Six to 10?

[volfan411]

Disagree... if I understand you correctly. I think two of the current WR's at least will get a shot at the NFL by the time they are done. If Saulsberry stays healthy, he will along with other DL's that were development only this year will get a shot. Maggitt is almost certain. I'd put money on JRM. Sutton is likely and either or both of the S's if they are coached up.

I will be surprised if two or 3 of the remaining OL's do not develop into NFL prospects.


To daj's point earlier. There was a big ol' ugly gap in Dooley's recruiting that DID hurt depth a good bit. The first year was pretty good. The 2nd year was OK. The third year wasn't very good.... then he set Jones up to fail in '12.

I thought Dooley was a great recruiter of offensive players but he just never seemed to get it on the defensive side of the ball. I never understood some of the kids he took chances on and guess I never will.

 

[Dan Federman]

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: "It’s amazing that a team not bowl-eligible has this many potential draftees, but Tennessee could easily have 6-10 draft picks,” he said.

We haven't had any drafted yet. I say we have 2-5 drafted at the most

 

[volinSmyrna]

We haven't had any drafted yet. I say we have 2-5 drafted at the most

Yeah, no way we get to the 10 number. I can't rembember the last time we had 10 drafted.

Here would be my first guess list (not in order) of those that I am almost positive will get drafted.

Tiny
AJ (assuming he leaves)
Fulton
James
Big Dan

Possibles

Stone
Neal (if he runs sub 4.4 at combine or pro day)

I just don't see any others. Would love J Smith to get drafted, but the NFL loves production and/or potential and I don't see a whole lot there.

 

[TNVolunteerGrad]

It's true. Most of the maxims are complete wastes of time. All you need is a couple of athletes who can score. The rest are more or less window dressing.

You serious Clark?

 

[tm3]

I guess I get a little confused when people start making statements like UT goes bargain shopping for coaches. I think you're letting your hatred of Dooley, and his recruitment here, cloud your judgment.

We certainly aren't paying the most for a coach, but it appears we are currently paying in the top 10% of NCAA coaches and top 4 in SEC (presuming this data is correct).


Salaries & Contracts

it is a relative thing.

CBJ current salary ranks highly (arguably because UT had painted itself into a corner due to earlier poor hires and the handcuffs that the admin puts on its coaches), but his DC is being paid less than UF paid its DC in the early 90's.

when bama decided that enough was enough they lured saban with the then unprecedented annual salary of $4.1mil, which iirc was around double what anyone else had paid to that point. many laughed at the time, but what an investment it turned out to be! a similar move by UT in 2012 would have been in the $6-8mil range for the HC, and per larry's comment that just ain't gonna happen under the current powers that be.

 

[sjt18]

Didn't say get a shot, we are talking drafted. If you are adding in free agents the 97 roster would be approaching 40. No other WR besides North is an NFL player.

If you don't think that Croom doesn't have an NFL body... your off your rocker. He just has to be developed and if the staff is any good... he'll get that.

I'm talking about the draft.

Agree with Maggitt and Sutton. I'd put money on JRM too, maybe Randolph. Lets just say 2 of the OL are and that is 7 more. Still not enough talent to be very competitive.

McNeil makes mistakes but he's still getting experience. He has the physical ability to become an draftee.

There is no way that there are 20 draftable players off this roster. If there are that will be the biggest sign that this coaching staff is doing work, because the talent is not evident at all right now.

I don't think I said 20 but believe it to be more than you suggested and that is without counting on great coaching and development. All of the OL's returning that are likely to start plus Sanders have NFL potential. Carr, M Brown, and Saulsberry at a minimum have the raw athleticism to get to the NFL with work and good coaching.

 

[sjt18]

I thought Dooley was a great recruiter of offensive players but he just never seemed to get it on the defensive side of the ball. I never understood some of the kids he took chances on and guess I never will.

His fatal attraction was the idea that he had to do it like Saban. He was bound and determined to go to the 3-4. The costs for that ignorance were pretty high for him.

He was trying to recruit for it. But it is pretty apparent that you have to get a pretty high level of player on a very consistent basis to make the 3-4 work.

I still like Chaney. I think he was good for UT and wish there was a way he could have been kept.

 

[DC Vol]

His fatal attraction was the idea that he had to do it like Saban. He was bound and determined to go to the 3-4. The costs for that ignorance were pretty high for him.

He was trying to recruit for it. But it is pretty apparent that you have to get a pretty high level of player on a very consistent basis to make the 3-4 work.

I still like Chaney. I think he was good for UT and wish there was a way he could have been kept.

Chaney was great from Sunday to Friday but, IMO, left a lot to be desired in terms of playcalling.

 

[sjt18]

Chaney was great from Sunday to Friday but, IMO, left a lot to be desired in terms of playcalling.

You could be right. That could explain Kiffin's struggles without him. Seems Kiffin was the opposite.

 

[DC Vol]

You could be right. That could explain Kiffin's struggles without him. Seems Kiffin was the opposite.

IIRC Sark was the Chaney at USC. He structured the Offense and ran it but then Kiffin called the plays on gameday.

Worked at UT where he had Chaney who was, IMO, an incredible coach but a horrible playcaller.

Failed at USC where he didn't have Sark/Chaney building the offense for him to use.

Kiffin always hit me as a great guy if you need a guy who understands the Xs and Os and knows how to attack but fails at the training regime.

He'd be like a general that is great on the battlefield but horrible in garrison and structuring a training regimen.

 

[LWSVOL]

Didn't say get a shot, we are talking drafted. If you are adding in free agents the 97 roster would be approaching 40. No other WR besides North is an NFL player. Agree with Maggitt and Sutton. I'd put money on JRM too, maybe Randolph. Lets just say 2 of the OL are and that is 7 more. Still not enough talent to be very competitive.

There is no way that there are 20 draftable players off this roster. If there are that will be the biggest sign that this coaching staff is doing work, because the talent is not evident at all right now.

97 roster had 40 players spend at least one season on a professional roster.

even the 2008 team has had 15 players on a roster.

 

[volinSmyrna]

If you don't think that Croom doesn't have an NFL body... your off your rocker. He just has to be developed and if the staff is any good... he'll get that.

I'm talking about the draft.

McNeil makes mistakes but he's still getting experience. He has the physical ability to become an draftee.

I don't think I said 20 but believe it to be more than you suggested and that is without counting on great coaching and development. All of the OL's returning that are likely to start plus Sanders have NFL potential. Carr, M Brown, and Saulsberry at a minimum have the raw athleticism to get to the NFL with work and good coaching.

Disagree... if I understand you correctly. I think two of the current WR's at least will get a shot at the NFL by the time they are done. If Saulsberry stays healthy, he will along with other DL's that were development only this year will get a shot. Maggitt is almost certain. I'd put money on JRM. Sutton is likely and either or both of the S's if they are coached up.

I will be surprised if two or 3 of the remaining OL's do not develop into NFL prospects.


To daj's point earlier. There was a big ol' ugly gap in Dooley's recruiting that DID hurt depth a good bit. The first year was pretty good. The 2nd year was OK. The third year wasn't very good.... then he set Jones up to fail in '12.

Croom does have an NFL body, but so do countless other guys that never made it. With the addition of Pearson and Malone, he'd better up his game or he will get left behind. Now, if he wants to bulk up and move to TE, he could go way up on the "draftable" charts.

McNeil is in the similar boat as Croom. If he doesn't up his game, the newcomers will leave him behind.

You did point to 10-11 others specifically, not counting the "other DL" since you didn't list a #. Add that to the 6-10 that people are throwing out is where I got the 20.

The point remains. There is/was not enough talent on this roster to be competitve at the levels we want. You cannot compete in the SEC with the number of players to be drafted in the teens. We were 2 eyelashes away from 7-5 and ended up 5-7 which is around the range I figured we would fall.

With the infusion of new talent and the coaching up of the old talent, I think we are heading in the right direction.

 

[sjt18]

The point remains. There is/was not enough talent on this roster to be competitve at the levels we want. .

You are right there. But there was enough to win 7... and they didn't get it done. Too many here want to say it was "all talent". It wasn't. Even from the tone of your post you seem to acknowledge that better coaching could have been the difference between 5, 6, and 7 wins. That is pretty much all I've been arguing.

 

[volinSmyrna]

You are right there. But there was enough to win 7... and they didn't get it done. Too many here want to say it was "all talent". It wasn't. Even from the tone of your post you seem to acknowledge that better coaching could have been the difference between 5, 6, and 7 wins. That is pretty much all I've been arguing.

I don't know the exact reasons. I'm not naive enough to say that the coaches were perfect, but I typically give first year staffs a pass. Got to have time to learn how teams/players react to situations that come up throughout the season. We are a fumble from winning UGA and a block in the back or spot review away from Vandy. Those are the 2 I was referencing. I wasn't thrilled with the tempo/plan during the Vandy game, but we still had a chance and should have won.

I think next year will be a smoother looking product from all sides...talent/coaching.

I think we get too much into "choosing sides" around here. You either think it is the talent or the coaching that is responsible, when it is actually a combination of the two plus numerous other things. Heck, you could legitimately make a case that coaching cost Bama against Auburn, but you would be shredded for questioning the almighty one by most people.

 

[sjt18]

It has always been both but the divide has been between us saying that and those denying that coaching issues contributed at all.

If they had won six... I'd probably be arguing that UGA was a "win" as far as showing that the staff can coach.

Vandy should not have been that close.

I have not weighed in on the discussions about the spot ruling because of this. However, that replay official should have been reprimanded at a minimum and possibly fired. The rule is that he must be able to see irrefutable evidence. Do I believe he probably made the line? Yes. In all likelihood he did. That's not the rule though. There is no way that official could see the ball. He just couldn't. So he made an assumption. Probably the right assumption... maybe some payback for the inadvertent whistle two years ago... but the rule says nothing about reasonable assumptions.

 

[WriterVol]

I have not weighed in on the discussions about the spot ruling because of this. However, that replay official should have been reprimanded at a minimum and possibly fired. The rule is that he must be able to see irrefutable evidence. Do I believe he probably made the line? Yes. In all likelihood he did. That's not the rule though. There is no way that official could see the ball. He just couldn't. So he made an assumption. Probably the right assumption... maybe some payback for the inadvertent whistle two years ago... but the rule says nothing about reasonable assumptions.

I agree with this 100% (except for the payback part). My understanding of replay rules has been shaken to its core this year.

 

[volinSmyrna]

It has always been both but the divide has been between us saying that and those denying that coaching issues contributed at all.

If they had won six... I'd probably be arguing that UGA was a "win" as far as showing that the staff can coach.

Vandy should not have been that close.

I have not weighed in on the discussions about the spot ruling because of this. However, that replay official should have been reprimanded at a minimum and possibly fired. The rule is that he must be able to see irrefutable evidence. Do I believe he probably made the line? Yes. In all likelihood he did. That's not the rule though. There is no way that official could see the ball. He just couldn't. So he made an assumption. Probably the right assumption... maybe some payback for the inadvertent whistle two years ago... but the rule says nothing about reasonable assumptions.

Cant argue with any of that!

 

[Eddie Vol Halen]

It's not the negativity that bothers me.

What bothers me the most is the blatant disregard for reality, or data, that occurs if it conflicts with an already formed conclusion. More than that, it is the nationwide phenomenon (a great study could be made here) that has led people to believe that thought and feelings are synonyms. So many here create conclusions based on feelings and then latch on to "data", no matter how questionable, that affirms their conclusion.

See: Smith, Shannon, Gruden, et al.

It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble; it's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

 

[daj2576]

it is a relative thing.

CBJ current salary ranks highly (arguably because UT had painted itself into a corner due to earlier poor hires and the handcuffs that the admin puts on its coaches), but his DC is being paid less than UF paid its DC in the early 90's.

when bama decided that enough was enough they lured saban with the then unprecedented annual salary of $4.1mil, which iirc was around double what anyone else had paid to that point. many laughed at the time, but what an investment it turned out to be! a similar move by UT in 2012 would have been in the $6-8mil range for the HC, and per larry's comment that just ain't gonna happen under the current powers that be.

That's a very selective way to look at history. Pay no mind that Bama's situation was similar insofar as they were left going down their list and were desperate to pick a struggling NFL coach. They had to dump the truck at his feet to get him to come. Bama was desperate after Rich Rod and knew that if Saban didn't come, they were out of options. As you said, it was a gamble that time has proven right. But there are many other times where coaches weren't worth anything they were paid, and that same gamble failed. It isn't always about money, it is about value. Just like if Texas gets Saban for 10million a year they have way over-paid. Saban will win games, but his real value is in recruiting, not in Xs and Os. Texas, like it or not, doesn't need a recruiter. They could find a coach who could recruit just as well, and win, for far cheaper.

I don't buy that the "powers that be" are hand-cuffing Tennessee in the way that many want to suppose, unless "the powers that be" is available cash/credit. I guess everyone needs to find that "man behind the curtain" and blame him. The problem with this argument is that it would require one to suppose that Butch was totally hand-cuffed on the staff he could hire, and that he didn't actually want to bring his OC and DC to UT. Do you believe that Butch was forced to bring Bajakian and Jancek? I don't. I think he wanted to bring them, and the market functions in such a way that they were rewarded for coming. You don't start off negotiating a salary by saying, here is all we can afford. You start off by saying, would you come for this? And the negotiations continue until you run out of their value or they accept. I bet they accepted at a dollar figure well below the cap for that position.

 

[oregonvol]

It's not the negativity that bothers me.

What bothers me the most is the blatant disregard for reality, or data, that occurs if it conflicts with an already formed conclusion. More than that, it is the nationwide phenomenon (a great study could be made here) that has led people to believe that thought and feelings are synonyms. So many here create conclusions based on feelings and then latch on to "data", no matter how questionable, that affirms their conclusion.

Evidently, you're talking about all the folks here who claim, after the fact, that Vanderbilt must have more talent than UT, to explain why UT lost, without holding the coaches accountable.

 

[daj2576]

It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble; it's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

Very good point.

 

[CostaCreeper]

It has always been both but the divide has been between us saying that and those denying that coaching issues contributed at all.

If they had won six... I'd probably be arguing that UGA was a "win" as far as showing that the staff can coach.

Vandy should not have been that close.

I have not weighed in on the discussions about the spot ruling because of this. However, that replay official should have been reprimanded at a minimum and possibly fired. The rule is that he must be able to see irrefutable evidence. Do I believe he probably made the line? Yes. In all likelihood he did. That's not the rule though. There is no way that official could see the ball. He just couldn't. So he made an assumption. Probably the right assumption... maybe some payback for the inadvertent whistle two years ago... but the rule says nothing about reasonable assumptions.

You're right. If Vanderbilt hadn't caught fumble-itis, we don't have to talk about fourth-down reversals because Vandy would have beaten the Vols like a rented mule. Neither team played anything resembling good football in that one, but Vandy's last drive was a monster. Ifs and buts...

 

[sjt18]

I agree with this 100% (except for the payback part). My understanding of replay rules has been shaken to its core this year.

Both calls were probably correct in the end. Are you saying that Gordon should have been called down?

 

[sjt18]

You're right. If Vanderbilt hadn't caught fumble-itis, we don't have to talk about fourth-down reversals because Vandy would have beaten the Vols like a rented mule. Neither team played anything resembling good football in that one, but Vandy's last drive was a monster. Ifs and buts...

False.

If UT plays to the level of their talent in that game... and Vandy plays to the level of their talent... and coaching is "equal"... UT wins by two TD's.

I'll give the devil his due. Franklin has done a very good job of coaching up that team. They aren't talented in the sense of raw athletic ability.

Both coaches actually appeared to be using the same strategy. Both were playing "not to lose"... to keep it tight to win at the end. That was the correct strategy for Franklin. He had the inferior roster and knew it. Jones had the superior roster and didn't know it.


PS- all of this is moot if at any point Jancek had made a good adjustment to Vandy's WR screens.

 

[LotteryPick]

False.

If UT plays to the level of their talent in that game... and Vandy plays to the level of their talent... and coaching is "equal"... UT wins by two TD's.

I'll give the devil his due. Franklin has done a very good job of coaching up that team. They aren't talented in the sense of raw athletic ability.

Both coaches actually appeared to be using the same strategy. Both were playing "not to lose"... to keep it tight to win at the end. That was the correct strategy for Franklin. He had the inferior roster and knew it. Jones had the superior roster and didn't know it.


PS- all of this is moot if at any point Jancek had made a good adjustment to Vandy's WR screens.

What you can't deny, is Jordan Matthews is/was one of the best receivers in the nation and Coleman is not good.

No amount of coaching can prevent that match up from being disastrous.

That was an awful game, on both sides, but losing your best receiver and having a true freshman QB with no one else to throw to is a bad combination.

They should have run the ball more, sure. That is on the coaching. But they were handicapped on offense.

Your sole focus on the Vandy game is getting tiresome, though. I'm being civil when I say that.