Tennessee Not A Blip On The Radar

#52
#52
DaddyChad said:
You could counter with starting with 3 stars and winning sets you up to recruit 4 and 5 star players.
Click to expand...

We've got the 3-star guys covered. Winning is another issue. We're not winning now, and we're not going to win with a roster full of 3-star guys in the SEC.
 
#53
#53
kjennin3 said:
you're exactly right, and if in two or three years are recruiting class looks like it does, i will be pretty disappointed... but right now we have to have guys that will be key players in future years and provide quality depth and skill... to expect us to recruit at an elite level right now, given the past three years, is silly... right now we are recruiting a class that may not get us back to the level of Bama and UF, but can get us back to the level of USCjr, Ark, and AU... btw, if our goal was to exclusively recruit three stars, are class could have been done a month ago
Click to expand...

I agree that is why I am willing to give Dooley 3 years to prove himself both on the field and as a recruiter, although nothing he has done so far indicates he will be successful. To me Dooley is a transition coach aka Shula.
 
#55
#55
VolunteerHillbilly said:
This is getting circular. In the overall pool of prospects there is going to be a general risk of signing a violator. You limit that risk by not signing people with character issues. I seriously doubt that this staff is going after a bunch of 2-3* prospects with charcater issues. Hence, going after higher rated prospects who are known to have issues is going to increase the risk. Whether or not the risk is worth it is a different subject. I don't think it is but I can see where others who are willing to risk the future of the program over the possibility of some immediate success would disagree.
Click to expand...

You make it sound like these guys are walking around with a sign around their necks that reads, "I Have Character Issues". As this other poster is pointing out, it's not always quite so easy to identify which recruits have character issues and which ones don't. A bunch of posters here like to post that all of UT's 3-star guys are "high-character" guys, but that's mostly just wishful thinking and rationalization for why our coaching staff can't land more highly recruited players.
 
#56
#56
kjennin3 said:
you're exactly right, and if in two or three years are recruiting class looks like it does, i will be pretty disappointed...
Click to expand...

Oh, look! It's the dreaded Volnation "are" instead of "our" again. Are they teaching this in the schools in Tennessee now?
 
#57
#57
Vol423 said:
You make it sound like these guys are walking around with a sign around their necks that reads, "I Have Character Issues". As this other poster is pointing out, it's not always quite so easy to identify which recruits have character issues and which ones don't. A bunch of posters here like to post that all of UT's 3-star guys are "high-character" guys, but that's mostly just wishful thinking and rationalization for why our coaching staff can't land more highly recruited players.
Click to expand...


Finally someone who understands.
 
#58
#58
Vol423 said:
You make it sound like these guys are walking around with a sign around their necks that reads, "I Have Character Issues". As this other poster is pointing out, it's not always quite so easy to identify which recruits have character issues and which ones don't. A bunch of posters here like to post that all of UT's 3-star guys are "high-character" guys, but that's mostly just wishful thinking and rationalization for why our coaching staff can't land more highly recruited players.
Click to expand...
I think there are certain tells that you can look for. For example, a high 4* or 5* prospect from FLA who doesn't have an offer from the Gators. Things like that should raise a red flag.
 
#61
#61
Oregon who so far looks like the best team on UT's schedule except maybe Bama... is winning... with a LOT of 2* and 3* players. Finding talented guys who can be developed and will be around long enough to be developed is more important than impressing Rivals or Scout.
 
#62
#62
Big Orange Bo said:
Yeah, I agree. It's crazy for CDD to Want to try to get the top talent in the country..:crazy: We're probably searching elsewhere. Logical..
Click to expand...

nick saben went 7-6 in his first year at alabama, pete carroll started 2-5, bob stoops only won 7 game his first year at oklahoma, and bobby bowden went 5-6 his first year. dont you think people where saying the same thing about them at the time. Just give him time. Im am not saying DD will end up like any of these coachs by far, but you have to atleast let him dig his own grave or create his own legacey.
 
#63
#63
Fijivol72 said:
this staff has shown me nothing on the recruiting front, people keep saying how great they did last year and I keep telling people that Kiffin made the class because of EE's who could not transfer if they wanted to. Can't coach, can't recruit, welcome to the WAC and I am not backing off of this position so bring it on all you Dooley lovers.
Click to expand...

I like Dooley but I am not convinced yet.

I am convinced that your assessment and any like it are premature.

Dooley, like Kiffin, has a plan that he believes in. Those plans are nearly opposites. I would argue that the goals of the two individuals were nearly opposite too. Dooley wants to build a program and stay around winning games for a long time. He has a vested interest in not only finding talent but finding guys who will not embarrass the school, flunk out, or get kicked off. Kiffin wanted to win fast, punch his ticket, then take his "dream job"... he really didn't care what happened to UT long term. He wanted guys who would make him look good NOW. He was willing to bend or even break the rules to get those players.

Dooley may fail. He may succeed. It is clear that he's determined to do it different from everyone else regardless.

FTR, there is no basis yet to say this staff can or cannot coach. The situation they inherited is worse than any I'm aware of at a major school since I've been watching CFB. No depth. No experience. Limited upperclassman talent. New staff.
 
#66
#66
VolunteerHillbilly said:
This is getting circular. In the overall pool of prospects there is going to be a general risk of signing a violator. You limit that risk by not signing people with character issues. I seriously doubt that this staff is going after a bunch of 2-3* prospects with charcater issues. Hence, going after higher rated prospects who are known to have issues is going to increase the risk. Whether or not the risk is worth it is a different subject. I don't think it is but I can see where others who are willing to risk the future of the program over the possibility of some immediate success would disagree.
Click to expand...

With a full roster, it is a better risk to take. When you cannot reach 85 with your next full class... you have to measure your risks more.
 
#67
#67
sjt18 said:
Oregon who so far looks like the best team on UT's schedule except maybe Bama... is winning... with a LOT of 2* and 3* players. Finding talented guys who can be developed and will be around long enough to be developed is more important than impressing Rivals or Scout.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Oregon has been winning so many big games lately. I'm sure their approach would work in the SEC.
 
#68
#68
IndianVol said:
This is what I'm saying. Yes we need to be at 85, but that 85 has to be filled with guys that can go toe to toe with UF and Bama. I'm not saying that we should or even can recruit at Bama or UF's rate right now, but we should at least recruit better than Ole Miss. And most people know that a team full of 3 stars won't win in the SEC otherwise teams like Mississippi State would win the conference once a while.
Click to expand...

If they played right now, who would you take UF or Oregon? Even if you say UF... would you agree the Ducks could go "toe to toe"?

After you answer, go back and compare their recruiting class rankings.
 
#69
#69
sjt18 said:
With a full roster, it is a better risk to take. When you cannot reach 85 with your next full class... you have to measure your risks more.
Click to expand...

So when you need good players (and immediate contributors) MORE than almost anyone else, that's when you should back off of them?
 
#72
#72
VKAman said:
So when you need good players (and immediate contributors) MORE than almost anyone else, that's when you should back off of them?
Click to expand...

Why is it that you ALWAYS attempt straw man arguments? Do you really lack the capacity to have a reasoned argument without antagonistic debate "tricks"?

When you need good players and immediate contributors... you better do your best to assure that they are guys who will actually use their talent to contribute and be around long enough to contribute.
 
#74
#74
sjt18 said:
Why is it that you ALWAYS attempt straw man arguments? Do you really lack the capacity to have a reasoned argument without antagonistic debate "tricks"?

When you need good players and immediate contributors... you better do your best to assure that they are guys who will actually use their talent to contribute and be around long enough to contribute.
Click to expand...

Because you're always so far up on your moral high horse that you continually start arguments that don't make any sense...

So when you REALLY need playmakers, go after the 2-3*s. That's how you win championships. Look at all that Oregon success.
 
#75
#75
VKAman said:
So when you need good players (and immediate contributors) MORE than almost anyone else, that's when you should back off of them?
Click to expand...

If they have character/academic issues? Yes.

It doesn't matter how good they are if they don't make it in or get kicked off of the team. NuKeese is a perfect example of this. He was a high risk/high reward player, and (unfortunately) we never saw any real reward. With only 65 on the roster, I hope our coaching staff is getting guys we can count on to be here 3 years from now. Our attrition rates for the last few Fulmer classes and the Kiffin class are largely responsible for the current state of the program.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top