"An Incredible Cheap Shot"-Fulmer

#52
#52
wonder which former players are talking about state of our program article in tennessan according to article coach really upset
 
#56
#56
Those players probably never saw the field. True there are issuses in the program. But the article seemed kinda half baked. Fulmer brought up a good point in saying that if they were that concerned they could have just talked to him about it. These guys were probably not that close to the program. Makes pennington look like a azzclown.
 
#57
#57
I took a close look at Fulmer's comments, and find something interesting. Maybe there is just no need for a head coach to argue with a sports columnist, but all those allegations seem to be plausible to explain what happened in the past few years. I may not read Fulmer's whole comments, but here are his response I can get:

1. It's a cheap shot, and he doesn't like it, especially in the game day and when a lot of prospects come in.

2. Former players have chance to talk to him directly. There is no need for them to go to a sports writer and talk about the program on the back.

3. Players love their coaches. They go out to play and prove some people are wrong.

4. It's a cheap shot, and it's what it is.

Did Fulmer unequivocally deny the allegations, or instead, address the current situations at this football team? Sorry, I didn't see any.
 
#58
#58
IMO if the former players have enough manhood to talk secretly to a media guy and still go to enough practices to know what they said they should also be willing to help the team by addressing the team themselves. If i was to stop by my old school sometime and after having a few bad seasons I see the lazy attitudes reported here in the weight room don't think for a second i wouldn't say something to the players. If that didn't work then i would go to the Coach.
 
#59
#59
the first amendment protects the annonymity of sources to the press. if you people don't like that then please move to North Korea or Iran perhaps.
 
#60
#60
VolunteerHillbilly said:
the first amendment protects the annonymity of sources to the press. if you people don't like that then please move to North Korea or Iran perhaps.
Click to expand...

When speaking of top secret government affairs, felony investigations, or the like I have no problem with annonymity. To call out your former team to a sports reporter is pretty bush league and shouldn't require protection under the constitution.
 
#62
#62
I have two large problems with the article:
Anonymous sources=absolutely worthless, everytime
Pennington says himself that he only consulted 9 former players to write this article...
 
#63
#63
therealUT said:
I have two large problems with the article:
Anonymous sources=absolutely worthless, everytime
Pennington says himself that he only consulted 9 former players to write this article...
Click to expand...

Watergate is absolutely worthless then?
 
#64
#64
DC Vol said:
Watergate is absolutely worthless then?
Click to expand...
When it came out exactly who Deep Throat was...hmm, simply a man with a vendetta against the administration. I guess that makes him a reliable and noble source, huh?

However, politics can be discussed elsewhere.
 
#65
#65
Pennington is a weenie. He picks up and puts down the journalist tag whenever an argument best suits him.

It was a blatant cheap shot.
 
#66
#66
VolunteerHillbilly said:
the first amendment protects the annonymity of sources to the press. if you people don't like that then please move to North Korea or Iran perhaps.
Click to expand...


He claims to not be a journalist.


Quite frankly, his opinion doesn't mean $h!t, and couldn't provide any names of anybody whose opinion means $h!t either.
 
#67
#67
VolunteerHillbilly said:
the first amendment protects the annonymity of sources to the press. if you people don't like that then please move to North Korea or Iran perhaps.
Click to expand...
Of course the First Amendment protects it. I wasn't calling for it to be illegal. I am simply saying that hiding behind that is questionable at best.
 
#69
#69
therealUT said:
Of course the First Amendment protects it. I wasn't calling for it to be illegal. I am simply saying that hiding behind that is questionable at best.
Click to expand...


I think it's funny that posts are talking more about the players being unnamed, then they have about what the players actually said.

Everything in that article I have read before. People have discussed the perceived lack of conditioning, fundamentals, and intensity from the team for as long as I have been on this board.
 
#70
#70
oklavol said:
I think it's funny that posts are talking more about the players being unnamed, then they have about what the players actually said.

Everything in that article I have read before. People have discussed the perceived lack of conditioning, fundamentals, and intensity from the team for as long as I have been on this board.
Click to expand...

I think it's in Darren Epps book on the 2005 season, former players say the same stuff. And they aren't anonymous.
 
#71
#71
First off I doubt that guy talked to anymore than two or three players. Secondly, it seemed like whoever he talked to has spent a significant amount of time with the program since they quit playing so it shouldn't be too hard to figure out who it was and tell them to get lost. Regardless, I think the main gripe of Phil's had to do with the timing of the article. It was on the morning of a big home game that everyone needed to win (coaches, players, and fans), it was also on a day where there were many recruits in town, the story was printed in the game day edition which every hotel had 50 of setting in the lobby so it wasn't hard to get your hands on, and the story appeared intentionally negative towards the program and the coaching staff almost as if the writer was hoping the Vols lost that day or is like many of you here and wants a change even at the expense of a terrible season. I think Phil's gripe was why print that story on that day when so much more positive ideas could be discussed.
 
#72
#72
I don't understand how coaches close off most of their practices, most of their meetings, and most of the access to the team from the media, and then complain when opinion pieces show up in the paper.

Journalists write about discussions with former players because they don't have the same access to the team they once had. I understand that Fulmer wants to eliminate teams spying, but trying to curb the bent of opinion pieces in sports pages is reaching.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top