Fed up with the pessimism.... this is a new team with a new coach, a new leader and a new "Father"

[tarvol73]

To the OP. You make a bunch of assumptions that aren't necessarily true.

Dooley had an ego... all coaches do. But he was in over his head in every respect and knew it early in year 2. He was ready to humble himself, take a reduced buyout, and leave after that year. The AD convinced him to stay and try another year. The ill-fated Sunseri experiment left him emotionally broken and DONE. He wasn't an awful guy who was trying to sink UT football. He was simply a guy without the talent to take on the Herculean task of fixing what was wrong at UT. His personality with recruits didn't help. He's more worthy of pity than contempt.

Jones was a used car salesman with a Donald Trump ego.... but nothing like the competence. He had one "skill". He could sell BS. He brought in a team talented enough to win the SEC and promptly mis-coached them to underperform in all 5 years. The only guy I can think of who came close to criminally squandering talent like he did is Mark Richt... except Richt is a guy you could like and respect. He simply did not have the skill as a coach of the game either in development of players or in game to succeed at this level no matter how much talent he was able to sign.

Pruitt was pretty close to Jones' opposite. (The arrogant stuff about his accent, background, et al duly noted. I'm sure all "hicks and hillbillies" that do not speak as well as the OP are stupid and lesser people too). He is a "football coach". Want evidence? He was fired and almost immediately picked up by an NFL team. Jones was fired and spent how many years as a GA at Bama? What he is not is a leader capable of being at the top of a football program. You can coach a group of LB's under someone else with his style. You cannot lead a program made up of coaches, assistants, medical staff, S&C staff, administrative staff, academic support staff, logistics, equipment management, etc without having a leadership style that sets a clear vision and positively motivates people toward it. Look up the "Peter Principle" and you'll see why Pruitt was such an abject failure. It isn't because he doesn't know football or can't coach a group of guys. It is because he lacks leadership ability.

The last 2 failed miserably at the one skill that every leader must have to succeed. They were incapable of surrounding themselves with the right people. Dooley until Sunseri actually did a better job than those two of hiring assistants.

These are all flawed guys brought in to do a very difficult job... and failed. They're not "evil". They didn't take UT on purpose. Every one of them saw an opportunity soar in their careers by resurrecting one of CFB's great programs. Some of the reasons they failed were predictable.... Jones lack of actual football acumen for sure. Some weren't so easy to see.

We are where we are. Some don't like the turnover but the absolute worse thing you can do is keep a coach who isn't getting it done.

Can't win, right? Lincoln faced General RE Lee. The Civil War had to be won in Virginia to be won. Lee with an inferior force and supplies out-generaled the Union repeatedly. Much like Washington in the Revolution, many times "victory" was simply keeping his army together and in good order. He believed that he could win precisely like Washington did by stringing it out and at some point finding a decisive battle. He was brilliant. His soldiers were often more motivated. Stonewall Jackson was superior to any other General on either side prior to his untimely death and enabled Lee greater freedom to maneuver.

Lincoln hired, and fired, 5 very highly respected Generals to go against Lee in less than 4 years. McDowell, McClellan, Burnside, Hooker, and Meade. Finally he found a guy that was largely considered an unintelligent drunk. Unlike the others he wasn't all that interested in the press, politics, or image. He wasn't scared of Lee and seemed to be the first one to recognize that he had a vastly superior force. His one, overriding trait that made him successful was aggression. He wanted to be on the attack all the time. Far from being brilliant, he simply realized that if he marched on Richmond that Lee would have to put his army in front of his own... and the war would be over.

Point is that Lincoln hired and fired "good" guys before finding Grant who communicated a "vision" and then aligned his troops and officers to that vision. If he had stuck with McDowell or even McClellan... then there's a good chance the South would have won since they never seemed ready to attack.

I stated, "Finally Pruitt. Though I wanted to like him, a coach with terrible grammar, a N Alabama hillbilly, who could coach or so I thought. In the end, he was a disciplinarian at best and an abusive hick or worse, with no sense of being able to run a whole team in the end."

I stated that I wanted to like him. I too wanted him to be successful. I could not care less what a coach sounds like if he can lead UT. I thought he could coach. But, he just turned out to be abusive. Most of my family are country folk from Western Carolina. They might not have the best grammar but they are some of the best people on earth. I have no problem with accents or grammar, but when it comes to coaching, I want my coach to care for his team and be a man. A hick to me represents somebody, from the north, south, midwest, etc, oftentimes seemingly uneducated, but almost always by definition trashy and in this case abusive. You can be abusive and have great grammar, so my issue wasn't his grammar but his abusive, entitled behavior. He is a good coach in certain circumstances, maybe just as a D coordinator at the NFL or college level, but as of yet, not as a HC in college.

 

[BeardedVol]

This is a quote from njvols in the Best TN OLs Since Sliced Bread thread, "Net talent is probably about the same as last year, but because of the scheme, it could end up better, if JH offense is as advertised.' I am aware that his response is referring to the OL, but I would argue that the overall talent is equal or better than last year. Last year was an underachievement of epic proportions.

You can slap all of the individual talent possible on an oline, but if they can't work together as a unit, then all of that individual talent is for naught.

Can Glen Elarbee, take that individual take all that individual talent, and create a top-tier oline out of it? No one knows yet; we'll find out on September 2nd.

 

[sjt18]

How is that even negative you twit?

Ah, so hitting a "soft spot" makes someone else a "twit".

That's just facts. I've been here for 6 years already.

You seem to have a real hard time discerning the difference between fact and conjecture... whether the conjecture comes from you or someone else.

It is objective fact to say we have less 4 stars and 5 stars than last year, because we do.

But that does NOT yield an objective conclusion that the unit will not be better or that the players will not prove to be better. In "fact", the recruiting rankings are least accurate with the OL's.

It is an objective fact to say we don't have any starts from our O-Line depth, because we don't (or at least none that I can recall),

Do you really not understand that MOST teams will have a bunch of first time starters and few back, ups with starts? Four of the projected starters have started in the past. Three were regular starters. Spraggins played in 8 games last year and Cooper M played in all 10 with two starts at C. I'm sorry that you do not wish to put these "facts" in perspective both compared to what other teams face and what UT has faced over the last 20 years or so... but this isn't "abnormal" much less the sky is falling deal you're trying to claim.

same with linebackers if Banks and Morgan start,

Who? Mitchell is almost sure to start at one spot. He was Texas' leading tackler and earned a starting job after being the #1 JUCO LB. UT has a bunch of options at the other spot. Not much experience but I have to wonder if you are new to college football. This isn't unique unless you are a program like tOSU or Bama. Most programs are filling gaps with inexperienced guys at this point of the season.

same with secondary except for Slaughter has 1 start.

LOL... DO WHAT? Talk about "twit".... Taylor, Flowers, McCullough, Burrell, Jackson, George, and Slaughter have all started games with those other than Slaughter all having multiple starts. Labruzza has played in a lot of games as well. And AGAIN... lots of teams will enter the season with back ups like the other DBs on UT's roster. Talent with no experience.

We're about the 7th most talented team, as we were last year. Also a fact, maybe someone passed us, but I don't think so.

So you depend on recruiting rankings when it is convenient to your argument. They're "facts". Well.. try this. UT doesn't play the whole SEC. They play the East plus Ole Miss and Bama. In the East, they're 3rd in talent according to your ironclad, "objective" measure of talent. They're also above Ole Miss and all OOC opponents. That's 9 teams on the schedule that according to YOUR reasoning have less talent than UT.

I'm not taking any lumps for speaking literal facts that you guys seem to want to ignore. You can look up all of those things if you want to verify them, but they're true. I'm doing them off memory so there could be an extra start thrown in there, but still not a ton of experience in there by any means.

Just make a commitment to come back and acknowledge you were wrong if the season doesn't go as you apparently think it will.

As I told you in the other thread, we have 4 should win games, 5 winnable games, 3 not winnable games. You don't disagree other than than you think Ole Miss isn't a winnable game really.

You just contradicted your own reasoning.

I'm just going to say it, you seem to have a fragile ego.

Not even close. You being inconsistent and claiming things as "facts" that are not "facts"... doesn't make me fragile in the least.

None of what I said was negative, directed at you, disparaging to our team or even the OP. I corrected him on him saying we have a more talented team, which is not objectively true according to talent rankings. Stars don't mean everything, but in a conversation about how many highly ranked players we have, it certainly does.

Speaking of ego and self-awareness... most people who interact with you would disagree with these claims.

Interesting how you're now starting to back off the authority of "stars"...

Just commit to coming back if you're wrong. I'll be here right or wrong. I think there's really good talent and depth on this team if properly coached. I think there are some experience gaps but enough experience to help bridge those gaps... again if well coached.

I'm not intent on taking them down. I expect they'll be 6-6 or maybe 7-5. You think anyone that's not pumping sunshine is intent on taking down our team.

No. I think that someone who continually harps on this same theme claiming to have "facts" while ignoring responses that undermine or at least challenge those "facts"... makes you pretty determined to talk the team down.

You know it's not a problem at look at a team's weaknesses and compare them to other teams. Do you think we don't have any weaknesses? You think this is a perfect team with no flaws? What are you getting at?

You really aren't familiar with my history here... are you? Few who are would call me a "sunshine pumper" or someone who ignores weaknesses. I see plenty of flaws and places where the coaches have to fill gaps. I think it is a 6 to 8 win team if well coached. I wouldn't term Ole Miss or UF "unwinnable" as you have but they're unlikely. I fully believe that UK and Mizzou in particular are close enough in talent and skill to beat UT if the Vols play poorly or aren't well-coached/prepared.

I do not like the inexperience at LB outside of Banks, Mitchell, and Harrison. But in perspective... there's talent and it is NOT uncommon to start a season with a group like that.

My comparison is this roster and its depth of apparent talent to numerous others since 2005. This is neither a thin nor an untalented roster.

 

[volsknx]

Same with Bama? WTH? Fulmer's 11-5 record versus the tree-killing, tea-bagging Gumps included maybe 3-4 years of their probation. They certainly had better teams than what we've put on the field recently. When we beat them in 1970 for the fourth year in a row, the series was tied 24 wins each. If we had not self-destructed these past 10-15 years, the overall series would be much closer. Are you sure you're a Tennessee fan? Or a troll?

Yes, even Bama. Had Fulmer not helped put them on probation, he would not have had those wins against them. He lost to them in '02 and '05 and then got completely blown out in '07 and '08 as they were coming off and off of probation.

I remember one of the players making a comment relating to the Florida and Bama games that "coaches around here get uptight the week of big games" and later, a sports show commented that Fulmer never let the player speak to the media again.

 

[EricStratton]

If we finish lower than .500 they should fire what's his name on the 50 yard line. Then trot the Haslams out there, along with the other worthless big donors and pelt them with rotten oranges, because they have spoiled UT sports for far too long.

 

[sjt18]

I stated, "Finally Pruitt. Though I wanted to like him, a coach with terrible grammar, a N Alabama hillbilly, who could coach or so I thought. In the end, he was a disciplinarian at best and an abusive hick or worse, with no sense of being able to run a whole team in the end."

I stated that I wanted to like him. I too wanted him to be successful. I could not care less what a coach sounds like if he can lead UT. I thought he could coach. But, he just turned out to be abusive. Most of my family are country folk from Western Carolina. They might not have the best grammar but they are some of the best people on earth. I have no problem with accents or grammar, but when it comes to coaching, I want my coach to care for his team and be a man. A hick to me represents somebody, from the north, south, midwest, etc, oftentimes seemingly uneducated, but almost always by definition trashy and in this case abusive. You can be abusive and have great grammar, so my issue wasn't his grammar but his abusive, entitled behavior. He is a good coach in certain circumstances, maybe just as a D coordinator at the NFL or college level, but as of yet, not as a HC in college.

Better be careful... we may be related.

More or less agree with your post. I just don't like blanket derogatory terms like that. I don't think Pruitt's problems had anything to do with grammar or culture.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Tl;dr version?

 

[LookoutforVols]

To the OP. You make a bunch of assumptions that aren't necessarily true.

Dooley had an ego... all coaches do. But he was in over his head in every respect and knew it early in year 2. He was ready to humble himself, take a reduced buyout, and leave after that year. The AD convinced him to stay and try another year. The ill-fated Sunseri experiment left him emotionally broken and DONE. He wasn't an awful guy who was trying to sink UT football. He was simply a guy without the talent to take on the Herculean task of fixing what was wrong at UT. His personality with recruits didn't help. He's more worthy of pity than contempt.

Jones was a used car salesman with a Donald Trump ego.... but nothing like the competence. He had one "skill". He could sell BS. He brought in a team talented enough to win the SEC and promptly mis-coached them to underperform in all 5 years. The only guy I can think of who came close to criminally squandering talent like he did is Mark Richt... except Richt is a guy you could like and respect. He simply did not have the skill as a coach of the game either in development of players or in game to succeed at this level no matter how much talent he was able to sign.

Pruitt was pretty close to Jones' opposite. (The arrogant stuff about his accent, background, et al duly noted. I'm sure all "hicks and hillbillies" that do not speak as well as the OP are stupid and lesser people too). He is a "football coach". Want evidence? He was fired and almost immediately picked up by an NFL team. Jones was fired and spent how many years as a GA at Bama? What he is not is a leader capable of being at the top of a football program. You can coach a group of LB's under someone else with his style. You cannot lead a program made up of coaches, assistants, medical staff, S&C staff, administrative staff, academic support staff, logistics, equipment management, etc without having a leadership style that sets a clear vision and positively motivates people toward it. Look up the "Peter Principle" and you'll see why Pruitt was such an abject failure. It isn't because he doesn't know football or can't coach a group of guys. It is because he lacks leadership ability.

The last 2 failed miserably at the one skill that every leader must have to succeed. They were incapable of surrounding themselves with the right people. Dooley until Sunseri actually did a better job than those two of hiring assistants.

These are all flawed guys brought in to do a very difficult job... and failed. They're not "evil". They didn't take UT on purpose. Every one of them saw an opportunity soar in their careers by resurrecting one of CFB's great programs. Some of the reasons they failed were predictable.... Jones lack of actual football acumen for sure. Some weren't so easy to see.

We are where we are. Some don't like the turnover but the absolute worse thing you can do is keep a coach who isn't getting it done.

Can't win, right? Lincoln faced General RE Lee. The Civil War had to be won in Virginia to be won. Lee with an inferior force and supplies out-generaled the Union repeatedly. Much like Washington in the Revolution, many times "victory" was simply keeping his army together and in good order. He believed that he could win precisely like Washington did by stringing it out and at some point finding a decisive battle. He was brilliant. His soldiers were often more motivated. Stonewall Jackson was superior to any other General on either side prior to his untimely death and enabled Lee greater freedom to maneuver.

Lincoln hired, and fired, 5 very highly respected Generals to go against Lee in less than 4 years. McDowell, McClellan, Burnside, Hooker, and Meade. Finally he found a guy that was largely considered an unintelligent drunk. Unlike the others he wasn't all that interested in the press, politics, or image. He wasn't scared of Lee and seemed to be the first one to recognize that he had a vastly superior force. His one, overriding trait that made him successful was aggression. He wanted to be on the attack all the time. Far from being brilliant, he simply realized that if he marched on Richmond that Lee would have to put his army in front of his own... and the war would be over.

Point is that Lincoln hired and fired "good" guys before finding Grant who communicated a "vision" and then aligned his troops and officers to that vision. If he had stuck with McDowell or even McClellan... then there's a good chance the South would have won since they never seemed ready to attack.

Not that I am a Dooley fan by any means but word was that he begged for Kevin Steele but AD wanted and forced Sunseri on him- more mismanagement.

 

[tarvol73]

Better be careful... we may be related.

More or less agree with your post. I just don't like blanket derogatory terms like that. I don't think Pruitt's problems had anything to do with grammar or culture.

We are on the same page. I wasn't being derogatory though, just stating the obvious. Bear Bryant had atrocious grammar and was quite good. It doesn't change the fact that Pruitt did not have a very good grasp of grammar.

 

[IluvdoubleD's]

I don't even read that much on vacation.

 

[rdk4121]

Ah, so hitting a "soft spot" makes someone else a "twit".

You seem to have a real hard time discerning the difference between fact and conjecture... whether the conjecture comes from you or someone else.



But that does NOT yield an objective conclusion that the unit will not be better or that the players will not prove to be better. In "fact", the recruiting rankings are least accurate with the OL's.

Do you really not understand that MOST teams will have a bunch of first time starters and few back, ups with starts? Four of the projected starters have started in the past. Three were regular starters. Spraggins played in 8 games last year and Cooper M played in all 10 with two starts at C. I'm sorry that you do not wish to put these "facts" in perspective both compared to what other teams face and what UT has faced over the last 20 years or so... but this isn't "abnormal" much less the sky is falling deal you're trying to claim.

Who? Mitchell is almost sure to start at one spot. He was Texas' leading tackler and earned a starting job after being the #1 JUCO LB. UT has a bunch of options at the other spot. Not much experience but I have to wonder if you are new to college football. This isn't unique unless you are a program like tOSU or Bama. Most programs are filling gaps with inexperienced guys at this point of the season.

LOL... DO WHAT? Talk about "twit".... Taylor, Flowers, McCullough, Burrell, Jackson, George, and Slaughter have all started games with those other than Slaughter all having multiple starts. Labruzza has played in a lot of games as well. And AGAIN... lots of teams will enter the season with back ups like the other DBs on UT's roster. Talent with no experience.

So you depend on recruiting rankings when it is convenient to your argument. They're "facts". Well.. try this. UT doesn't play the whole SEC. They play the East plus Ole Miss and Bama. In the East, they're 3rd in talent according to your ironclad, "objective" measure of talent. They're also above Ole Miss and all OOC opponents. That's 9 teams on the schedule that according to YOUR reasoning have less talent than UT.

Just make a commitment to come back and acknowledge you were wrong if the season doesn't go as you apparently think it will.

You just contradicted your own reasoning.

Not even close. You being inconsistent and claiming things as "facts" that are not "facts"... doesn't make me fragile in the least.

Speaking of ego and self-awareness... most people who interact with you would disagree with these claims.

Interesting how you're now starting to back off the authority of "stars"...

Just commit to coming back if you're wrong. I'll be here right or wrong. I think there's really good talent and depth on this team if properly coached. I think there are some experience gaps but enough experience to help bridge those gaps... again if well coached.

No. I think that someone who continually harps on this same theme claiming to have "facts" while ignoring responses that undermine or at least challenge those "facts"... makes you pretty determined to talk the team down.


You really aren't familiar with my history here... are you? Few who are would call me a "sunshine pumper" or someone who ignores weaknesses. I see plenty of flaws and places where the coaches have to fill gaps. I think it is a 6 to 8 win team if well coached. I wouldn't term Ole Miss or UF "unwinnable" as you have but they're unlikely. I fully believe that UK and Mizzou in particular are close enough in talent and skill to beat UT if the Vols play poorly or aren't well-coached/prepared.

I do not like the inexperience at LB outside of Banks, Mitchell, and Harrison. But in perspective... there's talent and it is NOT uncommon to start a season with a group like that.

My comparison is this roster and its depth of apparent talent to numerous others since 2005. This is neither a thin nor an untalented roster.

Believe it or not, I wasn't including our starters in a conversation about our depth/ backups. Slaughter is the only secondary player that has played meaningful defensive snaps outside the starters. Labruzza has mainly been a special teamer. And yes, Mitchell. Juwan Morgan is an NBA player, my bad. As for O-line, since Calbert and Locklear are gone, we have no one else that has played any meaningful snaps outside of the starters. I think the starters could/ should be alright, but I've been thinking that for 3 years in a row. At LB, we have a walk on, a converted running back, a JUCO, and an OLB in our top 4. Mitchell was the best player on a bad Texas defense in a conference not known for defense. I hope and think he'll be good, but we don't have a remotely proven option next to him. Banks was very up and down last year, but he has talent. Our depth at each of those positions is largely freshman or sophomores that haven't played. That's not a confidence booster. That's far different than having people that have been in the program 3,4, or 5 years as depth, most of ours transferred out. That's what we had last year at every position, and is certainly not uncommon for a healthy program.

Which part of what I said wasn't fact? Just let me know. I apologize for the ego and twit comment. I took them out of my original post already. Either way though, I've never cared about the stars, I've never even mentioned that until someone else brought it up. Stars mean nothing without coaching, see last year. Kentucky and Arkansas beat us despite being less talented (which is my point). You guys seem to believe that just because we may or may not be more talented than we should win every game where we have that advantage. That's just not how it works.

I'll also be here regardless, I don't care what a couple crazies have to say. No, I don't really know the lore of sjt18, nor do I really care. I will feel a lot better about this team if we beat Pitt. If we can do that, than 6-6 is more than likely, 7-5 feels like a good shot.

 

[JonGrudensAgent]

Lost me at " Fulmer ".

 

[Elhanan]

It's a public forum. Choose to read it or not. I couldn't care less.

But seriously can we get a tldr?

 

[OffTackleVol]

Yes, even Bama. Had Fulmer not helped put them on probation, he would not have had those wins against them. He lost to them in '02 and '05 and then got completely blown out in '07 and '08 as they were coming off and off of probation.

I remember one of the players making a comment relating to the Florida and Bama games that "coaches around here get uptight the week of big games" and later, a sports show commented that Fulmer never let the player speak to the media again.

That's just stupid. Bama put themselves on probation for cheating, something they've always done and continues to do to this day. Fulmer was 11-5 versus the Gumps. The knuckledraggers weren't on probation all those 11 w's. Your true colors are starting to show.

 

[KptVFL]

Oh crap! Get ready for the "don't tell me how to be a fan" BS

 

[DonDiego]

To the OP. You make a bunch of assumptions that aren't necessarily true.

Dooley had an ego... all coaches do. But he was in over his head in every respect and knew it early in year 2. He was ready to humble himself, take a reduced buyout, and leave after that year. The AD convinced him to stay and try another year. The ill-fated Sunseri experiment left him emotionally broken and DONE. He wasn't an awful guy who was trying to sink UT football. He was simply a guy without the talent to take on the Herculean task of fixing what was wrong at UT. His personality with recruits didn't help. He's more worthy of pity than contempt.

Jones was a used car salesman with a Donald Trump ego.... but nothing like the competence. He had one "skill". He could sell BS. He brought in a team talented enough to win the SEC and promptly mis-coached them to underperform in all 5 years. The only guy I can think of who came close to criminally squandering talent like he did is Mark Richt... except Richt is a guy you could like and respect. He simply did not have the skill as a coach of the game either in development of players or in game to succeed at this level no matter how much talent he was able to sign.

Pruitt was pretty close to Jones' opposite. (The arrogant stuff about his accent, background, et al duly noted. I'm sure all "hicks and hillbillies" that do not speak as well as the OP are stupid and lesser people too). He is a "football coach". Want evidence? He was fired and almost immediately picked up by an NFL team. Jones was fired and spent how many years as a GA at Bama? What he is not is a leader capable of being at the top of a football program. You can coach a group of LB's under someone else with his style. You cannot lead a program made up of coaches, assistants, medical staff, S&C staff, administrative staff, academic support staff, logistics, equipment management, etc without having a leadership style that sets a clear vision and positively motivates people toward it. Look up the "Peter Principle" and you'll see why Pruitt was such an abject failure. It isn't because he doesn't know football or can't coach a group of guys. It is because he lacks leadership ability.

The last 2 failed miserably at the one skill that every leader must have to succeed. They were incapable of surrounding themselves with the right people. Dooley until Sunseri actually did a better job than those two of hiring assistants.

These are all flawed guys brought in to do a very difficult job... and failed. They're not "evil". They didn't take UT on purpose. Every one of them saw an opportunity soar in their careers by resurrecting one of CFB's great programs. Some of the reasons they failed were predictable.... Jones lack of actual football acumen for sure. Some weren't so easy to see.

We are where we are. Some don't like the turnover but the absolute worse thing you can do is keep a coach who isn't getting it done.

Can't win, right? Lincoln faced General RE Lee. The Civil War had to be won in Virginia to be won. Lee with an inferior force and supplies out-generaled the Union repeatedly. Much like Washington in the Revolution, many times "victory" was simply keeping his army together and in good order. He believed that he could win precisely like Washington did by stringing it out and at some point finding a decisive battle. He was brilliant. His soldiers were often more motivated. Stonewall Jackson was superior to any other General on either side prior to his untimely death and enabled Lee greater freedom to maneuver.

Lincoln hired, and fired, 5 very highly respected Generals to go against Lee in less than 4 years. McDowell, McClellan, Burnside, Hooker, and Meade. Finally he found a guy that was largely considered an unintelligent drunk. Unlike the others he wasn't all that interested in the press, politics, or image. He wasn't scared of Lee and seemed to be the first one to recognize that he had a vastly superior force. His one, overriding trait that made him successful was aggression. He wanted to be on the attack all the time. Far from being brilliant, he simply realized that if he marched on Richmond that Lee would have to put his army in front of his own... and the war would be over.

Point is that Lincoln hired and fired "good" guys before finding Grant who communicated a "vision" and then aligned his troops and officers to that vision. If he had stuck with McDowell or even McClellan... then there's a good chance the South would have won since they never seemed ready to attack.

I gave you a like mainly because I love American History . I do have to take issue with you regarding CBJ and CJP and their post-UT employment though. It was pretty obvious Jones was going to milk UT out of every penny he could. He wanted the lowest paid job possible so little was offset from his buyout. I'm thinking he was a cigar smoking vengeful POS. CJP, on the other hand, needed to get a job, since he was fired with cause. Point is, Jones could probably have gotten a better gig than Saban's shoe polisher. Notice, he wasted no time once the buyout was completed.

 

[JRich]

I don't get the impression that most fans don't think there is "talent" on this team. Most, at least on here, are very hopeful and optimistic. I mean, UT is a division one, SEC power with fantastic facilities and traditions. It's not hard to recruit talented players there. There has always been talent on it's roster, they just haven't had the leadership to be successful or competitive with the big three (UGA, UA, UF) if that's how you define success.

"College football is about talent. Also, training, conditioning, scheme, facilities, Xs and Os, cohesion between units as well as offense and defense, support staff,...etc. As these young men develop physically, it becomes more about the mental aspect. All top even decent schools in the top conferences have what it takes to be good or better(see Kentucky of late, Miss State with Mullen, Boise State even...UCF. Then there is talent. We do absolutely have the talent to be as good as any of the aforementioned in their best years. "

I read this 6 times and still don't understand what he is trying to say.

As far as the mental game and the father figure discussion, I am sorry for the loss of OP's father at an early age, however I would bet that most, I realize not all, of the guys on the roster have a father or a father figure in their lives and don't need that from a coach. Some do, I guess, but I don't think that is a coaches responsibility.

Coaches at all levels are only judged by one thing - W's vs L's. That's it. He could be the nicest, sweetest father figure, or the meanest, toughest butthead. All that matters is W's vs L's.

The jury is still out on this staff, but there is nothing wrong with being optimistic and hopeful.

There is also nothing wrong with being doubtful and pessimistic.

 

[MWAVolfan]

He is a "football coach". Want evidence? He was fired and almost immediately picked up by an NFL team. Jones was fired and spent how many years as a GA at Bama? What he is not is a leader capable of being at the top of a football program.

Jones would have been hired somewhere immediately too, but UT owed him a TON of money. UT didnt owe Pruitt anything and so Pruitt had to hustle to get another job while Jones could relax and be Saban's towel boy making 60k a year.

Both of them sucked as football coaches at the P5 level, Jones was fired because of ineptitude like Dooley, Pruitt breached his contract and was fired. That's the only meaningful difference between those two.

 

[knoxvol16]

After more than 15 years of forcing fans to endure the abysmal performance of UT football, UT has earned the reputation of sucking until they prove otherwise. I sincerely hope things turn around under the latest 'turnstile' of UT Admins and coaches, but I'm in the "wait and see" camp.

It is possible to be a fan of a sucky football program.

 

[sjt18]

Jones would have been hired somewhere immediately too, but UT owed him a TON of money. UT didnt owe Pruitt anything and so Pruitt had to hustle to get another job while Jones could relax and be Saban's towel boy making 60k a year.

Both of them sucked as football coaches at the P5 level, Jones was fired because of ineptitude like Dooley, Pruitt breached his contract and was fired. That's the only meaningful difference between those two.

I don't think you can make a case that Pruit was not inept as a HC.

As for Jones, he was in the same situation as numerous other coaches. Coaches have shelf lives and windows of opportunity. Not saying he isn't stupid... but career wise it would have been insanely stupid to do what he did if better opportunities were out there. Where he landed after the money ran out... indicates he didn't have good opportunities.

 

[sjt18]

After more than 15 years of forcing fans to endure the abysmal performance of UT football, UT has earned the reputation of sucking until they prove otherwise. I sincerely hope things turn around under the latest 'turnstile' of UT Admins and coaches, but I'm in the "wait and see" camp.

It is possible to be a fan of a sucky football program.

"So sucking until they prove otherwise" equates to "wait and see" how exactly?

 

[peaygolf]

 

[volsknx]

That's just stupid. Bama put themselves on probation for cheating, something they've always done and continues to do to this day. Fulmer was 11-5 versus the Gumps. The knuckledraggers weren't on probation all those 11 w's. Your true colors are starting to show.

No, you sound like some of those Vandy fans who talk about beating us when we were down. So, it is not the same as you Fulmerites bragging about beating a program when they were down.

Though that Means deal was around ‘02, Bama was in/having trouble before then.

Court documents show Fulmer twice called NCAA staffer Rich
Johanningmeier, who was probing alleged wrongdoing at Alabama in
2000, and gave him information implicating the Tide in rules
violations, according to attorney Tommy Gallion.

Vols' coach aided NCAA investigation of 'Bama

 

[OffTackleVol]

No, you sound like some of those Vandy fans who talk about beating us when we were down. So, it is not the same as you Fulmerites bragging about beating a program when they were down.

Though that Means deal was around ‘02, Bama was in/having trouble before then.

Court documents show Fulmer twice called NCAA staffer Rich
Johanningmeier, who was probing alleged wrongdoing at Alabama in
2000, and gave him information implicating the Tide in rules
violations, according to attorney Tommy Gallion.

Vols' coach aided NCAA investigation of 'Bama

Yea, I thought you were a Gump. This proves it. Linking Gallion? LOL, only a Bammer would do that. Fulmer, along with 4-5 other SEC coaches turned in the cheating a$$es. Bama has yet to beat a great Tennessee during their current run. They've beaten, maybe one good Tennessee team in this stretch (Hurd's soph. year?) Those 12 seasons that Tennessee won 10, Bama had some very good teams. Conference champs in '99. Their '96 team won 10. Problem is, we did this to ourselves. NCAA did it to Bama, deservedly so.

What branch of the Bama tree you from? Tea-bagging, tree-killing, or sucker-punching?

 

[volsknx]

Yea, I thought you were a Gump. This proves it. Linking Gallion? LOL, only a Bammer would do that. Fulmer, along with 4-5 other SEC coaches turned in the cheating a$$es. Bama has yet to beat a great Tennessee during their current run. They've beaten, maybe one good Tennessee team in this stretch (Hurd's soph. year?) Those 12 seasons that Tennessee won 10, Bama had some very good teams. Conference champs in '99. Their '96 team won 10. Problem is, we did this to ourselves. NCAA did it to Bama, deservedly so.

What branch of the Bama tree you from? Tea-bagging, tree-killing, or sucker-punching?

I’m just being a realist, which you Fulmerites absolutely hate and try to make into trolls.

After ‘99, Fulmer never beat a decent Bama team but maybe once. We were dominant in the 90’s but he had a losing percentage against Spurrier so, beating Bama during their down years didn’t really do much for us.

The above quote was the first thing on google. So, if you don’t like it, complain to google and ESPN.