Mistakes a coincidence or something more?

[VolBeef88]

Originally posted by hatvol96@Nov 15, 2005 11:02 AM
Answer in post #71. Tom Lemming has admitted to doing exactly what I mentioned. He always rates kids in Texas, Ohio, and the Deep South higher, because that's where he sells the most subscriptions. Listen to those guys when they are guests on local radio. Wherever they are, the pump the local talent and the area university's talent. It's marketing 101.

[snapback]192456[/snapback]​

How about ESPN, SI and CFN? uh that is what I thought!

 

[allvol]

Okay hatvol96, I've posted the stats and will now weigh in with my opinion.

At all positions, I do not think the Vols have lacked talent wise. However, I agree that running back and quarterback positions have not been up to the standards that UT set in the 1990's. It could be questioned whether it is the talent or the lack of developement.

Regarding running backs, the Vols made what appeared to be a great recruiting class with Jabari Davis, Derrick Tinsley, and Cedric Houston. However, none of them lived up to their billing. Looking at the coaching portion.... Randy Sanders was the RB position coach until 1999. He coached 7 of the Vols top 10 all-time leading rushers. In '97-'98 he coached Jamal Lewis, Travis Henry, and Travis Stephens. Beginning in 2002, none of the players that Sanders coached was playing at Tennessee anymore. It is also about the time that the Vols rushing production dropped significantly. Gerald Riggs was highly recruited. Did he fully develop?

Now on to quarterbacks. Chris Simms leaving the Vols at the alter may have hurt more than we know. He would have backed up Tee in 1999 and started from 2000-2002. As good as Clausen's stats were.... he is not talented enough to play in the NFL. Simms would have been a significant upgrade at that position. James Banks was a parade all-american in high school. He could not stay away from the wacky weed. I don't know what Erik Ainge's problem is.... some may be coaching.... but bad coaching can't even explain why he is playing this bad after the season he had last year (17 TDs).

And to compare receivers..... out of the group of receivers that hold most of the Vols records.... they all played with Manning...... Marcus Nash, Joey Kent, and Jermaine Copeland..... all were NFL busts.

 

[allvol]

Originally posted by VolBeef88@Nov 15, 2005 11:26 AM
So there we have it. A 43 yard run is not long or good enough. I guess I remember wrong. I don't remember JL or Webb ALWAYS getting a TD when they broke the line of scrimmage.

ALLVOL your the stat man. Could you show us the stat that everytime JL and Webb broke the line they scored? I did not realize they did.

[snapback]192467[/snapback]​

I still can't get over the 2-yards that Jamal Lewis could not get against Florida on 2 plays. :ill_h4h:

But seriously, we could nit pick every player that has ever worn the orange and white. Sometimes it is better to focus on the positive. :question:

My uncle still won't mention James Stewart's name because he fumbled on the goal line two years in a row against Alabama. Forget that he eventually became the Vols all-time leading rusher (passed by Travis Henry) and was a 1,000-yard rusher in the NFL.

 

[hatvol96]

Originally posted by VolBeef88@Nov 15, 2005 11:27 AM
How about ESPN, SI and CFN? uh that is what I thought!

[snapback]192468[/snapback]​

Didn't Tom Lemming provide ESPN with their rankings at one point? I think it's him or another service now. Same thing with SI. They don't have anyone covering recruiting, they simply bring in one of the "name" services and use their list. Guys like Lemming and Allen Wallace generally contract themself out to the major magazine websites, because the mags don't want to waste talent on a niche issue.

 

[hatvol96]

Originally posted by VolBeef88@Nov 15, 2005 11:26 AM
So there we have it. A 43 yard run is not long or good enough. I guess I remember wrong. I don't remember JL or Webb ALWAYS getting a TD when they broke the line of scrimmage.

ALLVOL your the stat man. Could you show us the stat that everytime JL and Webb broke the line they scored? I did not realize they did.

[snapback]192467[/snapback]​

Let Foster score on ONE long run and I'll bother to dignify that question with further response.

 

[gonygonygo]

Originally posted by oklavol@Nov 14, 2005 7:09 PM
I think the talent drop off has been most noticable at the QB position.  UT's offense doesnt work without a top notch QB. CC was good but not great like Manning, or Shuler.  Tee made things happen with his running ability.  I think thats been the missing ingredient since 98.  Fulmers a great recruiter, but he's had trouble landing a top 5 qb prospect until he got Crompton.

[snapback]191801[/snapback]​

FALSE!! James Banks was the #1 QB prospect in the country when we got him. Brent Shaeffer was up there too, I'm not sure what # he ranked, but he was a top prospect as well.

UT has always recruited top notch high school players. Recruiting is not the issue when it comes to UT's problems right now.

 

[hatvol96]

Originally posted by gonygonygo@Nov 15, 2005 11:52 AM
FALSE!!  James Banks was the #1 QB prospect in the country when we got him.  Brent Shaeffer was up there too, I'm not sure what # he ranked, but he was a top prospect as well.

UT has always recruited top notch high school players.  Recruiting is not the issue when it comes to UT's problems right now.

[snapback]192482[/snapback]​

If Banks was such a great QB, why did we move him to receiver? Further, why did nobody else give him a shot after we sent him packing? He was a great athlete, not an SEC caliber QB.

 

[volmanjr]

Originally posted by hatvol96@Nov 15, 2005 10:45 AM
Let Foster score on ONE long run and I'll bother to dignify that question with further response.

[snapback]192477[/snapback]​

I'm late on this conversation but who cares if he makes 43 or 21 yrd runs, I want a back that can move the sticks, 3 tough yrds in traffic consitantly is better IMO than 20 in the open field.

 

[gonygonygo]

Originally posted by VolBeef88@Nov 15, 2005 10:40 AM
The kid has started three (3) games! And in ALL 3 he has rushed for OVER 100 yds. If that is a plodder then bring on the plodder.
I guess you are right and the UT staff, other major colleges and recruiting services are all wrong about the talent we have recruited. Again thank you oh great wise one.

[snapback]192434[/snapback]​

All that good rushing (according to you), and we still can't score points. That tells me the passing game is hurting the offense. What's the key ingredient to a great passing game??

The QUARTERBACK!!

You can say what you want about the receivers, but the QB is the most important factor in a passing game.

 

[hatvol96]

Originally posted by volmanjr@Nov 15, 2005 11:56 AM
I'm late on this conversation but who cares if he makes 43 or 21 yrd runs, I want a back that can move the sticks,  3 tough yrds in traffic consitantly is better IMO than 20 in the open field.

[snapback]192485[/snapback]​

You'd rather have Eddie George than Barry Sanders?

 

[gonygonygo]

Originally posted by hatvol96@Nov 15, 2005 11:55 AM
If Banks was such a great QB, why did we move him to receiver? Further, why did nobody else give him a shot after we sent him packing? He was a great athlete, not an SEC caliber QB.

[snapback]192484[/snapback]​

My point was that we recruit the high prospects. That doesn't mean that they will succeed. We dont know what we are getting until they come and mix it up with the other guys. All that we have to go on is his reputation, and what the scouts say. CPF isn't psychic. We dont know the future. We can only recruit based on what we hope will come of the players.

When a person is ranked #1 in the country, you assume you are getting the best (or one of the best) player in the country, right???

 

[gonygonygo]

Originally posted by hatvol96@Nov 15, 2005 11:59 AM
You'd rather have Eddie George than Barry Sanders?

[snapback]192489[/snapback]​

Depends on the system. If you have a running game like the Steelers (north-south, smash mouth attack), you take Eddie George. If you have a zone blocking scheme, where the back makes the moves and has options, you get Barry Sanders.

 

[hatvol96]

Originally posted by gonygonygo@Nov 15, 2005 12:00 PM
My point was that we recruit the high prospects.  That doesn't mean that they will succeed.  We dont know what we are getting until they come and mix it up with the other guys.  All that we have to go on is his reputation, and what the scouts say.  CPF isn't psychic.  We dont know the future.  We can only recruit based on what we hope will come of the players.

[snapback]192490[/snapback]​

Might that not show that other programs are doing a better job of projecting what players will do at the college level than we are?

 

[gonygonygo]

Originally posted by hatvol96@Nov 15, 2005 12:02 PM
Might that not show that other programs are doing a better job of projecting what players will do at the college level than we are?

[snapback]192492[/snapback]​

That's a fair point. My point is that you try to get the best of what's available.

 

[gonygonygo]

Isn't that the best way to go?

It's common sense.

 

[VolBeef88]

Originally posted by gonygonygo@Nov 15, 2005 11:57 AM
All that good rushing (according to you), and we still can't score points.  That tells me the passing game is hurting the offense.  What's the key ingredient to a great passing game??

The QUARTERBACK!!

You can say what you want about the receivers, but the QB is the most important factor in a passing game.

[snapback]192487[/snapback]​

I agree. My point was to HATVOL. He stated that AF was a plodder and not very good. I think if we had a better passing game his numbers would be much higher.

 

[hatvol96]

Originally posted by VolBeef88@Nov 15, 2005 12:06 PM
I agree. My point was to HATVOL. He stated that AF was a plodder and not very good. I think if we had a better passing game his numberw weould be much higher.

[snapback]192499[/snapback]​

Please show me where I said Foster is "not very good."

 

[OWB]

Originally posted by VolBeef88@Nov 15, 2005 12:06 PM
I agree. My point was to HATVOL. He stated that AF was a plodder and not very good. I think if we had a better passing game his numberw weould be much higher.

[snapback]192499[/snapback]​

I tend to agree. Foster is not only getting 100+ yards a game, he's getting 100+ TOUGH yards a game. No passing game and some bad blocking at times from the line. Which brings up another question, how would you compare the OL that Jamal was running behind to this one?

 

[gonygonygo]

Originally posted by VolBeef88@Nov 15, 2005 12:06 PM
I agree. My point was to HATVOL. He stated that AF was a plodder and not very good. I think if we had a better passing game his numbers would be much higher.

[snapback]192499[/snapback]​

Very true. The way AF runs is his style. You have to live with it. Different backs run different ways. I'd like to see him explode through holes and not try to juke every defender from time to time. I'd like him to lower the shoulder and run guys over, but his style is who he is. If it's successful, you can't knock it.

 

[WA_Vol]

I think Foster is going to be great back. Most freshmen running backs at UT developed a lot over 4 years. He's going to get stronger and quicker. I think he is actually going to help the passing game if we try to throw to the slot receiver over the middle (i'm probably dreaming that we would do that though :huh: )

 

[Liper]

Originally posted by hatvol96@Nov 15, 2005 11:02 AM
Answer in post #71. Tom Lemming has admitted to doing exactly what I mentioned. He always rates kids in Texas, Ohio, and the Deep South higher, because that's where he sells the most subscriptions. Listen to those guys when they are guests on local radio. Wherever they are, the pump the local talent and the area university's talent. It's marketing 101.

[snapback]192456[/snapback]​

You can trash or accept recruiting rankings. It means nothing. I don't dwell on specific rankings, but the overall area they are placed and who is recruiting them.

Also, college coaches are in frequent contact will all of these guys. I bet you'd be interested to know the Tennessee subscribes to Rivals and Tom Lemming. Huh? How does that strike you?

1.If you look at the rankings, you'll find a strong correlation to the teams winning on the field. That means they have validity, or in statistical terms, strong explanatory power (r-squared). No one claims omniscient accuracy, but that they generally tell you where the talent is going.

2.Rankings may not matter, but the schools recruiting those players do. Jayson Swain, Meachem, B Smith, Kevin Simon, Gerald Riggs, Aaron Sears, and basically 75% of our team could have played for a host of top 10 claiber programs. That is a fact, and it is indisputable (unless you wish to dispute it for persona reasons).

3.Actually, they do not "pump" the local talent. Their rankings are tabulated for all to see throught the year. They simply describe what they have already put into print for those that don't follow it. It wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to lie about what you wrote yourself.

4.It's strange that FSU, MIA, LSU, USC, OSU, FL, TN, GA, AUB, etc put the most players into the NFL. They are also consistently ranked the highest in recruiting.

 

[hatvol96]

Originally posted by Liper@Nov 15, 2005 1:30 PM
You can trash or accept recruiting rankings.  It means nothing.  I don't dwell on specific rankings, but the overall area they are placed and who is recruiting them. 

Also, college coaches are in frequent contact will all of these guys.  I bet you'd be interested to know the Tennessee subscribes to Rivals and Tom Lemming.  Huh?  How does that strike you?

1.If you look at the rankings, you'll find a strong correlation to the teams winning on the field.  That means they have validity, or in statistical terms, strong explanatory power (r-squared). No one claims omniscient accuracy, but that they generally tell you where the talent is going.

2.Rankings may not matter, but the schools recruiting those players do.  Jayson Swain, Meachem, B Smith, Kevin Simon, Gerald Riggs, Aaron Sears, and basically 75% of our team could have played for a host of top 10 claiber programs.  That is a fact, and it is indisputable (unless you wish to dispute it for persona reasons).

3.Actually, they do not "pump" the local talent.  Their rankings are tabulated for all to see throught the year.  They simply describe what they have already put into print for those that don't follow it.  It wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to lie about what you wrote yourself.

4.It's strange that FSU, MIA, LSU, USC, OSU, FL, TN, GA, AUB, etc put the most players into the NFL.  They are also consistently ranked the highest in recruiting.

[snapback]192548[/snapback]​

Same thing happens in basketball. Schools subscribe to services to get an overview. I seriously doubt Bob Stoops or Phil Fulmer decide who to recruit on the basis of where Tom Lemming rates them. As I stated earlier, just because a school recruits a player, that doesn't mean they are a priority. I wonder how many of their WRs SC,Miami, or Texas would trade for our guys. Probably few or none. The services don't "lie" about what they wrote, they begin the year with biases toward the talent in certain areas. Anyone familiar with Miami's ascending to the top of college football under Jimmy Johnson can tell you that most of his recruiting classes weren't lauded by the experts. Miami became a darling of the services after they became successful. As an example of what I'm saying, find a player in the upcoming class who wasn't highly rated initially. I guarantee if UT or a similar school starts recruiting them, the services will shoot them up the rankings. They apparently decide that anyone recruited by a power must be good. The same inflation of opinion happens with players recruited by Kentucky in basketball.

 

[GAVol]

I once heard a coach say "With as much money as there is at stake with the BCS, don't you think that if these recruiting analysts were really that knowledgeable, some school would put one of them on their payroll?"

 

[hatvol96]

Originally posted by GAVol@Nov 15, 2005 1:51 PM
I once heard a coach say "With as much money as there is at stake with the BCS, don't you think that if these recruiting analysts were really that knowledgeable, some school would put one of them on their payroll?"

[snapback]192558[/snapback]​

Amen.

 

[VolBeef88]

Originally posted by hatvol96@Nov 15, 2005 1:45 PM
Same thing happens in basketball. Schools subscribe to services to get an overview. I seriously doubt Bob Stoops or Phil Fulmer decide who to recruit on the basis of where Tom Lemming rates them. As I stated earlier, just because a school recruits a player, that doesn't mean they are a priority. I wonder how many of their WRs SC,Miami, or Texas would trade for our guys. Probably few or none. The services don't "lie" about what they wrote, they begin the year with biases toward the talent in certain areas. Anyone familiar with Miami's ascending to the top of college football under Jimmy Johnson can tell you that most of his recruiting classes weren't lauded by the experts. Miami became a darling of the services after they became successful. As an example of what I'm saying, find a player in the upcoming class who wasn't highly rated initially. I guarantee if UT or a similar school starts recruiting them, the services will shoot them up the rankings. They apparently decide that anyone recruited by a power must be good. The same inflation of opinion happens with players recruited by Kentucky in basketball.

[snapback]192555[/snapback]​

you don't know what your talking about. They provide stats and videos of the kids. There is a lot more to it than what you think. They spend days and weeks on the road watching these kids in person and on video. They pay for videos of games where highly ranked kids are playing.
If what you say is true then how do you explain when a kid is not in the RIVALS 100 but still get recruited by a UT type school? They get signed and never get a star. How do you explain that?
Look it is not perfect or 100%. But you look at the top ten teams year in and year out and they ALMOST ALWAYS have a top ten recruting class. How do you explain that?
I think you are a conspiracy kook.

Jamal Lewis was a very highly ranked kid. According to you that must have just been luck.