SoCalVol says "Coach 'em up!"
"Seriously, how many Pro Bowl linemen has Fulmer coached since taking over as HC?...or EVER for that matter? And the best players UT has EVER had were "man-child types" that were on a "physical" trajectory that was NFL bound. Jamal Lewis, Leonard Little, John Henderson, Haynesworth, Henry and even Manning "drug" this staff behind him. How many HSAA OLmen have signed with UT and "disappeared"...
Manning may have even "taught" our offensive braintrust how to over-think the game. Football is NOT a science. This "control freak", analysis paralysis, type just does not lead to rings. UT's staff trying to "control" offensive output (guessing at what an offense must do, based upon what the D, MAY be able to do...is defeatest from the get go). IMO, an offense is supposed to be offensive, and should have TD as the goal every time they touch the field. And the best DC's want to get the ball back and score themselves. It all goes back to this technician vs visionary approach to the game. Most of UT's truly great players were at their best when they "just played the game". T-Rob checked out of 80% of the crap JM and our O-staff sent in. Jamal Lewis was at his best when he knew the least and just ran hard, same with Leonard Little. Our staff putting more value on what a player "knew" vs what they could do (Levine over Lewis) cost the program plenty...and maybe JL flirting with a 2k TFR season. Al Wilson played his whole UT career "outside the UT box"...just like T-Rob did.
It's a game, and our staff trying to overthink with less than steller IQ's is as absurd as it gets. Fulmer has wasted most of his HC'ing career trying so hard "not to blow it", he has seen teams with two and three times the talent...eek by and get blasted when the talent was even or close...by guys that went out and played the game the way it was meant to be played. He has been schooled by all "schools of ball" Florida's finesse and the Huskers brute and some of the in between lately from Auburn and UGA.
Sure Fulmer has a ring, but he should have had 2-3 more shots and UT; "his" program should have a legacy of Pro Bowl OL'men that dominated in college, should have several coaches that move on to HC jobs (or pro jobs) and have a history of true dominance and postitioned to compete for NC's going forward. Stucky leaves, UT gets soft, Manning leaves passing game disappears, Wilson leaves leadership leaves...what is it Phil and his crew actually do?....strap on a feed bag and watch some more "film".
Fulmer is the classic "technician" that thinks the "whole" is just a sum of the inputs. It explains why he values pure talent so much and has absolutely "no football personality" to think of. He does not understand or believe in the "intangables", like psychology and a true philosophy. And why the great coaches and leaders can "drop their "franchise" into any program and hit the ground running. Read "the E Myth" and the analogy of the "pie lady"... fits Fulmer to a tee, he does not see or understand the value in true systems (sure you tweek to compensate for change), and thinks all problems are fixed by just "working harder/putting in more hours" doing more of the same stuff that was not working in the first place. The business world is full of these types...running head on into bankruptcy...of course Phil has a "rich uncle" (the UTAD) that keeps writing him blank checks...and letting him take a huge compensation...when the financials are falling apart. He is burning equity that Neyland and Dickey earned....and is arrogant enough to think it is his...if the UTAD is dumb enough to keep him afloat, more power to him."
Read the entire thread here.
Manning may have even "taught" our offensive braintrust how to over-think the game. Football is NOT a science. This "control freak", analysis paralysis, type just does not lead to rings. UT's staff trying to "control" offensive output (guessing at what an offense must do, based upon what the D, MAY be able to do...is defeatest from the get go). IMO, an offense is supposed to be offensive, and should have TD as the goal every time they touch the field. And the best DC's want to get the ball back and score themselves. It all goes back to this technician vs visionary approach to the game. Most of UT's truly great players were at their best when they "just played the game". T-Rob checked out of 80% of the crap JM and our O-staff sent in. Jamal Lewis was at his best when he knew the least and just ran hard, same with Leonard Little. Our staff putting more value on what a player "knew" vs what they could do (Levine over Lewis) cost the program plenty...and maybe JL flirting with a 2k TFR season. Al Wilson played his whole UT career "outside the UT box"...just like T-Rob did.
It's a game, and our staff trying to overthink with less than steller IQ's is as absurd as it gets. Fulmer has wasted most of his HC'ing career trying so hard "not to blow it", he has seen teams with two and three times the talent...eek by and get blasted when the talent was even or close...by guys that went out and played the game the way it was meant to be played. He has been schooled by all "schools of ball" Florida's finesse and the Huskers brute and some of the in between lately from Auburn and UGA.
Sure Fulmer has a ring, but he should have had 2-3 more shots and UT; "his" program should have a legacy of Pro Bowl OL'men that dominated in college, should have several coaches that move on to HC jobs (or pro jobs) and have a history of true dominance and postitioned to compete for NC's going forward. Stucky leaves, UT gets soft, Manning leaves passing game disappears, Wilson leaves leadership leaves...what is it Phil and his crew actually do?....strap on a feed bag and watch some more "film".
Fulmer is the classic "technician" that thinks the "whole" is just a sum of the inputs. It explains why he values pure talent so much and has absolutely "no football personality" to think of. He does not understand or believe in the "intangables", like psychology and a true philosophy. And why the great coaches and leaders can "drop their "franchise" into any program and hit the ground running. Read "the E Myth" and the analogy of the "pie lady"... fits Fulmer to a tee, he does not see or understand the value in true systems (sure you tweek to compensate for change), and thinks all problems are fixed by just "working harder/putting in more hours" doing more of the same stuff that was not working in the first place. The business world is full of these types...running head on into bankruptcy...of course Phil has a "rich uncle" (the UTAD) that keeps writing him blank checks...and letting him take a huge compensation...when the financials are falling apart. He is burning equity that Neyland and Dickey earned....and is arrogant enough to think it is his...if the UTAD is dumb enough to keep him afloat, more power to him."
Read the entire thread here.
posted by Mattdaddy at 4:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home