Butch Davis (North Carolina)

Do you want Butch Davis to be the next head coach?

  • Total voters
    0
#1,106
#1,106
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Tenacious D
BigPapa,


BigPaPa: "forget any extraneous matters are any issues that might have impacted some of those records, just look at records in a vacuum and make conclusions. Pure genius."

TD: I don't think that I forgot any extraneous matters. To the contrary, I tried to be (and thought I was) exhaustive in stating all facts, as they were, unfettered. That's not genius, but honesty.

BigPaPa: you forgot all of the extraneous matters. You weren't remotely exhaustive in stating facts. It wasn't honesty. You didn't walk through the deck stacked against him when he took the job.

TD: I would think that listing his record, W/L record, Bowl game & outome, and final rankings would be considered exhaustive by most reasonbly-minded people. Obviously, it wasn't enough for you. The facts speak for themselves, BigPaPa - you can rail against them, you can hate them, you can ignore them, and you can blame me for quoting them - but they remain both true and relevant - regardless as to what either you or I think about them.

As for your use of the word, "extraneous" in the comment, "you forgot all the extraneous matters."...I didn't forget to include them, but intentionally did so.

Why?

I will respectfully call your attention to the word,"extraneous", and my reason for their intentional exclusion should be self-evident:

Extraneous; not pertinent to the matter under consideration;
This is a tough one, so here are some common usage examples to help:
"an issue extraneous to the debate"; "the price was immaterial"; "mentioned several impertinent ...

I'll just believe that you were mistaken in insisting that I also include irrelevant material in my response(s). Simply, think of it as a "do-over", and we'll move on.

I don't know why you feel so strongly that impertinent matter should have been considered, when the facts speak quite clearly, themselves. I would assume that it is because you do not like where the non-extraneous (which you may shorten to "facts", if you prefer) information naturally lead the unbiased reader - that Butch Davis may not be quite the "home run" candidate which so many desperately want to believe him to be. I don't stand on opposite sides of you on this just to oppose you, but because this is where the facts have lead me. Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir. Amen.


Again, not stating even remotely the facts. Erickson had left the program in tatters to the point that the Schnellenberger and Johnson days were long since gone. The violations, of which Davis was well aware, eviscerated his ability to draw upon that rich history. Don't pretend you used that in painting your picture.

Please, point to the specific fact you wish to challenge. If not, then just save us all some time by saying, "I don't like what that fact may imply" or "I'd rather stomp my feet and act as if it doesn't exist!" and be done with it.

Tatters?! Winning 82% of your games over the course of 21 years and four national titles is to be considered, "tatters"!?! I will relent on every previous point made against Butch Davis if you will, on your honor, swear to hold him to this same "tattered" standard at Tennessee. Are you willing to do this? If so, I withdraw. If not, then admit that you are wrong in making this statement. I hope and pray that Tennessee should be half as "tattered" as you think Miami was when Davis took over - we all do, I would think.

Are you saying that because Davis was aware of the pending investigation, he was prevented (or chose not to) use the history of Miami in his recruiting efforts? What, then, do you believe he discussed with those recruits? Canadian yarn art? Quantum physics? Maybe they just played Twister and drank some Yoo-Hoo.

The bottom line is that he overcame crippling recruiting and perception issues to build the best college team in the history of the game. Paint that however you'd like. The issues of the program certainly showed early in his tenure, but he put those to the wayside pretty quickly in his path to dominance.


I will give you this, without hesitation - he certainly accomplished those things in my opinion, in the type of environment which you described. See? It's not hard to admit that someone you disagree with has raised both a good and valid point. We can still be friends, while discussing a disagreeable matter. Can't we?

"Don't bother with the disaster that Cleveland was prior to his arrival"
I did bother with it, when it would have been much easier not to have done so. I judge Davis very, very lightly by his time in Cleveland. Others may assign it more weight, or none at all - but I "bothered" to put it out there because it's, well, a fact.

Judging him lightly wouldn't have been matter of factly posting his record without some level of commentary about the quality of personnel and the absurd front office in Cleveland.

I did post his factual record. I am not qualified nor experienced in providing commentary on the quality of personnel - and most importantly - did not think it pertinent to the discussion. Maybe you are so qualified, and do believe it important. If so, please make it known.

In the three (3) years before Davis came to UNC, their average recruiting class was 35th, whcih is about 3.25 stars per player....hardly, "UNC was a talentless pile of garbage when he arrived".

remind me which of those players was pro quality. How many of the upper 3 classes will play in the NFL next year? Had you really wanted to address the issue, you would have done better than garbage star ratings. However you don't so you didn't.

Given the entirely subjective nature of judging a recruting class, I had hoped that the Rivals.com rankings would offer a universally accepted method of comparison by an outside, unbiased and expert source. What standard would you have preferred I use - or should I have just called to ask what you wanted me to think. The latter wouldn't be a very good unit of measurement, but in hindisght, it sure would have saved me a lot of typing.

They're not irrelevant when you're pimping the guy, who has won nothing, at the expense of a football coach who has proven an ability to go from outhouse to penthouse quickly and effectively.


I am not pimping Leach in the least - in fact, I haven't mentioned his name throughout the course of this thread. Doing so would have only allowed you - and others - to turn the conversation away from where it is, and where it rightfully belongs - squarely on Butch Davis and the facts of his candidacy.

I'm attacking Leach because you've been using him elsewhere in attacking Butch.
To the contrary, if you'll check my other posts - I said both glowing and what I believe to be quite true things about Butch Davis' many positive attributes. However, that too is a "fact", and likely, you'll want to ignore it. Why break your streak, now?


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
See bold above.

I can appreciate that you think Leach can coach football. I don't care. Your statistical analysis is worthless without context and you didn't provide it because Leach suffers in that comparison.

If you don't care what someone else says or thinks - then why are you hanging out on an internet message board?!

I don't see Davis as a savior and he's not my horse, but he's a dramatically better football coach than Leach.

That's your opinion. I respect it.

The day you believe some NFL GM is ready to hire Leach to take over the helm of his squad, you let me know and I'll listen. Until then, some folks that know football have clearly come down on the side of Davis.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
BigPapaVol said:
Well, if the criterion of a good coach is whether or not an NFL GM will hire them - then Spurrier, Saban and Petrino must be horrible coaches, because neither would be re-hired inthe NFL, ever again.

I think that we've gone about as far as we can go, BigPaPa - and we'll just agree to disagree. However, I remain to value and respect your opinion(s) on the matter, no matter how different than they are from my own.

:horse:
Click to expand...
 
#1,117
#1,117
Good Butch can stay where he belongs.The SEC is to powerful for the likes of him.We need Mike Leach and his incredible offensive mind here in Knoxville.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top