2025/26 Transfer Portal Thread

#11,976
#11,976
Weezer said:
Seems like they're banking on Joey getting another year IMO. If not, Spyre may need to entice someone into the portal.

@Ericvol2096 - When will we hear about Dejuan Lane or the Cal RB?
Click to expand...

Joey becoming eligible is the best case scenario at this point. Would be a huge win for us, but can’t trust the NCAA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeuperDrive, InVOLuntary, Ericvol2096 and 11 others
#11,977
#11,977
DD4ME said:
Statistically - pre Heupel Hooker would have been a better take than Pribula - better int ratio and actually better runner.

✅ Step 1 — Define the Window
We’re comparing:
Hendon Hooker — FBS BEFORE Tennessee
→ Virginia Tech (2019–2020)
Beau Pribula — FBS BEFORE any hypothetical Tennessee stint
→ Penn State (2023–24 rotational) + Missouri (2025 starter)
No Tennessee stats for Hooker, no post-Heupel projections for Pribula.
📊 Step 2 — FBS Production Comparison (Pre-Heupel)
🟦 Hendon Hooker (VT Only — Pre-Heupel)
Career at VT (2019–2020):
Passing: 2,894 yards
Passing TD: 22
INT: 7
Completion %: ~63–65%
Rushing: 976 yards
Rushing TD: 14
Efficiency:
TD:INT Ratio: ~3.1 : 1
Dual Threat Score: Very strong
Level of Competition: Power 5 / ACC
Role: Multi-year starter
What that tells us:
Hooker showed:
Low turnovers
Legit running threat
Efficient passing against Power 5 defenses
🟨 Beau Pribula (Penn St + Missouri — Pre-Any Heupel)
Career FBS Totals through 2025:
Passing: ~2,365 yards
Passing TD: 20
INT: 10
Completion %: ~67%
Rushing: ~868 yards
Rushing TD: 16
Efficiency:
TD:INT Ratio: ~2 : 1
Dual Threat Score: Moderate to strong
Level of Competition: Big Ten & SEC
Role: Rotational at PSU, Starter at Mizzou
What that tells us:
High completion %
More INTs per attempt than Hooker
Rushing is valuable but less efficient vs P5 defenses
🎯 Step 3 — Statistical Fit for Heupel’s System (Based on FBS Data Only)
Heupel’s QB keys:
Low turnovers
Quick reads
Vertical shot efficiency
Run threat to hold safeties
Tempo resilience
Here’s how both compare based on FBS-only data:
✔ Turnover Profile
Hooker: 7 INT on 22 TD (~3.1:1) — very clean
Pribula: 10 INT on 20 TD (~2:1) — noticeably riskier
➡ Advantage: Hooker
✔ Explosive Dual-Threat Ability
Hooker: ~1,000 rushing yards, 14 TDs
Pribula: ~868 rushing yards, 16 TDs
Raw totals similar, but Hooker:
Did it as a starter
Did it in Power 5 offense
Did it with fewer sacks/negative plays
➡ Advantage: Slight Hooker
✔ Passing Volume & Context
VT Hooker averaged ~1,450 yards per year as a multi-year starter
Pribula in 2025 had ~1,900 yards, but his 3-year FBS average is much lower due to PSU rotational years
➡ Hooker entered Tennessee with more reliable starter tape
➡ Advantage: Hooker
✔ Accuracy / Placement
Completion %:
Pribula: ~67%
Hooker: ~63–65%
Pribula wins the raw %, but:
Hooker’s passes were further downfield
PSU used Pribula in RPO/short game
Missouri in 2025 was intermediate, not vertical
➡ Adjusted advantage: Even, depending on what you value.
🧩 Step 4 — Contextual Traits that Matter to Heupel
Trait
Hooker (VT)
Pribula (FBS Pre-TN)
Advantage
TD:INT
22:7 (~3.1:1)
20:10 (~2:1)
Hooker
Designed Run Threat
Strong
Moderate
Hooker
Accuracy
Good
Very good
Pribula
Experience as Starter
Multi-year
1 year
Hooker
Pressure Handling
Above avg
Mixed
Hooker
Deep Ball Sample
Moderate
Limited
Hooker
Offensive Tempo Fit
Good
Unknown
Hooker
🧠 Step 5 — Conclusion
Statistically (FBS-only pre-Heupel) Hooker had the better chance to thrive
Here’s why:
Cleaner turnover profile (3.1:1 vs. 2:1)
More established starter sample
More physical running profile
Better Power 5 defensive context
More vertical passing on tape
Traits aligned with Heupel’s demands
Pribula, however, does check some Heupel boxes:
Accuracy
Mobility
RPO comfort
Could function in tempo
But based strictly on FBS data prior to Heupel:
📌 Probability of outperforming Hooker in Heupel’s system based on FBS-only evidence:
Hooker: High
Pribula: Moderate/Unknown
Hooker walked in with:
Starter volume
Efficiency
Low turnover habits
Tested Power 5 tape
Pribula enters with:
Smaller starter sample
Higher interceptions
Higher completion %
Solid mobility
Click to expand...
Longest post, by line, in VN history. The portal has broken us all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paper_Towel, Scvol7906, OldVolMan and 3 others
#11,987
#11,987
head1 said:
Why?

Serious question, did you watch him a lot or just piling on I am genuinely curious.

He had better completion percentage and less interceptions than Aguilar at Appy State in a horrible offensive system for a QB. Who is to say Heupel couldn’t have the same effect on Pribula?
Click to expand...
At the risk of answering a question with a question, and also not entirely certain if your bolded comment refers to the Mizzou offense or the App St. offense, why do you believe that the Mizzou offense is a horrible system for a QB?

Brady Cook just came off a career as a 3-yr starter in that offense having thrown for 9200+ yds, 50 TDs, and 15 INTs with a career 66% completion%. He also ran for 1200+ yds and 21 TDs.

That same offense just landed OC Kirby Moore the HC job at Washington State.

Regardless, as has been noted, Pribula's comp% dropped to 57.9% against SEC opponents, where he threw for 884 yds, 3 TDs, and 7 INTs in 6 games. For added context, of those 6 SEC games, 3 were against Auburn, USCe, and Arkansas...3 of the 4 worst teams in the conference.

Heup may be able to do more with him than Drinkwitz could manage, but I doubt if he even gives you 80% of what Aguilar did as a passer. Surely there are better options. And I understand the idea of potentially bringing him in with no guarantees to start. I just think he probably is looking for more, both money and guarantee.

It's s a little concerning that we went from looking at the #1 rated QB in the portal in Sam Leavitt, and Ty Simpson, only to suddenly shift to a guy who is several levels below either of those. Pursuing Leavitt and Simpson would suggest we want a clear cut starter. To land at Pribula would be disappointing. Hopefully we are just doing our due diligence as things settle elsewhere. Still time for guys to enter the portal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey19rt and BrianVol94
#11,989
#11,989
Weezer said:
Seems like they're banking on Joey getting another year IMO. If not, Spyre may need to entice someone into the portal.

@Ericvol2096 - When will we hear about Dejuan Lane or the Cal RB?
Click to expand...
Lane’s visit was today so doubt we hear anything at all until tomorrow if not Sunday. Raphael may still be here as he arrived Thursday. Also guessing their “board” is fluid pending who commits and when so a guy like Raphael who might be a nice addition may get slow walked if the priorities change. I think they can afford to do that at certain positions like RB. Guys are entering all the time like Justice Haynes from Mich although doubt he’s a target..
 
  • Like
Reactions: #1HomeGrownUTVOL
#11,990
#11,990
TheMookieMonster said:
Joey becoming eligible is the best case scenario at this point. Would be a huge win for us, but can’t trust the NCAA.
Click to expand...
Just seems like we had no real QB portal plan. Our choices if Joey doesn't get cleared seem to be maybe Leavitt if we can outbid Miami and possibly Oregon. And even then, he can't participate in Spring practice and could be damaged goods. Then there's Pribula. Maybe Heupel can work QB magic on him. I'm not so certain. After that, it's take a risk with inexperienced guys from the portal, which we already have inexperienced guys on the roster, or look at FCS QBs and pray.

Maybe Spyre could tempt someone into the portal, but supposedly they're not doing that this year. So yeah, Joey seems best case scenario IF it can happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrianVol94 and TheMookieMonster
#11,995
#11,995
DD4ME said:
Statistically - pre Heupel Hooker would have been a better take than Pribula - better int ratio and actually better runner.

✅ Step 1 — Define the Window
We’re comparing:
Hendon Hooker — FBS BEFORE Tennessee
→ Virginia Tech (2019–2020)
Beau Pribula — FBS BEFORE any hypothetical Tennessee stint
→ Penn State (2023–24 rotational) + Missouri (2025 starter)
No Tennessee stats for Hooker, no post-Heupel projections for Pribula.
📊 Step 2 — FBS Production Comparison (Pre-Heupel)
🟦 Hendon Hooker (VT Only — Pre-Heupel)
Career at VT (2019–2020):
Passing: 2,894 yards
Passing TD: 22
INT: 7
Completion %: ~63–65%
Rushing: 976 yards
Rushing TD: 14
Efficiency:
TD:INT Ratio: ~3.1 : 1
Dual Threat Score: Very strong
Level of Competition: Power 5 / ACC
Role: Multi-year starter
What that tells us:
Hooker showed:
Low turnovers
Legit running threat
Efficient passing against Power 5 defenses
🟨 Beau Pribula (Penn St + Missouri — Pre-Any Heupel)
Career FBS Totals through 2025:
Passing: ~2,365 yards
Passing TD: 20
INT: 10
Completion %: ~67%
Rushing: ~868 yards
Rushing TD: 16
Efficiency:
TD:INT Ratio: ~2 : 1
Dual Threat Score: Moderate to strong
Level of Competition: Big Ten & SEC
Role: Rotational at PSU, Starter at Mizzou
What that tells us:
High completion %
More INTs per attempt than Hooker
Rushing is valuable but less efficient vs P5 defenses
🎯 Step 3 — Statistical Fit for Heupel’s System (Based on FBS Data Only)
Heupel’s QB keys:
Low turnovers
Quick reads
Vertical shot efficiency
Run threat to hold safeties
Tempo resilience
Here’s how both compare based on FBS-only data:
✔ Turnover Profile
Hooker: 7 INT on 22 TD (~3.1:1) — very clean
Pribula: 10 INT on 20 TD (~2:1) — noticeably riskier
➡ Advantage: Hooker
✔ Explosive Dual-Threat Ability
Hooker: ~1,000 rushing yards, 14 TDs
Pribula: ~868 rushing yards, 16 TDs
Raw totals similar, but Hooker:
Did it as a starter
Did it in Power 5 offense
Did it with fewer sacks/negative plays
➡ Advantage: Slight Hooker
✔ Passing Volume & Context
VT Hooker averaged ~1,450 yards per year as a multi-year starter
Pribula in 2025 had ~1,900 yards, but his 3-year FBS average is much lower due to PSU rotational years
➡ Hooker entered Tennessee with more reliable starter tape
➡ Advantage: Hooker
✔ Accuracy / Placement
Completion %:
Pribula: ~67%
Hooker: ~63–65%
Pribula wins the raw %, but:
Hooker’s passes were further downfield
PSU used Pribula in RPO/short game
Missouri in 2025 was intermediate, not vertical
➡ Adjusted advantage: Even, depending on what you value.
🧩 Step 4 — Contextual Traits that Matter to Heupel
Trait
Hooker (VT)
Pribula (FBS Pre-TN)
Advantage
TD:INT
22:7 (~3.1:1)
20:10 (~2:1)
Hooker
Designed Run Threat
Strong
Moderate
Hooker
Accuracy
Good
Very good
Pribula
Experience as Starter
Multi-year
1 year
Hooker
Pressure Handling
Above avg
Mixed
Hooker
Deep Ball Sample
Moderate
Limited
Hooker
Offensive Tempo Fit
Good
Unknown
Hooker
🧠 Step 5 — Conclusion
Statistically (FBS-only pre-Heupel) Hooker had the better chance to thrive
Here’s why:
Cleaner turnover profile (3.1:1 vs. 2:1)
More established starter sample
More physical running profile
Better Power 5 defensive context
More vertical passing on tape
Traits aligned with Heupel’s demands
Pribula, however, does check some Heupel boxes:
Accuracy
Mobility
RPO comfort
Could function in tempo
But based strictly on FBS data prior to Heupel:
📌 Probability of outperforming Hooker in Heupel’s system based on FBS-only evidence:
Hooker: High
Pribula: Moderate/Unknown
Hooker walked in with:
Starter volume
Efficiency
Low turnover habits
Tested Power 5 tape
Pribula enters with:
Smaller starter sample
Higher interceptions
Higher completion %
Solid mobility
Click to expand...
Big difference in conferences strength though. Missouri plays big boy football in the SEC. When Hooker was with VT, he played in weak ACC.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top