Serious question about Phil

[bamamike]

Let me preface my remarks by saying I am not trying to flame or start any crap. I'm seriously trying to have an intellectual conversation here.

UT has had a top 5 recruiting class for what seems like the last 40 years; the talent has to be there. The Manning years are a given for success, but the championship was won with Martin. Then Cutcliffe leaves and the Manning’s send Eli to play for him. Since then UT has been a bit stagnate given all the talent. Yes, they have been successful, but no real National Championship run.

I honestly thought UT would be in “the game” at least once since ’98; there have been too many 5 star blue chippers coming through the doors in Knoxville. Is this Phil’s fault? Or has the talent just not panned out? No doubt Cut was an important part of Phil’s success, so why Randy Sanders? Was this a calculated move to avoid a Fulmer to Majors coup d'etat?

Again, I’m not trying to start crap, so save all the “we just don’t pay our players as well as Alabama” or similar one liners.

I honestly want to understand. It just doesn’t add up. :dunno:

 

[duckman398686]

Its because of Randy "beaver" Sanders. He doesn't know how to develop players to their full potential. good guy....bad coach...

 

[bamamike]

Originally posted by duckman398686@Oct 28, 2005 12:52 AM
Its because of Randy "beaver" Sanders. He doesn't know how to develop players to their full potential.  good guy....bad coach...

[snapback]176276[/snapback]​

Is it as simple as that? and if so why wasn't Sander gone before now?

 

[duckman398686]

some people think phil is afraid to hire somebody that will pose a threat of moving up the latter and eventaully taking his place. if youve noticed all our problems are offense. our defense has been as good or better through the years since 98.

 

[tvolsfan]

phil should realize that if he is coaching a team with a consistent great offense and great defense, no one is going to get rid of him.

 

[GAVol]

Originally posted by bamamike@Oct 28, 2005 1:44 AM
Since then UT has been a bit stagnate given all the talent. Yes, they have been successful, but no real National Championship run.

[snapback]176274[/snapback]​

Well, in '99 we were up to #2 but lost a couple of close games by about 10 points total. In 2001 we were 30 minutes away from playing for the National Championship again. 2003 and 2004 were 10 win seasons.

There have been a couple of disappointing seasons, and I do fault the coaches for allowing the team to letdown a couple of times when we didn't get the bowl we wanted.....but I think we need to get over this notion that somehow we are annointed with more talent than anyone else. In the age of 85 scholarships, everybody has athletes.

 

[volmanjr]

9 and 10 win seasons in the SEC is nothing to complain about, last yr was amazing considering what they had to work with, but how soon we forget....

 

[kiddiedoc]

Originally posted by volmanjr@Oct 28, 2005 8:15 AM
9 and 10 win seasons in the SEC is nothing to complain about, last yr was amazing considering what they had to work with, but how soon we forget....

[snapback]176326[/snapback]​

A fair assessment IMO is that last season was as much of an "overachievement" as this year has been an "underachievement."

Not defending the coaches, as this season has been PAINFUL, but we've had some pretty darn good years, folks.

 

[GAVol]

It's been so long since we were truly mediocre that a lot of people don't even have a concept of what it looked like.

 

[Liper]

Originally posted by GAVol@Oct 28, 2005 7:39 AM
Well, in '99 we were up to #2 but lost a couple of close games by about 10 points total.  In 2001 we were 30 minutes away from playing for the National Championship again.  2003 and 2004 were 10 win seasons.

There have been a couple of disappointing seasons, and I do fault the coaches for allowing the team to letdown a couple of times when we didn't get the bowl we wanted.....but I think we need to get over this notion that somehow we are annointed with more talent than anyone else.  In the age of 85 scholarships, everybody has athletes.

[snapback]176318[/snapback]​

GAVol,

This is true in the sense that it isn't like we've been out of the mix totally. That's good for everyone to remember, including your's truly.

I blame the staff for what they didn't get done when we had the talent moreso than "annointing them with superior talent" every single year.

For instance, in 1996, 1997, 1999, 2001, we underachieved significantly, IMO. Why? Because we did, in fact, have a superior level of talent to virtually anyone. We only finished in the top 5 once in the years mentioned. Not only that, but we got blown out by someone in each of the above years (if an 11 point loss to an inferior LSU team with back up skill players counts).

Look at USC, MIA, FSU, and those types of programs. When they are really good and have special players, they get it done. Take USC over the last few years. They have really good players in some key positions, i.e. QB. Well, they're taking care of business and look good doing it.

When we had Peyton Manning at QB, we lost to Memphis. So it's not that we ALWAYS have the ANNOINTED talent level, but it's that when we do, we don't do much with it. Sure, we're a game from a game from a game. We should win those games.

Our 1999 was annointed, and should have played for the NC. Frankly, it's just not good enough that they lost 3 games and were a game from a game that they lost. They should have lambasted FL, ARK was overmatched by a factor of 10, and Nebraska took advantage of a team that didn't want to play anymore. PATHETIC.

Respectfully my opinion,
Liper

 

[GAVol]

Originally posted by Liper@Oct 28, 2005 10:25 AM
For instance, in 1996, 1997, 1999, 2001, we underachieved significantly, IMO.

[snapback]176362[/snapback]​

I agree with some of what you are saying, but it's also clear that we have completely different definitions of what the word underachieve means. Yes we had great talent in those years, but there are a lot of really talented teams that lose football games. IMO, the '99 team was the only one that really underachieved.

 

[Liper]

1999 TENNEESSEE VOLS

The following players were drafted or made NFL teams as a free agent that were on the 1999 team that finished 9-3 with no championships:

1 Donte' Stallworth So.
2 Constantin Ritzmann Fr.
3 Deon Grant Jr.
4 Teddy Gaines Fr.
5 Cedrick Wilson Jr.
6 Tee Martin Sr.
7 Travis Henry Jr.
8 Phillip Crosby Sr.
9 Anthony Sessions Jr.
10 Dwayne Goodrich Sr.
11 Onterrio Smith Fr.
12 Troy Fleming Fr.
13 Dominique Stevenson Jr.
14 Andre Lott Jr.
15 Jamal Lewis Jr.
16 Travis Stephens Jr.
17 Eddie Moore Fr.
18 Billy Ratliff Sr.
19 Eric Westmoreland Jr.
20 David Leaverton Jr.
21 Raynoch Thompson Jr.
22 Kenyon Whiteside Fr.
23 Cosey Coleman Jr.
24 Darwin Walker Sr.
25 Scott Wells Fr.
26 Chad Clifton Sr.
27 Fred Weary So.
28 Reggie Coleman So.
29 Anthony Herrera Fr.
30 Josh Tucker Sr.
31 Eric Parker So.
32 David Martin Jr.
33 Will Overstreet So.
34 Al Haynesworth Fr.
35 Shaun Ellis Sr.
36 Rashad Moore Fr.
37 John Henderson So.

There were 37 NFL-type players.
Of those, 19 of them either were are currently starting in the NFL to my best count.

 

[Liper]

Originally posted by GAVol@Oct 28, 2005 9:36 AM
I agree with some of what you are saying, but it's also clear  that we have completely different definitions of what the word underachieve means.  Yes we had great talent in those years, but there are a lot of really talented teams that lose football games.  IMO, the '99 team was the only one that really underachieved.

[snapback]176368[/snapback]​

I would concur that we have different definitions of "underachievement." And I also respect your posts because they are consistent and well balanced.

1996
With Peyton and all of those other guys like Little, Clifton, et al, we lost to Memphis and won no championships. We were down to Florida 35-0 in the middle of the 2nd quarter. After that, they ran the ball and played soft.

1997
Lost soundly to an outmatched FL team. Got embarassed by Neb, who was not that much better than us (if at all, frankly). Won the SEC - so I count this as a good season, despite the pathetic losses.

2001
Losing to that LSU is not acceptable. When you are that much better - and they had guys hurt - you must win on that stage. It's just not OK to lose that game (or the GA game).

Here is my take, however. There is a double standard when assessing TN's losses, on one hand, and then passing off teams like USC and why they might be undefeated on the other. We say all talented teams lose when we apologize for TN. But when we say, "well how does USC do it?" it's because they have a lot of talent.

I guess the thrust of my angst is that when TN has talent like that, they get blown out by their biggest rival and then lose to Memphis or someone. Of course, afterward, they lament how much most teams would love to win 10 games.

 

[holdemvol]

Originally posted by Liper@Oct 28, 2005 9:25 AM
GAVol,
When we had Peyton Manning at QB, we lost to Memphis.  So it's not that we ALWAYS have the ANNOINTED talent level, but it's that when we do, we don't do much with it.  Sure, we're a game from a game from a game.  We should win those games.

[snapback]176362[/snapback]​

There are teams every single year who have superior talent, A great QB, everything in place and still lose some games. We are not the only team this year with NC aspirations that has failed. Michigan, Ohio State and Iowa are prime examples. Everyone had those teams in the top ten pre-season and look where they are now. Look at Auburn in 03, and GA last year....same thing. I have been very dissapointed this year as we all have, but I think we were overhyped coming in especially on offense considering the offense was supposed to be our downfall last year with basically the same players. No doubt UT has the talent, but they just have not jelled offensively. Maybe it is the QB situation, lack of discipline, some coaching decisions, or whatever....This offense has just not got it together. Miami, FSU, USC, Texas, Oklahoma, all of the big players in CFB have struggled in years when they had superior talent and just could not get it done. The coaching staff is ultimately responsible for what has gone on, but let's not forget the years when they have churned out a 9 or 10 win season when they were not supposed to. I can promise you there are posters on a board somewhere every year calling for a great coaches head because the team they love underachieved. I understand the frustration with the staff when UT underachieves, but I think we need to give them credit for what they have done over the years. It is easy to sit and watch a game and then criticize a play call if it doesn't work, but you can watch any game on any given Saturday and question calls that were made no matter who called them...it is easy after the fact. If it were as simple as having the most talent every year, there would be only 5 or 6 teams in the country that would ever win the NC.

 

[RockyTopEmpire]

Originally posted by holdemvol@Oct 28, 2005 10:28 AM
There are teams every single year who have superior talent, A great QB, everything in place and still lose some games.  We are not the only team this year with NC aspirations that has failed.  Michigan, Ohio State and Iowa are prime examples.  Everyone had those teams in the top ten pre-season and look where they are now.  Look at Auburn in 03, and GA last year....same thing.  I have been very dissapointed this year as we all have, but I think we were overhyped coming in especially on offense considering the offense was supposed to be our downfall last year with basically the same players.  No doubt UT has the talent, but they just have not jelled offensively.  Maybe it is the QB situation, lack of discipline, some coaching decisions, or whatever....This offense has just not got it together.  Miami, FSU, USC, Texas, Oklahoma, all of the big players in CFB have struggled in years when they had superior talent and just could not get it done.  The coaching staff is ultimately responsible for what has gone on, but let's not forget the years when they have churned out a 9 or 10 win season when they were not supposed to.  I can promise you there are posters on a board somewhere every year calling for a great coaches head because the team they love underachieved.  I understand the frustration with the staff when UT underachieves, but I think we need to give them credit for what they have done over the years.  It is easy to sit and watch a game and then criticize a play call if it doesn't work, but you can watch any game on any given Saturday and question calls that were made no matter who called them...it is easy after the fact.  If it were as simple as having the most talent every year, there would be only 5 or 6 teams in the country that would ever win the NC.

[snapback]176390[/snapback]​

well said man

 

[Liper]

Originally posted by holdemvol@Oct 28, 2005 10:28 AM
There are teams every single year who have superior talent, A great QB, everything in place and still lose some games.  We are not the only team this year with NC aspirations that has failed.  Michigan, Ohio State and Iowa are prime examples.  Everyone had those teams in the top ten pre-season and look where they are now. 

[snapback]176390[/snapback]​

What you say is true, but is really a little off-topic from my complaints. I could care less about pre-season rankings, or what other people think we should do. I'm just trying to compare our talent v production. The best way to do that, IMO, is to use the NFL as a proxy - either by draft or by success.

FSU finished in top 4 for 14 straight years, won 11 ACC titles, had a winning record against Spurrier, and won 2 NC. That's really a pretty bad indictment on Fulmer and TN when one considers that, all in all, we had pretty comparable talent most of the time (although I would give a slight edge to FSU). USC has won 2 NC. Oklahoma has played for 3 in 5 years. FSU played in, what, 5 NC games? Fulmer has not been in that league, not even close; and there are all sorts of excuses why he hasn't gotten it done.

BTW, losing to Memphis - when they are BAD even for them - is totally unacceptable. In fact, if TN played them 100 times with those two teams, they should win 100. It's too big a gap.

 

[smokedog#3]

i agree liper we are the most underachieving in college football it used to be ohio state when they had cooper, who is the exact same as fulmer great recruiter, bad head coach. they finally let him go and look at what happened, NC and are now a national power.

 

[allvol]

One point of clarification, the Vols do not get a top 5 recruiting class EVERY year. They were... what.... rated 4th after last season.... the previous top 5 rating was right after the 2001 season when they were rated #2.

Regarding the seasons you mention, alot of "outsiders" tend to think the Vols overachieved in seasons like 1998. Sure there is alot of talent, but they also won alot of ballgames with that talent. Go ahead and look at the 2001 roster and compare the Miami Hurricanes 2001 roster. There almost 2 deep with NFL starters on that Miami team. They've got like 5 running backs on that team with at least 1 NFL start.

Virginia Tech had Michael Vick and an awesome defense in 1999 and Florida State manhandled them 46-29.

In 1997, Nebraska was just a better team. Period. However, I would have liked to see a healthy Peyton Manning go up against the Huskers secondary deep.

In 1996, should have never lost to Memphis. I was there... it was miserable. However, one of the worst calls I've ever seen allowed Memphis to win.

FSU dominating the ACC.... well its the ACC. Now they are strong, but before the latest expansion it was Fla State and a bunch of mediocre teams. The only big games they had to prepare for all year were Miami and Florida.... not exactly like preparing for a full slate of SEC teams.

If a team wants to dominate along the way to a NC, they need to be great at every position. Not even the '98 Vols were "great" at every position. Most years, there is not a team that is great from top to bottom. That is where I think Tennessee falls during the Manning years and the 4 years (1999-2001) following Manning. Those type of teams get upset at least once.... but sometimes... with some luck... a team can go undefeated.... like 1998.

 

[allvol]

Originally posted by smokedog#3@Oct 28, 2005 10:46 AM
i agree liper we are the most underachieving in college football it used to be ohio state when they had cooper,  who is the exact same as fulmer great recruiter,  bad head coach.  they finally let him go and look at what happened,  NC and are now a national power.

[snapback]176408[/snapback]​

Let's see, since Cooper left, they have one 1 national championship. How many does Fulmer have?.... 1.

Ohio State's only Big 10 Championship occurred the same season as their NC, 2002, and was shared with Iowa. The Big 10 does not have a championship game so we'll never know how that game would have turned out.

Matter of fact, Ohio State was 8-4 in 2004, 11-2 in 2003, were 7-5 in Tressel's first season in 2001. So, Ohio State's record in 4+ seasons is 45-13 with 1 NC and 1 co-Big10 Championship. It includes 14-0 during their NC run and 5-2 this season.

Tennessee's record over the same period is 42-16 with 2 appearances in the SEC Championship Game.

Ohio State only has 2 seasons with 10+ victories, while Tennessee during the same time period has 3 seasons with 10+ victories.

 

[Liper]

Originally posted by allvol@Oct 28, 2005 11:32 AM
1-One point of clarification, the Vols do not get a top 5 recruiting class EVERY year...

2-Regarding the seasons you mention, alot of "outsiders" tend to think the Vols overachieved in seasons like 1998...Go ahead and look at the 2001 roster and compare the Miami Hurricanes 2001 roster.  There almost 2 deep with NFL starters...

3-Virginia Tech had Michael Vick and an awesome defense in 1999 and Florida State manhandled them 46-29.

4-In 1997, Nebraska was just a better team. Period.  However, I would have liked to see a healthy Peyton Manning go up against the Huskers secondary deep.

5-In 1996, should have never lost to Memphis.  I was there... it was miserable.  However, one of the worst calls I've ever seen allowed Memphis to win.

6-FSU dominating the ACC.... well its the ACC.

7-If a team wants to dominate along the way to a NC, they need to be great at every position.  Not even the '98 Vols were "great" at every position.  Most years, there is not a team that is great from top to bottom.  That is where I think Tennessee falls during the Manning years and the 4 years (1999-2001) following Manning....

[snapback]176458[/snapback]​

1-Nit-picking recruiting ranking specifics, like "top 5", is kind of meaningless. I prefer to look at the fact that TN has had the most players drafted by the NFL since 1994 (a full decade worth). Also, TN has the 2nd most players on NFL rosters right now behind FSU. Thus, TN does in fact have Top 5 talent on average.

2a-You're right - we were woefully inadequate at QB in 1998. Aside from that, we had the most talented team in the country, or at least on par with one or two others.

2b-I agree that MIA had better personnel that year '01. Guess what? They went undefeated and won the NC. Makes my point pretty much. When the good teams are good, they get it done. I still think our '01 team matched them pretty well, position for position (we better at some places, they were better at some places). We didn't even win our conference.

3-Vick is one player. FSU had a more talented and balanced team. And I thought Wienke was a better QB because he could throw the ball and read defenses. Vick was scattershot and still is. FSU was very talented. And guess what? They went undefeated and won the NC. It was their 2nd and they've had 5 tries I believe.

4-I think it APPEARED that Neb was a better team, "period." They couldn't run the ball an inch on us in the first half. Then, magically we were worn down at the beginning of the third quarter? Actually, Osborne addressed that later on. He said they changed their blocking scheme to take advantage of what TN was doing, but TN never adjusted. Chavis was outcoached. Our offense was our typical "poor execution," with penalties, fumbles, and dropped passes. How about the loss to a weaker FL team? If you go back and watch that game, we should have been beating them by 20 points going into halftime.

5-The Memphis game should not have come down to a last minute play. That was a bad Memphis team, even as Mem. goes. We tried to run the ball 54 times into an 8 or 9 man front with Manning at QB. Hmmm.

6-Say what you will, but FSU takes all comers. They edged out those great FL teams that made Fulmer look like a clown. Conference wins aside, they were nationally dominant every single year for 14 years. And they did it with different types of teams. Fulmer has only finished in the top 4 three times in 13 years.

7-I sort of agree with this point. However, it depends on what you mean by great. If TN was NOT this type of team for 8 years, then I have never seen one. MIA 01, USC 04, or whoever else had holes to pick at.

I am curios, what are those holes in the 95-01 Vols? Let's take '97:

QB NFL
RB NFL
WR NFL
OL 4 NFL?
DL 3 NFL?
LB NFL
DB 2 NFL?

 

[holdemvol]

Originally posted by Liper@Oct 28, 2005 10:45 AM
What you say is true, but is really a little off-topic from my complaints.  I could care less about pre-season rankings, or what other people think we should do.  I'm just trying to compare our talent v production.  The best way to do that, IMO, is to use the NFL as a proxy - either by draft or by success.

FSU finished in top 4 for 14 straight years, won 11 ACC titles, had a winning record against Spurrier, and won 2 NC.  That's really a pretty bad indictment on Fulmer and TN when one considers that, all in all, we had pretty comparable talent most of the time (although I would give a slight edge to FSU).  USC has won 2 NC.  Oklahoma has played for 3 in 5 years.  FSU played in, what, 5 NC games?  Fulmer has not been in that league, not even close; and there are all sorts of excuses why he hasn't gotten it done.

BTW, losing to Memphis - when they are BAD even for them - is totally unacceptable.  In fact, if TN played them 100 times with those two teams, they should win 100.  It's too big a gap.

[snapback]176406[/snapback]​

FSU had a great run, but also played in a VERY weak ACC. Let's see what happens now that the conference has gained strength. Oklahoma's run came in a time when the Big 12 was way down.....K-state, Nebraska and Colorado have been pretty bad the during that time. USC has had one of the best runs ever, but again, they do not play in the SEC and also have more talent than even UT's 99 team had in my opinion. When was the last time an SEC coach put together a run like USC or FSU did? The only thing close would be Visor boy in the 90's, and while he dominated UT, he did not ever make a run even close to what USC has done. It is almost impossible to dominate a power conference like the SEC or the big 10. Yes, losing that game to Memphis IS unacceptable, but it was one game...9 years ago....you don't think any of the other big programs have lost games to a far inferior team?

 

[Liper]

Originally posted by holdemvol@Oct 28, 2005 1:38 PM
FSU had a great run, but also played in a VERY weak ACC.  Let's see what happens now that the conference has gained strength.  Oklahoma's run came in a time when the Big 12 was way down.....K-state, Nebraska and Colorado have been pretty bad the during that time.  USC has had one of the best runs ever, but again, they do not play in the SEC and also have more talent than even UT's 99 team had in my opinion.  When was the last time an SEC coach put together a run like USC or FSU did?  The only thing close would be Visor boy in the 90's, and while he dominated UT, he did not ever make a run even close to what USC has done.  It is almost impossible to dominate a power conference like the SEC or the big 10.  Yes, losing that game to Memphis IS unacceptable, but it was one game...9 years ago....you don't think any of the other big programs have lost games to a far inferior team?

[snapback]176493[/snapback]​

What you're saying is pretty reasonable. I don't have a problem with it, per se, but I do disagree with parts.

FSU. They played anyone and everyone. I don't buy any of that weak ACC stuff. When you are as good as they were, it makes the ACC look worse than it really was because of the gap. Remember, that unranked Clemson team whipped our butts in the 2003 Peach, and we were ranked #6. They play Miami and FL every year, and usually one other good opponent.

Oklahoma. Texas has been good during Stoops run. Their only problem is that Fulmer, er, Brown is their coach. Also, they beat FSU to win their first one, and played LSU close. They've proven themselves. Didn't they beat TX 62-17 a year ago?

USC. Hmmm. They certainly have had good talent - great talent in fact. But across the board, they simply do not have the athletes that the '99 TN team had. Now, I think USC is better than those TN teams because of two people: Leinart and Bush. Aside from that, TN was better. Especially this year's Trojans which lost a lot of defense (like 8 or 9 starters); which is also why I think USC is more vulnerable. They are not indestructible, they're just good.

Florida. Spurrier won, what, 6 SEC championships in 12 years? I'd call that running through the SEC like warm butter. And that includes TN's most talented teams with the one of the best QBs in history.

I can NOT think of a single example of FSU, MIA, or anyone of that ilk losing to a team as bad as the '96 Memphis team. Can you? I think that was a 3-8 Memphis team.

I think you are FAR underestimating the level of underachievment of the 1999 team. That was a RARE combination of talent on one college team.

 

[blurbman]

Originally posted by Liper@Oct 28, 2005 12:31 PM
1-Nit-picking recruiting ranking specifics, like "top 5", is kind of meaningless.  I prefer to look at the fact that TN has had the most players drafted by the NFL since 1994 (a full decade worth).  Also, TN has the 2nd most players on NFL rosters right now behind FSU.  Thus, TN does in fact have Top 5 talent on average.

2a-You're right - we were woefully inadequate at QB in 1998.  Aside from that, we had the most talented team in the country, or at least on par with one or two others.

2b-I agree that MIA had better personnel that year '01.  Guess what?  They went undefeated and won the NC.  Makes my point pretty much.  When the good teams are good, they get it done.  I still think our '01 team matched them pretty well, position for position (we better at some places, they were better at some places).  We didn't even win our conference.



3-Vick is one player.  FSU had a more talented and balanced team.  And I thought Wienke was a better QB because he could throw the ball and read defenses.  Vick was scattershot and still is.  FSU was very talented.  And guess what?  They went undefeated and won the NC.  It was their 2nd and they've had 5 tries I believe.

4-I think it APPEARED that Neb was a better team, "period."  They couldn't run the ball an inch on us in the first half.  Then, magically we were worn down at the beginning of the third quarter?  Actually, Osborne addressed that later on.  He said they changed their blocking scheme to take advantage of what TN was doing, but TN never adjusted.  Chavis was outcoached.  Our offense was our typical "poor execution," with penalties, fumbles, and dropped passes.  How about the loss to a weaker FL team?  If you go back and watch that game, we should have been beating them by 20 points going into halftime.

5-The Memphis game should not have come down to a last minute play.  That was a bad Memphis team, even as Mem. goes.  We tried to run the ball 54 times into an 8 or 9 man front with Manning at QB.  Hmmm. 

6-Say what you will, but FSU takes all comers.  They edged out those great FL teams that made Fulmer look like a clown.  Conference wins aside, they were nationally dominant every single year for 14 years.  And they did it with different types of teams.  Fulmer has only finished in the top 4 three times in 13 years.

7-I sort of agree with this point.  However, it depends on what you mean by great.  If TN was NOT this type of team for 8 years, then I have never seen one.  MIA 01, USC 04, or whoever else had holes to pick at.

I am curios, what are those holes in the 95-01 Vols?  Let's take '97:

QB NFL
RB NFL
WR NFL
OL 4 NFL?
DL 3 NFL?
LB NFL
DB 2 NFL?

[snapback]176476[/snapback]​

You can't compare fsu's teams in the 1990s with UT. If anything, I contend that fsu over the last 15 or so years has /underachieved./ hell, they were a very good team playing in a very weak conference. I don't think they lost but 1 or 2 acc games in, like, they're first 10 years in the conference. Nobody could challenge them, and as a result they were an automatic top 5 team every year, and playing in a major bowl every year. they only had two tough games every year, if that--miami and/or florida. And it was easy for bowden to rake in top talent. It's much tougher in the SEC. fsu will have to work a helluva lot harder now to win championships as the acc is much, much tougher.

 

[holdemvol]

Originally posted by Liper@Oct 28, 2005 2:07 PM
.

FSU.  They played anyone and everyone.  I don't buy any of that weak ACC stuff.  When you are as good as they were, it makes the ACC look worse than it really was because of the gap.  Remember, that unranked Clemson team whipped our butts in the 2003 Peach, and we were ranked #6.  They play Miami and FL every year, and usually one other good opponent.

Oklahoma.  Texas has been good during Stoops run.  Their only problem is that Fulmer, er, Brown is their coach.  Also, they beat FSU to win their first one, and played LSU close.  They've proven themselves.  Didn't they beat TX 62-17 a year ago?

USC.  Hmmm.  They certainly have had good talent - great talent in fact.  But across the board, they simply do not have the athletes that the '99 TN team had.  Now, I think USC is better than those TN teams because of two people: Leinart and Bush.  Aside from that, TN was better.  Especially this year's Trojans which lost a lot of defense (like 8 or 9 starters); which is also why I think USC is more vulnerable.  They are not indestructible, they're just good.

Florida.  Spurrier won, what, 6 SEC championships in 12 years?  I'd call that running through the SEC like warm butter.  And that includes TN's most talented teams with the one of the best QBs in history.

I can NOT think of a single example of FSU, MIA, or anyone of that ilk losing to a team as bad as the '96 Memphis team.  Can you?  I think that was a 3-8 Memphis team.

I think you are FAR underestimating the level of underachievment of the 1999 team.  That was a RARE combination of talent on one college team.

[snapback]176502[/snapback]​

The fact of the matter is the ACC sucked for years. OK, Clemson had a good year in 03 and beat UT....again, you are making comparisons based on a single game just like your comment on the Memphis loss 9 years ago. Wow, FSU played 2 good teams a year in Miami and FLA. That is not that tough of a schedule when compared to the SEC or Big 10. USC has every bit the athletes at least offensively the 99 team had. They have backup players that would start on most teams in the country, not to mention a likely first overall pick at QB (A top QB alone will take you a long way-see Eli and Ole Miss), a tailback who will be top 5, and another back in Lendale White who will go at least in the top half of the first round. Texas has been good during Oklahoma's run, but they are the ONLY team in that conference that has been good during the run.

 

[T_man_J]

Originally posted by bamamike@Oct 28, 2005 12:44 AM
Let me preface my remarks by saying I am not trying to flame or start any crap. I'm seriously trying to have an intellectual conversation here.

UT has had a top 5 recruiting class for what seems like the last 40 years; the talent has to be there. The Manning years are a given for success, but the championship was won with Martin. Then Cutcliffe leaves and the Manning’s send Eli to play for him. Since then UT has been a bit stagnate given all the talent. Yes, they have been successful, but no real National Championship run.

I honestly thought UT would be in “the game” at least once since ’98; there have been too many 5 star blue chippers coming through the doors in Knoxville. Is this Phil’s fault? Or has the talent just not panned out? No doubt Cut was an important part of Phil’s success, so why Randy Sanders? Was this a calculated move to avoid a Fulmer to Majors coup d'etat?

Again, I’m not trying to start crap, so save all the “we just don’t pay our players as well as Alabama” or similar one liners. 

I honestly want to understand. It just doesn’t add up.  :dunno:

[snapback]176274[/snapback]​

In my opinion, the problem is the offensive line play. Sure we recruit blue chippers, but from a percentage perspective, most of the players we go after are D-linemen, Receivers, QB’s, and a few running backs. Size, at the expense of athletic ability, is the prime factor in recruiting O-linemen; I am not sure this initiative has panned out. Without the ability to get lead blockers to the outside, we can’t succeed in unloading the speed of our running backs to the corners; therefore, recruiting RB speed has not helped us. The complex blocking schemes that we are trying force our O-line to learn is just confusing them; this has resulted in many penalties. If the O-line does not pass block, all of the receiver speed in the world will not help.

I did see some improvement against ‘Bama. The blocking schemes were very basic and our guys were allowed to hit instead of think; they opened some nice running lanes on the inside. If we continue with this approach against SC, we will win. If we beat SC with good O-line play, we will beat ND.
In conclusion, sure we have had top five recruiting classes for the last ten years, but if the O-line is not effective, that 5-star talent is useless.