Depth, identity, size, speed. He's giving an opinion on what he's seen. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.
I have to wonder if you are being intentionally obtuse at this point considering OP made the statement
"We are inexperienced at key positions.. true, but we are deep with inexperience" , which makes absolutely no sense, and the rest of his post comments on the vagaries such as
"Every position is filled with guys that are being brought up the tennessee way and won't quit", and the one snippit that a person might consider, reasoning, in "A passing nfl attack with speedsters everywhere, huge ass tight ends, and a significant deep threat", but is still akin to me walking outside and saying "it's a thursday, and that cloud is shaped like Abe Lincoln, I think it will snow tomorrow".
You're playing semantics. Everyone sees the same roster, coaching hires, depth, etc. Not everyone interprets that data that same way. Just because you think that data leads you to one conclusion, doesn't mean it's more "probable" than someone else's conclusion.
You continue to make the assumptions that your interpretations are somehow more probable than everyone else's. Professional college football analysts who study these things endlessly may have a 2-3 game difference in their projections for a specific team. It's not because one guy looks at what's probable and others don't, it's because they interpret the evidence differently.
Doesn't seem like we are going to agree, so you can keep thinking yours is the only rational view.
Either you don't understand the usage of the word semantics or you missed the point. You asked if I thought my opinion was more valid, and my response was because it's based on empirical observation, wherein his is literally based on how he feels about this current recruiting class, and his hopes CBJ will find success.
We don't have to agree, you didn't have to respond to my post, but you wanted to debate the issue, so I responded. I don't entertain any thoughts of swaying you to my mode of thinking, because whether you agree with me or not is irrelevant.
I'm taking the position that losing players to injury can affect a team as much or more than losing players to graduation.
You're deflecting answering the question after implying the losing key players during the 2016 had as much or more impact on its poor outcome, as the 2016 attrition could have on the 2017 season. The poor outcome of the 2016 season is directly attributed to the losses to USCe and Vandy.
We're just talking trends. You seem to keep insuating that anyone who is positive about the future is basing that only on feelings and not data. I just tossed out a piece of data that some might consider when judging the upcoming season: Butch's trend as been upward at every stop, including here. So it's not improbable, as you put it, to think this team could improve.
And I would argue that how CBJ performed in lower tier conferences, is irrelevant now that he has 4 seasons in the SEC, and is sub .500 in conference play, and right at .500 if you give him a pass on the first year. Winning in the AAC or the MAC has no bearing on his ability to win in the SEC.
None of that is relevant to your original point: which was that losses to Vandy and SC are more important factors with which to judge next season, rather than the victories over McElwain and Smart. I'm not sure there's any empiral evidence of that.
Irrelevant? Taking out all emotion of referencing UT, If you play a team and lose to them, and I then give you a less talented/less experienced team, and tell you to play the same team, but that team is now more talented and experienced than the previous iteration of the team that you lost to, would you consider your chances favorable or unfavorable going into that game?
