Rehiring Fulmer would be like settling for your old ex because you thought you could do much better and you couldn't. Let's just move on. He's a Tennessee legend, don't risk damaging that by repeating Johnny Major's second go-around at Pitt.
Let's let Phil Fulmer enter his well deserved position in the Hall of Fame with a little dignity and class. Watching his last couple of years were almost indistinguishable from watching the product Dooley put on the field.
Exactly, I don't think there are any other Hall of Fame coaches on our list that have won a National Championship are there?
I'm not saying that the choices are horrible, but each choice is one sided. Strong is very defensive minded, Gundy is offensive minded. Phil is both, but I think that is simply because of experience.
Don't get a comment like this - like he woke up one day and forgot how to coach - unless his health is bad - he's a great coach that won a lot of SEC games for us - just don't get "past his prime"
I agree with you 100%. I would not have a problem at all letting Fulmer take over the reins again, if he is interested ( which I doubt)
I am the biggest Phil fan ever. I grew up with him as my Saturday coach and he is and always be a mentor to me. But, I love Tennessee any more. Players should be like us fans. Commit to a school, then the coach. With that said, if Phil is given a hefty budget for assistants, I think we give him a 4 year deal and at year 3, he names a head coach in waiting. Only way he doesn't retire is if he wins 2 SEC championships. I understand this comes across as saying four years and that's it. But I think, if he has the fire again and realizes that he doesn't have more coaching years left, he could train and mentor a coach to take over with the Tennessee way.
Only way we hire him back is with big pool to hire assistants. I think Chavis comes back. Hell, prolly would take a pay cut if it meant teaming with Phil.
Our best years came while Cutcliff was OC. After 98' UT went down hill IMO under Fulmer.
What part of the Phil Fulmer coaching tree leads you to believe that he's good at "training" good coaches?
Well that's the one bad thing about being a longtime tenured coach. Also, you can't blame him that his assistants, other than Cut, never wanted to leave at all. I love how people act like there is no chance that in the past 4 years he hasn't had a chance to reflect. Anytime someone gets fired, the thought of "what could I have done better" goes through their mind. To act like Phil is a bitter old man who is stuck in Scrooge ways is absurd.
Question for you, let's say we brought him back and he fails and doesn't do anything over the next three years. Then what? All we did is give more people reason to bash him. Is that a chance you want to take? The guy is a HOF coach lets let him be. Lets move on and focus on the next guy. He was great while he was here but got to go forward. Not bashing just don't want to take the chance.
What does this even mean? Bowden had Richt and Fisher. JoePa had Golden, Schiano, Jim Caldwell, etc. Tenure makes it easier, not harder, to have a coaching tree...but Fulmer has nothing. And we want him picking our next coach?
I think this situation is favorable for him to succeed. I understand anything can happen and with our current state, bad years are more than likely than stellar big years. The only reason I wouldn't mind him is we are gonna be a running ground and pound team next year. Who better to keep that mentality? Also, we need some infusion of Tennessee in our coaching. Dooley ran off Chuck. I think if Phil has a hefty budget, he could assemble a staff that can set him up not to fail.
And I followed that up. Phil didn't have anyone but Cut try to seek a position elsewhere. I love all the people saying Phil was too loyal but they only bring that up for his two losing seasons, but when we are winning his assistants are to loyal to him to leave.
It's not worth the chance of him failing, he is a Vol legend. He fails and it would not be good. The situation is not favorable I'm my opinion for him. He would not unite the vol nation.
Which is more likely:
1. We had head coach-quality assistants on our staff who were so loyal to Fulmer that they turned down the opportunity to be head coaches elsewhere (and are still really loyal to their current employers, considering I can't think of a single one who has been promoted)
2. Fulmer was really bad at hiring quality assistant coaches.
Seems pretty obvious to me