Fulmer's last recruiting class...

#1
M

MrBamSeydu

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
3,941
Likes
0
#1
Half these guys will never see the field (either gone already or future back-up players) and the other half strike me as guys who will probably get beat out soon by incoming freshmen.

I think there were 3 solid pickups....

Douglas (obvious beast next year)
Hughes (has upside)
A. Johnson (good hands, nice future)

We recruited G. Williams since 1974 so I'm not counting him and I'm giving Coach O the credit for getting Walls here...

I don't want to hear anything about Bohannon or Waggner. Kentucky can have them right after our bowl game. Carson Anderson? Really? He and Bartholomew are here because of their history with UT. Poole was beat out by two freshmen (fairly or unfairly... I say fairly) and although I like Lathers, I think he has ALOT of work to do to be considered a good LB.

Lest we forget, this is what Kiffin is working with. Not to even mention the QB recruiting Fulmer did the last few years he was here.

Scout.com: Football Recruiting
 
Last edited:
#4
#4
My goodness, I had no Idea it was that bad! Thanks Phil, appreciate the cupboard having some stale sun chips, a can of diet shasta orange, and a few fig newtons left at least..geeze
 
#6
#6
His last recruiting class was horrible. He had another bad class two years before that. Beginning of the end for Phil
 
#9
#9
Alot of you guys loathe Fulmer and love Chavis. Chavis' laziness in recruiting has much more to do with the talent drop off than Fulmer's recruiting effort. He failed at leading his staff but Fulmer worked his tail off recruiting. It just wasn't working any more for him and one or two others to bring in all the talent. Everyone else had staffs who shared the recruiting effort more equally.

Chavis' recruiting laziness was compounded by bringing Cut back. He was never a "great" recruiter and also knew he was short term in K'ville.

I'm not exactly sure what you would have against Bohannon, Waggner, Poole, or Lathers. All three contributed this year as true Sophs/RS Fr. I'm still not sure why Poole didn't get more of a chance other than him not being CLK's guy.
 
#10
#10
MrBamSeydu said:
Half these guys will never see the field (either gone already or future back-up players) and the other half strike me as guys who will probably get beat out soon by incoming freshmen.

I think there were 3 solid pickups....

Douglas (obvious beast next year)
Hughes (has upside)
A. Johnson (good hands, nice future)

We recruited G. Williams since 1974 so I'm not counting him and I'm giving Coach O the credit for getting Walls here...

I don't want to hear anything about Bohannon or Waggner. Kentucky can have them right after our bowl game. Carson Anderson? Really? He and Bartholomew are here because of their history with UT. Poole was beat out by two freshmen (fairly or unfairly... I say fairly) and although I like Lathers, I think he has ALOT of work to do to be considered a good LB.

Lest we forget, this is what Kiffin is working with. Not to even mention the QB recruiting Fulmer did the last few years he was here.

Scout.com: Football Recruiting
Click to expand...

It has been over a year, so my one question is what exactly is the purpose of this thread? You not think it has been talked about enough already?:horse:
 
#11
#11
WPAINE said:
It has been over a year, so my one question is what exactly is the purpose of this thread? You not think it has been talked about enough already?:horse:
Click to expand...

Until we've fought through the lack of talent and depth he left, its relevant. He is responsible for the mess this program became over the last few years, and until Kiffin has 4 classes under his belt, fulmer will stiill have some responsibility for our results.
 
#13
#13
General Jack said:
Until we've fought through the lack of talent and depth he left, its relevant. He is responsible for the mess this program became over the last few years, and until Kiffin has 4 classes under his belt, fulmer will stiill have some responsibility for our results.
Click to expand...

Precisely.
 
#15
#15
General Jack said:
Until we've fought through the lack of talent and depth he left, its relevant. He is responsible for the mess this program became over the last few years, and until Kiffin has 4 classes under his belt, fulmer will stiill have some responsibility for our results.
Click to expand...

well keep in mind that about a dozen players left during the shift of power, so the depth is both Fulmer's fault and also just a natural occurence during coaching changes... You can say all you want that it was b/c Kiffin was "so much more harder" etc etc but it happens everywhere.... And last I checked we won 19 games in 2006 and 2007. Yes, the program went down from the 1990's, but don't be so blinded by your love for Kiffin that you overlook these parts. You can talk all you want about how bad the 2008 class was, but the 2007 class panned out alright.
 
#18
#18
sjt18 said:
I'm not exactly sure what you would have against Bohannon, Waggner, Poole, or Lathers. All three contributed this year as true Sophs/RS Fr. I'm still not sure why Poole didn't get more of a chance other than him not being CLK's guy.
Click to expand...

You want contributors, I want domination. That's just the difference between you and I, friend.

As far as Poole "not being Kiffin's guy", don't give me that. Kiffin plays the best players, period. Poole goes out and busts long plays at washup time. He got beat out by two freshmen and it will be three when Toney Williams is back at 100%.

He was a 3* coming out of HS and is a 3* in college. He's a decent back but gimme the 3 freshmen all day, everyday, 7 days a week.
 
#20
#20
WPAINE said:
well keep in mind that about a dozen players left during the shift of power, so the depth is both Fulmer's fault and also just a natural occurence during coaching changes... You can say all you want that it was b/c Kiffin was "so much more harder" etc etc but it happens everywhere.... And last I checked we won 19 games in 2006 and 2007. Yes, the program went down from the 1990's, but don't be so blinded by your love for Kiffin that you overlook these parts. You can talk all you want about how bad the 2008 class was, but the 2007 class panned out alright.
Click to expand...

Depth? hahahaha.

You mean like the Sullins twins?

Or all those QBs we have in waiting?

Let me guess, next you're going to say Kiffin should've let Coleman start so we'd have our first Heisman winner this year.

Depth...psssh.... tell that to all the freshmen starting, brobot.
 
Last edited:
#21
#21
MrBamSeydu said:
Depth? hahahaha.

You mean like the Sullins twins?

Or all those QBs we have in waiting?

Let me guess, next you're going to say Kiffin should've let Coleman start so we'd have our first Heisman winner this year.

Depth...psssh.... tell that to all the freshmen starting, brobot.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to think this isn't going to be worth my time, but here goes. Depth was an issue this year for sure, but how do you blame Fulmer for the 12 people that left or transferred between last year and this year? No, Coleman would not have started would he would have provided depth. We also would have had Boyd here as well. Again, not saying Kiffin was wrong for letting Coleman go or for not taking Boyd, but as far as depth is concerned they would have helped.

In another post you said you wanted domination? So you wanted everyone that Fulmer signed in arguably the worst signing class of his tenure to dominate? Be realistic man, that is absurd.

And when you tell me to say that to ALL the freshman that are starting, do you mean the 1 true freshman (Jackson)? Every other starter was a Fulmer recruit. But, again, I hate to mess up your "lets see who can prove their love for Kiffin the most by bashing Fulmer" thread, so please, continue....

By the way what does me living and going to school in Cambridge have anything to do with it? Or was that just a personal shot? just curious
 
#23
#23
Rock33 said:
I'm interested ..................
Click to expand...

I feel like I've been having this debate for well over a year, and those that know me on here (not many, don't post that often) know that I have nothing against Kiffin - that may change if we are stripped of all our asst. coaches except monte, however - but really have a problem with people that feel the need to bash Fulmer in order to prove how much they love Kiffin....
 
#24
#24
WPAINE said:
I'm starting to think this isn't going to be worth my time, but here goes. Depth was an issue this year for sure, but how do you blame Fulmer for the 12 people that left or transferred between last year and this year? No, Coleman would not have started would he would have provided depth. We also would have had Boyd here as well. Again, not saying Kiffin was wrong for letting Coleman go or for not taking Boyd, but as far as depth is concerned they would have helped.

In another post you said you wanted domination? So you wanted everyone that Fulmer signed in arguably the worst signing class of his tenure to dominate? Be realistic man, that is absurd.

And when you tell me to say that to ALL the freshman that are starting, do you mean the 1 true freshman (Jackson)? Every other starter was a Fulmer recruit. But, again, I hate to mess up your "lets see who can prove their love for Kiffin the most by bashing Fulmer" thread, so please, continue....

By the way what does me living and going to school in Cambridge have anything to do with it? Or was that just a personal shot? just curious
Click to expand...


Bryce Brown is a bracketed starter.

David Oku started on KO returns all season.

Nuke started PR until he robbed someone at gunpoint.

Greg King has started at LB.

Montori Hughes started in place of Dan Williams (made him mad and turned him into a possible first day draft pick after that) Fulmer recruited him but Kiffin signed him

I want to say Teague started in the opener at WR. If he didn't, Nuke did.


In all seriousness the Cambridge thing was uncalled for and immature of me... and pointless. So I apologize.

But for every freshmen I just listed that "started" I could make another list of freshmen that played serious roles (especially on special teams and defense). Fulmer never played that many freshmen because he didn't have to. He always had depth until the tail-end of his career, which by the way, is my entire point for this thread. It wasn't to bash Fulmer. It was to point out what Lane Kiffin is working with. You can find that in the opening post of my thread.

Coleman wouldn't have provided depth, just as Nick Stephens and Lamaison didn't. We didn't use a backup except in mop up duty (like Tauren Poole). I consider "depth" something I would feel confident in using. Depth doesn't mean 2nd and 3rd stringers. Everyone has that. Depth means those 2nd and 3rd strings can step in without much dropoff. I wouldn't feel confident in B.J. Coleman against Alabama (please see his stats in the UTC vs Bama game). I wouldn't have wanted Poole to have had 200 carries this year.

As for the "domination" thing. No, I do not expect Fulmer's players (2008 class) to dominate. I expect Kiffin's players to dominate.

Sorry to have offended you, but unfortunately I am correct. :hi:
 
#25
#25
Bohannon is good. He's just got some solid guys in front of him. I wouldn't write him off so soon.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top