Things are turning around

#26
#26
OrangeMagic said:
What point are you trying to make? It's obvious that if you can't coach, talent won't matter. You mention Fulmer never losing to a PAC-10 team but he lost to Wyoming at home last year........

Wyoming.........at home.........last year....
Click to expand...

Yeah and he'd been "fired". How's your job performance when you are a lame duck?
 
#27
#27
Here is the problem with your analogy on talent. The talent your hero Fulmer recruited as you listed were never coached. We have no depth, we have no QB and it will take us several years to get enough talent to have depth and be competitive. Obviously your consumed with the loss of Fulmer and not happy with CLK. I look forward to the day if Fulmer ever gets back to coaching so you can take your Fulmer luvin arse to that team. Like it or not your here Fulmer ran this program down and left the cupboard bare.
nbakerld said:
My point exactly. You guys say "we'll finally have talent" like you are banking on that as the answer, but it's not. Our coaches just got handled even though they had far superior talent.

That class gave us:

Hardesty
Cottam
Brown
McCoy
Richard
Scott
G Williams
D Williams
McNeill
Morley
Coker
Crompton

It's a legit class. 4 of the stars haven't worked out for this year, but that's the case with most good recruiting classes.
Click to expand...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#29
#29
Aside from recruiting and coaching up the players, let's keep in mind that this was the staff's first "real" game. Would've loved to listen over the headphones to Lan and Cheney, et al, as they debated play calls and tried to find a rhythm for the offense in the heat of a close game. Not saying the offense explodes against the Gators, but things should get more smooth as they work together more.
 
#30
#30
Where are Fulmer's O linemen? D linemen? QB's ?? he left areas devoid of talent. His classes may have been highly touted but he failed to recruit areas of need.

Fulmer was an o lineman and this has to be one of the most lacking areas of the whole team. This is a clear example that he just didn't give a shizzle anymore. He quit paying attention.
 
#31
#31
nbakerld said:
Fulmer had a lot of top 10 recruiting classes.
Click to expand...

He also had some good years including a NC when he had the consecutive good recruiting years. He wasn't a great gameday coach either. I'm not saying Kiffen is or isn't a great gameday coach, because that is yet to be determined. When Fulmer's recruiting fell off, so did his good seasons.
 
#32
#32
nbakerld said:
That's my point. Talent doesn't win if you can't coach it. We just got outcoached by NEUHEISAL. I'm not saying Kiffin won't be good, but I didn't see much of a difference last Saturday between him and Fulmer. I don't think Fulmer ever lost to a PAC 10 team at home.
Click to expand...


You can out-talent teams if the the talent levels aren't close. (Fulmer did this often.) But, it takes coaching to win when the talent levels are close.

Kiffin has only been at UT for 2 games where Neuheisal has been there for over a year now. Point being, Kiffin has yet to gain full knowledge of what talent he may have wherreas Neuheisal has been able to determine how to use the talent that was there when he arrived.
 
#33
#33
nbakerld said:
Fulmer had a lot of top 10 recruiting classes.
Click to expand...

Not so much the last several years...he'd have a good to great class on paper followed by a mediocre class. The good to great classes tended not to yield nearly as much in reality as the rating would have indicated. I'm talking post 2000.
 
#34
#34
rowsdower said:
Remember what Ed Orgeron did at Ole Miss?

Do you not see the same thing going on?
Click to expand...

Yes with the added benefit that Orgeron is not the head coach this time nor even a coordinator beyond the recruiting coordinator which he seems to have born to do.
 
#36
#36
nbakerld said:
Fulmer had a lot of top 10 recruiting classes.
Click to expand...

which means nothing. You could sign 25 4 and 5* players that were all wide receivers and still get a top ranking. Recruiting rankings do not take into account how well you filled your needs and that's what our problem is now.
 
#37
#37
nbakerld said:
My point exactly. You guys say "we'll finally have talent" like you are banking on that as the answer, but it's not. Our coaches just got handled even though they had far superior talent.

That class gave us:

Hardesty - GOOD
Cottam - to be determined
Brown - HURT
McCoy - GOOD, but didn't show up for UCLA
Richard - HURT
Scott - GOOD
G Williams - GOOD
D Williams - GOOD
McNeill - HURT
Morley - GONE
Coker - GONE
Crompton - Tanked

It's a legit class. 4 of the stars haven't worked out for this year, but that's the case with most good recruiting classes.
Click to expand...

This class is nowhere near a top ten class, it might have been ranked that high at the time but it has not panned out. We started 3 WALK-ONS for the UCLA game. Reveiz played lights out, the Sullins boys give great effort and I love them but Price had his way with them and Vlad due to his achilles injury. That is why we couldn't score from the 1. That is why we lost, plain and simple.
 
#38
#38
utvolpj said:
which means nothing. You could sign 25 4 and 5* players that were all wide receivers and still get a top ranking. Recruiting rankings do not take into account how well you filled your needs and that's what our problem is now.
Click to expand...

exactly. There were some "top classes" that didn't address glaring needs on the DL and OL in the last few years of Fulmer's tenure. Not to mention our current quarterback situation.
 
#39
#39
rmsmith said:
Top 5 recruiting? or ap/coaches poll? I dont think we'll be in the top 5 ap/coaches poll next year.
Click to expand...


Next year is not 2 years. I don't necessarily believe that we'll finish in the top 5 in 2 years, because that takes some luck most of the time as well as good play and good talent. But, I do think we'll be setup to compete with the elite (top 5 or top 10) in 2 years. It yet to be determined as to if we'll have the "gameday coaching" we'll need, but it hasn't been proven that we won't yet.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top