The 90's Fulmer vs. Now

#1
duckman398686

duckman398686

VN's One and Only
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
21,783
Likes
150
#1
First let me say that I know everybody gets ticked at the consistent fire Fulmer threads. This is NOT one of those. It is simply a question i've been thinking about lately, and want your opinions on it.

All in all, I've been satisfied with fulmer up to the 2005 season. I mean, I wanted an sec championship too, but up until then we had the following records with Fulmer:

1992: 4-0
1993: 9-3
1994: 8-4
1995: 11-1
1996: 10-2
1997: 11-2
1998: 13-0
1999: 9-3
2000: 8-4
2001: 11-2
2002: 8-5
2003: 10-3
2004: 10-3

Out of the 12 seasons he coached full-time, we have had 7 seasons of 10 wins or more. IMO thats pretty good. But since 2001, and recently in 2005, there have been more prestigious coaches added to the SEC, the east division in particular. (Richt, the return of Spurrier, Meyer, Miles) This is in contrast to the era of 93-2000, where the only coach that Fulmer had to seriously contend with was Spurrier. Which brings me to my question. Could Fulmer's success be credited to the theory that there were simply not that many presigious coaches around at the time in the SEC to contend with Fulmer? Maybe he wasn't the great coach we thought he was entering the new millenium. Maybe he was just a good coach who was a flash in the pan every now and then among other coaches who weren't quite at the same level. I'm not saying I support this opinion, but it does make you think. This is in contrast with today, where there are more than enough coaches who frequently compete with him. Thoughts?
 
#2
#2
My thoughts are he got very lucky one year (1998) and very unlucky another year (2005). Otherwise, he's a very average coach by SEC standards.
 
#3
#3
duckman398686 said:
This is in contrast to the era of 93-2000, where the only coach that Fulmer had to seriously contend with was Spurrier. Which brings me to my question. Could Fulmer's success be credited to the theory that there were simply not that many presigious coaches around at the time in the SEC to contend with Fulmer? ?
Click to expand...
when you consider that o/t spurrier, he was regularly pitted against the likes of mike dubose, ray goff, jim donnan, brad scott, gerry dinardo etc....that point looks to be more valid as each new coach is hired in the SEC. especially considering that none of htem are HC's anywhere now. a couple aren't even in coaching at all.

that says a lot about the competition level he had to go against. the only real comp he had, Spurrier, he lost to regularly and sometimes in humiliating fashion.
 
#4
#4
jakez4ut said:
when you consider that o/t spurrier, he was regularly pitted against the likes of mike dubose, ray goff, jim donnan, brad scott, gerry dinardo etc....that point looks to be more valid as each new coach is hired in the SEC. especially considering that none of htem are HC's anywhere now. a couple aren't even in coaching at all.

that says a lot about the competition level he had to go against. the only real comp he had, Spurrier, he lost to regularly and sometimes in humiliating fashion.
Click to expand...
Don't forget Sparky Woods and Woody Widenhoffer.
 
#6
#6
Let me just add, AGAIN, that 10 wins in a 13 or 14 game season is not a baramoter of success. It's about losses unless you use win%.

Without a championship game in a 13 game season, 3 losses is mediocre. It means that you've lost to the best teams on your schedule and someone else who's good to top 25. Therefore, you've failed to prove that you are a top 25 team and certainly not worthy of any accolades.
 
#7
#7
The luck of 1998 is what has kept him at UT. We were winning the close ones and now we lose the close ones and even teams we should beat by three TDs are close.
 
#8
#8
The competition is definetly stiffer now than in the 90's without a doubt.
 
#9
#9
Fulmer probably never saw this coming. he never really thought he would have to be a great coach if he had the best talent washing dishes could buy.
 
#11
#11
Fulmer is decent not great. I dont know if its the level of the other coaches or not. If we lose to Alabama the year with their new coach that could very well prove that point.. I think this year is do or die time for fulmer.. in 05 he had sanders as the fall guy.. not sure there will be another fall guy if he doesnt get the job done this time around.
 
#12
#12
VolsZealot said:
Fulmer is decent not great. I dont know if its the level of the other coaches or not. If we lose to Alabama the year with their new coach that could very well prove that point.. I think this year is do or die time for fulmer.. in 05 he had sanders as the fall guy.. not sure there will be another fall guy if he doesnt get the job done this time around.
Click to expand...

He will use up the rest of his assistants one by one as fall guys to prolong his tunure and salary.:)
 
#13
#13
VolunteerHillbilly said:
My thoughts are he got very lucky one year (1998) and very unlucky another year (2005). Otherwise, he's a very average coach by SEC standards.
Click to expand...

Its funny that some call 1998 "lucky" considering the Vols were 6-0 versus ranked opponents that season.
 
#14
#14
allvol said:
Its funny that some call 1998 "lucky" considering the Vols were 6-0 versus ranked opponents that season.
Click to expand...

There was some luck involved... the Stoerner fumble, the pass interference call against Syracuse, the missed FG by Florida. But every team that wins a NC has to have luck at some point. That being said, Fulmer had an NFL roster to work with that year.
 
#15
#15
Liper said:
Let me just add, AGAIN, that 10 wins in a 13 or 14 game season is not a baramoter of success. It's about losses unless you use win%.

Without a championship game in a 13 game season, 3 losses is mediocre. It means that you've lost to the best teams on your schedule and someone else who's good to top 25. Therefore, you've failed to prove that you are a top 25 team and certainly not worthy of any accolades.
Click to expand...
i think it's safe to say that a lot has changed since Fulmer first took over.

the same thing has happened in other sports. the benchmark for NFL running backs for ever was 1000 yard seasons. and that continued to be the case for a long time even after the 16 game schedule was implemented. but 1000 yards in 16 games is like what, 80 yards a game or something...not exactly highlight material. so the perception has changed somewhat there as well. some statistics in baseball have changed with the advent of middle relievers, closers, the DH, and schedules being made longer.

the same applies here. 12 game regular season schedule should not net another tough game that could result in a loss, rather it's a game that is set at home against a likely cream puff to bolster home game revenue.

So lex, in merit, i agree 100%. 9-3 is no better than 8-3 these days. the losses are what should be judged. and who you lost to more importantly.
 
#16
#16
but 1000 yards in 16 games is like what, 80 yards a game or something...not exactly highlight material.
Click to expand...
Even worse, just 62.5 ypg will get you a thousand yard rushing season.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top