I respect Fulmer a little more after each game we lose

[beamerman]

I was talking about when Majors took over. It wasn't nearly as bad as what Heupel has faced

Not even close. Majors had rebuilt Tn and Fulmer rode that to 1 title, but no more.

 

[beamerman]

Majors won a national championship and rebuilt multiple programs without Fulmer. Fulmer had one good season without Cutclife and still managed to blow that massively talented squad vs Saban.

That is what happens when someone meets up against a great coach and just can’t win on talent alone. That‘s why some of us love Ray Mears so much, winning games when he was out matched in talent but not out coached, until of course the loss to Boeheim.

 

[Cpatter4]

Here are all the ways 2002-2008 (Fulmer's latter years) were better than 2013-2017 (Jones tenure):

• Fulmer's latter record was 57-32. Butch's was 34-29. That's a 64% win rate for Phillip, versus 54% for Butch.
• Fulmer won the SEC East twice in that time period. Butch never won the division.
• Fulmer had three (3) 10-win seasons in that window. Butch never got to double digits.
• Fulmer's worst season was 5-7. Butch achieved a team history worst, at 4-8.
• Ditto in SEC play: Fulmer's worst ever was 3-5. Butch took us to the cellar at 0-8.

There is simply no comparison between the two. Fulmer's worst years were still significantly better than the Butch Jones era, or the Dooley era, or the Pruitt era.

Folks like to hate on Phillip Fulmer, but he was one helluva great coach. Second best in our team's history. You don't get to a lifetime 75% win rate being a scrub.

But, haters gonna hate.

Go Vols!

Didn’t he win the East 3 times during that period?

 

[TDawg]

I predicted 9 wins and thatss because we have more talent than 9 teams and a considerable amount more than many of them. Im not down on Heupel yet and will give him time but he in no way overachieved.

So, I have a curiosity question for you. And I mean it, just asking out of curiosity. How did you come up with your belief that UT has more talent than 9 teams on your schedule? I honestly could stretch and maybe make the same case (but I do believe it would be a stretch) that you're right but it may not even be the same 9 teams.

 

[OrangeBeachVol]

I think after winning the NC Fulmer though he had reached the top of the mtn for a FB coach and he lost focus after that. Thought recruits would flood in without much effort and all would be great. Didn't realize he had just put a huge target on the program and himself and he needed to work just as hard or harder. And Cutcliff leaving and replacing him with Sanders instead of getting an experienced good OC.

 

[GAVol]

So, I have a curiosity question for you. And I mean it, just asking out of curiosity. How did you come up with your belief that UT has more talent than 9 teams on your schedule? I honestly could stretch and maybe make the same case (but I do believe it would be a stretch) that you're right but it may not even be the same 9 teams.

No sane fan actually believes this.

 

[whobethis16]

I didn't mention style. I talked about production. Production matters. It is how you get W's.


Really? You don't understand what kind of advantage it is or what it means when you score more points over time? It is a measure of performance... of excellence.... of consistent execution.

If your offense averages 24 points and your defense averages 10 vs your offense averaging 35 and your defense averaging 31, which would be better? I bet you the former would produce more wins. That's the point. You're putting too much stock in an offense scoring that many points.

 

[whobethis16]

Which only means UT did an extraordinarily bad job of managing the football program during that period hiring a succession of coaches that never should have gotten an interview. It wasn't just a "bit of a dropoff". It was the difference between "greatness" and average.

All that said, I'm not arguing that it was all Cutcliffe. His career away from Fulmer hasn't been stellar either. IMO it was the unique chemistry and complimentary relationship between Fulmer, Cut, and Chavis that made all 3 more successful together than any were apart.

No, it means it was a knee-jerk reaction that we're still dealing with over a decade later because a bunch of people think they're entitled to more than they really are.

 

[whobethis16]

Majors won a national championship and rebuilt multiple programs without Fulmer. Fulmer had one good season without Cutclife and still managed to blow that massively talented squad vs Saban.

Yes or no: would you take a 67% winning percentage over the last 15 years or not?

Majors also **** the bed multiple times. Based on your opinion on Fulmer and what he did in cherry-picked years, Majors should've been canned after 1988. He had all that momentum after 1985 and laid a goose-egg the next 3 years.

 

[VolFreakJosh]

Fulmer is no different from Les Miles.

The game passed them by years ago.

Neither one didn’t want to change their philosophy and you see what happened.

Firing Fulmer wasn’t a mistake. Hiring his replacements were.

 

[whobethis16]

Fulmer is no different from Les Miles.

The game passed them by years ago.

Neither one didn’t want to change their philosophy and you see what happened.

Firing Fulmer wasn’t a mistake. Hiring his replacements were.

It is a mistake if you don't have a good enough plan in place. They didn't. It's not like he was fired for-cause. If you fire a HOF coach, you damn sure better have your ducks in a row after doing it.

 

[sjt18]

No, it means it was a knee-jerk reaction that we're still dealing with over a decade later because a bunch of people think they're entitled to more than they really are.

No. It wasn't a "knee-jerk" reaction... or at least shouldn't have been. Fulmer's results on the field dropped following Cut's first departure. He was too loyal to coaches and players who were not to standard. His cover ups of player misconduct led to a complete loss of control and perpetual off the field embarrassments. On the field, he lost touch with the evolution of the game. He wasn't competitive with a new wave of coaches and refused to change even as more teams began to find and hire coaches with the new mindset. This translated to poor results in recruiting where toward the end... Fulmer flat out couldn't recruit linemen. The roster Kiffin inherited by the time UT took action on Fulmer had some notable talents but had wide talent gaps in between. There was no depth.

Fulmer refused to change. He has no one to blame but himself.

What specifically do you mean by people thinking they're "entitled"? That UT fans should not expect to win? That poor performance should be tolerated into perpetuity?

 

[sjt18]

It is a mistake if you don't have a good enough plan in place. They didn't. It's not like he was fired for-cause. If you fire a HOF coach, you damn sure better have your ducks in a row after doing it.

He was fired for a couple of reasons. One was that he was no longer competitive with top coaches and refused to change his methods. Second was that his team discipline was awful and a CONSTANT source of embarrassment for the program. I am honestly not sure why he was not "fired for cause" after it was discovered that Coker failed more than the allowable drug tests and Fulmer covered it up.

 

[sjt18]

Fulmer is no different from Les Miles.

The game passed them by years ago.

Neither one didn’t want to change their philosophy and you see what happened.

Firing Fulmer wasn’t a mistake. Hiring his replacements were.

Precisely. And speaking for myself, I can appreciate what Fulmer did in the first half of his career at UT without excusing the 2nd half or deluding myself about the direction things were headed.

 

[sjt18]

If your offense averages 24 points and your defense averages 10 vs your offense averaging 35 and your defense averaging 31, which would be better? I bet you the former would produce more wins. That's the point. You're putting too much stock in an offense scoring that many points.

No. You are creating a false dichotomy. Scoring more points does NOT dictate that you are bad on defense. None of UT's defensive problems this year were caused because the O scored too fast or scored too many points. They were primarily caused by being unable to get off the field on 3rd/4th down. UT is by far the worst in the SEC and one of the worst in the country.

In fact, it puts unnecessary pressure on the D and DC if the O does not score points. It limits or dictates play calling. It keeps them from taking risks even when they offer a great chance for big rewards.

 

[whobethis16]

No. It wasn't a "knee-jerk" reaction... or at least shouldn't have been. Fulmer's results on the field dropped following Cut's first departure. He was too loyal to coaches and players who were not to standard. His cover ups of player misconduct led to a complete loss of control and perpetual off the field embarrassments. On the field, he lost touch with the evolution of the game. He wasn't competitive with a new wave of coaches and refused to change even as more teams began to find and hire coaches with the new mindset. This translated to poor results in recruiting where toward the end... Fulmer flat out couldn't recruit linemen. The roster Kiffin inherited by the time UT took action on Fulmer had some notable talents but had wide talent gaps in between. There was no depth.

Fulmer refused to change. He has no one to blame but himself.

What specifically do you mean by people thinking they're "entitled"? That UT fans should not expect to win? That poor performance should be tolerated into perpetuity?

The roster he inherited is because the coach was fired. Fulmer had top 5 recruiting classes coming in 2009 and 2010. He had 2 QBs that Kiffin told to piss off. That's not debatable.

People clearly think they're entitled to 10 wins a season, and have gotten nothing but ****-burgers to show for it. They spend too much time in video game land thinking that their 13-0 records with 60-0 wins is feasible.

Yes, it declined some, but again, it was not bad enough to fire him. I firmly believe the rich old folks didn't want him touching Neyland's all-time wins, and finally got a (garbage) reason to fire him.

 

[whobethis16]

He was fired for a couple of reasons. One was that he was no longer competitive with top coaches and refused to change his methods. Second was that his team discipline was awful and a CONSTANT source of embarrassment for the program. I am honestly not sure why he was not "fired for cause" after it was discovered that Coker failed more than the allowable drug tests and Fulmer covered it up.

Covered up? Why do you insist on lying?

Tennessee's LaMarcus Coker has shot at NFL after struggle with drugs.

Vols dismiss RB Coker after fourth failed drug test

He was suspended, sent to rehab, and kicked out of school. There was no damn cover up.

 

[sjt18]

Covered up? Why do you insist on lying?

Tennessee's LaMarcus Coker has shot at NFL after struggle with drugs.

Vols dismiss RB Coker after fourth failed drug test

He was suspended, sent to rehab, and kicked out of school. There was no damn cover up.

Dude. I remember it VIVIDLY. I lived through it. He apparently had other failed tests that Fulmer "didn't count". I get that you worship the guy and all... but you're now trying to make yourself believe he didn't have MASSIVE discipline problems?

He was good in his time. His time passed. He refused to change and failed... leading to his dismissal. He's not a bad guy. It happens to a lot of people in a lot of lines of work. And he was still rightly fired.

 

[sjt18]

The roster he inherited is because the coach was fired. Fulmer had top 5 recruiting classes coming in 2009 and 2010. He had 2 QBs that Kiffin told to piss off. That's not debatable.

You are more delusional than some of the JG fans were a couple of years ago. Kiffin pulled offers from some good players who didn't fit what they wanted to do. The MAJORITY of those players in spite of their rankings never did anything significant in college.

People clearly think they're entitled to 10 wins a season, and have gotten nothing but ****-burgers to show for it. They spend too much time in video game land thinking that their 13-0 records with 60-0 wins is feasible.

Who specifically said they were "entitled" to 10 wins a season? But if that isn't your goal and desire... and expectation for the program then what are you looking for? Mediocrity? Were you satisfied with the growing gap between Fulmer and Richt/Saban/Meyer? Are you good with 6 win seasons as long as the uniforms are pretty and you can tailgate?

I won't make any excuses for wanting a coach making enough money each year for an average person to retire on to produce wins. The game is about wins. When you invest and support a program like UT fans do... you're doggone right they have good reason to expect success.

Yes, it declined some, but again, it was not bad enough to fire him.

Some? No. Not "some"... A LOT. Worse, recruits saw it and saw HIM as out of touch and part of the past. He was no longer beating top teams for players... he wasn't even beating middling teams for players.

And yes, it was WAY more than enough to fire him not only because of the recent failure, losing seasons, and poor discipline but because of the direction of the program and his STUBBORN refusal to consider change. I don't know what you do for a living but imagine you own a business and have an employee who was once successful. However that employee failed to keep up with the competition and new methods and began to fail. Now imagine that you approached that employee and his response was, "We've made a lot of money around here doing what I'm doing and I ain't changing now". You'd fire them on the spot. No way you could tolerate an attitude like that.

That was Fulmer.

I firmly believe the rich old folks didn't want him touching Neyland's all-time wins, and finally got a (garbage) reason to fire him.

You can firmly believe that Joe Biden's spending plan won't raise the deficit... or any of a number of fantasies... that won't make them true. Fulmer was fired because he wasn't winning, wasn't willing to change, and was an embarrassment with team discipline.

 

[whobethis16]

Dude. I remember it VIVIDLY. I lived through it. He apparently had other failed tests that Fulmer "didn't count". I get that you worship the guy and all... but you're now trying to make yourself believe he didn't have MASSIVE discipline problems?

He was good in his time. His time passed. He refused to change and failed... leading to his dismissal. He's not a bad guy. It happens to a lot of people in a lot of lines of work. And he was still rightly fired.

And that's why even you were saying it was 4. You clearly don't remember it vividly.

Disappointed with Kiffins decision.



But I'm sure you have some proof besides that "vivid" memory, right?

 

[TDawg]

No sane fan actually believes this.

well, here is my theory .. I think nationdom looks at the talent tracker on 247 for this bit of info. I mentioned once that if you dig into that for UT they still include Solomon and Harrison Bailey. Which means there could still be a couple of others that factor in to that. It also includes Milton and he as a 4-star, is typically riding the bench. Those three are a 5-star and two 4-stars who aren't factoring into the matchups each week. So as many of you on here have noted, having just a hair over 70 scholarship players makes a difference come game time. But the one I think that really misses is this, the same logic can be applied to Florida. I don't think Florida is as talented top to bottom as UT is. Florida has A LOT of players that were highly ranked that don't play at all or don't play much, several coming by way of transfer portal. Then they guys like Brenton Cox who was very highly ranked, transferred from UGA and plays but he is more of a liability most of the time than an asset. I think UT is more talented than Florida but less so than, say, maybe Kentucky for these same reasons.

 

[agent|orange]

Fulmer, without Cutcliffe, started being apparent he had lost it around 2003-2004. There were still 10 wins on the table, but that is honestly due to Ron Zook being at Florida and Mark Richt being in the early stages of getting UGA up and running.

Once Richt got UGA to a level of competency and Florida hired Meyer, it was over. The vaunted 2005 season.

Fulmer hired Cutcliffe back and he got the ship righted in 2006 and 2007... ish. We still lost to Florida but that's nothing new and finished with 10 wins.

But then Cut left and Fulmer went right back to being the same coach he was since at least 2003 if not around 2001. If Cut had stayed with Fulmer, he wouldn't have had the 08 season he had.

 

[BeardedVol]

Nobody argues that there wasn't a bit of a dropoff. The argument is that it wasn't as bad as so many people believe it was, and we are now almost 15 years removed from Fulmer and the program winning percentage is below 50% in that time.

That dropoff would have continued had Fulmer been retained. Meyer beat him 3 years in a row, and Saban beat him in his opening season at Alabama.

The trend of making it to the SECCG every 3-4 years was at an end for Fulmer with the coaching makeup of the SEC at that point.

 

[sjt18]

And that's why even you were saying it was 4. You clearly don't remember it vividly.

Disappointed with Kiffins decision.

View attachment 412705

But I'm sure you have some proof besides that "vivid" memory, right?

You can pick nits from now on. Congratulations LOL for finding a 12 year old post that was AFTER Fulmer had been fired and Coker had been dismissed. Nothing in my post there points at how many secret 2nd chances Coker supposedly got. Only that the rule was tightened after Coker... which I believe was true at the time of that post.

I remember that it was widely reported and understood that Coker had gotten more failed tests than the rules permitted. That's the actual pertinent part that you seem to want to dodge. Fulmer coddled talented players at the expense of team discipline.

I do not know why you have this Fulmer worship going on... but he was rightly fired because he was losing, the direction of the program was not good, he refused to change, and his teams/coaches were poorly led and disciplined. He was not cheated. He was not subjected to a conspiracy by older fans to prevent him from eclipsing Neyland. Nothing had to be made up or misconstrued to justify him losing his job.

After this much time... you should have been able to put all this in perspective and let go of it.

He was AD for just about 3 years, right? Fulmer gave uncritical loyalty to Pruitt. He ran interference even after the ridiculous losses to BYU and Ga St. They were of the same mind and cut.... and again a lack of discipline led to Fulmer being fired but this time the damage was potentially worse. In all that time... he didn't change or learn. The same tendencies that got him fired in 2008 got him fired again last year... poor discipline, undeserved and blind trust in subordinates, sacrifice of performance on the altar of misdirected loyalties.

 

[agent|orange]

That dropoff would have continued had Fulmer been retained. Meyer beat him 3 years in a row, and Saban beat him in his opening season at Alabama.

The trend of making it to the SECCG every 3-4 years was at an end for Fulmer with the coaching makeup of the SEC at that point.

And while he did okay against Richt, he would absolutely be getting brained by Smart and would have gotten brained by Spurrier, again, when he was at USC.

We would have unquestionably been in the 3rd or 4th spot in the SEC consistently behind UGA, USC and UF. Not even mentioning the Franklin years at Vandy and the early Mizzou years. We wouldn't have been any better. Just workin' like heck at finishing 5th/6th in the SECE.