Lol, it seems like the other half of the video is missing. They are just shown driving around the salt lake area and up the canyon. Kind of wierd.
Lol, it seems like the other half of the video is missing. They are just shown driving around the salt lake area and up the canyon. Kind of wierd.
The plan was to release this today and then drive those cars to in-state recruiting visits tomorrow.
The Fast and the Furious is a 7-movie franchise that is popular with the kids because it is really awesome.
Ute Fast/Ute Furious is a play on the title to the 2nd movie: 2 Fast/2 Furious. The song:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA7gnSyuIik
Last edited by sancho; 04-14-2015 at 01:16 PM.
The weather nixed the second half of the plan, no cars tomorrow. Guess Fred Whittingham is friends with a car dealer and he hooked them up with the cars.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Back in the day, I dated this girl who was one of the smartest, most motivated people I've made out with. But we just couldn't make it work long term as she insisted on keeping Fast and the Furious at the top of her favorites list.
Are they all going to car pool in this?
"This isn't a gentlemen's sport. This isn't tennis. This isn't an old-fashioned duel. This is football, it's a physical game." - Tony Bergstrom
I listened to the interview with John Pease on 1320. I think that John Pease misunderstood the question. He talked about the car that he drove in the past tense ("I had the oldest car") and never used the possessive ("the 86 Firebird beat them all.") And when Gunther asked if the cars were rentals or their real cars, John Pease said, "Yes they were real cars." He never said that it was his car, just that it was a real car. So I think it was a simply miscommunication. I didn't hear any interview with Kyle so I cannot comment on that.
http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/uofuspor...-furious-ahead
I haven't seen such a quote from Kyle, but have seen the talk of his vintage bike
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For those of us who are complaining about our OOC being too easy, we have the 5th toughest in the PAC-12 the next over the next five years. So, no, we don't need to up the strength of our OOC scheduling. We are probably right about where we want to be (middle of the PAC-12) and maybe even a little too high. We need to schedule wins. Dr. Hill has done a pretty good job of that.
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_...ence-schedules
I just heard John Pease interviewed on the radio. He's a gentleman and a scholar.
One quote:
Q: Coach, what questions do you have that need to be answered between now and fall camp?
A: None... We are pretty damn good.
Also, said Mokofisi might be the best of the DL. That's pretty freaking high praise.
Utah has one more FCS game than ASU, one more G5 game than ASU, but four fewer P5 games. Yet Utah is ranked higher (albeit by one spot)? I'm seeing trouble already.
Utah has the same 4-10-1 mix that Arizona does, but Utah is fifth and Arizona is 11th? Arizona also has P-5 series signed with Texas Tech and Mississippi State outside of the five-year window being used in this ranking. Wazzu has a home-and-home with Wisconsin, of all schools, past the five-year window. Utah doesn't have a single game scheduled past 2020 -- if you incorporated more than just the next five years into this ranking, Utah would drop like a rock.
I agree that a weak OOC schedule is not a bad idea for us. That has been a winning strategy for many teams over the decades. Regular bowl games should be our goal over the next 5 years.
That said, I don't really like it. It's not as much fun, it's not blue collar, and it's not what Utah should be about. Leave that to Baylor, the ACC, and the SEC.
The ideal schedule IMO is:
5 home PAC
1 home FCS
1 home G5
1 away P5
4 home PAC
1 home FCS
1 home P5
1 away G5 ( I think it would be great to find G5's that do not demand a home return game, but with the possible exception of Idaho and NMSU, I don't think that is a realistic possibility at the present time. Sun Belt teams are tied up with the SEC and Big 12 and the MAC are tied up with B1G).
The question for me is how to keep playing BYU and USU on a semi regular basis and still play other schools. I don't want to play each of them every year, but I would like to play one of them every year. I think it would be beneficial to play Florida P5 schools, including Central Florida and Texas P5 schools, including Rice, SMU or Houston every once in a while if we are going to continue to make those areas regular recruiting areas. I see no benefit to playing No. Illinois, Fresno or SJSU. We don't recruit the midwest. We already get plenty of exposure in California.
Watching the spring game now. Had to tape it. Anyone go or have anything to report?
Anyone worth watching was sitting out. 3rd & 4th string basically--with some 2nd string.
Connor Manning & Isom were the 2 QBs. Manning looked terrible--missing open receivers & passes getting batted down; today should stop the people urging him as the future.
Isom looked slightly better in that he can run & has a bid arm. Not real accurate. He is a load once he starts running.
Link for a larger image:
https://scontent-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hp...94146304_o.jpg
"It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant
barring an extra year of eligibility for KT (medical hardship), we're going to need a transfer QB for 2016. Manning needs to transfer, Cox is probably not to be counted on for health, Isom is a few years away, and Hansen is a running QB who has had one significant injury already. That's not going to cut it.
I really like Hansen and Isom. I really, really like them. Just not next year. When they are JR's and SR's, I think they both could be really, really good.
We do need something for next year. Next year could be scary. We need Williams to come and be Booker, so we can lean on him next year, like this year. Then, in 2017, we might have a PAC-12 offense. But next year might be scary. Unless we can get someone to come in. Who is the next Cam Newton, and what Booster can slip him $200,000 to play next year?
Russel Wilson is a dream.
John Hays, Terrance Cain, and Tommmy Grady are our reality at QB, and I'm damn glad we've had those guys considering the alternative (Schreve?).
Sancho, if you take a good 10 year look at our QB history, you'll notice a pattern where we have a multi year starter out of HS, then a JC guy for a year, then another multi year starter out of HS, then a JC guy, etc. That happens because every time we play a true freshman, our already meager QB recruiting tanks, and we wind up with a classes that never produce a decent QB then have to scramble for depth. After 2015 we will be scrambling for depth again.
we have one guy on the roster (Hansen) who may cut muster, but he's a slightly undersized running QB with one serious injury under his belt. I'd say the odds of a transfer QB (and we could get a commit as early as next week) starting at some point in 2016 are no less than 90%. Why people think you only need one game ready QB on the roster after following a few years of Utah football is beyond me. I'm glad the coaches were wise enough to take Hays in 2011, KT last year, and presumably the UW guy if we can get him next week.
Last edited by jrj84105; 04-26-2015 at 04:45 AM.
I missed the first quarter so not sure if Hansen or Wilson played, but i agree that i was not impressed with either manning or isom. Lots of swing passes to receivers behind the line of scrimmage that didn't get much yardage. Nothing, and i mean nothing, over the middle. It was actually quite boring out side of the last play of the game. I hope our offense is better than what was shown or we will be in real trouble.