Coaching Changes

[kiddiedoc]

OK, after 2 days to cry and throw inanimate objects, I'm going to quit my venting and offer what I believe may be the most realistic proposal to fix our woes of underachieving for the past 9 years.

First off, a "given." You must accept this statement before any sense can be made of the current regime or my proposal: This is Fulmer's offense. Period. He is in charge, he picks the QB, and he dictates the style of the offense. It's his system, and Sanders offers the same sentiment.

Also, Fulmer is so entwined with the social heirarchy of K-town, the boosters, and the recruiting, that his dismissal or resignment not only improbable, but more likely impossible. . . .and (stay with me here), maybe that's just fine.

*******

IMO, Best Case Scenario:

Fulmer decides to break his "loyalty" and lets Sanders go. In doing so, however, he admits that his (Fulmer's) system is also just not working. That Randy was a good fit for the way he wanted to run the team, but that times have changed and that we need a little more "octane" to compete on the national level.

At the same time, we look for a guy with a little creativity, enthusiasm, and balls. We look at schools who have a good offensive system but lack the national respect needed to get into the top-5 or 10 with recruits, defense, etc. (e.g. Texas Tech). In doing so, Fulmer concedes to give the reigns to a new system with the potential to develop QB's into Heistman candidates, stretch the field, make use of talented receivers, and take some pressure off of the "pound the rock" offense. I'm not saying to abandon the run, but to pull some backs off the line, deepen the safety coverage, and force teams to even think twice about putting four guys down and pressing 3 or 4 more close.

I know that's a huge leap and would be a 180 degree change of pace for Phil, but let's face it folks: isn't that what we need?

This is not meant to be a "scapegoat" thread to kill Sanders -- he's good at what he does, which is run Fulmer's system. But that system is plain and simply not going to get Tennessee to the next level.

Thoughts?

 

[Jasongivm6]

Also, Fulmer is so entwined with the social heirarchy of K-town, the boosters, and the recruiting, that his dismissal or resignment not only improbable, but more likely impossible. . . .and (stay with me here), maybe that's just fine.

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````


That's what we thought about Johnny Majors.

 

[gunner]

Fulmer will never admit the Offensive symstem UT currently employs is outdated. He will have to be dismissed before we change systems.

Gunner

 

[Freak]

Not to mention Fulmer will not allow somebody to come in here and steal all the glory for turning the team around. Hence the reason we have Sanders in the first place.

 

[cd12]

I have went on record as saying in my IMO Fulmer is a perfect fit for UT and UT for him. But if he don't get his head outta his a$$ his stubborness may be his demise! I boldly stated that I don't think that he could suceed at any other big time program! He is at the only place where he can make it! Why is he not mentioned as one of the great coaches when his winning % is one of the highest? Why hasn't his name come up for Pro vancancies, not that he'd go, but alot of others atleast get mentioned. Wise up Phil and don't cook your golden goose!

 

[Liper]

Let me get this out there before I begin my coaching analysis: I do not want Fulmer fired. I believe he is the right type of guy for this job - at least right now - based on his ability to recruit and organize the program. It's the whole football part he lacks in (just take Mack Brown plus a few belt sizes and you've got Fulmer).

The problem with our offense and special teams - that makes up 67% of the team - is for sure coaching. This is bad coaching and there is no getting around it. It's the same issues year after year, only with different players and different circumstances. But if you look close enough, it's the same stuff.

OK, what is it? It comes down to teaching, plain and simple. Our coaches are not TEACHING our players how to play their position and specifically what they need to be doing to execute the plays we send in. Fulmer and Sanders blame execution 90% of the time, and that goes back a good decade or so. Execution is the fruit of proper coaching. Did Lombardi's teams execute well? Uh huh.

So I don't think it is play calling at all. Sometimes I don't like it that much, but that is too easy a scape goat. Our players look confused, our line doesn't know who to block, our receivers run bad routes into coverage - and then drop it when they do manage to get open - which is just lack of being taught.

If you happen to have read the article in the Senseless about Charlie Weiss, this was the sole focus of his style. Who did he get it from? Parcells and Bellicheck. Their teams play well because the players know what to do and understand WHY they are doing it.

This is why TN lays an egg a couple of times a year. When the stakes and the talent go up, it makes these things more glaring. But they are always there beneath the surface.

Oh yeah...when we had Peyton, he counteracted a lot of this (not to mention that Cutty is a little better than Randy).

Liper

P.S. With Fulmer and Sanders on the sideline, who are the eyes in the sky? Washington? Taylor? That's a joke. Our staff is top heavy - that is, what we do have is on the sideline. After that we've got nada.

 

[Lexvol]

Originally posted by Liper@Oct 10, 2005 8:28 PM
Let me get this out there before I begin my coaching analysis: I do not want Fulmer fired.  I believe he is the right type of guy for this job - at least right now - based on his ability to recruit and organize the program.  It's the whole football part he lacks in (just take Mack Brown plus a few belt sizes and you've got Fulmer).

The problem with our offense and special teams - that makes up 67% of the team - is for sure coaching.  This is bad coaching and there is no getting around it.  It's the same issues year after year, only with different players and different circumstances.  But if you look close enough, it's the same stuff.

OK, what is it?  It comes down to teaching, plain and simple.  Our coaches are not TEACHING our players how to play their position and specifically what they need to be doing to execute the plays we send in.  Fulmer and Sanders blame execution 90% of the time, and that goes back a good decade or so.  Execution is the fruit of proper coaching.  Did Lombardi's teams execute well?  Uh huh.

So I don't think it is play calling at all.  Sometimes I don't like it that much, but that is too easy a scape goat.  Our players look confused, our line doesn't know who to block, our receivers run bad routes into coverage - and then drop it when they do manage to get open - which is just lack of being taught.

If you happen to have read the article in the Senseless about Charlie Weiss, this was the sole focus of his style.  Who did he get it from?  Parcells and Bellicheck.  Their teams play well because the players know what to do and understand WHY they are doing it.

This is why TN lays an egg a couple of times a year.  When the stakes and the talent go up, it makes these things more glaring.  But they are always there beneath the surface.

Oh yeah...when we had Peyton, he counteracted a lot of this (not to mention that Cutty is a little better than Randy).

Liper

P.S. With Fulmer and Sanders on the sideline, who are the eyes in the sky?  Washington?  Taylor?  That's a joke.  Our staff is top heavy - that is, what we do have is on the sideline.  After that we've got nada.

[snapback]163929[/snapback]​

Great post. Current offensive staff is completely incapable of DEVELOPING talent. Ainge is the perfect example. That is the differnce between Cut and RS. RS cannot teach.

Our defense does seem to understand scheme and has ability make adjustments as the game unfolds. They are clearly better coached. Case and point is Omar Gaither. He is a smart guy with a nose for the football, but as SEC linebackers go he has less talent. But he has been developed into a great linebacker, and UT is lucky to have him.

 

[kiddiedoc]

Originally posted by gunner@Oct 10, 2005 7:35 PM
Fulmer will never admit the Offensive symstem UT currently employs is outdated. He will have to be dismissed before we change systems.

[snapback]163900[/snapback]​

Well. . . .that brings me to the exact motive of my post. Just say that we lose one or (realistically) two or three more games this year. With the expectations and the hype of the preseason, that just might cause some wheels to start turning in K-town.

Now: if you're the head coach, your choices in such a scenario are

a ) say your team was overrated and doesn't have the talent to be a contender

b ) make excuses like officiating and scheduling and injuries

c ) take the blame, bite the bullet, and either resign or make serious changes

or

d ) find a scapegoat, find a solution, and relinquish some duties to him

The way I see it is: a ) Not true. No way that many people both IN and OUT of the UT circle could miss by that much. b ) No ground to stand on. c ) This is the South, and this is UT, and this is big money. Please. d ) Maybe the only way to salvage respect or a chance at future glory.

Look, guys (and gals): Fulmer has done a lot for the program, the university, and the state. He hangs in circles whose boats could t-bone ours and not even know they hit something. It would take not just one season like this, but maybe three or four near-.500 seasons before a change like that would be made. What I'm offering is seemingly the only reasonable solution to a system that is as stale as 2-day-old pizza on a dorm room air conditioner (don't lie, you ate it).

 

[General Jack]

Simon says... "D"

Fulmer is still great for the program, he's a great recruiter and a Tennessee guy which is very important to me. Based on our lack of production on offense and special teams, combined with the talent we curently have, there are a couple of obvious candidates for the scapegoat. Hate it for those guys, great guys, but empires aren't built of out of kindness.

The fact of the matter is we are not a top 10 program anymore. Much closer to 20.

What we need is to maximize the talent that we recruit and not get outcoached on a consistent basis. We've seen wayyy too much of that this year. We've got the horses, we need to get them running.

 

[WA_Vol]

Originally posted by kiddiedoc@Oct 10, 2005 8:09 PM
OK, after 2 days to cry and throw inanimate objects, I'm going to quit my venting and offer what I believe may be the most realistic proposal to fix our woes of underachieving for the past 9 years.

First off, a "given."  You must accept this statement before any sense can be made of the current regime or my proposal:  This is Fulmer's offense.  Period.  He is in charge, he picks the QB, and he dictates the style of the offense.  It's his system, and Sanders offers the same sentiment.

Also, Fulmer is so entwined with the social heirarchy of K-town, the boosters, and the recruiting, that his dismissal or resignment not only improbable, but more likely impossible. . . .and (stay with me here), maybe that's just fine.

*******

IMO, Best Case Scenario:

Fulmer decides to break his "loyalty" and lets Sanders go.  In doing so, however, he admits that his (Fulmer's) system is also just not working.  That Randy was a good fit for the way he wanted to run the team, but that times have changed and that we need a little more "octane" to compete on the national level.

At the same time, we look for a guy with a little creativity, enthusiasm, and balls.  We look at schools who have a good offensive system but lack the national respect needed to get into the top-5 or 10 with recruits, defense, etc.  (e.g. Texas Tech).  In doing so, Fulmer concedes to give the reigns to a new system with the potential to develop QB's into Heistman candidates, stretch the field, make use of talented receivers, and take some pressure off of the "pound the rock" offense.  I'm not saying to abandon the run, but to pull some backs off the line, deepen the safety coverage, and force teams to even think twice about putting four guys down and pressing 3 or 4 more close.

I know that's a huge leap and would be a 180 degree change of pace for Phil, but let's face it folks:  isn't that what we need?

This is not meant to be a "scapegoat" thread to kill Sanders -- he's good at what he does, which is run Fulmer's system.  But that system is plain and simply not going to get Tennessee to the next level.

Thoughts?

[snapback]163889[/snapback]​

O.K. Wake up and pinch yourself now, cause that is a dream.

 

[kiddiedoc]

Originally posted by oklavol@Oct 10, 2005 9:49 PM
O.K. Wake up and pinch yourself now, cause that is a dream.

[snapback]163998[/snapback]​

Is it? Check the pulse in K-town. Something has to give, and soon.

 

[Volstorm]

You can hire Norm Chow, and the offense will not change. The only thing they can do is get coaches in there who will fire those guys up. What I would give to have a line coach that will make those guys mean and nasty again.

 

[Liper]

Originally posted by Volstorm@Oct 10, 2005 10:21 PM
You can hire Norm Chow, and the offense will not change.  The only thing they can do is get coaches in there who will fire those guys up.  What I would give to have a line coach that will make those guys mean and nasty again.

[snapback]164026[/snapback]​

I totally disagree with that assessment. Norm Chow turned USC's offense into a perennial power. He turned an average Carson Palmer into the Heistman Trophy winner. Remember that USC had a lot of talent and couldn't do a thing until Carrol got there.

When Spurrier arrived at FL they had a mediocre offense. He turned them into an offensive fireworks display with the same talent.

Charlie Weiss made a basket case (Quinn) that could hardly complete a forward pass into one of the top QBs in CFB.

Aside from specifics, I don't think it has anything to do with emotion either. Mindest, perhaps; but not emotion. We need our players to UNDERSTAND what they're supposed to do.

I will agree with a sense of what you're probably seeing: we look soft. But I think we LOOK soft because we are not playing well. The defense doesn't look soft, right? But the effort appears there to me in general. But playing fast, loose, and confident makes people perform miles ahead of one that goes to the opposite extreme (see 90s UT v FL for example after example of this concept).

Liper

 

[Volstorm]

The difference is that those Head Coaches you named had the ability to change the offense. Fulmer is not going to allow the offense to change that much. The line play over the past few years has been soft. But in your example we had a different line coach than now.

 

[kiddiedoc]

Originally posted by Volstorm@Oct 10, 2005 10:41 PM
Fulmer is not going to allow the offense to change that much.

[snapback]164057[/snapback]​

Again, my point is that if he wants to stay around AND really cares about the success of the Tennessee team, that's his only choice.

 

[donsargegolf]

Originally posted by kiddiedoc@Oct 10, 2005 7:09 PM
OK, after 2 days to cry and throw inanimate objects, I'm going to quit my venting and offer what I believe may be the most realistic proposal to fix our woes of underachieving for the past 9 years.

First off, a "given."  You must accept this statement before any sense can be made of the current regime or my proposal:  This is Fulmer's offense.  Period.  He is in charge, he picks the QB, and he dictates the style of the offense.  It's his system, and Sanders offers the same sentiment.

Also, Fulmer is so entwined with the social heirarchy of K-town, the boosters, and the recruiting, that his dismissal or resignment not only improbable, but more likely impossible. . . .and (stay with me here), maybe that's just fine.

*******

IMO, Best Case Scenario:

Fulmer decides to break his "loyalty" and lets Sanders go.  In doing so, however, he admits that his (Fulmer's) system is also just not working.  That Randy was a good fit for the way he wanted to run the team, but that times have changed and that we need a little more "octane" to compete on the national level.

At the same time, we look for a guy with a little creativity, enthusiasm, and balls.  We look at schools who have a good offensive system but lack the national respect needed to get into the top-5 or 10 with recruits, defense, etc.  (e.g. Texas Tech).  In doing so, Fulmer concedes to give the reigns to a new system with the potential to develop QB's into Heistman candidates, stretch the field, make use of talented receivers, and take some pressure off of the "pound the rock" offense.  I'm not saying to abandon the run, but to pull some backs off the line, deepen the safety coverage, and force teams to even think twice about putting four guys down and pressing 3 or 4 more close.

I know that's a huge leap and would be a 180 degree change of pace for Phil, but let's face it folks:  isn't that what we need?

This is not meant to be a "scapegoat" thread to kill Sanders -- he's good at what he does, which is run Fulmer's system.  But that system is plain and simply not going to get Tennessee to the next level.

Thoughts?

[snapback]163889[/snapback]​

Paul "BEAR" Bryant scrapped it all in the early 70's to implement the wish-bone. His legacy makes Fulmer's look like a donut hole. And I am a Vol fan for life.

 

[orangetd88]

The fact is Fulmer won't change. No matter how much we want it, or how much people gripe about it, it just won't happen.

I'm just as sick of this as anyone, but have resigned to the fact that 8, 9, and 10 every once in awhile is all we are going to do.

It is also going to be a long, long time before Tennessee ever wins more than the SEC East.

 

[TBALLVOL]

Yeah, It appears that Fulmer has the Joe Paterno Syndrome. I AM PENN STATE! and nothing will change until I die!..the sad part is that Fulmer is smarter than this but he is too proud to let go and grasp greatness. He obviously thinks that he less of a coach if he bends to the obvious. Let go of the sixties and seventies, bring in an OC with the best offensive numbers in the land and let him sprinkle the the magic dust. There is magic dust out there it just doesn't say Fulmer/Sanders on it. But if you buy it, you get to put your name on it and more importantly, we get to put our name on it: TENNESSEE. Where we always find a way to WIN!

 

[cd12]

Originally posted by TBALLVOL@Oct 11, 2005 2:21 PM
Yeah, It appears that Fulmer has the Joe Paterno Syndrome. I AM PENN STATE! and nothing will change until I die!..the sad part is that Fulmer is smarter than this but he is too proud to let go and grasp greatness. He obviously thinks that he less of a coach if he bends to the obvious. Let go of the sixties and seventies, bring in an OC  with the best offensive numbers in the land and let him sprinkle the the magic dust. There is magic dust out there it just doesn't say Fulmer/Sanders on it. But if you buy it, you get to put your name on it and more importantly, we get to put our name on it: TENNESSEE. Where we always find a way to WIN!

[snapback]164325[/snapback]​

Preach on brother!

 

[surrealvol]

Originally posted by TBALLVOL@Oct 11, 2005 2:21 PM
Yeah, It appears that Fulmer has the Joe Paterno Syndrome. I AM PENN STATE! and nothing will change until I die!..the sad part is that Fulmer is smarter than this but he is too proud to let go and grasp greatness. He obviously thinks that he less of a coach if he bends to the obvious. Let go of the sixties and seventies, bring in an OC  with the best offensive numbers in the land and let him sprinkle the the magic dust. There is magic dust out there it just doesn't say Fulmer/Sanders on it. But if you buy it, you get to put your name on it and more importantly, we get to put our name on it: TENNESSEE. Where we always find a way to WIN!

[snapback]164325[/snapback]​

Yeah! What TBV said!

 

[kiddiedoc]

Originally posted by TBALLVOL@Oct 11, 2005 1:21 PM
TENNESSEE. Where we always find a way to WIN!

[snapback]164325[/snapback]​

(except for 3 to 5 times this season)

 

[kiddiedoc]

Originally posted by orangetd88@Oct 11, 2005 1:06 PM
The fact is Fulmer won't change.  No matter how much we want it, or how much people gripe about it, it just won't happen. 

I'm just as sick of this as anyone, but have resigned to the fact that 8, 9, and 10 every once in awhile is all we are going to do.

It is also going to be a long, long time before Tennessee ever wins more than the SEC East.

[snapback]164318[/snapback]​

Why is this the case? Why do we handle our coaches with kid gloves around here? In most sporting venues around the country, you win or you are run out of town. Even teams without a tradition of success don't keep around very many underachieving coaches for long.

I think it's time that the fans, the boosters, and the administration start to put some dang accountability on the coaching positions and make difficult decisions when they let us all down.

Criminy! WE WERE SUPPOSED TO COMPETE FOR A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP AND NOW PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT 4 OR 5 LOSSES AND ARE WORRIED ABOUT VANDERBILT!!!!!

Wake up, Vol Nation. The consequences of not taking action after this disaster of a season will be felt for years and maybe even longer.

 

[TBALLVOL]

Yawn!..I just had the best dream.. I dreamed that Tennessee always found a way to WIN!.. I'm going to go watch reruns of our offense..YAWN.. so i can go back to sleep and perhaps continue the dream.

 

[TBALLVOL]

Hamilton had the balls to pull the trigger on Buzz but i don't think he has the kahunas to pull Phil on the carpet. It probably works in reverse. Phil pulls him in on the carpet at the headquarters at Pilot oil.

 

[volinbham]

This might not fit the thread exactly but what's driving me nuts about the offense over the last year or so is the lack of an identity.

It seems we'll try a drive where we throw 3 times then think we need to pound the rock and try to run 3 times. I understand mixing it up but it just doesn't seem to be done with an overall plan - more reactionary.

In looking back at the Ole Miss and Georgia games, our offense came out with a couple of well executed plays that appeared to be scripted. After a while, though the drives start to look like they are stick a finger in the wind (I was thinking somewhere else at first) and then randomly choosing a play.

In short, there doesn't appear to be a tactical offensive philosophy driving the play calling.