This video shows why Saban is the best and why Fulmer lost his HC job

#4

Volunteer_Kirby

Its not what you think...
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
14,973
Likes
9,775
#4
Rule changes dictate more than you think. Take the changes to the hashes back in the early 70s. Before that, it was easy for the defense to pin a team to one side, essentially using the sideline as a free defender. The year they made the hash rule, we saw major strides in the running game and greater success in the kicking game. I think with receivers given so much of a cushion and the PI calls becoming more frequent, these progressions in offensive playcalling are only natural. Combine that with the concussion crisis and you've got a recipe for defenses that are soft compared to standards of old. Until certain penalties get automatically reviewed, this trend will continue. It is the way it has always been. The game changes and coaches adjust. Fulmer was obviously willing to change (see the Clawfense) just don't think he was ever given any time to implement it since everyone was calling for his head.
 
#6

sjt18

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
42,308
Likes
27,281
#6
It is easier to "keep adjusting" when you buy the best recruiting classes every year.

Sub-par recruiting was the downfall of CPF. Not that the game passed him by.

New coach will be gone quickly for the same reason.

You can't compete without superior talent in the SEC.
Nope. He refused to change his philosophy of play. Had Saban not changed then he would have lost more games. If he'd lost more games then he would have started losing some of those recruits.

In Fulmer's last 5 classes he signed 9 5* players 43 4* players. But due to HORRIBLE discipline both off and on the field many of those guys never produced or else busted.

Players stopped listening AFTER they saw other programs doing things different and winning. Fulmer famously stated a few weeks before getting fired, "We've won a lot of games around here doing what we're doing... and we ain't changin' now."

Spurrier on the other hand was ahead of his time at UF... and beat Fulmer's pants off.

When you get time, compare Fulmer's record with and without Cutcliffe. Pay attention especially to Cut's impact on points/game. Fulmer was pretty average without him.
 
Last edited:
#8

cbrown

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
236
Likes
184
#8
Nope. He refused to change his philosophy of play. Had Saban not changed then he would have lost more games. If he'd lost more games then he would have started losing some of those recruits.

In Fulmer's last 5 classes he signed 9 5* players 43 4* players. But due to HORRIBLE discipline both off and on the field many of those guys never produced or else busted.

Players stopped listening AFTER they saw other programs doing things different and winning. Fulmer famously stated a few weeks before getting fired, "We've won a lot of games around here doing what we're doing... and we ain't changin' now."

Spurrier on the other hand was ahead of his time at UF... and beat Fulmer's pants off.

When you get time, compare Fulmer's record with and without Cutcliffe. Pay attention especially to Cut's impact on points/game. Fulmer was pretty average without him.
I actually did the napkin math on this a few months ago. Without Cutcliffe Fulmer was right at .600 against P5 opponents. When you consider many of those wins were against Vandy and Kentucky who had vastly inferior talent, Fulmer’s record looks even less impressive.
 
#9

rusty11

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2018
Messages
514
Likes
416
#9
Nope. He refused to change his philosophy of play. Had Saban not changed then he would have lost more games. If he'd lost more games then he would have started losing some of those recruits.

In Fulmer's last 5 classes he signed 9 5* players 43 4* players. But due to HORRIBLE discipline both off and on the field many of those guys never produced or else busted.

Players stopped listening AFTER they saw other programs doing things different and winning. Fulmer famously stated a few weeks before getting fired, "We've won a lot of games around here doing what we're doing... and we ain't changin' now."

Spurrier on the other hand was ahead of his time at UF... and beat Fulmer's pants off.

When you get time, compare Fulmer's record with and without Cutcliffe. Pay attention especially to Cut's impact on points/game. Fulmer was pretty average without him.
Really?? He didn't even have a playbook.
 
#10

ptclaus98

Look at that SWUG
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,272
Likes
789
#10
Nick Saban recalls his decision to adapt his offensive philosophy at Alabama

This video is all you need to know as to how the game passed by Fulmer and he was never able to adjust and why our glory years ended after the late 90's...meanwhile Saban kept adjusting and never looked back
Fulmer ball didn't become obsolete until about 5 or so years ago. Wisconsin plays an even more conservative style of it, Ohio state was playing a similar type of way 3 years after Fulmer got **** canned. Fulmer's downfall was mainly recruiting, but on this subject you could argue that he tried to transition TOO early, as spread concepts were not nearly as distilled as they are now and a speedy defense with a dominant D Line could easily shut down a spread back then. He didn't understand the spread, he was just reacting to Meyer instead of taking the time to actually understand why it worked at Florida and what he needed to make it work here.
 
Likes: 08Vol
#11

GAVol

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 24, 2003
Messages
105,470
Likes
42,793
#11
This is a little bit revisionist. Fulmer loved to run the ball, but he was getting in 4 and 5 wide sets and throwing it 40+ times back when he was the OC 30 years ago. Saban wins because he’s a great manager and he gets the best players. The offense is important, but it’s not the most important.
 
#12

Brave Volunteer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
14,158
Likes
11,298
#12
I thought Phil did try and modernize the offense, hence the hiring of Clawson. We just weren't willing to accept that it was going to take more than one season for the current roster to acclimate to it or recruit new players that fit the scheme. In hindsight, had Fulmer not been fired we would have beaten Wyoming and gone on to be bowl eligible. Not exactly a great season but better than sitting at home in December/January. After that, who knows? One things for sure, Tahj Boyd and Bryce Petty would've come to Tennessee instead of going to Clemson and Baylor, possibly changing the trajectory of all 3 programs. However Hamilton had a serious hard on to get rid of Fulmer and just wasn't willing to consider any of that.

As for recruiting, yeah it had become weirdly inconsistent over the previous years. We'd be top 5 one year and outside the top 20 the next. I'm not sure what factors were in play that caused that but I think it had to be a little more than "Phil got lazy." With Boyd and Petty as our QB's, who knows what other talent would've come here over those years. We'll never know but I do believe with the hindsight of 20/20, it's obvious now that this program would've been better off keeping Fulmer instead of firing him in 2008.
 
#14

tennesseeduke

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
5,831
Likes
5,439
#14
#15

thehardknoxlife

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
1,676
Likes
243
#15
Saban is a great coach, but c'mon. Saban wins because he gets the best players each year. He's said it himself. When the talent gap narrows they get beat sometimes. Alabama has just been terribly consistent recruiting NFL caliber players under his leadership. You could literally throw any scheme(even Fulmer) at that talent and they will be one of the best. It's not some miracle midget winning games.
 
#16

GregAmsler

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Messages
1,428
Likes
3,389
#16
It is easier to "keep adjusting" when you buy the best recruiting classes every year.

Sub-par recruiting was the downfall of CPF. Not that the game passed him by.

New coach will be gone quickly for the same reason.

You can't compete without superior talent in the SEC.
His last team (2008) had a lot of future NFL talent on it. Yes, his recruiting slid some, but he shouldn’t have gone 5-7 (or 5-6 in 2005). He never adapted.
 
#17

GBOplayer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
114
Likes
298
#17
I thought Phil did try and modernize the offense, hence the hiring of Clawson. We just weren't willing to accept that it was going to take more than one season for the current roster to acclimate to it or recruit new players that fit the scheme. In hindsight, had Fulmer not been fired we would have beaten Wyoming and gone on to be bowl eligible. Not exactly a great season but better than sitting at home in December/January. After that, who knows? One things for sure, Tahj Boyd and Bryce Petty would've come to Tennessee instead of going to Clemson and Baylor, possibly changing the trajectory of all 3 programs. However Hamilton had a serious hard on to get rid of Fulmer and just wasn't willing to consider any of that.

As for recruiting, yeah it had become weirdly inconsistent over the previous years. We'd be top 5 one year and outside the top 20 the next. I'm not sure what factors were in play that caused that but I think it had to be a little more than "Phil got lazy." With Boyd and Petty as our QB's, who knows what other talent would've come here over those years. We'll never know but I do believe with the hindsight of 20/20, it's obvious now that this program would've been better off keeping Fulmer instead of firing him in 2008.

Yes it is true that CPF hired Clawson to try to modernize the offense, but the problem is that CPF never allowed Clawson to implement the offense, it was still a CPF inspired/influenced offense....whereas Saban hired Kiffin and immediately let the offense take shape under Kiffin hence results happened right away
 
#18

savannahfan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2014
Messages
4,965
Likes
3,908
#18
Rule changes dictate more than you think. Take the changes to the hashes back in the early 70s. Before that, it was easy for the defense to pin a team to one side, essentially using the sideline as a free defender. The year they made the hash rule, we saw major strides in the running game and greater success in the kicking game. I think with receivers given so much of a cushion and the PI calls becoming more frequent, these progressions in offensive playcalling are only natural. Combine that with the concussion crisis and you've got a recipe for defenses that are soft compared to standards of old. Until certain penalties get automatically reviewed, this trend will continue. It is the way it has always been. The game changes and coaches adjust. Fulmer was obviously willing to change (see the Clawfense) just don't think he was ever given any time to implement it since everyone was calling for his head.
THIS!!!!
I don't think there are many who follow football understand about this change or even know it took place. This has been the biggest change in football in my lifetime (closing in on 80 years). I have for sometime said football from the pros on down need to go at least part way if not all the back to the old hash marks . It has really been the thing that pushed the kicking game it the importance it enjoys in todays game. (to me a defense now plays on a 70 yrd field that and better kickers, sidewinders). I would also narrow the goalpost a foot or two.
 
Likes: MemphisVol77
#19

sanefan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
365
Likes
290
#19
It is easier to "keep adjusting" when you buy the best recruiting classes every year.

Sub-par recruiting was the downfall of CPF. Not that the game passed him by.

New coach will be gone quickly for the same reason.

You can't compete without superior talent in the SEC.
That word is why we cannot get to the hump, much less over it. Here we have evidence in some minds that Saban cheats to have superior talent and that is why he succeeds.

The truth is Saban would compete even if his philosophies were 15 years old or his talent was good but below what it is now. In some people's mind, being over .800 would be great. Saban is not interested in a good winning percentage, he wants to dominate everyone all the time.

He adapts in order to dominate and we have to compete with him. We will not be successful in the way most want until our goal goes well beyond competing.
 
#20

volsknx

The only people who dislike winners are losers!
Joined
Jan 28, 2021
Messages
134
Likes
129
#20
Rule changes dictate more than you think. Take the changes to the hashes back in the early 70s. Before that, it was easy for the defense to pin a team to one side, essentially using the sideline as a free defender. The year they made the hash rule, we saw major strides in the running game and greater success in the kicking game. I think with receivers given so much of a cushion and the PI calls becoming more frequent, these progressions in offensive playcalling are only natural. Combine that with the concussion crisis and you've got a recipe for defenses that are soft compared to standards of old. Until certain penalties get automatically reviewed, this trend will continue. It is the way it has always been. The game changes and coaches adjust. Fulmer was obviously willing to change (see the Clawfense) just don't think he was ever given any time to implement it since everyone was calling for his head.
THIS!!!!
I don't think there are many who follow football understand about this change or even know it took place. This has been the biggest change in football in my lifetime (closing in on 80 years). I have for sometime said football from the pros on down need to go at least part way if not all the back to the old hash marks . It has really been the thing that pushed the kicking game it the importance it enjoys in todays game. (to me a defense now plays on a 70 yrd field that and better kickers, sidewinders). I would also narrow the goalpost a foot or two.
Can y’all please explain the hash rule change(s)? I don’t understand what changed. Honestly, this is the first time I have heard of this. Thanks
 
#21

jdhallvols

Ain't it Funky now - JB
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,419
Likes
2,650
#21
That word is why we cannot get to the hump, much less over it. Here we have evidence in some minds that Saban cheats to have superior talent and that is why he succeeds.

The truth is Saban would compete even if his philosophies were 15 years old or his talent was good but below what it is now. In some people's mind, being over .800 would be great. Saban is not interested in a good winning percentage, he wants to dominate everyone all the time.

He adapts in order to dominate and we have to compete with him. We will not be successful in the way most want until our goal goes well beyond competing.

dominating the competition becomes an obsession and just a normal way of doing things for some types of folks ( and in a team setting can create this type of culture when you've bought in )

if you don't understand this, then you won't understand this and that's ok
 
Likes: igotworms
#22

jarnol32

To be the man you gotta beat the man.
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
2,207
Likes
1,901
#22
This is a little bit revisionist. Fulmer loved to run the ball, but he was getting in 4 and 5 wide sets and throwing it 40+ times back when he was the OC 30 years ago. Saban wins because he’s a great manager and he gets the best players. The offense is important, but it’s not the most important.
Saban wins because of of Paul Bryant Jr’s ability to bankroll his recruiting operation. Saban was good but not great at Lsu, and MSU. Bryant’s money, and the fact that everyone at Alabama from the chancellor down wants a winning football program no matter the cost is what makes him great.
 
#23

BreatheUT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2017
Messages
7,949
Likes
10,328
#23
Nope. He refused to change his philosophy of play. Had Saban not changed then he would have lost more games. If he'd lost more games then he would have started losing some of those recruits.

In Fulmer's last 5 classes he signed 9 5* players 43 4* players. But due to HORRIBLE discipline both off and on the field many of those guys never produced or else busted.

Players stopped listening AFTER they saw other programs doing things different and winning. Fulmer famously stated a few weeks before getting fired, "We've won a lot of games around here doing what we're doing... and we ain't changin' now."

Spurrier on the other hand was ahead of his time at UF... and beat Fulmer's pants off.

When you get time, compare Fulmer's record with and without Cutcliffe. Pay attention especially to Cut's impact on points/game. Fulmer was pretty average without him.
You're one of the posters I expect to always bring a thoughtful, well reasoned, more objective posts.

We saw the difference in coaching chops not only with Spurrier, or Urban but when that undermanned LSU team beat the UT powerhouse in the SEC Championship that was a bad sign. Then in Saban's first year at Alabama, when he beat a favored UT doing things like surprising us with an onside kick to start the half then you knew Fulmer best days were behind him.
 
#24

LAVol1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2017
Messages
1,155
Likes
1,726
#24
Nick Saban recalls his decision to adapt his offensive philosophy at Alabama

This video is all you need to know as to how the game passed by Fulmer and he was never able to adjust and why our glory years ended after the late 90's...meanwhile Saban kept adjusting and never looked back
Saban and Fulmer were of the same mindset. Saban didn't adjust his philosophy until 2014, well AFTER Fulmer was fired. Fulmer was making the adjustment BEFORE Saban when he hired Clawson about 14 years ago. Clawson ran one of the most innovative offenses in the NCAA at the time, but it took more than a year for the offense to click. He only got one year at UT. And that, in a nutshell, is why our program is in the place it is today.
 
Likes: jdhallvols
#25

butchna

Sit down and tell me all about it...way over there
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
83,845
Likes
120,862
#25
It is easier to "keep adjusting" when you buy the best recruiting classes every year.

Sub-par recruiting was the downfall of CPF. Not that the game passed him by.

New coach will be gone quickly for the same reason.

You can't compete without superior talent in the SEC.
Fulmer wasn’t a sub-par recruiter...he landed highly rated talent. He trusted the star ratings too much and didn’t evaluate for actual playing ability and coachability in latter part of his tenure.
 
Likes: tnutater

VN Store


Sponsors
 

Top