USU Scrimmage

[WoodsmanVol]

Your favorite teams have me curious Woodsman- the Redskins AND the Packers? How does this happen?

That goes back decades. I had personal associations with player personnel on both both teams. primarily, I'm a Packer fan. But take the Skins when they're not playing the Packers. Which seems odd to some due to having a Native American background. Some things aren't worth making a fuss over, way I see it.

 

[KBVol]

We know all about that coach. He was in our conference. He did an absolutely amazing job at tech IMO. Surprised he was so bad at UT but there's no arguing it

I know he took over a difficult situation there, but He was 17-20 at La Tech. Finished 4th in the WAC his first year and 5th his 3rd/last year. You must know more than what it appeared from the outside looking in. Regardless of what he did at La Tech, he was an absolute, unmitigated disaster at UT.

 

[ficklez]

and you had better players last yr that you dont have now.

Yes, two. larsen and lawson. the rest, as I've said, are replaceable. You also have players gone who were better than the new guys. as does ever team.

but you know what that preview said? turbin is gone. wagner is gone. coach andersen is gone. usu can't replace them. then we did.

then the next one. matt austin is gone. chuck jacobs is gone. kerwynn williams is gone. usu won't be able to replace them. then we did.

 

[ficklez]

I know he took over a difficult situation there, but He was 17-20 at La Tech. Finished 4th in the WAC his first year and 5th his 3rd/last year. You must know more than what it appeared from the outside looking in. Regardless of what he did at La Tech, he was an absolute, unmitigated disaster at UT.

tech had the number 1 offense in the country despite losing two starting RBs to an ACL injury IIRC. that was remarkable for the old tech. they were on the inside track for a BCS game as the highest ranked non-AQ team with just USU and SJSU left. I think they were 18 or 19 in the BCS. of course they lost both games, then turned down one bowl game hoping for a better one and got no bowl game at all, but they were 120 minutes away from at least a shot at a BCS game. their only other loss was TAMU in manziel's heisman year by 2.

 

[NEO]

Yes, two. larsen and lawson. the rest, as I've said, are replaceable. You also have players gone who were better than the new guys. as does ever team.

but you know what that preview said? turbin is gone. wagner is gone. coach andersen is gone. usu can't replace them. then we did.

then the next one. matt austin is gone. chuck jacobs is gone. kerwynn williams is gone. usu won't be able to replace them. then we did.

I'm being serious when I think we didn't lose a single player who wasn't replaced by a better player.

The Oline was WAY overrated.

And we have hurd now who is honestly an upgrade even as a freshman.

Palardy may be the most missed player and the ONLY one we didn't upgrade over.

Because this is the first game I think it will be close but we may lose. If this was game 7, your team would be lunch.

 

[ficklez]

I'm being serious when I think we didn't lose a single player who wasn't replaced by a better player.

The Oline was WAY overrated.

And we have hurd now who is honestly an upgrade even as a freshman.

Palardy may be the most missed player and the ONLY one we didn't upgrade over.

Because this is the first game I think it will be close but we may lose. If this was game 7, your team would be lunch.

i am glad it is the first game. I don't see how you can say with a straight face that your incoming guy at OT is better than a 2nd round draft pick though, and then another one is better than a 3rd round pick. I will say that it probably isn't the same drop off as patterson/bray/hunter, because any team losing those guys is going to be worse at those positions. but I doubt that out of the 5 guys who went to the combine, the 5 guys behind them are all better than they were last year. i'm willing to buy potential, but not that they're already better right now.

 

[daj2576]

absolutely true. I don't think we've been in the top 100 in my 8 years as a fan though. I would wager that 90% of our wins come against teams with a higher rating in recruiting. None of them are as high as Tennessee's was last year though. But tennessee has been top 20 for 6 years and has failed to capitalize, so there is obviously more to it than just stars.

one thing that really hurts USU in these ratings, and helps tennessee, that plays into this all is how the system works. When a player commits to USU, he usually is bumped down half a star. When a player commits to tennesee or alabama or cal or heck even houston, they get a .5 to 1 star bump. this is because scouting sites use a combo of who has offered as a guide for the stars. For example, we had a 2 star commit who committed and changed to oregon who was moved to a 3 on some sites and a 4 on another the following day. no new game tape, no new camp. just committing to oregon.

generally, it's an ok system. the best schools offer the best players. but when you are recruiting in utah and idaho and nevada, states without bcs schools, the players aren't noticed by the bigger schools like they are in their own backyard in california, florida, georgia, etc. so better players tend to fly under the radar. then you have the guys at smaller schools who fly under the radar in texas or florida. Chuckie Keeton is an example. They're hard to find and pan out less often than 5 stars, I'm sure. We'll never recruit like tennessee does. We probably will never make a natty game, even if we play football for 1,000 more years. Are our players good enough to beat any team on any given saturday (or sunday)? with luck, yes we could pull out a shocker on some great team. Are our players good enough to beat a team with a 2nd year coach implementing his system, in the first week, with a weak quarterback, a new OL, a new DL? absolutely. Is it more likely that we win than not? probably not. But I'd say it's likely enough to matter.

I don't know if we have had a single 4 star commit, ever. we've beaten teams with them, but not many.

While you are correct in your assertion that UT has under-performed over the past five years, there is a reality and that is that about 70% of all games are won by the team who recruited better. That number is significantly higher when both teams are in the top 50 of recruiting, and weaker when both teams are in the bottom 50. What that tends to show, at least to me, is how good the recruiting services are with 3,4 and 5 star players, and how muddy 0-2 star players rating can be.


I would caution using UT's record of under performance against top 50 recruiting teams as an indication that a team such as USU, who is almost as close to the bottom of recruiting as UT is to the top, has a significant chance to beat a team like UT. Just as I would caution against using accumulated stats against wholly different competition. Don't get me wrong USU, at best, has a 30% chance of winning the game. That isn't insignificant, but it is unlikely.

Tennessee under-performed in relation to talent by two games last year. Those two games were against Missouri and Vanderbilt. The rest of the season (80% of the wins and losses, give or take) were directly predicted by talent. If you want to see something interesting, here is a chart that illustrates the change in talent on the two deep from last year to this year as viewed by averages of position groups.



That is my point. There is an inherent weakness in suggesting that a teams record indicates actual ability, or similarly that last year's under-performance plays a role in the 2014 season.

The better test is what is the team's record in relation to talent. I can't speak fully on USU, and I don't feel like totally crunching the numbers, but from what I see at a quick glace of your record, I cannot find that you beat a team that broke the top 50 in recruiting. I can see that you kept it close against a woefully under-achieving USC team, but close doesn't lesson a "L" more than a blow-out puts more "W's" in the win column.

And, as I am sure that you believe that experience could trump talent, I suggest you read this:

View attachment The-Saturday-Edge-eBook-PDF.pdf

 

[thebjd]

I'm being serious when I think we didn't lose a single player who wasn't replaced by a better player.

The Oline was WAY overrated.

And we have hurd now who is honestly an upgrade even as a freshman.

Palardy may be the most missed player and the ONLY one we didn't upgrade over.

Because this is the first game I think it will be close but we may lose. If this was game 7, your team would be lunch.

The o-line is a question mark until proven otherwise. I am anxious to see if any of the incoming talent on the defensive side of the ball will be ready to contribute. You are dead on about Palardy. He ended up being a good kicker but was one of the better punters we have ever had.

 

[ficklez]

While you are correct in your assertion that UT has under-performed over the past five years, there is a reality and that is that about 70% of all games are won by the team who recruited better. That number is significantly higher when both teams are in the top 50 of recruiting, and weaker when both teams are in the bottom 50. What that tends to show, at least to me, is how good the recruiting services are with 3,4 and 5 star players, and how muddy 0-2 star players rating can be.


I would caution using UT's record of under performance against top 50 recruiting teams as an indication that a team such as USU, who is almost as close to the bottom of recruiting as UT is to the top, has a significant chance to beat a team like UT. Sure it can happen, it is extremely unlikely.

Tennessee under-performed in relation to talent by two games last year. Those two games were against Missouri and Vanderbilt. The rest of the season (80% of the wins and losses, give or take) were directly predicted by talent. If you want to see something interesting, here is a chart that illustrates the change in talent on the two deep from last year to this year as viewed by averages of position groups.

View attachment 76859

That is my point. There is an inherent weakness in suggesting that a teams record indicates actual ability, or similarly that last year's under-performance plays a role in the 2014 season.

The better test is what is the team's record in relation to talent. I can't speak fully on USU, and I don't feel like totally crunching the numbers, but from what I see at a quick glace of your record, I cannot find that you beat a team that broke the top 50 in recruiting. I can see that you kept it close against a woefully under-achieving USC team, but close doesn't lesson a "L" more than a blow-out puts more "W's" in the win column.

And, as I am sure that you believe that experience could trump talent, I suggest you read this:

View attachment 76860

I've never said there wasn't a relation. I've never said anything about the ranking bias of teams with easy schedules either. i've never even said usu has a better team than tennessee, either this year last year or any year before it. so if you're responding to any argument you think i'm making, i'm not making it.

 

[daj2576]

I've never said there wasn't a relation. I've never said anything about the ranking bias of teams with easy schedules either. i've never even said usu has a better team than tennessee, either this year last year or any year before it. so if you're responding to any argument you think i'm making, i'm not making it.

Whether or not you are making an argument that directly suggests that USU should win the game is irrelevant. You are staking a position that is ultimately that it might be arguable that on some line on a graph that UT's under-performance of late, and USU's performance of late, would intersect at such a point as to even suggest that your conversation of stats, record, recruiting or any other facet has merit.

As I have illustrated, or attempted to, I will agree that USU does have a chance to win this game, and I have quantified it at 30% or less. That shouldn't be significant enough to concern most UT fans, nor should it remove all hope from USU fans. From a perception standpoint, if USU wins this game it would be an upset of historic and monumental proportions for your program.

Good luck.

So what else are we discussing?

 

[KBVol]

tech had the number 1 offense in the country despite losing two starting RBs to an ACL injury IIRC. that was remarkable for the old tech. they were on the inside track for a BCS game as the highest ranked non-AQ team with just USU and SJSU left. I think they were 18 or 19 in the BCS. of course they lost both games, then turned down one bowl game hoping for a better one and got no bowl game at all, but they were 120 minutes away from at least a shot at a BCS game. their only other loss was TAMU in manziel's heisman year by 2.

Are you talking about the Derek Dooley years at La Tech? 2007-2009? I don't think so.

 

[NEO]

The o-line is a question mark until proven otherwise. I am anxious to see if any of the incoming talent on the defensive side of the ball will be ready to contribute. You are dead on about Palardy. He ended up being a good kicker but was one of the better punters we have ever had.

from all accounts, they are a lot nastier than the last line.

I think they will blow some coverages but I also they will be much better at run blocking.

I think we will be a very heavy run first team the first couple of games as they learn to block longer and the qb and wrs settle in.

I think a few of the freshman like Kelly Jr will start day one and their skill set will overshadow a lot of mistakes they make.

 

[ficklez]

Whether or not you are making an argument that directly suggests that USU should win the game is irrelevant. You are staking a position that is ultimately that it might be arguable that on some line on a graph that UT's under-performance of late, and USU's performance of late, would intersect at such a point as to even suggest that your conversation of stats, record, recruiting or any other facet has merit.

As I have illustrated, or attempted to, I will agree that USU does have a chance to win this game, and I have quantified it at 30% or less. That shouldn't be significant enough to concern most UT fans, nor should it remove all hope from USU fans. From a perception standpoint, if USU wins this game it would be an upset of historic and monumental proportions for your program.

Good luck.

So what else are we discussing?

that isn't what i'm arguing at all though. i'm arguing there are too many variables, that many favor tennessee, that some favor usu, and that the combination of which ones are important change week to week or even play to play.


I'm waiting for a jury to come back with a verdict. I guess we could talk about that? Ya'll say "law-yer" and not "loy-yer" right?

 

[KBVol]

from all accounts, they are a lot nastier than the last line.

I think they will blow some coverages but I also they will be much better at run blocking.

I think we will be a very heavy run first team the first couple of games as they learn to block longer and the qb and wrs settle in.

I think a few of the freshman like Kelly Jr will start day one and their skill set will overshadow a lot of mistakes they make.

I don't doubt that we rely on the run game early with Lane and Hurd, maybe even Scott. But we've gotta take major advantage of our team's most talented position group which is at WR. I expect to see a lot of the short passing game early on....any one of North, Malone or Pearson can take a screen or short slant and go the distance. Didn't have that element last year.

 

[Madmartigan]

That goes back decades. I had personal associations with player personnel on both both teams. primarily, I'm a Packer fan. But take the Skins when they're not playing the Packers. Which seems odd to some due to having a Native American background. Some things aren't worth making a fuss over, way I see it.

I like it. Just seemed like a strange combo of two teams is all but this makes sense.

 

[daj2576]

that isn't what i'm arguing at all though. i'm arguing there are too many variables, that many favor tennessee, that some favor usu, and that the combination of which ones are important change week to week or even play to play.


I'm waiting for a jury to come back with a verdict. I guess we could talk about that? Ya'll say "law-yer" and not "loy-yer" right?

What variables do you find that favor USU? I've read through your posts, and I think I have addressed all of the ones that have a substantial impact on actual games.

The game is played in Neyland (home field advantage is tangible and approaches a 60/40 favoring of the home team).

Talent severely favors UT, at a rate of about 70/30 (actually approaching 80/20 given the severe disparity in talent).

If you can name other variables, I would like to hear them. My guess would be that they are already included in the talent evaluation and probably contribute to the 20-30% of the time that a less talented team wins.

And personally I just say "counselor." That translates to any language.

 

[ficklez]

What variables do you find that favor USU? I've read through your posts, and I think I have addressed all of the ones that have a substantial impact on actual games.

.

I really like our LB vs your OL match-up with 5 new starters coming in all at once.

I really really like your QB vs the air match up. I think whoever starts, they'll be among the bottom half of QBs we play all season. It's nothing personal against tennessee as a program, I just think your quarterbacks have played absolutely horrendously and I dont see why it would change game one.

Another variable in our favor is that it is the first game. if there is a time to get a crop of talented recruits, it would be the first game. doesn't mean they'll be bad, but it favors us more than it would later on.

having a 4 year starting QB is a positive variable too, even though he is coming back from an injury a year ago.

 

[butchna]

Your favorite teams have me curious Woodsman- the Redskins AND the Packers? How does this happen?

He's an alien...with dual brains and sexual organs :ermm:

 

[Vol865]

I really like our LB vs your OL match-up with 5 new starters coming in all at once.

I really really like your QB vs the air match up. I think whoever starts, they'll be among the bottom half of QBs we play all season. It's nothing personal against tennessee as a program, I just think your quarterbacks have played absolutely horrendously and I dont see why it would change game one.

Another variable in our favor is that it is the first game. if there is a time to get a crop of talented recruits, it would be the first game. doesn't mean they'll be bad, but it favors us more than it would later on.

having a 4 year starting QB is a positive variable too, even though he is coming back from an injury a year ago.

Ill admit CK is better right now than our QBs and might still be better in a few years but our QBs are not nearly as bad as you're making them out to be. Our freshman are young but they go against really good competition every day in practice. I feel the only advantage USU has is at QB. While its yhe most important position on the field, I dont believe it will make up for our talent advantage at every other position.

 

[KBVol]

I really like our LB vs your OL match-up with 5 new starters coming in all at once.

I really really like your QB vs the air match up. I think whoever starts, they'll be among the bottom half of QBs we play all season. It's nothing personal against tennessee as a program, I just think your quarterbacks have played absolutely horrendously and I dont see why it would change game one.

Another variable in our favor is that it is the first game. if there is a time to get a crop of talented recruits, it would be the first game. doesn't mean they'll be bad, but it favors us more than it would later on.

having a 4 year starting QB is a positive variable too, even though he is coming back from an injury a year ago.

Absolutely horrendously? How many Tennessee games did you watch last year?

If you listen to some of idiots in here I guess you'd think "absolutely horrendously" would apply. Truth is our QB play wasn't good last year, but I think a lot of that had to do with our poor WR and TE play. Couldn't get separation, dropped a ton of balls. I'd say our QBs honestly only played to the level of "absolutely horrendous" in the first half vs Florida ( that QB will be 4th string this year) and in the game vs Vandy (yet he still would've won the game with a rushing td had it not been called back by a clip that had no effect on the play).

We have every reason to believe our QB play will be much better after another year in the same offensive system and with many, many more offensive weapons to work with.

 

[butchna]

Absolutely horrendously? How many Tennessee games did you watch last year?

If you listen to some of idiots in here I guess you'd think "absolutely horrendously" would apply. Truth is our QB play wasn't good last year, but I think a lot of that had to do with our poor WR and TE play. Couldn't get separation, dropped a ton of balls. I'd say our QBs honestly only played to the level of "absolutely horrendous" in the first half vs Florida ( that QB will be 4th string this year) and in the game vs Vandy (yet he still would've won the game with a rushing td had it not been called back by a clip that had no effect on the play).

We have every reason to believe our QB play will be much better after another year in the same offensive system and with many, many more offensive weapons to work with.

Don't give him perspective KB...I want him victim huggin his rubber ducky in the shower after this one!!! :yess:

 

[KnoxRealtorVOL]

Absolutely horrendously? How many Tennessee games did you watch last year?

If you listen to some of idiots in here I guess you'd think "absolutely horrendously" would apply. Truth is our QB play wasn't good last year, but I think a lot of that had to do with our poor WR and TE play. Couldn't get separation, dropped a ton of balls. I'd say our QBs honestly only played to the level of "absolutely horrendous" in the first half vs Florida ( that QB will be 4th string this year) and in the game vs Vandy (yet he still would've won the game with a rushing td had it not been called back by a clip that had no effect on the play).

We have every reason to believe our QB play will be much better after another year in the same offensive system and with many, many more offensive weapons to work with.

And neither QB will be playing against USU unless it's mop-up duty

 

[ficklez]

Are you talking about the Derek Dooley years at La Tech? 2007-2009? I don't think so.

oh yeah you're right. that was a lot more recent.

 

[ficklez]

Absolutely horrendously? How many Tennessee games did you watch last year?

If you listen to some of idiots in here I guess you'd think "absolutely horrendously" would apply. Truth is our QB play wasn't good last year, but I think a lot of that had to do with our poor WR and TE play. Couldn't get separation, dropped a ton of balls. I'd say our QBs honestly only played to the level of "absolutely horrendous" in the first half vs Florida ( that QB will be 4th string this year) and in the game vs Vandy (yet he still would've won the game with a rushing td had it not been called back by a clip that had no effect on the play).

We have every reason to believe our QB play will be much better after another year in the same offensive system and with many, many more offensive weapons to work with.

just a handful. I watched the oregon one for sure, but i'm not sure of the others. i usually watch every game that's on tv, no matter what teams/conference. i just record them all and flip back and forth between commercials/half-time. i love college football (as i'm sure many of you do)

 

[KBVol]

oh yeah you're right. that was a lot more recent.

No worries. Dooley was bad at La Tech and, as I mentioned, absolutely horrendous at UT 😊