VTTW Board Index

Other than James, who was drafted in the first round, a really poor showing at the NFL draft

Tiny undrafted, Bullard undrafted, Stone undrafted, and Fulton got taken very late by KC

I did not foresee this.

only tiny and james projected high.  bullard was not pprojected at all and stone/fulton were 7th to free agent types


tge big shocker is tiny not being drafted. james did better than expected and the rest did about what they were projected to do

I didn't need draft day to tell me that the '13 OL wasn't as good as we thought.  :angel:

As I saw someone tweet earlier, the vaunted Vols OL had the same number of people drafted as Tennessee State.  :wow:

Texas had zero players selected in the draft. First time since 1937.

Not even All-American and Big 12 defensive player of the year.

No wonder Mack got fired/resigned.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/draft2014/story/_/id/10914219/2014-nfl-draft-texas-longhorns-zero-players-drafted (http://espn.go.com/nfl/draft2014/story/_/id/10914219/2014-nfl-draft-texas-longhorns-zero-players-drafted)

I was as hard as anyone on our OL...but in defense they did have to learn a new system this past season. I also read somewhere our rushing totals were better than almost a decade without a above average SEC type RB.

They were built more for a Chaney type offense that hums it around 40 times per game than run blocking. JMO

 :wow:

Well, I think that in large part, the rushing totals were a function of having no experienced QBs or WRs coming into the season.  We weren't going to be throwing it all over the yard even if Chaney were still here.  This season should be a different story.

Some thought that group was highly over rated from the get go. 

Honestly, the only thing that surprises me is that somebody didn't take a chance on Tiny in the middle rounds, and that James was picked about a round higher than I thought he would be. 

That UT group was definitely over hyped going in to last year. 

I expectecd 3 to be drafted but was not  surprised by 2.

Agree about tiny...really surprised no one took him.  I will be surprised if he does not sign somewhere though.

I guess my expectations for the OL were lower because Iwas happy with.our best run game.in ten years.

their size and the fact that they had played together so long....they never impressed me. I cringed every time I heard "one of the best OLs in the country". They were decent pass blockers and less than average at run blocking, this is one reason I don't think we'll notice a huge difference in the young OL, if they are good players that should offset their lack of experience and we shouldn't notice a big drop off. :patriot:

They did improve last year.
At least they could get out on a screen and the guards could pull into the correct hole.  The entire time that drools was the coach we might, might have executed one effective scren where the OL got out in time.  Trap plays?  Forget about it.  Most of the time the pulling guard blocked the back of the other guard or was so late the RB beat him to the hole.  BTW, if you want to see effective trap plays, go back and look at the 2005 L$U game, in particular the 4th quarter and the OT.

As for the "improved" run blocking last year I attribute a lot of that to the RBs actually hitting the hole the play was designed for.  Also, you will note that against good DLs we weren't able to run at all.  Part of that was our inability to throw effectively, especially after Worley was hurt.

Yes.  The argument that we just ran a lot.  Well our per carry total was also the best in ten years, and that's what convinced me that the OL was "pretty good".  Was there hype in saying they were one of the best in the country?  Probably, but they were certainly better than most other SEC lines, and for last year's team, that was "good enough" for me.

In the future our expectations can and should be higher, provided Butch keeps recruiting at this pace.  But for all the criticism, last year's OL was about the only decent unit we had, along with the RBs.  If anyone thinks another group did better, other than Palardy, then they are smoking something that is now legal in two states.   :naughty:

I would submit that the running game success last year was due more to the improvement in the RBs as the greatly improved.  The backs hit the correct hole and seemed to have better vision in the zone blocking scheme.

The line play improved some IMO, especially the right side but there were still constant breakdowns, especially against teams with good DLs.

Well, that's an opinion.  My point is, you can't argue that the running game was bad, because it wasn't.  Objectively, the run game was the best it had been in quite some time.  A few seemed to think it sucked though.   :frown:

And to the extent the running game was good, the OL had to at least be decent.  They were not the problem with our team last year, though they seemed to get as many complaints as the rest of the team put together.   We had much larger issues at QB, WR, and pretty much any part of the D.

Pass blocking last year was much, much worse.  Yes early on Worley had issues but when the light came on we were very competitive with him at QB.  As much as I have criticized, him without his injury we probably go bowling last year IMO.  Worley had a better concept of where receivers should be to have a better chance to make a play when the protection broke down where Dobbs either made a bad pass or had to pull the ball down and run.

Maybe, but our "best rushing team in a decade" is kind of like the tallest midget at the circus.  We haven't had a really good, dominant rushing team since 2001.  Coincidentally or not, that was also our last real NC contender.  We should aspire to get the rushing game back to that level, and 2013 wasn't even close.  Better than our other recent teams, for sure, but still not what it needed to be.

It seems to me like we ran well against the weaker teams. The top teams shut us down pretty well, which is understandable. However they did okay against UGa and USCe. Of course I'm just going from memory and not looking at the stats.

I don't disagree that 2001 style would be much better than anything since.  OTOH, if we end up throwing the ball 40 times a game with a complementary run game and win the NC, I am all for that also.  What matters is that we win and not how we do it.