If we go 4 - 8 do we fire Butch? (merged)

#352
#352
Vol4life25 said:
I don't feel like looking it up, but Fulmer's record without Cuttcliffe is still ALOT better then Dooley, the dude is trying to argue that Dooley is just as good as Fulmer.
Click to expand...

I was not arguing that Dooley was as good as Fulmer. The original question was "Would we have been better if we had Fulmer instead of Kiffin/Dooley?" Based on the end of his tenure, I don't think our record over the last 4 years would have been that much different had we not fired Coach Fulmer.
 
#353
#353
orange parmejohn said:
along with every other aspect of the program, Dooley's recruiting was going downhill. one more year and we would be getting the **** kicked out of us by the likes of Vanderbilt. oh wait a minute..
Click to expand...

Dooley's classes were in line with Fulmer's with respect to "stars". They were better than Fulmer's with regard to "character". And he did that while losing.

"Every" respect of the program was not going downhill. From the day hired to the day fired, the roster improved. He is not a good HC. However he leaves the program better than he found it.

However, his 2013 effort was extremely poor and got worse. I think he knew for some time that he wasn't coming back and just plain quit recruiting.
 
#354
#354
volleyvol said:
I was not arguing that Dooley was as good as Fulmer. The original question was "Would we have been better if we had Fulmer instead of Kiffin/Dooley?" Based on the end of his tenure, I don't think our record over the last 4 years would have been that much different had we not fired Coach Fulmer.
Click to expand...

That's basically saying Dooley is just as good as Fulmer...

Saying the last 4 years with Fulmer= as good as Dooley is still asinine .
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#357
#357
Vol4life25 said:
I don't feel like looking it up, but Fulmer's record without Cuttcliffe is still ALOT better then Dooley, the dude is trying to argue that Dooley is just as good as Fulmer.
Click to expand...

Fulmer's record was better. I don't think anyone is arguing that. At worst, someone may be arguing that you can't really compare because of the condition of the program when DD arrived. Fulmer had run it into the ditch so it is hard to know how he might have done in "normal" circumstances. I am satisfied by what we saw that DD was never going to be a championship coach at UT under any circumstance... and that is all UT should accept.

Fulmer was a better coach than Dooley though without Cut he was pretty mediocre and down right poor at discipline.

That said, Fulmer never dealt with a roster as poor as those he left to Kiffin and Dooley. Dooley's recruiting from '10 to '12 was better (effective) than the last 3 years of Fulmer.

For the 08 and 09 classes, Fulmer only managed to get commits from 9 linemen TOTAL D&O. Six were 3*. One was 4*. Two were 2*... for an avg of 2.9*. His "great" 07 OL class had one 5*, four 4*, two 3*, and a 2*. Martin underproduced his rating. Hall, Williams, Melancon, Langley, Brimfield, and Sawtelle (all of the 4*) never produced.

By comparison, Dooley leaves the OL and DL pretty well stocked with talent, size, and strength.
 
#358
#358
You're not even giving Caoch Jones a chance and already thinking of firing him and the staff because of what you think. Give the coach a chance. UT, unfortunately, gave Dooley 3 years and maybe that was a year too long. I think Coach Jones based on his recruiting deserves at least 3 years. Of course, it's not all the coaching staffs fault. One also has to consider the players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#359
#359
volleyvol said:
I was not arguing that Dooley was as good as Fulmer. The original question was "Would we have been better if we had Fulmer instead of Kiffin/Dooley?" Based on the end of his tenure, I don't think our record over the last 4 years would have been that much different had we not fired Coach Fulmer.
Click to expand...

The record would not have been much if any better. Recruiting would have likely been much worse. The program without much doubt would have been in a deeper hole than it currently is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#361
#361
One thing is for sure - here in East TN, Fulmer knew who the HS coaches were and knew something about their families, whereas Dooley didn't know the head coach from the popcorn salesman.

But that was then....I'm liking the now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#362
#362
sjt18 said:
The record would not have been much if any better. Recruiting would have likely been much worse. The program without much doubt would have been in a deeper hole than it currently is.
Click to expand...

This is great fantasy writing. George RR Martin would be proud of this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#363
#363
sjt18 said:
The record would not have been much if any better. Recruiting would have likely been much worse. The program without much doubt would have been in a deeper hole than it currently is.
Click to expand...

I actually agree. But Fulmer was way past the point of being done. That doesn't mean Dooley did anything well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#367
#367
1972 Grad said:
Right! Dooley took a team loaded with NFL talent, deep at every position, and drove it right in the ground. We would have won it all with a good coach.
Click to expand...

What your sarcasm eludes to is not the point.

The point is that Dooley could have done alot better with the talent that he had...most notable with last years team. They had the talent to win 2 to 4 more games. All they had to do was field a mediocre defense and control the game pace/clock with their offense.

Being fundamentally sound and having a sound philosophy does not require NFL talent and depth. It does not guarantee wins ...but you wont get wins if you dont have those things. Those were two things the Dooley regime did not bring to the table.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#368
#368
1972 Grad said:
Right! Dooley took a team loaded with NFL talent, deep at every position, and drove it right in the ground. We would have won it all with a good coach.
Click to expand...

Zook took over a very talented team and left behind a really talented team. Dooley took over a bad team and left behind a bad team.

To me, they're not that different, except that Zook was a better recruiter and (to my knowledge) didn't have his team on the verge of academic ineligibility. He also took a team to a Rose Bowl, something Dooley will never ever ever do in his life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#369
#369
tvolsfan said:
I actually agree. But Fulmer was way past the point of being done. That doesn't mean Dooley did anything well.
Click to expand...

Fantasy.

People forget when Hambone pulled the trigger, Fulmer already had lined up a Top-10 class that met needs at the time and had a better collegiate QB than Bray.

Kiffin destroyed that class and the roster in his Sherman-esque "March through Knoxville".

Both you and sjt have second careers waiting if you apply your talents and make the right contacts, if you truly believe your last couple of posts.

(Why is there still a VN contingent that grossly underestimates the damage Kiffin did on the Hill?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#373
#373
1972 Grad said:
Right! Dooley took a team loaded with NFL talent, deep at every position, and drove it right in the ground. We would have won it all with a good coach.
Click to expand...

No, but a good, competent coach and recruiter wouldn't have recorded 3 consecutive losing seasons at UT for the first time since 1912.
 
#374
#374
Eddie Vol Halen said:
Fantasy.

People forget when Hambone pulled the trigger, Fulmer already had lined up a Top-10 class that met needs at the time and had a better collegiate QB than Bray.

Kiffin destroyed that class and the roster in his Sherman-esque "March through Knoxville".

Both you and sjt have second careers waiting if you apply your talents and make the right contacts, if you truly believe your last couple of posts.

(Why is there still a VN contingent that grossly underestimates the damage Kiffin did on the Hill?)
Click to expand...

I like this guy ^ no homo
 
#375
#375
KBVol said:
No, but a good, competent coach and recruiter wouldn't have recorded 3 consecutive losing seasons at UT for the first time since 1912.
Click to expand...
You are probably correct about that, and I am not saying that Dooley was a terriffic coach. However, he did inherit a program which had 7 losses and 6 losses the previous 2 years. Dooley lost 7 each year. There was a tremendous amount of attrition from the changes in coaching staffs, and a thin roster which was really decimated by key injuries in 2011. I would say that a good, competent coach may have been able to win 2 or 3 more games over the first 2 years.
If the good, competent coach , or even Dooley, had been able to retain his defensive staff into the third year, and kept Bray happy, he may have won 3 more in 2012.
I think that for someone to say that a coach was the worst hire in the SEC in the last 30 years, when his record was similar to the 2 years before he got there is just wrong. If a coach took over a good solid program with a full roster in every class, and a 10-2 record the previous 2 years, and turned it into what it is now, I would agree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top