Headlines, Links & Lies: Ahhh, there’s the John Adams I remember

Over the years, I have often criticized Knoxville News Sentinel Sports Editor John Adams for his excessive fault-finding with the various athletic programs at Tennessee. Since the ascendancy of Lane Kiffin as the new head football coach of the Tennessee Volunteers, however, it has seemed to me that suddenly Adams had gone soft.
Well, Adams’ recent column on Daniel Hood proves that I am wrong…
In his article, Adams concludes that Hood’s past (at age 13, he was convicted of assisting a 17-year-old in the rape of a 14-year-old) means that the Knoxville native should not be given a chance to play for the Big Orange. This is classic Adams, complete with his longstanding habit of attacking the Great Punkin for no readily apparent reason.
As for the substance of the article, I cannot say that I entirely agree or disagree with Adams, but I do take issue with his willingness to publicly attack Hood. I’m not making any excuses for Hood or his past actions (and apparently neither is Hood), but it seems to me to be a bit heavy-handed to walk in as a moral inquisitor standing in judgment over the kid in the way that Adams does.
Furthermore, while Adams appears to clothe the article under the guise of pointing out that Hood’s troubled past does not help with Coach Kiffin’s efforts to instill a new sense of discipline at Tennessee, what the article is really about is taking one more shot at Phillip Fulmer. Adams writes:
The main problem I had with former coach Phillip Fulmer’s program wasn’t the won-lost record. It was the arrest record. There were too many off-the-field incidents and too little discipline in return.
New UT coach Lane Kiffin has been all about discipline. He has the attrition to show for it. Four players have been kicked off the team, and another was disciplined before he left of his own volition.
You can’t say, “There’s a new sheriff in town,” because that implies the existence of a previous sheriff. But by the end of spring practice, you could conclude this wasn’t business as usual.
So much has changed about UT football in the last few months, and virtually all of it for the better. A stagnant program is suddenly pulsating with energy. Fans are excited and optimistic.
There’s a new offense, a new defense and a new outlook.
Amidst all the newness, this is no time to revert.
• Adams: Daniel Hood not good for UT’s new image | GoVolsXtra.com
I suppose my biggest complaint is that Adams felt the need to so directly attack a high school-aged player in order to justify the swing at Fulmer. It just does not seem necessary to me since, as just about every article ever written by Adams other than the one he wrote the morning after Tennessee won the 1998 National Championship shows, he has hardly ever held back in going after Tennessee’s former coach.
I guess that would have just been too boring (I know I have been tired of it for years)…
Still, the article is thought provoking. Furthermore, I suppose that with newspapers folding-up or thinning-down all across the country writers have to do whatever they can to sell papers.
Still, more than anything this one looks like a guy trying to find a story, and when one fails to appear simply reverting to his well-honed tactics of going after an easy target. I guess even Adams is still afraid to unabashedly go after Kiffin.
Given the support that Kiffin has been receiving, that was probably a smart decision on Adams’ part…
Allegedy Related Posts (Computer Generated):
6 Responses to “Headlines, Links & Lies: Ahhh, there’s the John Adams I remember”
Leave a Reply
Additional comments powered by BackType
.gif)






























.jpg)
.png)
Very astute observation, Lawvol. I’m sure Adams is going to continue to take potshots at Fulmer, especially if Kiffin has any success.
I obviously have no basis or knowledge of what the relationship is between Coach Fulmer and John Adams, but I have always felt that Adams fundamentally dislikes Fulmer. He simply doesn’t treat other coaches the same way. I’m not sure why, but over the last few years it has gotten old.
I just hate to see a kid get singled out so prominently as part of an issue that really doesn’t seem to me to be related to him at all.
I can hardly say that I didn’t have problems with the off-the-field incidents as well, but I think it is time to let those skeletons in the closet stay there.
Especially since we haven’t earned any Fulmer Cup points yet HAHA
And there’s the rub: Which reflects worse on Tennessee, signing players who have run into trouble in the past but have cleaned everything up, or having players who run into trouble while playing on the team?
I think present trouble is much worse than past trouble.
I think that the coaching staff did their due diligence on this one. They’re not stupid.
I hope.
p.s. Thanks Oskie.
hey guys, take it easy on the guy who’s technically my boss at the KNS…
now in all seriousness, I didn’t agree with the article when I read it last night. it seemed like he was saying “sure, Hood’s changed and maybe he does deserve another shot,” but that his shot shouldn’t be at UT because of the negative image. obviously that’s contradictory…
I do agree, however, that the shot at Fulmer wasn’t necessary. that era is over with, most people I would assume have moved on…
yes, the program had its share of issues under him but I don’t think this is adding to that image. by the accounts of people who are closer to this situation (his cousin and the people at Catholic) than any of us Hood seems to have learned from that mistake and become better. that’s enough for me to be fine with this.
there’s my two cents…
No prob, SOTH!