TN's Decades of Failures Explained

[hog88]

Correct, that is what so many can’t seem to grasp. Fulmer’s worst years were better than this crap

Phil would have lead us to the same state we are currently in, his last 7 years he couldn't compete with the top teams in the conference.

 

[cobbwebb0710]

1999 was the first warning shot. One of Fulmer's most loaded teams and we went 9-3. Should have won the national championship again that year. 2002 was loaded too and picked 2/3rd to start the season. Another crap show disaster. We had the chance to bury Florida, fresh off Spurrier leaving. We floundered. 2005, the bottom fell completely out. All our rivals were much better and we lost to Vanderbilt. The firing should have happened at that second. We fired Johnny Majors two years after back to back SEC Championships. That worked out okay, since Johnny had the team absolutely stacked with NFL talent.

You can look back at Auburn and how they handle coaches, three of their last four coaches have went unbeaten at some point and all were fired soon after. They fired Tuberville 3 years after he went 13-0. They won a national title right after that. Before that they fired Terry Bowden mid season a year after he'd went 10-3 and he had an 11-0 season a few years before that. They canned Chizk right after his undefeated national title year and hired Malzahn, who promptly took them back to the national title game. Odds are they will fire him this year and probably hire Huge Freeze or Urban Meyer.

It's never about firing a guy struggling, it's about hiring idiots.

You just had to bring up Urban Meyer, didn’t you?! There are probably 35 threads being written in someone’s head, as I type, about offering Meyer $10 million/year, to be our next coach.
Actually, that’s not a bad idea, I may start my own Urban thread. But I’m a realist and would probably start at $9 million per...
GBO!!

 

[cobbwebb0710]

IMO, we underestimate how bad South Carolina, Clemson, and Georgia all were during the Fulmer run. This allowed us to clean up in recruiting in those states. Once they hired decent coaches, they all built walls (and made Mexico pay for them) around their state and our recruiting hasn't been as steadily effective since. All jmo, so tifwiw.

Say what you will about South Carolina and Clemson, but I think WE UNDERESTIMATE how bad Fulmer made Georgia look. Some of those Georgia squads we were beating on a consistent basis, were loaded.
GBO!!

 

[05_never_again]

1977, last time Tennessee football hired a high profile head coach

The only time Tennessee football hired a high profile head coach. Hiring a high profile, proven head coach has never been Tennessee's M.O.

 

[05_never_again]

Dude.

Fulmer's last six years: 49-27. That's a .645 win rate. Two SEC East titles. Three different 10-win seasons, and another with 9 wins. Here, I'll bold the parts you seem to be missing:

• 2003 -- 10-3 (6-2 in SEC)
• 2004 -- 10-3 (7-1 in SEC) -- SEC-East champ -- Cotton Bowl victor (over #22 A&M)
• 2005 -- 5-6 (3-5 in SEC)
• 2006 -- 9-4 (5-3 in SEC)
• 2007 -- 10-4 (6-2 in SEC) -- SEC-East champ -- Outback Bowl victor (over #18 Wisconsin)
• 2008 -- 5-7 (3-5 in SEC)

Just to remind you: our very best seasons over the past 12 years since Fulmer left, our VERY best, were a couple of 9-win seasons under Butch. But nine or ten wins was the _norm_ with Fulmer. Even in those last six seasons.

Yes, Phillip got complacent. But even a complacent Fulmer is better than anything we've done since.

Anyone who thinks Fulmer has been our problem, or was even our first problem, is a fool. Getting rid of him was our first problem.

As for the rest of your post, I couldn't get past that first bone-headed statement. So I didn't read any more.

Go Vols!

Getting rid of him wasn't the problem - hiring Kiffin to replace him was the problem, and that mistake was compounded by the panic hire of Dooley.

Also, 2 of his last 4 recruiting classes were atrocious. Like, worse-than-Dooley bad. Urban and Richt in particular had absolutely blown his doors off in that department.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Getting rid of him wasn't the problem - hiring Kiffin to replace him was the problem, and that mistake was compounded by the panic hire of Dooley.

Here are a few useful rules of thumb:

-- Never draw to an inside straight.
-- Don't spit or pee into the wind.
-- When in combat, take every opportunity to rearm, refuel, clean your weapon, eat, and sleep. In that order.
-- Stick with a championship-winning head coach, even if he has a couple of down years.

How many more SEC and national titles might we have won with Fulmer at the helm? Might we be winning even now? We'll never know...because we asked him to leave.

Dumbest thing the Tennessee football program has ever done, in its 130 year history.

 

[05_never_again]

How many more SEC and national titles might we have won with Fulmer at the helm?

Zero. You really think that Phil, had he stayed, was going to beat teams coached by Urban, Richt, or Saban to either get to or win SEC or national titles? Particularly towards he end Phil was clueless, absolutely clueless, how to deal with Urban. He ran circles around him just like Spurrier ran circles around him.

Phil was stale, un-inventive, and complacent when he was fired. You call Phil a "championship-winning head coach," which he was, but he was a decade removed from his last championship when he was fired. The teams he was fielding weren't really acceptable.

Just because we've gotten worse since he was dismissed doesn't mean it was a mistake to dismiss him. It means we've repeatedly screwed up the process to replace him.

 

[hog88]

How many more SEC and national titles might we have won with Fulmer at the helm? Might we be winning even now? We'll never know...because we asked him to leave.

Dumbest thing the Tennessee football program has ever done, in its 130 year history.

None. We would be in the same situation or worse.

 

[lostsheep]

Say what you will about South Carolina and Clemson, but I think WE UNDERESTIMATE how bad Fulmer made Georgia look. Some of those Georgia squads we were beating on a consistent basis, were loaded.
GBO!!

Agree about them being loaded, but they seemed to have trouble finding their way with a coach until they hired Richt. The Donnan and Goff hires were about as productive as our Dooley/Butch hires.

 

[05_never_again]

None. We would be in the same situation or worse.

To throw a bone to @VFL-82-JP, if Phil stayed for some number of years after 2008 I think it's possible we might be in a somewhat better situation (e.g., instead of the 5-7s Phil might have managed to win 6 or 7 games that year and gone to a bowl), but we still would be very far away from a championship level. And that statement hinges on how much, if at all, Phil's recruiting recovered after 2008.

Then again, the losing records started before Phil was fired. Tennessee has had 8 losing seasons since 2005, and Phil had 2 of them.

 

[Volnbeers]

Dude.

Fulmer's last six years: 49-27. That's a .645 win rate. Two SEC East titles. Three different 10-win seasons, and another with 9 wins. Here, I'll bold the parts you seem to be missing:

• 2003 -- 10-3 (6-2 in SEC)
• 2004 -- 10-3 (7-1 in SEC) -- SEC-East champ -- Cotton Bowl victor (over #22 A&M)
• 2005 -- 5-6 (3-5 in SEC)
• 2006 -- 9-4 (5-3 in SEC)
• 2007 -- 10-4 (6-2 in SEC) -- SEC-East champ -- Outback Bowl victor (over #18 Wisconsin)
• 2008 -- 5-7 (3-5 in SEC)

Just to remind you: our very best seasons over the past 12 years since Fulmer left, our VERY best, were a couple of 9-win seasons under Butch. But nine or ten wins was the _norm_ with Fulmer. Even in those last six seasons.

Yes, Phillip got complacent. But even a complacent Fulmer is better than anything we've done since.

Anyone who thinks Fulmer has been our problem, or was even our first problem, is a fool. Getting rid of him was our first problem.

As for the rest of your post, I couldn't get past that first bone-headed statement. So I didn't read any more.

Go Vols!

I miss the days when we would fire coaches for losing to Wyoming, now we give extensions to coaches that lose to georgia state.

 

[MiramarVol]

Fulmer achilles heal was in his hires. Couldn't get the right fit that was wffect in what he wanted to do.

 

[05_never_again]

I miss the days when we would fire coaches for losing to Wyoming, now we give extensions to coaches that lose to georgia state.

The Wyoming loss was the first game Tennessee played after Fulmer was fired.

 

[Volnbeers]

The Wyoming loss was the first game Tennessee played after Fulmer was fired.

ahh yea, youre right. there's been so many bad losses since then i can't even keep them straight.

 

[05_never_again]

ahh yea, youre right. there's been so many bad losses since then i can't even keep them straight.

Needless to say though, speaking to your original point, expectations have changed. IMO, Fulmer was predominately fired not for the 2 losing seasons but for going 8-13 against Florida, Georgia, and Alabama from 2002-08 (his final 7 seasons).

If 8-13 against those schools isn't acceptable over a 7 year period, then how would you describe going 3-17 against them since 2014? It'd mind-boggling how bad a historically successful program like Tennessee has been against those programs for such a long period of time. That is a Vandy-like record.

If Phil had stuck around, I think it is possible he would have been better than 3-17 over his next 7 seasons, but I don't think he would have been any better than his own 8-13 mark during the preceding 7.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Needless to say though, speaking to your original point, expectations have changed. IMO, Fulmer was predominately fired not for the 2 losing seasons but for going 8-13 against Florida, Georgia, and Alabama from 2002-08 (his final 7 seasons).

If 8-13 against those schools isn't acceptable over a 7 year period, then how would you describe going 3-17 against them since 2014? It'd mind-boggling how bad a historically successful program like Tennessee has been against those programs for such a long period of time. That is a Vandy-like record.

If Phil had stuck around, I think it is possible he would have been better than 3-17 over his next 7 seasons, but I don't think he would have been any better than his own 8-13 mark during the preceding 7.

I of course believe you're absolutely wrong on this. I mean, your bias is in your screen name, and you are understandably unable to change your viewpoint; it defines you.

Nonetheless, the point is we will never know. We'll never know. Because we got rid of a championship coach.

My theory is that each coach "gets the game" to a certain level. Understands it well enough to adjust and adapt, at least to his natural level. And that includes the ability to reinvent himself. Think Saban hasn't had to adjust his game over the decades he has been coaching? Think Bryant didn't? Think Neyland didn't? Or Pop Warner? Walter Camp? Some of those coaches are renowned innovators, but they all have that ability. That's how they got to their level of winning, and it's how they find ways to stay there, or at least get back there after a stumble.

They're not all equal, of course. Some win at the .850 level. Some at the .750. Neyland and Saban were/are at the former level. Fulmer is at the latter. But consistent .750 still == championships from time to time, and is a HELL of a lot better than anything we've seen since showing Phillip the door.

So yes, I absolutely believe Fulmer would've gotten us back to winning at the .750 level, that he would have reinvented himself and the program and won more championships.

You. Never. Give. Up. A. Championship. Coach. Period.

Dumbest thing we ever did.

 

[hog88]

I of course believe you're absolutely wrong on this. I mean, your bias is in your screen name, and you are understandably unable to change your viewpoint; it defines you.

Nonetheless, the point is we will never know. We'll never know. Because we got rid of a championship coach.

My theory is that each coach "gets the game" to a certain level. Understands it well enough to adjust and adapt, at least to his natural level. And that includes the ability to reinvent himself. Think Saban hasn't had to adjust his game over the decades he has been coaching? Think Bryant didn't? Think Neyland didn't? Or Pop Warner? Walter Camp? Some of those coaches are renowned innovators, but they all have that ability. That's how they got to their level of winning, and it's how they find ways to stay there, or at least get back there after a stumble.

They're not all equal, of course. Some win at the .850 level. Some at the .750. Neyland and Saban were/are at the former level. Fulmer is at the latter. But consistent .750 still == championships from time to time, and is a HELL of a lot better than anything we've seen since showing Phillip the door.

So yes, I absolutely believe Fulmer would've gotten us back to winning at the .750 level, that he would have reinvented himself and the program and won more championships.

You. Never. Give. Up. A. Championship. Coach. Period.

Dumbest thing we ever did.

Fulmer wasn't winning anymore championships without Cut.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Fulmer wasn't winning anymore championships without Cut.

Wrong, Hog.

What you should've said was, "Fulmer wasn't winning any more championships without an excellent OC." I would've agreed with you if you'd said that. I mean, Cut is great, but he's far from the only excellent OC in the world.

 

[Firebirdparts]

I have to go listen to the "Butch Jones Song" again after reading all this vitriol. It always lifts my spirits.

 

[05_never_again]

I of course believe you're absolutely wrong on this. I mean, your bias is in your screen name, and you are understandably unable to change your viewpoint; it defines you. How's that "'05 never again" working out for us now?

Nonetheless, the point is we will never know. We'll never know. Because we got rid of a championship coach.

My theory is that each coach "gets the game" to a certain level. Understands it well enough to adjust and adapt. And that includes the ability to reinvent himself. Think Saban hasn't had to adjust his game over the decades he has been coaching? Think Bryant didn't? Think Neyland didn't? Or Pop Warner? Walter Camp? Some of those coaches are renowned innovators, but they all have that ability. That's how they got to the top, and it's how they find ways to stay there, or at least get back there from time to time.

They're not all equal, of course. Some win at the .850 level. Some at the .750. Neyland and Saban were/are at the former level. Fulmer is at the latter. But consistent .750 still == championships from time to time, and is a HELL of a lot better than anything we've seen since showing Phillip the door.

So yes, I absolutely believe Fulmer would've gotten us back to winning at the .750 level, that he would have reinvented himself and the program and won more championships.

You. Never. Give. Up. A. Championship. Coach. Period.

Dumbest thing we ever did.

Re: my username, remember were were preseason #3 in 2005 and finished 5-6. What made the season so terrible wasn't the 5-6 itself, but being a preseason national title contender with a dark horse Heisman candidate and finishing as a bottom-tier SEC team.

Anyway, other than faith in Fulmer, what can you point to to back up your belief that Fulmer would have beaten Urban, Richt, Saban, et al and won more SEC/national titles after 2008? Your "theory" essentially amounts to "Well, Fulmer was good, and good coaches adapt." You're right - good coaches do adapt. But Phil was 10 years removed from a title and 7 years removed from his last top 10 team. Did Bryant, Neyland, Saban, etc. ever go nearly a decade without a top 10 team?

You really think that Fulmer was beating Urban or Saban in 2009? A Cam Newton-led Auburn team in 2010? Saban in 2011 or 2012? Auburn in 2013? Because that's what it would have taken to win the SEC in any of those years.

Ultimately, I just think your logic is faulty. We've gotten a lot worse since Fulmer, so you conclude that firing him was a mistake. The firing of Fulmer and the total disaster that has occurred trying to replace him are independent events. If your gutters are clogged and you fall off the ladder trying to clean them, it isn't that it was a mistake to clean them in the first place...you should have been more careful on the ladder.

 

[05_never_again]

Wrong, Hog.

What you should've said was, "Fulmer wasn't winning any more championships without an excellent OC." I would've agreed with you if you'd said that. I mean, Cut is great, but he's far from the only excellent OC in the world.

Fulmer had 2 chances to get an excellent OC other than Cut though, and he never did. Randy Sanders was never a great OC, and the Clawson hire was the proximate cause of his own firing.

Fulmer was incredibly lucky to have both Cutcliffe and Chavis already on staff when he became HC.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Re: my username, remember were were preseason #3 in 2005 and finished 5-6. What made the season so terrible wasn't the 5-6 itself, but being a preseason national title contender with a dark horse Heisman candidate and finishing as a bottom-tier SEC team.

Anyway, other than faith in Fulmer, what can you point to to back up your belief that Fulmer would have ... won more SEC/national titles after 2008? Your "theory" essentially amounts to "Well, Fulmer was good, and good coaches adapt." You're right - good coaches do adapt. But Phil was 10 years removed from a title and 7 years removed from his last top 10 team. Did Bryant, Neyland, Saban, etc. ever go nearly a decade without a top 10 team?

You really think that Fulmer was beating Saban in 2009? A Cam Newton-led Auburn team in 2010? Saban in 2011 or 2012? Auburn in 2013?

Ultimately, I just think your logic is faulty. We've gotten a lot worse since Fulmer, so you conclude that firing him was a mistake. The firing of Fulmer and the total disaster that has occurred trying to replace him are independent events. If your gutters are clogged and you fall off the ladder trying to clean them, it isn't that it was a mistake to clean them in the first place...you should have been more careful on the ladder.

I don't know about falling off ladders (actually, I do--I know the General Shelton Rule), but here's what I can state with 100% surety: we will never know the answer to your question about how Fulmer would have done, because we got rid of our championship coach. We will never know. We'll never get to find out.

And that's just a crying shame.


p.s. Hope you're okay after your fall! The General Shelton rule goes like this: even if you're a lifelong paratrooper and special operations super-stud, once you turn 60, you stop climbing ladders, or you break your hip. Yes, General Shelton did. Cleaning his gutters in Pinehurst, NC, in 2003 or so. Hugh Shelton - Wikipedia

 

[hog88]

Wrong, Hog.

What you should've said was, "Fulmer wasn't winning any more championships without an excellent OC." I would've agreed with you if you'd said that. I mean, Cut is great, but he's far from the only excellent OC in the world.

He hired a good OC in Clawson but continually interfered and overruled him leading to confusion and bad performance. Fulmer's problem was that Cut was the only OC he trusted to run the offense.

 

[vol05]

Correct, that is what so many can’t seem to grasp. Fulmer’s worst years were better than this crap

Recall the HC throughout the SECin Fulmer early days. Them reflect on changes 1999 onward. Could care less about fluffs that make the record look good. Let’s talk the big 3.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

He hired a good OC in Clawson but continually interfered and overruled him leading to confusion and bad performance. Fulmer's problem was that Cut was the only OC he trusted to run the offense.

Yeah, that's why you give the man a one-year sabbatical. To get his bearings back. To get hungry again. To reassess and formulate a new plan, not have to do it on the fly.

You don't kick the man to the curb. Not a championship-winning coach. No smart program does that. Ever.