How bad is our OL recruiting?

[lamont]

People are absolutely stoked we might flip the 118th rated OT from another school. Yay us!!!!!

We Big Ballin

[msstate7]

We went 10-3 with an oline that had 0 sec offers. Rhodes has sec offers #progress

Dry those tears, random... Mullen isn't going anywhere

[HoopsDawg]

People are absolutely stoked we might flip the 118th rated OT from another school. Yay us!!!!!

We Big Ballin

It's pretty bad, but at least he has another SEC offer. That's a rare thing for Hev. Also, this is the type of player we can convince ourselves has upside b/c he has only played 1 year of Football.

[dawgday166]

It be aight. Hev gonna coach him up. **

[louisvilledawg]

It be aight. Hev gonna coach him up. **

Turn that 3* into a 5*

http://media2.giphy.com/media/ykzXbY24BFqY8/giphy.gif

[msstate7]

If we are lucky enough to flip rhodes, that will make 3 this class that have sec offers

[dawgday166]

If we are lucky enough to flip rhodes, that will make 3 this class that have sec offers

Whooaa there hoss! ... In 1 class??

[dawgday166]

Turn that 3* into a 5*

http://media2.giphy.com/media/ykzXbY24BFqY8/giphy.gif

I'm on the edge of my seat *

[msstate7]

Whooaa there hoss! ... In 1 class??

Listen close...

Championship***

[dawgday166]

Listen close...

Championship***

I'm all-in ... Bammer better beware!

[Cooterpoot]

If we get Rhodes, it'll be the best OL class since Mullen got here. Took 8 years...but by god, he finally set the bar.

[preachermatt83]

The only reason he is not higher rated is bc he has only played football for one season. He will be a good one. Mark it down.

[Leeshouldveflanked]

OUR O-LINE Recruiting is the major reason that our norm is a middle of pack SEC Team with a glass ceiling.... Move Hevesy to TE Coach/Assistant HC and hire a OL coach that at least wants to recruit....

[pilldawg]

OUR O-LINE Recruiting is the major reason that our norm is a middle of pack SEC Team with a glass ceiling.... Move Hevesy to TE Coach/Assistant HC and hire a OL coach that at least wants to recruit....

Actually, not fielding an elite to very good defense is a bigger problem. Our offense has rewritten the record books.

[lamont]

Dry those tears, random... Mullen isn't going anywhere

And those 3 losses were to top 15 level teams. We won't ever beat those teams with our current OL recruiting- that's the whole point

And I'm well aware Mullen isn't going anywhere- nobody will hire him

[lamont]

Actually, not fielding an elite to very good defense is a bigger problem. Our offense has rewritten the record books.

Everybody's offenses are rewriting the record books. Our offense is usually 50-60 in the country- which is slightly above average

[msstate7]

And those 3 losses were to top 15 level teams. We won't ever beat those teams with our current OL recruiting- that's the whole point

And I'm well aware Mullen isn't going anywhere- nobody will hire him

https://s29.postimg.org/82rafuakn/IMG_1516.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/6aybkxr7n/)

[HoopsDawg]

Everybody's offenses are rewriting the record books. Our offense is usually 50-60 in the country- which is slightly above average

how many more times will you have to say this before people understand this fact? Will it be another year, 2 years, 3 years?

[TUSK]

I'm all-in ... Bammer better beware!



I see your hook and I choose to view it with disdain... Nay, indifference!***

[msstate7]

Everybody's offenses are rewriting the record books. Our offense is usually 50-60 in the country- which is slightly above average

Do you feel having one of the best defensive conferences in the country hurts sec offensive rankings nationally? Of course not bc you're trying to bash Mullen. Case in point... in '15, we were 3rd in the sec in total offense and 31st nationally.

[dawgday166]

I see your hook and I choose to view it with disdain... Nay, indifference!***

Mane ... it's coming!! Hev been working miracles with Olinemen with no SEC offers. This class is the start of the All-SEC/All-American Olinemen F A C T O R Y ... that chews up Bammer D lines for breakfast ***

[Joe Schmedlap]

Next thing you know, we will sign a wide receiver with two hands.

[spiral]

MSU Total Offense rank last 4 years:

2016 - 44
2015 - 31
2014 - 8
2013 - 42

That's an average of 31st in the country against arguably the best defensive league in the nation.

His first 4 years his average rank was 69th.

Croom had us ranked 114 the year before Mullen.

We do need better offensive lineman but I think Mullen has done well offensively with what he has.

I think the best chance for us to go to the next level is to have a solid defense that is stellar some times. A better defense will help our offense too.

[lamont]

Do you feel having one of the best defensive conferences in the country hurts sec offensive rankings nationally? Of course not bc you're trying to bash Mullen. Case in point... in '15, we were 3rd in the sec in total offense and 31st nationally.

Sure the SEC takes its toll a little- but we also have played 4 cake OOC games for most of Mullen's tenure to give it a boost

[lamont]

MSU Total Offense rank last 4 years:

2016 - 44
2015 - 31
2014 - 8
2013 - 42

That's an average of 31st in the country against arguably the best defensive league in the nation.

His first 4 years his average rank was 69th.

Croom had us ranked 114 the year before Mullen.

We do need better offensive lineman but I think Mullen has done well offensively with what he has.

I think the best chance for us to go to the next level is to have a solid defense that is stellar some times. A better defense will help our offense too.

Scoring Offense (that's what matters most):

2016- 56th
2015- 33rd
2014- 16th
2013- 70th
2012- 60th
2011- 72nd
2010- 48th
2009- 72nd (gets a pass here certainly)

[HoopsDawg]

Scoring Offense (that's what matters most):

2016- 56th
2015- 33rd
2014- 16th
2013- 70th
2012- 60th
2011- 72nd
2010- 48th
2009- 72nd (gets a pass here certainly)

That's worse than I thought. Really bad when you think about the 4 patsies we play every year non-conference except for 1 game vs BYU and 1 game vs Ok State.

[Dawgface]

And those 3 losses were to top 15 level teams. We won't ever beat those teams with our current OL recruiting- that's the whole point

And I'm well aware Mullen isn't going anywhere- nobody will hire him

No one because of his $4.5 mil salary. The one's that would pay it are going after a top 10 ten type pf guy.

[lamont]

People can say defense, defense, defense all they want. But the year we won 10 games was the only time we finished in the top 30 of the country in OFFENSE

[msstate7]

Sure the SEC takes its toll a little- but we also have played 4 cake OOC games for most of Mullen's tenure to give it a boost

This year in conference only games we were 4th in scoring

[HSVDawg]

Scoring Offense (that's what matters most):

2016- 56th
2015- 33rd
2014- 16th
2013- 70th
2012- 60th
2011- 72nd
2010- 48th
2009- 72nd (gets a pass here certainly)

Now lets see the same rankings for defense. Just because offense hasn't been as good as many people think at the surface level doesn't mean that defense still isn't the bigger problem.

[dawgday166]

Scoring D:
2016 - 93
2015 - 36
2014 - 23
2013 - 33
2012 - 34
2011 - 16
2010 - 21
2009 - 71

Our D obviously has sucked big time ***

[BrunswickDawg]

Now lets see the same rankings for defense. Just because offense hasn't been as good as many people think at the surface level doesn't mean that defense still isn't the bigger problem.

MSU Scoring D
2016- 93
2015 - 36
2014 - 23
2013 - 33
2012 - 34
2011 - 16
2010 - 21
2009 - 71

[lamont]

Scoring D:
2016 - 92
2015 - 36
2014 - 23
2013 - 33
2012 - 34
2011 - 16
2010 - 21
2009 - 71

Our D obviously has sucked big time ***

Kaaaaa-Boooooom

At some point people need to realize offense and our lack of OL recruiting is holding us back- not Defense

[civildawg]

Gosh, I am so glad Sirmon is gone.

[GTHOM]

Our defenses have been pretty solid for the most part. Mullen had Stonefeet Russell running the read option over Dak Prescott

[civildawg]

I think you have to compare our offensive numbers in terms of the sec. I mean the big 12 or pac 12 really doesntt play much defense so the rankings have to be skewed some.

[maroonmania]

Scoring D:
2016 - 93
2015 - 36
2014 - 23
2013 - 33
2012 - 34
2011 - 16
2010 - 21
2009 - 71

Our D obviously has sucked big time ***

2 of those are not like the others. #Torbush/Sirmon

[Liverpooldawg]

Trolling your own board?

[HSVDawg]

MSU Scoring D
2016- 93
2015 - 36
2014 - 23
2013 - 33
2012 - 34
2011 - 16
2010 - 21
2009 - 71

Good breakdown. Really surprised we were 36th in scoring D last year. Didn't seem like we were nearly that good.

[maroonmania]

Scoring Offense (that's what matters most):

2016- 56th
2015- 33rd
2014- 16th
2013- 70th
2012- 60th
2011- 72nd
2010- 48th
2009- 72nd (gets a pass here certainly)

So what this says to me is that Mullen's scoring offense at MSU has never been higher than 48th in the country without an upperclassman version of Dak Prescott.

[HoopsDawg]

So what this says to me is that Mullen's scoring offense at MSU has never been higher than 48th in the country without an upperclassman version of Dak Prescott.

And Mullen has made ZERO fires to his offensive staff in his 8 years.

[Commercecomet24]

For the sake of contrast here is where we ranked in Scoring Offense in the SEC since Dan's been here:

2016-6th
2015-5th
2014-2nd
2013-4th
2012-8th
2011-8th
2010-10th
2009-9th

The last 4 years have been better than the first 4(obviously Dak helped 2014,2015) but 2013 we had a hodge podge with Tyler starting, Dak coming in, Dak getting hurt and then playing the last 3 with Tyler and Damian and Dak for a half a quarter so 2013 was pretty good production considering. Just wanted to see how we stacked up against the rest of the SEC in scoring and not just nationally.

[K9 Avenger]

Trolling your own board?

LOL!!!! Whenever board traffic slows up, you know it's coming. I wish he'd stick to trolling the bears...it's much more entertaining.

[Commercecomet24]

LOL!!!! Whenever board traffic slows up, you know it's coming. I wish he'd stick to trolling the bears...it's much more entertaining.

I agree with this, its so much better when he's on the bears and not us lol

[Prediction? Pain.]

From '10 to '13, our defense outperformed our offense in arguably every season. (The lone potential exception being 2012.) But since then, the offense has picked up the pace quite a bit and has either matched or surpassed the play of the defense. A number of stats demonstrate this, both traditional ones (Points per game scored/allowed, yards per play gained/allowed, for example) and advanced ones (S&P+ and FEI ratings). For traditional stats, I think it's better to look at only those among SEC teams in SEC games. That's the closest way to get an apples-to-apples comparison. Otherwise, without adjusting national stats for opponents, you're comparing stats culled against offenses and defenses of differing qualities, be it in divisional or conference play or in out-of-conference play where some teams play hard schedules and others do not.

Here are the trends in traditional stats:

SEC rank in Scoring D in conference games

09: 11th
10: 3rd
11: 5th
12: 8th
13: 7th
14: 6th
15: 9th
16: 10th

SEC rank in yards per play allowed in conference games

09: 10th
10: 4th
11: 5th
12: 10th
13: 9th
14: 8th
15: 11th
16: 12th

SEC rank in points per game in conference games

09: 7th
10: 11th
11: 9th
12: 8th
13: 10th
14: 5th
15: 6th
16: 4th

SEC rank in yards per play in conference games

09: 8th
10: 11th
11: 9th
12: 5th
13: 8th
14: 4th
15: 4th
16: 8th

Those are only snapshots, of course. The advanced stats, which are weighted for opponents, more comprehensive, and focused on efficiency, explosiveness, etc., show similar trends.

National S&P+ ratings - Offense / Defense:

09: 71st / 38th
10: 56th / 22nd
11: 63rd / 33rd
12: 51st / 43rd
13: 56th / 14th
14: 11th / 27th
15: 16th / 37th
16: 32nd / 73rd

National FEI ratings - Offense / Defense:

09: 64th / 44th
10: 52nd / 14th
11: 73rd / 26th
12: 60th / 47th
13: 38th / 14th
14: 28th / 20th
15: 23rd / 46th
16: 37th / 106th

As for the offensive line specifically, I guess the recruiting rankings are what they are. At least one advanced metric of offensive lines shows that MSU's O-lines have been up and down for the past three years:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaaol

Those stats cover run blocking and pass protection, and account for such things as sack rates and TFL's-given-up rates to account for both pass-heavy and run-heavy offenses.

Among the past three years, 2016's offensive line may have been the best. For example, in 2016, the O-line was 12th nationally in adjusted sack rates, and 26th nationally in "stuff rate," which is the rate of giving up TFL's or runs for no gain per rushing attempt. That's better Auburn, Arkansas, and UM in both categories (though Auburn's other run-related O-line stats were a little better than MSU's), and better than TAM and LSU in adjusted sack rates. Bama's ranks, of course, were almost all higher across the board than those of the rest of the division.

(Sorry for the stat dump. Apparently I'm avoiding work this afternoon . . . .)

[Commercecomet24]

From '10 to '13, our defense outperformed our offense in arguably every season. (The lone potential exception being 2012.) But since then, the offense has picked up the pace quite a bit and has either matched or surpassed the play of the defense. A number of stats demonstrate this, both traditional ones (Points per game scored/allowed, yards per play gained/allowed, for example) and advanced ones (S&P+ and FEI ratings). For traditional stats, I think it's better to look at only those among SEC teams in SEC games. That's the closest way to get an apples-to-apples comparison. Otherwise, without adjusting national stats for opponents, you're comparing stats culled against offenses and defenses of differing qualities, be it in divisional or conference play or in out-of-conference play where some teams play hard schedules and others do not.

Here are the trends in traditional stats:

SEC rank in Scoring D in conference games

09: 11th
10: 3rd
11: 5th
12: 8th
13: 7th
14: 6th
15: 9th
16: 10th

SEC rank in yards per play in conference games

09: 10th
10: 4th
11: 5th
12: 10th
13: 9th
14: 8th
15: 11th
16: 12th

SEC rank in points per game in conference games

09: 7th
10: 11th
11: 9th
12: 8th
13: 10th
14: 5th
15: 6th
16: 4th

SEC rank in yards per play in conference games

09: 8th
10: 11th
11: 9th
12: 5th
13: 8th
14: 4th
15: 4th
16: 8th

Those are only snapshots, of course. The advanced stats, which are weighted for opponents, more comprehensive, and focused on efficiency, explosiveness, etc., show similar trends.

National S&P+ ratings - Offense / Defense:

09: 71st / 38th
10: 56th / 22nd
11: 63rd / 33rd
12: 51st / 43rd
13: 56th / 14th
14: 11th / 27th
15: 16th / 37th
16: 32nd / 73rd

National FEI ratings - Offense / Defense:

09: 64th / 44th
10: 52nd / 14th
11: 73rd / 26th
12: 60th / 47th
13: 38th / 14th
14: 28th / 20th
15: 23rd / 46th
16: 37th / 106th

As for the offensive line specifically, I guess the recruiting rankings are what they are. At least one advanced metric of offensive lines shows that MSU's O-lines have been up and down for the past three years:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaaol

Those stats cover run blocking and pass protection, and account for such things as sack rates and TFL's-given-up rates to account for both pass-heavy and run-heavy offenses.

Among the past three years, 2016's offensive line may have been the best. For example, in 2016, the O-line was 12th nationally in adjusted sack rates, and 26th nationally in "stuff rate," which is the rate of giving up TFL's or runs for no gain per rushing attempt. That's better Auburn, Arkansas, and UM in both categories (though Auburn's other run-related O-line stats were a little better than MSU's), and better than TAM and LSU in adjusted sack rates. Bama's ranks, of course, were almost all higher across the board than those of the rest of the division.

(Sorry for the stat dump. Apparently I'm avoiding work this afternoon . . . .)

Good stuff! Thanks for posting that.

[Pipedream]

how many more times will you have to say this before people understand this fact? Will it be another year, 2 years, 3 years?

Well, it's not technically accurate. Mullen's average yards/play at State is 43rd nationally. Opponent adjusted S&P+ is 44th over that same period. That's the top 35% in the country. Not excusing OL play nor OL recruiting, but Mullen has produced well above average offenses, yearly, at State.

[BrunswickDawg]

And Mullen has made ZERO fires to his offensive staff in his 8 years.

I thought Les Koenning was "asked to move on"?

[Todd4State]

From '10 to '13, our defense outperformed our offense in arguably every season. (The lone potential exception being 2012.) But since then, the offense has picked up the pace quite a bit and has either matched or surpassed the play of the defense. A number of stats demonstrate this, both traditional ones (Points per game scored/allowed, yards per play gained/allowed, for example) and advanced ones (S&P+ and FEI ratings). For traditional stats, I think it's better to look at only those among SEC teams in SEC games. That's the closest way to get an apples-to-apples comparison. Otherwise, without adjusting national stats for opponents, you're comparing stats culled against offenses and defenses of differing qualities, be it in divisional or conference play or in out-of-conference play where some teams play hard schedules and others do not.

Here are the trends in traditional stats:

SEC rank in Scoring D in conference games

09: 11th
10: 3rd
11: 5th
12: 8th
13: 7th
14: 6th
15: 9th
16: 10th

SEC rank in yards per play in conference games

09: 10th
10: 4th
11: 5th
12: 10th
13: 9th
14: 8th
15: 11th
16: 12th

SEC rank in points per game in conference games

09: 7th
10: 11th
11: 9th
12: 8th
13: 10th
14: 5th
15: 6th
16: 4th

SEC rank in yards per play in conference games

09: 8th
10: 11th
11: 9th
12: 5th
13: 8th
14: 4th
15: 4th
16: 8th

Those are only snapshots, of course. The advanced stats, which are weighted for opponents, more comprehensive, and focused on efficiency, explosiveness, etc., show similar trends.

National S&P+ ratings - Offense / Defense:

09: 71st / 38th
10: 56th / 22nd
11: 63rd / 33rd
12: 51st / 43rd
13: 56th / 14th
14: 11th / 27th
15: 16th / 37th
16: 32nd / 73rd

National FEI ratings - Offense / Defense:

09: 64th / 44th
10: 52nd / 14th
11: 73rd / 26th
12: 60th / 47th
13: 38th / 14th
14: 28th / 20th
15: 23rd / 46th
16: 37th / 106th

As for the offensive line specifically, I guess the recruiting rankings are what they are. At least one advanced metric of offensive lines shows that MSU's O-lines have been up and down for the past three years:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaaol

Those stats cover run blocking and pass protection, and account for such things as sack rates and TFL's-given-up rates to account for both pass-heavy and run-heavy offenses.

Among the past three years, 2016's offensive line may have been the best. For example, in 2016, the O-line was 12th nationally in adjusted sack rates, and 26th nationally in "stuff rate," which is the rate of giving up TFL's or runs for no gain per rushing attempt. That's better Auburn, Arkansas, and UM in both categories (though Auburn's other run-related O-line stats were a little better than MSU's), and better than TAM and LSU in adjusted sack rates. Bama's ranks, of course, were almost all higher across the board than those of the rest of the division.

(Sorry for the stat dump. Apparently I'm avoiding work this afternoon . . . .)

Do any of those stats account for the fact that we have mobile QB's that run a lot which help the rushing stats a good bit and maybe make the o- line look better than what the numbers say?

It's an argument that only has one side of a comparison. We only have the stats for Hevesy's guys without offers. It's logical to assume that players with even better offers and therefore assumed more talent would perform even better. That's assuming you believe Jimmy's and Joe's are greater than X's and O's which I do personally believe.

[Liverpooldawg]

I agree with this, its so much better when he's on the bears and not us lol

It gets more traffic too.

[NCDawg]

Do any of those stats account for the fact that we have mobile QB's that run a lot which help the rushing stats a good bit and maybe make the o- line look better than what the numbers say?

It's an argument that only has one side of a comparison. We only have the stats for Hevesy's guys without offers. It's logical to assume that players with even better offers and therefore assumed more talent would perform even better. That's assuming you believe Jimmy's and Joe's are greater than X's and O's which I do personally believe.

Your first paragraph is spot on. Our mobile QB's have helped boost our statistics for our offense.

Our lack of good recruiting on our offensive line would be amusing if it weren't so tragic. I thought we had gotten rid of the buddy-buddy coaching favorites when Croom left, but lo and behold, here we are again with Mullen. I have zero confidence we'll ever get to Atlanta with Mullen.

[Prediction? Pain.]

Do any of those stats account for the fact that we have mobile QB's that run a lot which help the rushing stats a good bit and maybe make the o- line look better than what the numbers say?

It's an argument that only has one side of a comparison. We only have the stats for Hevesy's guys without offers. It's logical to assume that players with even better offers and therefore assumed more talent would perform even better. That's assuming you believe Jimmy's and Joe's are greater than X's and O's which I do personally believe.

I'm guessing you're referring to the advanced O-line stats and not the traditional yards-per-play stats. The two stats that I mentioned specifically from 2016 -- "stuff rate" and adjusted sack rate -- take into account runs attempted per game vs. TFLs and 0-yard runs per game, and then sacks vs. pass attempts plus sacks per game. So no, I do not believe that they are either weighted or discounted for style of offense.

Just for kicks, though, here are the stuff rate and adjusted sack rates for the teams with the Top 10 rushing yards by QBs in 2016:

Louisville - 15th / 101st
USF - 33rd / 35th
State - 26th / 12th
Navy - 3rd / 127th
Kansas St. - 69th / 96th
Bama - 88th / 54th
Arizona - 35th / 113th
Kent St. - 100th / 121st
Ohio St. - 6th / 82nd
Tennessee - 30th / 58th

So I guess there's some variability within systems that highlight (and really lean on) prolific mobile quarterbacks, though most of the top 10 seemed pretty bad at pass protection. Other than State, that is.

Also, I apologize for getting Bama's stats wrong in my previous post. I said that Bama's stats were almost all better than the rest of the SEC West, but I was pretty far off. They were especially bad at giving up TFL's -- looking just at raw TFL's given up, they were 13th in the SEC, ahead of only SC. (Just noticed I transposed Auburn's rankings as well. State had a much better sack rate, but a slightly worse stuff rate. Double checked the rest of the SEC West to make sure I didn't get any of those numbers mixed up. I didn't.)

I haven't bothered to take a look at how TFL stats line up for teams that don't rely on mobile quarterbacks, but the first two that came to my head -- Arkansas and Stanford -- had vastly different results for stuff rates:

Ark - 101st
Stanford - 9th

Both were comparatively bad at pass protection, though.

Those are admittedly small sample sizes. So I honestly don't know what, if any, correlation there is. Of course, if we're running a system that by nature allowed us to give up less sacks and TFL's last year while still having a fairly productive offense (especially considering how horrific our defense was in 2016), I'd say that's a good thing regardless.

[Todd4State]

I'm guessing you're referring to the advanced O-line stats and not the traditional yards-per-play stats. The two stats that I mentioned specifically from 2016 -- "stuff rate" and adjusted sack rate -- take into account runs attempted per game vs. TFLs and 0-yard runs per game, and then sacks vs. pass attempts plus sacks per game. So no, I do not believe that they are either weighted or discounted for style of offense.

Just for kicks, though, here are the stuff rate and adjusted sack rates for the teams with the Top 10 rushing yards by QBs in 2016:

Louisville - 15th / 101st
USF - 33rd / 35th
State - 26th / 12th
Navy - 3rd / 127th
Kansas St. - 69th / 96th
Bama - 88th / 54th
Arizona - 35th / 113th
Kent St. - 100th / 121st
Ohio St. - 6th / 82nd
Tennessee - 30th / 58th

So I guess there's some variability within systems that highlight (and really lean on) prolific mobile quarterbacks, though most of the top 10 seemed pretty bad at pass protection. Other than State, that is.

Also, I apologize for getting Bama's stats wrong in my previous post. I said that Bama's stats were almost all better than the rest of the SEC West, but I was pretty far off. They were especially bad at giving up TFL's -- looking just at raw TFL's given up, they were 13th in the SEC, ahead of only SC. (Just noticed I transposed Auburn's rankings as well. State had a much better sack rate, but a slightly worse stuff rate. Double checked the rest of the SEC West to make sure I didn't get any of those numbers mixed up. I didn't.)

I haven't bothered to take a look at how TFL stats line up for teams that don't rely on mobile quarterbacks, but the first two that came to my head -- Arkansas and Stanford -- had vastly different results for stuff rates:

Ark - 101st
Stanford - 9th

Both were comparatively bad at pass protection, though.

Those are admittedly small sample sizes. So I honestly don't know what, if any, correlation there is. Of course, if we're running a system that by nature allowed us to give up less sacks and TFL's last year while still having a fairly productive offense (especially considering how horrific our defense was in 2016), I'd say that's a good thing regardless.

I guess my question isn't whether we are bad or not. It's whether we are as good as we possibly could be or not.

I'm not saying that our offense is bad or even that our offensive line is bad. I actually agree that we have been "good".

I do question whether we are as good as we possibly could be. We just don't have stats with really good o-line recruits for comparisons sake unfortunately. I think we're pretty close to getting over the hump but we need to improve both the o-line and the defense to do that. We've taken steps on defense to do that. O-line not so much. That's pretty disappointing because we have recruited o-line fairly well and better under some of our other coaches who were not nearly as good as Dan is offensively.

[lamont]

LOL!!!! Whenever board traffic slows up, you know it's coming. I wish he'd stick to trolling the bears...it's much more entertaining.

Not trolling at all- just posting facts

[lamont]

Well, it's not technically accurate. Mullen's average yards/play at State is 43rd nationally. Opponent adjusted S&P+ is 44th over that same period. That's the top 35% in the country. Not excusing OL play nor OL recruiting, but Mullen has produced well above average offenses, yearly, at State.

Scoring is what matters- Scoring

[dawg27]

Scoring D:
2016 - 93
2015 - 36
2014 - 23
2013 - 33
2012 - 34
2011 - 16
2010 - 21
2009 - 71

Our D obviously has sucked big time ***

We can blame it on defense,offense,whatever we won six ball games whatever we got to do to get out of the basement in the SEC West I hope we can find Way to go it! Right now we are ranked 29th in recruiting we are not going to get out of the basement being in the 30s just about every year. We need talent on both sides of the ball

[1bigdawg]

Some on here want to always blame the defense. My point is that when the defense has problems, Mullen tries to fix it. When the offense has problems, Mullen ........

[dawgday166]

Some on here want to always blame the defense. My point is that when the defense has problems, Mullen tries to fix it. When the offense has problems, Mullen ........

My point too. I'm not trying to throw the blame entirely on the offense. But when some say we never have to be concerned about offense cause Dan's such an offensive guru and that when we lose it's almost always cause of the defense ... that's simply not true. Sometimes the defense does lose some games. But there are probably an equal amount or more times the offense struggles to get out of the teen's in a game.

Dan has the rep that probably exceeds all others in the SEC as an offensive guru (since Spurrier retired). He had it before Malzahn, Freeze, etc. and he gets all the credit for developing QBs, regardless of where he was at the time. Not saying he doesn't do some things well (like develop QBs), but his offense doesn't always show up to play.

Our 2nd best ranked offense was in 2015 and we couldn't run the ball against a poor high school defense that year (Auburn comes to mind). Fournette ran all over that team and made them look like a ... poor high school team.

Whatever the reason(s) ... the Oline, running a 165 lb scatback and/or a slow-footed fullback (Holoway/Shump), refusing to play better players (even tho they may make a mental mistake here or there) ... not sure. In 2015 we pass blocked fine (until Dak got killed against Bama) but didn't run block worth a crap. Couldn't run a trap play at all.

I just believe if we want to get to the next level we need more consistency on both sides of the ball (and special teams). And it can't take half a year's schedule to get the Oline up to speed either. It does appear as tho Dan is emphasizing special teams some this year. It isn't always the defense that has lost games for us in the past tho.

It is also kind of remarkable how well our D has performed given the revolving door of DCs we've had.

[Perpetual Underachiever]

People are absolutely stoked we might flip the 118th rated OT from another school. Yay us!!!!!

We Big Ballin

Damn right I'm 'stoked'! How bad is our OL recruiting... We all know the answer to that, terrible. This is exactly why I am stoke about possibly landing the 118th rank OL. Right now it is looking like we may not even sign a full class AGAIN, so adding this kid is only a good thing. Wherever this kid ends up he will be a huge asset to the program, guaranteed. I'll take the 118th ranked OL who is clearly intelligent, has his shit together, and has tons of potential over a higher ranked kid with that's dumb as 17 and has character issues. Come be a Dawg Rhodes!

[Todd4State]

Damn right I'm 'stoked'! How bad is our OL recruiting... We all know the answer to that, terrible. This is exactly why I am stoke about possibly landing the 118th rank OL. Right now it is looking like we may not even sign a full class AGAIN, so adding this kid is only a good thing. Wherever this kid ends up he will be a huge asset to the program, guaranteed. I'll take the 118th ranked OL who is clearly intelligent, has his shit together, and has tons of potential over a higher ranked kid with that's dumb as 17 and has character issues. Come be a Dawg Rhodes!

Please tell me that you don't think that our staff of all staff's takes a player based on their stars? Also please tell me that you don't think that all 4-5 star kids are dumb and have character issues? Just want clarification because our staff is the last staff in the SEC to do that.

[Commercecomet24]

Scoring is what matters- Scoring

We have averaged 4th in scoring offense in the sec over the last 4 years, including 6th this year with anew qb and 4th in 2013 when we had a hodge podge at qb. We have been very good in scoring in the sec the last 4 years. Can we do better? Absolutely, but our offense, scoring only, in the sec has been better over the last 4 years than it's ever been.

[Todd4State]

We have averaged 4th in scoring offense in the sec over the last 4 years, including 6th this year with anew qb and 4th in 2013 when we had a hodge podge at qb. We have been very good in scoring in the sec the last 4 years. Can we do better? Absolutely, but our offense, scoring only, in the sec has been better over the last 4 years than it's ever been.

That's right and that's a good thing. But that's also really actually a comparison between Dan and Croom, Jackie, Felker, Shira, and etc. And no one here thinks that those old coaches are better offensively than Dan.

Since we don't have the data to know what our offense would be like with better o-line talent we can only assume that it would be even better than it is now because we know that in general better talent equals better production. And that does ultimately make a difference when we play someone like Alabama and LSU where we would likely be able to either keep the game closer or it would be the difference between us winning and losing what is now a closer game for us.

IMO we can actually put together a starting group that is pretty comparable to anyone in the SEC in terms of talent. Where the big difference is to me is the Alabama's and LSU's have more depth than us and that's where they beat us sometimes. That's why we really can't afford to be weak at any position group because if we are it becomes really glaring.

[Commercecomet24]

That's right and that's a good thing. But that's also really actually a comparison between Dan and Croom, Jackie, Felker, Shira, and etc. And no one here thinks that those old coaches are better offensively than Dan.

Since we don't have the data to know what our offense would be like with better o-line talent we can only assume that it would be even better than it is now because we know that in general better talent equals better production. And that does ultimately make a difference when we play someone like Alabama and LSU where we would likely be able to either keep the game closer or it would be the difference between us winning and losing what is now a closer game for us.

IMO we can actually put together a starting group that is pretty comparable to anyone in the SEC in terms of talent. Where the big difference is to me is the Alabama's and LSU's have more depth than us and that's where they beat us sometimes. That's why we really can't afford to be weak at any position group because if we are it becomes really glaring.

Oh I totally agree we can get better. Us being in the top 3rd of the sec in scoring the last 4 years shows that we may not be as bad as some think. I have found that things are never as good or as bad as they seem. I believe hev is a good coach however our ol recruiting has been extremely mediocre and I think it actually proves your point we could definitely be better. If we can be in the top 3rd with what we have imagine what it could be with just a little better recruiting.

[RougeDawg]

Oh I totally agree we can get better. Us being in the top 3rd of the sec in scoring the last 4 years shows that we may not be as bad as some think. I have found that things are never as good or as bad as they seem. I believe hev is a good coach however our ol recruiting has been extremely mediocre and I think it actually proves your point we could definitely be better. If we can be in the top 3rd with what we have imagine what it could be with just a little better recruiting.

The biggest issue with our lack of OL talent is lack of sustained drives against the better defensive lines, thus more rest for our defense. Look at our losses the last two years of Dak to Bama twice, LSU once and OM twice. Each one of those games involved either pressure induced turnovers or many 3 and outs. Defense got taxed. The best defense is a good offense. And a good offense let's the defense rest. Most of the 3 and outs were due to shit play calling from a coach tighter than fetal ant p*ssy. We block marginally better in 14 and we win it all. 15 we had a shot to win west again.

[dawgs]

The biggest issue with our lack of OL talent is lack of sustained drives against the better defensive lines, thus more rest for our defense. Look at our losses the last two years of Dak to Bama twice, LSU once and OM twice. Each one of those games involved either pressure induced turnovers or many 3 and outs. Defense got taxed. The best defense is a good offense. And a good offense let's the defense rest. Most of the 3 and outs were due to shit play calling from a coach tighter than fetal ant p*ssy. We block marginally better in 14 and we win it all. 15 we had a shot to win west again.

Was about to post this. Our OL is plenty good enough with our system and a good QB to pile up yards and points against mediocre defenses. The problem arises when we play teams with elite front 7s. Yeah they are elite because they shit down good teams, but it often feels like we have no chance after watching a few drives against the best of the best because Mullen tries to run it between the tackles, we get stuffed over and over, punt, and end up down a couple of scores early. If dan wants to run between the tackles against elite front 7s, he absolutely needs to upgrade the OL.

[Todd4State]

The biggest issue with our lack of OL talent is lack of sustained drives against the better defensive lines, thus more rest for our defense. Look at our losses the last two years of Dak to Bama twice, LSU once and OM twice. Each one of those games involved either pressure induced turnovers or many 3 and outs. Defense got taxed. The best defense is a good offense. And a good offense let's the defense rest. Most of the 3 and outs were due to shit play calling from a coach tighter than fetal ant p*ssy. We block marginally better in 14 and we win it all. 15 we had a shot to win west again.

I think some of that is because of bad defense. When you bend and break the whole time you allow the other team to drive down the field and that essentially costs you field position, points, and keeps your offense on the bench where they get out on sync. Turnovers, sacks, and big plays on defense are good. The further you have to go to score, the more difficult it is to score. A defense that can create turnovers can offset talent if the turnovers occur in bunches- see Ole Miss/Alabama 2015.

[Commercecomet24]

The biggest issue with our lack of OL talent is lack of sustained drives against the better defensive lines, thus more rest for our defense. Look at our losses the last two years of Dak to Bama twice, LSU once and OM twice. Each one of those games involved either pressure induced turnovers or many 3 and outs. Defense got taxed. The best defense is a good offense. And a good offense let's the defense rest. Most of the 3 and outs were due to shit play calling from a coach tighter than fetal ant p*ssy. We block marginally better in 14 and we win it all. 15 we had a shot to win west again.

I agree on most points but I believe the 2014 bama loss was more a result of daks 3 red zone turnovers not the ol. Other points are valid.

[BayouDawg]

Next thing you know, we will sign a wide receiver with two hands.

Hey let's not get greedy now

[dawgs]

I agree on most points but I believe the 2014 bama loss was more a result of daks 3 red zone turnovers not the ol. Other points are valid.

I think it was more on mullen's playcalling the first 1.5 quarters. He kept pounding it between the tackles for nothing. Finally we got down enough for him to take some chances, we spread them out horizontally, moved the ball pretty good from that point on, and it even opened up the inside running. turnovers hurt, but we would've been in a completely different mode as a team if Mullen simply hadn't gotten a tight butthole to start that game.

[lamont]

We have averaged 4th in scoring offense in the sec over the last 4 years, including 6th this year with anew qb and 4th in 2013 when we had a hodge podge at qb. We have been very good in scoring in the sec the last 4 years. Can we do better? Absolutely, but our offense, scoring only, in the sec has been better over the last 4 years than it's ever been.

2 of those years were with a future All-Pro QB. 2014 had 4 OL starters returning. 2015 had 3 OL starters returning and 2 All-SEC WR's returning

2017 returns none of that. Offense is a problem whether you want to admit it or not

[lamont]

I agree on most points but I believe the 2014 bama loss was more a result of daks 3 red zone turnovers not the ol. Other points are valid.

Teams are able to play the pass when there is no threat of run because the OL is weak

[Commercecomet24]

2 of those years were with a future All-Pro QB. 2014 had 4 OL starters returning. 2015 had 3 OL starters returning and 2 All-SEC WR's returning

2017 returns none of that. Offense is a problem whether you want to admit it or not

I understand we have room for improvement but as you said earlier just stating facts.

2017 has yet to be played so let's see how it plays out. You may be right but then again you could be wrong

[justwin]

Scoring Offense (that's what matters most):

2016- 56th
2015- 33rd
2014- 16th
2013- 70th
2012- 60th
2011- 72nd
2010- 48th
2009- 72nd (gets a pass here certainly)

So, in 2014 we use our best big back exclusively & were sensational. Got it. Just shows how important playing the best back is behind our OL. 2013 was little Perk & 2015/2016 was pea holloway.

[justwin]

People can say defense, defense, defense all they want. But the year we won 10 games was the only time we finished in the top 30 of the country in OFFENSE

with the big back, J-Rob. Let's all hope that we use Aeris as much or more as we did J-Rob in 2014.

[justwin]

Scoring D:
2016 - 93
2015 - 36
2014 - 23
2013 - 33
2012 - 34
2011 - 16
2010 - 21
2009 - 71

Our D obviously has sucked big time ***

that's awful. I didn't realize 2016 was that bad statistically.

[Todd4State]

So, in 2014 we use our best big back exclusively & were sensational. Got it. Just shows how important playing the best back is behind our OL. 2013 was little Perk & 2015/2016 was pea holloway.

We need to never, ever, ever recruit another scatback again. I'm pretty sure Aeris will get most of the touches next year. All of our other backs aside from maybe some obscure walk-ons are pretty decently sized RB's.

[msstate7]

We need to never, ever, ever recruit another scatback again. I'm pretty sure Aeris will get most of the touches next year. All of our other backs aside from maybe some obscure walk-ons are pretty decently sized RB's.

Bet mixon gets carries in Holloway role this year

[Todd4State]

Bet mixon gets carries in Holloway role this year

I think we'll use Mixon like we did this year moreso than how we used Holloway or Perkins. We'll probably see more of whoever wins the number two running back behind Aeris.

[dawgday166]

with the big back, J-Rob. Let's all hope that we use Aeris as much or more as we did J-Rob in 2014.

I'm kinda hoping for a rotation of AW & Nick Gibson. I've heard a couple of times Gibson is a stud ... and he looked pretty decent the very few times he touched the ball last year.

We still have Murphy & Lee too. I wouldn't mind seeing them become bigger contributors too.

Then we have Dear and Mixon. If Todd & Couch work out at WR we may be pretty alright at the skill positions. Just have to find a center (#1 priority) and the right combination on the Oline.

[dawgday166]

that's awful. I didn't realize 2016 was that bad statistically.

Between '10 and '15 tho it wasn't too bad (despite the rhetoric) but yea ... last year was very bad.

[1bigdawg]

IMO we can actually put together a starting group that is pretty comparable to anyone in the SEC in terms of talent.

I must be looking at a different group than you. In the west, Alabama, LSU, A&M, Arkansas, and Auburn certainly have better starting talent and have been putting OLs in the NFL. UNM has guys with more stars and probably has more starting talent also.

Hev does an ok job of coaching our guys up, but let's not confuse that with talent.

[Pipedream]

Scoring is what matters- Scoring

Scoring absolutely matters. I'm not saying otherwise, but it's a flawed statistic to measure the effectiveness or quality of an offense because of the ability ST and D can have on skewing the score (i.e. Bama's numerous defensive and ST scored that bumped their scoring O a TD each game). There's also not an opponent adjusted scoring statistic so it's less accurate than these others that have been presented when you're trying to get a picture at what kind of offense/defense you have.

[maroonmania]

Scoring absolutely matters. I'm not saying otherwise, but it's a flawed statistic to measure the effectiveness or quality of an offense because of the ability ST and D can have on skewing the score (i.e. Bama's numerous defensive and ST scored that bumped their scoring O a TD each game). There's also not an opponent adjusted scoring statistic so it's less accurate than these others that have been presented when you're trying to get a picture at what kind of offense/defense you have.

One of the issues with our football team is exactly that we get so little scoring out of our special teams and defense. Something we need to get much better at so that its not always up to our offense to get into the end zone to score something. A consistent FG kicker with range would help significantly along with some type of return game.

[BrunswickDawg]

2 of those years were with a future All-Pro QB. 2014 had 4 OL starters returning. 2015 had 3 OL starters returning and 2 All-SEC WR's returning

2017 returns none of that. Offense is a problem whether you want to admit it or not

Offense in 2017 is not a problem. It is inexperienced and is an unknown. It is just as plausible that we have guys who mature and slide into new roles that allow us to be as good or better on O in '17. It's Schrodinger's Offense right now.

[Commercecomet24]

Offense in 2017 is not a problem. It is inexperienced and is an unknown. It is just as plausible that we have guys who mature and slide into new roles that allow us to be as good or better on O in '17. It's Schrodinger's Offense right now.

Exactly! BTW great Schrodinger reference!

[Prediction? Pain.]

I guess my question isn't whether we are bad or not. It's whether we are as good as we possibly could be or not.

I'm not saying that our offense is bad or even that our offensive line is bad. I actually agree that we have been "good".

I do question whether we are as good as we possibly could be. We just don't have stats with really good o-line recruits for comparisons sake unfortunately. I think we're pretty close to getting over the hump but we need to improve both the o-line and the defense to do that. We've taken steps on defense to do that. O-line not so much. That's pretty disappointing because we have recruited o-line fairly well and better under some of our other coaches who were not nearly as good as Dan is offensively.

That's a solid point. I'm not sure I've seen a comparison of our different position groups' average recruiting rankings in the past, but even without that, my off-the-cuff feeling is that the O-line as a whole has had far more lightly recruited dudes on it than the RB, WR, DL, and LB position groups. Up until our most recent QB recruit (Key), I think the QB's we've gotten to enroll have been lightly recruited as well, but maybe not quite as much as the OL. We've had a mixed crew at DB, and TE . . . I really don't remember.

But again, good point. With more raw talent on the O-line alone -- not even necessarily elite talent, but just more solid SEC talent -- maybe our good-to-great offenses of the past few years could've pulled had a couple more special moments.

[HoopsDawg]

2 of those years were with a future All-Pro QB. 2014 had 4 OL starters returning. 2015 had 3 OL starters returning and 2 All-SEC WR's returning

2017 returns none of that. Offense is a problem whether you want to admit it or not

If we are saying that Phillips and Champion are not going to be ready to help in 2017 then it is really hard to project a starting O-line.

LT: Rankin-solid
LG: Story- played a little last year
C: Calhoun- first time at Center
RG: Reese- Redshirt Freshman
RT: Jenkins

Depth: None to speak of.

[Prediction? Pain.]

2 of those years were with a future All-Pro QB. 2014 had 4 OL starters returning. 2015 had 3 OL starters returning and 2 All-SEC WR's returning.

2017 returns none of that. Offense is a problem whether you want to admit it or not.

Teams are able to play the pass when there is no threat of run because the OL is weak.

Dak's role can't be understated. As his rookie season with the Cowboys confirmed, the development in his passing skills and general offensive acumen from 2013 to 2014 to 2015 was exceptional.

And maybe it was him and him alone that gave the offense success in 2015, because that OL was not a sure thing by any means. Whether we had three "returning starters" or not, it was one of the most inexperienced offensive lines in college football, at least in terms of career starts:

https://www.philsteele.com/Blogs/2015/JUNE15/DBJune04.html

Our returning O-linemen in 2015 had a combined 32 career starts. That ranked us at 118 out of 128 FBS teams, and 13th in the SEC.

And as for Bama in 2014, I think I agree with Commercecomet24 in that the three costly interceptions were more on Dak than our OL or running offense as a whole. Not that I think the OL was superb in 2014. It was probably statistically worse then than in 2016 (though in 2016, it was statistically very good.) In 2014, we were 3rd in the SEC in yards per carry in SEC games. And despite being such a run-heavy offense that year (3rd in attempts per game in SEC play), we were top 5 in the SEC in total TFL's allowed in conference games. (We were smack in the middle of the conference in both sacks allowed and passing attempts per game, so that jives a bit more, even if pass protection overall could've been better.) I'm not sure any of that would've been possible with a "weak" offensive line.

Further, against Alabama, our yards per carry were higher than every other SEC West team except Auburn, who averaged all of 0.25 yards more per carry against Alabama than we did. We also averaged more than twice the ypc that an 11-win Missouri team managed against Alabama in the SEC championship game. The only teams that Alabama played in 2014 that averaged more than 4 ypc were Tennessee (4.2 ypc) and Ohio State (6.7 ypc). So yeah, we weren't able to run that well on them, but fared better than 5 out of 6 other SEC West teams, which probably made us more of a threat to run than most other teams in the division. Not an Ohio State type of threat, obviously, but more than most other teams Bama played.

(More info on the O-line's play vs. Bama in 2014: Bama had less TFL's against us than any other SEC team it played other than Florida (5 vs. us, 4 vs. Florida). And our game was one of only three SEC games in which Bama had 1 or less sacks in 2014.)

Also -- and avert your eyes if you don't want to relive the horror -- here are Dak's three interceptions against Alabama:


https://youtu.be/VRGwR5hEBIc?t=3m2s


https://youtu.be/VRGwR5hEBIc?t=9m19s


https://youtu.be/VRGwR5hEBIc?t=12m23s

On the first, he was standing tall in the pocket and threw a terrible pass.

On the second, he was moving to his left, but wasn't under any pressure up the middle, and then badly underthrew Bear in the end zone.

And on the third, he threw a quick pass that was tipped and then caught by a defender. Pressure wasn't an issue there either.

The Bama loss in 2014 sucked. But it's on the whole offense, not just Dak for throwing the INT's, Robinson for his goal line juke that cost us a safety, or the the RB's and OL for averaging under our season average of 5.24 ypc.

Overall, though, I totally agree that offense has been a problem more than the defense in Mullen's tenure. The offenses from '09 to '13 were, at best, mediocre. The success in 2010, for instance, owed way more to the defense than the offense (the offense that year was really efficient in the redzone and on 3rd downs, but was otherwise pretty bad; we were ranked 11th in the SEC in both scoring offense and yards per play).

But in the past three years, the offense has markedly improved. It's got a ways to go, sure. But it's been far more productive than in the first four or five years of Mullen's time here.

[Commercecomet24]

Dak's role can't be understated. As his rookie season with the Cowboys confirmed, the development in his passing skills and general offensive acumen from 2013 to 2014 to 2015 was exceptional.

And maybe it was him and him alone that gave the offense success in 2015, because that OL was not a sure thing by any means. Whether we had three "returning starters" or not, it was one of the most inexperienced offensive lines in college football, at least in terms of career starts:

https://www.philsteele.com/Blogs/2015/JUNE15/DBJune04.html

Our returning O-linemen in 2015 had a combined 32 career starts. That ranked us at 118 out of 128 FBS teams, and 13th in the SEC.

And as for Bama in 2014, I think I agree with Commercecomet24 in that the three costly interceptions were more on Dak than our OL or running offense as a whole. Not that I think the OL was superb in 2014. It was probably statistically worse then than in 2016 (though in 2016, it was statistically very good.) In 2014, we were 3rd in the SEC in yards per carry in SEC games. And despite being such a run-heavy offense that year (3rd in attempts per game in SEC play), we were top 5 in the SEC in total TFL's allowed in conference games. (We were smack in the middle of the conference in both sacks allowed and passing attempts per game, so that jives a bit more, even if pass protection overall could've been better.) I'm not sure any of that would've been possible with a "weak" offensive line.

Further, against Alabama, our yards per carry were higher than every other SEC West team except Auburn, who averaged all of 0.25 yards more per carry against Alabama than we did. We also averaged more than twice the ypc that an 11-win Missouri team managed against Alabama in the SEC championship game. The only teams that Alabama played in 2014 that averaged more than 4 ypc were Tennessee (4.2 ypc) and Ohio State (6.7 ypc). So yeah, we weren't able to run that well on them, but fared better than 5 out of 6 other SEC West teams, which probably made us more of a threat to run than most other teams in the division. Not an Ohio State type of threat, obviously, but more than most other teams Bama played.

(More info on the O-line's play vs. Bama in 2014: Bama had less TFL's against us than any other SEC team it played other than Florida (5 vs. us, 4 vs. Florida). And our game was one of only three SEC games in which Bama had 1 or less sacks in 2014.)

Also -- and avert your eyes if you don't want to relive the horror -- here are Dak's three interceptions against Alabama:


https://youtu.be/VRGwR5hEBIc?t=3m2s


https://youtu.be/VRGwR5hEBIc?t=9m19s


https://youtu.be/VRGwR5hEBIc?t=12m23s

On the first, he was standing tall in the pocket and threw a terrible pass.

On the second, he was moving to his left, but wasn't under any pressure up the middle, and then badly underthrew Bear in the end zone.

And on the third, he threw a quick pass that was tipped and then caught by a defender. Pressure wasn't an issue there either.

The Bama loss in 2014 sucked. But it's one the whole offense, not just Dak for throwing the INT's, Robinson for his goal line juke that cost us a safety, or the the RB's and OL for averaging under our season average of 5.24 ypc.

Overall, though, I totally agree that offense has been a problem more than the defense in Mullen's tenure. The offenses from '09 to '13 were, at best, mediocre. The success in 2010, for instance, owed way more to the defense than the offense (the offense that year was really efficient in the redzone and on 3rd downs, but was otherwise pretty bad; we were ranked 11th in the SEC in both scoring offense and yards per play).

But in the past three years, the offense has markedly improved. It's got a ways to go, sure. But it's been far more productive than in the first four or five years of Mullen's time here.

Spot on! Good research and facts. Also in the 2014 Bama game Dak missed a wide open Malcolm Johnson in the End Zone and we had to settle for a field goal. The 2014 Bama game was a combination of red zone turnovers, poor play calling in the first half, missed opportunities and our defense not being able to stop Blake Sims on 3 straight third downs in the 4th quarter, it was definitely a team effort in that loss. Also in 2013 we were 4th in the SEC in scoring while having 3 different QB's including true freshman Damian Williams so the last 4 years were definitely a marked improvement from the first 4 which were pretty average.

[lamont]

We were 10th in the SEC in scoring in 2013- not 4th

[dawgs]

We need to never, ever, ever recruit another scatback again. I'm pretty sure Aeris will get most of the touches next year. All of our other backs aside from maybe some obscure walk-ons are pretty decently sized RB's.

Nothing wrong with a small 3rd down pass catching back that can also split out in the slot some to confuse the defense and exploit matchups. It's just a matter of using players in the best ways possible to maximize their abilities.

[Commercecomet24]

We were 10th in the SEC in scoring in 2013- not 4th

I stand corrected, we were actually 9th, but yeah i was defintely wrong on us being 4th.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/sec/2013-team-offense.html