Looking back, should not have fired Phil

[GreveHaller]

He did suck here. We all realize that. The question is why ?

Probably due to your tainted view.

He was successful before joining the TN staff and he has been successful since leaving. He is a good coach, he has proven that.

Not sure your definition of "successful" but before he got to UT

1999Fordham 0–11
2000Fordham 3–8
2001Fordham 7–4
2002Fordham 10–3
2003Fordham 9–3

Fordham record 29-29

2004Richmond 3–8
2005Richmond 9–4
2006Richmond 6–5
2007Richmond 11–3

Richmond record 29-20


After leaving the Vols

2009Bowling Green 7–6
2010Bowling Green 2–10
2011Bowling Green 5–7
2012Bowling Green 8–5
2013Bowling Green10–3

BG record 32-31

Overall 90-80 52.9%

For as much as you detest Phil and laud Dave, seems Dave has 9 of his 14 seasons with 8 wins or less. If that's your definition of "successful", then you should paint your stomach orange and rename yourself Phil's long lost brother.

 

[VolFan4Life87]

Sooo, he was coming off back to back 10-3 seasons in 2005. He has one 5 win season and you wanted him gone?

It's really easy to say that now. For the record, I did not want Fulmer gone in 2005. BUT you have to consider...

1) UT fans were spoiled by success at the time. Wins were common and expected. It wasn't just about winning and the record at the end of the season, every season we were hungry for the SEC Championship game. Post 1998, if we didn't reach it the season was a disappointment. Hell most of us were hungry for another NC, the SECCG was just a stepping stone.

2) The team was beginning to LOOK sloppy. Sjt commented about this earlier and he was right. In as early as 2003 (for me) I could see the demeanor and play of players changing. Our defense began to look like pigs on ice skates; we took horrible angles & we dove at opponents in what were seemingly selfish attempts to get ESPN's hit of the week or something instead of a clean wrap up and tackle, and our offense had periods of stagnation.

Obviously many other points on this topic, hence this topic still being debated 6 years after the fact but from memory these were some big factors that led to people wanting change even before 2008.

 

[KBVol]

It's really easy to say that now. For the record, I did not want Fulmer gone in 2005. BUT you have to consider...

1) UT fans were spoiled by success at the time. Wins were common and expected. It wasn't just about winning and the record at the end of the season, every season we were hungry for the SEC Championship game. Post 1998, if we didn't reach it the season was a disappointment. Hell most of us were hungry for another NC, the SECCG was just a stepping stone.

2) The team was beginning to LOOK sloppy. Sjt commented about this earlier and he was right. In as early as 2003 (for me) I could see the demeanor and play of players changing. Our defense began to look like pigs on ice skates; we took horrible angles & we dove at opponents in what were seemingly selfish attempts to get ESPN's hit of the week or something instead of a clean wrap up and tackle, and our offense had periods of stagnation.

Obviously many other points on this topic, hence this topic still being debated 6 years after the fact but from memory these were some big factors that led to people wanting change even before 2008.

When I read the post I responded to, where the guy said he wanted Phil gone in 2005, which was a 5 win season, I tried to put myself in the Athletic Director's seat. Phil had just won 11, 8, 10 and 10 games before the 5 win season in 2005. There's just no way ANY athletic director would've fired a coach after those 5 seasons, especially a guy like Fulmer who got the benefit of the doubt after his previous 10 years or so which included a NC. I thought it was a ridiculous statement.

Now, by 2008, 3 years and some really bad football later, it became obvious to me that it was time to make a change. However, there's no way any AD worth his salt could've fired Fulmer in 2005.

 

[perico]

Sanders was a good coach at TN. He just happened to be Fulmers 1st fall guy. We would have been better off if Sanders stayed and Fulmer left, imo.

Sanders has always been a fantastic position coach. He's never been much of an offensive coordinator.

 

[perico]

Never was there a more put upon and unfairly criticized qb than Jon crompton.

I would give you a hug for this observation. Glad somebody finally stated this point.

 

[oregonvol]

When I read the post I responded to, where the guy said he wanted Phil gone in 2005, which was a 5 win season, I tried to put myself in the Athletic Director's seat. Phil had just won 11, 8, 10 and 10 games before the 5 win season in 2005. There's just no way ANY athletic director would've fired a coach after those 5 seasons, especially a guy like Fulmer who got the benefit of the doubt after his previous 10 years or so which included a NC. I thought it was a ridiculous statement.

Now, by 2008, 3 years and some really bad football later, it became obvious to me that it was time to make a change. However, there's no way any AD worth his salt could've fired Fulmer in 2005.

Yeah, it's kind of like Auburn wanting Tuberville gone after his first losing season there. We saw how that worked out. Or getting rid of Chizik after his first losing season, two years removed from a national championship. What were they thinking?

It's easy to say, "well UT is horrible now, we should have been happy with mediocrity," but that's how you end up being an irrelevant program permanently. And hey, look, that's probably what we've become.

 

[perico]

Not sure your definition of "successful" but before he got to UT

1999Fordham 0–11
2000Fordham 3–8
2001Fordham 7–4
2002Fordham 10–3
2003Fordham 9–3

Fordham record 29-29

2004Richmond 3–8
2005Richmond 9–4
2006Richmond 6–5
2007Richmond 11–3

Richmond record 29-20


After leaving the Vols

2009Bowling Green 7–6
2010Bowling Green 2–10
2011Bowling Green 5–7
2012Bowling Green 8–5
2013Bowling Green10–3

BG record 32-31

Overall 90-80 52.9%

For as much as you detest Phil and laud Dave, seems Dave has 9 of his 14 seasons with 8 wins or less. If that's your definition of "successful", then you should paint your stomach orange and rename yourself Phil's long lost brother.

Clausen built that Fordham team from scratch. They didnt have a football program when he took the job. of course that record is skewed. He turned Richmond into FCS championship appearance.

Secondly, it's true that his offense takes time and intelligence to install. It's very complicated. I'm a fan of Crompton, but I still get giggles from picturing Clawsen trying to explain his offense to him. Clawsen and TN were just not a good fit at that point in time (2008).

 

[KBVol]

Yeah, it's kind of like Auburn wanting Tuberville gone after his first losing season there. We saw how that worked out. Or getting rid of Chizik after his first losing season, two years removed from a national championship. What were they thinking?

It's easy to say, "well UT is horrible now, we should have been happy with mediocrity," but that's how you end up being an irrelevant program permanently. And hey, look, that's probably what we've become.

You'd make one helluva AD. I doubt you'll be able to comprehend what I'm about to post but I'll try anyway.

Going into the 2005 season, Phil Fulmer was 123-31 (.799%) as Tennessee's head coach, making him the winningest active head coach in college football at the time. He was coming off back to back 10-win seasons, had 12 straight AP top 25 teams, finishing in the top 10 6 times. He had a National title, 2 SEC titles, finished with the best record in the SEC East 5 times and finished with the second best record 6 other times because there was a fairly decent team competing for National titles as well down in Gainesville.

So, if I understand you, in all your petulance, you'd have fired him after an outlier 5 win season in 2005. Is that about right? Brilliant.

Also, for you to actually compare the situation I outlined above to Gene Chizik's firing/situation at Auburn is utterly ridiculous. Chizik was a failure at Iowa State (5-19) before being hired at Auburn, caught lightning in a bottle with Cam Newton for one year, then went 8-5 and 3-9 2 years later.

Conversely, Fulmer was very successful before his NC year in '98 (54-11) and much, much more successful than Chizik ever was after the NC year in '98 (85-41).

But hey, fire away Mr AD, fire away.

 

[GreveHaller]

You'd make one helluva AD. I doubt you'll be able to comprehend what I'm about to post but I'll try anyway.

Going into the 2005 season, Phil Fulmer was 123-31 (.799%) as Tennessee's head coach, making him the winningest active head coach in college football at the time. He was coming off back to back 10-win seasons, had 12 straight AP top 25 teams, finishing in the top 10 6 times. He had a National title, 2 SEC titles, finished with the best record in the SEC East 5 times and finished with the second best record 6 other times because there was a fairly decent team competing for National titles as well down in Gainesville.

So, if I understand you, in all your petulance, you'd have fired him after an outlier 5 win season in 2005. Is that about right? Brilliant.

Also, for you to actually compare the situation I outlined above to Gene Chizik's firing/situation at Auburn is utterly ridiculous. Chizik was a failure at Iowa State (5-19) before being hired at Auburn, caught lightning in a bottle with Cam Newton for one year, then went 8-5 and 3-9 2 years later.

Conversely, Fulmer was very successful before his NC year in '98 (54-11) and much, much more successful than Chizik ever was after the NC year in '98 (85-41).

But hey, fire away Mr AD, fire away.

well done

 

[ajvol01]

did you see Clawson against UCLA, we averaged almost 8 yards a carry in the first half, and he pissed away the game in the second half, by moving away from the running game

Or how about Auburn, when we just needed a FG, to put the game away, and couldn't manage that either...

He sucked here, and look at the stats, they support it

Well the defense only gave him the ball 4 times on interceptions - not enough help from the D was obvious problem

EDIT: sarcasm ^^

 

[ajvol01]

Clausen built that Fordham team from scratch. They didnt have a football program when he took the job. of course that record is skewed. He turned Richmond into FCS championship appearance.

Secondly, it's true that his offense takes time and intelligence to install. It's very complicated. I'm a fan of Crompton, but I still get giggles from picturing Clawsen trying to explain his offense to him. Clawsen and TN were just not a good fit at that point in time (2008).

Who hired him?

 

[ksgovols]

It's really easy to say that now. For the record, I did not want Fulmer gone in 2005. BUT you have to consider...

1) UT fans were spoiled by success at the time. Wins were common and expected. It wasn't just about winning and the record at the end of the season, every season we were hungry for the SEC Championship game. Post 1998, if we didn't reach it the season was a disappointment. Hell most of us were hungry for another NC, the SECCG was just a stepping stone.

2) The team was beginning to LOOK sloppy. Sjt commented about this earlier and he was right. In as early as 2003 (for me) I could see the demeanor and play of players changing. Our defense began to look like pigs on ice skates; we took horrible angles & we dove at opponents in what were seemingly selfish attempts to get ESPN's hit of the week or something instead of a clean wrap up and tackle, and our offense had periods of stagnation.

Obviously many other points on this topic, hence this topic still being debated 6 years after the fact but from memory these were some big factors that led to people wanting change even before 2008.

I agree with this^^^.

There was a generation of Vol fans who hadn't paid any dues fan wise, woke up on third base and thought they'd hit a triple.

I said on Gridscape once, "These are the good ole days" when everyone was complaining about going 9-3 or 10-2 or blowing it in a New Year's Eve bowl.

We got what we deserved.

 

[oregonvol]

You'd make one helluva AD. I doubt you'll be able to comprehend what I'm about to post but I'll try anyway.

Going into the 2005 season, Phil Fulmer was 123-31 (.799%) as Tennessee's head coach, making him the winningest active head coach in college football at the time. He was coming off back to back 10-win seasons, had 12 straight AP top 25 teams, finishing in the top 10 6 times. He had a National title, 2 SEC titles, finished with the best record in the SEC East 5 times and finished with the second best record 6 other times because there was a fairly decent team competing for National titles as well down in Gainesville.

So, if I understand you, in all your petulance, you'd have fired him after an outlier 5 win season in 2005. Is that about right? Brilliant.

Also, for you to actually compare the situation I outlined above to Gene Chizik's firing/situation at Auburn is utterly ridiculous. Chizik was a failure at Iowa State (5-19) before being hired at Auburn, caught lightning in a bottle with Cam Newton for one year, then went 8-5 and 3-9 2 years later.

Conversely, Fulmer was very successful before his NC year in '98 (54-11) and much, much more successful than Chizik ever was after the NC year in '98 (85-41).

But hey, fire away Mr AD, fire away.

Ah, clever. You ignored my mention of Tuberville and just focused on Chizik, because it pretty much sinks your whole argument.

 

[vol_in_ar]

Well the defense only gave him the ball 4 times on interceptions - not enough help from the D was obvious problem

the D was Top 5

 

[KBVol]

Ah, clever. You ignored my mention of Tuberville and just focused on Chizik, because it pretty much sinks your whole argument.

My argument that you shouldn't fire the current winningest active football coach in college football who was 123-31 before what was then an exception to the rule 5-win season?? That argument?? Neither Chizik nor Tuberville have anything remotely to do with my argument. I was pointing out how ridiculously stupid it was of you to try and draw anybody else into the discussion, especially Gene Chizik.

Wow, so I provide facts and common sense to obliterate your ridiculous, illogical, uninformed, emotion-based "argument", and that's all you can come back with? That's pathetic, even coming from you. Expected at least more petulant, circular gibberish from you at a minimum, which is what we're all used to from the great know it all OregonVol. Guess I was wrong yesterday, you're nowhere near your midseason form.

 

[ajvol01]

the D was Top 5

It was sarcasm, sorry no blue font.

I was referring to the 4 interceptions in the UCLA game, not the 2008 season.

 

[volmanal]

Fulmer is a true VFL; however, at his last Bama game in K'ville when I looked around the stadium and over 1/3 of our stadium was filled with Crimson I wanted to throw up.
He needed to go and the rest is history.

I was at this game as well. This was what pushed me to the fire Phil bandwagon. (says the man who has a pic with him as his avy.)

 

[ksgovols]

Now? A freaking third of the state is filled with crimson crap. The vendors that put the UT stuff in convenience stores and department stores carry as much crimson with them as they do orange.

 

[sjt18]

When I read the post I responded to, where the guy said he wanted Phil gone in 2005, which was a 5 win season, I tried to put myself in the Athletic Director's seat. Phil had just won 11, 8, 10 and 10 games before the 5 win season in 2005. There's just no way ANY athletic director would've fired a coach after those 5 seasons, especially a guy like Fulmer who got the benefit of the doubt after his previous 10 years or so which included a NC. I thought it was a ridiculous statement.

Now, by 2008, 3 years and some really bad football later, it became obvious to me that it was time to make a change. However, there's no way any AD worth his salt could've fired Fulmer in 2005.

Anyone who has been around for very long knows that I argued MORE for Fulmer to get a chance to turn things around again than for Dooley to get his 3 year shot. Fulmer deserved it... and I expected a ride on the coaching carousel once he was gone (almost always painful).

I believed that he should need to show consistent progress until he won the SEC again. As it turned out, he fell way short of that.

An AD worth his salt would have forced Fulmer to make coaching changes well before 2005. Richt's survival at UGA is a function of someone forcing him to fire assistants. Fulmer is an anomaly. He won games while failing to hold assistants to a consistently high standard. He was blessed to have some good ones but his downfall was loyalty to the bad ones (like Sanders as OC).

He would have still been coach IMO if he had simply demoted Sanders back to the level where he was effective- QB coach.

 

[1972 Grad]

Anyone who has been around for very long knows that I argued MORE for Fulmer to get a chance to turn things around again than for Dooley to get his 3 year shot. Fulmer deserved it... and I expected a ride on the coaching carousel once he was gone (almost always painful).

I believed that he should need to show consistent progress until he won the SEC again. As it turned out, he fell way short of that.

An AD worth his salt would have forced Fulmer to make coaching changes well before 2005. Richt's survival at UGA is a function of someone forcing him to fire assistants. Fulmer is an anomaly. He won games while failing to hold assistants to a consistently high standard. He was blessed to have some good ones but his downfall was loyalty to the bad ones (like Sanders as OC).

He would have still been coach IMO if he had simply demoted Sanders back to the level where he was effective- QB coach.

Once again, you hit the nail squarely.

 

[oregonvol]

My argument that you shouldn't fire the current winningest active football coach in college football who was 123-31 before what was then an exception to the rule 5-win season?? That argument?? Neither Chizik nor Tuberville have anything remotely to do with my argument. I was pointing out how ridiculously stupid it was of you to try and draw anybody else into the discussion, especially Gene Chizik.

Wow, so I provide facts and common sense to obliterate your ridiculous, illogical, uninformed, emotion-based "argument", and that's all you can come back with? That's pathetic, even coming from you. Expected at least more petulant, circular gibberish from you at a minimum, which is what we're all used to from the great know it all OregonVol. Guess I was wrong yesterday, you're nowhere near your midseason form.

Yeah, I'm the one getting emotional. You're simply the one who can't have a debate without regressing into some grade-schooler with playground insults.

Tuberville's winning percentage was over 70% at Auburn before he went 5-7 in 2008 and was quickly terminated. That seems to have worked out pretty well for Auburn. Bobby Bowden had not had a losing season in over 30 years when he was forced out at FSU. That worked out pretty well for them. Fulmer had a good winning percentage, but that should never be considered a free pass to just go out and let things fall apart.

There was no excuse for what happened in 2005. It was an utter failure and the culmination of many cracks that had been appearing in the program for several years. If we had a strong AD then, maybe we make a move then like Auburn did when Tuberville had his bad season or when Chizik had his. It's a funny thing how successful they've been by firing guys as soon as they show they can't win and bringing in new guys and expecting them to win quickly. It seems to work better than keeping guys and hoping they just magically become good again or just making excuses for the new guy all the time.

But hey, I don't know why you're so upset. You got what you wanted. They kept Fulmer and gave him a chance to bring back some retreads and ended up giving him an extension that resulted in the biggest buyout in college football history. And it all worked out for the best, right?

 

[BeattieFeathers]

Yeah, I'm the one getting emotional. You're simply the one who can't have a debate without regressing into some grade-schooler with playground insults.

Tuberville's winning percentage was over 70% at Auburn before he went 5-7 in 2008 and was quickly terminated. That seems to have worked out pretty well for Auburn. Bobby Bowden had not had a losing season in over 30 years when he was forced out at FSU. That worked out pretty well for them. Fulmer had a good winning percentage, but that should never be considered a free pass to just go out and let things fall apart.

There was no excuse for what happened in 2005. It was an utter failure and the culmination of many cracks that had been appearing in the program for several years. If we had a strong AD then, maybe we make a move then like Auburn did when Tuberville had his bad season or when Chizik had his. It's a funny thing how successful they've been by firing guys as soon as they show they can't win and bringing in new guys and expecting them to win quickly. It seems to work better than keeping guys and hoping they just magically become good again or just making excuses for the new guy all the time.

But hey, I don't know why you're so upset. You got what you wanted. They kept Fulmer and gave him a chance to bring back some retreads and ended up giving him an extension that resulted in the biggest buyout in college football history. And it all worked out for the best, right?

Comparing tubs with Phil is nonsense. You will recall that prior to tubs's unbeaten season, the real bright people at auburn attempted to woo bobby petrino back from Louisville. Tubs fell out of favor with the auburn faithful over issues other than wins.
But how were we hoping to replace Phil in 2005 after consecutive 10 win seasons, one of which he did it with two freshmen and a scrub qb? Our fan base became very spoiled on account of Phil and his efforts. Keep in mind that he is the last coach in this league to win back to back sec titles. You people thinking that some elite coach is going to come in here and make us title town USA are delusional. We might win an sec title in the near future, but you people better enjoy and not take it for granted!!!!!!!!!
:hi: