Pruitt was left with a dog***t roster with underdeveloped and entitled players with a losing mentally, a bad OL who could dominate a Sun Belt team at best, and taking over for the POS that caused the worst season in our history.A C+ is way too generous given the way we lost the last 2 games......
The biggest issue I have with your analysis is the match ups. We beat two teams with lesser quarterbacks in Kentucky and Auburn. Most teams with real quarterbacks chewed us up. Matchups are key to determining the type of game and final score. Vandy and Missouri were horrible match ups for us and the score showed....just like last year.1. If we played Vandy like we played against KY I do not believe we would have lost. So it's hard to answer that question.
2. Losing to Vanderbilt is complete and utter nonsense, regardless of the year, and yes, I do believe we had enough talent on this team to beat them. Lack of talent got us beat against teams like Alabama, Georgia, West Virginia, and Florida. It did not get us beat against Vandy.
Pruitt was left with a dog***t roster with underdeveloped and entitled players with a losing mentally, a bad OL who could dominate a Sun Belt team at best, and taking over for the POS that caused the worst season in our history.
Despite the horrible losses to Vandy and Mizzou, we beat two top 20 teams in Auburn and Kentucky and came very close to beating a good Carolina team on the road. Many expected us to go 3-9, or worse. And we have slowly improved in some areas. Some of you expected for us to compete for the SEC East right away like Kirby Smart, even though he was left with great talent while Pruitt was left with a team with few blue chippers and mostly a roster of Sun Belt players.
I didn't expect to go in the season to compete for the East. That was asking for too much. Many of you got your expectations too high for a huge letdown when it didn't happen. With our schedule and what we had, I think that a C+ is very reasonable.
So Auburn and Kentucky must be terrible to have lost to this "dog***t roster with underdeveloped and entitled players with a losing mentally", right? Since they were so bad to lose to us, those couldn't be quality wins at all, right?
I believe this is fair and about right.College football first-year coach grades: Florida's Dan Mullen gets an 'A,' UCLA's Chip Kelly does not
Jeremy Pruitt 5-7.... There were bright moments, like the win at Auburn, and awful ones like losing to Missouri and Vanderbilt to close out the season. Baby steps and patience, Vols fans. C+
That's about right imo. The late losses sting hard but beating a ranked Auburn and Kentucky is still pretty damn sweet. All in all it was a decent first year for Pruitt.
Ah, but you guys want to blame Pruitt for Vandy-Mizzou without giving him credit for Auburn-UK.
It does seem like most people agree somewhere between D and C with C+ being a little generous. I am not sure the difference is worth arguing especially since it will not change any games. We will need to see what happy next year. Just like Butch before Pruitt, there are some warning flags with Pruitt from this year that are worth monitoring in the coming 2 years. These could be valid or outliers and we will not know until we play more games.
Could have been a 9 win team is fantasy. They were a 5 win team when we played. It’s not like we played Alabama.
If that’s the best we can expect from this staff with our talent then get ready for another 4 or 5 wins next season because this roster isn’t getting overhauled enough to make up for this lack of talent. We’ll have new players but they’ll be freshmen.
We could hire Nick ****ing Saban, him go 12-1, and yall would still find a way to bitch about the loss.