Six to 10?

[sjt18]

Didn't say start.

They would have been on the 2-deep absolutely no question.

No. They wouldn't. Neither was a LT. Neither was even ball park close to being as good as Crowder, Sanders, Wiesman, Jackson, or Kerbyson.

In addition, I'd like to know who has actually been as consistent as the Sullin twins since their graduation? You will be backtracking a mighty long way to say otherwise.

Consistent? You are having some selective memory and amnesia there. Here's a great idea... let's forego scholarship OL's altogether, what do you say?

Just the final nail in your coffin on this one, sjt18, who was the last back to rush for 1000 yards for TN????

LOL... Rajion Neal was the last Vol to rush for over 1000 yds and he did it against a stronger schedule and avg'd more ypc than Hardesty. Before that it was Tauren Poole running behind a bunch of Fr OL's.... He likewise avg'd more ypc than Hardesty.

I always loved Hardesty but his 100+ yd games came against teams with a combined 25-39 record.

The truly final nail in the coffin is that the East was actually stronger when the Sullin twins played.

The East was but the overall schedule was not. Poole in fact had 3 of his best games against the best teams on the schedule that year. Neal had 100+ against two ranked teams and had less of a drop of in ypc vs the better teams.

I agree with your analysis of BuJo and "the best staff in America"'s Year One.

:hi:

Nothing wrong with some disagreement and constructive jousting... iron sharpens iron.

 

[Aday25]

Article supports DAJ2576's theory of the Vols underperforming -2 games in 2013 based on talent level.

I find it amazing that per the article Jacques Smith has more NFL potential than Corey Miller. Miller had more sacks in the Ky game than Smith had in his 4 years.

Numbers can only make objective observations. It cannot answer why. Underdevelopment is not measurable. Numbers themselves don't make for an argument. You use numbers to support a claim. I completely believe we have talent- just underdeveloped.

 

[daj2576]

But, usually you have to have some indicator to support your contention that the season is taking some toll emotionally or physically besides the losing record. Physically there is no indicator because there are essentially no injuries. Emotionally I don't really see any indicators because the team didn't seem to give up on him and played well at Kentucky. Just to say it took a toll because it must have because of the record isn't really supportive.

P.S.-Gosh, we seemed like we really took it to a lot of teams physically like Georgia and South Carolina when we knocked a lot of their players out of the game. Didn't see that happen to us in any of the games.

Being emotionally and physically depleted would certainly increase a risk of injury, but it doesn't guarantee it. Perhaps it is offset by a better training regimen, perhaps it is luck, who knows. None of these factors are mutually exclusive, so any conclusion is dispositive.

I am speaking in general terms only, not in explanations for the arc of seasons as the best available data tends to support my conclusion that talent alone accounts for the majority of victories on the field. Any discussion of intangibles is going to fall within the 30% of games that are not predicted by talent, meaning that the observable impact of some portion of that 30% might be much smaller than could be directly observed.

 

[tm3]

They handled the replacement of Brown with as much tact as we handled the booting of Fulmer. That isn't a good sign that their administration is more competent.

Their administration does have more available cash than UT, so the odds are that they can throw much more money at a problem than UT could. Comparing the two financial situations is a rocky road and does nothing to prove or disprove the conspiracy theorists that think that Tennessee is being handcuffed by being cheap (as some on here suggest), as opposed to being handcuffed by Mike Hamilton and less available cash (as I am suggesting).

So more money plus more competent administration means it is more likely that Texas lands a big name coach (also the perception is that Texas is a better program currently, opens up more doors on the ease of recruiting alone).

just as you argue against the "man behind the curtain" theory i argue against the mike hamilton as lone villain theory. it is a popular one, as it is certainly more palatable and encouraging than the alternative. but i believe that hamilton's hiring decisions carried so much consequence that they had to be signed off from "behind the curtain" (or that may even be where the decisions originated).

examples of a different vision for the football program, outside of texas, include bama, UF (landed spurrier as HC, stoops as DC, did not tolerate zook's mediocrity, won't let muschump linger through 3 losing seasons), and ohio state (simply reloaded with a proven championship coach and went on to win 24 straight games). programs that are committed to the pursuit of championships don't hire coaches with losing records, or coaches that can only approximate .500 in conferences like the big east.

apologies to sjt for hijacking his thread ...........

 

[Sandvol]

Being emotionally and physically depleted would certainly increase a risk of injury, but it doesn't guarantee it. Perhaps it is offset by a better training regimen, perhaps it is luck, who knows. None of these factors are mutually exclusive, so any conclusion is dispositive.

I am speaking in general terms only, not in explanations for the arc of seasons as the best available data tends to support my conclusion that talent alone accounts for the majority of victories on the field. Any discussion of intangibles is going to fall within the 30% of games that are not predicted by talent, meaning that the observable impact of some portion of that 30% might be much smaller than could be directly observed.

You're funny.

 

[daj2576]

just as you argue against the "man behind the curtain" theory i argue against the mike hamilton as lone villain theory. it is a popular one, as it is certainly more palatable and encouraging than the alternative. but i believe that hamilton's hiring decisions carried so much consequence that they had to be signed off from "behind the curtain" (or that may even be where the decisions originated).

examples of a different vision for the football program, outside of texas, include bama, UF (landed spurrier as HC, stoops as DC, did not tolerate zook's mediocrity, won't let muschump linger through 3 losing seasons), and ohio state (simply reloaded with a proven championship coach and went on to win 24 straight games). programs that are committed to the pursuit of championships don't hire coaches with losing records, or coaches that can only approximate .500 in conferences like the big east.

apologies to sjt for hijacking his thread ...........

I'm not certain that I am arguing for a lone villain theory. I think that the demise of UT is explainable by several factors, including Hamilton, dwindling cash reserves, long term malaise in the admin, etc. They are all connected to each other and I think that, generally, we're trying to turn the ship around.

I can't pinpoint the exact problem, but I rest soundly feeling pretty confident in the conclusion that our demise isn't because the University is cheap, as so many want to claim. With limited funds (not similar to Tex or Bama) you do have to maximize value, but that isn't the same thing as being cheap.

Its a good conversation, either way.

Merry Christmas everyone!

 

[daj2576]

You're funny.

Thanks! I guess?