Yep... that's the number of departing Vol football players this analyst says could be drafted:
NFL draft analyst: 6-10 Vols could be drafted in 2014 | Nooga.com
So that begs the question... how can a team with "no talent" or insufficient talent to beat Vandy put that many guys in the NFL?
Interesting quote to say the least: "
Its amazing that a team not bowl-eligible has this many potential draftees, but Tennessee could easily have 6-10 draft picks, he said.
The two facts, a 5-7 team and 6-10 of them being potential NFL draft picks, can exist without one effecting the other (especially if 5 of those picks are on the O-line).
This team had talented individual players, this team does not have depth. Our 1s could beat Vandy's 1s, and that might work for a game that was 20 minutes long. It actually worked for a game that was about 50 minutes long. However, those 6-10 potential NFL draftees are offset by walk-ons (3 or more, right?), and under developed talent. 10 players cannot make up for a two deep that is a minimum of 44 players.
Oh yeah, that is in a year where schemes on both sides of the ball were changed. You are predicating too much on one loss, by 4 points, to a team that is the second highest over-performer compared to talent in the SEC and probably top 10 in the nation.
It seems to me that you start all of your conversations off of on the talent standpoint, predicated mostly on talent averages (I recognize that, because I start many of my conversations off like that). However, you are drawing conclusions without specifically looking into how on an individual level those evaluations might break down and cause an over or under-performance. Understand that talent averages work 70% of the time, that means for the other 30% of the time they don't. Usually that can be attributed to coaching. However, there are occasions, like UT, where talent averages don't tell the whole story of the coach or the talent available on the team.
Butch has a history of over-performance of 3.5 games a year more than he should win based on raw talent averages. That is tracking his performance at three different schools. Not only that but at each stop he improved talent averages over his predecessor. He is recruiting like a mad man.
There is hope, you just don't want to see it. As I have said before, at some point during this season you went from being rational to simply hating everything you saw on the field. It came right around the Mizzou loss. Now that you can't point to Mizzou as being a bad or untalented team, as the recruiting averages say, you've taken on to pointing to the Vandy loss as the one indication of why we should all be concerned.
We get it, you are convinced that this team was talented and should have beaten Vandy. You say that so often that I am certain everyone gets it. Hell, I believed it wholeheartedly until I actually broke down the latent talent per position groups on the two deep.
This data you show is the modern conundrum of using information to affirm rather than inform.
