Recruiting Football Talk VII

#83,152
#83,152
InVOLuntary said:
I don't know how good Kirby is as a coach for precisely that reason. He's never had to do more with less. Yall hung from Pruitts jewels when there was evidence he was terrible. Now he's coaching high school.

I'm going to try and make this as simple as possible. If you have a team that has a terrible running game, do you still run the ball every down? This team couldn't cover granny clampett but he still put them in unwinnable situations.


And for the life of me it baffles me how it's OK to blame the players but heaven forbid someone criticize the coach making $2mil. 😅
Click to expand...

I’m not a player basher. You must have me confused with someone else.

The talent on O and D was not equal. It probably is now, albeit young.

Playing soft zone coverage is bc they didn’t trust the players to cover m2m. Blitzing while doing that is absolutely questionable. But playing zone was putting the team in the best position to win games.

Now if we’ve improved athletically on the back end and we still never see m2m moving forward, then ok, that’ll be bad. Bc it’ll be all guys this staff has recruited back there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: beneVOLence, SugarCC, LaagerVol and 9 others
#83,159
#83,159
BigSteve09 said:
that game was absolutely a defensive collapse. Offense was matching scores with them for a while. What a disappointing game, god I don't want to think about it.
Click to expand...
Not thinking about the game itself, but were the rumors true about the suspension and player impact? Or was it just a coach failure?
 
  • Like
Reactions: KptVFL
#83,164
#83,164
Orange. said:
Could it be (just to take a random example) that a guy was trying to dictate his position, had an off-field issue, appeared to be a culture risk, and backed us into a corner? So we had to do what we had to do (at the last minute) for the good of the team and for the other guys on the OL who want someone beside them they can depend on: that's why they came back. Or are you implying that however it's explained, what the returners got is a hard cap or there's a problem? The latter is what I was concerned that I heard but I'm unclear.
Click to expand...
UT does not want to renegotiate deals with agreed-upon terms. The precedent is to not give in to ultimatums when terms have been set. This has happened recently with both players and recruits. The players that threatened portaled. The recruits either went elsewhere or came back to the terms and signed.

Roster management is difficult in the current landscape. UT doesn't have a problem because the staff has been clear and consistent. They took care of current players first, and they've honored their commitments. They expect the same and reward it. Deviating from that would cause problems. Players know what to expect and sending mixed messages would mess that up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rocky_Top_Vol13, VolsDoc81TX, SmokinBob and 56 others
#83,169
#83,169
DD4ME said:
Not thinking about the game itself, but were the rumors true about the suspension and player impact? Or was it just a coach failure?
Click to expand...

Either the defense no-showed, or South Carolina inexplicably had our number. There are people that blame it on the players and the coaches. There are people that trace potential ties back to the Michigan sign-stealing thing. It's also college football and things happen sometimes. I hope we get the full story someday, but it remains an enigma.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsDoc81TX, SmokinBob, TN-POSSUM and 7 others
#83,172
#83,172
LA Vol said:
UT does not want to renegotiate deals with agreed-upon terms. The precedent is to not give in to ultimatums when terms have been set. This has happened recently with both players and recruits. The players that threatened portaled. The recruits either went elsewhere or came back to the terms and signed.

Roster management is difficult in the current landscape. UT doesn't have a problem because the staff has been clear and consistent. They took care of current players first, and they've honored their commitments. They expect the same and reward it. Deviating from that would cause problems. Players know what to expect and sending mixed messages would mess that up.
Click to expand...
I was aware of that and I think that is very smart.

I was asking about limits in a case where we have to go to the portal because someone on the team who has agreed to a deal changes his mind. We are not stuck with the exiting player's cap for the new target are we? But that might put us over what some other returners signed for. But it's not really our fault.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KptVFL, BigSteve09 and knoxvol52
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top