Fast Foward: Jan 1, 2008? Fulmer Excuses

Angry?

What does leading the nation in offense and defense have to do with any thing?
No. Not angry. I thought you wanted to know what we thought the goals should be. The standard I believe should be winning 10 games most every year and competing for and occasionally winning championships... but the goal should be to dominate every opponent in every phase all the time.

Also, who said a new coach would be the immediate fix?
I'm not sure a new coach would be a fix at all... that was my point. A new coach could very easily set UT into a tailspin that they wouldn't recovery from within 20 years.
 
No. Not angry. I thought you wanted to know what we thought the goals should be. The standard I believe should be winning 10 games most every year and competing for and occasionally winning championships... but the goal should be to dominate every opponent in every phase all the time.


I'm not sure a new coach would be a fix at all... that was my point. A new coach could very easily set UT into a tailspin that they wouldn't recovery from within 20 years.


No, I think you are angry.

:yes:
 
OE...Jackie Gleason in the Toy.... Fulmer...Lassiez Faire?

j/k... we'll get through this together!:)
 
Thanks for the judgement!

:good!:

Not trying to be judgmental... just making an observation. If you are ever in a critical situation and find a subordinate leader failing... will you just say "I'm not going to be a micromanager" or will you throw your hand onto the till until you can deal with the guy. I think CPF trusted RS too long and eventually found himself in the middle of a season with a guy that couldn't handle the job and had lost all confidence.

The evidence suggests that for most of the time up to 2005 CPF had given RS a lot of control over playcalling and schemes. That's probably RS's strength. But when his weakness in getting execution came to critical mass... what was CPF supposed to do? Stay out to avoid being a micromanager?
 
Not trying to be judgmental... just making an observation. If you are ever in a critical situation and find a subordinate leader failing... will you just say "I'm not going to be a micromanager" or will you throw your hand onto the till until you can deal with the guy. I think CPF trusted RS too long and eventually found himself in the middle of a season with a guy that couldn't handle the job and had lost all confidence.

The evidence suggests that for most of the time up to 2005 CPF had given RS a lot of control over playcalling and schemes. That's probably RS's strength. But when his weakness in getting execution came to critical mass... what was CPF supposed to do? Stay out to avoid being a micromanager?

Why would I do that, I would help the subordinate in any way that I would helpful. :dunno:

I only take the opposite of your view, Sanders wanted to do more and Fulmer pulled back the reigns and kept with the traditional Tennessee offense. Therefore it became predictable and opposing defenses exploited the situation.
 
Why would I be satisfied?

Question: "Originally Posted by sjt18
Wow... you are so right. Any coach that loses 3 or 4 games in two out of every three seasons should be fired, right?

Before you answer, check out UM's record at UF."

"Answer: No, why would I think that?"

Which is it? Are you satisfied with 3 or 4 losses or dissatisfied?... or does your standard only apply to CPF for what you are dissatisfied with?
 
Question: "Originally Posted by sjt18
Wow... you are so right. Any coach that loses 3 or 4 games in two out of every three seasons should be fired, right?

Before you answer, check out UM's record at UF."

"Answer: No, why would I think that?"

Which is it? Are you satisfied with 3 or 4 losses or dissatisfied?... or does your standard only apply to CPF for what you are dissatisfied with?


I like Fulmer and I hope he competes at a high level...... :dunno:
 
Why would I do that, I would help the subordinate in any way that I would helpful. :dunno:
Yet you condemn CPF for doing the exact same thing? Their chemistry was poison. I've been in enough leadership structures to know that happens once in awhile even with 2 people who are excellent in other situations.

I only take the opposite of your view, Sanders wanted to do more and Fulmer pulled back the reigns and kept with the traditional Tennessee offense. Therefore it became predictable and opposing defenses exploited the situation.

I've seen that claim and it doesn't fit the facts. UT has always run a multiple O and large playbook under CPF. RS problem wasn't that CPF or anyone else restricted him... at least not at first. The problem seemed to be that his unit progressively had less and less discipline and excellence of execution.

It sounds like you are in the military... The situation as I perceive it would be a like a battalion commander who was brilliant at large unit maneuver but didn't ensure that his soldiers passed their basic and advanced skills tests- individual, squad, platoon, company. Eventually no matter how good his commands were... the unit would be incapable of anything but the most basic missions.

By the time it was more or less acknowledged that CPF had taken control in 2005. UT's O was incapable of much more than a decent running game with Foster... not because RS was not creative... but because UT's players weren't coached up well enough to execute for him.

Cut probably isn't as good a strategist as RS... but he knows how to coach and get discipline and execution. That's why they've turned around on O... and done it quickly.
 
Hate it... but I have to go.

Enjoyed jousting with you.

Have a blessed New Year... and may the Vols meet the goals I mentioned... or a close enough approximation that they win a championship this fall.
 
Hate it... but I have to go.

Enjoyed jousting with you.

Have a blessed New Year... and may the Vols meet the goals I mentioned... or a close enough approximation that they win a championship this fall.


LOL!

No problem brother!

I enjoy bull crapping people!

:)

It is my escape from work!

:hi:
 
Advertisement



Back
Top