Fulmer debate extravaganza (merged)

[utgibbs]

Really? I don't know of any Florida back that played as long as Charlie Garner. I don't know of any Florida backs that were as good as Charlie Garner or Jamal Lewis in the NFL. Even James Stewart played for several seasons.
We all know Manning made Nash.

Please name the Florida receivers that made big impacts in the NFL. I can think of one running back too: Fred Taylor. Name the others

Child, please.

Fred Taylor (American football) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ike Hilliard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hey, these two guys were playing right at the time we had dominant talent over Florida....

Thanks for establishing you don't even have living memory of the first years of the Fulmer era.

Little Man is one of my favorite backs of all time, and he was a great talent.

 

[Carl Pickens]

You shouldn't have wondered, if you were trying to indict Fulmer. The data has been provided numerous times.

And Fulmer is equivalent to Saban and Spurrier.

Vicky, what is it like being married to Phil? Does he like to go shopping with you?

 

[DjCrenshaw]

Child, please.

Fred Taylor (American football) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ike Hilliard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hey, these two guys were playing right at the time we had dominant talent over Florida....

Thanks for establishing you don't even have living memory of the first years of the Fulmer era.

Little Man is one of my favorite backs of all time, and he was a great talent.

Surely you will like the vols or a vol player again.

 

[BelAirVol]

Child, please.

Fred Taylor (American football) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ike Hilliard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hey, these two guys were playing right at the time we had dominant talent over Florida....

Thanks for establishing you don't even have living memory of the first years of the Fulmer era.

Little Man is one of my favorite backs of all time, and he was a great talent.

I can recall those years much more accurately than you.

You provided the name of one back and one receiver.

It never ceases to amaze me just how carefree you are about how stupid you appear with your nonsensical posts

 

[milohimself]

You shouldn't have wondered, if you were trying to indict Fulmer. The data has been provided numerous times.

And Fulmer is equivalent to Saban and Spurrier.

How in the world can you say he is equivalent to guys he has a .300 career record against?! Worse yet if you take out his 2-2 record against Spurrier at USCjr?!?!

 

[BelAirVol]

You shouldn't have wondered, if you were trying to indict Fulmer. The data has been provided numerous times.

And Fulmer is equivalent to Saban and Spurrier.

This is why no one remotely informed takes you serious.

When Fulmer was at his very best(in the late nineties), he never got courted by the NFL for head coaching opportunities.

 

[BelAirVol]

]How in the world can you say he is equivalent to guys he has a .300 career record against?! [/B]Worse yet if you take out his 2-2 record against Spurrier at USCjr?!?!

Delusional

 

[05_never_again]

And Fulmer is equivalent to Saban and Spurrier.

Wait, what?

 

[utgibbs]

Surely you will like the vols or a vol player again.

I wouldn't piss on Ike Hilliard and Fred Taylor if they were on fire.

Little Man is one of my all time favorite Vols.

But I can't say Little Man had a better career than Fred Taylor in the NFL. That just ain't the real world outside the back door.

Maybe Alvin Harper on the receiving career. Maybe.

 

[BelAirVol]

I wouldn't piss on Ike Hilliard and Fred Taylor if they were on fire.

Little Man is one of my all time favorite Vols.

But I can't say Little Man had a better career than Fred Taylor in the NFL. That just ain't the real world outside the back door.

Maybe Alvin Harper on the receiving career. Maybe.

We were told Florida had a bunch of backs and receivers. YOu named two. TWO.

I agree on LIttle man, but you better believe Charlie Garner and Jamal Lewis had better careers.

As far as Ike Hilliard goes, his NFL career was nothing to brag about. There's been numerous UT receivers that have been better in the NFL.

 

[utgibbs]

How in the world can you say he is equivalent to guys he has a .300 career record against?! Worse yet if you take out his 2-2 record against Spurrier at USCjr?!?!

When you look at beating ranked teams, all three of them are nearly equivalent, hitting about 0.350.

I've always maintained Saban, and probably Spurrier, are better coaches than good ol' Phil.

Having said that, I doubt either of them could achieve what Fulmer did at Tennessee, which is what matters to me.

 

[utgibbs]

We were told Florida had a bunch of backs and receivers. YOu named two. TWO.

I agree on LIttle man, but you better believe Charlie Garner and Jamal Lewis had better careers.

As far as Ike Hilliard goes, his NFL career was nothing to brag about. There's been numerous UT receivers that have been better in the NFL.

Really?

Charlie Garner
1,537 times for 7,097 yards scoring 39 touchdowns, caught 419 passes for 3,711 yards and 12 touchdowns

Jamal
131 2,542 attempts 10,607 yards 4.2 ypc 58 TD

Fred Taylor

158 games, 2,534 attempts, 11,695 yards, 4.6 ypc, 66 TD and very solid receiving numbers.

Ike Hilliard

546 catches for 6,397 yards and 35 touchdowns.

I don't like it, but that's Game, Set, and Match.

 

[Kurtastrophe]

And Fulmer is equivalent to Saban and Spurrier.

 

[zjcvols]

Steve Spurrier would like you too look at his six SEC titles.

 

[OrangeDust]

Really?

Charlie Garner
1,537 times for 7,097 yards scoring 39 touchdowns, caught 419 passes for 3,711 yards and 12 touchdowns

Jamal
131 2,542 attempts 10,607 yards 4.2 ypc 58 TD

Fred Taylor

158 games, 2,534 attempts, 11,695 yards, 4.6 ypc, 66 TD and very solid receiving numbers.

Ike Hilliard

546 catches for 6,397 yards and 35 touchdowns.

I don't like it, but that's Game, Set, and Match.

May want to recheck your averages there. Taylor and Garner have the same YPC average (4.6) and nearly identical touchdowns per attempt at 38 for taylor and 39 for garner.

Garner had better receiving stats by quite a bit and did very well at both oakland and SF. I'm not diminishing either player because I do think it's a bit of a toss up. The only reason Garner didn't have equivalent records is because he was taken out of the league by injuries where as Taylor got two additional years and ran in a run heavy offense.

Both backs had fantastic NFL careers, in my previous post I was listing Taylor as a back that had comparable career achievements to Garner and played for a while.

Hilliard was fine but Peerless Price has reasonably comparable statistics. Neither WR jumps out as a major game breaker in the NFL. Price actually has a better ypc and yards per game. Hilliard has more touchdowns per catch and very slightly more catches per game (3.38 vs 3.39).

I'd say those two are two very comparable wide outs.

Probably should read between the lines a bit more. I think Hilliard was a better pro wide out than price but the stats will tell you it's not by the margin it seems. The stats say Taylor is better than Garner, but reality (inside the house) says not really the case, they're more equivalent.

I don't even know why you listed Lewis for comparison here. Jamal Lewis is by far the best back out of Tennessee or Florida combined in the past 15 years. No reason to even bother comparing him. If anything it works against your statistical argument that Taylor was better due to better stats since Lewis was better than both and still didn't have Taylor's stats. Different situations.

 

[Kurtastrophe]

May want to recheck your averages there. Taylor and Garner have the same YPC average (4.6) and nearly identical touchdowns per attempt at 38 for taylor and 39 for garner.

Garner had better receiving stats by quite a bit and did very well at both oakland and SF. I'm not diminishing either player because I do think it's a bit of a toss up. The only reason Garner didn't have equivalent records is because he was taken out of the league by injuries where as Taylor got two additional years and ran in a run heavy offense.

Both backs had fantastic NFL careers, in my previous post I was listing Taylor as a back that had comparable career achievements to Garner and played for a while.

Hilliard was fine but Peerless Price has reasonably comparable statistics. Neither WR jumps out as a major game breaker in the NFL. Price actually has a better ypc and yards per game. Hilliard has more touchdowns per catch and very slightly more catches per game (3.38 vs 3.39).

I'd say those two are two very comparable wide outs.

Probably should read between the lines a bit more. I think Hilliard was a better pro wide out than price but the stats will tell you it's not by the margin it seems. The stats say Taylor is better than Garner, but reality (inside the house) says not really the case, they're more equivalent.

I don't even know why you listed Lewis for comparison here. Jamal Lewis is by far the best back out of Tennessee or Florida combined in the past 15 years. No reason to even bother comparing him. If anything it works against your statistical argument that Taylor was better due to better stats since Lewis was better than both and still didn't have Taylor's stats. Different situations.

Gibbs and VegasVol cherry pick the facts that mesh with their argument and leave out the ones that reflect the error in their logic.

The Florida/Tennessee talent debate is used by them and I wish that I could locate my old newsletters from the 90s to confirm where we ranked in recruiting from 92-98.

 

[WA_Vol]

What did Fulmer in, was the QB play in 2005 and 2008.
Fulmer didn't know how to coach or develop that position.
In 2005, Ainge completed less then 45.5% of his passes and UT went 5-6.
In 2008, Crompton completed 51.5% and UT went 5-7.
Both of those seasons were a result of the play at the QB position.
Without Cutcliffe that position fell apart under Fulmer.

It's the most important position on the field, and Fulmer was lost coaching it.
Not to mention the OC's he hired did not get the job done coaching QB's.

 

[05_never_again]

What did Fulmer in, was the QB play in 2005 and 2008.
Fulmer didn't know how to coach or develop that position.
In 2005, Ainge completed less then 45.5% of his passes and UT went 5-6.
In 2008, Crompton completed 51.5% and UT went 5-7.
Both of those seasons were a result of the play at the QB position.
Without Cutcliffe that position fell apart under Fulmer.

It's the most important position on the field, and Fulmer was lost coaching it.
Not to mention the OC's he hired did not get the job done coaching QB's.

I agree.

This isn't a smartazz comment, but what was Fulmer's core competency? He was an offensive guy - offensive lineman in college and offensive coordinator before becoming a head coach. However, the real offensive guru was Cutcliffe, and I never knew or heard of Fulmer being discussed as being especially good coaching one position or in one area. The defense was just left entirely to Chavis. If you look at a lot of the elite coaches/coordiators today, a bunch of them are well-known at being very proficient in a particular area. Saban and Muschamp are defensive guys, Malzahn and Urban with the spread, etc.

Overall, was he supposedly just a good executive, overseeing what went on, and good at building relationships with college athletes? I've always thought the fact that other programs didn't seem particularly interested in hiring him after he was fired said a lot. I think he was more interested in Louisville than Louisville was interested in Fulmer.

 

[vol_in_ar]

then why didnt we pony up and retain his services ?

the same reason we didn't get a proven coach
Hamilton was cheap

 

[Ned Ray McWorkher]

Fulmer did not beat the best teams beginning in 04. Auburn and Georgia exposed Ainges' inability to read coverages and get us in the right play that year. They were our only losses that year (AU and UGA). Fulmer has to take the heat for that because he was the HC. I still say the KIDS should invest a supreme amount of work into being their best. It is clear that Ainge did not concur. The 05 Qb controversy killed that year. Ainge SHOULD have been terrific that year. Instead, he was on drugs. Clearly that is Fulmers fault. He was in charge, and he wanted his Peyton clone (which he should have had). We see how that turned out. 06 got off to a bad start yet again, due in large part to Ainge's haphazard and lackluster play against UF that year (and of course Phil's inability to recruit over Ainge). Meachem and Swain were open all game and Ainge could not get it to them. At least not nearly enough. Again, we now know why. These three years saw recruiting take a nose dive as well. Don't worry about the Scout or Rival's final rankings. Look at the on field stats. The other teams were better. In state talent for us is non existent. We did not reel in many out of state big timers either as the rest of the league began to keep their in state kids at home. And they (UGA, Bama, LSU) started recruiting nationally, even worse for us. These are some reasons for the decline. All of them Fulmer's fault too. Nobody but him. The years of Erik Ainge and his relative inability to be a quarterback torpedoed Fulmer. We then began getting second level talent for the most part. Jerrod Mayo and Rico McCoy and Eric Berry were great but they were the exception not the rule. USC and then later Florida, LSU and Alabama all were NFL factories and it is no shocker that they were the title winners and we were not. I am of the opinion that up until 04, Fulmer was not in danger of being fired. Starting then we began slowly avalanching down to where we currently sit. Oh well, you can't win em all. But 152 ain't bad. It will be eons and maybe never before he is passed too. JustMyLongAssErrorFreeOpinion.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Ned Ray McWorkher]

I agree.

This isn't a smartazz comment, but what was Fulmer's core competency? He was an offensive guy - offensive lineman in college and offensive coordinator before becoming a head coach. However, the real offensive guru was Cutcliffe, and I never knew or heard of Fulmer being discussed as being especially good coaching one position or in one area. The defense was just left entirely to Chavis. If you look at a lot of the elite coaches/coordiators today, a bunch of them are well-known at being very proficient in a particular area. Saban and Muschamp are defensive guys, Malzahn and Urban with the spread, etc.

Overall, was he supposedly just a good executive, overseeing what went on, and good at building relationships with college athletes? I've always thought the fact that other programs didn't seem particularly interested in hiring him after he was fired said a lot. I think he was more interested in Louisville than Louisville was interested in Fulmer.

Cutcliffe was important to Fulmer and his win total. As a head coach however, Cutcliffe has proven that it is not as easy as everyone thinks. They were both better of together imo. Having said that, Chavis is proving that talent makes the coach. Whoever is capable of getting 'great' talent is potentially a 'great' coach.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[WA_Vol]

I agree.

This isn't a smartazz comment, but what was Fulmer's core competency?

Buffet bar, Shoney's.

 

[Ned Ray McWorkher]

What did Fulmer in, was the QB play in 2005 and 2008.
Fulmer didn't know how to coach or develop that position.
In 2005, Ainge completed less then 45.5% of his passes and UT went 5-6.
In 2008, Crompton completed 51.5% and UT went 5-7.
Both of those seasons were a result of the play at the QB position.
Without Cutcliffe that position fell apart under Fulmer.

It's the most important position on the field, and Fulmer was lost coaching it.
Not to mention the OC's he hired did not get the job done coaching QB's.

Negative and false post. Ainge was taught the same plays as Manning Martin and Clausen. Ainge simply did not apply himself (except to his drugs). He had a legit receiver corps for 3 years. Virtually wasted it on drugs.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[05_never_again]

Negative and false post. Ainge was taught the same plays as Manning Martin and Clausen. Ainge simply did not apply himself (except to his drugs). He had a legit receiver corps for 3 years. Virtually wasted it on drugs.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Ainge might have had personal problems of his own, but I don't think he ever learned to read defenses and anticipate the play. Even in his pretty good senior year he stared down receivers. It's amazing he was drafted.

 

[WA_Vol]

Negative and false post. Ainge was taught the same plays as Manning Martin and Clausen. Ainge simply did not apply himself (except to his drugs). He had a legit receiver corps for 3 years. Virtually wasted it on drugs.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Did rasputinvol change his s/n?
Deja vu in here.