We ran him off, too....

#7
#7
His offense takes a minimum of 3 years to implement. The fanbase wasn't willing to wait that long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#11
#11
It wasn't his fault. It was a bad marriage all the way around. Ironically, DeBord could've landed here with Ryan Mallett. We are what we are.

No it wasn't Clawson's fault, but just a really bad decision by Fulmer.

I always thought it was Scott Loeffler with Mallet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#12
#12
It was truly amazing how awful the offense was that year. I know it is likely that it would have gotten better if he had a longer time, but that notwithstanding, it was shockingly bad.

We had games where we scored 6, 12, 13, 14, 9, 6, and 7 points.
 
#13
#13
It was truly amazing how awful the offense was that year. I know it is likely that it would have gotten better if he had a longer time, but that notwithstanding, it was shockingly bad.

We had games where we scored 6, 12, 13, 14, 9, 6, and 7 points.

Should have switched OL sides more often.
 
#14
#14
It wasn't his fault. It was a bad marriage all the way around. Ironically, DeBord could've landed here with Ryan Mallett. We are what we are.

I was mad that Fulmer passed on DeBord in favor of Clawson. Seven years later I was mad at Jones for bringing in DeBord.
 
#15
#15
I would have liked to see how it would have turned out in year two. But I really didn't like the funky O-line stuff.

I thought it was pretty amazing that he went to Bowling Green and turned them around right away. Our players couldn't grasp his system, but theirs had no problem with it.
 
#16
#16
I thought it was pretty amazing that he went to Bowling Green and turned them around right away. Our players couldn't grasp his system, but theirs had no problem with it.

Or offense here also never looked like his at any of his other stops. Seems to me that Fulmer forced him to combine the two systems, and it went horribly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#17
#17
I think that was a situation where Fulmer liked the idea of revamping the offense, but wasn't committed to actually doing so.

He had Boyd committed to run it, then got fired -- so the beginning of the Clemson rise to power began
 
#18
#18
I think that was a situation where Fulmer liked the idea of revamping the offense, but wasn't committed to actually doing so.

This...

I would have liked to see how it would have turned out in year two. But I really didn't like the funky O-line stuff.

Agree...

His offense takes a minimum of 3 years to implement. The fanbase wasn't willing to wait that long.

That's just it. Why would Fulmer make such a hire that would require such a long time to implement the system? It's like when Dooley brought in Sunseri who had a different scheme for the personnel. It makes no sense.
 
#19
#19
No offense should take three years to implement--that is absurd nonsense. What head coach--NFL or college--is going to be OK with that? Was /anybody/ in the country running the same odd offensive line stuff that Clawson was doing? I don't even know what it involved--having linemen switch sides on certain plays? Does ANYBODY do it now? He is still running it? Our offense greatly deteriorated under Sanders, but Fulmer, not wanting to admit a mistake, was too slow to sack him. When he finally did, under pressure, the program was spiraling, and Clawson's ridiculously bad offense was the proverbial nail in the coffin for Fulmer, who by then was burnt out anyway and the rest of the staff had got stale.
 
#20
#20
No offense should take three years to implement--that is absurd nonsense. What head coach--NFL or college--is going to be OK with that? Was /anybody/ in the country running the same odd offensive line stuff that Clawson was doing? I don't even know what it involved--having linemen switch sides on certain plays? Does ANYBODY do it now? He is still running it? Our offense greatly deteriorated under Sanders, but Fulmer, not wanting to admit a mistake, was too slow to sack him. When he finally did, under pressure, the program was spiraling, and Clawson's ridiculously bad offense was the proverbial nail in the coffin for Fulmer, who by then was burnt out anyway and the rest of the staff had got stale.

Keep in mind Cut came back in '06 & '07.
 
#21
#21
Keep in mind Cut came back in '06 & '07.

Cutcliffe saved Fulmer's job for those 2 years as well. If Sanders or some other marginal OC were there in 2006, he probably would have been fired after that year.

Cutcliffe had just as much, if not more, to do with the success of Tennessee in the late 90s than Fulmer did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#22
#22
We hadn't recruited the personnel to run that offense. You go from a standard offense that we had been running forever to a spread type offense, with the personnel recruited for a more pro-style, you're going to have implementation problems. You had a changing of the playbook with personnel unsuited to run the offense, especially at the QB position.
 
#23
#23
From the OP's original linked article, Wake likes what he's done there and extended him through 2024.

Also, ..."Clawson rocketed Wake Forest to a 4-win improvement in 2016, among the top five for year-to-year improvements among Power 5 schools, with a win over No. 24 Temple in the Military Bowl. That trajectory mirrors the blueprint for previous Clawson stops; he led Fordham from zero to 10 wins over 1999-02, Richmond from three to 11 victories from 2004-07, and Bowling Green from two to 10 wins from 2010-13."

So his system seems to work at the mid major level. Don't know whether his success is due to his improving his system or the competion.
 
#24
#24
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrQyfjRdHB4[/youtube]
 

VN Store



Back
Top