‘23 NC WR Nathan Leacock (Tennessee)

#176
#176
SweetasSoda said:
Not hopeless at all! Just not as simple as you want it to be. But we’re not firing our coach after 3 years, and we’re not discussing it before the second year starts, because he is going to get enough good players and scheme for them to succeed ENOUGH that those in charge are going to give him five years to rebuild this program!
Click to expand...

You have made some excellent points as usual. But the ones you are arguing with here are like brick walls. They think every single coach walks into the exact same sight when they take over a program. So they use the flawed logic of well if a coach doesn’t get it done in year 3 or 4, he can’t and won’t get it done. It’s ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SweetasSoda
#177
#177
It’s all in the direction you are going, if your competitive and improving in years 2 and 3 you have to stick with the staff. But in the sec if your losing and seem to be getting worse no top school has very much patience. Especially if you can’t recruit. But at this point in time Heupel and staff appear to have us going in the right direction, after this year I think it will become more evident. GBO!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: SugarCC, bigl3327, sjt18 and 1 other person
#178
#178
BigOrangeTrain said:
You have made some excellent points as usual. But the ones you are arguing with here are like brick walls. They think every single coach walks into the exact same sight when they take over a program.
Click to expand...
No. They don't. And you are the grand puba of straw men.

It really doesn't matter what they walk into. It doesn't matter that it isn't fair. All that matters is that if a coach doesn't show fans and recruits something within 3 years then almost NONE over the last 30 or 40 years have been able to become winners at that school. You have to have players to win and if you don't win games in those first 3 years... the recruits stop listening. Now you go on some diversion as if this simple, historic pattern doesn't repeat itself consistently. You go pretend that a coach can be given 5 years as if it were in a vacuum without leaving the next guy even further behind.

So they use the flawed logic of well if a coach doesn’t get it done in year 3 or 4, he can’t and won’t get it done. It’s ridiculous.
Click to expand...
No. It is historic. And it is a direct observation of what happens to recruiting. Recruits will buy success. They will buy a "vision". They won't buy failure and they don't really care whether it is "fair" or not.
 
#179
#179
BigOrangeTrain said:
You have made some excellent points as usual. But the ones you are arguing with here are like brick walls. They think every single coach walks into the exact same sight when they take over a program. So they use the flawed logic of well if a coach doesn’t get it done in year 3 or 4, he can’t and won’t get it done. It’s ridiculous.
Click to expand...
It is laughable that you keep talking about "logic" and then completely ignore logic confirmed by history. You spout a "logic" that has worked where? Go ahead. Provide your list of coaches that didn't win at least 9 games in their first 3 years that went on to do big things at that school. It won't make a long post.
 
#181
#181
Woodlawn VOL said:
It’s all in the direction you are going, if your competitive and improving in years 2 and 3 you have to stick with the staff. But in the sec if your losing and seem to be getting worse no top school has very much patience. Especially if you can’t recruit. But at this point in time Heupel and staff appear to have us going in the right direction, after this year I think it will become more evident. GBO!!!!
Click to expand...
I feel better about Heupel than I have about the previous coaches. He's a better leader. I think he's a smarter coach. I think he's moving things in the right direction. I think there is a great chance he makes this whole conversation moot this fall.

I don't really like talking about the "what if he fails" scenarios. I guess I let it suck me in when these guys start with the non-sense that he has to get 5 years to make it work. I believe this one started with a prediction that he would win 8 and then 7 games after the 7 last year before he would start to become competitive. It would be no skin off my back if that notion actually worked. It hasn't. You can't name more than a handful of times over the last 30 to 40 years that it worked.

One of those was Frank Beamer but his success came after significant change. He was more or less floundering when VT was an independent. He started having success when they joined the Big East and then even more when they joined the ACC. There are a handful of others that have been discussed here over the years. But the "rule" is that if a guy doesn't win 9 in his first 3 years... then he won't succeed at that school. Some have moved on and found more success... but not at that school.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Palm Beach Vol and #Vol4Life1991
#182
#182
sjt18 said:
It is laughable that you keep talking about "logic" and then completely ignore logic confirmed by history. You spout a "logic" that has worked where? Go ahead. Provide your list of coaches that didn't win at least 9 games in their first 3 years that went on to do big things at that school. It won't make a long post.
Click to expand...

Mark Stoops. Mike Gundy. Johnny Majors. Spurrier (at SC). There are more. But see you won’t address the big elephant in the room. And I have said it time and time again. No 2 head coaching situations are the same.

If every situation were the same then your argument holds merit. They aren’t so it doesn’t. Just because historically it hasn’t happened more often than not, doesn’t mean it can’t. And please give the list of coaches that have won at least 9 games, went into to great things at that school and had to walk into the EXACT same set of circumstances that Heupel did.

I will wait.
 
#183
#183
sjt18 said:
I feel better about Heupel than I have about the previous coaches. He's a better leader. I think he's a smarter coach. I think he's moving things in the right direction. I think there is a great chance he makes this whole conversation moot this fall.

I don't really like talking about the "what if he fails" scenarios. I guess I let it suck me in when these guys start with the non-sense that he has to get 5 years to make it work. I believe this one started with a prediction that he would win 8 and then 7 games after the 7 last year before he would start to become competitive. It would be no skin off my back if that notion actually worked. It hasn't. You can't name more than a handful of times over the last 30 to 40 years that it worked.

One of those was Frank Beamer but his success came after significant change. He was more or less floundering when VT was an independent. He started having success when they joined the Big East and then even more when they joined the ACC. There are a handful of others that have been discussed here over the years. But the "rule" is that if a guy doesn't win 9 in his first 3 years... then he won't succeed at that school. Some have moved on and found more success... but not at that school.
Click to expand...

I factored in our recruiting from last year , so far this year, and projected recruiting in the next 3.

Most importantly is the scheduling and the programs with young coaches that are already above us.

Nico's junior season is when I think Tennessee will a defense like UGA and an Offense...like Tennessee.

The 2020 and 21 classes are nothing. So we're building with key transfers and the 22 class. 23 comes on board. Nico immediately wins the job. Tayven stays because we still use him, but the roster. We play exciting football but depth keeps hurting us.
By the time I mentioned we will have the depth to be a 10 win team EVERY YEAR from then on. Because so much of the conference is already established and recruiting just as well if not better than us.

In other words and equal playing field finally.
That means any of those teams from then on can be a playoff team.

5 years in this landscape is not that long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: titansvolsfaninga
#186
#186
LittleVol said:
I factored in our recruiting from last year , so far this year, and projected recruiting in the next 3.

Most importantly is the scheduling and the programs with young coaches that are already above us.

Nico's junior season is when I think Tennessee will a defense like UGA and an Offense...like Tennessee.

The 2020 and 21 classes are nothing. So we're building with key transfers and the 22 class. 23 comes on board. Nico immediately wins the job. Tayven stays because we still use him, but the roster. We play exciting football but depth keeps hurting us.
By the time I mentioned we will have the depth to be a 10 win team EVERY YEAR from then on. Because so much of the conference is already established and recruiting just as well if not better than us.

In other words and equal playing field finally.
That means any of those teams from then on can be a playoff team.

5 years in this landscape is not that long.
Click to expand...
I don't object that much to it taking 4 or 5 years to win 10 consistently or compete with Bama/UGA unless they fall off.

My specific issue is with the idea that you can complete that turnaround with a coach that doesn't show he can win within the first 3 years. The historic mark seems to be 9 wins or more. The HC has to do something that convinces top tier recruits to keep listening. If Heupel wins 7 then 8 then 7 as I believe you suggested then recruits are going to listen to either the coaches who have proven it or coaches who are new and sharing a bright, shiny "vision" that they don't have to prove. As most know, I'm not someone who trusts the recruiting sites as much as many others. But in reality there are in fact only so many players with the talent to compete at the highest levels of the SEC. Coaches who only win 7 games in year 3... don't have a strong case for those players.

That's my concern. That's also why this season is pivotal for Heupel's success. If he wins 9 or 10 games total this fall then he can make a really strong case with recruits for the next 2 years. That almost gets that roster improvement you're talking about.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LittleVol
#187
#187
BigOrangeTrain said:
Mark Stoops. Mike Gundy. Johnny Majors. Spurrier (at SC). There are more. But see you won’t address the big elephant in the room. And I have said it time and time again. No 2 head coaching situations are the same.

If every situation were the same then your argument holds merit. They aren’t so it doesn’t. Just because historically it hasn’t happened more often than not, doesn’t mean it can’t. And please give the list of coaches that have won at least 9 games, went into to great things at that school and had to walk into the EXACT same set of circumstances that Heupel did.

I will wait.
Click to expand...
Those have done better than most. Actually a couple have done much better than most. Stoops is "closer" to an SEC championship in much the way Shaq is closer to the moon than Tom Cruise. He's improved them... and there's still almost no chance of them winning the SEC. Even so... only two are exceptions to the threshold and only one of those without an asterisk.

Stoops best finish is 2nd in the East in spite of having an up and down MSU team as his permanent crossover. UT, UGA, and UF all experienced a valley together but it was Mizzou that took advantage, not Stoops. And do you really and truly believe he's getting players because they believe he can win an SEC championship? Is he getting anything like the types of players that can win an SEC championship?

Mike Gundy in 17 years has 1 conference championship in a VERY weak conference. He's won his division twice. If you are really that desperate, you can call him an exception. He won 9 games in his 4th year btw... one year late. Question- Do you think Ok St recruits well enough to compete in the SEC?

Majors is an exception but also straddles that 40 year period I mentioned. I use 40 years because college sports changed with the advent of ESPN and 24 hour sports news. SI came out monthly I believe way back then and was far from comprehensive? All someone outside the southeast knew about UT was found in a list of scores on Sunday morning. All Majors truly needed in those early years was supportive boosters. There might have been some negative local buzz but nothing like the national "hot seat" reporting we have now.

Spurrier didn't win a championship at USCe. IMO, he is one of the greatest college coaches of all time... and he wasn't an exception to the "rule". He did have more success than USCe has ever seen. But is he a special case because of all he had proven up to that point? In 11 years he won the East just once.... then got slaughtered by Auburn in the CG. Was that more a function of the East being bad or USCe truly "rising up"?


So... in that group you have 4 conference championship (3 by Majors in the 80's), a few division titles, and no BCS berths in 54 total years of coaching.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GRRN7MAXIMS, volsrock09 and memtownvol
#188
#188
I had no idea this dude ran a 10.5. Vols are getting a FREAK on the outside in him. That's fast for a dude this big.

NC State has targeted local wide receiver Nathan Leacock since June 6, when he was offered.

You can’t teach speed and Leacock has shown that his 10.5-second 100-meter dash time is legit. In the first meeting against Rolesville High, he went about 97 yards for a touchdown and there was no question, nobody was going to catch him in the open field. You also saw it in the big kickoff return in the first meeting.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nickoli, VolInDayton, Geaux_Vols and 23 others
#189
#189
  • Like
Reactions: Brillovol, hooter vol, Orange_Crush and 7 others
#193
#193
The key to having a high level of success is being exceptional in key areas to offset being average in others and having enough depth to sustain it over the course of a game.

For instance, if you got two elite pass rushers then does it matter that you don't have elite corners? The QB won't get much time. If you got two dominant DTs does it matter that you are getting average play at LB.

If your QB is elite, then the play makers and OL just needs to be adequate.

Though it's ideal to have elite players at every position or have star power depth, it is really more to land those few game changers if you're able to compete in recruiting with the current powers for the sheer volume of elite players. This is fine as long as you can win at a high volume.

That said, I think the recruiting hype this year has been more than the recruiting bite to this point.
 
#196
#196
Jackcrevol said:
necks
Click to expand...
neck-smile.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT, VOLSONLY, Jackcrevol and 2 others
#199
#199
  • Like
Reactions: LittleVol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top