Why Tennessee will have a good season this year

[05_never_again]

Hey guys, this is my first post.

It's really quite simple why Tennessee will have, at the very worst, a solid year this year. We can talk all day about coaching staff changes and the actual team, but one key fact is that everyone has already written us off. Every year we are a preseason top 10 team we underachieve. Preseason #3 last year obviously spelled disaster. I was worried big time in the preseason last year, when we were mentioned on SportsCenter every night about being a national title contender and Riggs was Trev Alberts' sleeper for the Heisman.

Our guys need to be told by the media that they don't expect anything big from us and we will be easy wins for Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina. That's when UT gets fired to play their best and have their more successful seasons.

 

[jakez4ut]

that's a reflection of Fulmer...he's always been better as an underdog...never been able to live up to the hype.

hope you're right, history suggests you will be.

Welcome to the board, and post often!
Go Vols.

 

[VolinArizona]

I like your post and welcome!

Here are some more reasons UT will have a good year:

1) Variance - Yes, luck finally swung against UT in a big way last season. We were -7 in turnovers, which with any kind of turnaround, will give us back 2-3 games.

2) Schedule - While an SEC schedule is always tough, we have a more favorable road schedule. The Cal game makes things a little tougher, but with UGA on the road with question marks, and S.C. on the road with lesser talent and depth, we could win all 4 road games.

3) YPP - Yards per point. The lower YPP on offense, the better your team performed on offense. In 2005, we had a poor 17.5 YPP (to compare, UF had a 13.4 or thereabouts). That means we scored a point for every 17.5 yards we gained. The higher the number, the worse your offense was performing. WELL, since 1990, 73.9% of schools that had a 17.5 YPP or worse (higher) have had the same or better record from the prior year.

4) Net close losses - In 2004, UT really benefitted from a lot of close victories, which can be partially linked to good luck. Well, in 2005, variance gave us a double dinger, nailing us with -2 close losses. Phil Steele considers our 17-10 win over UAB close, while I don't. Our 16-7 loss to UF was not considered a close loss, though it should have been. THUS, taking his theory and changing it a bit (and NO, not to help my UT argument), it shows us this: In the last 4 seasons, a team which was -2 in close games had a better or the same record 72.9% of the time.

These are all paper tigers, and may not ever play out. However, I find a lot of truth in statistics, so let's hope they don't lie to me this season.

 

[05_never_again]

good statistics volinarizona. i think they have a good chance of playing out.

i agree with you especially on the variance - tennessee's season last year can best be described as that the team always found ways to lose a game. some (but not all) of that can be traced to bad luck. if just a few plays went the other way or if a few boneheaded mistakes weren't committed, we could have won at least 2 more games.

i really our early season schedule. usually our season starts off with a gimme game (which we almost always make so much harder than it really is), a bye week, then FLORIDA. that is not a good way to start the season. i like starting out playing a tough but not extremely difficult game at home against a good pac-10 team; that'll be a good test for our defense (and be another chance to prove how the SEC is the toughest conference in college football, especially on the defensive side of the ball). then we have a somewhat easier game against air force, then the following week we have what usually turns out the be the biggest game of the year against florida. there's no downtime at all early in the season like there usually is.

having 2 games then going straight into the florida game will help keep us focused and in rhythm. remember the 2001 season? we were supposed to play florida the saturday after 9/11, but it was canceled and rescheduled to a bye week later on in the season. then we went in and beat them on their turf for the first time since 1970 something. i think that proved a theory i had for a long time that playing florida after a bye week had always hurt us more than it helped.

 

[sjt18]

I don't believe in luck. If you are prepared and execute, luck seems to find you more often than not. If your preparation is shoddy and execution inconsistent... you seem to get more than your share of bad "luck".

Sometimes Providence plays a hand but God's natural laws favor the industrious and hard working above those who just hope bounces will go their way.

I like this Vols team. They seem hungry. For the most part, they seem confident without being cocky too.

 

[05_never_again]

I don't believe in luck. If you are prepared and execute, luck seems to find you more often than not. If your preparation is shoddy and execution inconsistent... you seem to get more than your share of bad "luck".

Sometimes Providence plays a hand but God's natural laws favor the industrious and hard working above those who just hope bounces will go their way.

I like this Vols team. They seem hungry. For the most part, they seem confident without being cocky too.

i would agree with that, but notice as i said that it came from boneheaded/stupid plays as well. but here and there, tennessee did get bad breaks. but unlike good teams, tennessee let those bad breaks affect them.

this vols team does seem hungry as you say. that was just another problem of last season, as they thought they already had their bus tickets to georgia dome already paid for before the kickoff of the first game.

 

[Lexvol]

Depends on what your definition of good is. For me 8-4 is average, 9-3 is acceptable, 10-2 is good, 11-1 is great, and 12-0 is perfect.

 

[05_never_again]

Depends on what your definition of good is. For me 8-4 is average, 9-3 is acceptable, 10-2 is good, 11-1 is great, and 12-0 is perfect.

i'm talking 9-3 at least and 10-2 most likely. 8-4 wouldn't be good enough even taking into consideration what happened last year.

 

[VolBeef88]

I don't think being ranked too high has anything to do with it. It boils down to execution by the staff and players and that is why we had a bad year. I do believe that the staff and the players got a huge wake up call and I think we will have a very solid year. I wish it had not happened but it did and it happens to most. It is very easy to get comfotable when things go really well. A bad year and you either adjust or those above you adjust. I believe CPF has made the changes he needed to and we will be back to the UT of old.

 

[hohenfelsvol]

The sign of a good staff and team is to beable to come back from from adversity and just a plain bad season. The team will show character this year and do better. Question is how much better. I am hoping for a 9-3 to a 10-2 year. Any less and Lexvol is right, average.

 

[05_never_again]

I don't think being ranked too high has anything to do with it. It boils down to execution by the staff and players and that is why we had a bad year. I do believe that the staff and the players got a huge wake up call and I think we will have a very solid year. I wish it had not happened but it did and it happens to most. It is very easy to get comfotable win things go really well. A bad year and you either adjust or those above you adjust. I believe CPF has made the changes he needed to and we will be back to the UT of old.

the astronomical preseason ranking helped the team "get comfortable" (actually, better words are complacent and even falsely overconfident/arrogant). as jakez4ut pointed out, fulmer has never lived up to hype and this really didn't play in the team's hand.

the coaching staff on offense had been a problem for years. last year is what it took for fulmer to clean house. i think getting back to the UT of old (mid to late 90s) may still be a few seasons in the making but i really think the team will make great strides to get back on top beginning this year.

 

[VolBeef88]

the astronomical preseason ranking helped the team "get comfortable" (actually, better words are complacent and even falsely overconfident/arrogant). as jakez4ut pointed out, fulmer has never lived up to hype and this really didn't play in the team's hand.

the coaching staff on offense had been a problem for years. last year is what it took for fulmer to clean house. i think getting back to the UT of old (mid to late 90s) may still be a few seasons in the making but i really think the team will make great strides to get back on top beginning this year.

Last year was a build up of comfort on the part of the whole program over several years. It didn't happen over night and it didn't happen because of pre-season hype.
However, I do think the steps were taken to correct the issue and I think the comfort level will never be the same under this staff.

 

[05_never_again]

Last year was a build up of comfort on the part of the whole program over several years. It didn't happen over night and it didn't happen because of pre-season hype.
However, I do think the steps were taken to correct the issue and I think the comfort level will never be the same under this staff.

no, it didn't happen overnight, but preseason hype had a lot to do with it. the preseason hype along with long-term coaching staff problems and their mindset caused it. i'm not saying at all that the preseason ranking caused every single problem last season but that had a lot to do with it.

 

[VolBeef88]

All I'm saying is this. I don't like the idea nor do I buy into the idea that having a pre-season high ranking is bad for a program. I think that is hogwash. Peytons sr year we were ranked high and finished high (albiet a loss to NU in the Orange bowl).

 

[05_never_again]

All I'm saying is this. I don't like the idea nor do I buy into the idea that having a pre-season high ranking is bad for a program. I think that is hogwash. Peytons sr year we were ranked high and finished high (albiet a loss to NU in the Orange bowl).

well, i never said it had to be a bad thing. with UT over the past several years it has been a bad thing. we had better coaching and better team leadership/heart back then when peyton was on the team.

 

[hatvol96]

All I'm saying is this. I don't like the idea nor do I buy into the idea that having a pre-season high ranking is bad for a program. I think that is hogwash. Peytons sr year we were ranked high and finished high (albiet a loss to NU in the Orange bowl).

The same thing happened in Manning's junior season, Shuler's final season, and 1990. We were rated highly and the team performed well. The idea that ranking is responsible for last year's debacle is totally absurd. Last season's failures were due to a pathetic performance by the players and staff. Period.

 

[hatvol96]

well, i never said it had to be a bad thing. with UT over the past several years it has been a bad thing. we had better coaching and better team leadership/heart back then when peyton was on the team.

No, we had better players.

 

[Lexvol]

If the coaches don't prepare this team any better than they did last year, UT is staring another 5 or 6 win season right in the face.

 

[VolinArizona]

If the coaches don't prepare this team any better than they did last year, UT is staring another 5 or 6 win season right in the face.

Agreed.

 

[sjt18]

I don't really think UT had better players other than at the QB position. I think Cut is better than Sanders. Progressively over Sanders tenure the offense got less and less disciplined both on and off the field. He seemed to rely more on schemes than execution.

This was at least partly Fulmer but it was Sander's responsibility.

I doubt Cut is any less talented at scheming and is obviously better at execution and discipline... at least in practice.

I hope that Fulmer's cage was rattled last year as much as he says. He had gotten even more conservative than he was... the game has changed since that worked. Few teams run the wishbone now for a reason... and it might be time to reconsider/revise some of Neyland's axioms.

 

[hatvol96]

I don't really think UT had better players other than at the QB position.

Please tell me you're kidding.

 

[Lexvol]

I don't really think UT had better players other than at the QB position. I think Cut is better than Sanders. Progressively over Sanders tenure the offense got less and less disciplined both on and off the field. He seemed to rely more on schemes than execution.

This was at least partly Fulmer but it was Sander's responsibility.

I doubt Cut is any less talented at scheming and is obviously better at execution and discipline... at least in practice.

I hope that Fulmer's cage was rattled last year as much as he says. He had gotten even more conservative than he was... the game has changed since that worked. Few teams run the wishbone now for a reason... and it might be time to reconsider/revise some of Neyland's axioms.

Tailback is UT's best offensive position. Foster is a good back and Hardesty is good for about 15 carries a game maximum. Coker has yet to see the field. The wide receivers are having so much trouble getting separation that a true freshman has his name in the mix for the starting 5. This team has marginal talent. LSU, Auburn, GA, Fla, are all much deeper and talented at nearly every offensive position.

 

[05_never_again]

The same thing happened in Manning's junior season, Shuler's final season, and 1990. We were rated highly and the team performed well. The idea that ranking is responsible for last year's debacle is totally absurd. Last season's failures were due to a pathetic performance by the players and staff. Period.

hey, guys, i never said it was sole reason last year was so bad. i do think it was one of the key reasons though, along with terrible coaching and a lack of class. everyone writing us off for this season will help us tremendously IMO; that was my entire point.

i didn't mean to rehash last year's travesty - i meant this to be a positive thread...let's just focus on this saturday and this season.

 

[hatvol96]

Tailback is UT's best offensive position. Foster is a good back and Hardesty is good for about 15 carries a game maximum. Coker has yet to see the field. The wide receivers are having so much trouble getting separation that a true freshman has his name in the mix for the starting 5. This team has marginal talent. LSU, Auburn, GA, Fla, are all much deeper and talented at nearly every offensive position.

Thus illustrating my point. None of the three TBs could carry Jamal Lewis' shoes. There's not a single player at WR who has shown the ability to be half as productive as Peerless Price. I won't even embarass the current OL by comparing them to the Cosey Colemans and Chad Cliftons of the world. That's just the offense. If you break down the defense, while the talent drain is not as severe, it's still there.

 

[checkerboard_charly]

I like your post and welcome!

Here are some more reasons UT will have a good year:

1) Variance - Yes, luck finally swung against UT in a big way last season. We were -7 in turnovers, which with any kind of turnaround, will give us back 2-3 games.

2) Schedule - While an SEC schedule is always tough, we have a more favorable road schedule. The Cal game makes things a little tougher, but with UGA on the road with question marks, and S.C. on the road with lesser talent and depth, we could win all 4 road games.

3) YPP - Yards per point. The lower YPP on offense, the better your team performed on offense. In 2005, we had a poor 17.5 YPP (to compare, UF had a 13.4 or thereabouts). That means we scored a point for every 17.5 yards we gained. The higher the number, the worse your offense was performing. WELL, since 1990, 73.9% of schools that had a 17.5 YPP or worse (higher) have had the same or better record from the prior year.

4) Net close losses - In 2004, UT really benefitted from a lot of close victories, which can be partially linked to good luck. Well, in 2005, variance gave us a double dinger, nailing us with -2 close losses. Phil Steele considers our 17-10 win over UAB close, while I don't. Our 16-7 loss to UF was not considered a close loss, though it should have been. THUS, taking his theory and changing it a bit (and NO, not to help my UT argument), it shows us this: In the last 4 seasons, a team which was -2 in close games had a better or the same record 72.9% of the time.

These are all paper tigers, and may not ever play out. However, I find a lot of truth in statistics, so let's hope they don't lie to me this season.

Great post Arizona. Consider this about the plays the swung against us. We could have easily been 3-8 last year. Or 8-4. We failed to execute 3 times inside the twenty and that cost us 2 games alone. We will be greatly improved but winning the SEC is a stretch.

Again though, awesome post. You talk ppl down sometimes but you always bring it with stats and great posts. I nominate you for Guru.