Were Fulmer and/or Shannon better options?

Donate To GopherHole
H

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
81,128
Reaction score
37,669
Points
113
Clearly the M&M boys managed to get themselves shot down multiple times, not just by Mullen and Edsall but even by the 'up-and-coming' group of Calhoun, Hoke and Golden. That said, there are at least two experienced BCS coaches out there that would almost certainly have taken the job: Phil Fulmer and Randy Shannon.

Last week I asked who everyone's 'fall-back' candidate was if the search went poorly. Fulmer was mine. Yes, there were questions about his age and desire, but he's a proven winner and he has a ring. I would also have been OK with Shannon. I know many think he did 'less with more' but he recruited those players and I think his game-day coaching would have improved the second time around.

I'm all for giving Kill a chance. But no matter how badly the search went, I'm disappointed we skipped over these two more stable options that also would have helped enthuse the fanbase or at least stop them from being outraged.
 

howeda7 said:
Clearly the M&M boys managed to get themselves shot down multiple times, not just by Mullen and Edsall but even by the 'up-and-coming' group of Calhoun, Hoke and Golden. That said, there are at least two experienced BCS coaches out there that would almost certainly have taken the job: Phil Fulmer and Randy Shannon.

Last week I asked who everyone's 'fall-back' candidate was if the search went poorly. Fulmer was mine. Yes, there were questions about his age and desire, but he's a proven winner and he has a ring. I would also have been OK with Shannon. I know many think he did 'less with more' but he recruited those players and I think his game-day coaching would have improved the second time around.

I'm all for giving Kill a chance. But no matter how badly the search went, I'm disappointed we skipped over these two more stable options that also would have helped enthuse the fanbase or at least stop them from being outraged.
Click to expand...

Agree on Fulmer buy not on Shannon. His lack of winning scared the hell out of me.
 

glovedgopher said:
Agree on Fulmer buy not on Shannon. His lack of winning scared the hell out of me.
Click to expand...

8-4 and 7-5 the last two seasons is a lack of winning? Or just that because of perception 'the U' you expected 11-1?
 


howeda7 said:
8-4 and 7-5 the last two seasons is a lack of winning? Or just that because of perception 'the U' you expected 11-1?
Click to expand...

There is a great deal of talent on that roster so 8-4 and 7-5 is not acceptable in the ACC. Yes, I know it is not the Miami of old but they should still be better than that. I'm thinking the admin agrees with me.
 



Miami's Team Rankings from Rivals:
2006-#14
2007-#19
2008-#5
2009-#15
2010-#16
Would you be happy with 7-5?
 

glovedgopher said:
There is a great deal of talent on that roster so 8-4 and 7-5 is not acceptable in the ACC. Yes, I know it is not the Miami of old but they should still be better than that. I'm thinking the admin agrees with me.
Click to expand...

I understand they're held to a higher standard. But the ACC is not the Big East or Mountain West and they also played a very tough NC schedule. Obviously, he fell a bit short of Miami's expectations, but I'm not sure they are being realistic. Thier hayday has ended.
 

Like I stated yesterday, Kill has done more with less, Shannon less with more. The people from the Tennessee area on here have stated we do not want Fulmer as our next coach. That is enough for me to want to stay away.
 



glovedgopher said:
Miami's Team Rankings from Rivals:
2006-#14
2007-#19
2008-#5
2009-#15
2010-#16
Would you be happy with 7-5?
Click to expand...

Not thrilled, no. But who acheived the recruiting rankings? Does he get no credit for recruiting the players but full blame for the losses? 7-5 is disappointing but not an epic disaster. Further, if the starting QB stays healthy, they are 9-3 minimum.
 

Shannon maybe because he has been coaching at a bigger level than Kill, but not Fulmer IMHO.

Fulmer had no fight left in him when he left Tennessee, he left scorched earth behind him in Knoxville and he has no connections whatsoever in the upper-midwest.

He is too old to be starting all over from scratch.
 

howeda7 said:
Not thrilled, no. But who acheived the recruiting rankings? Does he get no credit for recruiting the players but full blame for the losses? 7-5 is disappointing but not an epic disaster. Further, if the starting QB stays healthy, they are 9-3 minimum.
Click to expand...

Yes, he gets credit for the rankings but he also gets the blame for losing. Who should get the blame? Just ask Brewster about this. Shannon was in danger of losing his job even before Harris went out.
 

I personally would have preferred Shannon but am not going to look backwards in terms of the coach.
 



glovedgopher said:
Yes, he gets credit for the rankings but he also gets the blame for losing. Who should get the blame? Just ask Brewster about this. Shannon was in danger of losing his job even before Harris went out.
Click to expand...

If Brewster had gone 5-7, 7-5, 8-4, 7-5 he'd still be employed. And if Shannon had gone 9-3 this year so would he. I just think fans here gloss over the ACC like it's a bunch of easy wins and also ignore the fact that Miami scheduled 3 BCS NC games this year (OSU, PITT, USF) and played Oklahoma, Pitt and USF in years past. 8-4 and 7-5 is a lot harder when you only have 1-2 cheap wins on the schedule.
 


Fulmer would have done a good job - maybe better than good. His rep and cred would have helped sell recruits and tickets.
 

Wheaton said:
Shannon maybe because he has been coaching at a bigger level than Kill, but not Fulmer IMHO.

Fulmer had no fight left in him when he left Tennessee, he left scorched earth behind him in Knoxville and he has no connections whatsoever in the upper-midwest.

He is too old to be starting all over from scratch.
Click to expand...

Fulmer would have been a big gamble for sure but at least he has a track record of winning. With him your hoping he has his mojo back. Shannon doesn't even have a track record of winning.
 


No. Fulmer is too old.
Shannon has never coached outside of the city of Miami.
I'd rather have Kill than either of these guys.
 

Hey drama queens. Give it a rest.

Randy Shannon -- DO NOT WANT. He went 16-16 in 4 years in a weak ACC. They are the helmet school. They have the best players. Comparatively what would you think of a coach that came in to Ohio State and went .500 in the conference in a 4 year period? Shannon lost 22 games in 4 seasons. His four previous predecessors all lost fewer games in their 5-6 year tenure than Shannon lost in four. That should tell you everything you need to know.

Phil Fulmer -- Very meh to me and I'd be annoyed if we hired him. If you watched Tennessee football you'd know that Phil Fulmer was a master recruiter that often underperformed. He had a mediocre staff that in 16 mostly successful season only has one guy in a head coaching position today (David Cutcliffe at Duke). To me that raises a red flag. Why if they had so much success including a national championship are teams not beating down their doors like they were for guys that coached under Carroll (Sarkisian, Kiffen, Ogeron, etc), Bellotti (Koetter, Tedford, Kelly, Petersen) Fry (Alvarez, Leavitt, Stoops x3, Snyder, etc), Saban (Jimbo Fisher, Dooley, Dantonio, Muschamp), etc. The fact is good coaches attract other good coaches and that sustains their programs. I think Fulmer would have a tough time coming to Minnesota and replicating the success he had at Tennessee. It isn't just the age, it is that I don't think he could outrecruit the Big Ten at Minnesota like he did for most of his time in the SEC--until Florida, Bama, etc went out and hired great coaching staffs.

I don't want to sound like an ass but this coaching search has made it really obvious who knows football and who doesn't. The bigger name isn't always the better coach.
 

grunkiejr said:
Hey drama queens. Give it a rest.

Randy Shannon -- DO NOT WANT. He went 16-16 in 4 years in a weak ACC. They are the helmet school. They have the best players. Comparatively what would you think of a coach that came in to Ohio State and went .500 in the conference in a 4 year period? Shannon lost 22 games in 4 seasons. His four previous predecessors all lost fewer games in their 5-6 year tenure than Shannon lost in four. That should tell you everything you need to know.

Phil Fulmer -- Very meh to me and I'd be annoyed if we hired him. If you watched Tennessee football you'd know that Phil Fulmer was a master recruiter that often underperformed. He had a mediocre staff that in 16 mostly successful season only has one guy in a head coaching position today (David Cutcliffe at Duke). To me that raises a red flag. Why if they had so much success including a national championship are teams not beating down their doors like they were for guys that coached under Carroll (Sarkisian, Kiffen, Ogeron, etc), Bellotti (Koetter, Tedford, Kelly, Petersen) Fry (Alvarez, Leavitt, Stoops x3, Snyder, etc), Saban (Jimbo Fisher, Dooley, Dantonio, Muschamp), etc. The fact is good coaches attract other good coaches and that sustains their programs. I think Fulmer would have a tough time coming to Minnesota and replicating the success he had at Tennessee. It isn't just the age, it is that I don't think he could outrecruit the Big Ten at Minnesota like he did for most of his time in the SEC--until Florida, Bama, etc went out and hired great coaching staffs.

I don't want to sound like an ass but this coaching search has made it really obvious who knows football and who doesn't. The bigger name isn't always the better coach.
Click to expand...

Fair points on Fulmer's staff. No need for the last comment. You're free to disagree, but to act like it's obvious that Jerry Kill is a better coach then Phil Fulmer and Randy Shannon and anyone who disagrees doesn't know football does make you sound like an ass. No one ever said a big name is always better. I think these two specifically are.
 

howeda7 said:
If Brewster had gone 5-7, 7-5, 8-4, 7-5 he'd still be employed. And if Shannon had gone 9-3 this year so would he. I just think fans here gloss over the ACC like it's a bunch of easy wins and also ignore the fact that Miami scheduled 3 BCS NC games this year (OSU, PITT, USF) and played Oklahoma, Pitt and USF in years past. 8-4 and 7-5 is a lot harder when you only have 1-2 cheap wins on the schedule.
Click to expand...

Miami's talent level is much higher than Minnesota. Therefore expectations are much higher. I'm not sure if Shannon goes 9-3 he is employed. We heard Shannon rumors a few weeks back. Losing to FSU by 28 seemed to be the final straw. Miami was picked by some to be in the national championship game.
 


howeda7 said:
Fair points on Fulmer's staff. No need for the last comment. You're free to disagree, but to act like it's obvious that Jerry Kill is a better coach then Phil Fulmer and Randy Shannon and anyone who disagrees doesn't know football does make you sound like an ass. No one ever said a big name is always better. I think these two specifically are.
Click to expand...

We were talking about "fall back" coaches.
 



howeda7 said:
Right. But my piont is Kill is further down the 'fall back' list then Fulmer and Shannon, IMO.
Click to expand...

We will agree to disagree on this. I think if you give Jerry Kill and his staff the same players that Phil Fulmer and his Tennessee staff had or Randy Shannon and his Miami staff had Jerry Kill would win a head to head game against those coaches more often than not. Whether or not he can recruit the same players is an unknown. If he does recruit at a lower level, whether or not his inferior recruits could beat Fulmer and/or Shannon is also another question.

What is known is that Jerry Kill and his Northern Illinois Huskies went in to Tennessee to face a Phil Fulmer coached team and lost 13-9. That makes this a very interesting debate considering how much more talent UT had and a move to Minnesota should increase Kill's talent level and would lower Fulmer's talent level. That is why my money is on Jerry Kill over Phil Fulmer.
 

grunkiejr said:
We will agree to disagree on this. I think if you give Jerry Kill and his staff the same players that Phil Fulmer and his Tennessee staff had or Randy Shannon and his Miami staff had Jerry Kill would win a head to head game against those coaches more often than not. Whether or not he can recruit the same players is an unknown. If he does recruit at a lower level, whether or not his inferior recruits could beat Fulmer and/or Shannon is also another question.

What is known is that Jerry Kill and his Northern Illinois Huskies went in to Tennessee to face a Phil Fulmer coached team and lost 13-9. That makes this a very interesting debate considering how much more talent UT had and a move to Minnesota should increase Kill's talent level and would lower Fulmer's talent level. That is why my money is on Jerry Kill over Phil Fulmer.
Click to expand...

Fair point. I think the question is whether you believe Fulmer only wants back in for the money and he's just going to pick up where he left off. I believe he wants back in to save his legacy, would probably bring in some different coaches for his staff and would be very motivated to show UT and the college football world he still has it. I could be wrong. I'd rather have rolled the dice and found out. I think Kill has a lower downside (Phil may have bombed out completely, Kill won't) but I think Phil had a higher upside if his heart was in it. Basically the same with Randy Shannon. Bringing him here may only have proved he can't coach and he may have bombed. But it also may have been the chance he needed to learn from his mistakes and put it all together.
 

howeda7 said:
Fair point. I think the question is whether you believe Fulmer only wants back in for the money and he's just going to pick up where he left off. I believe he wants back in to save his legacy, would probably bring in some different coaches for his staff and would be very motivated to show UT and the college football world he still has it. I could be wrong. I'd rather have rolled the dice and found out. I think Kill has a lower downside (Phil may have bombed out completely, Kill won't) but I think Phil had a higher upside if his heart was in it. Basically the same with Randy Shannon. Bringing him here may only have proved he can't coach and he may have bombed. But it also may have been the chance he needed to learn from his mistakes and put it all together.
Click to expand...

On Shannon--I'd take my chances with an up and comer over a failed coach any day. Shannon is young enough to go back to a DC role and work his way back in to a head job again but I see very little upside in the retread route versus promoting a winner at lower levels.

On Fulmer--I agree he probably has a higher ceiling because he has proven that he can recruit elite athletes. I just see a lower likelihood of success here because we don't have the resources or recruiting grounds that Tennessee has. I honestly don't think much of his coaching or his coaching tree which is part of why I'm down on Fulmer. I think at this stage in our program I'd rather roll the dice on the coach that has proven he can win with less rather than going after the coach that has won with more.
 

Kill is a definite risk, but good luck with him. Some of the comments about Fulmer seem to come out of nowhere or reflect the opinion of a loud minority of UT fans, but still a very definite minority of Tennessee fans, especially younger fans who had no clue about our history (namely, Tennessee was not a top-20 football program most of the time after the General left in the 50's, and was mostly irrelevant on the national scene until Fulmer took over recruiting and the offense in 1989). Fulmer's only interest in coaching would be to prove himself, not $. The "underperforming stuff" was mostly inaccurate perception -- Fulmer over-achieved as both a recruiter and a coach. We only had two bad offenses in his 20 years in Knoxville; we rarely had bad defenses; and we won far more games against more-talented foes than we lost to less-talented foes. But one point for the record:

Fulmer's staff. Fulmer's staff choices preferred stability and task-related performance over ambition and potential-head-coaches. The consequence was a very high level of consistency in recruiting, offensive performance, and defensive performance over his tenure in Knoxville. (By the way, four of his assistants were head coaches last year). His predecessor, Johnny Majors, was great at locating ambitious coaches who would get raises up the ranks but who also left quickly, causing our performance to be wildly erratic during Majors' tenure. Fulmer's reaction was to choose good position coaches, good recruiters or good coordinators, especially those who preferred stability over promotion, rather than hire "potential good head coaches" and it paid off handsomely for a long time at Tennessee.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom