'25 Portal Thread

#12,228
#12,228
Stoerner Fumbles said:
He’s a smart guy who follows data, but he can be dogmatic about it. We have a high ypc every year doing it his way. It’s hard to question statistically. It works against decent talent. I think it becomes a problem against great teams with fast defenses. Our red zone offense definitely could’ve benefited from developing a more diverse run game, and versatile use of our backs. We have an RPO play that releases the TE and the RB into downfield pass. It’s been bulletproof in practice in the red zone. We haven’t used it once in a game. Same thing with the two back set. It’s hard to understand.
Click to expand...
He has to add more to the offense, D coordinators can put a game plan that focuses on 8 plays and work on it all week. We need to save some for the big games but show some versatility against the lesser teams to make it more difficult to game plan against our offense.
 
#12,231
#12,231
Stoerner Fumbles said:
It’s just a stupid characterization to say we’re signing a depth player at a skill position. Anyone who says that doesn’t understand how it works. You sign great players and they compete. I’ve heard AP say this too. “They like Lewis. They’re looking for depth.” Sure they like Lewis. He is fast and strong and can get stronger. He’s also young. He can also get hurt. Georgia and Alabama are five deep with RBs that could start at any school. Kids come to compete and play. Any running back we sign will be hungry and stubborn and believe he can be the starter. That’s the job description. “Hey buddy, we need a third guy. That’s you.” does not happen. If they sign Thomas, it will be because they believe he can contribute. He isn’t the only option, or the best.

We did not tell Seldon to move on, and the problem was not lack of talent or his desire to play WR. He’s a freak athlete, but he was injured more often than not for two solid seasons. Sometimes it’s best for a kid that talented to start fresh. If there is a complaint in that room, it’s that the snaps allocated didn’t follow the practice performance. Seldon caught balls out of the backfield and had the speed to run sweeps and the option. That’s happened often in practice, but never in a game. Lewis and Sampson had success in a two back set in the red zone, but it never got called in a game. We had a talented versatile room, and we basically ran one play, with one guy 75% of the time. We’re talking to some very good RBs. If we sign a “third guy” we just didn’t deliver. That isn’t the goal.
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing. Youve been here forever, i remember, dont let some dbag in here who knows absolutely nothing and never put pads on in their life drag you into an argument or stress you out man.

95% of the people in here are good guys and come here to read posts from you and 2 other people that actually do have inside information about the team. Theres always a couple arrogant sheitbags that just want to argue or complain. Please ignore them, I know its not easy sometimes. The rest of us really appreciate your time and insight.GO VOLS

Edit: I dont expect or need you to reply to this post. Thank you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Billy Antrim, SoilVol, Hoghater and 2 others
#12,236
#12,236
Stoerner Fumbles said:
He’s a smart guy who follows data, but he can be dogmatic about it. We have a high ypc every year doing it his way. It’s hard to question statistically. It works against decent talent. I think it becomes a problem against great teams with fast defenses. Our red zone offense definitely could’ve benefited from developing a more diverse run game, and versatile use of our backs. We have an RPO play that releases the TE and the RB into downfield pass. It’s been bulletproof in practice in the red zone. We haven’t used it once in a game. Same thing with the two back set. It’s hard to understand.
Click to expand...



Statistically speaking in 2022 we had 18 passing TDs in the RZ. 14 in 2024.

Scored TDs in 75% of our RZ trips in ‘22. 50% in ‘24.

For sure need more creativity in the run game in the RZ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OGbabyaviVol and marcusluvsvols
#12,241
#12,241
Stoerner Fumbles said:
He’s a smart guy who follows data, but he can be dogmatic about it. We have a high ypc every year doing it his way. It’s hard to question statistically. It works against decent talent. I think it becomes a problem against great teams with fast defenses. Our red zone offense definitely could’ve benefited from developing a more diverse run game, and versatile use of our backs. We have an RPO play that releases the TE and the RB into downfield pass. It’s been bulletproof in practice in the red zone. We haven’t used it once in a game. Same thing with the two back set. It’s hard to understand.
Click to expand...
It does not seem we have a become more predictable .
 
#12,243
#12,243
Stoerner Fumbles said:
He’s a smart guy who follows data, but he can be dogmatic about it. We have a high ypc every year doing it his way. It’s hard to question statistically. It works against decent talent. I think it becomes a problem against great teams with fast defenses. Our red zone offense definitely could’ve benefited from developing a more diverse run game, and versatile use of our backs. We have an RPO play that releases the TE and the RB into downfield pass. It’s been bulletproof in practice in the red zone. We haven’t used it once in a game. Same thing with the two back set. It’s hard to understand.
Click to expand...
Do you think that we didn't run it due to the protection of our OL?? Cause I agree with you, it doesn't make any sense to not run a play with those results in practice. Only thing I could think of that would be reasonable. Also, when you say two back set, are they lining up in the I-formation or are you referring to the veer? Because when I played high school ball, and I understand high school and college are worlds apart as far as competition(also played in college for 2 years fwiw) and we ran the veer and if you have good blocking it's very effective. I've watched several D1 programs who also run the veer, and if you have the blocking to go along with it, it works.
 
#12,248
#12,248
LouderVol said:
point was more anything can work, but also anything can be defended.

it all comes down to how ready each side is for that particular call at that particular moment.
Click to expand...

That point didn't come across at all in your reply, seemed like you used 1 example of a failed jet sweep and then claimed a failed HC here also was unable to properly use a jet sweep during his time here.
 
#12,249
#12,249
EJVOL4LIFE said:
@Pawleysvol @RandomUTfan


Yes, revenue sharing is now being used to directly fund payments to student athletes, which is considered separate from, but can be used in conjunction with, Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals, meaning athletes can receive compensation through both revenue sharing from their school and individual NIL sponsorship agreements with companies or collectives; essentially providing multiple avenues for student-athlete compensation.

Key points about revenue sharing and NIL:
  • Separate but related:
    Revenue sharing is a system where a portion of a school's athletic revenue is distributed directly to athletes, while NIL deals are individual agreements between athletes and third parties for using their name, image, and likeness for commercial purposes.

  • Recent development:
    This practice of direct athlete payments through revenue sharing is a result of recent legal settlements, like the "House v. NCAA" case, which allowed for schools to compensate athletes beyond traditional scholarships.

  • Impact on NIL:
    While revenue sharing provides a more standardized form of compensation, athletes can still pursue additional income through NIL deals, which can vary significantly based on their popularity and market value.

  • Title IX considerations:
    When implementing revenue sharing, schools must ensure equitable distribution of funds to male and female athletes to comply with Title IX regulations.
Click to expand...
I promise you I don't need revenue sharing explained to me. I know exactly how it works because I keep up.
 
#12,250
#12,250
DaddyChad said:
Revenue sharing isn’t quite in place last I heard. Danny was looking at it though and ahead of the curve on how to structure it. NIL is still a separate entity for now from revenue generated by the AD.
Click to expand...
It's not official but schools are already using it to write NIL deals and it's a large reason we were able to hang on to so many players that were a little iffy for a moment there. It helps for sure and it levels the playing field to the extent that teams that are NIL poor are able to hold on to more players than they normally would have been able to, but it's also heavily front-loaded which means those same teams are borrowing from their future which will only help temporarily. Long-term teams that don't have the NIL budgets that teams like Oregon, Ohio State, the Texas schools and frankly we do, will not be able to compete for the same caliber of players as those teams.

NIL cannot be limited in any fashion. that's the Supreme Court saying that—not me. And thus, you can't limit boosters' ability to further pay players ON TOP of revenue sharing to land elite players. It's really not the game changer many of you are thinking it is. But it's okay as far as it relates to Tennessee. We have billionaire donors supporting NIL and while that doesn't mean we have an endless supply of money, it does mean that we will spend on the level of almost any team in the country to build and keep our roster.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top