Marlin Lane

#151
#151
As far as I'm concerned we will be fine with either Poole or Lane as our #1 as long as line does it's job.
 
#152
#152
I was there and realize the O line looked bad... But it would be funny after all these threads if the just steamrolled Cincy
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#153
#153
govols/cc said:
I saw alligator arms & mediocre running behind a weak o-line with Lane. Poole had poor blocking as well. Not sure what "it" factor you saw with Lane that was better than what Poole was doing.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
===================

With all due respect, are you blind?

Lane is an elite athlete.

Some teams have 3 or 4 like him, so you don't notice how good they are. At UT, it's obvious how much better he is than the rest.

Let's get a couple more!
 
#154
#154
_vol said:
The difference between the two, for me, was evident in the swing pass that Lane caught at the eight yard line and made Tru drop his Johnson on the five.
Click to expand...

Of Brent Schafer against UNLV at about the exact same spot on the field. In fact, as he was making the catch I was saying this is not going to work, then I was thinking "Holy Crap, Batman."
 
#156
#156
buffaloblue said:
So wait, you just demoted Poole to our number 4 back cause he rushed 24 times for 98 yards.

Listen, I am critical of his performance and think at worst him and Lane should split the carries, but your overreacting a bit.
Click to expand...

The 98 yards in 24 carries look pretty good on paper. What it does say is how many yards he should have gained if he had hit the holes more quickly, run with more determination, and pass protected better. Lane looks like the best back we have had in a while. Maybe he is being saved for SEC games. I do think Pool should be the second back in. I also believe we should play at least three back every game.
 
#157
#157
I feel like this is gonna play out like the QB situation last year. Poole will be the starter until Lane is ready.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#158
#158
VOLINVONORE said:
The 98 yards in 24 carries look pretty good on paper. What it does say is how many yards he should have gained if he had hit the holes more quickly, run with more determination, and pass protected better. Lane looks like the best back we have had in a while. Maybe he is being saved for SEC games. I do think Pool should be the second back in. I also believe we should play at least three back every game.
Click to expand...

I must now assume the ridiculousness in this thread is either:

1. Raijon Neal-itis (Raijon generated these same threads last year. Did he even get PT Saturday? For some reason fans are always deluded that the new freshman back-up is actually Superman who inexplicably goes to practice as Clark Kent and doesn't show all his abilities)

2. Completely ideological because Poole has ties to the Fulmer regime. That this ideological fantasy has been totally and irrevocably debunked, of course, simply does not matter.

It's great to have a nifty little back-up in Lane. He put what I think we should all call the "Brent Schaeffer" on the Montana secondary to score that TD.

But 4.1 >> 3.5 especially on 24 carries with the way our O-line played.

--- [PS, I'm assuming there is something ticking in the background we don't know about that has moved RN about the team right now.]
 
#159
#159
I thought Lane looked good but not great. None of our backs looked great and its a combination of some lackluster, but not terrible, O-Line play and a focused effort by Montana's run D that caused it. Dooley said during the his DD show that we need to find a way to get Neal more involved in the game plan so I'm curious to see how that works as well.

I think Lane has a great future but I think 1 game isn't enough to anoint him the new starter especially since he didn't really have a break out game or anything. He made some plays because he had lots of chances to but he didn't dominate the competition by any means.
 
#160
#160
utgibbs said:
I must now assume the ridiculousness in this thread is either:

1. Raijon Neal-itis (Raijon generated these same threads last year. Did he even get PT Saturday? For some reason fans are always deluded that the new freshman back-up is actually Superman who inexplicably goes to practice as Clark Kent and doesn't show all his abilities)

2. Completely ideological because Poole has ties to the Fulmer regime. That this ideological fantasy has been totally and irrevocably debunked, of course, simply does not matter.

It's great to have a nifty little back-up in Lane. He put what I think we should all call the "Brent Schaeffer" on the Montana secondary to score that TD.

But 4.1 >> 3.5 especially on 24 carries with the way our O-line played.

--- [PS, I'm assuming there is something ticking in the background we don't know about that has moved RN about the team right now.]
Click to expand...

Neal didn't get near the attention that Lane has. Not even close my friend. And Neal didn't get the praise from the coach's Lane is getting.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#161
#161
utgibbs said:
I must now assume the ridiculousness in this thread is either:

1. Raijon Neal-itis (Raijon generated these same threads last year. Did he even get PT Saturday? For some reason fans are always deluded that the new freshman back-up is actually Superman who inexplicably goes to practice as Clark Kent and doesn't show all his abilities)

2. Completely ideological because Poole has ties to the Fulmer regime. That this ideological fantasy has been totally and irrevocably debunked, of course, simply does not matter.

It's great to have a nifty little back-up in Lane. He put what I think we should all call the "Brent Schaeffer" on the Montana secondary to score that TD.

But 4.1 >> 3.5 especially on 24 carries with the way our O-line played.

--- [PS, I'm assuming there is something ticking in the background we don't know about that has moved RN about the team right now.]
Click to expand...
One last thing. Before that 26 yard run he was 22 for 72.. that's about 3.3..which 3.5 is greater than 3.3..if lane could have gotten 24 carries who knows what he finishes with.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#164
#164
jasonvol18 said:
One last thing. Before that 26 yard run he was 22 for 72.. that's about 3.3..which 3.5 is greater than 3.3..if lane could have gotten 24 carries who knows what he finishes with.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Don't waste your time arguing with him. Had Lane been a Fulmer recruit, he would be arguing the opposite.
 
#165
#165
Kingston Vol said:
I feel like this is gonna play out like the QB situation last year. Poole will be the starter until Lane is ready.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Except Lane will start next year. Simms wasn't a returning starter who was coming off a pretty good season. All you have to do is watch the game. Lane did nothing that just jumped out at you to back up any of these comments. The post about Poole not hitting the hole seems like they got the guys mixed up because Lane was the one dancing around. I figured the Poole haters would fabricate all this crap after the first game & probably will all year.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#166
#166
tvols75 said:
Don't waste your time arguing with him. Had Lane been a Fulmer recruit, he would be arguing the opposite.
Click to expand...

Lol so true. I appreciate everything Fulmer did outside of the last 4-5 yrs but the game had passed him by. He became too complacent.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#167
#167
govols/cc said:
Except Lane will start next year. Simms wasn't a returning starter who was coming off a pretty good season. All you have to do is watch the game. Lane did nothing that just jumped out at you to back up any of these comments. The post about Poole not hitting the hole seems like they got the guys mixed up because Lane was the one dancing around. I figured the Poole haters would fabricate all this crap after the first game & probably will all year.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
Never recall Lane dancing around. Even those dumbass announcers commented on Lanes vision and ability to hit the hole and Poole needed to quit dancing around.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#168
#168
jasonvol18 said:
Never recall Lane dancing around. Even those dumbass announcers commented on Lanes vision and ability to hit the hole and Poole needed to quit dancing around.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Watch the replay. I guys your eyes will tell you what you wanna believe. I love how you base everything you believe on what other people say. Stay away from infomercials.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#169
#169
jasonvol18 said:
Exactly.. not even close. I never heard much Neal hype.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

You weren't listening then.

Neal replaced a more veteran back-up, and as a freshman was worked into the passing game out of the backfield.

Suddenly, he can't even get PT. Just seems odd.

The rest is just ridiculous. "He would have had less yards if he didn't break off a big run...."

Most hilarious is he would have had a better ypc if he had more touches. The way our o-line played, that is a real stretch.
 
#171
#171
govols/cc said:
Except Lane will start next year. Simms wasn't a returning starter who was coming off a pretty good season. All you have to do is watch the game. Lane did nothing that just jumped out at you to back up any of these comments. The post about Poole not hitting the hole seems like they got the guys mixed up because Lane was the one dancing around. I figured the Poole haters would fabricate all this crap after the first game & probably will all year.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

This. We've got the perfect example in this thread.

He would have been worse if he didn't break off that big run....

ay yi yi. When Lane put the "Brent Schaeffer" on FCS dude, that was cool. But in no way did he dominate the competition Saturday, as you said.

But remember, Brent Schaeffer didn't have much PT in a Vol uniform either. Which brings me back to R. Neal.....
 
#172
#172
Kurtastrophe said:
Pretty sure he is coming off of injury. Limited playtime is kind of standard with that sort of thing.

In camp, they worked Neal in at WR considerably.
Click to expand...

I had not heard he had been injured. I knew they were working him in the slot. It's intriguing.
 
#174
#174
govols/cc said:
Watch the replay. I guys your eyes will tell you what you wanna believe. I love how you base everything you believe on what other people say. Stay away from infomercials.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Lol wrong again Kessling. I saw the same thing everyone else saw besides the ones hanging on Pooles junk. Have some dignity bruh.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#175
#175
utgibbs said:
You weren't listening then.

Neal replaced a more veteran back-up, and as a freshman was worked into the passing game out of the backfield.

Suddenly, he can't even get PT. Just seems odd.

The rest is just ridiculous. "He would have had less yards if he didn't break off a big run...."

Most hilarious is he would have had a better ypc if he had more touches. The way our o-line played, that is a real stretch.
Click to expand...

Open your eyes..never said he would have had less yards. His ypc would have been lower than Lanes. Please read everything and let it marinate before you post. Makes you look silly. And no Neal did not have the hype Lane has nor were the coach's raving about him. Wrong wrong wrong.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top