I guess UT doesn't get a bowl game . . .

Wait a minute. Tennessee went 5-6, Arkansas went 4-7. Looks pretty close to me.

 

First, Randy Sanders was not the reason UT did not do well this year. Look at UT's stats on 3rd down defense effeciency. Terrible. Inability to overcome injuries and outcoach the adversity as Fulmer has typically done laid the Vols low. Remember that Randy was the same coach who took 2 freshman and a 3rd stringer and won 10 games and the SEC east last year. Randy was the same coach who defeated FSU in the 1998 Fiesta Bowl, giving UT its first outright national title since 1951.
Cutcliffe may be a "good hire," but most UT fans were glad to see him leave and see Randy take over his duties when Cut took the Ole Miss job. The "legions of the miserable" will show some restraint and call for Cut's head after his 3rd loss.

Second, someone needs to let the ether or drugs wear off. Fulmer just a "Mike Tice"? Let's look at the numbers:
Fulmer is 123-31 (.799 winning pct.). 6 division titles. 2 SEC titles. 1 National title. .806 winning pct in conference. 11 New Years bowls. Sent more players to the NFL in his tenure than any other coach. Tennessee under Fulmer is the winningest team in the SEC and second in Division I-A during that span. Only Fulmer and Tom Osbourne led a team to a bowl in their first 13 seasons in NCAA history. Under Fulmer, the Vols had a streak of 54 consecutive weeks ranked in the top 10. Half of Fulmer's seasons have ended with the Vols ranked in the top ten. 8 times Fulmer's Vols have won ten games or more in a a season. 5th fastest coach in NCAA history to reach 100 wins (A group with some guys named Stagg, Wilkinson, Woodruff). National Coach of the Year in 1998. Regional Coach of the Year in 1993. Eddie Robinson National Coach of Distinction Award, 1999.

Mike Tice: Career record: 24-27. One playoff berth. One playoff win. One drunken boat orgy. I guess he beats Fulmer on the last item.

Third, the jealousy amongst the pretenders needs to stop. Since 1926, UT is the winningest program in NCAA. Won over 100 games in the '90s. Only Bama has won more SEC titles. Nationally, 2nd in Bowl appearances, 4th in Bowl victories. And Arkansas has beaten UT only once in the Fulmer era. I'd be upset too if I were Fulmer's practice squad.

Fourth, I want to congratulate Vandy on their victory in Knoxville. It took the best they have had in years to beat the worst Tennessee has played in years. Every blind hen gets some corn. They have released a DVD entitled "Victory in Knoxville" which shows highlights of that game and the other 9 good Vandy plays of 2005. A bonus DVD shows Middle Tenneessee State's win over Vandy at Vandy. I've heard that since 15 copies have been purchased, a second printing will be necessary, and that season ticket sales could number into the dozens for the 2006 'Dores.

Fifth, kinda pathetic that Kentucky couldn't muster a victory against the Vols since this was probably their best chance they've had since Reagan was president...the first term.

 

Facilities don't have that much to do with it. If it did, UT's basketball team (which laid a HUGE BUTT WHIPPING ON TEXAS SATURDAY) would have the best class every year. Playing on New Year's day, for an SEC title and national title, and going to the NFL do it for blue-chippers. None bring as much to the table in that regard as Phil.

I've never understood this bromide. Fulmer is too loyal. Yet he regularly suspends players that go on to be received with open arms by other less stringent college programs and admittedly do successfully (Lynn McGruder's national titles at Oklahoma; Onterrio Smith's great career at Oregon are just two who come to mind).

The Vols are always near the top. This was just a very bad year that could've gone either way.

Flawed in two respects. #1, Cutcliffe will never be the HC at UT. His health won't allow it, and he'd be the second choice on the current staff behind (inexplicably) Chavis. Kentucky, among some others, want Cutcliffe. Two, the "discipline issues" are puzzling. UT's number of issues over the past three seasons equal South Carolina's number of issues - since Spurrier took over. Yet where is the outcry against Visor?

Problem is, now that Sanders is gone, Chavis' mustang package is now the favorite outcry amongst the legion of the miserable.

Not true. By the way, take a look at UT's 3rd down defense ratings. Horrible. UT scored enough points to win 3 or 4 of their losses if the defense had shored up like it had in years past.

What talent? Same talent we had this year? Plus, four RBs have went under the knife since the season ended. We still don't have a QB, and the receivers are a question mark.

 

I follow UT pretty close. I've watched them pretty seriously for years. Fulmer is a good man but he and his staff is what blew it this year period. Why recruit all those running backs and not ever use them right?
Going with 2 QB's was a big mistake. That move doesn't make a lick of sense considering Fulmer's close to the vest kind of style.
I get irritated at Fulmer sometimes. Its like he plays not to lose instead of playing to win.
Grant it they did have an unusually bad season this year but if you've been watching Vol. FB the past couple of years you could see it coming.
I know his winning percentage is up and He has done alot of good things but often times you must admit when your watching UT play you just feel like they are underachieving.
Fulmer better tighten up because the ole ball coach is back in the SEC. HE gives UT fits I don't care what school he is coaching.
To TomVols credit, Vandy probably won't beat UT again for another 20yrs. That was a hollow victory to say the least.
I have never understood the love affair Fulmer has had with the Clausen boys. I say try the boy from Western NC. He played at Tuscola High broke all the records for QB's in NC. I've heard he has got it all. (ShannonL is from Western NC.)
With Notre Dame back and Spurrier at USC they better hope last year was a fluke because recruiting is going to tighten up even more.
OH well, I love UT football been to a few games down there it is something to behold. Gotta cousin whose a grad and a Aunt who lives in Farragut (spelling?) Besides all that nobody has a song like "Rocky Top" It is actually a school song that you can sing and understand it all.

 

I will see what I can do about letting the ether or drugs wear off for ya...

I was not comparing Mike Tice and Fulmer on their coaching ability. I was comparing them based on their look on the side line...everytime I see either of them on the side line they look completely confused ...they both look like they are wondering which IHOP they are going to hit after the game.

Now where did I put that ether...

 

Wait a minute. Tennessee went 5-6, Arkansas went 4-7. Looks pretty close to me. </font>[/QUOTE]An anamoly for UT... the rule for Arkansas.

 

If I said it was just this year or implied it forgive me. The Vols have been mediocre at best with top national talent during Sander's whole tenure.

He may be the nicest guy in the world or whatever else. But he was not a top tier OC when he got the job and didn't develop into one.

An OC has an obligation to go to the head coach at least by the end of spring ball and say, "This is my QB". Either of those guys could have been successful with the talent on the team... but not after splitting the starter's practice reps. Offenses need timing. The biggest problem for the Vols on 3rd down and every other down was that they always seemed out of sync... and I attribute that to the indecision at QB.

One of the preseason writers that I didn't want to believe at the time predicted that UT would have 4 losses.

Why? Because their games were too close last year. They weren't dominant even against teams that they should have beaten badly on paper. Things just broke their way... it wasn't because they overwhelmed anyone offensively.

With Cutcliffe's offense and a month to prepare. Maybe offenses disciplined and trained by someone else with a month to prepare are Sander's forte... but that doesn't make him very valuable in the SEC.

Depends on how much Cutcliffe has actually changed. If he tries to be the same as he was 8 years ago... he will fail. If he takes what he learned at Ole Miss and from Weis and others... then maybe.

He definitely inherits a full cupboard... much more so than at Ole Miss- where he pretty quickly developed a very good offense.

No. He's the Bobby Cox of college football.

Except he can't seem to win league or division titles in addition to NCAA titles.

I really like Fulmer... but someone needs to tell him to hire a good OC and then stick to HC business.

 

Amen!!!

 

When did Bobby Cox have a season like this past UT season?

 

1990... was his last losing season. He has a pretty consistent record of underachieving in the playoffs. The level of talent doesn't seem to matter much with him either... he can't win the big ones consistently enough to beat whoever happens to be top tier in a given season.

I'm a frustrated Braves fan from way back too.

 

I admit that I was quite confused when I read the title of this thread.

But now I realize that y'all aren't talking about the real UT, which not only is getting a bowl game but will in fact win the national championship.

 

Interesting. The knock on Fulmer/Sanders/Cutcliffe is/was they never passed the ball enough or were aggressive enough. Besides, UT never had their full compliment of RBs due to injuries all year long. David Yancey, a walk-on, was 2nd string and would've been the starter for the Bowl game - if we'd had one

I've never understood this bromide that's politically and culturally hip to say. How exactly does the coaching meeting go where you coach not to lose instead of trying to win? "Okay guys, this play here will work..but let's not use that because we might win....Okay fellas, go out there and try not to lose today, okay? Don't worry about scoring points, just try not to score too many.....Okay defense, go out there and stop them occasionally, after all, we don't want to win: we're trying not to lose..."
That whole argument/idea is ridiculous. Every coach goes into every game with a gameplan they believe that will be a victorious scheme. Granted, UT doesn't throw the ball 80 times like Texas Tech, but no one criticizes the Vols when they win. Lose, and the Vols' coaching staff is guilty of everything from conservative playcalling to the Kennedy assasination.

Yes. But sometimes I feel they overachieve. Last year's team was not a ten win team. 1998 was not a 13 win team. 2001, 2002 were over-acheivers. Why? Coaching.

Simple: This year, Rick was the best we had. Same is true last year. After Ainge and Schaeffer went down, Rick was the best we had. Ainge was inconsistent last year and this year his inconsistency was...well, consistent And the reason Jonathan Crompton wasn't used this year was because he was injured and had to have season ending shoulder surgery early. He wasn't available. He is expected to challange Ainge for the starting job in the Spring, and if Mitch Mustain comes to UT and enrolls early, he'll have a shot at the job. Jimmy Claussen is the best of the Claussen boys. Remember: Casey, Rick, and Jimmy were/are recruited by the cream of the crop. It isn't just Fulmer going gaa-gaa over the Claussen family.

I'm not worried about recruiting. There are always flavors of the month that never pan out. Plus, with the ascension of some teams (Southern Cal, for instance) comes a drop in some others (Stanford, Nebraksa, etc.) so there's enough talent to go around. I don't worry about South Carolina because they're always tough to recruit against in talent-laden South Carolina. Notre Dame had similar success in its first season with Ty Willingham, and three years later he's run out of town. Jury's still out on Weiss and the Irish.

[ December 20, 2005, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

No, we're talking about the real UT, not the fake UT that got beat by the real UT 95-78 at Austin on Saturday.

 

I hope you took that in the tongue-in-cheek way it was meant

I never understand this argument. Some people like to find entertainment value in the theatrics of say, a Spurrier or Holtz, but then again the Sportscenter gang has a field day mocking their childlike behavior. I've never seen Fulmer confused once. He's been around and knows the game. Tice doesn't look confused as he looks just darned shocked he has his job. He probably will not have that worry much longer. Besides, if Fulmer is so confused, he needs to go play the lottery because he is obviously lucky and has no coaching ability to pull together numbers like he has.

That's completely out of line...Fulmer eats at Cracker Barrell. Actually, he has lost some weight. BTW, Fulmer is a nice gentleman, and a devout Methodist. (I'm biting my tongue since this isn't a Baptist only area) Seriously, Fulmer has stood up to very token liberal attacks on his allowing local pastors to frequent practices and games, and hiring an official team chaplain as well as volunteer chaplains from local churches.

[ December 20, 2005, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Of course I did

The world will be a better place without Mike Tice roaming the sidelines as a head coach. Maybe Tenn can hire him as their PR person

I am glad to hear of this. We need more coaches will to do such things. Maybe the reason he looks so confused on the sidelines is because he is Methodist

 

Talent is as talent does. UT has won 2 SEC eastern division crowns since Randy has been OC. The problem with Randy among the locals stemmed from this year - period.

Don't know him well. Only met him once or twice. I will say that a host of coaches were not top tier anythings until they started winning. Not to say Randy is in that class, but it's worth noting anyway.

I disagree. Too many teams have been successful with dual QBs. Besides, you play your best player and sometimes that's two guys. It worked before at UT. Shuler and Kelly shared snaps til Shuler got his sealegs. A.J. Suggs and Casey Claussen did, too, til Claussen came along. Brandon Stewart split time at QB with some guy named Manning..didn't hurt him any. (2 of the 3 were under Cut's watch, btw).

I was talking about UT's DEFENSE on 3rd down, esp 3rd and long. The QB or OC have nothing to do with that.

I can't tell you how many writers I read that said UT would either win the Rose Bowl or lose the Music City Bowl because of the question marks at QB, RB and injuries, not to mention the nation's toughest schedule.

This is just hokum. Under Chavis, UT isn't designed to blow anyone away, especially due to our perennially tough schedules. The game plan is for the defense to give you a short field, let the offense score just enough to win, and let the defense take care of business. It's the same recipie UT has followed for years, one that gave UT a national title in 1998. This year, the defense didn't do its job. UT average margin of victory last year was 17 pts. Granted, six wins last year were by less than a touchdown, but you only have to win by one. Last year also had four wins by two touchdowns or more, and three of those were by at least 25 points. That's overwhelming enough for me Those numbers are fairly consistent through the years. Problem? Defense allowed more points.

The logic breaks down here. Given this logic, UT should not have been more successful in 1992 when Fulmer coached than when Majors coached because it was the same plays and same talent. And if we're supposedly running the same offense now, why shouldn't we be as successful? This just doesn't wash.

He didn't learn anything at Ole Miss..he was the teacher. And he didn't learn much from Weiss since they were never together. Cutcliffe had to quit before his boxes were unpacked at the ND offices.

Where? Top 2 RBs are out until next Fall camp. No QB. Best receivers are gone. Cut's work is "Cut" out for him

Bobby Cox, the biggest choker in all of major sports, wouldn't be able to win a bowl game in college if you draw the parallels. Let's see how good Cox is if he's in a real division and now that he's lost Mazzone. Without realignment, the Bills...I mean, Braves..would have seen their division title streak end years ago.

Kinda hard to have a bad season when you manage in the weakest division in all of baseball (Except for 2005's NL West).

I'm a frustrated Reds' fan, where we trade sluggers for sub .500 pitchers. Just what you need in Great American ballpark. Besides, the Reds won just as many World Series in the 90s as the Bills...I mean Braves.

 

I've never understood this bromide that's politically and culturally hip to say. How exactly does the coaching meeting go where you coach not to lose instead of trying to win?</font>[/QUOTE] You are kidding right?

Compare Fulmer's play calling with a 10 point lead to say.... Spurrier's play calling with a 3 point lead. Fulmer tries to "eat clock". Spurrier tries to rip the heart out of his opponent by putting up 3 more scores. Fulmer is reactionary. Spurrier forces the other team to react to him. Fulmer tries to win by preventing the other team from winning always at risk of the other team finding a way to win while he just tries to hang on... Spurrier tries to win by beating the other team and coach into absolute despair and submission.

More like "this play is probably the one with the greatest chance of success but also the most risk... so rather than being aggressive and trusting all of those blue chippers, I'm going to run 3 dive plays and punt. Hopefully, the prevent defense will keep the other team from beating us before time runs out."

Not in so many words but when you talk constantly about winning the field position battle and avoiding mistakes... that is virtually synonomous with playing a low risk style.

Almost... he is afraid that if he really opens up and tries to score lots of points then turn overs will beat him. What he gets is an offense that is impotent... and still commits too many turnovers. If one drive out of three is going to end in a turnover then it is better to take the risks and score on at least one of the other two possessions than to punt.

Chavis is more aggressive but still you don't see high risk plays from the Vols on defense very often and that is why they only get interceptions on poorly thrown balls.

Va Tech, Georgia, and Alabama with similar or less talent will jump routes and bait QB's into throwing into coverage.

Listen to him talk. Fulmer talks about ways to keep from getting beat or to keep the other team from winning.

The problem is that they like the Braves consistently win games they should win but can't find a way to beat the elite. The Vols under Fulmer go from playing second fiddle to one team after another... always standing in the wings but seldom in the spot light. First they couldn't beat Bama then Florida now Georgia... So Carolina is probably next.

I don't really care if they throw or run... but I would like to see more high reward-high risks playcalling... or a dominate run game... or an unstoppable system. What they're doing is a waste of talent.

No. They are guilty of being consistently second tier... until this year in which they became bottom tier.

Do what? You consistently load a team with top 25 classes... you should expect success not be surprised by it.

Yes it was. The Vols are by no means the first team to succeed with an inexperienced QB. They were very talented on defense, loaded at wide receiver, had good talent at RB, and one of the best kicking groups in the country. If anything, they still underachieved the level of talent they had by playing so many close games against so many overmatched opponents.

This propaganda that Sanders did a great job with the QB's and that they outcoached a lack of talent is non-sense. Those QB's were some of the most talented preps in the country.

I disagree completely. The 98 team had an excellent defense... at least as good as this year's. Tee Martin was a good passer and could run. Price and Wilson at receiver.

The running game- wow. Are you saying they were overachievers? Lewis, Henry, Bryson, and Stephens... Three of those guys made very good pros right out of college.

The other two years were far from overachieving. Clausen an experienced QB. Good backs. Decent receivers including Donte Stallworth. Maybe not National Championship caliber but definitely an SEC title in there somewhere.

BTW, how do you count a Vols team that gets thumped by Maryland in the Peach Bowl "overachievers"?

The Vols are 2-4 in bowl games over since 98 having played. Prior to A&M's meltdown last year, the Vols had played that part against Clemson and Maryland... with an experienced, record setting QB.

Bottom line, the Vols have consistently suffered from a "play not to lose", low risk style that stifles talent. They have consistently underachieved the talent levels they have had, especially on offense. My opinion is that Sanders was the problem and Fulmer was just too loyal.

We'll see how that plays out.

 

Talent is as talent does. UT has won 2 SEC eastern division crowns since Randy has been OC. The problem with Randy among the locals stemmed from this year - period. </font>[/QUOTE] I posted on the Fire Sanders website when it was up... those locals recognized as I do that Sanders never coached his talent to its potential.

That's more situational. It was obvious to me that there was a significant timing issue in the passing game between the two QB's. Too much difference between their fast balls.

No they didn't. Heath grew up in my hometown. I have known him practically his whole life. My dad coached him. Heath sat behind the Senior Kelly in his Freshman year. He then had to beat out Jerry Colquitt. Many of the "locals" thought Jerry deserved to start but that Heath had the hype.

As I remember, Suggs just never developed into an SEC caliber QB and transferred... to Ga Tech where he never developed into an ACC caliber QB either.

They only split time until they figured out that Manning was the man and splitting time didn't make sense. Stewart transferred to Texas A&M.

Chavis doesn't coach the offense and UF/UGa/LSU/Aub haven't had too much difficulty blowing out bad teams like Kentucky or Arkansas.

That is "play not to lose" pretty much in a nutshell.

You're trying to tell me the 98 team and those QB'd by Shuler and Manning weren't big play teams? Yes they could run. Yes they could ball control... but they could also score points and put up big O stats.

Do what? The Vols only scored about 16 ppg and ranked near the bottom in virtually all statistical categories... what did the defense have to do with that?

No it wasn't. It was 12.1- toss out UNLV and La Tech but leave in the powerhouses of UK and Vandy... and the margin shrinks to 9. The average margin of victory over the SEC bottom feeders was 7 points!

If you are UT and you are only beating UK by 6 and Vandy by 5... then you have a problem.

Not when those teams are UNLV and La Tech.

You're delusional if you believe that. The defense allowed less than 18 pts per game. In 98, the defense allowed 14 ppg... but they didn't have to stay on the field so much as the offense rolled up 33 ppg.

Discipline. Creativity. Motivation. Organization. Strategy. Aggression. Intelligence. Etc. Etc. Etc.

All of them coaching responsibilities.

He didn't learn anything at Ole Miss..he was the teacher.</font>[/QUOTE] Not according to what he said in a newspaper interview. He claims to have learned from the asst's. he brought in from other programs. He didn't promote inbreeding at Ole Miss which is another good thing about him.

Again, it came from him.

Where? Top 2 RBs are out until next Fall camp. No QB. Best receivers are gone.</font>[/QUOTE] Good grief. He is inheriting at least 3 consecutive top 10 recruiting classes. The best receivers gone? Who? The most talented receivers will still be there unless they try to make the jump- Meachem and Swain (the two top receivers in 05), Smith, Taylor, Shelley, Briscoe, etc.

Who wouldn't want to have Hardesty, Coker, Foster, and Williams to work with? Yancey is even back. They have already gotten a commitment from the #36 RB in the country and are in the running for two 5 star backs.

But not because of a lack of talent. This team is far more talented than the Ole Miss team he took over... and made a successful offensive team out of.

 

{duplicate post deleted}

[ December 21, 2005, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Not so. Arkansas had six quite good seasons before the last two. And I expect them to be back on the winning side next season and going to a bowl game.

And I also expect Tennessee to be back in a bowl game next season as well. If they aren't, then I expect Fulmer will be replaced.