Love this Dooley quote

Status
Not open for further replies.
#277
#277
I don't understand why everyone has to be on one side or the other on all these coaches.

Why can't you think Fulmer was a good coach, but lost his touch late in his career and needed to go. But also think that Kiffin and his staff had the make-up and coaching ability to bring UT back to the top if they had stayed and also believe that Dooley could be a great hire to?

It feels like you have to either be all Fulmer, all Kiffin, or all Dooley.

I think the circumstances around our program have been rough lately, but I don't think Kiffin or Dooley are terrible.

Kiffin would have done great here, but he left so we will never know.

I also think (although he is very different than LK) Dooley can be very succesful here at Tennessee if given time to get us out of the hole that we are in.

Does anyone else see it this way?
 
#278
#278
Ericvol2096 said:
I don't understand why everyone has to be on one side or the other on all these coaches.
Click to expand...

because if you don't stake your claim now you can't pull out the "I told you so" card in a few years. No room for fence sitters
 
#279
#279
The entire we had a better coaching staff argument is getting so old when referring to Kiffin's regime. You could argue against Ole Miss, UCLA, Auburn, and Va Tech we definitely had the "better" coaching staff. More BCS game appearances, more title game appearances and what not. Talent was even with all four teams, with maybe Va Tech having more talent. The only game we won last year out coaching the other team was Georgia. That staff looked at Tennessee like it was a rental car.

They were going to drive the crap out of it with no regard for how they turned it back in just to get where they were going. Dooley comes in after being highly regarded by the coach who just won the national title and can't get any respect from his own fans. What a joke. Phil Fulmer has more National Title games and SEC titles than Kiffin, O, and Monte combined. Bring him back. (No I'm not a Phil guy.)

I find it unbelievable that everyone knows how big a failure he is going to be before he has had a chance to coach. These are the same guys who welcomed in a coach who was so terrible in Oakland even Al Davis said he sucked. Monte is still getting money from the NFL from McCluster for helping him get drafted so high by providing a high light film against Tennessee.
 
#280
#280
I am still interested to hear who hatvol would have liked us to hire. With all the big names beating down to door to be the next coach of UT and with all that time we had before national signing day...who would you have hired?
 
#281
#281
utvolpj said:
because if you don't stake your claim now you can't pull out the "I told you so" card in a few years. No room for fence sitters
Click to expand...

That's fair, but does it make you a fence sitter to think that the last staff was good and this one will be as well??? You are taking a position on both...it just seems as though the people who are on Dooley's bandwagon have to trash the previous staff (even if they weren't doing it when they were here). And the people that still want to say the last staff was great feel they need to trash the current staff.

I thougth LK and crew were going to get us back to the top, but they left, does that mean I was wrong?

I also think that Dooley has a plan to restore us to the SEC elite...does that make me CRAZZZZY???:crazy:
 
#282
#282
That staff looked at Tennessee like it was a rental car.

They were going to drive the crap out of it with no regard for how they turned it back in just to get where they were going.
Click to expand...

Funny that you mention it, considering Kiffin's track record with rental cars. So would that make Aaron Douglas and Bryce Brown the underage coeds that he duped to get in the car with him and then rushed away from the scene of the accident before the cops showed?
 
#283
#283
VolFan_N_NC said:
Funny that you mention it, considering Kiffin's track record with rental cars. So would that make Aaron Douglas and Bryce Brown the underage coeds that he duped to get in the car with him and then rushed away from the scene of the accident before the cops showed?
Click to expand...

lol You took my analogy to a place I could not... :eek:lol:
 
#284
#284
hatvol96 said:
Translation: "My claims to fame are that my father rode Herschel Walker's coattails to being the most overrated coach in SEC history and my mother is a loudmouthed Paula Deen wannabe. I couldn't stay ahead of Idaho in the WAC. So, I'll dumb down expectations regarding recruiting by playing to the orange overall wearing clowns who think "heart" trumps talent. That way, I can make it seem the mediocre rosters I assemble are the result of design and not rank incompetence."
Click to expand...

41,000 posts.way too much time on your hands.:snoring:
 
#285
#285
sjt18 said:
You guys must be imagining things. hatvol isn't posting about football anymore.

FTR, Dooley was at strike two with hatvol the minute he spoke and that twang came out. hatvol's history is to assume anyone with a southern accent is incompetent and stupid then only grudgingly give it up if the guy acts enough like a non-southerner to suit him.

It is very unlikely that Dooley will ever satisfy hatvol regardless of what he does.
Click to expand...

Hat is a criminal defense lawyer, is he not? His job is to make opinion seem to be fact and trivialize any information that contradicts his case. Sounds like one of my old roommates (a nice guy, BTW). Anybody who hates "W" can't be all bad.
 
#286
#286
I pretty much agree with Hatvol, at least about the talent part. Heart never got Vandy or Kentucky anywhere. Bottom line if Tennessee can't go toe to toe with the Florida's and Bammers for these recruits and at least get some of them then we'll stay exactly where we're at. You could dig up Lombardi and put him on our sidelines and it won't make a difference. Sure it's great to have guys that bleed orange ,but they also have to have some talent to go along with it.
 
#287
#287
Fijivol72 said:
nice post and from my orange glasses more true than fiction. His recruiting quotes about character, guys who speak and bleed team is really code for "oh **** I really have to get 4 and 5 star recruits, where do I start?? Ah I know when all else fails Georgia looks fertile, Terry get us a plan for Georgia." Just having a little fun fellas before you blast!
Click to expand...

Well, that settles it...now that Fiji is concurring and enlightening us, I'm pretty confident the opposite is correct
 
#288
#288
Cartervol said:
I pretty much agree with Hatvol, at least about the talent part. Heart never got Vandy or Kentucky anywhere. Bottom line if Tennessee can't go toe to toe with the Florida's and Bammers for these recruits and at least get some of them then we'll stay exactly where we're at. You could dig up Lombardi and put him on our sidelines and it won't make a difference. Sure it's great to have guys that bleed orange ,but they also have to have some talent to go along with it.
Click to expand...

I agree with you...but I also think hat is guilty of reading what he wanted to read from Dooley's comments in order to continue to take shots at him...

Dooley didn't say he wasn't going to go after the highly rated recruits...he said (in essense) that there would be more to his recruiting practices than just landing as many 4-5*'s as possible...

In other words...he will not sacrifice character for ability...and if a recruit with high ability is a character risk then Dooley will be hesitant to pursue him
 
#289
#289
All you have to do is look at the amount of highly rated or multi offer guys that we are in on. Look at those, then evaluate what Dooley said. There is NO way anyone can take this information and come to the conclusion that Dooley is going after lower rated talent or hedging his bets.
 
#290
#290
LittleDTO said:
All you have to do is look at the amount of highly rated or multi offer guys that we are in on. Look at those, then evaluate what Dooley said. There is NO way anyone can take this information and come to the conclusion that Dooley is going after lower rated talent or hedging his bets.
Click to expand...

Exactly
 
#291
#291
codyg10 said:
I like that quote but you still have to have great players to be a great team.
Click to expand...

Noone's ever disagreed with that. You aren't saying that there were no potentially great players signed by Dooley, are you? Da' Rick Rogers and Hunter are not just garden variety High School receivers. Of course not and I know you don't mean to imply that either. You're just wishing that we could sign 26 5-star recruits every year and so do the rest of us. But since that isn't possible, the HC also has to do a good job of getting the right 3-stars to go along with the 4-stars and 5-stars that you get. I think that's all that he's really saying. And I also think even a 2 star who knows his role and who will sell out and knock heads on special teams is better for your team that a disgruntled low character 3 star who thinks he's better than he is and who never sees the field because of his bad attitude.

I think we can all agree that we would have been better off recognizing that NuKeese wasn't a guy that we wanted. Can't we? That's part of his philosophy - if the guys is a problem, 4 stars isn't enough to change your mind about him. And if you have the choice to pick between high character 3 stars and questionable 3 starts to fill the roster, the choice is easy and it's worth making. Over time and in numbers, the high character guys will have more potential. He never says don't take a 5 star guys who isn't an alter boy. To the contrary, he says you need those, too.

I think his thoughts are well balanced and sensible. Noone anywhere recruits without taking some guys who aren't 4 or 5 stars. Possible exception of USC, I'm sad to say.
 
#292
#292
I am so confused to why people think that because Dooley said he wants people with heart that automatically means he is going after D-II talent. I believe the point he was making is that talent isn't the ONLY factor he is considering when evaluating a prospect (unlike the prior staff). He wants both the talent and the character.

I took it to mean he would rather have a 4-star with a lot of heart than a 5-star with no heart and a sense of entitlement. Which I tend to agree with. He also said his recruiting classes will look like a bell curve with the majority a mix of talent and heart then maybe a few who are "riskier" in the heart/character department and a few who are "riskier" in the talent department.
 
#293
#293
I'm of the opinion that Dooley is trying to get high character/low risk guys in the program, in part to change our attrition rates, but mostly to stabilize a program that has, from coaches to highly regarded recruits and players, turned into the biggest fruit basket turnover in the SEC. Get this program stabilized and then be able to go after the higher talent/ higher risk guys. 'Cause face it guys, we can't afford to lose anymore Bryce Brown's or Aaron Douglas'...we're already 10 schollys down from everyone else. If these core players bleed orange it will go a long way in stopping this speeding train from the big crash we've been headed for for the past 3-4 years.

Building from the ground up? Hmmm, interesting concept especially since all the little dutch-boy finger-plugging-the-damn fixes have REALLY improved or program immeasurably these past few seasons. :blink:
 
#295
#295
mcdoug said:
Anybody who hates "W" can't be all bad.
Click to expand...

Sure they can. I disagreed with many things Bush did. I was very, very disappointed that his domestic agenda- the opportunity society, was completely de-railed by Iraq. He certainly should have listened to the Israelis concerning WMD's in Iraq rather than a CIA where the Valerie Plames and Joe Wilsons of the world can not only survive but get promoted. He should have known better after Clinton spent the better part of 8 years politicizing the CIA with PC liberals.

OTOH, Bush was 100 times better than what we now have. Funny how the same folks who questioned Bush's "gravitas" didn't care that BO had never managed anything of significance and did not have the qualifications or temperment to be President. Still doesn't. Funny the same folks that blamed Bush for Katrina and virtually everything else that went wrong in the world are STILL giving BO a pass on terror attacks in the US, the response to the oil spill, the jobless recovery, the threat to the US AAA credit rating, etc, etc, etc.

If there had been 3 serious terrorist attacks on US soil, more bail out packages (remember the media and libs condemned Bush for them), gov't takeovers of private institutions, more stimulus spending, discussion of regulating political speech on the internet, released Homeland Security memos of "mainstream" liberal constituencies being hotbeds of potential terrorists, or the like under Bush or any other Republican... you can be sure of two things. Those issues would STILL be on the lips of the mainstream media and they would not rest until that President's popularity was well under 50%.

Word to the wise, don't believe everything you here from the media (who poll over 90% Dem) or professors impressed with their own elitism.
 
Last edited:
#297
#297
sjt18 said:
Sure they can. I disagreed with many things Bush did. I was very, very disappointed that his domestic agenda- the opportunity society, was completely de-railed by Iraq. He certainly should have listened to the Israelis concerning WMD's in Iraq rather than a CIA where the Valerie Plames and Joe Wilsons of the world can not only survive but get promoted. He should have known better after Clinton spent the better part of 8 years politicizing the CIA with PC liberals.

OTOH, Bush was 100 times better than what we now have. Funny how the same folks who questioned Bush's "gravitas" didn't care that BO had never managed anything of significance and did not have the qualifications or temperment to be President. Still doesn't. Funny the same folks that blamed Bush for Katrina and virtually everything else that went wrong in the world are STILL giving BO a pass on terror attacks in the US, the response to the oil spill, the jobless recovery, the threat to the US AAA credit rating, etc, etc, etc.

If there had been 3 serious terrorist attacks on US soil, more bail out packages (remember the media and libs condemned Bush for them), gov't takeovers of private institutions, more stimulus spending, discussion of regulating political speech on the internet, released Homeland Security memos of "mainstream" liberal constituencies being hotbeds of potential terrorists, or the like under Bush or any other Republican... you can be sure of two things. Those issues would STILL be on the lips of the mainstream media and they would not rest until that President's popularity was well under 50%.

Word to the wise, don't believe everything you here from the media (who poll over 90% Dem) or professors impressed with their own elitism.
Click to expand...

You should post more in the Politics forum. Nice Post!!
 
#298
#298
sjt18 said:
Sure they can. I disagreed with many things Bush did. I was very, very disappointed that his domestic agenda- the opportunity society, was completely de-railed by Iraq. He certainly should have listened to the Israelis concerning WMD's in Iraq rather than a CIA where the Valerie Plames and Joe Wilsons of the world can not only survive but get promoted. He should have known better after Clinton spent the better part of 8 years politicizing the CIA with PC liberals.

OTOH, Bush was 100 times better than what we now have. Funny how the same folks who questioned Bush's "gravitas" didn't care that BO had never managed anything of significance and did not have the qualifications or temperment to be President. Still doesn't. Funny the same folks that blamed Bush for Katrina and virtually everything else that went wrong in the world are STILL giving BO a pass on terror attacks in the US, the response to the oil spill, the jobless recovery, the threat to the US AAA credit rating, etc, etc, etc.

If there had been 3 serious terrorist attacks on US soil, more bail out packages (remember the media and libs condemned Bush for them), gov't takeovers of private institutions, more stimulus spending, discussion of regulating political speech on the internet, released Homeland Security memos of "mainstream" liberal constituencies being hotbeds of potential terrorists, or the like under Bush or any other Republican... you can be sure of two things. Those issues would STILL be on the lips of the mainstream media and they would not rest until that President's popularity was well under 50%.

Word to the wise, don't believe everything you here from the media (who poll over 90% Dem) or professors impressed with their own elitism.
Click to expand...

Nicely said :eek:k:
 
#300
#300
Weld said:
what total hypocritical bs. blacks are over 90% dems....not many professors there.....
Click to expand...
Huh? The media polls 90%... I am not sure about professors although most are self-described liberals who often use both direct and indirect methods to squash dissenting speech on campus.

As far as I know, UT isn't recruiting athletes to teach (indoctrinate) students or to give us "straight" and objective news. They are being recruited to play football to earn a scholarship to school.

Unless they are radically different from their peers they arrive at college by and large either apolitical or ignorant of politics, history, and civics.

i thought this was about UT sports. hatvol,,,,when did dooley turn your mother down....
Click to expand...
I wasn't the one who brought politics into it... I just answered ignorance.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top