Do Mullen's Teams Overachieve?

[ShotgunDawg]

Over the past week, I've noticed that most every article that mentions Mullen in any capacity states that his teams consistently "overachieve" & I was curious if this is actually true or if this has just become a keyword from the media to describe an alternate reality.

It's my opinion that while he is certainly a very good coach & a solid program runner, his teams don't so much overachieve as much as they are just consistent & don't bottom out. I would argue that while the consistency of the program has been better under Mullen than at any point in the program's history (that may be considered overachieving) Mullen being perceived as an overachiever has more to do with the underachievement of other programs.

- MSU has a 5 year recruiting average ranking of 25. Do MSU teams consistently play better than the 25th best team in the country? I'd argue that they typically play exactly like the 25th best team in the nation.

- Does MSU upset many higher ranked teams? This year he beat Texas A&M who was highly ranked, but I'd say with the way both seasons ended, MSU may be the better team. Due to A&M's recruiting profile, is this MSU overachieving or A&M underachieving?

- MSU has won games against Auburn over the past 5 years & Auburn recruits far better. Again, is this MSU overachieving or Auburn underachieving? Auburn is the most volatile program in the SEC & maybe the country. Due to the immense pressure to win there, they take massive risks on players with issues & sometimes they fly like a War Eagle & other times they suck. It's a roll of the dice. Again, to me MSU's success against Auburn has more to do with Auburn's volatility than it does with MSU overachieving.

- Mullen has never beat Alabama & has only beaten LSU 1. No overachieving here.

- Until this season, MSU had beaten Arkansas 4 straight times. Well, MSU recruits better than Arkansas, so beating them is not overachieving.

- Mullen has a winning record against Ole Miss, a program that recruits better than MSU. Well, Ole Miss is Auburn light. They take massive risks on talent & sometimes they are decent & most times they suck. MSU beating Ole Miss isn't about MSU overachieving & more about Ole Miss running their program like a crime family runs their family enterprises.

- 2014 IMO is the only season where this program has truly overachieved & that was a special year with a superstar QB & experienced team around him.

So, there you go. MSU "overachieving" under Mullen is another myth created by the media that doesn't match reality. Again, Mullen is an outstanding football coach & program runner, but people are confusing consistency for overachieving because other SEC teams aren't consistent. Just because MSU is picked last in the SEC West every year & doesn't finish there, doesn't mean that the team overachieved. It just means that they were consistent & didn't bottom out. Going back to my post the other day, this is just another example of how the media clearly just doesn't seem to know anything about MSU. MSU is a top 25 recruiter that is producing QUALITY NFL players left & right.

Maybe this perception was developed during the Croom years or pre-Jackie years, but that's not who we are anymore & yet the media has not noticed. MSU is a solid, productive program in the SEC West that recruits in the top 25 & has made as many serious facility & stadium upgrades over the past 5 years as any program in the country.

[confucius say]

From a macro level, he has overachieved here compared to our history. That's probably what drives the narrative.

[ShotgunDawg]

From a macro level, he has overachieved here compared to our history. That's probably what drives the narrative.

This has to be the reason for the narrative. Who would've thought consistency would be considered overachieving.

[Really Clark?]

I think it's mostly based on our history and the strength of the SEC west for most of his tenure here. To consistently win here for 6 straight years is considered overachieving to the outside world. And many have seen those years that while our record might not have been 10-11 win type years, our team in other conferences were probably that good. Take the 9-4 2010 team. Our only losses were to 10 win teams in our division. Gave the national title team one of their closes battles and took Arkansas to OT. To many we were truly the best 4 loss team in the country and playing elsewhere we probably win 10 games. 2014 we were picked what 5th? Finished 2nd in the west. Because outsiders are not living in our bubble, their perception of what has been accomplished is different than ours

[1bigdawg]

Mullen has done a great job if you look at MSU from a historical perspective. However, has asked not to be judged that way but instead by progress toward a championship.

He has really good PR for himself as a coach. I wish the university as a whole were as good at promoting itself. That leads to a perception that he is overachieving.

However, if he is overachieving with the players he has, does that mean he is underachieving at recruiting? We are not beating the top of the conference consistently. How is that overachieving?

[FISHDAWG]

He's done well but according to my signature he did not over achieve this particular year .... once in a while ole C-34 gets it right**

[Liverpooldawg]

Simple answer, yes, by almost any non-Maroon colored measure you want to use. The rest of the country does not look at him and us the way we do.

[Liverpooldawg]

This has to be the reason for the narrative. Who would've thought consistency would be considered overachieving.

Historically speaking that IS overachieving here. The only thing we have ever done consistently is lose. That Mullen has done it in what will eventually be seen as THE Golden Age of SEC football is nothing short of amazing.

[QuadrupleOption]

This has to be the reason for the narrative. Who would've thought consistency would be considered overachieving.

Umm....well...I mean, you HAVE seen our football history, right?

[HoopsDawg]

According to Vegas, the South Alabama win over MSU was the biggest upset of the season. Certainly didn't over-achieve in that game.

[Dawg-gone-dawgs]

We had 16 players 4*'s or better on the team this year. Most of them are young guys. That is what Mullen means when he says "we're young" We are scratching the surface of being a really good football team. The upcoming years will get better and better.

[lamont]

From a historical perspective- yes

From a talent and NFL draft pick level? No. We are in the top 5-6 in the SEC in draft picks the last 5 years.

[BrunswickDawg]

I think you can easily say that by our historic standards he has overachieved - with no doubt. You have to evaluate us against our peers. When you evaluate against just the SECW - I would say yes as well. We consistently are the 6-7th team in the SECW in recruiting. We have the lowest budget in the SECW. We have the smallest stadium in the SECW. We are consistently picked to finish dead last in the SECW. So, regardless of where our expectations are, the reality is that by most metrics the press and general public look at, any finish above last in the SECW is overachieving. Head to head, Mullen has kept us ahead of OM (5-3), even with Ark (4-4), and just behind AU (3-4) and A&M (2-3). That far exceeds most people's expectations.

Another thing to look at is who is he putting in the NFL. Other than Chris Jones, almost all of them are 2 star HS prospects, let alone having as many guys as we have in the league is unprecedented.

[maroonmania]

According to Vegas, the South Alabama win over MSU was the biggest upset of the season. Certainly didn't over-achieve in that game.

Its a sad commentary on your program after 8 years if you had to "overachieve" to go 5-7. Obviously that was not the case. We dropped at least 3 games to teams that we have more talent on the roster than they do with USA, KY and BYU. If we don't have more talent on the roster than those 3 then that is pretty damning evidence of recruiting failures on the part of Mullen and his staff. I'm elated with the Egg Bowl win but our coaching staff did not handle this team properly to utilize its strengths, particularly on offense, the first half of the season. If we had been a hard nosed, focused run-oriented team from the get go we would have won at least 2 more games. Trying to keep Fitz in the pocket like he was Dak from last year most of the time while sending Holloway up the middle was just an asinine approach. Going back to pounding the ball with a Relf like offense with Fitz and replacing Holloway with Williams made a world of difference in our offensive production. Also, I'm still at a loss as to what to think about Sirmon and crew. Seemed to be a steady decline in performance until the second half of the Egg Bowl. Not sure what that should leave me expecting for next year?

[lamont]

Benardrick McKinney and Dakota Prescott being under rated by the Yancy's of the world doesn't mean they weren't NFL talents. I told everyone on SPS after watching Prescott play at Haughton he was going to be the best QB to ever play at State.

We do a good job of pushing guys to get the most out of their talent- but to say McKinney and Prescott weren't NFL talents as HS Seniors is not being fair to them. They are not overachievers- they are extremely talented. Yancy and Robbie Failk not recognizing it doesn't make it so

[BrunswickDawg]

Benardrick McKinney and Dakota Prescott being under rated by the Yancy's of the world doesn't mean they weren't NFL talents. I told everyone on SPS after watching Prescott play at Haughton he was going to be the best QB to ever play at State.

We do a good job of pushing guys to get the most out of their talent- but to say McKinney and Prescott weren't NFL talents as HS Seniors is not being fair to them. They are not overachievers- they are extremely talented. Yancy and Robbie Failk not recognizing it doesn't make it so

So you are telling me that if Dak went to LSU, he'd be the QB of the Dallas Cowboys and probably have a couple of Natty's under his belt?? No way. Absolutely. No. Way. They are as bad or worse than OM at QB development. And McKinney was a skinny QB/LB. Who saw him as one of the top LB's in the NFL? Who else offered him? Yes, they obviously had the drive and skill set, but either of those guys could have just as easily wound up at McNeese or Alcorn, toiling in obscurity, with no coaches to develop those skills and help them get to that next level. And that is what people are talking about when they say Dan overachieves.

And by the way, spotting QB talent must not be that hard. I told everyone in 2013 that Fitz would be the next big QB after Dak - and I never played a down of organized football. But, hey, if it wasn't for Dan he'd be a TE at MTSU or "U- T Chattanooga. A fine football program."

[Dawg61]

And McKinney was a skinny QB/LB. Who saw him as one of the top LB's in the NFL?

C34 obviously

[HoopsDawg]

Benardrick McKinney and Dakota Prescott being under rated by the Yancy's of the world doesn't mean they weren't NFL talents. I told everyone on SPS after watching Prescott play at Haughton he was going to be the best QB to ever play at State.

We do a good job of pushing guys to get the most out of their talent- but to say McKinney and Prescott weren't NFL talents as HS Seniors is not being fair to them. They are not overachievers- they are extremely talented. Yancy and Robbie Failk not recognizing it doesn't make it so

I don't remember you posting back then, but I do recall Coach34 saying that about Dak. Give credit to Dan and to TCU for seeing that talent and Dan did a great job developing him. It's Dan's biggest strength. Yeah, McKinney was only a 2 star b/c he was rated as a QB. He had double digit tackles in the All-star game that year and you could tell he was going to be a player. Slay was a 3 star out of Juco and a big time player. We actually pulled a "dan" with him and didn't really play him until the end of his junior season and we never used him or his speed in the return game.

[dawgday166]

From a historical perspective- yes

From a talent and NFL draft pick level? No. We are in the top 5-6 in the SEC in draft picks the last 5 years.

I'm on this train.

[Bothrops]

No. The media has no understanding of this subject.

[maroonmania]

So you are telling me that if Dak went to LSU, he'd be the QB of the Dallas Cowboys and probably have a couple of Natty's under his belt?? No way. Absolutely. No. Way. They are as bad or worse than OM at QB development. And McKinney was a skinny QB/LB. Who saw him as one of the top LB's in the NFL? Who else offered him? Yes, they obviously had the drive and skill set, but either of those guys could have just as easily wound up at McNeese or Alcorn, toiling in obscurity, with no coaches to develop those skills and help them get to that next level. And that is what people are talking about when they say Dan overachieves.

And by the way, spotting QB talent must not be that hard. I told everyone in 2013 that Fitz would be the next big QB after Dak - and I never played a down of organized football. But, hey, if it wasn't for Dan he'd be a TE at MTSU or "U- T Chattanooga. A fine football program."

Dan Mullen has his faults, no doubt, but he is hands down the best developer of QBs in the SEC. I would probably put Lane Kiffin second at the moment. Dak had all the tools but had he gone to LSU under Miles there is NO WAY he would be in the NFL right now.

[dawgday166]

So you are telling me that if Dak went to LSU, he'd be the QB of the Dallas Cowboys and probably have a couple of Natty's under his belt?? No way. Absolutely. No. Way. They are as bad or worse than OM at QB development. And McKinney was a skinny QB/LB. Who saw him as one of the top LB's in the NFL? Who else offered him? Yes, they obviously had the drive and skill set, but either of those guys could have just as easily wound up at McNeese or Alcorn, toiling in obscurity, with no coaches to develop those skills and help them get to that next level. And that is what people are talking about when they say Dan overachieves.

And by the way, spotting QB talent must not be that hard. I told everyone in 2013 that Fitz would be the next big QB after Dak - and I never played a down of organized football. But, hey, if it wasn't for Dan he'd be a TE at MTSU or "U- T Chattanooga. A fine football program."

While Dan and staff have done good with Dak, BMac, and Preston, several 4* players have been total busts. And Chris Jones never fully played like his talent level while at MSU. The staff over all 8 years has done a really good job of evaluating and developing 3* or below players. They don't do so well at developing 4* or better players. The Oline has been our achilles heel more than anything.

With the talent Dan has had tho ... I think he always leaves at least 2 games/year on the field that should've been won. And rarely wins a game he shouldn't win. This year he lost at least 3 and probably 4 he should've won.

[lamont]

So you are telling me that if Dak went to LSU, he'd be the QB of the Dallas Cowboys and probably have a couple of Natty's under his belt?? No way. Absolutely. No. Way. They are as bad or worse than OM at QB development. And McKinney was a skinny QB/LB. Who saw him as one of the top LB's in the NFL? Who else offered him? Yes, they obviously had the drive and skill set, but either of those guys could have just as easily wound up at McNeese or Alcorn, toiling in obscurity, with no coaches to develop those skills and help them get to that next level. And that is what people are talking about when they say Dan overachieves.

And by the way, spotting QB talent must not be that hard. I told everyone in 2013 that Fitz would be the next big QB after Dak - and I never played a down of organized football. But, hey, if it wasn't for Dan he'd be a TE at MTSU or "U- T Chattanooga. A fine football program."

A) I'm saying if Dakota had played at TCU he would have led Them to a Peach Bowl blowout of OM and a Top 3 ranking. Could LSU have screwed him up? Sure. Still doesn't mean he wasn't an NFL talent.

B) You and I are talking about 2 different things. I'm saying McKinney was an NFL talent. He was a freak athlete before he got to Starkville. Kids play one position in HS because they are the best on their team and then get moved in college. Mullen did a great job or recognizing his talent. He gets absolute credit for that. But Mullen didn't make McKinney an NFL talent- he was that already

[smootness]

Maybe this perception was developed during the Croom years or pre-Jackie years, but that's not who we are anymore & yet the media has not noticed. MSU is a solid, productive program in the SEC West that recruits in the top 25 & has made as many serious facility & stadium upgrades over the past 5 years as any program in the country.

Ok, but how much of this is due to Mullen?

[MadDawg]

With the talent Dan has had tho ... I think he always leaves at least 2 games/year on the field that should've been won. And rarely wins a game he shouldn't win. This year he lost at least 3 and probably 4 he should've won.

So, just to be clear here, according to you and the immense talent Dan squanders year-in and year-out, our records SHOULD HAVE BEEN the following the past few years:
2016 7-5
2015 11-2
2014 12-1
2013 9-5
2012 10-3

So Dan should be averaging 10 wins per season at MSU according to our talent level. 10 wins in the SECW usually gets you in the playoffs, so we should get there every year....according to our talent. What a waste.

[smootness]

So we're now discrediting Mullen for developing NFL players and for Dak. Good gosh, it honestly never stops.

[dawgday166]

So, just to be clear here, according to you and the immense talent Dan squanders year-in and year-out, our records SHOULD HAVE BEEN the following the past few years:
2016 7-5
2015 11-2
2014 12-1
2013 9-5
2012 10-3

So Dan should be averaging 10 wins per season at MSU according to our talent level. 10 wins in the SECW usually gets you in the playoffs, so we should get there every year....according to our talent. What a waste.

2014 thru 2016 yes. Not sure about 2012 & 2013. 2015 - LSU & TAM games should've been won (we beat ourselves and Dan squandered LSU game). 2014 - OM & GT games should've been won (and I think we should've beat Bama too). Is there any doubt about 2016???

ETA: I'm assuming you meant NY6 bowl as opposed to playoffs.

ETA (again): 2013 - Auburn where they drove the field in less than 2 minutes (we made Nick Marshall look like Joe Montana on that drive). ETA: My mistake - only 1 game in 2013 that I can tell and remember (with the late season injuries and all).

[HoopsDawg]

So, just to be clear here, according to you and the immense talent Dan squanders year-in and year-out, our records SHOULD HAVE BEEN the following the past few years:
2016 7-5
2015 11-2
2014 12-1
2013 9-5
2012 10-3

So Dan should be averaging 10 wins per season at MSU according to our talent level. 10 wins in the SECW usually gets you in the playoffs, so we should get there every year....according to our talent. What a waste.


Silly post by that guy, but let's be honest, there are a lot of guys that can win 4 non-conference games and beat UK at Miss State. That's 5 wins you are starting with every year. If you win 2 of the remaining 7 games every year, you have vastly overachieved our history without doing anything too remarkable.

[Dawg61]

but let's be honest, there are a lot of guys that can win 4 non-conference games and beat UK at Miss State.

UK just beat Louisville. Maybe they shouldn't be considered an easy win right now.

[HoopsDawg]

UK just beat Louisville. Maybe they shouldn't be considered an easy win right now.

We lost to them this year. I was thinking more about the previous 7 seasons. Also, non-conference is going to be a little tougher than Mullen's previous 7 seasons.

So it can be argued Mullen's first 7 seasons are as easy as it's ever been and as easy as it will ever be.

[BrunswickDawg]

Silly post by that guy, but let's be honest, there are a lot of guys that can win 4 non-conference games and beat UK at Miss State. That's 5 wins you are starting with every year. If you win 2 of the remaining 7 games every year, you have vastly overachieved our history without doing anything too remarkable.
That may be true - but Dan is the only one we've had since McKeen to do it consistently.
Until we regularly compete for championships, we will always be seen as overachievers for anything above .500 . It's the same reason we get picked for last every year. 100 years of history gives people confidence that we suck, and if we don't we are overachieving.

[Dawg61]

We lost to them this year. I was thinking more about the previous 7 seasons. Also, non-conference is going to be a little tougher than Mullen's previous 7 seasons.

So it can be argued Mullen's first 7 seasons are as easy as it's ever been and as easy as it will ever be.

Yup we really only have 3 easy wins annually now with 2 additional semi-easy ones. Old Misses might replace UK as our next easiest annual game for the next five years or so.

[HoopsDawg]

That may be true - but Dan is the only one we've had since McKeen to do it consistently.
Until we regularly compete for championships, we will always be seen as overachievers for anything above .500 . It's the same reason we get picked for last every year. 100 years of history gives people confidence that we suck, and if we don't we are overachieving.

As I stated above Mullen is also the only coach to benefit from a 12 game schedule, 4 gimmie non-conference wins, and the ever widening gap between power 5's and non-power 5's. Just think about MSU to USM now vs MSU to USM in the 80's.

[turkish]

Not underachieving IS overachieving. There is no middle ground.

[HSVDawg]

Depends on how you look at it. The most apples-to-apples ways to look at it is to compare how we've done compared to other teams in the division . I couldn't give less of a crap about how well we've fared compared to Stanford or Kansas State or Rutgers or Miami or whoever else that has uniquely different challenges and advantages than we do.

Our average finish position in the SEC West standings over the last 5 years is 4.6
Our average recruiting ranking finish position amongst SECW team over the same period is 6.2
Our number of NFL draft picks over that same time is probably top 4 or 5 in the West (haven't looked it up, but I imagine Bama, LSU, and either Auburn and/or A&M have all likely had more).

Of course vs our history, Mullen has done significantly better. But in my mind that is not over-achieving, it is just improving your baseline or "raising the floor". True overachievement is doing more with less, and can only be judged with what you have vs. what everyone else has in the present tense (not historically).

Overall, our finish in the SEC West standings and in head to head matchups has closely mirrored our finish in the recruiting rankings and number of NFL draft picks when compared to our division counterparts. You could argue that we have had slight improvement in all the outputs (finish in the standings, draft picks) vs. the inputs (recruiting rankings). However, my argument would be that we had one overachievement season (2014) that skewed the average a bit as this was a historical outlier for us. I'd say outside of 2014, Mullen has mostly done what he should have done with what he had. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Really Clark?]

That's a good post HSV but anybody who doesn't include the 2010 season accomplishment as not overachieving is selling his time here short. Our only losses were to national contender type teams and took 2 of them to the wire. That and 2014 were on par with each other IMO.

[HSVDawg]

Not underachieving IS overachieving. There is no middle ground.

Uh, yeah there is. Doing what he's supposed to be doing with what he has is the middle ground and is neither underachieving nor overachieving.

[turkish]

Uh, yeah there is. Doing what he's supposed to be doing with what he has is the middle ground and is neither underachieving nor overachieving.
I just don't think you can define exactly what he is supposed to do. That line is too fine.

[dawgday166]

I just don't think you can define exactly what he is supposed to do. That line is too fine.

Win football games. Beat OM & Bama. Win the MIGHTY SEC W. Make playoffs. So yea, he's underachieving.

[HoopsDawg]

I just don't think you can define exactly what he is supposed to do. That line is too fine.

I agree, it changes based on the strength of the opponents, more specifically the strength of the league. This year, the baseline should have been 6-6. Anything worse was underachieving, anything better overachieving.

[HoopsDawg]

Win football games. Beat OM & Bama. Win the MIGHTY SEC W. Make playoffs. So yea, he's underachieving.

That's not a reasonable or well-thought out opinion.

[HSVDawg]

That's a good post HSV but anybody who doesn't include the 2010 season accomplishment as not overachieving is selling his time here short. Our only losses were to national contender type teams and took 2 of them to the wire. That and 2014 were on par with each other IMO.

Yeah but then you look at how much talent that team had. Defense had 6 or 7 NFL players on it (Banks, Cox, McPhee, Wright, Boyd, White, Chaney?), with a couple of those guys being Pro Bowl selections and one is currently the 2nd highest paid defensive player in the league. Had an NFL RB and an NFL LT as well. Was 9-4 and 5th in the West with that squad really overachieving?

From a macro view, I look at it this way. Our recruiting is generally bottom half of the SEC West. Our facilities / resources are bottom half of the SEC West. Our finish in the standings is generally bottom half of the SEC West. Our ranking in terms of number of draft picks produced is generally bottom half of the SEC West. Everything kind of lines up. Yeah, you can pick a year like 2014 and say we overachieved or a year like 2016 or 2011 and say we underachieved. But over the long haul, it evens out. I think it can be argued that Mullen has done what he should with what he's had or that maybe he has slightly overachieved. It cannot be argued that he has underachieved at all, or that he has significantly overachieved.

[Cooterpoot]

Yes. He's overachieved (minus this season). Let's take a look at that original post:

1. We average 25th in the country in recruiting- True, but that's good for about 10th in our conference. And next to last in our division. Put us in another conference with that recruiting number and we're a top 15-20 team.
2. Does MSU upset higher ranked teams? Yes. 7 in 8 years. 4 wins against the top 10.
3. Beats AU because they're not consistent- State has 26 total wins vs AU over our history (111 years). Only AL and GA have better winning percentages against us than Auburn. Dan has 3 of those wins in 8 years (should be 4). And AU has a natty and a runner up in that time.
State fans are the only fans in the world that refuse to take credit for wins.
4. Never beaten AL and LSU only once. Saban wins over 80% of his games. Best in history. He's only been shutout 2 times in his coaching history. AL has lost 18 games total in 9 years under him. Have you looked how long it was since we beat LSU prior to Mullen? Those two teams run the conference for the most part.
5. Arkansas- You're basing your argument on fictional recruiting rankings. You obviously forget how many times they whipped us before Mullen got here. So him elevating our recruiting rankings (which were fictional back in the day as well) and winning 4 straight is nothing? Because we should be them every single year? Good grief!
6. Beating UM is because they're inconsistent....again....stupid fans refusing to take credit for wins. Beating our hated rival is simply because they were down. Even though they recruited better, which was the argument in previous points.
7. 2014 was special. So special people have started to expect more every year, knowing we have to build toward that because of our program limitations.

If being picked last by the media doesn't matter, then recruiting rankings (by media types by the way) can't be used to argue success/failures. Everything is relative to the SEC and money. Which, by the way, we're dead last in. Not to mention located in the middle of nowhere in a state with considerably fewer athletes with which to choose from. Mullen has done a good job and he's overachieved. Because of it, we all now expect more. One down year can't let you loose focus.

[dawgday166]

That's not a reasonable or well-thought out opinion.

Haha ... I'd probably agree with you.

[HSVDawg]

I just don't think you can define exactly what he is supposed to do. That line is too fine.

What he's supposed to do, in regards to overachievement / underachievement, is make the outputs match the inputs. Not doing so is underachievement. Making outputs exceed inputs is overachievement. All of those inputs and outputs can be at least somewhat objectively measured vs. the competition and that is what I did in my previous post. You can argue that a lot of the inputs need improving (like recruiting, facilities, or whatever), but that isn't really what this discussion is about.

[smootness]

Win football games. Beat OM & Bama. Win the MIGHTY SEC W. Make playoffs. So yea, he's underachieving.

He's supposed to beat Bama, win the West, and make the playoffs?

[dawgday166]

Yeah but then you look at how much talent that team had. Defense had 6 or 7 NFL players on it (Banks, Cox, McPhee, Wright, Boyd, White, Chaney?), with a couple of those guys being Pro Bowl selections and one is currently the 2nd highest paid defensive player in the league. Had an NFL RB and an NFL LT as well. Was 9-4 and 5th in the West with that squad really overachieving?

From a macro view, I look at it this way. Our recruiting is generally bottom half of the SEC West. Our facilities / resources are bottom half of the SEC West. Our finish in the standings is generally bottom half of the SEC West. Our ranking in terms of number of draft picks produced is generally bottom half of the SEC West. Everything kind of lines up. Yeah, you can pick a year like 2014 and say we overachieved or a year like 2016 or 2011 and say we underachieved. But over the long haul, it evens out. I think it can be argued that Mullen has done what he should with what he's had or that maybe he has slightly overachieved. It cannot be argued that he has underachieved at all, or that he has significantly overachieved.

Good points.

[dawgday166]

He's supposed to beat Bama, win the West, and make the playoffs?

Isn't that why we're paying him >4 mill? Or we doing that just to finish 5th or 6th in the SEC W?

[Really Clark?]

Yeah but then you look at how much talent that team had. Defense had 6 or 7 NFL players on it (Banks, Cox, McPhee, Wright, Boyd, White, Chaney?), with a couple of those guys being Pro Bowl selections and one is currently the 2nd highest paid defensive player in the league. Had an NFL RB and an NFL LT as well. Was 9-4 and 5th in the West with that squad really overachieving?

From a macro view, I look at it this way. Our recruiting is generally bottom half of the SEC West. Our facilities / resources are bottom half of the SEC West. Our finish in the standings is generally bottom half of the SEC West. Our ranking in terms of number of draft picks produced is generally bottom half of the SEC West. Everything kind of lines up. Yeah, you can pick a year like 2014 and say we overachieved or a year like 2016 or 2011 and say we underachieved. But over the long haul, it evens out. I think it can be argued that Mullen has done what he should with what he's had or that maybe he has slightly overachieved. It cannot be argued that he has underachieved at all, or that he has significantly overachieved.

Disagree. For one, at the time no one knew we had that much overall defensive talent and not all of then were highly recruited either. They were developed here. Secondly, that's all defense. Our offense was top half in the league for total offense and scored 29 pts per game with Relf at QB. Relf. That was 2 TD better than when he got here. But most importantly we did that overcoming the decade and half long mentality that had plagued our program. To overcome that in just one year was overachieving especially considering that was considered the most difficult division in the history of college football. One division with 4 10 win teams and the national champ. Underselling that year IMO

[BrunswickDawg]

Yes. He's overachieved (minus this season). Let's take a look at that original post:

3. Beats AU because they're not consistent- State has 26 total wins vs AU over our history (111 years). Only AL and GA have better winning percentages against us than Auburn. Dan has 3 of those wins in 8 years (should be 4). And AU has a natty and a runner up in that time.
State fans are the only fans in the world that refuse to take credit for wins.

It's actually 28 wins - but regardless - great point. We are 28-58-3 all time against AU (according to sportsreference.com). Amazingly, we are 10-16 since hiring The Kang (6-7). Croom had 1 win (1-4), and Dan (3-5). AU really is inconsistent over the past 26 years.

[lamont]

Any comparisons of our program when looking back at our history need to start in 1991- when Jackie got to State. He changed Bulldog football forever. Our program the last 25 years is elevated from where we were in the 60's, 70's, and 80's.

[MadDawg]

Win football games. Beat OM & Bama. Win the MIGHTY SEC W. Make playoffs. So yea, he's underachieving.

Ok, this is obviously a troll job.

[Really Clark?]

Any comparisons of our program when looking back at our history need to start in 1991- when Jackie got to State. He changed Bulldog football forever. Our program the last 25 years is elevated from where we were in the 60's, 70's, and 80's.

I think we won about .450 of our games in the 60's until Jackie arrived. He won .493 but by the time Mullen was hired we were back down to like a .460-.470 historic average. Mullen is at .588 win percentage. That's a big increase over our history and since Jackie's either way

[HSVDawg]

Disagree. For one, at the time no one knew we had that much overall defensive talent and not all of then were highly recruited either. They were developed here. Secondly, that's all defense. Our offense was top half in the league for total offense and scored 29 pts per game with Relf at QB. Relf. That was 2 TD better than when he got here. But most importantly we did that overcoming the decade and half long mentality that had plagued our program. To overcome that in just one year was overachieving especially considering that was considered the most difficult division in the history of college football. One division with 4 10 win teams and the national champ. Underselling that year IMO

You raise some good points, but I think its just a difference in perspective between us. First off, most of the guys listed WERE highly recruited. Ballard and Banks were the only ones who were overlooked. The rest were all 4 star / 5 star guys except Wright who still had several offers. Then you bring up Relf and the improvement of the offense, which was undeniable. But you look at the teams that finished ahead of us in the division, and we still did next to nothing against any of them offensively except for Arkansas. So that team had limitations, as good as it was. And I'm not saying it was a bad year by any means. It was probably my favorite and most memorable season under Mullen actually, even moreso than 2014.

And also, just because I don't consider it an overachievement season or Mullen an overachieving coach doesn't mean I'm trying to downplay or undersell either one. In case no one has noticed, we haven't had a coach who has done "what he's supposed to do" over the course of his entire tenure in any sport, EVER. And that is what I think Mullen has been able to accomplish over the past 8+ years. There is definitely something to be said for that.

[Liverpooldawg]

Isn't that why we're paying him >4 mill? Or we doing that just to finish 5th or 6th in the SEC W?
His salary was last in the West. Since LSU hired O it's now next to last.

[HoopsDawg]

I think we won about .450 of our games in the 60's until Jackie arrived. He won .493 but by the time Mullen was hired we were back down to like a .460-.470 historic average. Mullen is at .588 win percentage. That's a big increase over our history and since Jackie's either way

Jackie had a team that went 7-4 and didn't go to a bowl game. So you really can't even compare Mullen to Jackie though it is certainly more relevant than the 60s and 70s.

[confucius say]

We lost to them this year. I was thinking more about the previous 7 seasons. Also, non-conference is going to be a little tougher than Mullen's previous 7 seasons.

So it can be argued Mullen's first 7 seasons are as easy as it's ever been and as easy as it will ever be.

But the west was better than ever too.

[Percho]

Its a sad commentary on your program after 8 years if you had to "overachieve" to go 5-7. Obviously that was not the case. We dropped at least 3 games to teams that we have more talent on the roster than they do with USA, KY and BYU. If we don't have more talent on the roster than those 3 then that is pretty damning evidence of recruiting failures on the part of Mullen and his staff. I'm elated with the Egg Bowl win but our coaching staff did not handle this team properly to utilize its strengths, particularly on offense, the first half of the season. If we had been a hard nosed, focused run-oriented team from the get go we would have won at least 2 more games. Trying to keep Fitz in the pocket like he was Dak from last year most of the time while sending Holloway up the middle was just an asinine approach. Going back to pounding the ball with a Relf like offense with Fitz and replacing Holloway with Williams made a world of difference in our offensive production. Also, I'm still at a loss as to what to think about Sirmon and crew. Seemed to be a steady decline in performance until the second half of the Egg Bowl. Not sure what that should leave me expecting for next year?

Plus whatever, good post. Everybody who watched us play last year knew Holloway up the middle wasn't going to get it done, except our Coach. And I will give him, Coach, that Holloway had a good year last year but even last year we would have been a better team playing, Williams. IMHO.

[Really Clark?]

You raise some good points, but I think its just a difference in perspective between us. First off, most of the guys listed WERE highly recruited. Ballard and Banks were the only ones who were overlooked. The rest were all 4 star / 5 star guys except Wright who still had several offers. Then you bring up Relf and the improvement of the offense, which was undeniable. But you look at the teams that finished ahead of us in the division, and we still did next to nothing against any of them offensively except for Arkansas. So that team had limitations, as good as it was. And I'm not saying it was a bad year by any means. It was probably my favorite and most memorable season under Mullen actually, even moreso than 2014.

And also, just because I don't consider it an overachievement season or Mullen an overachieving coach doesn't mean I'm trying to downplay or undersell either one. In case no one has noticed, we haven't had a coach who has done "what he's supposed to do" over the course of his entire tenure in any sport, EVER. And that is what I think Mullen has been able to accomplish over the past 8+ years. There is definitely something to be said for that.

Probably so. I think his first was very close to overachieving. We go bowling and not stopped a foot short against LSU, that season feels even better. Even as good as most felt the direction of the team was going that year, 1 foot probably bumps it up a good bit

[Really Clark?]

Jackie had a team that went 7-4 and didn't go to a bowl game. So you really can't even compare Mullen to Jackie though it is certainly more relevant than the 60s and 70s.

Disagree with that. I didn't even bring up bowl games at all. Mullen is nearly a full percentage point higher than Jackie during his time here. That's a pretty big difference. We've gone over the differences in scheduling, etc. The numbers don't lie. Our strength of schedule, the strength of the west, etc. all point to a better winning percentage during a tougher time and stronger SOS for Mullen. Even completely eliminating the extra OOC during Mullen's time, removing one win a year for the last 8, he still has a .553 win percentage against a tougher SOS.

[Percho]

I don't remember you posting back then, but I do recall Coach34 saying that about Dak. Give credit to Dan and to TCU for seeing that talent and Dan did a great job developing him. It's Dan's biggest strength. Yeah, McKinney was only a 2 star b/c he was rated as a QB. He had double digit tackles in the All-star game that year and you could tell he was going to be a player. Slay was a 3 star out of Juco and a big time player. We actually pulled a "dan" with him and didn't really play him until the end of his junior season and we never used him or his speed in the return game.

I think Dan's biggest fault is not taking a chance on how far along players are who he believes in his heart will be great players. Play them more, sooner, please. Also the A B thing with defense hurt our team with players like Chris Jones and McKinney.

[Percho]

I think DM underachieves because of his nature in playing young players.

[Percho]

Its a sad commentary on your program after 8 years if you had to "overachieve" to go 5-7. Obviously that was not the case. We dropped at least 3 games to teams that we have more talent on the roster than they do with USA, KY and BYU. If we don't have more talent on the roster than those 3 then that is pretty damning evidence of recruiting failures on the part of Mullen and his staff. I'm elated with the Egg Bowl win but our coaching staff did not handle this team properly to utilize its strengths, particularly on offense, the first half of the season. If we had been a hard nosed, focused run-oriented team from the get go we would have won at least 2 more games. Trying to keep Fitz in the pocket like he was Dak from last year most of the time while sending Holloway up the middle was just an asinine approach. Going back to pounding the ball with a Relf like offense with Fitz and replacing Holloway with Williams made a world of difference in our offensive production. Also, I'm still at a loss as to what to think about Sirmon and crew. Seemed to be a steady decline in performance until the second half of the Egg Bowl. Not sure what that should leave me expecting for next year?

Plus whatever, good post. Everybody who watched us play last year knew Holloway up the middle wasn't going to get it done, except our Coach. And I will give him, Coach, that Holloway had a good year last year but even last year we would have been a better team playing, Williams. IMHO.

[Todd4State]

From my view I think we underachieve slightly based on the talent that we have and I think the reason why is because Dan’s biggest weakness as a coach to me is his overreliance on upperclassmen football players over sometimes more talented underclassmen.

Think about South Alabama this year- do we lose if Nick plays more than one series or Aeris gets even 5-6 more carries than he did? Ultimately, that loss ruined our season because if we win we start to build confidence and maybe BYU and Kentucky turn out a little differently as well. I think Dan wanted Damien to take the reigns but he did- to his credit change when he saw that Damien couldn’t run the team as well as Fitz. But the interesting thing about that which I think gets overlooked some is Dan per his press conference after I believe it was South Carolina said that he decided to make the change on Sunday- which means he decided to go with a QB that has barely played after one practice at the most. That tells me that Dan knew that Nick was better so why not go with him to start with?

I’ve also talked about how our offense is much better with a between the tackles runner as opposed to a scat back. Holloway was a good player for us and has his strengths, but once Aeris took over, our offense almost immediately became much better. Why? Because he could get more yards and keep us ahead of the sticks more effectively which results in us passing less and it makes our QB running more effective because now we have at least two running threats on the field at all times. The same thing essentially happened when Josh Robinson replaced LaDarius Perkins.

Those are the two most obvious of several examples- Zach Jackson, Rufus Warren, and etc.

I think it comes down to Dan wants to see players that have worked hard get rewarded for their hard work. So, I think he means well. But it’s created some problems- and one of those is it causes us to not process out players off the roster which messes up our class numbers although I’ve heard that we are going to start processing more guys out so we’ll see if that happens and if it does it’s a sign that Dan is adjusting which is good.

So, I think the solution- because I don’t think rewarding hard work is the worst thing in the world- is to find ways for the less talented players to get playing time without mortgaging the success of the team. Like Holloway could have been used on outside runs and in the passing game. That would have been better than how we used him this year early on and it would have kept him healthy. Let McLaurin and Coman split time at safety. Do things by formation like go to a four man front to get Simmons and Nick James on the field at the same time sometimes.

I think if Dan can do that, then we will start to achieve and overachieve with more frequency.

[Todd4State]

Plus whatever, good post. Everybody who watched us play last year knew Holloway up the middle wasn't going to get it done, except our Coach. And I will give him, Coach, that Holloway had a good year last year but even last year we would have been a better team playing, Williams. IMHO.

Exactly. At a minimum we probably win the Egg Bowl last year if we start Aeris last year and give him 10-12 carries. Maybe even LSU as well.

[HoopsDawg]

I think Dan's biggest fault is not taking a chance on how far along players are who he believes in his heart will be great players. Play them more, sooner, please. Also the A B thing with defense hurt our team with players like Chris Jones and McKinney.

You mean you didn't think it was a good idea to take out Matt Wells for Zach Jackson or B-Mac for Riche Brown?