Interesting David Cutcliffe Feature

Rivals posted a very interesting article about David Cutcliffe.

One particular paragraph stood out to me.

"Cutcliffe, who was Tennessee's offensive coordinator when Duke hired him, already proved in his last head-coaching stint that he knew how to rejuvenate a program. Ole Miss went 44-29 and reached four bowls in six seasons under Cutcliffe. The Rebels have gone 10-25 with no bowls in the three seasons since his departure."

It seems to me like that's not rejuvenating. That's running a program into the ground. I'm not here to bash Cutcliffe. I think he did some good things for Ole Miss. It's just that paragraph made me laugh a little bit and question logic. Let's look at this again. He proved at Ole Miss that he could rejuvenate a program. He went 44-29 at Ole Miss. After he was fired, we went 10-25. Sure seems to me like he left the program better than he found it.

SMQ Raises the Age Old Question.

Sunday Morning Quarterback, sort of the blogosphere's own Ross Perot-style chart maker but without the crazies (though, I do picture the purveyor of SMQ looking a bit like Jeff Goldblum in Independence Day), has again raised that question Ole Miss fans never seem to resolve.

No, not the one about Jerrell Powe's eligibility. The other one about how we fired David BUTTCutcliffe. And, like the rest of the known world, SMQ concludes that, especially with a view of the wreckage left by Hurricane Orgeron, we never should have fired Cutcliffe. Really, never heard that one before.

The objective observer looks at the numbers during Cutcliffe and thereafter. If Ole Miss knows anything, we know, with our miserly banker of an Athletic Director, about numbers. Especially if Cutcliffe gives Duke even one winning season (a reasonable hypothetical if he is operating at or near his 1999 aptitude rather than his leisurely Rascal ride through 2004), folks are going to talk for years about what a bum decision Ole Miss made, but the numbers don't tell the story of a man with health problems who had obviously slowed down. And I think Cutcliffe recognizes that we made the move we needed to make. I can tell you for sure that Cutcliffe has the Chancellor's personal cell phone number, which bespeaks a relationship more cordial, I think, than between the Chancellor and Orgeron or Tuberville (or maybe even Billy Brewer).

SMQ alludes to a prediction that when/if Houston Nutt falls on lean years, Ole Miss fans will be traitorous once again. I doubt that is true, but we shall see. What I do know is that Coach Nutt is spending a fair chunk of that skrilla to move his horse farm out east on Highway 6, assumedly anticipating an at least moderately lengthy term in Oxford.

Rebel of the Week: In 2003 we lost to Memphis and Texas Tech... That's not funny.

This is the 4-2-5 Defense and it, according to this website, is "one of the most popular defenses in the High School and College Game today."  Poor capitalization aside, this defense is indeed a "popular" one as evidenced by a quick Google search ("4-2-5 defense") yielding results involving football teams at Rice, Toledo, and Emporia State (where is that?).  This defense is also responsible for us allowing Memphis and Texas Tech to hang 44 and 49 points on us respectively.  I'm not going to go into football philosophy here or spend paragraphs discussing the intricacies of coverage schemes so suffice it to say that this defense is terrible.

Watch the defense at work below.

So why the Rebel of the Week?  Well it's kinda like when you heard about when that asshole in your High School graduating class died.  You hang your head only for a second, and then smile that he's long gone.

Congratulations, 4-2-5 defense, you motherfucker!  You're the Rebel of the Week!