Where has the talent gone??

#26
#26
Well we need to go look for quarterbacks in Pennsylvaina thats were , excluding Peyton since he's just a total gift from the football gods, some great Qbs have come from.....
 
#27
#27
I'd take a 3 star bruiser that is hungry over a 5 star finesse player from some private school honestly.
 
#28
#28
BigPapaVol said:
our dline and WRs were nowhere close in talent last season
Click to expand...

D-Line, yes.

Not sure what to make of the WR comparison. Overall the previous teams mentioned (except Georgia) have more talent at WR, but we have elite players, or at least potentialy elite players at wideout in Jones, Paige, and Moore. I think that Rod Wilkes could turn out to be an elite player even though he was a 3 star.
 
#29
#29
Tackling has been a problem for the past 5 years or so. How hard is it to teach such a fundamental?
 
#30
#30
Winning a MNC pretty much gurantees 5/4 star talent for at least 4 years.

Just look at who we had come in from 99-03, I mean rankings wise we were LOADED!!!!

It is no shock that the "5 star talent" has fizziled for us in the last few years since we haven't produced BCS quality teams.
 
#31
#31
Dylan Stevens said:
I'd take a 3 star bruiser that is hungry over a 5 star finesse player from some private school honestly.
Click to expand...

:no:

Yeah, look at those incredibly soft private schoolers. They're so pathetic that they dominate Ohio HS football and dominated Tennessee to the extent that someone said "You know, 8 championships for 300 schools is a good idea".

It's strictly anecdotal for me to say so, but I've coached at both and would much rather have my private school kids. It's not even close.
 
#32
#32
TheGimp said:
Tackling has been a problem for the past 5 years or so. How hard is it to teach such a fundamental?
Click to expand...

It's usually up to the high school coaches to do so. College schemes are usually so intricate that most of the practice time gets devoted to that instead of basic fundamentals. Those with the simplest schemes have the best fundamental players, by which I mean OSU and USC.
 
#34
#34
hmanvolfan said:
Maybe, but the stars aren't the be all and end all of football players being able to play the game. CPF will just have to "coach 'em up"... :yes:
Click to expand...

There hasn't been alot of coaching up going on at Neyland since Johnny Majors was here. Fulmer has just benefitted from having players talented enough that could hide coaching flaws.
 
#35
#35
hmanvolfan said:
Maybe, but the stars aren't the be all and end all of football players being able to play the game. CPF will just have to "coach 'em up"... :yes:
Click to expand...

BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Cough! Hack! BWAHAHAHAHAH! Snort! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!:rofl::rofl::rofl::post-4-1090547912:

Funniest joke I have heard in years. I nearly spit Dew all over my monitor. Tell a nudder one!
 
#36
#36
Rasputin_Vol said:
There hasn't been alot of coaching up going on at Neyland since Johnny Majors was here. Fulmer has just benefitted from having players talented enough that could hide coaching flaws.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I like Phil but something is wrong when the talent slumps off at what SHOULD be an easy place to recruit. Fulmer has managed to lower all of our expectations for this team. That should never happen. Some new blood will be here soon and the ship will get back on course. The buzz for basketball is just amazing and I think Fulmer should thank Pearl for taking a lot of the spotlight off of him.:thumbsup:

BOG
 
#37
#37
Ohio Vol said:
It's usually up to the high school coaches to do so. College schemes are usually so intricate that most of the practice time gets devoted to that instead of basic fundamentals. Those with the simplest schemes have the best fundamental players, by which I mean OSU and USC.
Click to expand...

Maybe this also explains why USC and OSU players have an overall hard time in the NFL when they are introduced to more complex schemes... And before you mention the one's that have been successful, just look at their overall track record in the NFL, especially USC..
 
#38
#38
Ohio Vol said:
It's usually up to the high school coaches to do so. College schemes are usually so intricate that most of the practice time gets devoted to that instead of basic fundamentals. Those with the simplest schemes have the best fundamental players, by which I mean OSU and USC.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing that position coach emphasis is the driver moreso than simplicity of overall scheme.
 
#39
#39
WPAINE said:
Maybe this also explains why USC and OSU players have an overall hard time in the NFL when they are introduced to more complex schemes... And before you mention the one's that have been successful, just look at their overall track record in the NFL, especially USC..
Click to expand...

The consensus around here is that everyone would rather see national championships and no one go on to the NFL than see everyone become an All-Pro and not win a title.

As for why some of these guys struggle, I think it's more because they have the athleticism but aren't as rounded as an NFL prospect ideally would be. A good coordinator will find a way to cover the flaws of his players; in the NFL, most honestly don't care.

BigPapaVol said:
I'm guessing that position coach emphasis is the driver moreso than simplicity of overall scheme.
Click to expand...

The position coach is a subordinate of the coordinator, who sets the simplicity or intricacy of the overall scheme. The more complicated the schemes or adjustments are, the more time needs to be devoted in meetings and in practice to making sure those are set. In a more basic scheme, it takes much less time and allows for many more reps to be run during practice. This is borne out by the success of option offenses, which simply have very few plays and yet always have success.

I'll give you an example. At my last coaching stop, our defense was incredibly simple. By that, I mean my linemen had their entire responsibilities for the year figured out within 20 minutes of first meeting me on the first night of summer camp (and that's not an exaggeration). Our defense was tremendous all year. Our offense was insanely complicated and we never did click at all. Our defense was so good and our offense so bad that, had we scored 17 points in every game, we'd have been 9-1. Instead we were 4-6.
 
#40
#40
#41
#41
hmanvolfan said:
Maybe, but the stars aren't the be all and end all of football players being able to play the game. CPF will just have to "coach 'em up"... :yes:
Click to expand...
yeah, he's really noted for that. The one thing he was ever really good at was recruiting and from what I hear he has eased up on that front somewhat. If the Vols have to depend on Fulmer's ability to coach people up and formulate plays then it's probably time to go ahead and turn Neyland into the world's biggest mudwrasslin' venue and be done with it.
 
#42
#42
VolunteerHillbilly said:
yeah, he's really noted for that. The one thing he was ever really good at was recruiting and from what I hear he has eased up on that front somewhat. If the Vols have to depend on Fulmer's ability to coach people up and formulate plays then it's probably time to go ahead and turn Neyland into the world's biggest mudwrasslin' venue and be done with it.
Click to expand...
Would all of our new coaches have mudrasslin theory down pat?
 
#44
#44
Ohio Vol said:
The consensus around here is that everyone would rather see national championships and no one go on to the NFL than see everyone become an All-Pro and not win a title.

As for why some of these guys struggle, I think it's more because they have the athleticism but aren't as rounded as an NFL prospect ideally would be. A good coordinator will find a way to cover the flaws of his players; in the NFL, most honestly don't care.



The position coach is a subordinate of the coordinator, who sets the simplicity or intricacy of the overall scheme. The more complicated the schemes or adjustments are, the more time needs to be devoted in meetings and in practice to making sure those are set. In a more basic scheme, it takes much less time and allows for many more reps to be run during practice. This is borne out by the success of option offenses, which simply have very few plays and yet always have success.

I'll give you an example. At my last coaching stop, our defense was incredibly simple. By that, I mean my linemen had their entire responsibilities for the year figured out within 20 minutes of first meeting me on the first night of summer camp (and that's not an exaggeration). Our defense was tremendous all year. Our offense was insanely complicated and we never did click at all. Our defense was so good and our offense so bad that, had we scored 17 points in every game, we'd have been 9-1. Instead we were 4-6.
Click to expand...

surely talent had something to do with the defense as well. Seems to me that the better the talent, the less complicated the scheme needs to be.
 
#45
#45
BigPapaVol said:
surely talent had something to do with the defense as well. Seems to me that the better the talent, the less complicated the scheme needs to be.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between talent and mental acumen though. I've had guys who have had all the talent in the world and yet are dumber than a bag of hammers, and brilliant guys without the talent to play freshman football as a senior. I was one of the latter, which is why I became a coach.

You assume that a coach will be smart enough to recognize the talent that his players have and will adjust the schemes to maximize that. Unfortunately, that's simply not the case. Too many coaches are wedded to a particular scheme that can negate talent, either by putting players in positions they're not suited to or by stretching the depth of the roster so thin that it hurts an otherwise solid scheme.

It takes place at every level. High school coaches want to emulate what the college teams do and make their players enticing to colleges, college coaches (especially those entering a new job) want to force a scheme on ill-suited personnel (Bill Callahan comes to mind), and NFL coaches are terrified of creativity (as the number of offensive coaches Michael Vick had that said "Yeah, he should be a dropback passer" demonstrated).

In an ideal world, coaches would have a scout's eye for what their guys can do and plan accordingly. Unfortunately, we live in a world with walls and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's going to do it? You? You, Lt Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom.
 
#49
#49
We used to be but crappy classes blow holes in your depth chart and were getting thinner after each lackluster class.
 
#50
#50
Yeah guys... really know what you mean. This last "crappy" class included Poole and Johnson who've already done enough to demonstrate that they were underrated at 3*.

Current 2-3* players I don't think I'd trade for 4-5* players: Foster, Foster, Parker, Stocker, D Williams, Frazier, Rogan (fastest player on the team who Rivals had as 4.58), Moore, Cooper, Briscoe, Cottam, Richard, Wilson, Rogers...

You guys act like those rankings are the end all of a player's talent and potential.

FTR, player development nor recruiting look like the problem. The biggest UT problem has been game day coaching IMO. That seems to be a much better rationale for how you can play a team even physically only to get beat on bad offensive or defensive calls.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top