In defense of Mike Debord:

#151
#151
norrislakevol said:
1) How much can one possibly forget about football if you have been successful before? ....I don't know, ask Lou Holtz. Wait, we could hire Lou Holtz!

2) He is a proven winner. Yeah, in the sense that Dooley is a proven winner. He's also a proven loser and that has been proven again and again.

3) I recall people whining about Cutcliffe the last time he was here. He wasn't imaginative enough blah, blah, blah...Looks like he has done ok as an "Old Man" So, if people don't like one coach who is successful later on, then they should like all coaches? Good point.

4) Does anyone honestly think that Butch Jones would risk his career here by hiring someone that couldn't recruit or couldn't call plays or couldn't scheme??? That just would make zero sense. As much sense as Fulmer risking his career with the Clawson hire.

5) It's Jones offense anyways....not a lot will change. Exactly. 83rd total offense in the nation.

Now having said this, I may look at other candidates, but I'm not the guy in charge and DeBord and Jones know a whoooole lot more about football than I do. Mike Hamilton knows more about being an AD than I do. Doesn't mean an obviously poor hire isn't an obviously poor hire.

GO VOLS!!!
Click to expand...

...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#152
#152
Exiled said:
I think Debord is being brought in to be Butch's Cutcliffe. He'll take charge of the Offense (running it Butch's way) and mentor ZA (if he stays). I think he'll bring some 3rd and 4th down smashmouth plays while continuing with Butch's overall theme. After all, this is a POWER spread, though it lost some of the power last year. He'll also jump in on the OL which has been a glaring weakness for us. But, most of all, he'll bring discipline and toughness to the offense to match the defense for the next couple of years until ZA (or whoever replaces him) is ready to take over.
Click to expand...

laughed
 
#153
#153
The real question here is, a year or two from now, when this hire proves to be as ho-hum as it seems, how often will we hear the "we couldn't get anyone else" excuse, a la Dooley?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#155
#155
well i guess at some level having an olympic sports administrator at OC fits with having a clarinet player at HC
 
#159
#159
PACKERVOL said:
Michigan went 52 - 11 while Deboard was their OC. Not too shabby.
Click to expand...

Finally, someone at least attempting to provide evidence one way or another about this topic. More evidence and less opinion would maybe make for some legitimate debate and turn this away from the direction every thread about this topic has taken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#160
#160
DaddyChad said:
He did win a National Title his first year as OC and never finish worse than 2nd in the conference in his few years as OC at Michigan. Michigan was 32-5 in his first tenure as OC and 20-6 in his second run. Maybe you need to redefine worst stretch in UM football ever because 52-11 with a National Title is pretty damn impressive to me.
Click to expand...

That 1997 national title is as about as relevant now as UT's 98 national title. Fulmer won a national title here in 98 should we hire him back as OC?
 
#161
#161
DaddyChad said:
Garbage stat though comparing offense today to offenses from that time. Michigan was 26th in PPG in '06 when he was OC, 64th in PPG in '07, I don't have stats readily available before that. Since we're throwing out garbage stats I'll throw one out, Michigan was in contention for a National Title in 97 and 06; both of which were year one with Debord as OC, one yielded a National Title.
Click to expand...

We'll agree to disagree.

The game has evolved since DeBord actually called games.

That's the only reason I put that up.

Times have changed. Has DeBord?
 
#163
#163
JonGrudensAgent said:
We'll agree to disagree.

The game has evolved since DeBord actually called games.

That's the only reason I put that up.

Times have changed. Has DeBord?
Click to expand...

No one knows honestly. I just choose to take an optimistic view until given reason to think otherwise. I have no problem with people questioning the hire but some of the crap being thrown around is just idiotic. The guy was a good OC at a major college program, he may suck this time around but he had a very good record at Michigan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#164
#164
DaddyChad said:
No one knows honestly. I just choose to take an optimistic view until given reason to think otherwise. I have no problem with people questioning the hire but some of the crap being thrown around is just idiotic. The guy was a good OC at a major college program, he may suck this time around but he had a very good record at Michigan.
Click to expand...

I am probably ripping the guy too hard but the resume just isn't recent enough and I wasn't impressed enough with him at Michigan, nor was Fulmer apparently who looked hard at him and Loefler prior to hiring Clawson.

I am not questioning his character or male pattern baldness.

Just his coaching ability at this point to improve this offense. And it needs some drastic improvement to put this team where we all want it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#165
#165
I guess one positive is that he probably wouldn't leave UT for another job. He's too close to retirement.
 
#167
#167
Like I said before, as far as the offense goes, any hire would be an improvement.

Hearing what I am now, I may have been wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#168
#168
Pride85 said:
Finally, someone at least attempting to provide evidence one way or another about this topic. More evidence and less opinion would maybe make for some legitimate debate and turn this away from the direction every thread about this topic has taken.
Click to expand...

I have yet to see all the people bashing him provide evidence that he is a "loser". In the end it's more about the Jimmy's and Joe's than it is the X's and O's. Could he improve our offensive line? Our run game? Our pass blocking? Can he help develop the players? If the answer is yes then there is no reason to melt down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#169
#169
JonGrudensAgent said:
I am probably ripping the guy too hard but the resume just isn't recent enough and I wasn't impressed enough with him at Michigan, nor was Fulmer apparently who looked hard at him and Loefler prior to hiring Clawson.

I am not questioning his character or male pattern baldness.

Just his coaching ability at this point to improve this offense. And it needs some drastic improvement to put this team where we all want it.
Click to expand...

According to rumors, Debord was the second guy on for Fulmer and Debord was hired twice by a HOF coach in Carr. That's pretty high regard by two HOF coaches. That said, you are correct in saying that we don't know how he will translate to the current though.

I'm intelligent enough to acknowledge that if Fulmer, Carr, and Butch all hold him in such high regard that he might be a wee bit better than Vol Nation is giving him credit for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#170
#170
oregonvol said:
The real question here is, a year or two from now, when this hire proves to be as ho-hum as it seems, how often will we hear the "we couldn't get anyone else" excuse, a la Dooley?
Click to expand...

You're just unable to resist trolling a thread about reasons DeBord should be hired.
 
#175
#175
marvin2 said:
I don't know why we are paying big bucks for CJ when they could just look on VN and saved millions!!!!!

Go CJ!!!

Go Vols!!!

I really believe you know what you are doing. Just look at the recruiting!!!
Click to expand...
You said the same silly sh!ite when Kiffin and then Dooley were coaches. Your batting average, then is a LOT lower than those you're ridiculing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top