Did Ainge Help Draft Stock?

[GoVols1998]

Do you think that Ainge helped his draft stock from leading the south team down the field to a win in the Senior Bowl in the final minutes?

[GatorBait15]

Couldn't have hurt.:thumpsup:

[Cincy Vol o5]

Definitely.
This was the greatest thing that could have happened to him after some of the reports I heard about his production at practice.

[crusse10]

well...I think it may have just barely, slightly helped. the fact is that he did drive them for the winning touchdown.


...he also threw 3 incompletions from the 2 yard line that set up the 4th down end-around...

[Tider27]

The Senior Bowl practices is what helps you raise your stock. It's like a pre-combine of sorts, so if he did well in the practices like he did in the game...I would say yes.

[Sabanocchio]

Thing, is, he didn't do so well in practice from what he said about it. I still think the Senior Bowl helped rather than hurt, his stock.
I think Ainge has all the stuff to be a starter in the NFL with a little experience.

[gatorunvrsty]

Absolutely. No big deal having incompletions from the two... happens all the time with a shortened field. What folks will remember is getting down there and finishing off the drive with the winning TD.

[Sabanocchio]

That's what we will remember, but the scouts look at the entire week.

[SeanVol]

well...I think it may have just barely, slightly helped. the fact is that he did drive them for the winning touchdown.


...he also threw 3 incompletions from the 2 yard line that set up the 4th down end-around...

Was that the only rough spot for him during the game?

[Cincy Vol o5]

I heard most scouts left at halftime.
Is that true?

[TDArkansasOhmy]

He is going to have a huge problem making it to the NFL. Like Tebow in a couple of years, their sexuality is going to hold them back. That sort of thing can be sniffed out by teammates and cause locker room problems. timNem told me when a teammate on his chess club in college came out of the closet it cause all kinds of problems. Tim later confess that he wish he would have checked his mate.

[crusse10]

there were actually 2 4th downs in the last drive, and 1 pass interference call. he pulled through and drove the team down to win the game, but hit rough patches along the way. midway through the week scouts said he was nothing better than a late-round pick. i'd say through this, he became a 1st day pick. he had the most passing yards and i think completions also...

[bamagt]

If he's not a 1st day pick then the NFL is stupid. He is a great player with alot of potential IMO. I'd say a legit 2nd-3rd round pick and possibly late 1st.
How in the hell was he so bad 2 or 3 years ago?

[gatorunvrsty]

He is going to have a huge problem making it to the NFL. Like Tebow in a couple of years, their sexuality is going to hold them back. That sort of thing can be sniffed out by teammates and cause locker room problems. timNem told me when a teammate on his chess club in college came out of the closet it cause all kinds of problems. Tim later confess that he wish he would have checked his mate.

Well I'm sure that's something you know all about, PB.:ph34r:

[fernandomike]

With the right team, I think Ainge can develop into a serviceable NFL quarterback. I just think that he needs to get a little mentally tougher and show that he's willing to stand in the pocket, take the hit, and give the receiver that extra bit of time to get open. I hope that he does well. He was a good qb for the Vols.

[MillDawg007]

I completely agree that with good protection Ainge could be a solid NFL qb. However, unless he gets a whole lot tougher, he could be in trouble. At times he worried too much about getting hit and in the NFL you are deffinetely going to get hit often.

[crusse10]

If he's not a 1st day pick then the NFL is stupid. He is a great player with alot of potential IMO. I'd say a legit 2nd-3rd round pick and possibly late 1st.
How in the hell was he so bad 2 or 3 years ago?

Well...It was 2 years ago, and he was unsure of himself. Randy Sanders was testing the 2 QB system, with both Ainge and (middle) Clausen, which I thought was beyond stupid. The only reason I think Clausen played was because he had a much better little brother named Jimmy. Guess Sanders figured if both of his big brothers started at Tennessee, he'd want to follow in their footsteps. Whatever the situation was, it forced a sophomore Ainge into a shaky situation. He was always looking over his back. As far as I can remember, he practically started every other game, with Rick taking snaps in between. The hesitation in his play was noticeable at best, but it wasn't all his fault. The receivers were mediocre at best. And yes, I'm talking about future-1st rounder Robert Meachem. He dropped many passes that year. I specifically remember being at the Notre Dame game in South Bend when Ainge threw 2 bombs to Meach in a row. Both were streaks down the left side. Ainge threw them both perfectly, and all he had to do was lay out to make the catch. Both times, he dropped them.
Basically, when Ainge wasn't afraid of losing his job, and when his receivers were catching his good passes, he did a good job. Just look at his performance against Kentucky that year. He stayed in the game...all-game. And produced very well. Oh, and that happened after Sanders resigned.
Last year, Ainge got confidence he never had the previous year, as he didn't have anyone looking over his back to take his starting role. Oh, and he also had a teacher and mentor who changed him for the better. The 1st thing Ainge was told to do when he walked in to David Cutcliffe's office was to take out his earring and pull out the iPod earbuds. Cut beat it into his brain that he was the Starting QB for the Tennessee Volunteers...that there was prestige he had to live up to. He needed to represent the Vols in every way, shape, and form. After he cleaned up his appearance, he started working on his mechanics, and hasn't looked back since.
The impact of a coach who's been around the block will work wonders for QBs.

[the Prodigy]

I'm not sure if any of the higher profile players could do anything but HURT their draft stock. The Senior bowl help some of the lesser known players but Ainge isn't a lesser known player. I think he is looking at late 2nd early 3rd.

[sully00]

Yep with just over 2 minutes he made millions.

[Tennessee Ted]

The reason why Sanders went to a two QB rotation is he was waiting for one of them to take over the job. Neither of them ever did. They both were major disappointments that year. There were other problems like Crusse said with the receivers and the offensive scheme in general, but both QBs never shouldered the load and became the leader Sanders and Fulmer were looking for.

If Ainge only performs well when he is sure of his position then he will be a major bust in the NFL. There is always someone gunning for your job and you can never be secure.

[the Paradox]

Ainge will be a late 2nd, early 3rd rounder. His performance in the game means nothing to the pro teams. The game is for the fans, practice is what the scouts care about.


RTR

[SeanVol]

there were actually 2 4th downs in the last drive, and 1 pass interference call. he pulled through and drove the team down to win the game, but hit rough patches along the way. midway through the week scouts said he was nothing better than a late-round pick. i'd say through this, he became a 1st day pick. he had the most passing yards and i think completions also...

One of the WVLT sports anchors said Erik struggled until the last drive.

[sheluvsbama]

I think anytime they have a good showing in the Senior Bowl, it helps them. It gives them a little extra exposure, and they know the scouts are watching. It is a very nice showcase for them all, and a great opportunity to show off what they can bring to the pros.

[crusse10]

the reason nobody ever prevailed was that the starting role was never decided on. the right choice would have definitely been ainge, but they didn't ever make that call like they should have. they seemed to figure they could run it like they did in '04. it worked then. ainge and schaeffer worked very well...because of their stark contrast. one was a running qb who could move in the pocket and get the short-yardage downs. the other was the drop-back passer who used the great protection to his aid while finding the open receivers or tight ends.
the problem with them attempting the 2 qb system in '05 was that they had erik ainge and a slower, less mobile erik ainge. its idiotic at best to rotate the same style in a game.

[the Paradox]

the reason nobody ever prevailed was that the starting role was never decided on. the right choice would have definitely been ainge, but they didn't ever make that call like they should have. they seemed to figure they could run it like they did in '04. it worked then. ainge and schaeffer worked very well...because of their stark contrast. one was a running qb who could move in the pocket and get the short-yardage downs. the other was the drop-back passer who used the great protection to his aid while finding the open receivers or tight ends.
the problem with them attempting the 2 qb system in '05 was that they had erik ainge and a slower, less mobile erik ainge. its idiotic at best to rotate the same style in a game.

After that hit he took in the Notre Dame game , Ainge was about as useful Viagra at a Melissa Etheridge concert.


RTR

[Sabanocchio]

the reason nobody ever prevailed was that the starting role was never decided on. the right choice would have definitely been ainge, but they didn't ever make that call like they should have. they seemed to figure they could run it like they did in '04. it worked then. ainge and schaeffer worked very well...because of their stark contrast. one was a running qb who could move in the pocket and get the short-yardage downs. the other was the drop-back passer who used the great protection to his aid while finding the open receivers or tight ends.
the problem with them attempting the 2 qb system in '05 was that they had erik ainge and a slower, less mobile erik ainge. its idiotic at best to rotate the same style in a game.I agree with this. If anyone that knew WTF they were doing was our Coordinator, they would have:
1) Make up their damn minds about the starting QB before the season started. That's your damn job. Do it.
2) Not yank them out of the game every time he makes a bad play. Even the best QB's make bad plays. They are measured by how they handle adversity. Ainge never had the opportunity under Sanders to redeem himself.
3) Go with the guy with the most upside. Clausen was as good as he was going to get. He had already overplayed his potential. Ainge was just going to get better and if left in to take his lumps, and reap the benefits when successful, would have been a much better QB in the second half of the year than he was the first.

Ainge was clearly the future of the program, not Rick Clausen. This is why we fired our offensive coordinator after the season. Much of that falls on him.

[fernandomike]

I'm not a big fan of the two-quarterback system, but I don't think that we would have gotten good results either way. Clausen was very limited physically, but Ainge was an absolute mess. The coaches clearly wanted Erik to land the job, but he sucked from the first kickoff. Clausen was tougher, more respected by his teammates, and better able to get it done in hostile environments. He was hurt by his limited mobility and a rag arm.
I realize that rotating quarterbacks adds more pressure since you're looking over your shoulder, but you ain't going to go into Gainesville or Baton Rouge and win anyway if you don't know a little something about how to deal with pressure. Get it done in practice, then make the most of your opportunities in the games. That will earn PT. What you don't want to do, after being named the starter, is go into a game at LSU, and repeatedly toss the ball up for grabs netting the Tigers a big lead. That was as bad of a performance as I've seen from a UT quarterback. Clausen came on to help us win that game. What I'm saying is that the coaches were in a really bad spot. They had two very flawed quarterbacks and it really was tough to tell on a given day, who would give us the best chance to win. I blame them more for Ainge's mechanical problems than for trying to find a hand hot enough to win us some games.

[Sabanocchio]

What you don't want to do, after being named the starter, is go into a game at LSU, and repeatedly toss the ball up for grabs netting the Tigers a big lead. That was as bad of a performance as I've seen from a UT quarterback. Clausen came on to help us win that game. What I'm saying is that the coaches were in a really bad spot. They had two very flawed quarterbacks and it really was tough to tell on a given day, who would give us the best chance to win. I blame them more for Ainge's mechanical problems than for trying to find a hand hot enough to win us some games.

First off, Ainge was never named the out-and-out starter. It was always said, that he would share time. IMO, that impacts your confidence level. Secondly, my point is that after sucking it up early in the game, (And Clausen played as well in the first half and stunk it up, people seem to forget that.) Ainge was never given the opportunity to redeem his play. He never got back in, so we don't know if he would have had a heroic come-from-behind effort akin to Clausen's or not. He was never given the opportunity.

The coaching staff that followed understood something that Sanders did not. If you want a bonafide starting quarterback on your team, you better damn sure sell to him that he's a bonafide starting QB. Not jerk him around like he's in a pickup game.

By saying that we had two undesirable Qb's and just tried to pick the "hot hand", you have to totally ignore how effective Ainge was in his freshman season when the situation was entirely different. For some reason, Sanders couldn't make up his mind on a Quarterback, and maybe the "Clausen" name and trying to appeal to Jimmy did have something to do with that. Otherwise, it seems irrational. JMO.

It is quite clear to me after seeing Cut come in the following year and Ainge's confidence level soar and in turn his play, that most of the blame of poor QB play that year must fall on the coaches.

[BAMAPERRY]

Sanders did well with Woodson at Kentucky. Probably had a lot more to do with Fulmer micromanaging Ainge and Cut given autonomy.

[Sabanocchio]

Sanders did well with Woodson at Kentucky. Probably had a lot more to do with Fulmer micromanaging Ainge and Cut given autonomy.

Sanders is in a different role at Kentucky and never had another option other than Woodson. It's a completely different situation.

Possibly right on the next point.

[fernandomike]

First off, Ainge was never named the out-and-out starter. It was always said, that he would share time. IMO, that impacts your confidence level. Secondly, my point is that after sucking it up early in the game, (And Clausen played as well in the first half and stunk it up, people seem to forget that.) Ainge was never given the opportunity to redeem his play. He never got back in, so we don't know if he would have had a heroic come-from-behind effort akin to Clausen's or not. He was never given the opportunity.

The coaching staff that followed understood something that Sanders did not. If you want a bonafide starting quarterback on your team, you better damn sure sell to him that he's a bonafide starting QB. Not jerk him around like he's in a pickup game.

By saying that we had two undesirable Qb's and just tried to pick the "hot hand", you have to totally ignore how effective Ainge was in his freshman season when the situation was entirely different. For some reason, Sanders couldn't make up his mind on a Quarterback, and maybe the "Clausen" name and trying to appeal to Jimmy did have something to do with that. Otherwise, it seems irrational. JMO.

It is quite clear to me after seeing Cut come in the following year and Ainge's confidence level soar and in turn his play, that most of the blame of poor QB play that year must fall on the coaches.

I disagree on a couple of points. Ainge was named the starter prior to the LSU game. I believe that Fulmer had no intention of removing him as starter, but Erik peed his pants in that game. It was painful to watch. Fulmer/Sanders had to pull him out of the LSU game. While we don't know for sure whether or not Ainge could have led that kind of comeback, I'm about 99% sure that he wouldn't have.
The bottom line is that Ainge regressed. Both he and the coaches share responsibility for that. Competition should have made him better, not worse. Like I said, if he wasn't mentally tough enough to wrestle the job away by playing well when he had the opportunity, then he wasn't going to be good enough to win in some of the tough venues that we play in. How many more games do you think we would have won with Erik as the outright starter? What if he continued to suck? Would he have gained confidence or lost even more? What about the team which was reportedly pushing for the statistically more effective Clausen? I do agree with you that Ainge was hampered by poor coaching. Still, that season wasn't as simple as settling on Ainge as qb and watching us roll.

[Sabanocchio]

I disagree on a couple of points. Ainge was named the starter prior to the LSU game. I believe that Fulmer had no intention of removing him as starter, but Erik peed his pants in that game. It was painful to watch. Fulmer/Sanders had to pull him out of the LSU game. While we don't know for sure whether or not Ainge could have led that kind of comeback, I'm about 99% sure that he wouldn't have.
The bottom line is that Ainge regressed. Both he and the coaches share responsibility for that. Competition should have made him better, not worse. Like I said, if he wasn't mentally tough enough to wrestle the job away by playing well when he had the opportunity, then he wasn't going to be good enough to win in some of the tough venues that we play in. How many more games do you think we would have won with Erik as the outright starter? What if he continued to suck? Would he have gained confidence or lost even more? What about the team which was reportedly pushing for the statistically more effective Clausen? I do agree with you that Ainge was hampered by poor coaching. Still, that season wasn't as simple as settling on Ainge as qb and watching us roll.
I'm not saying it was that simple. It also wasn't as complicated as they made it out to be. We couldn't have done any worse, record-wise than what we did, the season on a whole. I know hindsight is 20/20, but you have to at least be decisive with your decisions and they weren't. I think Ainge would have won us some more games down the stretch had he have had that experience that comes from being a starting QB. At the end of the season he would resemble the Ainge that we saw early 2006 rather than the guy that got yanked in the LSU game. I think we would've won at least 2 of the games we lost. You have to have the foresight for those kind of things as an Offensive Coordinator which is why Sanders ended the year unemployed. Yes, Ainge was at fault and ultimately could have won the job early by playing more effectively when given the opportunity. But IMO, the coaching staff was setting him up to fail.

And I remember it being said before the LSU game that Clausen would definitely get playing time. Not sure where you heard otherwise. :thumpsup:

[fernandomike]

Well, if we had put Ainge in fulltime, and if he had stopped completing only 45% of his passes, and if he had stopped turning the ball over, then you're right, we may have won a couple more games. Those "ifs" also work in the opposite direction. What if we had stuck with Ainge and lost by 30 at LSU (which looked entirely possible while he was in the game)? What if he followed his statistical pattern and turned it over in a loss to Memphis? We might of had a couple more wins, but it could have easily been a couple more losses. It's definitely all speculative. The one thing that we do know is that neither Ainge nor the offensive coaches were getting the job done.

[Sabanocchio]

Well, if we had put Ainge in fulltime, and if he had stopped completing only 45% of his passes, and if he had stopped turning the ball over, then you're right, we may have won a couple more games. Those "ifs" also work in the opposite direction. What if we had stuck with Ainge and lost by 30 at LSU (which looked entirely possible while he was in the game)? What if he followed his statistical pattern and turned it over in a loss to Memphis? We might of had a couple more wins, but it could have easily been a couple more losses. It's definitely all speculative. The one thing that we do know is that neither Ainge nor the offensive coaches were getting the job done.

That's all true. Let's just hope the guys we have now are the right guys to get the job done. This league is becoming tougher and tougher every year and one small mistake could lead to another losing season.

[D^3]

Ainge will end up like David Greene, riding the bench for a team with solid QB production (Greene was in Seattle behind Hasselbeck, now he's in New England). He won't get drafted to be anyone's starter, he'll probably get picked up in the late rounds as a possible 2nd stringer.

[Tennessee Ted]

I am just thankful that the football season of 2005 is over. Hope we never have to go through that again.

[BAMAPERRY]

any of you UT fans know this couple? :laugh:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/weddings/graphics/hillbilly1.jpg

[GoVols1998]

All of the South QB's struggles in practice from what I heard due to the Souths coach messing with there footwork. The one that struggled the most was Andre Woodson.