Corey Anderson

#2
#2
apparently he played really well in the senior bowl....or whatever that game was he played in.
 
#3
#3
He showed signs of greatness...he pretty much singlehandedly drove the field in 2005 before half-time against vandy...but then also, he'd make stupid mistakes like at LSU.

If he could be consistent, he'd be a force.
 
#6
#6
he played terrible last season and didnt even touch the field in 4 games. He was a aweful blocking and running last year. He was good the previous 3 though
 
#8
#8
mattvols said:
he played terrible last season and didnt even touch the field in 4 games. He was a aweful blocking and running last year. He was good the previous 3 though
Click to expand...

ut barely used a fullback last season. it's hard to grade him because of that
 
#13
#13
I read in RockyTopNews that Fuad Reveiz's son, Nick will get a look at FB next year. He's a walk-on LB.
 
#15
#15
BACKDOC said:
I read in RockyTopNews that Fuad Reveiz's son, Nick will get a look at FB next year. He's a walk-on LB.
Click to expand...
yeah he set a bunch of walk on lifting records. The kid is huge. I saw him play in high school and wondered why people were passing on him. Maybe hes not fast enough.
 
#18
#18
There's a reason he didnt play his senior year at UT and I trust the coaching staff and Coach Taylor on why he didnt play.
 
#19
#19
I think that Cutcliffe would rather have had one RB one TE and 3 good WR than 2 WR and an average fullback. That's why we hardly used Anderson.
 
#20
#20
yeah, I think now that the big 3 at WR (Smith,Swain,Meachem) are gone, We will see alot of the FB this year.
 
#21
#21
lacrossepro70 said:
I think that Cutcliffe would rather have had one RB one TE and 3 good WR than 2 WR and an average fullback. That's why we hardly used Anderson.
Click to expand...

There's not much use for a fullback when you have an offensive line that couldn't set up a run against most Knoxville area high schools. That's why we didn't use a fullback. Fullbacks are for running. We didn't run it much last year.
 
#22
#22
Your argument makes no sense... besides fullbacks catch balls out of the backfield, and if you have bad passblocking then you use a fullback for an extra blocker. If Anderson was a good FB maybe we would have run more often.
 
#23
#23
lacrossepro70 said:
Your argument makes no sense... besides fullbacks catch balls out of the backfield, and if you have bad passblocking then you use a fullback for an extra blocker. If Anderson was a good FB maybe we would have run more often.
Click to expand...

The running game starts with the offensive line. A fullback is a receiver second and a blocker first. No sane coach would put a fullback in the game just to be a receiver. Give me a break.
 
#25
#25
mmm71690 said:
Ok how do you know that what I said is wrong, smarta**. Did you ask the coaches?
Click to expand...

Its illogical to assume something like that. Its not like Anderson was the only fullback ut could have used. It was just an offensive scheme that cutcliffe and company decided to use during the course of the season. To think that Tennessee didn’t utilize the fullback position just because Anderson wasn’t playing well is ignorant
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top