Point of no return for Coach Fulmer.

#104
#104
jakez4ut said:
huh? I seem to remember a 2001 team that won 11 games and an 03 team that won 10 games with Clausen at qb...Shuler had one 10 win season, 93...

....so i guess the answer to your question is... just as good or better as any Heath Shuler quarterbacked team.
Click to expand...
Clausen played to his potential. He was smart and tough as nails. But... he didn't have anything better than an average arm and couldn't run at all.

He didn't scare DC's. He played his role but he wasn't the difference maker. Manning, Shuler, and Martin all were difference makers. The Vols won games because of them that they would have lost otherwise.

I can think of one game specifically where a Clausen mistake against UGA turned into a rout. In fact, 9 of the 14 losses during Clausen's tenure were by more than 7 points... 5 of those losses were by more than 20 points.

The only loss (of 5) in Shuler's career of more than 7 points was the final Citrus Bowl against Penn State which was a pathetic performance... he looked like a guy who had already decided to go pro.

FTR, Shuler only played two seasons at UT posting 9 and 10 wins in 92 and 93. Clausen had two good years and two very mediocre 8 win seasons. His junior season he lost 5 games... one short of last year's disaster.

I have nothing against Clausen. He just didn't have great physical skills, didn't help advance the program, and possibly had more to do with the decline into offensive mediocrity than Sander's did.

Before you react, consider that the Vols scored 400+ points in 5 of the 8 years before Clausen/Sanders. They've scored 400 once since.
 
#107
#107
sjt18 said:
Clausen played to his potential. He was smart and tough as nails. But... he didn't have anything better than an average arm and couldn't run at all.

He didn't scare DC's. He played his role but he wasn't the difference maker. Manning, Shuler, and Martin all were difference makers. The Vols won games because of them that they would have lost otherwise.

I can think of one game specifically where a Clausen mistake against UGA turned into a rout. In fact, 9 of the 14 losses during Clausen's tenure were by more than 7 points... 5 of those losses were by more than 20 points.

The only loss (of 5) in Shuler's career of more than 7 points was the final Citrus Bowl against Penn State which was a pathetic performance... he looked like a guy who had already decided to go pro.

FTR, Shuler only played two seasons at UT posting 9 and 10 wins in 92 and 93. Clausen had two good years and two very mediocre 8 win seasons. His junior season he lost 5 games... one short of last year's disaster.

I have nothing against Clausen. He just didn't have great physical skills, didn't help advance the program, and possibly had more to do with the decline into offensive mediocrity than Sander's did.

Before you react, consider that the Vols scored 400+ points in 5 of the 8 years before Clausen/Sanders. They've scored 400 once since.
Click to expand...
i still go back to the weapons that Casey had to work with vs. the weapons all the afformentioned qb's had to work with...yeah, we had spots of good stuff with Washington, Stallworth and Witten, but none of them were on the feild consistently and over the course of his career. I would still contend that Casey did more with less than any of his predecessors. Plus the offensive line play wasn't as good as it was before. And i wouldn't put Cedric Houston in the same category as the RB's the other qb's got the benefit of either.

the guy won. it wasn't always pretty, but he won. People get so caught up in stats and the "pretty play" of some other guys...Casey was gritty, a grinder, and never gave up on anything. And i would go so far to say that TN would have lost a lot more games during that time had he not been the qb.
 
#108
#108
jakez4ut said:
i still go back to the weapons that Casey had to work with vs. the weapons all the afformentioned qb's had to work with...yeah, we had spots of good stuff with Washington, Stallworth and Witten, but none of them were on the feild consistently and over the course of his career. I would still contend that Casey did more with less than any of his predecessors. Plus the offensive line play wasn't as good as it was before. And i wouldn't put Cedric Houston in the same category as the RB's the other qb's got the benefit of either.
Click to expand...
I disagree. None of the predecessors had nearly as good a TE as Witten. Not even close.

Probably the best receiver Shuler had was Marcus Nash and he didn't have the talent of Stallworth, Washington, or Banks. Granted two of those guys were total head cases though.

Your point about the RB's is well made but I think T Stephens was a pretty good back for him.

I guess my rhetorical argument would be- were his predecessors supporting casts better or were they made better by having a more talented QB. I like and respect Clausen but sincerely believe it is more the latter.

the guy won. it wasn't always pretty, but he won. People get so caught up in stats and the "pretty play" of some other guys...Casey was gritty, a grinder, and never gave up on anything. And i would go so far to say that TN would have lost a lot more games during that time had he not been the qb.
Click to expand...
I respect him for those things but I sincerely think they'd have won a championship during that time had any of the previous 3 been the QB. All three had much better skills than Casey. That isn't a knock on him personally. It's just the simple plain truth.
 
#109
#109
sjt18 said:
I disagree. None of the predecessors had nearly as good a TE as Witten. Not even close.

Probably the best receiver Shuler had was Marcus Nash and he didn't have the talent of Stallworth, Washington, or Banks. Granted two of those guys were total head cases though.

Your point about the RB's is well made but I think T Stephens was a pretty good back for him.

I guess my rhetorical argument would be- were his predecessors supporting casts better or were they made better by having a more talented QB. I like and respect Clausen but sincerely believe it is more the latter.

I respect him for those things but I sincerely think they'd have won a championship during that time had any of the previous 3 been the QB. All three had much better skills than Casey. That isn't a knock on him personally. It's just the simple plain truth.
Click to expand...
First, Marcus Nash wasn't at TN when Shuler was, if he was he would have been a red shirt freshman in 1993, and wouldn't have been a contributor. and as for the TE...we never had a TE, and even as good as Witten was, he was only really a factor for two years, and never caught more than 30 balls in a year....WAshington and Stallworth, both great talents, but neither were here very long, and both had injuries that kept them out of games...

so my original point about CONSISTENTLY having play makers around Casey, is valid. and even more importantly, is the O line...our o line during Casey's tenure was no where near as good was what we experienced in the 90's.

add all that up, and i still say Casey Clausen did more with less. Now would he have been significantly better had he had the same guys around him as Peyton or TEe? don't know, i would like to think so...but i would think we could get similar results we got out of Tee in 99...

I do think that Peyton and Heath and Andy Kelly were better overall qb's than Casey, don't get me wrong. i'm not sure Tee was any better a qb than Casey, though his running skills separates him.
 
#110
#110
You're right about Nash but who was that guy that played wide out w/Heath? I remember Faulkner's name but the other guy's name I can't recall.

Agree about Tee's mobility. Without that, he's not a championship QB.
 
#111
#111
sjt18 said:
You're right about Nash but who was that guy that played wide out w/Heath? I remember Faulkner's name but the other guy's name I can't recall.

Agree about Tee's mobility. Without that, he's not a championship QB.
Click to expand...
faulkner, Mose Phillips, billy Williams...Joey Kent's first year was 93, but i don't remember him being a big contributer.
 
#117
#117
jakez4ut said:
:shades:
Click to expand...

benji.jpg
 
#119
#119
Clausen had two bad years, record-wise. His freshman year wasn't so hot, but he wasn't the starter the entire year. Also, he was just a freaking freshman. His junior year was no good either. However, you might remember he played with like 18,000 injuries, because his the O-line that year was probably one of the worst UT has ever fielded. Clausen was sacked so many times, I'm pretty sure he technically had more carries than any of our RBs. Peyton Manning or any other QB couldn't have been much more successful in that situation. Casey Clausen doesn't deserve any of the blame for the program's decline over the past few years. Do you honestly think we would have been 5-6 last year if Casey had been playing? Hell no. We might have actually lived up to our expectations. At the very least, the team wouldn't have embarrassed themselves.
 
#121
#121
jakez4ut said:
faulkner, Mose Phillips, billy Williams...Joey Kent's first year was 93, but i don't remember him being a big contributer.
Click to expand...
I think the guy I was talking about was Fleming.

I would argue that none of those guys were as talented as the receivers Clausen had in any given year.
 
#122
#122
kptvol said:
Casey Clausen doesn't deserve any of the blame for the program's decline over the past few years.
Click to expand...
Clausen was a great guy. He was smarter than most SEC QB's I've watched in my years. He was tough as nails.

But... he still didn't have an arm that scared DC's and he couldn't run... which contributed directly to the supposed worst O-line scenario.

My comment about the program's decline is that the O's were mediocre by UT standards during his tenure.

As I pointed out before, point production went down and the margins of the losses were significantly worse. Under Shuler, Manning, Martin, the Vols lost a total of 6 games by more than 14 points while averaging 33.6 points per game. Behind Clausen and throwing out his Freshman year, UT lost 6 games by more than 14 points and averaged 27.2 ppg over those 3 years.

That, by definition, is decline and again he had plenty of talent to work with. The obvious other choice is that it was all Sanders. But Sanders couldn't go out there and throw a 20 yard strike on 4th and 14 for him. He couldn't throw it over the top to keep d's honest for him.

I don't think Sanders was ever the right guy for that job. OTOH, his prospects weren't helped by the drop off in talent at the QB position with Clausen. If last year's debacle had occurred following several years of typical exciting Vols O then I doubt Sanders would be gone.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top