When comparing 2006 to 2009...

#1
KoachKrab127

KoachKrab127

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
4,932
Likes
5,890
#1
People seemed much more optomistic about our potential record in August of 2006 than today in 2009. Back in 2006, right after a losing season, people were predicting 9-3, maybe 10-2.

But today, in 2009, after another similar losing season, people are saying we'll go 7-5, maybe 8-4 if we're lucky. Some are even saying 6-6.

I'm just curious why people were more optomistic in 2006 than they are now.

Any thoughts?
 
#2
#2
Paper thin at a lot of positions. No qb to really hang any hope on. No proven go to receiver either. A lot more questions than answers this time around.
 
#3
#3
Depth depth depth. Plus the SEC wasn't nearly as strong as it was heading into 2006 as it is now.
 
#4
#4
The most glaring difference is at qb. Ainge proved that he could play during his freshmen year. We all knew going into 2006 that Ainge had the capability of competing at the SEC level. None of qb's that are currently on the hill have proven that yet. Plus we knew that if anyone could turn Ainge around it would be Cutcliffe.

Depth is also a huge concern at various key positions. Something we had plenty of in 2006.
 
#5
#5
I also think it has something to do with the way we lost. 2005 could have easily been a 4-7 year if overtime had gone different with Louisiana State, but at least the losses were relatively close. Questions surrounding the coaching staff, positions, etc have to be answered this year in a conference that is (what I truly consider) the absolute most difficult conference to play in and it only seems to be getting better.
I shudder to think what could have happened if we didn't have the defensive unit we did last year.
 
#7
#7
Would you all agree with me that last year our team was really bad, but in 2005 we weren't as bad, but just had alot of bad luck? (fumbles at the goaline against Bama USC are highlights...or actually "lowlights" that come to mind to prove my point)
 
#8
#8
KoachKrab127 said:
Would you all agree with me that last year our team was really bad, but in 2005 we weren't as bad, but just had alot of bad luck? (fumbles at the goaline against Bama USC are highlights...or actually "lowlights" that come to mind to prove my point)
Click to expand...

With the talent we had in 2005, we desevered every ounce "bad luck" we had. No execuses.
 
#10
#10
In 2006 I just saw it as a down year. But after last season and graduating a class of seniors with the worst winning % of any graduating class in 25 years it became apparent there has just been a huge dropoff in quality football on the hill. And some of that has to be talent.

There's also some trepidation at installing new offensive and defensive schemes. Most expect the players to take some time to get adjusted. UT fans are also wary of setting a first year coach up with unreasonable expectations. It wouldn't be fair to CLK and company if we all said anything less than 10 wins was a failure. He should be given some time.
 
#11
#11
KoachKrab127 said:
People seemed much more optomistic about our potential record in August of 2006 than today in 2009. Back in 2006, right after a losing season, people were predicting 9-3, maybe 10-2.

But today, in 2009, after another similar losing season, people are saying we'll go 7-5, maybe 8-4 if we're lucky. Some are even saying 6-6.

I'm just curious why people were more optomistic in 2006 than they are now.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Good discussion topic.

Going into 2006, I think many felt that 2005 was the perfect storm of disaster, a true aberration. Our program was still held in a reasonably high esteem nationally... less time had passed since the glory days. We were not a joke yet, just a good program that had a very unlucky season the year before.

After 2008, except for the most fanatical fulmer disciples, there was no more denying that we were dead in the water, only a shadow of the proud program from a decade earlier. Other than said fulmer devotees, no one was willing to believe in us, and rightly so.

As for 2009, I think with visible improvement in 3 areas: QB, O-line, and special teams, we can be a pretty tough out... barring significant injury problems. And as bad as we were in all 3 of those areas last year, making noticeable improvement is very realistic. I'm not saying we have to be great.... just better, and its not a stretch at all to think that we can be.

With even an average offense and special teams last season we would have been an 8-4 team. Our core group is no worse, perhaps slightly better this season... so I think that 8-4 is very realistic.

I don't buy the 6-6 predictions at all. We still have good players... not the best, but a good group. And we have drive, enthusiasm and the breath of fresh air that we desperately needed. It should be an entertaining season.
 
#12
#12
Easy -- Kiffin supporters want expectations as low as possible. If Fulmer was still here, most of the same people would all be saying we should win 9 or more games.
 
#13
#13
VegasVol said:
Easy -- Kiffin supporters want expectations as low as possible. If Fulmer was still here, most of the same people would all be saying we should win 9 or more games.
Click to expand...

Only the lost would expect anything from a Fulmer led squad at this point.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#15
#15
VegasVol said:
Easy -- Kiffin supporters want expectations as low as possible. If Fulmer was still here, most of the same people would all be saying we should win 9 or more games.
Click to expand...

If Fulmer were still here, I wouldn't expect more than 6 wins this year.

Edited to add: That's a generous estimate. I think 4-8 definitely could have been possible with him still here.
 
#16
#16
In 2006 we had Erik Ainge playing QB and David Cutcliff as our OC.

Last year made me realize that Erik Ainge was actually a good QB.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top