Never was a recruiter for us. Fulmer lined em up and closed. The kids did want to play for him after visits if not already sold by his reputation. Started getting ranked for recruiting at LSU so something changed. As a DC I rank him an A. Aware of shortcomings but he was nothing if not great.I agree with your post about weakness against the fun & gun.
And at some point he just quit being a recruiter.
Not saying he was Sal Sunseri bad but dont think he is anything close to an A. Dooleys hire of Kevin Steele was squashed because he gave up 70 to WVU. Yet Chavis have up 62 and 59 and a slew of 30-40 point games as well.Never was a recruiter for us. Fulmer lined em up and closed. The kids did want to play for him after visits if not already sold by his reputation. Started getting ranked for recruiting at LSU so something changed. As a DC I rank him an A. Aware of shortcomings but he was nothing if not great.
That you even brought up Sunseri’s name requires you to recuse yourself. EVERY DC has had breakdowns...every single one. A because I grade by overall product.Not saying he was Sal Sunseri bad but dont think he is anything close to an A. Dooleys hire of Kevin Steele was squashed because he gave up 70 to WVU. Yet Chavis have up 62 and 59 and a slew of 30-40 point games as well.
And he also got cute with the Mustang package and other tweaks. You can be great and flawed. He’s a great example.His defensive strategy was copied, many times, and still being used as a model, today. Just look at LSU and Bama. It was really very simple. Put two huge run stoppers, at DT (Henderson, Haynesworth, etc), force everything outside, so your fast LB's could run it down. DE's were pure pass rushers, with motors that never quit. We played a lot of two-deep zone, with the safeties, and mixed up coverages with the corners. Overall, the defense was aggressive, and tried to force turnovers, giving the offense more opportunities. When Chavis had depth, at the LB and D-line, his defense was tough to handle. Especially when coupled with a balanced offensive attack like Cut's. The kicking game was huge. Pinning offenses deep, and putting pressure on them, forcing them to drive the length of the field, turn it over, and make mistakes.
Giving up 48 straight when you have a 16 point lead in the swamp is the definition pooping the bed. Letting a backup Qb run draws at will in the SECCG also falls in that category. We had record setting offenses both years too. I would probably throw 97 in there too even though i dont think anyone was going to beat Nebraska that year.Or he was a major reason we were ever in contention for those championships. Pesky narratives and opinions!
Lol at Saban getting defensive philosophy from Chavis.His defensive strategy was copied, many times, and still being used as a model, today. Just look at LSU and Bama. It was really very simple. Put two huge run stoppers, at DT (Henderson, Haynesworth, etc), force everything outside, so your fast LB's could run it down. DE's were pure pass rushers, with motors that never quit. We played a lot of two-deep zone, with the safeties, and mixed up coverages with the corners. Overall, the defense was aggressive, and tried to force turnovers, giving the offense more opportunities. When Chavis had depth, at the LB and D-line, his defense was tough to handle. Especially when coupled with a balanced offensive attack like Cut's. The kicking game was huge. Pinning offenses deep, and putting pressure on them, forcing them to drive the length of the field, turn it over, and make mistakes.
A lot of great points in here. However much credit he gets, he gets just as much blame. The Chavis D infamously cost us a run at multiple ‘ships, specifically in 95 and 01.