The 2014 season football thread

[sancho]

This isn't DC's fault, but it's his burden and it's a very large one.

Agree, and the burden is made larger by the masses seemingly accepting the idea that it's "bowl game or you're fired" for this staff.

You have commented on recruiting QBs with different styles before. I can see your point, but I'm still in the "get the best you can" camp. It seems like most of the top teams are doing the same thing (with the exception of USC and Alabama). And I still have hope for Thomas as a DB. I think our approach to give that style of QB an honest shot at the job will land us some top athletes that we would not get otherwise.

[LA Ute]

Agree, and the burden is made larger by the masses seemingly accepting the idea that it's "bowl game or you're fired" for this staff.

You have commented on recruiting QBs with different styles before. I can see your point, but I'm still in the "get the best you can" camp. It seems like most of the top teams are doing the same thing (with the exception of USC and Alabama). And I still have hope for Thomas as a DB. I think our approach to give that style of QB an honest shot at the job will land us some top athletes that we would not get otherwise.

FWIW, DC said in his interview with Riley that he is in the "get the best you can" camp" and that the offense he likes is flexibly designed so he can use various types of QBs. Maybe just coachspeak, but interesting.

[jrj84105]

It's not wrong to go after the "best you can get" but I really strongly feel there is an appropriate sequence for getting to that point.

1) Establish an offensive identity.
2) Recruit the "best you can get".
a) If you have an identity, most of "the best you can get" will be the kids who see themselves as good fits for the central tendencies of your offense. You establish a selection bias where the "best you can get" will disproportionately be kids that fit your system. It's mutually beneficial co-selection.
b) You may get a great local kid or a kid with some sort of program or personnel connection who requires a departure from the central tendencies to perform at his peak, but with an established identity, that temporary departure won't change the trajectory of your recruiting and take you away from your core identity.

A program should always recruit the "best it can get" with the exception being a program that has failed to develop a sufficient identity. We are such a train wreck in that regards, that I think we needed to step backward and actually really rebuild a recognizable identity, even if that meant passing on a talented but mismatched HS prospect to bring in a less talented but more system congruent player. I think we had the opportunity and good will of the fanbase and donors to do a more complete rebuild earlier in the PAC voyage, but now KW is running out of time and I think skipping the critical step 1 is going to bite him in the ass this year.

PS: I think our defense exemplifies this point. We take "the best we can get" on D and it turns out, that because we have a recognizeable system, we have appeal to interior D-linemen and lock down corners. We consistently replenish those position with a high success rate for the guys we recruit because the "best guys we can get" include a lot of guys that select us specifically for our defensive identity. (It's also a reason why the "best we can get" didn't really help our LB group and why we had to take a more targeted recruiting approach to that position to intentionally rebuild our identity- hence the transfer fallout of at this spot).

In summary, your best player shouldn't force you to change your system, he should allow you to transcend your system. I think that captures my philosophical issue with how we recruit QB's.

[Utah]

I posted a longer version of this on Utefans, but this is the situation we are in:

Our depth is better.
A lot of our positions will be better next year (the exceptions being....whoever plays in Riley's spot).

QB at worst is a wash
RB will be better
WR will be better
OL will be better
TE will be better
DT will be better
DE - Orchard will be better, depth will be better
LB will be better
CB will be better (yes, we lose McGill, but he only played one year, we will have two guys starting with starting experience, whereas last year NONE of our CB had any starting experience)
S will be better

Schedule wise, I know everyone loves to lament how hard next year will be and blah, blah, blah, but reality is we were #3 or #5 in SOS this year. Odds are, that won't happen again. We trade Weber for ISU (wash, both suck), USU for Fresno (USU is better), and BYU for Michigan (BYU was 8-5 with their marquee win over Texas, Mich was 7-6 with their Marquee win over ND with no QB, wash).

We won't have to face Cook, Barr, the Arizona RB, Stanford loses a lot of players, USC loses a lot of players, we get Oregon and USC at home in the cold, WSU loses most of their OL and secondary, etc, etc, etc. Our schedule will be easier next year. Maybe not a lot, but we don't need it to be a lot easier to make a bowl game.

So, we have better players, better coaches, and an easier schedule. But, we will suck worse. Ummm...I don't follow the logic. Sorry.

I just think it has become trendy and cool to bitch and moan.

[Utah]

It's not wrong to go after the "best you can get" but I really strongly feel there is an appropriate sequence for getting to that point.

1) Establish an offensive identity.
2) Recruit the "best you can get".
a) If you have an identity, most of "the best you can get" will be the kids who see themselves as good fits for the central tendencies of your offense. You establish a selection bias where the "best you can get" will disproportionately be kids that fit your system. It's mutually beneficial co-selection.
b) You may get a great local kid or a kid with some sort of program or personnel connection who requires a departure from the central tendencies to perform at his peak, but with an established identity, that temporary departure won't change the trajectory of your recruiting and take you away from your core identity.

A program should always recruit the "best it can get" with the exception being a program that has failed to develop a sufficient identity. We are such a train wreck in that regards, that I think we needed to step backward and actually really rebuild a recognizable identity, even if that meant passing on a talented but mismatched HS prospect to bring in a less talented but more system congruent player. I think we had the opportunity and good will of the fanbase and donors to do a more complete rebuild earlier in the PAC voyage, but now KW is running out of time and I think skipping the critical step 1 is going to bite him in the ass this year.

PS: I think our defense exemplifies this point. We take "the best we can get" on D and it turns out, that because we have a recognizeable system, we have appeal to interior D-linemen and lock down corners. We consistently replenish those position with a high success rate for the guys we recruit because the "best guys we can get" include a lot of guys that select us specifically for our defensive identity. (It's also a reason why the "best we can get" didn't really help our LB group and why we had to take a more targeted recruiting approach to that position to intentionally rebuild our identity- hence the transfer fallout of at this spot).

In summary, your best player shouldn't force you to change your system, he should allow you to transcend your system. I think that captures my philosophical issue with how we recruit QB's.

I don't get this "we have 15 QB's that play 15 different styles of QB" argument. Look at who we have right now:

Wilson - probably 50/50 runner/passer
Manning - more passer than runner
Cox - more runner than passer
Thomas - more runner than passer
Isom - more runner than passer
Hansen - more runner than passer
Schulz - more shitty QB than anything

Manning is the only odd duck there. Ask Foles how successful a QB can be in a "running" offense. Or ask Kelly how hard it is to make tweaks to an offense to play to your strengths.

I think this is another argument that has become trendy to say, but when you look at it, it isn't that big of a deal.

It would be nice to have all running QB's or pocket passers. Reality is, our depth sucked after 2011. We need bodies. We now have Wilson (maybe), Hansen, Manning, Thomas, Cox, Isom as our QB's. That is 6 QB's that have the talent to play at this level. One of them may or may not be a great runner (Manning, but no one has seen him play, so we don't know), one of them is a solid runner (Wilson) and four are running QB's.

There is no schizophrenia here.

[jrj84105]

I'll argue one last point and maybe try to convince you that Adam Schulz is not a very good quarterback, but he's not shitty.

In 2012 WSU gave up 163 ypg and 4.0 ypc while in 2013 they gave up 187 ypg and 4.5 ypc. Going into the game we were struggling to score points and were on the road with an inexperienced starting QB. Strategically, it was critical that against this piss poor run defense we establish the run early and let our struggling QB settle in. But we have a problem. We're trying to establish a run game out of the shotgun and a single back personnel group with a QB who cannot sell the read option to save his life. Failure to run the ball puts our struggling QB in obvious passing situations deep in our own territory early in the game. Schulz blows it big time. The issue is that we're in the situation because we couldn't run the ball (not until the end of the game when WSU went to a more prevent defense was York successful). We couldn't run the ball because our QB couldn't sell the read option. Schulz's lack of mobility- a system fit issue- put him on the ropes even before the knockout punches were delivered. Schulz isn't shitty. He played shitty because we as a team could not execute the primary component of the gameplan due to his inability to run the ball. If we have a mobile QB, even if he's the mobile QB equivalent of Hays, we execute that gameplan and win that game.

[Utah]

I'll argue one last point and maybe try to convince you that Adam Schulz is not a very good quarterback, but he's not shitty.

In 2012 WSU gave up 163 ypg and 4.0 ypc while in 2013 they gave up 187 ypg and 4.5 ypc. Going into the game we were struggling to score points and were on the road with an inexperienced starting QB. Strategically, it was critical that against this piss poor run defense we establish the run early and let our struggling QB settle in. But we have a problem. We're trying to establish a run game out of the shotgun and a single back personnel group with a QB who cannot sell the read option to save his life. Failure to run the ball puts our struggling QB in obvious passing situations deep in our own territory early in the game. Schulz blows it big time. The issue is that we're in the situation because we couldn't run the ball (not until the end of the game when WSU went to a more prevent defense was York successful). We couldn't run the ball because our QB couldn't sell the read option. Schulz's lack of mobility- a system fit issue- put him on the ropes even before the knockout punches were delivered. Schulz isn't shitty. He played shitty because we as a team could not execute the primary component of the gameplan due to his inability to run the ball. If we have a mobile QB, even if he's the mobile QB equivalent of Hays, we execute that gameplan and win that game.

Awesome. That was the best breakdown of Schulz I've ever read. Thanks. Great post. I learned a lot from it.

Thanks. A lot of good points and I was a bit harsh with Schulz.

[Applejack]

I posted a longer version of this on Utefans, but this is the situation we are in:

Our depth is better.
A lot of our positions will be better next year (the exceptions being....whoever plays in Riley's spot).

QB at worst is a wash
RB will be better
WR will be better
OL will be better
TE will be better
DT will be better
DE - Orchard will be better, depth will be better
LB will be better
CB will be better (yes, we lose McGill, but he only played one year, we will have two guys starting with starting experience, whereas last year NONE of our CB had any starting experience)
S will be better

Schedule wise, I know everyone loves to lament how hard next year will be and blah, blah, blah, but reality is we were #3 or #5 in SOS this year. Odds are, that won't happen again. We trade Weber for ISU (wash, both suck), USU for Fresno (USU is better), and BYU for Michigan (BYU was 8-5 with their marquee win over Texas, Mich was 7-6 with their Marquee win over ND with no QB, wash).

We won't have to face Cook, Barr, the Arizona RB, Stanford loses a lot of players, USC loses a lot of players, we get Oregon and USC at home in the cold, WSU loses most of their OL and secondary, etc, etc, etc. Our schedule will be easier next year. Maybe not a lot, but we don't need it to be a lot easier to make a bowl game.

So, we have better players, better coaches, and an easier schedule. But, we will suck worse. Ummm...I don't follow the logic. Sorry.

I just think it has become trendy and cool to bitch and moan.

I don't want to get into a shouting match about who has more faith in the one and true living team, but I'll just point out that it is really, really easy to disagree with your positional comparisons. For example, without Wilson next year, the QB position is worse, no doubt about it. Look back at the archives on this board and you will see a number of posters suggesting that Wilson would leave early for the NFL (cough, cough, SU [airball]). We won't be making far-fetched predictions about Conner Manning leaving early. Also, why is the O-line definitely getting better? We lose two starters. Are the backups significantly better? Also, I can't imagine a scenario where the TEs are better without Jake Murphy. I could go on.

The point is, I think there are a lot of question marks this upcoming season. The biggest, and in my opinion most ominous, is quarterback. You don't win in this league without stellar QB play.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I would question DT as well. We lose 3 of our top 4 rotational guys (Tenny, LT, and Hemuli).
Now I have confidence that we will have solid interior line play based on our traditional strength at that position, but to say we will be better without seeing who will fill those holes is beyond a stretch.

[jrj84105]

Awesome. That was the best breakdown of Schulz I've ever read. Thanks. Great post. I learned a lot from it.


Thanks. A lot of good points and I was a bit harsh with Schulz.

PS: I've been too dismissive of the the people who say that a spread can be modified to suit a mobile or passing QB. You gave some examples where it's worked. One caveat, it seems like the teams that successfully implement one of these sort of flexible spread offenses are run by offensive minded head coaches. My pessimism on us pulling it off is that there are additional constraints placed on our offense by KW which make things a lot harder.


KW wants the D to set the tone. If the D is struggling, he wants an explosive offense that can keep the team in a shoot out. When KW thinks his D has the edge, he wants an offense that can run clock and limit turnovers. Those demands basically eliminate a wishbone option offense (great for running clock, zero explosiveness) and spread to pass (explosive, can't run clock-ask Mike Leach). If KW would understand that a spread led by a mobile>passing QB is going to have limited explosivity and that a spread led by a passing>mobile QB can't start running clock with a 10 point lead midway through the third quarter, we'd be fine. I get frustrated seeing OC after OC canned and have trouble get excited about new hires when the root of the problem is still there. Without a very talented balanced pass:run QB (an improved TW) or a unusually functional 2QB system (utilizing Cox or Manning as KW's gameplan dictates), I don't see how a spread offense can satisfy Kyle.

[Utah]

I don't want to get into a shouting match about who has more faith in the one and true living team, but I'll just point out that it is really, really easy to disagree with your positional comparisons. For example, without Wilson next year, the QB position is worse, no doubt about it. Look back at the archives on this board and you will see a number of posters suggesting that Wilson would leave early for the NFL (cough, cough, SU [airball]). We won't be making far-fetched predictions about Conner Manning leaving early. Also, why is the O-line definitely getting better? We lose two starters. Are the backups significantly better? Also, I can't imagine a scenario where the TEs are better without Jake Murphy. I could go on.

The point is, I think there are a lot of question marks this upcoming season. The biggest, and in my opinion most ominous, is quarterback. You don't win in this league without stellar QB play.

I was kind of a dick, I'm sorry.

I disagree about the QB situation. Going into fall, we will have Manning, Cox, Thomas, and Isom in the QB position. They all had offers from other BCS schools (except maybe Manning, but Utah offered and got him committed very early). Last year we had Wilson and Schulz. I'm not sure that any of our QB's will be as good as a healthy Wilson. BUT, look at the games we won with a healthy Wilson:

USU: Wilson was very good in this game. BUT, we trade USU out for Fresno with no Carr. Utah should win this game with Cox or Manning.
Weber St: Doesn't matter who our QB is, we will pound ISU
Michigan: Tough game. BYU was our comp from last year. I don't think Wilson won that game for us. It was all defense. I think we will need the same this year to beat QB. So, I think our QB's could be just as good as Wilson in that game.
Oregon State: Wilson kept us in and lost us that game. He threw a ton of picks that gave OSU a lot of points. I think Manning or Cox could equal or better Wilson's performance in that game.
UCLA: Again, Wilson lost us that game. I think one of our QB's could do at least as good, if not better.
Stanford: This is a funny game. On paper, it makes Wilson look amazing. BUT, he only did screen throws the whole game. I think that performance could be replicated by one of our guys. This is the game where Wilson got hurt.

Cox or Manning had better be better than a hurt Wilson or Schulz.

That's why I think our QB position will be better than last year. They might only be 90% of a healthy Wilson, but we can beat Fresno, ISU and Michigan with a 90% of Wilson, especially with how many players return from our secondary. I think our QB's are better than a hurt Wilson or Schulz, so that means 6 of our games, our QB will be definitely better, and six it may be almost as good. We go bowling with that.

Again, with Murphy, he was out a lot of games. If our TE is 70% of Murphy, that is better than 0% of Murphy.

I think we forget how much we lost last year due to injuries. We have depth now. We didn't have depth last year.

As far as the OL, some were saying that our backup C was better, but didn't know the offense as well. So, a year later, our new starting C should be better. That means we are only downgrading maybe one OL position. Every team has to deal with this as well though. SO, it washes out even. And you can hide the OL, especially with some of the skill guys we should have next year (Dres, Poole, Young, etc).

Stanford loses their DC and a lot off their defense. UCLA loses a lot off their defense. USC lost a ton of players. Colorado rivals us in QB bad luck. WSU loses their whole OL and secondary (remember a new secondary in the OSU game? terrible).

We bring back 5 guys in our secondary who have starting experience. We will have 5 LB'ers with starting experience. Our DL can get back to what it was before Star, where we rotate 9 guys in. TE is deeper (remember, when Tonga and Murphy went down we had Williams, yikes), WR is deeper, RB is deeper.

We will be better than we were last year, and we were this close to having 9 wins. We love to "wo is me, we didn't make a bowl" but we were really close to 9 wins. We played a lot of teams better than defensively than anyone else.

So, I think we go bowling next year. I think 6 wins is doable. I think we start out 4-2 again, like this year with our losses being either Michigan, UCLA or OSU (we win one of those games) and then I think we have another WTF win over Stanford/USC/ASU. That's five. Then I think we have a great chance to beat Arizona, WSU and Colorado. Then I think we do the same thing to Oregon as this year. Keep it close until midway through the third, then lose.

Six wins isn't that hard. We can beat these teams:

ISU, Fresno, UCLA, WSU, OSU, Michigan, Arizona, ASU, USC, Stanford, Colorado.

The only team I don't think we can beat is Oregon.

Out of 11 winnable games, we only need six. And yes, 11 are winnable, because this last season, as terrible as it was, we were never out of any game. Every game was winnable. We didn't win, but it was winnable.

[crazyute]

I don't get this "we have 15 QB's that play 15 different styles of QB" argument. Look at who we have right now:

Wilson - probably 50/50 runner/passer
Manning - more passer than runner
Cox - more runner than passer
Thomas - more runner than passer
Isom - more runner than passer
Hansen - more runner than passer
Schulz - more shitty QB than anything

Manning is the only odd duck there. Ask Foles how successful a QB can be in a "running" offense. Or ask Kelly how hard it is to make tweaks to an offense to play to your strengths.

I think this is another argument that has become trendy to say, but when you look at it, it isn't that big of a deal.

It would be nice to have all running QB's or pocket passers. Reality is, our depth sucked after 2011. We need bodies. We now have Wilson (maybe), Hansen, Manning, Thomas, Cox, Isom as our QB's. That is 6 QB's that have the talent to play at this level. One of them may or may not be a great runner (Manning, but no one has seen him play, so we don't know), one of them is a solid runner (Wilson) and four are running QB's.

There is no schizophrenia here.

I would definitely say that Isom is more of a passer than runner. Much in the same mold as travis wilson. He has running ability. but is better at throwing the rock around.

[crazyute]

I would question DT as well. We lose 3 of our top 4 rotational guys (Tenny, LT, and Hemuli).
Now I have confidence that we will have solid interior line play based on our traditional strength at that position, but to say we will be better without seeing who will fill those holes is beyond a stretch.

stevie tuikoluvatu is going to be better than any of those three. and that is not knocking those 3 at all. that says more about stevie. My hope also is to see dimick move inside and get his weight in the 285-290 range. I believe his athleticism does us more good inside. then we still have sesi ianu that would and will match anything LT or hemuli did last year.

[Utah]

I would definitely say that Isom is more of a passer than runner. Much in the same mold as travis wilson. He has running ability. but is better at throwing the rock around.

That is awesome to hear. I think we will be pleasantly surprised with our QB's this year. Remember, Wilson was compared to Drew Bledsoe coming out of high school...BUT he was considered a LONG TERM project. He wasn't supposed to be very polished for a couple of years.

[Utah]

Also, I don't think Isom will be the starter, but I wouldn't rule him out as DC has had success with two True freshman QB's. We have completely underestimated how HUGE of a hire DC is.

[Utah]

stevie tuikoluvatu is going to be better than any of those three. and that is not knocking those 3 at all. that says more about stevie. My hope also is to see dimick move inside and get his weight in the 285-290 range. I believe his athleticism does us more good inside. then we still have sesi ianu that would and will match anything LT or hemuli did last year.

This is how a lot of our new guys will be. This is the first year most of our guys who play will be PAC-12 players and not MWC players.

We underestimate how good of a job our coaches have done with limited talent.

[Jarid in Cedar]

stevie tuikoluvatu is going to be better than any of those three. and that is not knocking those 3 at all. that says more about stevie. My hope also is to see dimick move inside and get his weight in the 285-290 range. I believe his athleticism does us more good inside. then we still have sesi ianu that would and will match anything LT or hemuli did last year.

I have heard Stevie's named thrown around plenty. He may end up better than that crew, but will he be there next year? That is the question.


Also, Dimick will likely always be a swing guy between de and dt. Depending on the strengths of the team we play.

[Hot Lunch]

I have heard Stevie's named thrown around plenty. He may end up better than that crew, but will he be there next year? That is the question.


Also, Dimick will likely always be a swing guy between de and dt. Depending on the strengths of the team we play.

It is Saturdays like today that make me already miss college football. Can't wait until August.

[crazyute]

I have heard Stevie's named thrown around plenty. He may end up better than that crew, but will he be there next year? That is the question.


Also, Dimick will likely always be a swing guy between de and dt. Depending on the strengths of the team we play.

Why wouldn't Stevie be here next year?

[Jarid in Cedar]

Why wouldn't Stevie be here next year?

Meaning, will he be ahead of(better than) the 3 departures in 2014. Without actually playing a game in his career, that its hard to predict out the gate.
He's may end up better over the next 3 years, but i want to see three goods before proclaiming him to be better at the start of this coming season.

[Utah]

I'm so excited to see Pita, Blechen, Paul, Scott and young play. Pita, Paul, Scott and Young are all very highly talked about and Blechen just makes plays. I think we forget how he was in the right spot at the right time. He just makes plays.

Also, we have some highly recruited TE's as well.

[sancho]

far-fetched predictions about Conner Manning leaving early.

I predict Manning will leave early. First round pick in 3 years. He will also be drafted in the 2nd round by the Jazz, despite his never having played organized basketball. He will be so loved in the state that the Jazz will draft him just to sell tickets. Also, the Manning family will adopt him and he will host Saturday Night Live.

[Hot Lunch]

I'm so excited to see Pita, Blechen, Paul, Scott and young play. Pita, Paul, Scott and Young are all very highly talked about and Blechen just makes plays. I think we forget how he was in the right spot at the right time. He just makes plays.

Also, we have some highly recruited TE's as well.

I am excited about all those guys minus Blechan. I have given up on him. He was not good in 2012.

[LA Ute]

I am excited about all those guys minus Blechan. I have given up on him. He was not good in 2012.

We never know when he's going to make a great play or when he's going to blow one. Plus, it seems like he's never figured out that tackling is about more than simply hitting the ballcarrier hard.

[Applejack]

I am excited about all those guys minus Blechan. I have given up on him. He was not good in 2012.

Although I follow recruiting WAY closer than I should, once the players sign, I don't get excited about them until they prove something on the field. Therefore, I am excited for Paul and Scott. I agree with HotLunch on Blechen - I hope he is a backup. As for Pita and Young, I don't believe in practice squad all-stars. My general rule is "don't count on unproven players." Sometimes unproven players are instant contributors (JWIII). But almost always, they aren't. That's why the QB position is terrifying.

[jrj84105]

Although I follow recruiting WAY closer than I should, once the players sign, I don't get excited about them until they prove something on the field. Therefore, I am excited for Paul and Scott. I agree with HotLunch on Blechen - I hope he is a backup. As for Pita and Young, I don't believe in practice squad all-stars. My general rule is "don't count on unproven players." Sometimes unproven players are instant contributors (JWIII). But almost always, they aren't. That's why the QB position is terrifying.

Exactly this.

also echo that Isom is very Wilsonesque with the exception that I think Isom looks better keeping his eyes down field and throwing on the move than Wilson did even through his freshman year at Utah. If Isom were an early enrollee, I think he'd have a very strong chance at being the starter. that would also make life a lot easier for DC because he could implement an offense around Isom and if Wilson comes back in fall there would be little adjustment needed. Maybe they can convince him this weekend to come early.

[UTEopia]

I posted a longer version of this on Utefans, but this is the situation we are in:

Our depth is better.

Just to be a contrarian, I am going to take the opposite view. I really hope you are right, but other than hope and expectation, I don't think there are any known facts to support the assumptions you are making.

A lot of our positions will be better next year (the exceptions being....whoever plays in Riley's spot).

QB at worst is a wash
RB will be better
WR will be better
OL will be better
TE will be better
DT will be better
DE - Orchard will be better, depth will be better
LB will be better
CB will be better (yes, we lose McGill, but he only played one year, we will have two guys starting with starting experience, whereas last year NONE of our CB had any starting experience)
S will be better

QB: I will agree that it will not be worse. No evidence to suggest that it will be better.
RB: No evidence RB's will be better. Poole and Lucky are the leading candidates for most of the PT. We have no idea whether any of the other players can play.
WR: I will agree they will be better solely because KScott will be back and we know he is an upgrade over both Fitz and Denham. There is no evidence that any of the backups are better.
OL: Vyncent Jones was our best and most consistent offensive lineman. JT had a solid senior season. I believe that Aiono will move to center and either Asiata or Albers will be the other tackle. If it is Albers, he will play LT. If Asiata, he will play RT. There is no basis for the assumption that this group will be better than last year's group.
TE: The only real production we had from the TE position came from Murphy and although he missed a number of games, nobody stepped up in his absence to do anything so overall, I would have to say that this position will not be as good.
DT: We lose our top 3 DT's and the only returning guys did not do a lot last year. Counting on Stevie to recover from his injury or Lowell to come in and shine as a true freshman are pie in the sky thinking IMO.
DE: Orchard will be better, but there will be nobody close to Trevor Reilly on the other side. Definitely a downgrade.
LB: We probably will be better with Paul joining the group.
S: We will have two new starters. One will likely be a guy (Blechen) who most of us agree is not the answer and the other guy is totally unknown. Total crapshoot to say that this position group will be better.
CB: Relying on the returning guys who did not get it done (Thomas, Orvey, Freeman, Corporan) is a baseless assumption.

So the argument can be made that we will be a little worse at most position groups. This argument has more basis in history than the assumptions you have made.

Schedule wise, I know everyone loves to lament how hard next year will be and blah, blah, blah, but reality is we were #3 or #5 in SOS this year. Odds are, that won't happen again. We trade Weber for ISU (wash, both suck), USU for Fresno (USU is better), and BYU for Michigan (BYU was 8-5 with their marquee win over Texas, Mich was 7-6 with their Marquee win over ND with no QB, wash).

We won't have to face Cook, Barr, the Arizona RB, Stanford loses a lot of players, USC loses a lot of players, we get Oregon and USC at home in the cold, WSU loses most of their OL and secondary, etc, etc, etc. Our schedule will be easier next year. Maybe not a lot, but we don't need it to be a lot easier to make a bowl game.

So, we have better players, better coaches, and an easier schedule. But, we will suck worse. Ummm...I don't follow the logic. Sorry.

I just think it has become trendy and cool to bitch and moan.

I agree that USU this past year was a better team than a Fresno St. team that will be replacing a bunch of departing seniors. Michigan and BYU are interchangeable, but traveling to Ann Arbor is probably going to be a little more difficult than to Provo.

We have won two road games in the PAC 12, WSU in 2011 and CU in 2012. No PAC 12 road wins in 2013. Our PAC 12 road schedule is OSU, Stanford, UCLA, ASU and CU. Other than CU, there is no reason to believe that the Utes are going to beat these other teams on the road. Home games are UA, WSU, Oregon and USC. It is logical to think we have a better than even chance of beating WSU at home, UA is probably 50/50 but the other two are unlikely.

So, Without clear evidence that our players or coaches are better than 2013 and a schedule more difficult because there is 1 fewer home game, I think it will be very difficult for the Utes to get to 6 wins.

[crazyute]

Just to be a contrarian, I am going to take the opposite view. I really hope you are right, but other than hope and expectation, I don't think there are any known facts to support the assumptions you are making.




QB: I will agree that it will not be worse. No evidence to suggest that it will be better.
RB: No evidence RB's will be better. Poole and Lucky are the leading candidates for most of the PT. We have no idea whether any of the other players can play.
WR: I will agree they will be better solely because KScott will be back and we know he is an upgrade over both Fitz and Denham. There is no evidence that any of the backups are better.
OL: Vyncent Jones was our best and most consistent offensive lineman. JT had a solid senior season. I believe that Aiono will move to center and either Asiata or Albers will be the other tackle. If it is Albers, he will play LT. If Asiata, he will play RT. There is no basis for the assumption that this group will be better than last year's group.
TE: The only real production we had from the TE position came from Murphy and although he missed a number of games, nobody stepped up in his absence to do anything so overall, I would have to say that this position will not be as good.
DT: We lose our top 3 DT's and the only returning guys did not do a lot last year. Counting on Stevie to recover from his injury or Lowell to come in and shine as a true freshman are pie in the sky thinking IMO.
DE: Orchard will be better, but there will be nobody close to Trevor Reilly on the other side. Definitely a downgrade.
LB: We probably will be better with Paul joining the group.
S: We will have two new starters. One will likely be a guy (Blechen) who most of us agree is not the answer and the other guy is totally unknown. Total crapshoot to say that this position group will be better.
CB: Relying on the returning guys who did not get it done (Thomas, Orvey, Freeman, Corporan) is a baseless assumption.

So the argument can be made that we will be a little worse at most position groups. This argument has more basis in history than the assumptions you have made.



I agree that USU this past year was a better team than a Fresno St. team that will be replacing a bunch of departing seniors. Michigan and BYU are interchangeable, but traveling to Ann Arbor is probably going to be a little more difficult than to Provo.

We have won two road games in the PAC 12, WSU in 2011 and CU in 2012. No PAC 12 road wins in 2013. Our PAC 12 road schedule is OSU, Stanford, UCLA, ASU and CU. Other than CU, there is no reason to believe that the Utes are going to beat these other teams on the road. Home games are UA, WSU, Oregon and USC. It is logical to think we have a better than even chance of beating WSU at home, UA is probably 50/50 but the other two are unlikely.

So, Without clear evidence that our players or coaches are better than 2013 and a schedule more difficult because there is 1 fewer home game, I think it will be very difficult for the Utes to get to 6 wins.

I think that whittingham will move to the reilly role. playing DE/LB. if this is the case I would say we are a lot closer to replacing reilly than you think.

also don't forget about sesi ianu at DT and dimick who probably moves down inside.

[UTEopia]

I think that whittingham will move to the reilly role. playing DE/LB. if this is the case I would say we are a lot closer to replacing reilly than you think.

also don't forget about sesi ianu at DT and dimick who probably moves down inside.

I like Whittingham as an LB. I don't think he has the height, the weight, the strength, speed or quickness of Reilly.

Ianu really showed nothing this year and Dimick is a tough, hard working kid who is kind of a tweener. Not big enough to play inside and not quick enough to get a lot of pressure from the outside. i don't think we have a DT as good as Tenny. Ianu is probably equal to Heimuli and Seni is a step below LT.

[Utah]

I'll be honest. All this debate about the DL is kind of moot. All Whitt does is put DL in the NFL. Our DLine will be fine. Someone else will step up, and Orchard or someone else will be playing on Sunday like every year for the past forever.

QB will be better because we have depth. Same with WR and TE. I'll listen to RB arguments, but seeing how Poole and Radley will be back and we add Young, I don't think you'll win. No one would argue that LB or S will be worse off. TE will be better because we will actually have TE's. After Tonga and Murphy went down, we had Williams sort of playing TE ie we didn't have one. We will next year, so TE is better. Same with OL. Our OL sucked last year. DC is a proven OL coach, and the OC and able to tailor the offense to our strengths.

So, you can't debate that QB, WR, TE, LB and S won't be better. I'd add CB to that, seeing how we did lose McGill, but he was a one year player anyways, and Thomas and Orphey are returning starters and Rowe is moving to CB. Safety maybe a toss up, but, we can't be worse off than last year and our dead last INT rate.

The only maybe positions are OL, DL, and RB. Due to Whitt's history, DL will be fine. Equal at worst. I don't think losing York is as big of a deal as we think, so RB is a wash. OL still has three returning starters, which is pretty good. Worst case, wash.

Is there one position we will be worse off than last year? The only position you could argue is DL...and again, all Whitt does is create NFL DLinemen.

So, better coaches, every position is better, except for MAYBE OL, and easier schedule...

We will be better.

Home games next year: ISU, Fresno, WSU, USC, Oregon, Arizona. We should win four of those games. We can win five of those games. We might win six of those games due to Oregon coming in November (pray for snow).

Road games next year: Michigan, OSU, UCLA, ASU, Stanford, Colorado. Yikes. We should win one of those games. We can win all six of those games.

There is only one game that you could argue that we have lost before we play the game and that is Oregon...and if there is six inches of snow on the ground, that isn't true at all.

We will be bowling next year, and everyone will be wanting to give Whitt a lifetime deal and worried about when DC is going to leave us high and dry with BJ again. Relax and get ready to enjoy it.

7-5 next year. We start out 5-1. BIG losing streak. Beat Arizona. Beat Colorado. 7-5. Win the Las Vegas Bowl over BYU, oddly enough, 54-10. 8-5, and Utah is back. Ute fans are happy once again.

Enjoy the offseason. We are finally a PAC-12 team and will start regaining our spot as a consistent winner.