Dominating Phil (The State.com)

#26
#26
allvol you are the amazing to come up with that. that being said, while i didn't know the stats, I knew peyton didn't make a world of difference to fulmer's overall stats. peyton never won the top ten games or the florida game ( putting up an 0 for).. fulmer's run is great no matter what he inherited... very few schools have had similar 15 yr runs. ask the U. we're even seeing bobby bowden start to fall.
 
#27
#27
volfanbill said:
allvol you are the amazing to come up with that. that being said, while i didn't know the stats, I knew peyton didn't make a world of difference to fulmer's overall stats. peyton never won the top ten games or the florida game ( putting up an 0 for).. fulmer's run is great no matter what he inherited... very few schools have had similar 15 yr runs. ask the U. we're even seeing bobby bowden start to fall.
Click to expand...
Miami won 5 National Titles in 19 years. That's a great run. One National Title and 2 Conference Titles in 14 years is merely good.
 
#28
#28
i'm not denying their 5 titles in 19 years as remarkable... but what wsa their overall record in those 19 years?
 
#30
#30
volfanbill said:
allvol you are the amazing to come up with that. that being said, while i didn't know the stats, I knew peyton didn't make a world of difference to fulmer's overall stats. peyton never won the top ten games or the florida game ( putting up an 0 for).. fulmer's run is great no matter what he inherited... very few schools have had similar 15 yr runs. ask the U. we're even seeing bobby bowden start to fall.
Click to expand...

BTW, those stats didn't include the '94 season when Peyton didn't play.

Peyton won some huge games, just not against FL. I still don't think those were his fault.

CPF's run has been good, not great.

The problem is that a lot of people like to compare TN against "everyone else." But we're not competing against everyone else. We're in a peculiar group of programs that operate on a totally different level. There might be 117 teams in D1-A, but only 25 to 30 are really in that upper echelon.

Take a look at our schedule each year and see who has the material to beat us. Maybe 2-4 teams depending on the year. Well, if you win half of those you end up 9-3 or 10-2 or something. To me, that's the middle, not greatness, esp. with no titles. Of course, I give CPF full credit for keeping our talent at the top, where it should be.
 
#31
#31
i guess we differ on our view of greatness liper... having fulmer year in and year out (last yr not withstanding) keep us in the "upper echelon" as you called it works for me. I would even consider that number as low as around 15. I wonder what we would do in the Big East or ACC where the competion isn't constantly as tough from top to bottom as it is in the SEC. i agree w/ you that our NC system is flawed, because SEC teams get penalized for tougher schedules, because it results in closer games, which hurts in the rankings. i also think spurrier does seem to have an upper hand against fulmer when you throw everything out and just look. which is why I think we should win this game very easily, but I won't be surprised to see spurrier have something up his sleeve and destroy our BCS chances
 
#33
#33
volfanbill said:
i guess we differ on our view of greatness liper... having fulmer year in and year out (last yr not withstanding) keep us in the "upper echelon" as you called it works for me. I would even consider that number as low as around 15. I wonder what we would do in the Big East or ACC where the competion isn't constantly as tough from top to bottom as it is in the SEC. i agree w/ you that our NC system is flawed, because SEC teams get penalized for tougher schedules, because it results in closer games, which hurts in the rankings. i also think spurrier does seem to have an upper hand against fulmer when you throw everything out and just look. which is why I think we should win this game very easily, but I won't be surprised to see spurrier have something up his sleeve and destroy our BCS chances
Click to expand...

That's fair. I mean, I understand that this is all water cooler-based, subjective opion stuff. So there's room for that.

Where I see CPF as falling a little is that, when we should be unstoppable we're really good. When we should be really good we're pretty good, and when we should be pretty good we're very average. We're almost always one or two rungs below where we could be.

2000. We went 8-4 with a blowout loss to K St (Big 12) and finsihed unranked. Had the most players drafted from any school by the NFL after the season.

2001. Good year with no titles. Lost to two inferior opponents with an NFL team on our side.

2002. We went 8-5 with 4 losses by more than 17 points. One of which was to a mediocre Maryland team (ACC) in the Peach Bowl. Unranked.

2003. Went 10-3. Good win at MIA. Got humiliated at home by 27 to GA. Lost by 17 to an average FL team. Lost badly to an unranked CLEM in the peach bowl (ACC). Top 25 ranking.

2004. Great year for the situation. Beat so-so FL. The great win was at GA that year. Once again, embarassed at home on TV by AUB, continuing a trend of egg-laying losses at home.

2005. Nuff said. Team had better talent than this team and went 5-6. Unranked.

Indicentally, we had one of the best Defenses in the country last year, had more talent on offense than we do now...and went 5-6. That team was NOT overrated from a talent standpoint, which is important to view last season as one of the worst coachin jobs in recent memory at a top school. 5-6 doesn't even do it justice.

To me, this slide is huge. We have not been one of the elite teams for quite some time. At best, we were a 3rd tier team (if looking at the 30 or so schools).
 
#34
#34
a handful of things. I think we were more than subpar in the receiving corp from about 2002 until last year. leonard scott as a primary receiver I feel is enough evidence for me. 2001 had so much potential.. i loved stallworth but come on man! last year i think every player on offense underacheived more than i could ever imagine. that team was very good from top to bottom and I don't know what went wrong, but I don't the blame can go solely on CPF. not saying i know where it can go either.

finally my last point, every time i see your avatar i start singing "east bound and down, loaded up and trucking, we're gonna do what they say can't be done" and i don't consider that a bad thing.
 
#35
#35
volfanbill said:
a handful of things. I think we were more than subpar in the receiving corp from about 2002 until last year. leonard scott as a primary receiver I feel is enough evidence for me. 2001 had so much potential.. i loved stallworth but come on man! last year i think every player on offense underacheived more than i could ever imagine. that team was very good from top to bottom and I don't know what went wrong, but I don't the blame can go solely on CPF. not saying i know where it can go either.

finally my last point, every time i see your avatar i start singing "east bound and down, loaded up and trucking, we're gonna do what they say can't be done" and i don't consider that a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Tha avitar is an older picture of me, but that was my favorite car ever. So I still use it.

I would agree that we were subpar in WR from 2002 on. But why? That's the issue. Was it talent or coaching? Well, I think the verdict, that I surmised then, is in. It was coaching, not talent.

We have the same WRs from last year, minus a very talented Chris Hannon (who we wasted). By some magical dust, they are all of the sudden the strength of the team. Might the guys from 2002 forward have benefited from some different coaching? I think so.

Yes, we underachieved. But here is the rub: I don't blame underachieving, executing, and all of that other stuff on players. What the players produce on the field is what they are being coached to do. When you don;t execute for like 6 years, there's a big problem. CPF was the last person to see it, if he ever did (which I seriously doubt he does even now based on his idiotic comments).

I think we underachieve a majority of the time.
 
#36
#36
volfanbill said:
i'm not denying their 5 titles in 19 years as remarkable... but what wsa their overall record in those 19 years?
Click to expand...
What is this obsession with overall record? If you're not winning championships, who cares? By that measure, the Utah Jazz were great in the '90s. Overall record is the last refuge for teams/coaches that can't get the job done.
 
#37
#37
Liper said:
Tha avitar is an older picture of me, but that was my favorite car ever. So I still use it.

I would agree that we were subpar in WR from 2002 on. But why? That's the issue. Was it talent or coaching? Well, I think the verdict, that I surmised then, is in. It was coaching, not talent.

We have the same WRs from last year, minus a very talented Chris Hannon (who we wasted). By some magical dust, they are all of the sudden the strength of the team. Might the guys from 2002 forward have benefited from some different coaching? I think so.
Click to expand...

I would have picked you for an FSU fan then. I think it was talent. i think some of our recruits never panned out and if i'm not mistaken didn't we have to move some wr's over to the secondary? I think last year's receivers lacked heart and that's why they underachieved. perhaps that is coaching, but fulmer has harped on heart since last year and i think it's finally paying off.
 
#38
#38
volfanbill said:
...i think some of our recruits never panned out and if i'm not mistaken didn't we have to move some wr's over to the secondary? I think last year's receivers lacked heart and that's why they underachieved. perhaps that is coaching, but fulmer has harped on heart since last year and i think it's finally paying off.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...last year's WRs are this year's WRs. Either they have "heart" or they don't. Apparently they do, so that means they did then as well. Robert Meachem hasn't turned into a bonafide NFL WR because he's trying harder. Same for Ainge. It's because more is expected of them and they are being TAUGHT HOW to play. If they didn't have the talent or heart, it wouldn't matter who was coaching them; they'd still be bad. Logically speaking, nothing has changed except the coaching.

I don't think anything CPF has "harped on" makes a lick of difference. He was "harping" last year and the year before that. Harping is overrated; coaching is underrated. They're not the same thing. He's still under the same delusion that we "were a few plays away" and that "we just needed to execute better". He still doesn't except the fact they did a deplorable job of coaching, and have been for the better part of 7 years.
 
#39
#39
volfanbill said:
finally my last point, every time i see your avatar i start singing "east bound and down, loaded up and trucking, we're gonna do what they say can't be done" and i don't consider that a bad thing.
Click to expand...

And coincidentally, everytime I drive through Texarkana, I come in on the line "well they're thirsty in Atlanta and there's beer in Texarkana..."
 
#40
#40
Liper said:
Indicentally, we had one of the best Defenses in the country last year, had more talent on offense than we do now...and went 5-6. That team was NOT overrated from a talent standpoint, which is important to view last season as one of the worst coachin jobs in recent memory at a top school. 5-6 doesn't even do it justice.
Click to expand...
Ding ding ding ding ding

No excuse.
 
#41
#41
Liper said:
That's fair. I mean, I understand that this is all water cooler-based, subjective opion stuff. So there's room for that.

Where I see CPF as falling a little is that, when we should be unstoppable we're really good. When we should be really good we're pretty good, and when we should be pretty good we're very average. We're almost always one or two rungs below where we could be.

2000. We went 8-4 with a blowout loss to K St (Big 12) and finsihed unranked. Had the most players drafted from any school by the NFL after the season.

2001. Good year with no titles. Lost to two inferior opponents with an NFL team on our side.

2002. We went 8-5 with 4 losses by more than 17 points. One of which was to a mediocre Maryland team (ACC) in the Peach Bowl. Unranked.

2003. Went 10-3. Good win at MIA. Got humiliated at home by 27 to GA. Lost by 17 to an average FL team. Lost badly to an unranked CLEM in the peach bowl (ACC). Top 25 ranking.

2004. Great year for the situation. Beat so-so FL. The great win was at GA that year. Once again, embarassed at home on TV by AUB, continuing a trend of egg-laying losses at home.

2005. Nuff said. Team had better talent than this team and went 5-6. Unranked.

Indicentally, we had one of the best Defenses in the country last year, had more talent on offense than we do now...and went 5-6. That team was NOT overrated from a talent standpoint, which is important to view last season as one of the worst coachin jobs in recent memory at a top school. 5-6 doesn't even do it justice.

To me, this slide is huge. We have not been one of the elite teams for quite some time. At best, we were a 3rd tier team (if looking at the 30 or so schools).
Click to expand...

You make all good points Liper, however, some of the years you list as not living up to potential, the Vols were actually picked near the middle of the pack in the SEC East and went on to have much better seasons than imagined. 2003 and 2004 for example, as well as 1998. Commentators have said for many years that 1998 was a great piece of coaching during a rebuilding year. They also said that the 2004 team had no business winning 10 games and participating in the SECCG.
 
#42
#42
Pile On!!!


Hurry Up NegaVols, You all have to be quicker to support each other than this. Where's VH when you guys really need him?
 
#43
#43
allvol said:
You make all good points Liper, however, some of the years you list as not living up to potential, the Vols were actually picked near the middle of the pack in the SEC East and went on to have much better seasons than imagined. 2003 and 2004 for example, as well as 1998. Commentators have said for many years that 1998 was a great piece of coaching during a rebuilding year. They also said that the 2004 team had no business winning 10 games and participating in the SECCG.
Click to expand...
Any commentator who says that about 1998 must not look at NFL rosters. That team was as talented as any UT has ever had.
 
#44
#44
hohenfelsvol said:
Story ranks up there with Mark Richt's owning of Fulmer. Remember the blank look on his face. Spurrier gonna be throwing visors and grapping his forehead on Saturday. Feel good Cock media stories until Sunday when they have to write the "Oh crap" stories again.
Click to expand...

AS far as throwing visors, its a night game, probably wont be wearing one, so there goes the headset. I predict four times. The hardest throw being when his big trick play blows up on him. By the way Spurrrier wanted to play at UT, but when the UT scouts came to watch, they were more impressed with the punter, so they offered him the scolarship instead. I say thats why Spurrier has such an agenda against Tenn. I know this because I played HS football against Spurrier his senior year, and were the only team to beat him,Tennessee High of Bristol. He was an arrogant conceited butt then too.
 
#45
#45
allvol said:
You make all good points Liper, however, some of the years you list as not living up to potential, the Vols were actually picked near the middle of the pack in the SEC East and went on to have much better seasons than imagined. 2003 and 2004 for example, as well as 1998. Commentators have said for many years that 1998 was a great piece of coaching during a rebuilding year. They also said that the 2004 team had no business winning 10 games and participating in the SECCG.
Click to expand...

OK, from the perspective of evaluating things based on what commentators say is a different animal. We all take everything into account when we try and predict where a team would finish. That includes coaching and past performance.

Remember when were 17 point underdogs to FL in 2001? How could that be? Well, it's because FL was good and Spurrier owns Fulmer and we always lay eggs in that game. Thus, to bring in even money, the spread had to be huge.

But the game from a talent standpoint was at worst even. If you look at the NFL, I'd say TN was a more talented team from top to bottom.

So, yes, it was an upset because of what we expected. But it was not an upset based on talent. People had already factored in the coaching deficiency.

It's kind of like saying CPF is awesome this year for taking a 5-6 team to where it is now. But that is only if you use last year as an appropriate benchmark.

We were absolutely LOADED to the HILTON in 1998, so I don't see why that is so surprising.

I think we underachieved in 2003. We lost to a crap FL team, got blown out by GA, and got manhandled by an unranked Clemson at the Peach Bowl.

2004 was a very good year. I agree because we had frosh QBs. It stands as the only year where I was pleasantly surprised, and that our performance likely outdid our talent.
 
#46
#46
OrangeSquare said:
Pile On!!!


Hurry Up NegaVols, You all have to be quicker to support each other than this. Where's VH when you guys really need him?
Click to expand...

Who said anything about cheering for the Vols? I thought we were discussing CPF's coaching record based on observable, historical facts.
 
#47
#47
For what it's worth:

1993-1998 85% win pct
1999-2005 70% win pct (3.7 losses per year)
2000-2005 69% win pct (3.8 losses per year)
 
#49
#49
Volmania said:
I believe Florida has only won five SEC football Championships, ever, all but one while Wuerffel was QB.
Click to expand...

They won it in 1990 on the field but were denied the title b/c they were on probation from the 80's.

91,93,94,95,96,00 = six SEC titles

1991 Shane Matthews
1993 Weurffel/Dean
1994 Wuerffel/Dean (Dean started v TN 31-0)
1995 Wuerffel
1996 Wuerffel
2000 Grossman (frosh)
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top