it's not the X's and the O's...

#1
Volmorning

Volmorning

Poon, Mr. Poon.
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
992
Likes
94
#1
I appologize for being on my BlackBerry, I can't post the link. Just saw a Chris Low article talking about the SEC coaching carousel and how all of the SEC coaches seem to jump from program to program. How can Charlie Strong be sucessful at UF, but unsucessful at Ole Miss? The answer is the recruits. A trained monkey could coach superior athletes, but what about rebuilding UT? One could argue that we don't, even after this class, have what it takes to win consistently. Recruiting is the key. Thoughts? And don't say duuuuh! As long as the offensive and defensive game plans are acceptable, do the particular coaches matter?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#4
#4
Good coaching is EVERYTHING!!!! You have to be able to develop talent at the college level, which is what we have seen a lack of with the last staff. High school kids come in with potential, but that's it. If you don't have a staff that can coach them up, then your team will always be mediocre. Period!
 
#5
#5
BigPapaVol said:
Yes, the coaches matter.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

So you say. Without the talent that Florida has recruited, would UM have the 2 national championships? It's the ultimate chicken or the egg question.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#6
#6
A horse has to have heart, but I have never seen a pony win the Kentucky Derby.

Cannot remember offhand which old genius coach said that. X's and O's matter and recruits matter. Let's also state that the X's and O's have to work with the recruits. Bruce Pearl cannot press with no point guard talent that is fast. Clawson could not get massive offensive linemen to learn a system he put in place over years at Richmond where small linemen who were smart used their training to confuse defenses.

Tom Osbourne beat a MUCH more talented TN team to bits in the Orange Bowl in 1997 in front of my eyes and you could blame:
Scheme, Chavis always always sucked against the option, see K State, Nebraska, Air Force, freaking LSU in the dadgum heartbreaker with Mauck.

X's and O's matter. Recruits cannot win without the proper coaching no matter how athletic they are. They also have to be developed properly as men and they have to buy in and respect and obey the coaches. James Banks, Derric Evans, Demetrice Morley I could go on and on about TOP recruits with all the athletic ability in the world who could not succeed in college because of off the field problems. Who do you blame? The young man who refused to do the right thing? The coach who did not hold his hand enough? The recruiter who did not notice that he had difficulties?

On that note, UT has several questionable recruits in terms of character mistakes in the past, some of which I think have really changed and some of which I think Kiffin will need to ride like a freaking green bronco to have any hope to succeed.

I know this rambled, but I hope it in part answered your question. A trained monkey cannot coach superior athletes.

As TN gives up more yards against the run, but also changes defense from game to game and during games you will see a better coached defense. They will have more takeaways. As our offense is in the top 50 nationally this year you will see the difference and unlike the IDIOTS who say "J Crompton has no talent" I hope you will see that our previous staff took talent and wasted it. Our offense has some very real talent and it will be dramatically improved this year.
 
#7
#7
Volmorning said:
So you say. Without the talent that Florida has recruited, would UM have the 2 national championships? It's the ultimate chicken or the egg question.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

As much as I hate to say it, Florida has a good coaching staff. They also have a lot of talent, thus why they have been dominating the last few years. It's a combination for them.
 
#8
#8
It's almost all about players in college football. Recruiting, recruiting, recruiting. The NFL is a coaching driven league. Phillip Fulmer stopped landing elite talent on a regular basis and he couldn't cover up the fact that he was almost retarded. Fulmer didn't just become stupid after the '98 season. He was always stupid, he just had enough talent to cover it up. Watch some old clips of the Phillip Fulmer Show for proof. Bob Kesling knew more about Fulmer's players than he did.
 
#9
#9
yont sum iss? said:
It's almost all about players in college football. Recruiting, recruiting, recruiting. The NFL is a coaching driven league. Phillip Fulmer stopped landing elite talent on a regular basis and he couldn't cover up the fact that he was almost retarded. Fulmer didn't just become stupid after the '98 season. He was always stupid, he just had enough talent to cover it up. Watch some old clips of the Phillip Fulmer Show for proof. Bob Kesling knew more about Fulmer's players than he did.
Click to expand...

Disagree, look at our record with cutcliffe vs. without. It's 50-50 you have to be able to recruit and be able to coach really well to be a good football team. Fulmer was always a mediocre coach.
 
#11
#11
Volfootball55 said:
Disagree, look at our record with cutcliffe vs. without. It's 50-50 you have to be able to recruit and be able to coach really well to be a good football team. Fulmer was always a mediocre coach.
Click to expand...
You have to be a great recruiter, not a great play caller or X's and O's guy. That said, you can't be retarded either.
 
Last edited:
#12
#12
Phillip Fulmers career aught to be enough proof of talent versus coaching. When we had talent we one with a very predictable scheme. When we didn't have the Al Wilson and Peyton Mannings of the world we lost. The early 2000's really emphasized this when we still had a good deal of talent, but had a losing record against ranked opponents.
 
#13
#13
yont sum iss? said:
You have to be a great recruiter, not a great play caller or X's and O's guy. That said, you can't be retarded either.
Click to expand...

You do have to have great recruiters, but you also have to be a great play caller and X's and O's guy to have a good football team. It all comes into play on Saturday's, I don't see how that's not common knowledge.
 
#14
#14
Volfootball55 said:
You do have to have great recruiters, but you also have to be a great play caller and X's and O's guy to have a good football team. It all comes into play on Saturday's, I don't see how that's not common knowledge.
Click to expand...
Well then, would you like to explain to me how we beat FSU with Randy Sanders calling plays?
 
#16
#16
Volmorning said:
So you say. Without the talent that Florida has recruited, would UM have the 2 national championships? It's the ultimate chicken or the egg question.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
It's sort of instructive that Urban Meyer won a national title at Florida in his second year mainly with players that Ron Zook was winning 7-8 games with.
 
#18
#18
GAVol said:
It's sort of instructive that Urban Meyer won a national title at Florida in his second year mainly with players that Ron Zook was winning 7-8 games with.
Click to expand...
Zook is a complete idiot like Fulmer was. A mediocre coach can win titles as long as he can recruit. Fulmer and Zook are not even mediocre coaches.
 
#19
#19
Volmorning said:
I appologize for being on my BlackBerry, I can't post the link. Just saw a Chris Low article talking about the SEC coaching carousel and how all of the SEC coaches seem to jump from program to program. How can Charlie Strong be sucessful at UF, but unsucessful at Ole Miss? The answer is the recruits. A trained monkey could coach superior athletes, but what about rebuilding UT? One could argue that we don't, even after this class, have what it takes to win consistently. Recruiting is the key. Thoughts? And don't say duuuuh! As long as the offensive and defensive game plans are acceptable, do the particular coaches matter?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


no question in my mind

Untitled Document
 
#20
#20
oUTKickedCoverage said:
He actually called a good game that time... I still don't think his playcalling was that bad, but he just couldn't control the offense.
Click to expand...
That one guy said you have to have great playcalling. Randy Sanders was a lot of things, but a great playcaller wasn't one of them.
 
#21
#21
Fulmer out-athleted teams for most of his career.

Look back in his glory days. The only team that came close to UT in terms of talent was UF.

How did we fare against them?

When the talent was equal, and it came to strictly coaching, we lost.
 
#22
#22
yont sum iss? said:
Well then, would you like to explain to me how we beat FSU with Randy Sanders calling plays?
Click to expand...

Who was the Offensive Coordinator that year? Sanders called one game, and we beat a team playing their second team QB. Look at what happened when Sanders got total control of the offense. If you have ever been around any type of football before you know that you not only have to have good players, but also good coaches. I'm not saying you don't have to have good players, I am saying that you have to have both to have an exceptional football team. Especially with high school kids, you have to be able to coach them up! I don't see how you can argue against this....:ermm:
 
#24
#24
Voldaddy said:
Fulmer out-athleted teams for most of his career.

Look back in his glory days. The only team that came close to UT in terms of talent was UF.

How did we fare against them?

When the talent was equal, and it came to strictly coaching, we lost.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I am speaking on an all things equal aspect.
 
#25
#25
Volfootball55 said:
Who was the Offensive Coordinator that year? Sanders called one game, and we beat a team playing their second team QB. Look at what happened when Sanders got total control of the offense. If you have ever been around any type of football before you know that you not only have to have good players, but also good coaches. I'm not saying you don't have to have good players, I am saying that you have to have both to have an exceptional football team. Especially with high school kids, you have to be able to coach them up! I don't see how you can argue against this....:ermm:
Click to expand...
You said earlier that you had to have great coaches. If Fulmer was even a good coach he would not have gone 5-7 in a year that his team was preseason #3. Plus, I'm not talking about high school. College players are more grown up than people give them credit for. Few of them need a great leader with a great mind to help mold them into great players.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top