It's July 9th, there isn't much to talk about, so it's a fun time to play the what if game. Humor me here. Fulmer ended his coaching days with 152 wins. It's fairly common knowledge that his goal was to coach until he broke Neyland's (pronounced KNEE-land) win record of 173. So he was 21 short. So let's play this out and you will see where I am going with this. Here's how I see it playing out. 1. UT doesn't lose to Wyoming the week he is fired, and we go on to a bowl game against a lousy team and win, thus finishing the 2008 season 7-6. (154 wins) 2. I think it's fair to see he could have gotten 7 wins in 2009. Part of me wants to say 8 or more based on his prior bounce back performances following crappy seasons, but I'll stick with 7-6. (161 wins) 3. In 2010, without the ridiculous turnover of the prior two seasons, it would have been at least a decent roster, and get 7 again. (168 wins) 4. In 2011, I think 7 wins again is doable. That gets us 175 wins. (Truth be told, there's probably a 9 win season in there somewhere/somehow.) So. Assuming all else plays out like it does, Hammy resigns and Hart takes over, we're probably looking at 2012 being the season we get a new coach. Fulmer goes out on his own terms, and he's waiting for Hart to step down and take the reigns of the athletic department. What's different, and who is coaching Tennessee going to the 2012 season?
I think it'd be hard for Fulmer to match what Kiffin did with that team in 2009. Kiffin has a lot of qualities not to like, but not being able to coach isn't one of them.
I'm thinking Tennessee wins 5 in 2009 and Fulmer is fired. Assuming Tennessee hires Dooley to replace him, I'm thinking he wins maybe 5 in 2010 and 4 in 2011.
John Chavis is the HC if that scenario played out. I do think he would have been fired after 2009 though, which would have led us to Troy Calhoun
I disagree with Card. Maybe we don't screw up the Wyomig game, but look at the numbers in that one and tell me they were any different than previous games that year. Defense was lights out. Offense was atrocious. And Wyoming actually had a good defense. Do we rally to beat Vandy and Kentucky, who were relatively good that year if the seniors aren't trying their ****edest to send Phil out on a high note? And just giving that garbage team a bowl win is insanity. Dooley's Louisiana Tech Bulldogs probably would have killed them. The 2009 season would have been a disaster if Clawson was retained, or Fulmer would have hired someone equally as awful, like the guy from Michigan or Rob Spence. Also we lose something like 18 senior starters. It would have been UT's first 8 loss season and Phil would be gone, just a year later.
You think if Hart is AD that happens? I do think your 2009 scenario may play out if that happens. However, one reason I think this plays out the way it does is that Fulmer would have actually put more effort into the 2009 campaign. Can I prove that? No. But based on how 03 and 06 played out, I think we see a coach who actually has something to prove on the sidelines again. When "the fat man" appeared (my nickname for the flashback to late 90s Fulmer), typically Tennessee played decent football. Did they have the talent? Maybe not. But, I'm not going to sit here and say it was an automatic 7 or 8 loss win season.
Fulmer had been quoted as telling people to wait until 2008, that it was going to be our year. I don't think effort was the problem.
If Hart were here, maybe not but the only way to get Fulmer to leave without causing a scene is to let him name his replacement.
Arian Foster, 3 senior wide receivers, I think the entire starting OL, 4 starting linebackers, a first round draft pick DE, probably still has to boot our starting FS Demetrice Morley, and a starting NFL punter. That's what he lost between 2008 and 2009. That crew chalked up three losses as bad as any we've ever had (UCLA, Auburn, and Wyoming). Their backups couldn't be expected to do much better.
I'll disagree. Think back to preseason 2005. He was on record saying much of the same. I'm convinced that by the end when he thought he had the talent out there that he could sit back and coast as opposed to when he knew he didn't. Now, I will grant the OC discussion, and I'm not sure what would have happened.
I think his talk of losing and regaining "fire" was 100% BS designed to explain away pathetic coaching jobs in order to make him appear to still be a viable head coach for a big time program. He said it after 2005 and again after he was fired. I think he just wasn't that great of a head coach without Cutcliffe around.
I'm not talking about talk, I'm talking about actual results on the field. There was a noticeable difference from 2002 to 2003 and from 2005 to 2006. One of those can be chalked up to Cut, the other cannot.
We didn't have six hundred injuries in 2003. 2002 might have been the most injury-riddled season ever.
