4*
DT- Jones 5*
DE- Clark 3*
LB- Gay 4*
LB- Bolton 3*
CB- Watson 3*
S- Reid 3*
S- Thornhill 3*
CB- Sneed 3*
NB- McDuffie 4*

So their roster star average is 3.36 That would make them somewhere around 20th this year if they were an incoming class of Fr. Without much argument, the best two players on their team are a 3* QB and a 2* TE.

So with all due respect to your "feelings"... it is more important to find, sign, and develop talent than to pay attention to the number of "stars" a recruit has.

And very, very clearly... here's just one more proof that you are 100% wrong. This "non-blue chip" line up is going to the Super Bowl.

 

[spacificislander]

The Chiefs are headed to the Super Bowl. Here's their starters by "stars". I used Rivals since the other two don't capture all of the active players.

QB- Mahommes 3*
RB- McKinnon 3*, Pacheco 3*, Jones 4*, Burton unr
TE- Kelce 2*, Gray 2*
WR- Smith-Schuster 5*, Watson unr, Valdes-Scantling 3*
OT- Brown 4*
OG- Thuney 3*
C- Humphrey 4*
OG- Smith 5*
OT- Wylie 3*

LDE- Karlaftis 4*
DT- Nnadi 4*
DT- Jones 5*
DE- Clark 3*
LB- Gay 4*
LB- Bolton 3*
CB- Watson 3*
S- Reid 3*
S- Thornhill 3*
CB- Sneed 3*
NB- McDuffie 4*

So their roster star average is 3.36 That would make them somewhere around 20th this year if they were an incoming class of Fr. Without much argument, the best two players on their team are a 3* QB and a 2* TE.

So with all due respect to your "feelings"... it is more important to find, sign, and develop talent than to pay attention to the number of "stars" a recruit has.

And very, very clearly... here's just one more proof that you are 100% wrong. This "non-blue chip" line up is going to the Super Bowl.

TCU didn’t have top recruiting classes and they played in the NC game…
I think you can luck your way into a NC without multiple top 5 classes. Clemson did, but they had incredible QBs. Trevor Laurence and Desean Watson. They also dont play an SEC schedule. I think for SEC teams you need top 5 classes more than anyone else cause you have such a grind week in and week out.
I think clearly recruiting sites miss players and other players develop. But even the teams you showed weren’t good got really good players. ND and Texas were really good this year. You clearly believe we need elite talent to win NCs, I don’t get your argument here. Is it that our coach knows better than the sites? I would agree with that especially for his scheme.