Regarding Tucker....

[CadaverDawg]

Any truth that he is the primary recruiter for Nigel Knott for Bama?

Not a reason to hire a guy for a major position, but would be a great bonus to get an elite CB with him if he's the choice.

Does anybody know how good of recruiters Tucker & Snyder are? Apparently the 247 profiles are unreliable, bc Allen's showed his best recruit was Kincade, but apparently he was lead recruiter for Treadwell too.

[Statefan]

Not to deviate from your questions because those are good questions but found this article that has tempered my opinion of Tucker a bit. I guess I'm not sure how to equate his lack of success at the NFL level to the collegiant level

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-12-30/sports/ct-bears-need-defensive-changes-haugh-spt-1231-20131231_1_gm-emery-phil-emery-bears

[bulldawg28]

It's the Qb's that make the difference in the NFL versus college. He won't have any Qb with elite talent in college comparable to the NFL. He should be able to manipulate and confuse them easily.

[Really Clark?]

Not to deviate from your questions because those are good questions but found this article that has tempered my opinion of Tucker a bit. I guess I'm not sure how to equate his lack of success at the NFL level to the collegiant level

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-12-30/sports/ct-bears-need-defensive-changes-haugh-spt-1231-20131231_1_gm-emery-phil-emery-bears

"In some ways the Bears got what they deserved by having Tucker use the same scheme and terminology Smith used. What sounded like a good idea at the time resulted in Tucker ultimately suffering by comparison to Smith as constant reminders loomed."

That quote from the article is very telling of what caused some of his problems at Chicago and left him handcuffed. He probably shouldn't have agreed to coach under those terms. But a DC job in the NFL and he is a sharp guy, probably thought he could make it work. He is also known as a players coach. Players love him.

[Spiderman]

Any truth that he is the primary recruiter for Nigel Knott for Bama?

Not a reason to hire a guy for a major position, but would be a great bonus to get an elite CB with him if he's the choice.

Does anybody know how good of recruiters Tucker & Snyder are? Apparently the 247 profiles are unreliable, bc Allen's showed his best recruit was Kincade, but apparently he was lead recruiter for Treadwell too.

We don't need a inside the box, NFL, Saban like, doing it the "Right (read: the traditional way) Way" coach for defense or offense. We will never have the talent to be sucessful that way. Croom ball in a different package.

We need a guy that understands that and is willing to do what it takes. You can't have any shame if you are gonna coach at State, OM, Kentucky, Vandy. You gotta do what ever works. Throw out recruiting and that's another reason why OM has been so good. Freeze has no shame. He could care less if people laugh at his "Harry High School" offense and his "Unsound Defense."

He does whatever it takes

[Dawg-gone-dawgs]

unfortunately you haven't gotten an answer...I was interested to see as these were good questions but this board is bad about getting off subject.

[engie]

He's secondary on Knott...

[Spiderman]

unfortunately you haven't gotten an answer...I was interested to see as these were good questions but this board is bad about getting off subject.

I tried to answer it... we don't need a recruiter as DC, we need a coach that can coach our defense. Hell, Womack doesn't even off campus recruit. Doesn't hurt OM. The safety coach SHOULD be a hell of a recruiter. Our old one wasn't much coach, but he could recruit.

If Tucker were to be our safety coach, THEN I would care who he was recruiting.

[Mjoelner34]

Not to deviate from your questions because those are good questions but found this article that has tempered my opinion of Tucker a bit. I guess I'm not sure how to equate his lack of success at the NFL level to the collegiant level

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-12-30/sports/ct-bears-need-defensive-changes-haugh-spt-1231-20131231_1_gm-emery-phil-emery-bears

That kind of bothers me too but, Saban was 15-17 as a head coach in the NFL and Spurrier was 12-20 so I don't think you can say that successes or failures at one level directly translate to another level.

[engie]

Would you say Todd Grantham is an "inside the box, do it the right way" kinda coach? If so, how does he keep falling uphill in college?

I just don't get what people want from Mullen on this. You don't bring in a guy with this much experience and tell him what defense he's going to run, what players are going to play, and how he's going to run it. VERY different traditional fit than Mullen has gone with at DC in the past, which basically signifies him learning from his mistakes and starting to relinquish the reigns a little IMO. So, Mullen is trying to finally hire a guy with a pedigree that also has offers on the table from UGA and Wisconsin to be DC right now as we speak, both of which think he's their guy, and that we've got fans that question it on the front end is pretty unbelievable to me.

[bulldawg28]

Would you say Todd Grantham is an "inside the box, do it the right way" kinda coach? If so, how does he keep falling uphill in college?

I just don't get what people want from Mullen on this. You don't bring in a guy with this much experience and tell him what defense he's going to run, what players are going to play, and how he's going to run it. VERY different traditional fit than Mullen has gone with at DC in the past, which basically signifies him learning from his mistakes and starting to relinquish the reigns a little IMO. So, Mullen is trying to finally hire a guy with a pedigree that also has offers on the table from UGA and Wisconsin to be DC right now as we speak, both of which think he's their guy, and that we've got fans that question it on the front end is pretty unbelievable to me.

A little knowledge can be dangerous. Fans get a glimmer of insight then they have all the answers instantly as to how it should go.

[Spiderman]

Yes, I question it.

Believe it or not, i have sat in the room with these guys, clinic and film. Hell, I spent 2 hours with Mullen once with just him, me and A coach from Texas talking QB play and drinking a couple of beers( well for Dan, Tx coach and I had a few more than a couple). I have been inside spring drill meetings with Mullen's staff. Also, on the field during practice in spring, right in the drills learning from the staff. They were good about that. I've been in the weight room for a whole team workout. Even saw Mullen have to come across the street to deal with a certain WR from SC that didn't want to work that day.

That's not to brag, but y'all have no concept of the way things are done inside a program. Hell, I don't and I had some access.

All that said to say this, after being around a lot of coaches, at State, USM, and yes, OM, plus other SEC programs and a few NFL guys, Tucker would not be my 1st choice as a good fit for us.

Allen would be a good hire, but I think he and Mullen are too far apart personality wise. Maybe they can get past it. Thompson makes the most sense fit wise.

Then again, it wouldn't surprise me to see him hire someone nobody has even named.

[War Machine Dawg]

Would you say Todd Grantham is an "inside the box, do it the right way" kinda coach? If so, how does he keep falling uphill in college?

I just don't get what people want from Mullen on this. You don't bring in a guy with this much experience and tell him what defense he's going to run, what players are going to play, and how he's going to run it. VERY different traditional fit than Mullen has gone with at DC in the past, which basically signifies him learning from his mistakes and starting to relinquish the reigns a little IMO. So, Mullen is trying to finally hire a guy with a pedigree that also has offers on the table from UGA and Wisconsin to be DC right now as we speak, both of which think he's their guy, and that we've got fans that question it on the front end is pretty unbelievable to me.

Tucker wouldn't just be a homerun hire; he'd be a grand slam hire. Anyone who thinks otherwise is nuts. Regardless of how his defenses may have performed in the NFL, being able to say "I was an NFL DC" goes a LONG way with college kids and recruits. And everyone is ignoring that he had a Top 10 NFL D one year. This is the type of hire we need to make to take the next step forward as a program.

[Dawg496]

If Wisconsin is trying to hire Tucker for the same position, what makes us more attractive? According to Wikipedia he is a Wisconsin grad..

[engie]

Yes, I question it.

Believe it or not, i have sat in the room with these guys, clinic and film. Hell, I spent 2 hours with Mullen once with just him, me and A coach from Texas talking QB play and drinking a couple of beers( well for Dan, Tx coach and I had a few more than a couple). I have been inside spring drill meetings with Mullen's staff. Also, on the field during practice in spring, right in the drills learning from the staff. They were good about that. I've been in the weight room for a whole team workout. Even saw Mullen have to come across the street to deal with a certain WR from SC that didn't want to work that day.

That's not to brag, but y'all have no concept of the way things are done inside a program. Hell, I don't and I had some access.

All that said to say this, after being around a lot of coaches, at State, USM, and yes, OM, plus other SEC programs and a few NFL guys, Tucker would not be my 1st choice as a good fit for us.

Allen would be a good hire, but I think he and Mullen are too far apart personality wise. Maybe they can get past it. Thompson makes the most sense fit wise.

Then again, it wouldn't surprise me to see him hire someone nobody has even named.

Y'all have no concept on

#1 We have no receivers from South Carolina.
#2 Zero of our practice fields separated by streets.

Nothing you said has a thing to do with the price of tea in China. You have to know both parties to know a thing about potential fit. But let me guess -- you play golf with Tucker every Saturday -- you just forgot to tell us that while expounding on your importance and exposure inside the program while getting all of the easily cross-checkable details wrong. Early nominee for douche post of the year so far.

[Spiderman]

#1 We have no receivers from South Carolina.
#2 Zero of our practice fields separated by streets.

Nothing you said has a thing to do with the price of tea in China. You have to know both parties to know a thing about potential fit. But let me guess -- you play golf with Tucker every Saturday -- you just forgot to tell us that while expounding on your importance and exposure inside the program while getting all of the easily cross-checkable details wrong. Early nominee for douche post of the year so far.

We DID have a WR from S. Carolina, can't remember his name, Rico something, short dude,wore #11 I think. And yes, at that time the weight room was across the street from the coaching offices.

But carry on with those comprehension reading skills.......

I decline the Douche Post of the Year Honor, and nominate you for your reply

[confucius say]

#1 We have no receivers from South Carolina.
#2 Zero of our practice fields separated by streets.

Nothing you said has a thing to do with the price of tea in China. You have to know both parties to know a thing about potential fit. But let me guess -- you play golf with Tucker every Saturday -- you just forgot to tell us that while expounding on your importance and exposure inside the program while getting all of the easily cross-checkable details wrong. Early nominee for douche post of the year so far.

Had to have been ricco sanders

[Spiderman]

Had to have been ricco sanders

Thank you, that's the name. Now maybe the mods can delete all traces of this thread to cover Engie's dumbassery

[deltadawg99]

What's the story with Synder? I know he has some all Big10 LBs at Michigan state, but were they inherited or developed? Also, what type of recruiter is he?

Is there anyway that we could get Thompson as LB coach? Maybe give him the recruiting coordinator title and maybe out a co-DC label?

Tucker and Thompson would be the best case scenario if we could pull itnoff

[Coach34]

I know Spider- and the Coach he works for- who is a solid coach but not as good as I was offensively. I will give Pick his props defensively.

He is a solid poster- whether you agree or not on his view is up to you

[Really Clark?]

Yes, I question it.

Believe it or not, i have sat in the room with these guys, clinic and film. Hell, I spent 2 hours with Mullen once with just him, me and A coach from Texas talking QB play and drinking a couple of beers( well for Dan, Tx coach and I had a few more than a couple). I have been inside spring drill meetings with Mullen's staff. Also, on the field during practice in spring, right in the drills learning from the staff. They were good about that. I've been in the weight room for a whole team workout. Even saw Mullen have to come across the street to deal with a certain WR from SC that didn't want to work that day.

That's not to brag, but y'all have no concept of the way things are done inside a program. Hell, I don't and I had some access.

All that said to say this, after being around a lot of coaches, at State, USM, and yes, OM, plus other SEC programs and a few NFL guys, Tucker would not be my 1st choice as a good fit for us.

Allen would be a good hire, but I think he and Mullen are too far apart personality wise. Maybe they can get past it. Thompson makes the most sense fit wise.

Then again, it wouldn't surprise me to see him hire someone nobody has even named.

See, I worry more about fit with Thompson. He has had issues with more than one staff, he and Saban have pretty big issues now and Saban has publicly alluded to Thompson been given opportunities with him and he leaves over the same thing every time, off the field stuff that is questionable that we would want to be a part off, bad blood with players, bad-mouthing good coaches, poor relationship with his players at times, and his one shot as DC over a decade ago was a failure. O'Leary had to demote him and nobody has tagged him as DC since. Even now with Boom, he wasn't going to be in charge of the defense. Robinson will handle coordinator role. Now he could be ready again to try play calling and he is a great recruiter. But at the end of the day, that's probably what we will have. A great recruiter, ok LB coach, and struggling play calling with baggage that may or may not follow.

[Spiderman]

What's the story with Synder? I know he has some all Big10 LBs at Michigan state, but were they inherited or developed? Also, what type of recruiter is he?

Is there anyway that we could get Thompson as LB coach? Maybe give him the recruiting coordinator title and maybe out a co-DC label?

Tucker and Thompson would be the best case scenario if we could pull itnoff

Have no idea about Snyder other than what I've read. I will say again that of the names being mentioned, In my opinion Thompson is the best fit, Allen the best with experience. And I say again, it wouldn't surprise me one bit to see a DC hired who's name hasn't been mentioned. Most names mentioned have been fan wishes, not for sure candidates.

[shrimp]

Rico Sanders was a WR from South Carolina and he was known to have motivational issues his entire time at State. And pre-Seal Complex, the coaches' offices were not co-located with the weight room.


We DID have a WR from S. Carolina, can't remember his name, Rico something, short dude,wore #11 I think. And yes, at that time the weight room was across the street from the coaching offices.

But carry on with those comprehension reading skills.......

I decline the Douche Post of the Year Honor, and nominate you for your reply

[Spiderman]

I know Spider- and the Coach he works for- who is a solid coach but not as good as I was offensively. I will give Pick his props defensively.

He is a solid poster- whether you agree or not on his view is up to you

Thanks, but like you, I'm now "retired" and work at a real job

[nicks_hammer]

Thank you, that's the name. Now maybe the mods can delete all traces of this thread to cover Engie's dumbassery

FB like

[Spiderman]

Rico Sanders was a WR from South Carolina and he was known to have motivational issues his entire time at State. And pre-Seal Complex, the coaches' offices were not co-located with the weight room.

Thank you, for verifying that. People love to jump on anything, most times not knowing a damn thing they are talking about

[engie]

Had to have been ricco sanders

So, now we are basing the "fit" of an unknown second coach on who Mullen was as a coach when our current graduating QB was a rsFR and we were running the Tyler Russell offense? This just gets better and better...

[bulldawg28]

See, I worry more about fit with Thompson. He has had issues with more than one staff, he and Saban have pretty big issues now and Saban has publicly alluded to Thompson been given opportunities with him and he leaves over the same thing every time, off the field stuff that is questionable that we would want to be a part off, bad blood with players, bad-mouthing good coaches, poor relationship with his players at times, and his one shot as DC over a decade ago was a failure. O'Leary had to demote him and nobody has tagged him as DC since. Even now with Boom, he wasn't going to be in charge of the defense. Robinson will handle coordinator role. Now he could be ready again to try play calling and he is a great recruiter. But at the end of the day, that's probably what we will have. A great recruiter, ok LB coach, and struggling play calling with baggage that may or may not follow.

This all day. If Mullen makes him upset he's looking for the next thing smoking it appears. The dude is upset with Saban because he doesn't know his children's name. He praises Malzalhn for caring then jets on him. Thompson is unstable

[Spiderman]

So, now we are basing the "fit" of an unknown second coach on who Mullen was as a coach when our current graduating QB was a rsFR and we were running the Tyler Russell offense? This just gets better and better...

No, idiot, he doesn't fit with Mullen's philosophy of his program as much as some others would. I'm not talking personalities. I'm talking ideas on the way things are done. In my opinion, Tucker doesn't "Fit" Mullen's philosophy unless TUCKER is willing to change. I can promise you, Dan hasn't changed

[Interpolation_Dawg_EX]

nm

[engie]

Rico Sanders was a WR from South Carolina and he was known to have motivational issues his entire time at State. And pre-Seal Complex, the coaches' offices were not co-located with the weight room.

Which highlights my point to an even greater extent. Someone thinking they know the "fit" of the staff -- and Mullen specifically -- based on information attained when Dak was still backing up Tyler Russell, the "room" being bragged on wasn't even the same room, half the staff was different, and without even knowing the other coach -- is a joke.

[Interpolation_Dawg_EX]

No, idiot, he doesn't fit with Mullen's philosophy of his program as much as some others would. I'm not talking personalities. I'm talking ideas on the way things are done. In my opinion, Tucker doesn't "Fit" Mullen's philosophy unless TUCKER is willing to change. I can promise you, Dan hasn't changed

Would you be willing to share any details on the way things are done or at least in your opinion?

[yjnkdawg]

What's the story with Synder? I know he has some all Big10 LBs at Michigan state, but were they inherited or developed? Also, what type of recruiter is he?

Is there anyway that we could get Thompson as LB coach? Maybe give him the recruiting coordinator title and maybe out a co-DC label?

Tucker and Thompson would be the best case scenario if we could pull itnoff


Thompson is the SC Assistant Head Coach/ LB Coach so that would appear doubtful that he would make a move such as that. I agree with what you say, though.

[engie]

No, idiot, he doesn't fit with Mullen's philosophy of his program as much as some others would. I'm not talking personalities. I'm talking ideas on the way things are done. In my opinion, Tucker doesn't "Fit" Mullen's philosophy unless TUCKER is willing to change. I can promise you, Dan hasn't changed

So, explain these "philosophies" and "ideas on the way things are done". Both Dan's and Tucker's. Thx.

Spend a week with someone half an SEC football lifetime ago -- and you know them better than themselves. Excellent. Hell, I guess I'm qualified to run 2 MLB front offices now.

[confucius say]

So, now we are basing the "fit" of an unknown second coach on who Mullen was as a coach when our current graduating QB was a rsFR and we were running the Tyler Russell offense? This just gets better and better...

I didn't say I agreed with him. I actually do not. Just remembered ricco bring from SC

[Spiderman]

Which highlights my point to an even greater extent. Someone thinking they know the "fit" of the staff -- and Mullen specifically -- based on information attained when Dak was still backing up Tyler Russell, the "room" being bragged on wasn't even the same room, half the staff was different, and without even knowing the other coach -- is a joke.

Try to save it. You are the joke. Dan Mullen hasn't changed his philosophy no matter who his QB or staff are, and whatever damn building they are in. His "Plan to Win", what would be a mission statement for a company hasn't changed nor will it.

He may hire Tucker, but as I said in MY,( I repeat because you don't comprehend well), MY opinion, Tucker and Dan think different.

[confucius say]

Try to save it. You are the joke. Dan Mullen hasn't changed his philosophy no matter who his QB or staff are, and whatever damn building they are in. His "Plan to Win", what would be a mission statement for a company hasn't changed nor will it.

He may hire Tucker, but as I said in MY,( I repeat because you don't comprehend well), MY opinion, Tucker and Dan think different.

Is them thinking differently such a bad thing? I think it could be a good thing. Kinda like what kiffen has added to bama. Lane and nick seem to think very differently.

[Spiderman]

Would you be willing to share any details on the way things are done or at least in your opinion?

I haven't got all day to write it out and most would quit reading something that long, but simply put, there is a large difference, schematically wise, offense and defense, from the Saban Tree of coaching and The Urban Meyer tree. Although Saban is making concessions offensively lately.

Now Thompson coached with Saban, but he was never a "Sabanite". There's a reason he never stayed with Nick long even though he was with him 3 different times. He didn't 'fit' with Saban, but was such a great recruiter, Saban kept bringing him back. Thompson is a different duck, but then so is Mullen, Heavesy , Sallach, and Billy G, as was their mentor Meyer. There possibly could be a personality conflict, but Mullen likes "Outside the box" thinkers as far a football because he and Urban are that.


That said, the number one thing in Urban's "Plan to Win' ( which is Mullen's down to every word), and Saban's "Process" is defense. They just go about things in different ways.


Like Poor Hud when he was here. He was openly mocked by damn GA's for his ideas on things. It didn't "fit" Mullen's system. The Ga's had come from Fla. with Dan. Mirando was one.

Hud wasn't necessarily wrong, but they didn't respect it.

Redd Stringer didn't fit because all the football he knew had been learned from Croom. Mullen wanted none of that mentality. He was smart enough to hang on to him to help with that first class, then the poor guy was given the job of signing in visitors and moving chairs before and after meetings. He couldn't sit and make his case to be kept on because his notion of Football was Croom ball and Mullen, rightly, knew that that was a joke.

So in sum, after talking to people that DO know Tucker, from what they have told me, he is in my opinion a bad fit for Ms State's football team as the DC.

[engie]

He may hire Tucker, but as I said in MY,( I repeat because you don't comprehend well), MY opinion, Tucker and Dan think different.

"Thinking different" = "bad fit"? And how do they think differently, specifically?

[engie]

I haven't got all day to write it out and most would quit reading something that long, but simply put, there is a large difference, schematically wise, offense and defense, from the Saban Tree of coaching and The Urban Meyer tree. Although Saban is making concessions offensively lately.

That said, the number one thing in Urban's "Plan to Win' ( which is Mullen's down to every word), and Saban's "Process" is defense. They just go about things in different ways.

How is Tucker even labeled a "Saban tree" guy? He was a GA with him for one year at Michigan State and coached DBs with him for one year at LSU prior to this reunion last season. He's never even called a Saban defense. If the Saban philosophy is the problem fitting with Mullen -- how can you argue Lance Thompson as a far superior fit?

[Spiderman]

Is them thinking differently such a bad thing? I think it could be a good thing. Kinda like what kiffen has added to bama. Lane and nick seem to think very differently.

It's not thinking different. It's like Pat Dye called it.. your religion. You don't change that much if ever. Pat said "not many Baptist turn catholic and vice versa. Barry Switzer ain't gonna start throwing the ball everydown and Miami sure as hell ain't gonna go to the wishbone." In a program, right or wrong, everybody has to be on the same page, and that page is whatever the HC says it is.

You can't bullshit your players. You better truly believe what you are saying, preaching, and doing, not just doing it because the HC tells you to. Those kids will pick up on it, I promise.

[Spiderman]

How is Tucker even labeled a "Saban tree" guy? He was a GA with him for one year at Michigan State and coached DBs with him for one year at LSU prior to this reunion last season. He's never even called a Saban defense. If the Saban philosophy is the problem fitting with Mullen -- how can you argue Lance Thompson as a far superior fit?

Because of what I know. I didn't say Thompson was superior. I said he was a better fit

[confucius say]

It's not thinking different. It's like Pat Dye called it.. your religion. You don't change that much if ever. Pat said "not many Baptist turn catholic and vice versa. Barry Switzer ain't gonna start throwing the ball everydown and Miami sure as hell ain't gonna go to the wishbone." In a program, right or wrong, everybody has to be on the same page, and that page is whatever the HC says it is.

You can't bullshit your players. You better truly believe what you are saying, preaching, and doing, not just doing it because the HC tells you to. Those kids will pick up on it, I promise.

You said he was a bad fit bc he and mullen "think different." I was just using your words. Regardless, I wish dan would hire the best dc he can and then get the hell out of his way.

[Spiderman]

"Thinking different" = "bad fit"? And how do they think differently, specifically?

I'm done arguing with you.

I have no idea of any of your work history, but if it was something that I had no idea about, I'd respect your opinion.

But you were gonna be Johnny Message Board Badass and try and look like a smart guy and catch someone making shit up, when you were in the end proven to be a dumbass.

If I for one moment thought you could even remotely design, practice and execute a Jr. High Defense or offense, we could have a debate. But, like most American males, you think you are an expert, even though you have no clue.

Yet you continue to try to show I'm a dumbass, even though you have been proven one.

I might as well argue with a 5 year old about it.

If you were or are a coach, my apologies to you and my sympathies to your team for having a dumbass for a coach.

[Spiderman]

You said he was a bad fit bc he and mullen "think different." I was just using your words. Regardless, I wish dan would hire the best dc he can and then get the hell out of his way.

There you go, he ain't getting out of the way.

Nor should he. If my job depended on how good the offense and defense and Special Teams played, I ain't getting out of the way either.

If I get fired, it's gonna be because of what I did. Not what you did scheme wise.

Tucker would want that control from what I've been told.

[confucius say]

There you go, he ain't getting out of the way.

Nor should he. If my job depended on how good the offense and defense and Special Teams played, I ain't getting out of the way either.

If I get fired, it's gonna be because of what I did. Not what you did scheme wise.

Tucker would want that control from what I've been told.

What dc are we going to hire that will not want control of the defense? Especially considering dan is an offensive guy. You think Thompson is coming here with the understanding that he will run what mullen says to run? No. Nor should he.

I'm guessing from your comments that dan should not get his hands out of the defense that you think he has had his hands in the defense? How is that working out?

[Spiderman]

What dc are we going to hire that will not want control of the defense? Especially considering dan is an offensive guy. You think Thompson is coming here with the understanding that he will run what mullen says to run? No. Nor should he.

I'm guessing from your comments that Dan should not get his hands out of the defense that you think he has had his hands in the defense? How is that working out?

The DC that's gonna run what Dan wants run. It ain't rocket science.

I know most can't fathom this, but Dan expects the most out of, and places great, and I mean great importance on it. One problem, that most perceive to think they know is that Dan "Throws the Defense under the Bus" He doesn't do that to take blame away from him or his offense, but like Jackie, the defense will NEVER be good enough because they expect so much out of it. They know it won't be perfect, but they demand that it is. It will never be good enough.

As far as Dan meddling with the D, like I said, if he's gonna get fired, he's gonna get fired doing it his way.

Again, that's his philosophy, and would be mine. It's his ass on the line. Some coaches are comfortable turning a third of the team completely over to someone else's total control. Mullen ain't like that.

[FISHDAWG]

I didn't say I agreed with him. I actually do not. Just remembered ricco bring from SC

... and he was a problem that was kicked off the team if I remember correctly

[confucius say]

The DC that's gonna run what Dan wants run. It ain't rocket science.

If that's true, then he will never get an elite dc.

[Dawgtini]

If that's true, then he will never get an elite dc.

Maybe a couple of former DC's in Tucker (as DC) and Snyder (as LB) with ALOT of experience can show Mullen the light on a few necessary changes, or shall we say upgrades, to the master plan?

[PendingTransaction]

If that's true, then he will never get an elite dc.

Spiderman is absolutely correct in his description on Mullen. The defense has to be ran his way. Mullen (and Spider) truly believes that he should be totally in control of the defense. However, I disagree with that philosophy. It is the reason why no DC has been satisfied with working for him. That is why he has never hired a great DC. Great DCs believe, I believe rightfully, that they know more about running a defense than any offensive guy. The "fit" for Mullen is a young guy who just wants the title and opportunity. I have personally heard a MSU DC state that Mullen's scheme would not work but "I have to give him what he wants." I also know that the defensive locker room was in shambles during Banks senior year because of this. Hopefully Mullen will mature as a coach and except the fact that hiring a great DC and handing him the keys will be to his advantage. Hell its enough that he has to completely own the offense and special teams.

[Interpolation_Dawg_EX]

Apparently the 247 profiles are unreliable

I've been noticing that too. I was looking at Simmons' 247 profile the other day and Kiffin is listed as his primary, yet Barney Farrar (Assistant A.D./High School & Junior College Relations) is conducting in home visits.

[engie]

Spiderman is absolutely correct in his description on Mullen. The defense has to be ran his way. Mullen (and Spider) truly believes that he should be totally in control of the defense. However, I disagree with that philosophy. It is the reason why no DC has been satisfied with working for him. That is why he has never hired a great DC. Great DCs believe, I believe rightfully, that they know more about running a defense than any offensive guy. The "fit" for Mullen is a young guy who just wants the title and opportunity. I have personally heard a MSU DC state that Mullen's scheme would not work but "I have to give him what he wants." I also know that the defensive locker room was in shambles during Banks senior year because of this. Hopefully Mullen will mature as a coach and except the fact that hiring a great DC and handing him the keys will be to his advantage. Hell its enough that he has to completely own the offense and special teams.

Does the guys he's targeting for DC not already prove that he's doing this? Maybe not conclusively -- but circumstantially -- it certainly looks that way.

Meyer has ALWAYS hired elite DCs and let them do their thing. Is it his last ?4? DCs that took promotions and are still head coaches right now? Nevermind that he just hired a former NFL and college head coach as Co-DC. Who was his last DC that didn't go on to get a head coaching gig?

[Really Clark?]

Here is what is a puzzle to me. According to some Mulen runs or at least has his hands too much in the defense. The last two coordinators left for coordinator jobs at Florida and Miami. If Mullen has such a big part with the defense as well as obviously the offense, how many head coaches have been able to do that and get they coordinator a promotion. Did it twice for Diaz now. That's a heck of a coach to be able to control both sides of the ball and be pretty good at it. Really good offensively last year and pretty good with a major flaw offensively this year. If people are going to crucify him for what fails, then acknowledge what has worked. Honestly, I don't think he is as majorly involved defensively as some think. I do know that much of our defense that has been run since 2010 was developed and designed by Diaz with input from Wilson. Diaz even commented how much our terminology has not changed since he was here last time.

[PendingTransaction]

Here is what is a puzzle to me. According to some Mulen runs or at least has his hands too much in the defense. The last two coordinators left for coordinator jobs at Florida and Miami. If Mullen has such a big part with the defense as well as obviously the offense, how many head coaches have been able to do that and get they coordinator a promotion. Did it twice for Diaz now. That's a heck of a coach to be able to control both sides of the ball and be pretty good at it. Really good offensively last year and pretty good with a major flaw offensively this year. If people are going to crucify him for what fails, then acknowledge what has worked. Honestly, I don't think he is as majorly involved defensively as some think. I do know that much of our defense that has been run since 2010 was developed and designed by Diaz with input from Wilson. Diaz even commented how much our terminology has not changed since he was here last time.
It won't change with the next DC. That's my point.

[deltadawg99]

I have a feeling that Tucker is likely headed to UGA as DC. Hold off the announcement from them until
Next Tuesday. No source just a feeling

[Dawg-gone-dawgs]

A twitter feeling?

[Dawgtini]

A twitter feeling?

That's my guess too. A lot of folks on twitter just regurgitating what they "heard" .... from a message board.

[Really Clark?]

It won't change with the next DC. That's my point.

But your point is it's been strickly because of Mullen. Mullen didn't develop the defense, Diaz did. The other coordinators just worked with what was already established by Diaz. Wilson, because he was a part of it, and then Collins came in as a co-DC under Wilson. Tweaked it some but mostly kept it. Then back to Diaz.

[Dawgtini]

But your point is it's been strickly because of Mullen. Mullen didn't develop the defense, Diaz did. The other coordinators just worked with what was already established by Diaz. Wilson, because he was a part of it, and then Collins came in as a co-DC under Wilson. Tweaked it some but mostly kept it. Then back to Diaz.

Good point. I take that to mean if Mullen brings in a true, experienced DC, he will probably give him the reins to "own it".

[engie]

I'm done arguing with you.
I have no idea of any of your work history, but if it was something that I had no idea about, I'd respect your opinion.
So you have no idea -- but if you had no idea -- you would respect it then? My initial issue was you talking out of your ass -- now it's you talking out of both sides of your mouth.


But you were gonna be Johnny Message Board Badass and try and look like a smart guy and catch someone making shit up, when you were in the end proven to be a dumbass.
You've proven what exactly? You've double-spoke about 10 different things already in this thread. "Well, you know Mullen --- because he did 'this' back when Chris Wilson was failing at running things." "Well, Saban tree is a bad fit" -- UNLESS you are promoting a different and more substantial branch of the same tree. Then it's a good fit. And you don't know either Tucker nor Thompson to actually be able to assess their "fit" -- because if you did -- you would have name dropped like you did anyway at the first sign of questioning and/or actually given a decent explanation of the "lack of fit". But instead all you've done is rabble on about stuff that every single one of us know about Mullen already.


If I for one moment thought you could even remotely design, practice and execute a Jr. High Defense or offense, we could have a debate. But, like most American males, you think you are an expert, even though you have no clue.
Ah -- the ole "you don't know what you are talking about" thing when backed into a corner.


Yet you continue to try to show I'm a dumbass, even though you have been proven one.

Lol OK


I might as well argue with a 5 year old about it.
A five year old probably wouldn't catch your double-talking nor notice the initial comment being without merit -- along with your continued failure to give it any merit. You can be blowing Mullen -- and it won't make you know to ANY greater extent how good of a fit Tucker is without knowing Tucker as well. But since you were around one of the parties at one time -- you know all there is to know about the topic. It's ridiculous.


If you were or are a coach, my apologies to you and my sympathies to your team for having a dumbass for a coach.
K

[FISHDAWG]

Good point. I take that to mean if Mullen brings in a true, experienced DC, he will probably give him the reins to "own it".

seems like I remember from last year that Mullen got into it during a game with Collins saying I don't want to run the defense, it's yours, you do something about this (current in game play)

[Todd4State]

I have a feeling that Tucker is likely headed to UGA as DC. Hold off the announcement from them until
Next Tuesday. No source just a feeling

Logic says that he will follow Smart because he knows Smart and has coached with him. I don't think he knows or has coached with anyone on our staff that I am aware of. That seems to be part of the reason why he wants to bring Marc Snyder along if I had to guess.

Conjecture on my part.

[Really Clark?]

Good point. I take that to mean if Mullen brings in a true, experienced DC, he will probably give him the reins to "own it".

Good question. From some the names being spoken about it sounds like he is at least considering a different defensive philosophy and wants an experienced play caller. Now I'm not talking base scheme but a different thought of how to stop offenses.

[Todd4State]

seems like I remember from last year that Mullen got into it during a game with Collins saying I don't want to run the defense, it's yours, you do something about this (current in game play)

I think Dan had a problem with 1A/1B more than anything else with Collins.

[Todd4State]

Good question. From some the names being spoken about it sounds like he is at least considering a different defensive philosophy and wants an experienced play caller. Now I'm not talking base scheme but a different thought of how to stop offenses.

It seemed to me like Chris and Geoff tried to run Manny's defense from 2010 but couldn't quite do it as well as Manny did. Chris probably moreso than Geoff.

[Really Clark?]

seems like I remember from last year that Mullen got into it during a game with Collins saying I don't want to run the defense, it's yours, you do something about this (current in game play)

I know he told that to Diaz in the 3rd quarter of the Troy game I think, when they just drove down the field on our first team defense. May be it was another team but I think it was Troy.

[Really Clark?]

It seemed to me like Chris and Geoff tried to run Manny's defense from 2010 but couldn't quite do it as well as Manny did. Chris probably moreso than Geoff.

I would agree with that. Collins was pretty close though, although our pass defense was pretty bad last year under Collins.

[War Machine Dawg]

seems like I remember from last year that Mullen got into it during a game with Collins saying I don't want to run the defense, it's yours, you do something about this (current in game play)

That was Diaz this year. Yelled at him to get it fixed because he (Mullen) didn't want to run it, that's what he pays Diaz for. One of the sideline babes reported it, but I don't remember who or what game.

[Sacrifice]

I didn't keep up with Florida much this year but did Collins continue the 1A/1B defense?

[GumpDawg]

That was Diaz this year. Yelled at him to get it fixed because he (Mullen) didn't want to run it, that's what he pays Diaz for. One of the sideline babes reported it, but I don't remember who or what game.

La Tech I believe

[Political Hack]

That was Diaz this year. Yelled at him to get it fixed because he (Mullen) didn't want to run it, that's what he pays Diaz for. One of the sideline babes reported it, but I don't remember who or what game.

That's an awesome head coach. I'd rather have that than a passive pushover.

[DancingRabbit]

That was Diaz this year. Yelled at him to get it fixed because he (Mullen) didn't want to run it, that's what he pays Diaz for. One of the sideline babes reported it, but I don't remember who or what game.

The defense tightened up and the two of them were hugging and laughing at the end of the game.

[HancockCountyDog]

That's an awesome head coach. I'd rather have that than a passive pushover.

If I was Diaz I would have told him to shut the **** up and teach his seasoned OL how to run block and how to not get a delay a game penalty when a FG beats LSU and you are already within FG range.

[Really Clark?]

If I was Diaz I would have told him to shut the **** up and teach his seasoned OL how to run block and how to not get a delay a game penalty when a FG beats LSU and you are already within FG range.

We had a seasoned OL? I'm with Hack on this one. It's my program, I hired you for defense. I'm not meddling with the D, I'm telling you to fix it to stop La Tech not LSU.

[HancockCountyDog]

We had a seasoned OL? I'm with Hack on this one. It's my program, I hired you for defense. I'm not meddling with the D, I'm telling you to fix it to stop La Tech not LSU.

2 seniors and 3 redshirt juniors.

How much more experience do you need on the OL.

[Really Clark?]

2 seniors and 3 redshirt juniors.

How much more experience do you need on the OL.

But the number of snaps was pretty low. That's usually how they look at what is considered a veteran line or the number of starts. Not their classification or age.

[Coach34]

We had a seasoned OL?.

why yes Sir- we did. One of the most veteran in the SEC

[Coach34]

But the number of snaps was pretty low. That's usually how they look at what is considered a veteran line or the number of starts. Not their classification or age.

Nobody gave LSU a pass for starting Freshmen the last 4 games of the season. We had a veteran OL- its not even debateable

[Really Clark?]

why yes Sir- we did. One of the most veteran in the SEC

Second lowest number of starts in the SEC and 108th in the country is not a veteran line.

[Really Clark?]

Nobody gave LSU a pass for starting Freshmen the last 4 games of the season. We had a veteran OL- its not even debateable

You can believe however you want. 108th in the country in starts before the season started.

[Really Clark?]

Look I'm not arguing production, Alabama was right above us in the league and I don't care who started what freshman. Doesn't change the fact that we were 13th in the league and 108th in the country in starts. Not veteran. That was the only point I made.

[HancockCountyDog]

Second lowest number of starts in the SEC and 108th in the country is not a veteran line.

So a guy who is a RS junior can't be relied upon to be a good SEC player? Four years into your program?

Like I said, Diaz should have told him to kiss his ass and learn how to not get a delay of game penalty with the game on the line.

At the end of the day, Diaz eventually did tell Dan to kiss his ass, so I hope the comment was worth it.

[Coach34]

You can believe however you want. 108th in the country in starts before the season started.

If you cant win with your Jr's and Sr's starting- then you have failed in evaluation or development. You can pick whichever you want. Clemson replaced 5 starters and are playing for the NC- stop making excuses.

******* OM played a kid from MRA that was a R-FR vs Bama and won. They didnt make excuses. Why do we?

[Really Clark?]

So a guy who is a RS junior can't be relied upon to be a good SEC player? Four years into your program?

Like I said, Diaz should have told him to kiss his ass and learn how to not get a delay of game penalty with the game on the line.

At the end of the day, Diaz eventually did tell Dan to kiss his ass, so I hope the comment was worth it.

I didn't say one thing about production, but a rsjr with no starts and limited snaps is still not a veteran. Simple concept. Not much playing time and no starts doesn't make him a veteran even if he is a senior. Period.

And I would have told you to pack your crap and ride back with La Tech from whence I drug your sorry butt from.*** They got over it and joked at the end of the game. Coaches pop off all the time. No big deal.

[Really Clark?]

If you cant win with your Jr's and Sr's starting- then you have failed in evaluation or development. You can pick whichever you want. Clemson replaced 5 starters and are playing for the NC- stop making excuses.

******* OM played a kid from MRA that was a R-FR vs Bama and won. They didnt make excuses. Why do we?

Quit being hard headed and read what I posted. I haven't said one thing about production. I don't care age, class or whatever whoever produces is fine with me. But we did not have a veteran line. Not by any normal measuring stick. That's all I'm saying. Not discussing production or trying to use it as an excuse. Stop bringing that up.

[HancockCountyDog]

Quit being hard headed and read what I posted. I haven't said one thing about production. I don't care age, class or whatever whoever produces is fine with me. But we did not have a veteran line. Not by any normal measuring stick. That's all I'm saying. Not discussing production or trying to use it as an excuse. Stop bringing that up.

How are two seniors and 3 RS juniors not a "veteran" line.

How many years at MSU do they need to be here to be considered veterans. This is such a stupid argument.

We have six seniors on the DL next year, so do we have a veteran DL?

[Coach34]

Quit being hard headed and read what I posted. I haven't said one thing about production. I don't care age, class or whatever whoever produces is fine with me. But we did not have a veteran line. Not by any normal measuring stick..

But thats the problem- yes we did. We had 2 guys in Senior and Malone that hard started awhile. Desper had starts under his belt and had played alot. Clayborn had played alot. Warren had played alot. We didnt have guys that were under fire for the 1st time. Your spin is weak

[HancockCountyDog]

I didn't say one thing about production, but a rsjr with no starts and limited snaps is still not a veteran. Simple concept. Not much playing time and no starts doesn't make him a veteran even if he is a senior. Period.

And I would have told you to pack your crap and ride back with La Tech from whence I drug your sorry butt from.*** They got over it and joked at the end of the game. Coaches pop off all the time. No big deal.

Yeah , no big deal, it's just a coincidence he leaves the first chance he gets. No big deal.

[Really Clark?]

How are two seniors and 3 RS juniors not a "veteran" line.

How many years at MSU do they need to be here to be considered veterans. This is such a stupid argument.

We have six seniors on the DL next year, so do we have a veteran DL?

If they have not played or started you don't count them as a veteran. When they chart offensive lines experience coming into a season they use starts or snaps. Not their age. We were 13th in the league with 32 returning starts and 108th in the
Country. That is how experience is measured with offensive lines. Age is not considered. A guy that is a sophomore with 13 starts is more of a veteran than a junior with none. That is what is considered in determining a veteran line.

[Really Clark?]

But thats the problem- yes we did. We had 2 guys in Senior and Malone that hard started awhile. Desper had starts under his belt and had played alot. Clayborn had played alot. Warren had played alot. We didnt have guys that were under fire for the 1st time. Your spin is weak

What spin? Find a link that says we were not 108th in country and 13th in league in experience. That is a fact. And has not one drop of bearing in what I considered bad OL play this year. I'm not even talking about that. Why are you upset about that or some sort of spin when I haven't made that argument once?

[Really Clark?]

Yeah , no big deal, it's just a coincidence he leaves the first chance he gets. No big deal.

Don't be combative. You are a much better poster than that. Had nothing to do with anything and you know it.

[Coach34]

What spin? Find a link that says we were not 108th in country and 13th in league in experience. That is a fact. And has not one drop of bearing in what I considered bad OL play this year. I'm not even talking about that. Why are you upset about that or some sort of spin when I haven't made that argument once?

you serious Clark?

Clemson can replace 5 starters- but we struggle when we start Jr's and Sr's???? All 5 of whom have played alot? C;mom mane

[Really Clark?]

you serious Clark?

Clemson can replace 5 starters- but we struggle when we start Jr's and Sr's???? All 5 of whom have played alot? C;mom mane

Coach for the 3rd time, I'm not talking about production. I said in an above post the line sucked. It was a surprise to me this year because I thought it would be better. I actually think coaching wise Hev has done some good jobs here. I am only addressing the veteran aspect of the line. Not production. We had 32 starts returning to this line and that ranked it 13th in the league. That is the normal measuring used to determine if a line is veteran or experienced of not. Ours was not experienced. That has absolutely nothing to do with what they should have been able to produce as a unit. I don't care about age. But a line with a lot of experience, like last year's can prove to be more solid. Florida only had 10 returning starts to their line, last in the league by far. They overcame that. I wished we had as wel. I believe we win 10 maybe 11 this year with better line play. Still does not change the fact that it was not a veteran line.

[HancockCountyDog]

Don't be combative. You are a much better poster than that. Had nothing to do with anything and you know it.

Actually I don't know it. Neither do you. I don't know it either way. I'll i know is that Mullen trashed Collins after the egg bowl in 2014, and he left as soon as he could.

If y'all think that Mullen's treatment of the defensive staff has nothing to do with staff defections, I'm not sure what I can tell you.

It's just coincidence after coincidence that we keep losing defensive coaches and Mullen's interaction with them has no impact.

Come on, we've all had bosses that are professional and those that are assholes, when you have a boss that is an asshole, you look for the first lateral move you can take.

[Really Clark?]

Actually I don't know it. Neither do you. I don't know it either way. I'll i know is that Mullen trashed Collins after the egg bowl in 2014, and he left as soon as he could.

If y'all think that Mullen's treatment of the defensive staff has nothing to do with staff defections, I'm not sure what I can tell you.

It's just coincidence after coincidence that we keep losing defensive coaches and Mullen's interaction with them has no impact.

Come on, we've all had bosses that are professional and those that are assholes, when you have a boss that is an asshole, you look for the first lateral move you can take.

Maybe. Yet Hughes stayed year after year when we know he had offers to UNM. Of course he was not going to leave with Jay here. And I don't think anyone faults him for taking over at JSU. Turner came back and has been here a while. Maybe it's not the whole stafff and just coordinators. But I can't really find that logic all the way either. Torbush had to go and we let him go to find his own job. Diaz the first time, no brainer and he didn't find it such a bad place to work to come back to. Then he goes to his hometown. Sorry I don't see him finding some place to land to get out of here. Collins to Florida. Again for two guys that is being suggested they had to get out of here so they wouldn't have to deal with Mullen, they sure landed up pretty well. Wilson, did anyone really think he should have been retained? Maybe if there was such a big turn over year after year but we really haven't had anymore and compared to some less than other SEC programs.

[Coach34]

Coach for the 3rd time, I'm not talking about production. I said in an above post the line sucked. It was a surprise to me this year because I thought it would be better. I actually think coaching wise Hev has done some good jobs here. I am only addressing the veteran aspect of the line. Not production. We had 32 starts returning to this line and that ranked it 13th in the league. That is the normal measuring used to determine if a line is veteran or experienced of not. Ours was not experienced. That has absolutely nothing to do with what they should have been able to produce as a unit. I don't care about age. But a line with a lot of experience, like last year's can prove to be more solid. Florida only had 10 returning starts to their line, last in the league by far. They overcame that. I wished we had as wel. I believe we win 10 maybe 11 this year with better line play. Still does not change the fact that it was not a veteran line.

Sighhhhh

Malone and Senior had started for 2 years
Desper had a couple starts and had played in at least 15 college games
Clayborn and Warren had played in at least 15 college games also

That is the epitome of "developmental program" and a veteran OL. It literally cant be argued any other way. At all

Rawlings from MRA started at Bama in his 3rd college game ever. OM played without Big Softie. Clemson replaced all 5 starters. Stop making excuses

[Really Clark?]

Sighhhhh

Malone and Senior had started for 2 years
Desper had a couple starts and had played in at least 15 college games
Clayborn and Warren had played in at least 15 college games also

That is the epitome of "developmental program" and a veteran OL. It literally cant be argued any other way. At all

Rawlings from MRA started at Bama in his 3rd college game ever. OM played without Big Softie. Clemson replaced all 5 starters. Stop making excuses

Ok Coach. If I could find snaps instead of just starts it may show a lot more experience. But by the only source I can find college lines are ranked by starts to determine veteran or experience status. By that tool, we were at the bottom of the league and nationally. Our line had a combine 32 starts heading into the year.

[Todd4State]

Ok Coach. If I could find snaps instead of just starts it may show a lot more experience. But by the only source I can find college lines are ranked by starts to determine veteran or experience status. By that tool, we were at the bottom of the league and nationally. Our line had a combine 32 starts heading into the year.

There are different ways to measure experience. If Alabama loses five starting o-linemen but they replace them with five juniors and seniors who have all played some in reserve roles and gotten SEC action, I wouldn't consider that "inexperienced" even though they don't have "starts".

If you are a RS junior that plays football in the SEC, it is expected that you should be capable as a starter at whatever position you play.

You're using a flawed metric.

[Really Clark?]

There are different ways to measure experience. If Alabama loses five starting o-linemen but they replace them with five juniors and seniors who have all played some in reserve roles and gotten SEC action, I wouldn't consider that "inexperienced" even though they don't have "starts".

If you are a RS junior that plays football in the SEC, it is expected that you should be capable as a starter at whatever position you play.

You're using a flawed metric.

Link another metric because that is what is used. I understand what they are saying but the only way to rightly prove that a line is veteran without starts is by snaps. I can't find that and you have to take in consideration that snaps may be equal somewhat accross the conference or vastly divergent. Unfortunately, there is no way that I can find to prove experience by snaps. It could prove that while we didn't have many starts our line did have more than its fair share of snaps therefore the veteran level should be considered higher. Or it may show that we were still at the bottom of the league. By the only measurement I can find (and if any of you want to chart each team's offensive snaps for each line, go ahead) we were not a veteran group by starts.

We believe that the line came in with more experience than what the starts show. But that is because we pay attention only to our team that closely. We have no way to know if that is really true compared accross the league.

Look at it this way. Who is considered the more veteran player. A redshirt junior who has started one year or a senior who has started all 4 years. Same age, same recruiting class. Yet the senior is by far the more veteran player.

[DancingRabbit]

This thread had nothing to do with the O-line.

For those who think we need more Dan, Hev and O-line bashing "discussion", why not start a brand new thread? Woo-hoooo !

[Todd4State]

Link another metric because that is what is used. I understand what they are saying but the only way to rightly prove that a line is veteran without starts is by snaps. I can't find that and you have to take in consideration that snaps may be equal somewhat accross the conference or vastly divergent. Unfortunately, there is no way that I can find to prove experience by snaps. It could prove that while we didn't have many starts our line did have more than its fair share of snaps therefore the veteran level should be considered higher. Or it may show that we were still at the bottom of the league. By the only measurement I can find (and if any of you want to chart each team's offensive snaps for each line, go ahead) we were not a veteran group by starts.

We believe that the line came in with more experience than what the starts show. But that is because we pay attention only to our team that closely. We have no way to know if that is really true compared accross the league.

Look at it this way. Who is considered the more veteran player. A redshirt junior who has started one year or a senior who has started all 4 years. Same age, same recruiting class. Yet the senior is by far the more veteran player.

"More" veteran? That's still a flawed metric. If you have **** Bruce Matthews as your starting LG and your back-up is **** John Hannah who is one year younger that doesn't mean that it is expected that Hannah would perform worse than his predecessor.

Again, if you are a junior it is EXPECTED that you are going to be a capable SEC player.

The progression for a typical, general college player who is a *** player is as follows:

RS- The expectation is to learn the system, get physically stronger and adjust to college in general. And maybe wave a towel during games.

Fr.-So.- Special teams player and or back-up depending on depth chart as a freshman and then being expected to be a back-up/role player as a sophomore. Only starts in the case of injuries to players ahead of him. Most action is seen in blowouts.

Jr.- EXPECTED TO BE A CAPABLE STARTER at this point or a key role player for the team.

Sr.- Expected to be a capable starter and possible team leader/captain.

[Todd4State]

This thread had nothing to do with the O-line.

For those who think we need more Dan, Hev and O-line bashing "discussion", why not start a brand new thread? Woo-hoooo !

Oh- only because that unit cost us a Sugar Bowl appearance and the year before they performed horribly with a potential SEC West Championship is on the line. Not to mention the fact that on top of all of that there is a high likelihood that nothing is going to be done to change it while the unit likely will be average at best while we are waiting on our current group of recruits to develop over the next three seasons until four stars Lashley, Raekwon Davis and maybe Tommy Champion if we redshirt him are ready and RS juniors and seniors.

I don't know why people would be frustrated about that or discuss it ad nauseum either.*******

The only way people will stop discussing it is if Hevesy is re-assigned. And while possible, no one is holding their breath on that either.

[Really Clark?]

"More" veteran? That's still a flawed metric. If you have **** Bruce Matthews as your starting LG and your back-up is **** John Hannah who is one year younger that doesn't mean that it is expected that Hannah would perform worse than his predecessor.

Again, if you are a junior it is EXPECTED that you are going to be a capable SEC player.

The progression for a typical, general college player who is a *** player is as follows:

RS- The expectation is to learn the system, get physically stronger and adjust to college in general. And maybe wave a towel during games.

Fr.-So.- Special teams player and or back-up depending on depth chart as a freshman and then being expected to be a back-up/role player as a sophomore. Only starts in the case of injuries to players ahead of him. Most action is seen in blowouts.

Jr.- EXPECTED TO BE A CAPABLE STARTER at this point or a key role player for the team.

Sr.- Expected to be a capable starter and possible team leader/captain.

Are you being obtuse or ignorant on purpose? Matthews and Hannah is not close to a relevant example especially, for the 4,379th time, at no point have I talked about performance or expected performance as part of this discussion. Irrelavant to the topic. Your example of what a college player COULD progress through has absolutely no bearing on what has actually occurred on the field. Don't discuss this again unless you can link or you decided to chart another metric that determines experience. I will happily concede if it shows that while not having a lot of starts our line had enough snaps to rank it higher. Never said that it couldn't be true. What I have stated is, it is not accessible for us to see if that is the case. It may be our snaps are no more or less than anyone else, you don't know. Right now what we have is game starts to determine how veteran an OL is in college. And by that metric we were one of the least experience OL in the country. Performance is not discussed, supposed progression through a players college career is irrelevant. Game starts is what we have unless someone wants to chart offensive snaps and compare to the rest of the league.

http://philsteele.com/Blogs/2015/JUNE15/DBJune04.html

[maroonmania]

There are different ways to measure experience. If Alabama loses five starting o-linemen but they replace them with five juniors and seniors who have all played some in reserve roles and gotten SEC action, I wouldn't consider that "inexperienced" even though they don't have "starts".

If you are a RS junior that plays football in the SEC, it is expected that you should be capable as a starter at whatever position you play.

You're using a flawed metric.

I fully agree, if you are in your FOURTH year in the program and you are not ready to produce at a fairly high level, even in the SEC, then you are a BUST and would count as an evaluation mistake by the staff. No other way around it. Now I will say that if that player hasn't had much starting experience as an Offensive Lineman that he could be excused from a slow start to the season but that wasn't the case with us. We were really no better as an OL from mid-October on than we were the first game or two of the season for the most part. We did seem to do a pretty decent job as an OL in the bowl game but I don't know if that carries forward or not. Time will tell.

[Todd4State]

Are you being obtuse or ignorant on purpose? Matthews and Hannah is not close to a relevant example especially, for the 4,379th time, at no point have I talked about performance or expected performance as part of this discussion. Irrelavant to the topic. Your example of what a college player COULD progress through has absolutely no bearing on what has actually occurred on the field. Don't discuss this again unless you can link or you decided to chart another metric that determines experience. I will happily concede if it shows that while not having a lot of starts our line had enough snaps to rank it higher. Never said that it couldn't be true. What I have stated is, it is not accessible for us to see if that is the case. It may be our snaps are no more or less than anyone else, you don't know. Right now what we have is game starts to determine how veteran an OL is in college. And by that metric we were one of the least experience OL in the country. Performance is not discussed, supposed progression through a players college career is irrelevant. Game starts is what we have unless someone wants to chart offensive snaps and compare to the rest of the league.

http://philsteele.com/Blogs/2015/JUNE15/DBJune04.html

I'm not the one demanding the starts be the metric for deciding how experienced an o-line is. And by the way on that study you linked Toledo was among the nations best in sacks allowed.

If you think that I literally meant Bruce Matthews and John Hannah you are too concrete to be discussing this.

[Todd4State]

I fully agree, if you are in your FOURTH year in the program and you are not ready to produce at a fairly high level, even in the SEC, then you are a BUST and would count as an evaluation mistake by the staff. No other way around it. Now I will say that if that player hasn't had much starting experience as an Offensive Lineman that he could be excused from a slow start to the season but that wasn't the case with us. We were really no better as an OL from mid-October on than we were the first game or two of the season for the most part. We did seem to do a pretty decent job as an OL in the bowl game but I don't know if that carries forward or not. Time will tell.

Exactly.

[Really Clark?]

I'm not the one demanding the starts be the metric for deciding how experienced an o-line is. And by the way on that study you linked Toledo was among the nations best in sacks allowed.

If you think that I literally meant Bruce Matthews and John Hannah you are too concrete to be discussing this.

Your reading comprehension sucks. Toledo reference is irrelevant. We are not talking performance. We are not talking performance. Performance has nothing to do with experience. Production is not part of the equation in evaluating veteran OL. I'm not demanding anything. That is what the outside third parties use to rank veteran OL. Have you a link for it and everything. It's not me demanding it it's what is available. Reread what I have posted, if you want to chart snaps, go ahead. I agree it's is s better measure. It's just not available and just because we think it increases our OL experience compared to our peers, doesn't make it so.

ETA. Here is how the NFL determines experience. Read the bottom of the chart for experience breakdown

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?conference=null&role=TM&offensiveStatisticCategory=OFFENSIVE_LINE&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&season=2013&seasonType=REG&tabSeq=2