How would you rate John Chavis as a Defensive Coordinator?

[05_never_again]

Not only that but see what he did with a Duke program that was a graveyard for coaching careers. He and Spurrier are the only two people that come to mind that could produce a Blue Devil football team that was solid. Why he couldn't make a long termn go of it at Ole Miss still baffles me, unless he refused to pad expenses for hookers.

He had that one really good year with Eli in 2003, but after that the bottom fell out and I think there was a perception there all of that success was because of Eli. Of course, Cutcliffe recruited and developed him, but I don't think they wanted to hold out until he was able to do that again. I remember being mildly surprised they fired him after 2004; that was actually his first and only losing season at Ole Miss, and they were coming off a 10-win season and Cotton Bowl win the season before. They even tied for first in the West that year but lost the tiebreaker to LSU. According to Wiki their AD at the time wanted Cutcliffe to present him with a wide-ranging plan to improve the program, including cutting loose a lot of assistants, which he refused to do. That's also supposedly why he didn't get the Tennessee job after Fulmer was fired, because Hamilton was pressuring him to not bring certain Duke assistants.

 

[05_never_again]

It's hard not to have mixed feelings... I don't care about the job he did at other places. Just off the top of my head, these are some games we lost with Chavis as DC, where a stop on the opponent's last possession would have won the game, but we allowed a game-winning touchdown drive of more than 60 yards instead:

'96 Memphis
'99 Arkansas
'00 Florida
'01 Georgia
'05 South Carolina
'06 LSU

Also, the decision to move DE Leonard Little to a stand up LB in '97 was bizarre. We took the best edge rusher in the country and stood him up. Dick Vermeil even commented on how dumb that was as head coach of the Rams (who drafted Little) ... but, we will always have '98 and that defense maximized what it had. So, like I said, mixed feelings.

That 1996 Memphis loss was one of the most embarrassing and painful ever, and the game was lost on a final drive, but a Peyton Manning-led offense also scored just 17 points in that game. A huge part of the blame must be laid there too. Same for '05 South Carolina. It's much harder to win games when you only score 15 points.

The other losses, yes, those stunk because the offense played well enough to win.

 

[BowlBrother85]

That 1996 Memphis loss was one of the most embarrassing and painful ever, and the game was lost on a final drive, but a Peyton Manning-led offense also scored just 17 points in that game. A huge part of the blame must be laid there too. Same for '05 South Carolina. It's much harder to win games when you only score 15 points.

The other losses, yes, those stunk because the offense played well enough to win.

There were four reasons for that loss:

1) Tennessee ran the ball 49 times for 85 yards. (stubborn, much?)
2) Peyton Manning threw two very costly interceptions, one in the end zone which killed their only good drive of the game and then another from their own 20 which was returned to the 1 yard line setting up the first Memphis touchdown.
3) On Kevin Cobb's kickoff return for a touchdown, the officials made a blatant error. They missed his forearm and elbow clearly touching the ground after a hit and they allowed him to get up (while Tennessee thought the play was over) and run the majority of the way for a bogus TD. Those were SEC officials too. Roy Kramer was p***ed after the game.
4) On Memphis's final possession, Tennessee's secondary was inexcusably beaten on a deep ball which set up the game-winning touchdown. Our corner, I think it was Goodrich (just a freshman at the time), should have had help from the Safety but Tori Noel (a great player) was busy picking his nose.

"Perfect storm" has become a cliche... but in the case of that game, it applies. It was the worst game of Peyton Manning's college career (factoring in the strength of the opponent) and we couldn't run the ball to save our butts but also stubbornly refused to abandon the run... and although the defense had played well (against an inept offense) until the last drive, they were inexcusably beaten deep by a QB with a weak arm with the game on the line. And then you had the non-call on the kick off return....

 

[05_never_again]

There were four reasons for that loss:

1) Tennessee ran the ball 49 times for 85 yards. (stubborn, much?)
2) Peyton Manning threw two very costly interceptions, one in the end zone which killed their only good drive of the game and then another from their own 20 which was returned to the 1 yard line setting up the first Memphis touchdown.
3) On Kevin Cobb's kickoff return for a touchdown, the officials made a blatant error. They missed his forearm and elbow clearly touching the ground after a hit and they allowed him to get up (while Tennessee thought the play was over) and run the majority of the way for a bogus TD. Those were SEC officials too. Roy Kramer was p***ed after the game.
4) On Memphis's final possession, Tennessee's secondary was inexcusably beaten on a deep ball which set up the game-winning touchdown. Our corner, I think it was Goodrich (just a freshman at the time), should have had help from the Safety but Tori Noel (a great player) was busy picking his nose.

"Perfect storm" has become a cliche... but in the case of that game, it applies. It was the worst game of Peyton Manning's college career (factoring in the strength of the opponent) and we couldn't run the ball to save our butts but also stubbornly refused to abandon the run... and although the defense had played well (against an inept offense) until the last drive, they were inexcusably beaten deep by a QB with a weak arm with the game on the line. And then you had the non-call on the kick off return....

The bolded statement is correct, but as you lay out in detail before that, it should have never come down to that. It shouldn't have come down to a single play, or even a handful of plays. Not with that talent differential.

It wasn't even like that was a historically good Memphis team or anything. They finished 4-7 and were on a 4-game losing streak coming into that game. How exactly do you average 1.7 YPC on 49 carries against Memphis?

Just a classic case where a bunch of guys came in sleepwalking, and by the time you get the gumption to match your opponent's intensity you have a real fight on your hands.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

1 thing most of the people here seem to be forgetting about all the "3rd and Chavis" comebacks in the 2nd half....that Fulmer and Sanders etc calling plays IMMEDIATELY went to an offense that only had 2 plays...seriously 2 plays...run off tackle/up the middle and "bubble screen" to a defenseless WR that lost 3 yards every single time it was ever called, which was every 3rd down , to set up 3rd and 13 and a punt while running 1:15 off of the clock

Defense never got any rest, or breath for that natter...and LOST field position by the offense unless our sometimes great punters could outkick their opponents.

Immense pressure on a defense to be on the field for an ENTIRE 2nd half...especially the DBs that dont rotate like the WR that they have to run with every snap. Especially in nickel and dime situations where we have 5 or 6 DBS on the field...there ARE no subs at that point. Period. We didnt have more than 6 DBs that could play SEC ball...so you get worn out DBs covering fresh WR in soft coverage. Recipe for disaster.

Many of those games could have been easily won if the offense, which scored 35 or 45 in the 1st half...could have strung together just ONE single 80 yard drive. 3 yards and a cloud of dust doesnt work when the DC knows that we are gonna run it every single time...but yall keep bashing Chavis...

 

[Boston Vol]

Thought he was very good against traditional offenses and below average against non-traditional ones.

Plus extra points deducted for his tendency in giving up game winning drives.

Pre-spread offensive era-8. Current spread offensive era-4.

 

[XknoxvolsX]

1 thing most of the people here seem to be forgetting about all the "3rd and Chavis" comebacks in the 2nd half....that Fulmer and Sanders etc calling plays IMMEDIATELY went to an offense that only had 2 plays...seriously 2 plays...run off tackle/up the middle and "bubble screen" to a defenseless WR that lost 3 yards every single time it was ever called, which was every 3rd down , to set up 3rd and 13 and a punt while running 1:15 off of the clock

Defense never got any rest, or breath for that natter...and LOST field position by the offense unless our sometimes great punters could outkick their opponents.

Immense pressure on a defense to be on the field for an ENTIRE 2nd half...especially the DBs that dont rotate like the WR that they have to run with every snap. Especially in nickel and dime situations where we have 5 or 6 DBS on the field...there ARE no subs at that point. Period. We didnt have more than 6 DBs that could play SEC ball...so you get worn out DBs covering fresh WR in soft coverage. Recipe for disaster.

Many of those games could have been easily won if the offense, which scored 35 or 45 in the 1st half...could have strung together just ONE single 80 yard drive. 3 yards and a cloud of dust doesnt work when the DC knows that we are gonna run it every single time...but yall keep bashing Chavis...

Wasn't there a game, maybe USCe where our punter actually won that game? Seems like he had five or six punts for like 60 yards that kept them pinned in their own 10.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

If Chavis had NFL talent to work with, then he was a good DC and could field a formidable defense. The defense was still good in 05 and 08 when Fulmer had his worst years too. He had solid years at LSU but I do not know what the He11 happened during his time with the aggies. Sadly he is just a name now.

 

[280vol]

Glad he is no longer at UT.

 

[volfanecs]

Ah, the Phil Fulmer is a deity lurker. Fulmer and Chavis both benefited from talent that hid their coaching flaws. Chavis more so than Fulmer. We've had this discussion multiple times, not going there again.

Let's "go there" one more time. Every coach benefits from exceptional athletes. Why is CPF any different?

 

[pimo1]

Mustang package was a huge bust.

Chapter 5: Why is it Called the 'Mustang' Many people mistakenly think I call it the Mustang because the Mustang horse is a high-performance creature, and our highly trained athletes are just as powerful and agile. While that is a great notion, it is incorrect. The true origins of the term 'Mustang' actually go back to a technique I had to employ to get my 'backers and corners to drop back as deep as the safeties. I would let them line up like they wanted, then, when they crept toward the line, I would tear through the backfield in my car to clear 'em out. The car just happened to be a mustang convertible....

 

[MurphyVol]

B+ coach. Could have been an A if he wasn't saddled with Larry Slade

 

[05_never_again]

Let's "go there" one more time. Every coach benefits from exceptional athletes. Why is CPF any different?

I'll never quite understand the "...but Coach XYZ has great talent" line that's supposed to minimize how great a coach is. People do it with Saban all the time. Did the coach in question not acquire and develop said talent?

Fulmer I always thought benefited from having Cut on his staff. I've always thought Cut was the brains behind QB development and overall offensive play. But it was, of course, Fulmer's decision to have him as his OC, so it isn't like you can say Fulmer had nothing to do with it.

I will say that there are legitimate knocks to be made on Fulmer regarding 1) offensive performance when he didn't have Cut as OC and 2) his recruiting nosedived when Richt and Urban entered the SEC. I get it - Richt and Urban were great recruiters and brought more competition in that area. But it shouldn't have fallen off as much as it did. In all honesty, Urban made Phil look like he had no clue what he was doing late in Phil's tenure. Fulmer had his own reputation as an ace recruiter before Richt/Urban arrived, but the degree to which Tennessee's recruiting fell off from 2005-08 makes you wonder if Phil's recruiting was more a function of a lack of depth in the conference (i.e., it was really just us and Florida) as opposed to him being a truly great recruiter.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Let's "go there" one more time. Every coach benefits from exceptional athletes. Why is CPF any different?

Had Fulmer not had absolutely EXCEPTIONAL talent in the 90's, we would have been mediocre just like we have been historically. Do the math with the average number of wins per season. Fulmer was a good coach, nothing more, nothing less. Chavis had awesome talent on D most of the time he was here. When we needed "coaching" for those guys (like FL in 95), he disappeared. Chavis was a good coordinator, nothing more, nothing less. I'm done, you can rant all you want. Heard it before......

Oh, in B4 you quote his record and call him a HOF coach. Heard it all before.....broken record.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Chapter 5: Why is it Called the 'Mustang' Many people mistakenly think I call it the Mustang because the Mustang horse is a high-performance creature, and our highly trained athletes are just as powerful and agile. While that is a great notion, it is incorrect. The true origins of the term 'Mustang' actually go back to a technique I had to employ to get my 'backers and corners to drop back as deep as the safeties. I would let them line up like they wanted, then, when they crept toward the line, I would tear through the backfield in my car to clear 'em out. The car just happened to be a mustang convertible....

Sounds reasonable.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I'll never quite understand the "...but Coach XYZ has great talent" line that's supposed to minimize how great a coach is. People do it with Saban all the time. Did the coach in question not acquire and develop said talent?

Fulmer I always thought benefited from having Cut on his staff. I've always thought Cut was the brains behind QB development and overall offensive play. But it was, of course, Fulmer's decision to have him as his OC, so it isn't like you can say Fulmer had nothing to do with it.

I will say that there are legitimate knocks to be made on Fulmer regarding 1) offensive performance when he didn't have Cut as OC and 2) his recruiting nosedived when Richt and Urban entered the SEC. I get it - Richt and Urban were great recruiters and brought more competition in that area. But it shouldn't have fallen off as much as it did. In all honesty, Urban made Phil look like he had no clue what he was doing late in Phil's tenure. Fulmer had his own reputation as an ace recruiter before Richt/Urban arrived, but the degree to which Tennessee's recruiting fell off from 2005-08 makes you wonder if Phil's recruiting was more a function of a lack of depth in the conference (i.e., it was really just us and Florida) as opposed to him being a truly great recruiter.

And you forget that Spurrier ALWAYS owned him at FL.

 

[05_never_again]

And you forget that Spurrier ALWAYS owned him at FL.

Yes. It was a 2-horse race in the SEC in the 90s/early 2000s, and with a couple of exceptions Spurrier owned him. Spurrier routinely outschemed Phil, sometimes even with inferior talent.

I think Phil was your classic CEO coach who was really not all that adept at Xs and Os (like 98% of college coaches are). Phil dedicated his time to having a good staff of assistant coaches, which he did with a couple extremely notable exceptions, and overseeing recruiting efforts. He was never the best recruiter, and he certainly was never the best schemer.

His calling card, even in his heyday, was predominately as a recruiter. Personally, I think he was quite overrated as a recruiter. A recruiter with is reputation should have been much more competitive on the recruiting trail with Richt and Urban once they came onto the scene.

 

[volfanecs]

Had Fulmer not had absolutely EXCEPTIONAL talent in the 90's, we would have been mediocre just like we have been historically. Do the math with the average number of wins per season. Fulmer was a good coach, nothing more, nothing less. Chavis had awesome talent on D most of the time he was here. When we needed "coaching" for those guys (like FL in 95), he disappeared. Chavis was a good coordinator, nothing more, nothing less. I'm done, you can rant all you want. Heard it before......

Oh, in B4 you quote his record and call him a HOF coach. Heard it all before.....broken record.

But...........it is my birthday. Just one more rant. lol 125-25 HOF coach.

 

[05_never_again]

But...........it is my birthday. Just one more rant. lol 125-25 HOF coach.

Serious question though - if Fulmer doesn't win the title in 1998, say it's another 11-2 type of year or even a 12-1 year with a loss in the title game, is he a HoFer?

I tend to still think yes, because someone like Mike Bellotti or Earle Bruce is in the HoF without a title, but it is a much more difficult argument.

 

[pimo1]

Sounds reasonable.

it's an excerpt from a parody piece on chavis. Even has a picture of him driving a red droptop mustang through the secondary

 

[Woke]

I'll never quite understand the "...but Coach XYZ has great talent" line that's supposed to minimize how great a coach is. People do it with Saban all the time. Did the coach in question not acquire and develop said talent?

Fulmer I always thought benefited from having Cut on his staff. I've always thought Cut was the brains behind QB development and overall offensive play. But it was, of course, Fulmer's decision to have him as his OC, so it isn't like you can say Fulmer had nothing to do with it.

I will say that there are legitimate knocks to be made on Fulmer regarding 1) offensive performance when he didn't have Cut as OC and 2) his recruiting nosedived when Richt and Urban entered the SEC. I get it - Richt and Urban were great recruiters and brought more competition in that area. But it shouldn't have fallen off as much as it did. In all honesty, Urban made Phil look like he had no clue what he was doing late in Phil's tenure. Fulmer had his own reputation as an ace recruiter before Richt/Urban arrived, but the degree to which Tennessee's recruiting fell off from 2005-08 makes you wonder if Phil's recruiting was more a function of a lack of depth in the conference (i.e., it was really just us and Florida) as opposed to him being a truly great recruiter.

It’s hard not to be an ace recruiter after signing Peyton Manning. The Manning Magnet Effect lasted thru the ‘01 class. After that we went into a long death spiral where CPF pursued a shell game of signing the highest rated * players regardless of fit or suitability. Hence The Fulmer Cup.

All ol Phil wanted to do was hang on and beat The General’s win record. Urban and Richt had other plans. That’s how it all started to unravel, compounded by our own crappy Admin decision making.

 

[71VOL]

He was one of the best when his defense was attacking and blitzing. That being said 3rd and Chavis is a saying for a reason. My stomach churned whenever we were hanging on to a late lead. 2001 UGA and 2008 UCLA still gives me nightmares.

I was at both... definitely a couple of my biggest disappointments ever being a VOL.

GBO!!!

 

[Chad F]

As long as he had a decided advantage in speed and size on the DL, he was decent. But he tended to give up big plays when it really mattered, especially toward the end of his time here at Tennessee . . . I mean, the tradition of making the other team’s back-up QB look like a Heisman candidate was pretty much born while he was our DC.

Seems like he had the same issue as Fulmer at the end: the game seemed to get by him and he struggled to adapt/evolve.

 

[volfanecs]

Serious question though - if Fulmer doesn't win the title in 1998, say it's another 11-2 type of year or even a 12-1 year with a loss in the title game, is he a HoFer?

I tend to still think yes, because someone like Mike Bellotti or Earle Bruce is in the HoF without a title, but it is a much more difficult argument.

I agree with you. It would have made it easier to fire him earlier though.

 

[molsen81]

His defensive schemes were weak against UF and LSU.