Mike DeBord: Master of the blown lead
This is just too sweet. Thank god he's doing it to a different traditional powerhouse this time.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/10/8/9449203/tennessee-bu…
On 22 first or second downs, the Vols ran the ball 20 times and passed just twice. They got too far behind the sticks, and ran rinky-dink running plays.
This is a scared-to-lose offense. It's an attempt to burn as much clock as possible, but when it fails, it has the opposite result, ending drives quickly without moving.
Sound familiar?
October 9th, 2015 at 10:03 AM ^
That is how it has appeared to me as well. CMU then Cincinnati were as much about the foundation left by Kelly (and a diluted Big East in the case of Cincinnati) as they were about Butch Jones.
I do think Tennessee is better off than they were under Dooley, I just don't know if there is enough there to be competitive in the SEC.
October 9th, 2015 at 11:07 AM ^
To be a little fair to Jones, he did seem to leave Cincinnati in pretty good shape. If he was solely riding Kelly's coattails, the Cincinnati program would have cratered shortly after he left just as the CMU program did.
I too question whether Jones is the long term answer for Tennessee. But he's certainly doing better than Dooley. And if Jones proves he really can't coach at that level, his recruiting will at least leave Tennessee in a good place for the next guy.
October 9th, 2015 at 9:24 AM ^
...a lot of blame for blowing leads falls on the defense.
"The Vols have also played scared-to-lose defense, notably against Florida. Over and over in the second half, they rushed only three at the quarterback and, over and over again, the Gators converted..."
October 9th, 2015 at 11:01 AM ^
October 9th, 2015 at 9:27 AM ^
Why is it sweet that a former Michigan coach is failing?
October 9th, 2015 at 9:39 AM ^
Bad choice of words on my part. I meant something like "it's quite amazing that the very same things that happened to us are now happening to them under DeBord, and it's satisfying that those things are no longer happening to us."
October 9th, 2015 at 12:01 PM ^
Probably only because it's satisfying to see that what we all suspected would happen is indeed happening to Tennessee
October 9th, 2015 at 9:33 AM ^
Jim Herrmann and Ron English are other examples. The fact that Carr did not identify and develop a competent succcessor is the major reason we ended up with RR. And Carr's refusal to support RR (and perhaps even undercut him, per JUB) were very disturbing to me and contributed to RR's (and UofM's) lack of success.
October 9th, 2015 at 9:39 AM ^
In 1997, everyone believed Jim Hermann was a genius - ditto 2006 when everyone thought they same about Ron English.
October 9th, 2015 at 9:58 AM ^
And by the night of January 1, 2007, people who were paying attention knew that Ron English was no genius. '06 D was a mirage.
October 9th, 2015 at 10:12 AM ^
I think 2006 was about Woodley, Jamison, Branch, Harris, Hall, Crable, and Mundy more than it was English. Durkin is getting a lot of credit for what the defense has looked like so far this year and some of it is deserved but a lot of it has to do with having a 2 deep on the DL that is experienced and all upperclassmen the rest of the way except for Jabrill Peppers.
October 9th, 2015 at 10:15 AM ^
We are seeing development out of the DB's and the DL is actually a 2-deep without a senior laden lineup. I attribute that to better coaching. In '06 you had a senior / upperclass laden defense that was basically 1-deep.
October 9th, 2015 at 10:59 AM ^
October 9th, 2015 at 12:25 PM ^
I agree, but I think Jordan Lewis is becoming a better college player than Hall.
October 9th, 2015 at 2:13 PM ^
that better coaching is playing role with this defense, but Hoke's defenses weren't bad. They were actually pretty good. This isn't some Gerg to Mattison turnaround. It's taking what was a pretty young but pretty good defense and turning it into possibly an elite defense.
October 9th, 2015 at 9:44 AM ^
Herrmann wasn't a bad DC. He wasn't the difference-maker he seemed to be in '97, but he generally fielded competent defenses. The offensive side of the ball underachieved more than his side did, and continually put pressure on the defense by going into a shell in the 4th quarter of close games.
October 9th, 2015 at 9:54 AM ^
I always thought that one problem with Hermann, was that apart from the talent we had in 1997, he also had some blitz schemes, that at the time were new and confused opponents. In later years almost all of our blitz's got picked up because he didn't evolve and change up his schemes. Teams had his defenses well scouted and we paid fot it. People would say he was too conservative and did not blitz enough. While that may have been true, I think part of that is when he did blitz, it normally backfired.
October 9th, 2015 at 10:00 AM ^
He had decent units in 1999, 2001 and 2003. Mediocre in 1998 and 2002. His defenses in 2000, 2004 and 2005 were just flat out bad.
October 9th, 2015 at 11:42 AM ^
Your standards are pretty high. The '98 defense got off to an awful start, but ended up carrying that team as its Tom Brady-quarterbacked offense stunk most of the year. '02 likewise kept us in a lot of games (we lost 14-9 to the eventual national champion). 2003 was a good defense. Giving up 28 to a loaded USC team was no great shame.
The rest of those were pretty much all good defenses that had an occasional bad game. 1999 didn't have a great secondary but it still held it together most of the time. In 2000 our talent was down, and Herrmann was badly outschemed in the Purdue and Northwestern games, but on the whole we were OK (that was the last year we had back-to-back shutouts). 2001 had zero help from the offense but kept us in every game until we played a loaded Tennessee team in a huge mismatch. 2004 was fine until the last two games. 2005 was pretty solid; it was just asked to do too much with an offense that could never put anyone away.
On the whole, he was a good but not great DC who had one great year. The real issue was that Carr coached every year like he had a '97 defense and didn't recognize that sometimes the offense needed to carry the team.
October 9th, 2015 at 12:29 PM ^
See, this is the problem with the whole Carr era. If one side of the ball was only so-so one year the next year the other side would be. We only had two real teams in 13 years that were good enough on both to compete for a national title.
October 9th, 2015 at 12:41 PM ^
October 9th, 2015 at 10:05 AM ^
October 9th, 2015 at 2:16 PM ^
he figured out how to defend Purdue/Tiller's offense after 2000.
The mobile QB though always gave him fits. At the same time, mobile QB's still give most teams problems today.
October 9th, 2015 at 10:16 AM ^
October 9th, 2015 at 10:44 AM ^
October 9th, 2015 at 10:57 AM ^
October 9th, 2015 at 11:15 AM ^
We weren't paying like SEC teams, but we had to at least be resaonably competitive with the rest of college football, right? I find it hard to believe that, if he had so chosen to, he couldn't have hired a promising coordinater from at least 75% of college football programs. Even if we weren't offering significantly more money, the chance to coach significantly better talent and position oneself for a head coaching job would have been a draw for almost every college football coordinator.
October 9th, 2015 at 1:35 PM ^
Carr deserves accolades for his accomplishments, but at the end especially he put his own interests ahead of those of the University. (I give him credit for reversing his course on Harbaugh.) His disloyalty was incredible.
I certainly agree that there was not a single person on Carr's staff that would not have been catastrophic for UM as a head coach. I rest my case.
If Moeller does not have personal troubles, Carr is never a head coach.
October 9th, 2015 at 8:54 PM ^
In Carr's defense, he never felt any serious pressure to make substantial changes to his staff. I can think of 4 times during his tenure where he even felt the slightest pressure:
1996 - Carr's second straight 4-loss season and the program's fourth straight 4-loss season. He responded by going undefeated in 1997 and winning the NC.
2001 - Finished with 4 losses. Followed this up by winning 10 games in 2002.
2005 - First 5 loss season since 1984. Won 11 games in 2006 and contended for an NC until the loss to OSU.
2007 - First time in his career where he felt legitmate pressure after being upset by Appalachian, getting smoked by Oregon, losing his 4th in row to OSU, and finishing with 4 losses. If there was a time for substantial staff changes, this was it as the game had seemingly passed him by, but Carr ended up retiring.
Basically, he never suffered through 2-3 consecutive years of missing a bowl or sub par play (he finished lower than 3rd in the B1G just once in 1996), where outside pressure would have mandated serious staff changes. After all of the above seasons he made minor tweaks to his staff and ended up rebounding in the following season.
October 9th, 2015 at 9:43 AM ^
October 9th, 2015 at 9:44 AM ^
Jones has also gotten flak for kicking a field goal at the 1-yard line against Oklahoma. For sure, he should. Jones said his reasoning came down to "analytics," which is an insult to everybody involved in analytics. As Bill Connelly wrote at the time, the expected points value of going for it was 4.6, more than the value of kicking a field goal.
I remember this from the Tennessee-Oklahoma game, and I know we've been through this exercise on the board before with expected points in various situations - I don't think we've run into a set of circumstances that would make a field goal the preferred choice at the 1-yard line...unless that one yard suddenly reminds you of Zeno's Paradox, which is possible in a DeBord offense.
October 9th, 2015 at 1:21 PM ^
I've been thinking about this. Going for the field goal makes sense if DeBord knows what the alternatives plays are in a DeBord offense, which we presume he does. DeBord's toolbox may only contain a Jalen Hurd run off-tackle, and nothing else (I'm exaggerating, of course, to make a point). If that's all he has to work with on his laminated play sheet, and his O-line hasn't gotten any push during the game, a field goal makes sense. A more creative and varied toolbox presents different 'analytics.'
October 9th, 2015 at 9:52 AM ^
October 9th, 2015 at 10:03 AM ^
October 9th, 2015 at 10:14 AM ^
October 9th, 2015 at 10:59 AM ^
for mentioning RichRod.
October 9th, 2015 at 1:38 PM ^
October 9th, 2015 at 10:44 AM ^
October 9th, 2015 at 11:45 AM ^
Stan Parrish was the OC in 2000 for the blown leads against Purdue and Northwestern. Debord left after the '99 season. Still, Parrish had the same "play not to lose" mentality as Debord.
October 9th, 2015 at 12:38 PM ^
Tressel knew what would beat us...a dual threat QB. You're exactly right, Tressel adapted to what he had to do to win and Carr stuck with the same old.
October 9th, 2015 at 11:13 AM ^
...man, you are making me have terrible flashbacks to the latter Carr years.
Too much playing down to the level of inferior teams and running a super predictable 'play not to lose' offense that cost Michigan too many games.
The way not to lose a lead is to keep doing the things on offense and defense that got you the lead.
Getting a small lead and then changing to a 'bleed the clock' strategy by using a D that only prevents big plays but allows the opponent to dink and dunk down the field, plus an offense consisting of two inside running plays and an incomplete on third and long, was big part of the reason that people grew frustrated with Carr.
October 9th, 2015 at 11:16 AM ^
October 9th, 2015 at 12:12 PM ^
It's precisely because of college football coaches like Mike DeBord that mgoblog flourished as much as it did. Years ago fans watched the games and the bad outcomes, but didn't understand the reasons why things fell as they did. Mgoblog brought some much needed critique, analysis to help make sense of coaching decisions and behavior that didn't make any freaking sense at all to the football layperson. There's hangover from all this to this day.
What's most intriguing is the fact that Mike DeBord in 2015 is impervious to learning from his own coaching flaws and play-calling mistakes of the past.
DeBord attracted a lot of criticism from Michigan fans for many years, and he will forever be a frame of reference of what not to do on offense (one 2007 bowl game vs. Florida aside). As a result, he's the footnote that keeps on showing up. A "Carr's lasting lesson" anectdote.
Butch Jones was Mike DeBord's OC 2000-2003, so I'm not surprised that Jones offered his old mentor a job. It's still ironic to me because Jones associated himself primarily with the more modern, spread option offenses while coaching at West Virginina (WRs), CMU (HC), Cincinnatti (HC) and starting out Tennessee (HC) and was quite successful doing so. He also took over spread offenses established by Brian Kelly at CMU and Cincy and did not change them.
October 9th, 2015 at 12:39 PM ^
Because we're angry.
We are all a bunch of very, very angry Michigan fans.
Go Blue.
October 9th, 2015 at 11:26 AM ^
We never lost a game under Debord that was as horrible as that. Or as horrible as the one Tennessee lost to Oklahoma.
From 1997-99 and 2006-2007 under Debord, the only game where we blew a lead and lost was the 99 Illinois game. Up 27-7 towards the end of the 3rd quarter and losing 35-29. But the D didn't exactly help giving up several plays of 50 yards or more. Illinois couldn't miss on anything in the 4th QR.
Every loss during those years were games we were out of immediately except the 07 Rose Bowl and...ahem...the horror.
The debacle against Northwestern in 1996 (Up 16-0 in the 4th QR and losing 17-16 on the last play) was when Debord was OL coach. Not that I would ever have the heart go back and revisit what the hell happened there.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 9th, 2015 at 11:48 AM ^
October 9th, 2015 at 12:07 PM ^
I can't explain it myself. I think the team was shell-shocked. And just when you couldn't pick your mouth up off the floor enough, the ball gets hiked over Brady's head.
That game (as well as the heartbreaker against Northwestern the following year) came immediately following bye weeks. Everyone pretty much felt like if this was how Michigan was going to play after a bye week, please no more bye weeks.
October 9th, 2015 at 12:24 PM ^
October 9th, 2015 at 11:32 AM ^
October 9th, 2015 at 11:34 AM ^