BeecherVol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2008
- Messages
- 39,169
- Likes
- 14,459
Lets go over some things.
1. Fulmer called one out of every 3 offensive plays.
2. No one outside of Scott bought into this system and taught it well.
3. Richmond has a smarter team than we do.
4. Only 50% of the playbook was available for playcalls
5. We had an average to below average line.
6. We had no QB.
It's easy to see why he had no success. No one could have made the offense much better. Especially since it's known that it takes a while for him to get his system in.
Yeah, I think the other posters who called you out as 14 year old pretty much got it right. Now run on back over to your Wii forum and talk about something you actually know about & leave football for the grown folks.
But hey, look at the bright side.....you parents may let you sit at the big table this year for Christmas dinner.hmy:
and they were 3-8, 4-7 and 2-9 the three years before he got there. Take that for what it's worth.
And they were 3-8 and 6-5 two of his four years there. Big deal.
I was as big a DC fan as there was. Fact is he failed. Maybe he'll do fine at BG, but claiming his resume supports him being a huge success before coming to UT is just plain false.
This point was made a long time ago in this post. UT also won the BCS the year after Peyton left. Your argument is baseless. Please never post again.
Dang,
I understand what you are trying to say. Players leave a different mark than coaches do however. Better example would be what Butch Davis left Larry Coker with to win a NC. Coker later showed he was not the man for the job, after what Davis built was in the NFL.