Dooley has done the heavy lifting

[1972 Grad]

in all honesty, i thought last year was the year.

most of those players had previous starting experience.

and tennessee had personnel that could create serious problems and mismatches. rogers getting kicked out didn't help, but it was still a good team offensively (obviously).

if the defense had been anything but god awful, they would have contended.

the 2012 vols should have been 8-4 at worst before playing a bowl game. the talent on that roster should have coasted to wins over mississippi state, vanderbilt, and missouri.

so i don't get misunderstood here, i thought there were roster issues and still do. but, when the offense is putting up 40 or more, a mediocre defense should be good enough. they were talented enough to be mediocre on defense.

now, the personnel that created mismatches offensively are gone.

It would have been the year, if not for the defensive staff departures, and maybe that was Dooley's fault. I don't know. Maybe they thought that there was too much turmoil with some of the players to succeed.

 

[Pacer92]

Both the 2011 and 2012 teams started out looking pretty strong the first couple of games( Cincinnati in 2011 and N.C. State in 2012). After running the gauntlet through the likes of Florida, Alabama, Georgia, So. Carolina, etc. and getting their brains beat out, the team got disheartened and quit. If that is Dooley's fault, then so be it. The teams had some quitters on it. Kiffin's recruits, by and large, had no character, and no guts. The ones who didn't quit the team, or got thrown off, quit on the field.

Who do you blame that on if not Dooley?? That falls directly in Dooley's lap.

 

[1972 Grad]

wouldn't that be the coaches fault?

Not everybody can take an ass whipping week after week, and keep coming back for more.

 

[nagle]

Not everybody can take an ass whipping week after week, and keep coming back for more.

this is very true but its on the coaches head to somehow bring it together.

 

[37L1]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0asvA-xIAzE[/youtube]

starting at the 2:56 mark

This whole video makes him look like a Richard Cranium.

 

[1972 Grad]

Who do you blame that on if not Dooley?? That falls directly in Dooley's lap.

Everything falls in the head man's lap, but I'm just not sure if anyone else would have done significantly better. I don't understand the hate. I don't really think that Dooley set us back a great deal. We still have a way to go.

 

[nagle]

This whole video makes him look like a Richard Cranium.

sorry man , just don't think I can watch any more dooley videos..ever..nothing against you tho.

 

[Pacer92]

Everything falls in the head man's lap, but I'm just not sure if anyone else would have done significantly better. I don't understand the hate. I don't really think that Dooley set us back a great deal. We still have a way to go.

I don't hate Dooley. I supported him when he was here. I think its easier to see how muddy the water is when you step out of it. And looking back, he did a lot wrong, imo.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Dooley took a job no one wanted, and did his best. It just was not good enough. Nothing to hang yourself over. We are still Tennessee and we will be back.

Enough of this "he took a job no one wanted" crap. He was offered more money to coach at a high profile SEC program, taking advantage of an opportunity under normal circumstances he would have never gotten. Let's not act like he made some grand sacrifice.

Plus it's known he most certainly was NOT the only person who wanted the job.

 

[Aesius]

in all honesty, i thought last year was the year.

most of those players had previous starting experience.

and tennessee had personnel that could create serious problems and mismatches. rogers getting kicked out didn't help, but it was still a good team offensively (obviously).

if the defense had been anything but god awful, they would have contended.

the 2012 vols should have been 8-4 at worst before playing a bowl game. the talent on that roster should have coasted to wins over mississippi state, vanderbilt, and missouri.

so i don't get misunderstood here, i thought there were roster issues and still do. but, when the offense is putting up 40 or more, a mediocre defense should be good enough. they were talented enough to be mediocre on defense.

now, the personnel that created mismatches offensively are gone.

The 2012 season was one of the most disappointing things I've ever witnessed in my life.

That said, I would take that 5-7 season and Dooley getting fired over going 8-4 and being stuck with him for another year (or two) any day.

I'm a realist, but watching the Mizzou game and seeing us lose the way we did....it's like I knew that it was happening for a reason. There were so many inexplicable losses during Dooley's tenure, it was like Gen. Neyland himself was fighting from beyond the grave to ensure that he couldn't continue ruining the program.

 

[VolBraniac]

http://www.volnation.com/forum/tenn...nsider-article-tennessee-most-attractive.html

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This

 

[KBVol]

i still don't get the dooley left it better than he found it argument when most people outside of knoxville think it won't be until year 3 of the jones era before tennessee has an opportunity to factor into the sec east race.

Agreed. Just wont let go... like some kind of Stockholm Syndrome or something.

 

[oregonvol]

That hire was going to have a high level of risks because of the condition of the program. When you have a roster that almost assures you are going to lose many games the first two years and knowing the impatience of big time programs then you aren't going to attract the "in demand" coaches.

You might catch an up and comer before his break out. You might catch a coordinator who is truly ready for the next step up (though many are never ready). You might get a number of guys whose next best option is a program at the bottom of the ACC. What you are not going to get is someone from the "A" list.

I seriously doubt Jones would have taken the job 3 years ago.

Dooley took a risk that he was ready and able and lost. UT took a risk and lost. But don't pretend that there were a bunch of "sure bet" coaches banging on the door when he took the job because therer weren't.... not at any price. NO successful coach risks his career like that.

Dooley is unlikely to ever get another shot. If Oskie is right and he was/is a better coach than he was able to show at UT then he blew his career by taking on a task that the "elite" candidates avoided like the plague because they didn't think they could handle it.

Wow, you really are the master of straw man arguments. Show me where I said or even suggested that there were any "sure bet coaches banging on the door". You can't, because you have the debating skills of a five year old.

Dooley was a proven loser. Only an idiot would hire a proven loser from a lesser conference to come here. And only a mentally deranged sycophant would still be defending him. And don't give me the whole "no one else wanted the job" BS. Yeah, we can't prove who would have taken the job other than Dooley. I can't prove that someone other than Nick Saban would have taken the Alabama job either. That doesn't mean anything. If you seriously don't believe we could have found a single winning coach from a lower level or, at the very least, a proven successful coordinator like Malzahn to take this job, then you are either utterly delusional or simply despise UT football.

A don't give me this "Dooley took a risk" garbage either. What risk? He had duplicated the 3 year record of the previous guy at La. Tech...the guy who got fired. There was every chance Dooley could have been gone with one more miserable year at La. Tech. Instead, he gets a high profile SEC job, gets to pretend he's qualified to be a big time coach, and gets paid handsomely to run the program into the ground for three years, posting the worst three year record of any coach in UT history while morons take to the net to defend his every failing. Then, when he runs out of excuses and finally gets his walking papers, he's all set with one of the biggest buyouts in college football history. Yeah, that's some risk he took.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

The problem with the "nobody wanted the job" excuse is, you should say no GOOD coach wanted the job (which still isn't true). You can't seriously believe there wouldn't be dozens of coaches in the same league as Dooley that would have jumped at the chance to coach UT, even if they knew they were in over their heads.

 

[WhitewaterVol]

Dooley lifted the program in a negative direction from near the bottom of the SEC to the bottom of the bottom of the SEC. A few more years and we would have been competitive with Division II schools.

Dooley was a failure as a head coach - he's gone with a fat wallet. Why waste time focusing on the mistakes of the past?

Butch Jones is our coach - let's hope he moves our Vols back to their rightful place at the top of the SEC.

 

[the one]

This whole video makes him look like a Richard Cranium.

that video is like watching both Seinfeld and the people in the movie Titanic floating dead in the water.....you laugh, you cry, you kiss your season ticket money goodbye. Please take that show out of syndication.

 

[sjt18]

Wow, you really are the master of straw man arguments. Show me where I said or even suggested that there were any "sure bet coaches banging on the door". You can't, because you have the debating skills of a five year old.

Oh, I see making it "personal" is far better than your supposed "straw man" arguments, right? And yes, you suggested there were less risky hires available. Re-read your own post before taking shots at someone else for pointing out something that is pretty obvious to anyone who watched it unfold.

Dooley was a proven loser. Only an idiot would hire a proven loser from a lesser conference to come here.

Dooley had taken over one of the countries most futile program and taken them to a bowl in his second year. His third year was marred by injuries which UT must have considered "not his fault". He had been part of championships with Saban. Saban spoke highly of him and wanted to take him to Bama but Dooley chose a lower level HC job instead. He had a pedigree and a name that should have helped him recruit GA.

They took a risk and lost. I am only pointing out what they would have seen looking at which risky hire might be the least risky.

And only a mentally deranged sycophant would still be defending him.

So accepting the reality of the circumstances in which he failed now constitutes being deranged? Disagreeing with you makes someone a deranged sycophant? Your ego is getting the best of you.

And don't give me the whole "no one else wanted the job" BS.

I don't think I have said that. I have said that those doing the hiring could not hire one of the in demand, top shelf HC prospects like Muschamp. There are many who probably would have taken the job. All would have come with some sort of baggage and risks.

If you seriously don't believe we could have found a single winning coach from a lower level or, at the very least, a proven successful coordinator like Malzahn to take this job, then you are either utterly delusional or simply despise UT football.

Seriously, you want to complain about a straw man that I did not in fact construct then you want to pull out the "your not a fan card"? Pretty pathetic.

I am not sure Malzahn would have taken it. You may not like it but just about anyone on that mystical list of lower level coaches and coordinators would have ended up just like Dooley. The situation was ripe for failure. Just be reasonable enough to look at the first two rosters Dooley dealt with. Minus UK, he won the games he "should have" won and very nearly knocked of LSU and UNC which were more talented. There could have been some marginal difference of 1 or 2 wins... but that would have landed them in the same place.

You are throwing stones at those who chose a "bad option" and at the "bad option" himself without even being reasonable enough think in terms of "what if" a different option were chosen. The most likely "good" result from that hire was someone who would leave his replacement in better shape than he started with.

A don't give me this "Dooley took a risk" garbage either. What risk? He had duplicated the 3 year record of the previous guy at La. Tech...the guy who got fired.

The perception of him at the time was not what you think of him now. "Experts" considered him an up and coming coach. He was positively referred by Saban. Muschamp supposedly said he was going to wait on the Texas job then referred them to Dooley.

He was getting better players at LT. If he had shown improvement then likely by now he would have gotten a shot at a bigger program.... oddly enough it could have been UT had someone else been hired.

There was every chance Dooley could have been gone with one more miserable year at La. Tech.

If he had, yes. But in spite of what you seem to think, your assumptions about what "would have happened" are not necessarily true.

Instead, he gets a high profile SEC job, gets to pretend he's qualified to be a big time coach, and gets paid handsomely to run the program into the ground for three years, posting the worst three year record of any coach in UT history while morons take to the net to defend his every failing.

Morons probably do. Morons also act as if he did absolutely nothing right, did not leave the program better than he found it, and is basically the devil incarnate.... sort of like you.

Those who don't operate in the "moron" range of thinking KNOW he failed. DO see his failures, weaknesses, and poor results... but don't ignore everything good just because so much was bad.

He didn't "run it into the ground" btw. It was already there. He didn't fix it... but he was not the one who broke it.

Then, when he runs out of excuses and finally gets his walking papers, he's all set with one of the biggest buyouts in college football history. Yeah, that's some risk he took.

He, and people MUCH SMARTER AND MORE QUALIFIED THAN YOU, agreed to a lower salary and higher buyouts because of the risks.

If Dooley had been the unique individual who could have takent that disaster and won... then he could have been a candidate for any job in the country. OTOH, he knew what he was walking into and wisely negotiated a high buyout.

Again, if there were a clearly better or even equal option in the view of UT and the search firms they employed then he would not have gotten that deal.

 

[sjt18]

Kevin Sumlin did, but we decided a losing WAC coach fresh off a 4-8 season was a better idea. The fact that people still act like that was a defensible choice absolutely blows my mind.

Hindsight = 20/20.

I like Sumlin a great deal. Unless he said "no", I cannot see why Dooley would have been chosen over him either. But Sumlin would have walked into the same disaster, dealt with the same bad rosters, and likely would have been fired too.

 

[sjt18]

He isn't my hero, but he doesn't deserve the pummeling that he is getting from a bunch of idiots who fail to acknowledge the situation that he stepped into.

No... no... don't point out the obvious. If you don't agree that Dooley was evil incarnate then you hold him as a hero. Even if you acknowledge weaknesses and failings and agree that he should have been fired... he's your hero unless you agree with those who hated him from the start.

 

[sjt18]

wouldn't that be the coaches fault?

Yes. If your team quits then it indicates problems with the players but more so with the coach. Dooley was pretty negative by the end of '11 and in '12 after things went down hill. His tendency when unhappy is to use sarcasm. Few people respond positively to constant sarcasm as a means of "motivation".

FTR, does a coach have a choice anymore with regard to players who fail drug tests? I thought they took that out of the coach's hands after Fulmer's numerous debacles?

 

[oregonvol]

Oh, I see making it "personal" is far better than your supposed "straw man" arguments, right? And yes, you suggested there were less risky hires available. Re-read your own post before taking shots at someone else for pointing out something that is pretty obvious to anyone who watched it unfold.

I didn't make anything personal. You tried to put words in my mouth that were never said. That's the only way you Doolovers can argue, by making up what the other side says, pretending people said impossible, insane things like "sure bet coaches were banging on the door" in a poor attempt to offset your own lack of logic.

And I'm not backtracking on my own suggestion that there were less risky hires available. Of course there were. DOOLEY WAS A PROVEN LOSER. What is it that you don't understand about that? A successful DII coach would be less risky. Dooley was a sure-fire failure from the get-go.

Dooley had taken over one of the countries most futile program and taken them to a bowl in his second year. His third year was marred by injuries which UT must have considered "not his fault". He had been part of championships with Saban. Saban spoke highly of him and wanted to take him to Bama but Dooley chose a lower level HC job instead. He had a pedigree and a name that should have helped him recruit GA.

So La Tech was one of the countries most futile programs and getting them bowl eligible was a great achievement? Then how do you explain that they were bowl eligible in 2 of the 3 years preceding Dooley? If futility is gauged by the recent results when Dooley took over, then how were they any less futile when Dooley posted the same record over a three year period. He had 1 winning season and 2 losing seasons. Why would you overlook the most recent example, the most common example, and pretend the single winning season was the rule, instead of the exception? That's patently absurd. And how are "injuries" chiefly responsible for a 4-8 season at a program you've had three years to build up? Plenty of teams have injuries. Rarely do they result in such a poor record, unless there are a multitude of other problems.

And really, you're defending the hire based on his name? As if that was a quality criteria to base a multimillion dollar head coaching hire on? Okay, man...

They took a risk and lost. I am only pointing out what they would have seen looking at which risky hire might be the least risky. So accepting the reality of the circumstances in which he failed now constitutes being deranged? Disagreeing with you makes someone a deranged sycophant? Your ego is getting the best of you.

Once again, it wasn't a risk. It was a certain failure. No one had ever gone from a loser in a minor conference to a winner in the toughest conference. There was absolutely no basis to suspect success.

And I stand by the term "sycophant". After years of progressively worse results (and overall, the worst 3 year record of any coach in UT history), it takes a special kind of devotee to come on here and recite the same old excuses, with the same faulty logic, about how Dooley just didn't have a decent chance to win here.

I don't think I have said that. I have said that those doing the hiring could not hire one of the in demand, top shelf HC prospects like Muschamp. There are many who probably would have taken the job. All would have come with some sort of baggage and risks.

Ah, here it is, the classic faulty logic of Doolovers: "Because coach x wouldn't come here, therefore no coach other than coach y would." There is not a shred of evidence to suggest Malzahn would not have come here. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest Sumlin would have turned the job down. Likewise, for hundreds of coaches who were more qualified and less of a risk than Dooley. Are you seriously proposing that Mike Hamilton secretly interviewed, offered, wooed, etc. all of those prospects in a few days before settling on Dooley?

Obviously, every single coach has baggage and risks. But to say that as a means to justify hiring Dooley (who was a PROVEN LOSER) or to pretend that he was on par with other candidates is utterly ridiculous.

Seriously, you want to complain about a straw man that I did not in fact construct then you want to pull out the "your not a fan card"? Pretty pathetic.

When you use tired, faulty logic to justify the hire of the worst coach in UT history and continue to excuse his failures while pretending that the job is so unattractive that none of the hundreds of better candidates (who could not possibly have been thoroughly vetted or wooed in the time span before Hamilton hired a PROVEN LOSER) would consider taking it, I have to wonder. (Besides, if we're counting times the "you're not a fan" card has been pulled, I'm sure that record is comfortably held by the Doolovers whilst defending their boy).

I am not sure Malzahn would have taken it.

Well, if you're not sure, I guess that's reason enough he wasn't offered. He probably was just waiting for that Arkansas State gig. Make sense.

You may not like it but just about anyone on that mystical list of lower level coaches and coordinators would have ended up just like Dooley. The situation was ripe for failure. Just be reasonable enough to look at the first two rosters Dooley dealt with. Minus UK, he won the games he "should have" won and very nearly knocked of LSU and UNC which were more talented. There could have been some marginal difference of 1 or 2 wins... but that would have landed them in the same place.

More faulty logic. Dooley inherited Kiffin's dream team staff. He inherited a freshman All American left tackle. He inherited a running back who was the top recruit in the country the year previous. He inherited a recruiting class that was filled with early enrollees and commitments who Kiffin had already done the legwork with. It was the highest ranked class Dooley ever signed. He inherited a team quite capable of wiping the floor with the Vanderbilts of the world. And three years later, he was getting demolished by Vanderbilt.

It wasn't what he inherited, it was what he did. If the problem was what he inherited, then his first season should have been the worst, not his third.

You are throwing stones at those who chose a "bad option" and at the "bad option" himself without even being reasonable enough think in terms of "what if" a different option were chosen. The most likely "good" result from that hire was someone who would leave his replacement in better shape than he started with.

We'll never know "what if" an actual coach had been hired, unfortunately. But we do know that good coaches actually improve their team over time (and by "improve" I mean their record gets better, since there seems to be some confusion here about the notion of "improvement", with you arguing about how Dooley improved things). They don't take a team that hasn't lost to Kentucky in over two decades and lose. They don't get blown out by Vanderbilt, the biggest loss to them in nearly a hundred years. They don't keep bringing in lower ranked recruiting classes each year. They don't post the worst 3 year record in school history.

The perception of him at the time was not what you think of him now. "Experts" considered him an up and coming coach. He was positively referred by Saban. Muschamp supposedly said he was going to wait on the Texas job then referred them to Dooley.

What perception? No other major program was interviewing him. He wasn't offered any other big job. Coaches coming off a 4-8 record in a minor conference aren't looked at by anybody. No one wanted him.

Plenty of fans said that this wouldn't work the moment he was hired. Plenty of our rivals' fans celebrated. Oh, but Saban said he was good and he'd like to play him? All right then...

He was getting better players at LT. If he had shown improvement then likely by now he would have gotten a shot at a bigger program.... oddly enough it could have been UT had someone else been hired.

Yeah, and if he had suddenly discovered the cure for cancer, we'd build statues of him...but there was no reason to suspect that would happen.

If he had, yes. But in spite of what you seem to think, your assumptions about what "would have happened" are not necessarily true.

Morons probably do. Morons also act as if he did absolutely nothing right, did not leave the program better than he found it, and is basically the devil incarnate.... sort of like you.

What did he do right? He added depth to the roster? Sure. Anyone could have done that. Our roster was depleted by the Cutcliffe changeover, then the Fulmer firing, then Kiffin running kids off, then Kiffn leaving and us hiring someone lots of kids could immediately see wasn't qualified for the job. Yeah, we lacked depth.

But are you suggesting someone was going to come in and not sign 25 guys each year? I mean, with million dollar facilities and the highest recruiting budget in America, yeah I think pretty much anyone could add depth to the roster. Good job Daryl!

I'm not suggesting he didn't do anything right, but I have a hard time seeing anything he accomplished that any third rate coach would not have.

Those who don't operate in the "moron" range of thinking KNOW he failed. DO see his failures, weaknesses, and poor results... but don't ignore everything good just because so much was bad.

He didn't "run it into the ground" btw. It was already there. He didn't fix it... but he was not the one who broke it.

Once again, he took a team that was more than capable of beating Vanderbilt. Who has always had more talent than them and always will. And by year 3, he was getting demolished by them.

The record was worse every year. The recruting rankings were worse, every year. How is he not responsible for this?

He, and people MUCH SMARTER AND MORE QUALIFIED THAN YOU, agreed to a lower salary and higher buyouts because of the risks.

You mean smart folks like Mike Hamilton who also gave Fulmer a record buyout? And that "lower salary" was how much more than he was making at La Tech? More than double? Yeah, he took a huge risk there.

If Dooley had been the unique individual who could have takent that disaster and won... then he could have been a candidate for any job in the country. OTOH, he knew what he was walking into and wisely negotiated a high buyout.

Again, if there were a clearly better or even equal option in the view of UT and the search firms they employed then he would not have gotten that deal.

Ah, the big finish. Some more classic Doolover logic: if Hamilton and the search firms hired him, then he must have been a smart hire right? I'm glad you're comfortable with the logic that if an AD who made countless mistakes and a search firm whose history of hiring successful coaches is unknown hired candidate X, then that must mean that candidate x was better than any other candidate.

And with that, there really is no more point in trying to engage with you in a logical manner. Good day.

 

[overseasorange]

I didn't make anything personal. You tried to put words in my mouth that were never said. That's the only way you Doolovers can argue, by making up what the other side says, pretending people said impossible, insane things like "sure bet coaches were banging on the door" in a poor attempt to offset your own lack of logic.

And I'm not backtracking on my own suggestion that there were less risky hires available. Of course there were. DOOLEY WAS A PROVEN LOSER. What is it that you don't understand about that? A successful DII coach would be less risky. Dooley was a sure-fire failure from the get-go.






So La Tech was one of the countries most futile programs and getting them bowl eligible was a great achievement? Then how do you explain that they were bowl eligible in 2 of the 3 years preceding Dooley? If futility is gauged by the recent results when Dooley took over, then how were they any less futile when Dooley posted the same record over a three year period. He had 1 winning season and 2 losing seasons. Why would you overlook the most recent example, the most common example, and pretend the single winning season was the rule, instead of the exception? That's patently absurd. And how are "injuries" chiefly responsible for a 4-8 season at a program you've had three years to build up? Plenty of teams have injuries. Rarely do they result in such a poor record, unless there are a multitude of other problems.

And really, you're defending the hire based on his name? As if that was a quality criteria to base a multimillion dollar head coaching hire on? Okay, man...



Once again, it wasn't a risk. It was a certain failure. No one had ever gone from a loser in a minor conference to a winner in the toughest conference. There was absolutely no basis to suspect success.

And I stand by the term "sycophant". After years of progressively worse results (and overall, the worst 3 year record of any coach in UT history), it takes a special kind of devotee to come on here and recite the same old excuses, with the same faulty logic, about how Dooley just didn't have a decent chance to win here.



Ah, here it is, the classic faulty logic of Doolovers: "Because coach x wouldn't come here, therefore no coach other than coach y would." There is not a shred of evidence to suggest Malzahn would not have come here. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest Sumlin would have turned the job down. Likewise, for hundreds of coaches who were more qualified and less of a risk than Dooley. Are you seriously proposing that Mike Hamilton secretly interviewed, offered, wooed, etc. all of those prospects in a few days before settling on Dooley?

Obviously, every single coach has baggage and risks. But to say that as a means to justify hiring Dooley (who was a PROVEN LOSER) or to pretend that he was on par with other candidates is utterly ridiculous.



When you use tired, faulty logic to justify the hire of the worst coach in UT history and continue to excuse his failures while pretending that the job is so unattractive that none of the hundreds of better candidates (who could not possibly have been thoroughly vetted or wooed in the time span before Hamilton hired a PROVEN LOSER) would consider taking it, I have to wonder. (Besides, if we're counting times the "you're not a fan" card has been pulled, I'm sure that record is comfortably held by the Doolovers whilst defending their boy).



Well, if you're not sure, I guess that's reason enough he wasn't offered. He probably was just waiting for that Arkansas State gig. Make sense.



More faulty logic. Dooley inherited Kiffin's dream team staff. He inherited a freshman All American left tackle. He inherited a running back who was the top recruit in the country the year previous. He inherited a recruiting class that was filled with early enrollees and commitments who Kiffin had already done the legwork with. It was the highest ranked class Dooley ever signed. He inherited a team quite capable of wiping the floor with the Vanderbilts of the world. And three years later, he was getting demolished by Vanderbilt.

It wasn't what he inherited, it was what he did. If the problem was what he inherited, then his first season should have been the worst, not his third.



We'll never know "what if" an actual coach had been hired, unfortunately. But we do know that good coaches actually improve their team over time (and by "improve" I mean their record gets better, since there seems to be some confusion here about the notion of "improvement", with you arguing about how Dooley improved things). They don't take a team that hasn't lost to Kentucky in over two decades and lose. They don't get blown out by Vanderbilt, the biggest loss to them in nearly a hundred years. They don't keep bringing in lower ranked recruiting classes each year. They don't post the worst 3 year record in school history.



What perception? No other major program was interviewing him. He wasn't offered any other big job. Coaches coming off a 4-8 record in a minor conference aren't looked at by anybody. No one wanted him.

Plenty of fans said that this wouldn't work the moment he was hired. Plenty of our rivals' fans celebrated. Oh, but Saban said he was good and he'd like to play him? All right then...



Yeah, and if he had suddenly discovered the cure for cancer, we'd build statues of him...but there was no reason to suspect that would happen.



What did he do right? He added depth to the roster? Sure. Anyone could have done that. Our roster was depleted by the Cutcliffe changeover, then the Fulmer firing, then Kiffin running kids off, then Kiffn leaving and us hiring someone lots of kids could immediately see wasn't qualified for the job. Yeah, we lacked depth.

But are you suggesting someone was going to come in and not sign 25 guys each year? I mean, with million dollar facilities and the highest recruiting budget in America, yeah I think pretty much anyone could add depth to the roster. Good job Daryl!

I'm not suggesting he didn't do anything right, but I have a hard time seeing anything he accomplished that any third rate coach would not have.



Once again, he took a team that was more than capable of beating Vanderbilt. Who has always had more talent than them and always will. And by year 3, he was getting demolished by them.

The record was worse every year. The recruting rankings were worse, every year. How is he not responsible for this?




You mean smart folks like Mike Hamilton who also gave Fulmer a record buyout? And that "lower salary" was how much more than he was making at La Tech? More than double? Yeah, he took a huge risk there.



Ah, the big finish. Some more classic Doolover logic: if Hamilton and the search firms hired him, then he must have been a smart hire right? I'm glad you're comfortable with the logic that if an AD who made countless mistakes and a search firm whose history of hiring successful coaches is unknown hired candidate X, then that must mean that candidate x was better than any other candidate.

And with that, there really is no more point in trying to engage with you in a logical manner. Good day.

Holy smokes. You have some spear time on your hands....

 

[ManningBerry#1]

My goodness man. Do you need a new keyboard now?

 

[sjt18]

I didn't make anything personal.

So saying someone acted like a 5 year old and calling them a moron isn't personal?

And then try this gem:

That's the only way you Doolovers can argue, by making up what the other side says, pretending people said impossible, insane things like "sure bet coaches were banging on the door" in a poor attempt to offset your own lack of logic.

And... I still didn't put words in your mouth. You implied there were clearly better options than Dooley. All I said was that out of a bunch of bad options... someome smarter than you took a risk that he was the best one.

And I'm not backtracking on my own suggestion that there were less risky hires available.

Name them. You can't because you don't know. You assume then bash me because I don't bow to the "logic" of accepting unfounded opinions derived of nothing apparent but a hatred of Dooley.

Of course there were. DOOLEY WAS A PROVEN LOSER. What is it that you don't understand about that? A successful DII coach would be less risky. Dooley was a sure-fire failure from the get-go.

Not real interested in posting the same info you've already ignored. I answered this with what I believe was the logic used by those in charge.

So La Tech was one of the countries most futile programs and getting them bowl eligible was a great achievement? ... Rarely do they result in such a poor record, unless there are a multitude of other problems.

Just so we are both clear... I didn't have anything to do with Dooley being hired. I CAN see the circumstances he was brought into. They would have been the same regardless of who was hired.

I predicted 3 years ago that he would likely be fired by now. That makes me a "Doolover" right? I have mentioned numerous things he did wrong and flaws in him as a coach. That makes me a "Doolover", right?

And really, you're defending the hire based on his name? As if that was a quality criteria to base a multimillion dollar head coaching hire on? Okay, man...

No. I am giving you reasons that might have been considered. The name "Dooley" could get the right salesman's foot in the door with alot of GA HSFB coaches.

Once again, it wasn't a risk. It was a certain failure. No one had ever gone from a loser in a minor conference to a winner in the toughest conference. There was absolutely no basis to suspect success.

No. It wasn't a "certain" failure. However anyone hired faced a very, very high likelihood of failure. Dooley didn't look bad that first year. He had a very young team that very easily could have won 8 games. Things looked pretty good until Hunter's injury in '11. From there, the key issue IMO became Dooley's sliding attitude. After a few disappointments last fall, he flat out quit. I mean how can you get to game 8 or 9 before you start attending the defensive unit meetings?

Those are hard things to predict from the other end of his hiring.

And I stand by the term "sycophant". After years of progressively worse results (and overall, the worst 3 year record of any coach in UT history), it takes a special kind of devotee to come on here and recite the same old excuses, with the same faulty logic, about how Dooley just didn't have a decent chance to win here.

Stop lying. The situation was bad. PERIOD. It would have been bad no matter who was the coach... and that would not have made me or some of the others "sycophants" for those coaches either. Dooley failed and was fired. The only problem I have with that is that it wasn't done after the USCe game.

He didn't have a decent chance to win at UT the first two years. That's not what got him fired. No rational person would have thought that great results were possible those first two years. Year 3 is what got him fired and SHOULD HAVE gotten him fired. He had a very good roster, made an incredibly stupid DC hire, and underperformed the talent he had by at least 4 games and possibly as many as 6.

Ah, here it is, the classic faulty logic of Doolovers: "Because coach x wouldn't come here, therefore no coach other than coach y would."

NOt what I said... but I guess it is OK when you put words in people's mouths, huh? Seeing as you are an expert on strawman arguments.

There is not a shred of evidence to suggest Malzahn would not have come here.

Except that he didn't. You have no "evidence" proving he was not approached. Unlike Sumlin, I would not have wanted Malzahn. I never said I wanted Dooley before or after the hire either. I would have preferred the program not have been a dumpster fire in '10.

There is not a shred of evidence to suggest Sumlin would have turned the job down.

You do know this is another fallacious debate tactic, right? You cannot disprove a negative. And again, you do not know that he was not approached and considered it a bad career move. Things seem to have worked out for him and Malzahn.

Likewise, for hundreds of coaches who were more qualified and less of a risk than Dooley. Are you seriously proposing that Mike Hamilton secretly interviewed, offered, wooed, etc. all of those prospects in a few days before settling on Dooley?

No. Because that isn't the way it is done. "Representatives" of the UTAD contact agents "off the record" to gauge interest. Neither the coach nor the school wants to be publicly rejected.

I am honest enough to admit that I DON'T know exactly what happened. I DO know that the people who made the decision who are smarter than you and had more information than you chose Dooley as the best guy available to them.

When you use tired, faulty logic to justify the hire of the worst coach in UT history and continue to excuse his failures

Well, no. Again, you either have a problem with honesty or reading comprehension... and then you whine about "strawmen"?

I am trying to explain why he was hired. I have NOT excused his failures... at all. I AM honest enough to recognize that the circumstances were terrible... you apparently aren't.

while pretending that the job is so unattractive that none of the hundreds of better candidates (who could not possibly have been thoroughly vetted or wooed in the time span before Hamilton hired a PROVEN LOSER) would consider taking it,

I never said anything about 100 possibilities. You did. The job was not attractive. That is a fact regardless of what you think. The decimated roster resulting from Fulmer's recruiting failures assured 2 very difficult seasons. If you can get a job at UF or some other big time program with a decent foundation... you don't risk your career on UT at that time. That would have been incredibly stupid.

I have to wonder. (Besides, if we're counting times the "you're not a fan" card has been pulled, I'm sure that record is comfortably held by the Doolovers whilst defending their boy).

Not a Doolover... and the only time I have questioned someone's intelligence about the way they argued is when they harped to the point of hurting recruiting.

 

[sjt18]

Once again, he took a team that was more than capable of beating Vanderbilt. Who has always had more talent than them and always will. And by year 3, he was getting demolished by them.

The record was worse every year. The recruting rankings were worse, every year. How is he not responsible for this?

Are you really this dishonest, do you not read what you respond to, or do you have reading comprehension that bad?

You mean smart folks like Mike Hamilton who also gave Fulmer a record buyout?

I didn't say he was smart... just much smarter than you.

Ah, the big finish. Some more classic Doolover logic: if Hamilton and the search firms hired him, then he must have been a smart hire right?

No. And I didn't say that either. It turned out to be a very bad hire. So what is that now... 4 or 5 straw man arguments you've made after protesting straw man arguments?

I'm glad you're comfortable with the logic that if an AD who made countless mistakes and a search firm whose history of hiring successful coaches is unknown hired candidate X, then that must mean that candidate x was better than any other candidate.

They made the choice based on the information they considered most important. They failed and have paid the consequences. Your 20/20 hindsight does not make you smarter than they were while trying to make the decision.

And with that, there really is no more point in trying to engage with you in a logical manner. Good day.

No more point? You might try the first time... after acknowledging the situation that existed in the wake of Kiffin's departure in January 2010.