Harrison Bailey

[TNStudMuffin]

Nothing on Milton...you can't wave a wand and make him better. What concerns me to some extent is this is year 3 for Heupel and we don't have a QB better than Milton. With Heupel's system we should never be short on very good QBs and have better receivers than we do now...and that should never happen, IMO.

This is my concern, as well. If Nico really isn't that good yet I feel like we are going to be in trouble next year when he is the man and there's really no one else that is SEC starting caliber to compete with him.

 

[NomadVol]

Sure they have. As I said, they evaluate, they separate, then people earn their way up and down the depth chart. As you say, the job is to play the players that give you the best chance to win.

Saban pulled Hurts because, in his own words, "I knew we were going to need to pass to win that game and I felt Tua could get that done better than Jalen." He replaced Milroe because he thought the others could do the job Milroe didn't. Period. He wasn't just "trying them out to see what he's got."

The reason coaches play different QBs in non-mop up/blowout situations is to win ballgames, not because they "need to get a look at what kind of talent they have."

Bad coaches might do that. Good coaches evaluate football talent without "well, I'll put that guy in and see if he's a gamer or not."

I think we are close to saying the same thing. My point of contention is this need to not see perspective. Saban put in a freshman in the Title game in spite of Hurts winning record. So putting in Nico is not some wild thought is my point.
Trying them out is exactly what Bama did this year, the backups were clearly not close to Milroe. But a change had to be made due to his play.

Those arguing that because we won Milton should be the starter or that because he is a great leader or popular is not the be all end all to the decision. Play is what should have the greatest weight and Joe is not playing well.

My point is people thinking Nico gives the team a better chance to win is not foreign. Great coaches have made similar moves including the Goat coach playing a freshman in a title game.

Now I wouldn't start Nico against Bama, lol
My hope is that Milton puts it together or become a great game manager QB with improving situational awareness.

Go Milton
Go Vols

 

[OldVolMan]

If Joe is not playing well in first half and we are losing by at least 10, I would not be surprised to see QB change start second half. Not saying it will be Nico either, just a change.
And if not I will be upset.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I think we are close to saying the same thing. My point of contention is this need to not see perspective. Saban put in a freshman in the Title game in spite of Hurts winning record. So putting in Nico is not some wild thought is my point.
Trying them out is exactly what Bama did this year, the backups were clearly not close to Milroe. But a change had to be made due to his play.

Those arguing that because we won Milton should be the starter or that because he is a great leader or popular is not the be all end all to the decision. Play is what should have the greatest weight and Joe is not playing well.

My point is people thinking Nico gives the team a better chance to win is not foreign. Great coaches have made similar moves including the Goat coach playing a freshman in a title game.

Now I wouldn't start Nico against Bama, lol
My hope is that Milton puts it together or become a great game manager QB with improving situational awareness.

Go Milton
Go Vols

You SERIOUSLY think Nick Saban needs to put in QBs in games to "really evaluate" them? Seriously?

And Saban playing Tua in the highest profile game of the year was not a "spur of the moment" decision. We agree that Saban said he put Tua in, not to try him out, but because he ALREADY KNEW Tua was the more accurate passer. You said this yourself. He'd already DONE the evaluation of Tua vs Hurts when it came to passing. It wasn't: "let's try this" but "we need this and Tua is better at it."

I'm terrible at recalling specific games but it seems UT had a situation last year where a "Hail Mary" was in order and in came Joe Milton. Could Hooker not fling it 50-60yds? I'm pretty sure he can, but Joe's arm makes him uniquely gifted for that particular situation, so he came in.

If there's a particular play that needs something in Nico's skill set that's better than Joe's skill set and Coach Heupel feels we need to execute that play to win, I expect Nico to come in. I'm sure you do too.

The evaluation by Coach Heupel of Nico's skills is ongoing but extensive, as is the evaluation of Joe's skills. If we badly need something Nico can deliver better than Joe, he'll play. If not, he won't.

So far, that doesn't appear to have happened so Nico isn't playing.

 

[NomadVol]

You SERIOUSLY think Nick Saban needs to put in QBs in games to "really evaluate" them? Seriously?

And Saban playing Tua in the highest profile game of the year was not a "spur of the moment" decision. We agree that Saban said he put Tua in, not to try him out, but because he ALREADY KNEW Tua was the more accurate passer. You said this yourself. He'd already DONE the evaluation of Tua vs Hurts when it came to passing. It wasn't: "let's try this" but "we need this and Tua is better at it."

I'm terrible at recalling specific games but it seems UT had a situation last year where a "Hail Mary" was in order and in came Joe Milton. Could Hooker not fling it 50-60yds? I'm pretty sure he can, but Joe's arm makes him uniquely gifted for that particular situation, so he came in.

If there's a particular play that needs something in Nico's skill set that's better than Joe's skill set and Coach Heupel feels we need to execute that play to win, I expect Nico to come in. I'm sure you do too.

The evaluation by Coach Heupel of Nico's skills is ongoing but extensive, as is the evaluation of Joe's skills. If we badly need something Nico can deliver better than Joe, he'll play. If not, he won't.

So far, that doesn't appear to have happened so Nico isn't playing.

To answer your question, Yes but you conveniently continue to ignore the points on your play dictating the moves and that is undermining your responses to me... I said play dictates it and yes evaluations in games is called film review.
He already knew Tua was a better passer was my point. But putting him in was still balsy. It didn't require continued evaluation as you stated.

If Nico starts next week, due you Really think the evaluation of Nico changed, lol No.
If he starts the following week it's due to Joe's play.

Either way I continually reiterate that my Hope is Joe begins to really put it together.

 

[NomadVol]

You SERIOUSLY think Nick Saban needs to put in QBs in games to "really evaluate" them? Seriously?

And Saban playing Tua in the highest profile game of the year was not a "spur of the moment" decision. We agree that Saban said he put Tua in, not to try him out, but because he ALREADY KNEW Tua was the more accurate passer. You said this yourself. He'd already DONE the evaluation of Tua vs Hurts when it came to passing. It wasn't: "let's try this" but "we need this and Tua is better at it."

I'm terrible at recalling specific games but it seems UT had a situation last year where a "Hail Mary" was in order and in came Joe Milton. Could Hooker not fling it 50-60yds? I'm pretty sure he can, but Joe's arm makes him uniquely gifted for that particular situation, so he came in.

If there's a particular play that needs something in Nico's skill set that's better than Joe's skill set and Coach Heupel feels we need to execute that play to win, I expect Nico to come in. I'm sure you do too.

The evaluation by Coach Heupel of Nico's skills is ongoing but extensive, as is the evaluation of Joe's skills. If we badly need something Nico can deliver better than Joe, he'll play. If not, he won't.

So far, that doesn't appear to have happened so Nico isn't playing.

Great conversation
I appreciate good debate.
Lunch is over so back to work.

Go Vols

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

That's about as concerning as them not realizing there is someone better.

Quinn Ewers sat at Ohio State without taking a single snap, probably as QB3 on that team. Did that mean he wasn't good or he wasn't ready?

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Great conversation
I appreciate good debate.
Lunch is over so back to work.

Go Vols

Dang it. I was going to use this conversation to avoid the gym.

GBO!

 

[Tnphil]

Those of us who remember the 1998 National Championship remember that Tee Martin wasn’t really that great for most of that year. He was a below 50% passer until he had that record setting game with 23 straight completions against South Carolina (who lost 11 games that year). That game was Halloween weekend.

Tennessee beat Arkansas in spite of Tee. Tennessee beat Florida in spite of Tee. Tennessee beat Georgia in spite of Tee. And even against Syracuse, Tee was a below 50% passer, but did make a big scramble to set up the winning FG…but it was the run game that carried the offense that day and that season.

I’m not saying UT is going to win the NC. But Tee is revered because his team covered up his flaws. Joe is no worse than Tee was that year, at least up to comparable points in the season. And that’s not because Joe isn’t playing poorly. He is. We have to work around it, at least until he isn’t.

If you look at Tee's stats his 2 years starting it's pretty shocking. Not that impressive at all.

 

[Daniel_Lincolns_Foot]

That is not what Saban said was his reasoning. He said he needed better QB play surrounding passing. It was a spark due to low performance.
He literally PUT A FRESHMAN IN DURING THE 2nd half of a Title game.

A FRESHMAN

"Saban explained his decision to bench Hurts for Tagovailoa, saying the offense needed a spark, which the freshman could provide with his passing acuity."


So just stop it. That analogy is both weak and flat out false.

AGAIN
GO MILTON
GO VOLS

I never alluded to any actual reason that Saban benched Hurts. Only that in the last game of the season you're willing to try anything when the chips are down. So, the analogy is actually spot on: when there's no tomorrow, you try anything.

 

[TNStudMuffin]

Quinn Ewers sat at Ohio State without taking a single snap, probably as QB3 on that team. Did that mean he wasn't good or he wasn't ready?

Quinn Ewers has looked really bad in some games for Texas. So yeah, probably so.

 

[Daniel_Lincolns_Foot]

This is my concern, as well. If Nico really isn't that good yet I feel like we are going to be in trouble next year when he is the man and there's really no one else that is SEC starting caliber to compete with him.

I think we, as fans, tend to have too much of a "what have you done for me lately?" mindset. It's whether Nico could take the reins right now or not--he probably could. But time and practice is best for young players to learn the system. It's the same in the NFL. If you can bring in a rookie and have him sit behind a veteran QB for a year, it does nothing but benefit the team and the players ultimate performance. Not all teams have that luxury, but I think after 2022 it's safe to think Heupel and staff were going to look at 2023 as a bridge year.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Quinn Ewers has looked really bad in some games for Texas. So yeah, probably so.

Good stuff. Easily a top 20 QB in the nation but I guess if he's not top 5, he's useless.

 

[TNStudMuffin]

Good stuff. Easily a top 20 QB in the nation but I guess if he's not top 5, he's useless.

He wasn't last year. He looked flat out bad at times. And last year is much more pertinent to your question than this year.

 

[GetYouSomeofThat]

I think we, as fans, tend to have too much of a "what have you done for me lately?" mindset. It's whether Nico could take the reins right now or not--he probably could. But time and practice is best for young players to learn the system. It's the same in the NFL. If you can bring in a rookie and have him sit behind a veteran QB for a year, it does nothing but benefit the team and the players ultimate performance. Not all teams have that luxury, but I think after 2022 it's safe to think Heupel and staff were going to look at 2023 as a bridge year.

We may not win a other game this year....but at this point we are 5-1 and still alive for thr SECE champs, SEC Champs and an outside shot at the CFP

And you think its a bridge year?

 

[Clad in Big Orange]

Keep winning, Joe keeps playing (duh). I think 3 losses might be the point where Heupel starts getting Nico ready for next season.

 

[whobethis16]

We may not win a other game this year....but at this point we are 5-1 and still alive for thr SECE champs, SEC Champs and an outside shot at the CFP

And you think its a bridge year?

You really think this team will lose to UCONN and Vandy? I know 7-5 is a letdown after 10-2, but come on.

 

[Daniel_Lincolns_Foot]

We may not win a other game this year....but at this point we are 5-1 and still alive for thr SECE champs, SEC Champs and an outside shot at the CFP

And you think its a bridge year?

Bridge year meaning we're going to give Nico a year to sit and learn the system.

 

[GetYouSomeofThat]

Bridge year meaning we're going to give Nico a year to sit and learn the system.

Ok
I misunderstood..

 

[GetYouSomeofThat]

You really think this team will lose to UCONN and Vandy? I know 7-5 is a letdown after 10-2, but come on.

I dont think that at all. I think we have a decent shot at winning all but UGa and an outside shot at that one.

I was just confused why in October with a 5-1 record anyone would think of this as a bridge year. The poster that made the bridge year statement explained it in his reply to me.

I often need things explained ..

 

[whobethis16]

I dont think that at all. I think we have a decent shot at winning all but UGa and an outside shot at that one.

I was just confused why in October with a 5-1 record anyone would think of this as a bridge year. The poster that made the bridge year statement explained it in his reply to me.

I often need things explained ..

I gotcha and follow now. My bad.

 

[JHuntVols]

The only voice that matters, the bottom line at UT, "The Decider" is Coach Josh Heupel.

He has a resume of being damn good with QBs. He didn't fall off a truck in Knoxville and into the head coach position. Please look at his history both as a player and a coach, primarily of QBs.

If he's not qualified to make that decision, we're seriously seriously screwed. Coaching QBs and evaluating QBs is what he's done. Could he be wrong? Sure.

The odds are better that you're wrong, however, unless you want to compare your resume with Josh Heupel's resume when it comes to QBs and convince me otherwise.

He's doing EXACTLY what a coach should do: evaluating his talent, picking his starters, creating an offensive scheme to maximize the talents of those players, and coaching them to maximize their particular skills so we win.

It's not a "hey, I'll try this guy just in case...." situation. HE'S LOOKED AT HIS QBs A LOT. He knows what he's doing. Again, check his resume.

The very last thing Nick Saban did when he pulled Milroe was "just have a look at these guys" or "show the fans that they're not better."

If Nick Saban and Josh Heupel need to "try out every player in a real game to make sure" then they aren't very good coaches. Since when has that been the norm for a coach?

It's like everyone here has forgotten YEARS and YEARS of coaches having camp, evaluating players, getting the "1s and 2s and others" into groups and practicing. Sure, guys prove themselves and move up in the depth chart or they don't and drop down. THAT'S HOW COACHING WORKS!

Since when has it been good coaching to "need to give this guy some game reps to see if he's better than my starter?" Coaches are not paid to guess at who to start by playing everybody in games. When the heck did that idea start????

The principle is not and has never been "try out everyone on the roster in a live game to determine who's better" as that's a) impractical and b) unnecessary for a lot of football positions. Again, that's because the only positions on the field that never sub out are almost always the QB and most of the time the offensive line. In other words, you have game tape of players 2 - 3 deep on the chart for all but a few positions every team, every year. You never addressed the point of why a coach would change the primary defender on specific receivers in the middle of the game, or you can't address the entire concept of sub packages for situational football because your view point is simply this, "Coach says best practice = starter = best player." However, we all know that good coaches constantly review game tape, especially the game tapes of ones that they think is significantly underperforming expectations. I say significant because we're not talking about Milton being able to produce on a level like Hooker did, but the discussion is about if he's even a starting QB in the SEC. If someone is underperforming that badly, do you think the coach should care how said player performs in practice? It's like designating an NBA player as your shooter because he can hit 100s of 3s in a row during practice, but he only hits the basket at a 28% clip in the actual games.

If I could get Heupel in a room alone for questions, then the first I would ask him is if he really thinks Milton is doing well enough to be competitive with other good teams. I'd be willing to bet my house on him thinking that Milton isn't good enough. Why? I refuse to believe that a coach with the resume you keep referring to concludes that Milton is an "adequate" QB. That would then lead me to ask, "So you foresee Nico playing below that level if you put him in a live game situation?" If he says yes, then that's frightening to me for next year. He implies we have a QB that was ranked number 2 in the nation that can't understand the simple offense he has constructed for Milton.... even with Nico being enrolled and with the team for like 10 months now? That's the only explanation that I can come up with personally, and that's not good news for anyone here.

 

[lutra]

The principle is not and has never been "try out everyone on the roster in a live game to determine who's better" as that's a) impractical and b) unnecessary for a lot of football positions. Again, that's because the only positions on the field that never sub out are almost always the QB and most of the time the offensive line. In other words, you have game tape of players 2 - 3 deep on the chart for all but a few positions every team, every year. You never addressed the point of why a coach would change the primary defender on specific receivers in the middle of the game, or you can't address the entire concept of sub packages for situational football because your view point is simply this, "Coach says best practice = starter = best player." However, we all know that good coaches constantly review game tape, especially the game tapes of ones that they think is significantly underperforming expectations. I say significant because we're not talking about Milton being able to produce on a level like Hooker did, but the discussion is about if he's even a starting QB in the SEC. If someone is underperforming that badly, do you think the coach should care how said player performs in practice? It's like designating an NBA player as your shooter because he can hit 100s of 3s in a row during practice, but he only hits the basket at a 28% clip in the actual games.

If I could get Heupel in a room alone for questions, then the first I would ask him is if he really thinks Milton is doing well enough to be competitive with other good teams. I'd be willing to bet my house on him thinking that Milton isn't good enough. Why? I refuse to believe that a coach with the resume you keep referring to concludes that Milton is an "adequate" QB. That would then lead me to ask, "So you foresee Nico playing below that level if you put him in a live game situation?" If he says yes, then that's frightening to me for next year. He implies we have a QB that was ranked number 2 in the nation that can't understand the simple offense he has constructed for Milton.... even with Nico being enrolled and with the team for like 10 months now? That's the only explanation that I can come up with personally, and that's not good news for anyone here.

The flaw in your “gotcha” style investigation fantasy of you and Heupel alone in a room together is that Heupel won’t say that he doesn’t think that Milton can compete with good teams. So second part of your fantasy falls apart.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

The principle is not and has never been "try out everyone on the roster in a live game to determine who's better" as that's a) impractical and b) unnecessary for a lot of football positions. Again, that's because the only positions on the field that never sub out are almost always the QB and most of the time the offensive line. In other words, you have game tape of players 2 - 3 deep on the chart for all but a few positions every team, every year. You never addressed the point of why a coach would change the primary defender on specific receivers in the middle of the game, or you can't address the entire concept of sub packages for situational football because your view point is simply this, "Coach says best practice = starter = best player." However, we all know that good coaches constantly review game tape, especially the game tapes of ones that they think is significantly underperforming expectations. I say significant because we're not talking about Milton being able to produce on a level like Hooker did, but the discussion is about if he's even a starting QB in the SEC. If someone is underperforming that badly, do you think the coach should care how said player performs in practice? It's like designating an NBA player as your shooter because he can hit 100s of 3s in a row during practice, but he only hits the basket at a 28% clip in the actual games.

If I could get Heupel in a room alone for questions, then the first I would ask him is if he really thinks Milton is doing well enough to be competitive with other good teams. I'd be willing to bet my house on him thinking that Milton isn't good enough. Why? I refuse to believe that a coach with the resume you keep referring to concludes that Milton is an "adequate" QB. That would then lead me to ask, "So you foresee Nico playing below that level if you put him in a live game situation?" If he says yes, then that's frightening to me for next year. He implies we have a QB that was ranked number 2 in the nation that can't understand the simple offense he has constructed for Milton.... even with Nico being enrolled and with the team for like 10 months now? That's the only explanation that I can come up with personally, and that's not good news for anyone here.

The question isn't whether Milton is an SEC quality starter. He is. As others have pointed out in this thread, he's performing at a similar level, if not above, to Tee Martin in 1998. That was a pretty decent year for the Vols but not an outstanding year for Tee.

Joe Milton isn't causing us to lose games. Your insult that he's "underperforming that badly" just isn't true. What Joe isn't doing is being Hendon Hooker and having a spectacular, near Heisman quality year. I wish he was. I'm sure he wishes he was too, but that's not happening. What Joe Milton is having is an average to just below average QB year RIGHT AFTER Hendon Hooker had a magical year.

I can answer your question to Josh Heupel about Nico vs Milton: Playing Nico rather than Joe does not give UT the best chance of winning this year OR next year. Nico isn't quite ready to face SEC competition AND our OLine play (while much better with Cooper back) isn't consistent enough to give him the time he needs to execute the offense.

You seem to be saying Heupel doesn't know what the hell he's looking at when it comes to QBs which historically hasn't been the case.

You seem to understand football, I'm sure you'll agree you've not seen 1/10th of the work from our players that Heupel has seen. Somehow, in your mind, the 1/10th you've seen outweighs the whole that Heupel has seen. I don't think you actually believe that's true.

Perhaps, though, we are on the same page on that: If Josh Heupel can't see that Nico would play better than Joe this year, we're screwed....... we're screwed not just this year but until he leaves.

I don't believe that's the case. If you do, that's fine.

 

[BogeyVol]

The question isn't whether Milton is an SEC quality starter. He is. As others have pointed out in this thread, he's performing at a similar level, if not above, to Tee Martin in 1998. That was a pretty decent year for the Vols but not an outstanding year for Tee.

Joe Milton isn't causing us to lose games. Your insult that he's "underperforming that badly" just isn't true. What Joe isn't doing is being Hendon Hooker and having a spectacular, near Heisman quality year. I wish he was. I'm sure he wishes he was too, but that's not happening. What Joe Milton is having is an average to just below average QB year RIGHT AFTER Hendon Hooker had a magical year.

I can answer your question to Josh Heupel about Nico vs Milton: Playing Nico rather than Joe does not give UT the best chance of winning this year OR next year. Nico isn't quite ready to face SEC competition AND our OLine play (while much better with Cooper back) isn't consistent enough to give him the time he needs to execute the offense.

You seem to be saying Heupel doesn't know what the hell he's looking at when it comes to QBs which historically hasn't been the case.

You seem to understand football, I'm sure you'll agree you've not seen 1/10th of the work from our players that Heupel has seen. Somehow, in your mind, the 1/10th you've seen outweighs the whole that Heupel has seen. I don't think you actually believe that's true.

Perhaps, though, we are on the same page on that: If Josh Heupel can't see that Nico would play better than Joe this year, we're screwed....... we're screwed not just this year but until he leaves.

I don't believe that's the case. If you do, that's fine.

Average to below average? Ĥ is 1