Started By
Message
re: Better Coach: Mark Richt or Phil Fulmer
Posted on 6/10/14 at 2:52 pm to lowspark12
Posted on 6/10/14 at 2:52 pm to lowspark12
quote:
Fulmer's resume probably looks a little better... due in large part b/c of the 98 NC.... but that doesn't automatically mean he's the better coach.
True...I think time has an effect on what ppl remember. I think ppl down play Phils achievements bec it has been 5 years since he last coached.
4
Posted on 6/10/14 at 2:55 pm to parkjas2001
I don't think people are underselling Fulmer. He was not a great coach by any means. He was fired for a reason.
Posted on 6/10/14 at 2:55 pm to parkjas2001
I'm not downplaying it, his record speaks for itself. But it's a fact that UT only had 1 tough east game every year and potentially had 1 or 2 tough west games. Nobody in the west was consistently as good as now. Bama had 2 very good years in the 90s and then had a lot of average. LSU was trash. MSU was good once, ole miss was decent, arkansas was bleh, auburn had a few flashes.
Currently the east is FAR tougher than the 90s, wihtout a shadow of a doubt, and the west is as strong as it's ever been. We also have an OOC every year that although they are average, have still won their division and played in a BCS bowl.
The caliber of competition faced by richt and fulmer isn't even remotely comparable.
Currently the east is FAR tougher than the 90s, wihtout a shadow of a doubt, and the west is as strong as it's ever been. We also have an OOC every year that although they are average, have still won their division and played in a BCS bowl.
The caliber of competition faced by richt and fulmer isn't even remotely comparable.
Posted on 6/10/14 at 2:56 pm to parkjas2001
quote:
I think ppl down play Phils achievements bec it has been 5 years since he last coached.
and because of his last 3 years. many people on this board are also too young to even remember Fulmer in the 90s and early 2000s. They just like to look at raw numbers and base their analysis on that. Honestly, at the end of the day, they're both very similar, with the only noticeable difference being a national title. Fulmer ran one of the best programs in the country for around 10 years. People trying to downplay that or an undefeated national title are either intentionally biased, ignorant, or both.
Posted on 6/10/14 at 2:59 pm to parkjas2001
there may be some truth to that as well... my impression of fulmer was that he was great at assembling talent, but fell short of reaching full potential.
the number of NFLers -- and not just cup of coffee NFL guys... studs like Manning, Haynesworth, Witten, Little, Lewis, Henry, Wilson... the list goes on and on -- they produced during his tenure is staggering... but they managed to underacheive most years.
the number of NFLers -- and not just cup of coffee NFL guys... studs like Manning, Haynesworth, Witten, Little, Lewis, Henry, Wilson... the list goes on and on -- they produced during his tenure is staggering... but they managed to underacheive most years.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News