VolForLife83
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2010
- Messages
- 10,405
- Likes
- 11,842
Coach Heupel's job is to win college games not NFL games and, by the admission of the folks in the article, it works in college. Obviously, we've had good success with his scheme.Well this article is quoting two analysts and a NFL head coach so i think the criticisms are something to contend with even if you think they arent legitimate. This feels like one of those times where the narrative is more important than the substance.
I wonder if Heupel feels any pressure or sees any advantage to adjusting the offense to change the narrative.
I agree. I just wonder at what point he feels like recruiting starts to suffer. Any innovator is smarter than me and makes decisions made make no sense to me, but it wouldnt surprise me if Heupel factored in draft prestige at least a little bit. I mean it does affect recruiting at some level.Coach Heupel's job is to win college games not NFL games and, by the admission of the folks in the article, it works in college. Obviously, we've had good success with his scheme.
If he feels pressure, it's because articles like this may be negative recruiting tools used against him for getting elite WRs. That's the issue I see. It's hard to get great WRs who are looking at an NFL future if other coaches are saying "going to UT will hurt your NFL evaluation" and pointing to articles like this.
Can someone explain why this is about TN and not about all the air raid offenses? Mike Leach had sent receivers to the NFL since the 90’s.
Thank you. You’ve pointed me in a direction so that I can try to learn more.Tennessee isn’t an air raid offense. Air raid offenses work well in the nfl because the air raid is a version of the west coast offense that roughly half the NFL runs.
We run a run n shoot offense. A lot of times if someone isn’t the main WR on the play, they’re running vertical with the option of a hitch based on coverage (that’s why he makes the comment about only seeing them run hitches and go routes).
The main WR on the play has a few more options. Go/vertical/post/dig if it’s the slot. If it’s the outside guy he has similar options minus the dig (unless it’s a switch release that brings him into the slot).
Occasionally we’ve ran some quick game stuff on 3rd and medium that’s closer to traditional west coast routes, but it’s rare.
Yes and no. Our very own WRs have talked about how it's hurting them. In this years draft, Donte Thornton touched on it.The primary source for the article is a PFF analyst. In his own words, “I was basically straight into PFF as a first real job. It’s been all we’ve known, really, for the last 10-15 years”. So, while he may be knowledgeable, he is not really making personnel decisions for an NFL team.
I think the criticism is way overblown. A receiver can create separation or not, he has good hands or he doesn’t, he is fast and athletic or not. An NFL scout doesn’t need every play run from a pro style set to evaluate a receiver.
The UT offense may present fewer chances to showcase receivers in conventional routes because we run the ball a lot and because we sometimes use the wide splits to let receivers work their defenders in space or with another receiver blocking. But we run plenty of conventional posts, slants, etc. I don’t see how it is any more difficult to evaluate receivers than it would be in any other run first offense.
The problem with using Hyatt is that he has 450 yards receiving over 2 seasons with ZERO TDS for the NY Giants.I just feel like Hyatt alone nullifies this entire argument.
If you can get space and catch the ball, and you have a QB who can get it to you, you’re going to the league.
How is that any different from any other team?
Thank you. You’ve pointed me in a direction so that I can try to learn more.
There seems to be a distinction between the Run N’ Shoot and the Veer N’ Shoot offenses. I started on Wikipedia and somehow found myself on Reddit, where I found a nice comment, not unlike the response you gave to me.
https://www.reddit.com/r/footballst...mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
The problem with using Hyatt is that he has 450 yards receiving over 2 seasons with ZERO TDS for the NY Giants.
And then you say “well NY sucks at QB”
THEN you see rookie Malik Nabers on the NY Giants same as Hyatt and he has 1200 yards and 7 TD in one season….
As I’ve said numerous times, this offense needs “more” breadth to its repertoire.
Heupels system is different from Leachs. It’s just a college system. No more. I mean we have a Bilitnekoff winner in the NFL that can do anything.Can someone explain why this is about TN and not about all the air raid offenses? Mike Leach had sent receivers to the NFL since the 90’s.
All I can say is NFL coaches used to be able to coach and all they really looked at in evaluations was whether a player had enough size or enough athleticism to compensate and if that player was coachable, based on interviews and references.
There really isn’t a debate. If it were not true then more of the offensive players Heupel has put in the NFL would be producing.
So far none of them have done anything. Heupels system is for college success only. And there is nothing wrong with that.
It would be interesting to see a systematic analysis of the job performance of these analysts who work for NFL teams. I have a hunch, looking at all of the draft busts that these analysts select, that their job performance is probably middling at best. Analysts for some teams especially so.
Well, recruits care, for one!As long as his system is plug and play for our success, who cares?