Hypothetical for a year or two from now (football)

[CadaverDawg]

Let's say we go 6-7 wins next year, then 5 wins in 2020 and make a coaching change....

Would you want to go back to a Mullen-esque system? Obviously, it worked to give us our best years ever, but on the other hand we never really truly had a team that could win the West.

Or...

Do you look at it like this.....We could go with something we've never done before like a super young guy that has tons of imagination like a young McVey or Andy Reid mindset type, and if it doesn't work, we'll still be back in the 6-7 Win range in no time if we have to fire him, so no real harm?

Just curious where the fans are. Do you truly want to take some risks at a chance for major success...or are you cool with lingering between 6 & 9 wins forever? I feel like our fan base tends to lean heavily towards the safe bet/low risk side...not saying that's bad, just saying that's how it appears. That's why I posed the question

[Gutter Cobreh]

Let's say we go 6-7 wins next year, then 5 wins in 2020 and make a coaching change....

Would you want to go back to a Mullen-esque system? Obviously, it worked to give us our best years ever, but on the other hand we never really truly had a team that could win the West.

Or...

Do you look at it like this.....We could go with something we've never done before like a super young guy that has tons of imagination like a young McVey or Andy Reid mindset type, and if it doesn't work, we'll still be back in the 6-7 Win range in no time if we have to fire him, so no real harm?

Just curious where the fans are. Do you truly want to take some risks at a chance for major success...or are you cool with lingering between 6 & 9 wins forever? I feel like our fan base tends to lean heavily towards the safe bet/low risk side...not saying that's bad, just saying that's how it appears. That's why I posed the question

I'll take option "c" (which you didn't include) and that would be we win 8 each of the next two years (19 & 20) and then have a breakout year, as has been our cycle when we have upperclassmen.

Why are you asking us to choose a hypothetical decision when the options don't include the current head coach?

[bluelightstar]

Let's say we go 6-7 wins next year, then 5 wins in 2020 and make a coaching change....

Would you want to go back to a Mullen-esque system? Obviously, it worked to give us our best years ever, but on the other hand we never really truly had a team that could win the West.

Or...

Do you look at it like this.....We could go with something we've never done before like a super young guy that has tons of imagination like a young McVey or Andy Reid mindset type, and if it doesn't work, we'll still be back in the 6-7 Win range in no time if we have to fire him, so no real harm?

Just curious where the fans are. Do you truly want to take some risks at a chance for major success...or are you cool with lingering between 6 & 9 wins forever? I feel like our fan base tends to lean heavily towards the safe bet/low risk side...not saying that's bad, just saying that's how it appears. That's why I posed the question

Honestly, Mullen competed for the West in 2014 (I am convinced that we would have won it if we got Alabama in Starkville). Although I am well aware of the deficiencies that this team had, I also believe Mullen would have competed for the West this year simply by virtue of being more familiar with this team's strengths and limitations and being better at masking them. Don't think we would have won it. With Alabama, LSU, Auburn, and Texas A&M in our neighborhood, twice a decade is probably our only realistic shot at elevating to a division-championship-level team. A spread option system is probably a better fit for what we can consistently recruit to in Starkville, so if Moorhead doesn't work out, that's probably where we need to go.

[CadaverDawg]

I'll take option "c" (which you didn't include) and that would be we win 8 each of the next two years (19 & 20) and then have a breakout year, as has been our cycle when we have upperclassmen.

Why are you asking us to choose a hypothetical decision when the options don't include the current head coach?

Because it's MY hypothetical. Are you serious? Do you know what a hypothetical is.

[msstate7]

Gotta find a way to RS guys like whop and Murphy. Mullen's RS plan is a good one. We will never out talent the west, so we have to offset that with maturity and experience

[Dawgology]

Because it's MY hypothetical. Are you serious? Do you know what a hypothetical is.

Team Moorhead likes to change the question and spin the answer. It’s a pattern and part of the process of acceptance. Some of us have gotten to acceptance much more quickly.

To answer: we need to go back to a spread style offense. Moorhead’s system was super in about 7 years ago. Most college coaches are going to no huddle/tempo, spread offense because it levels the playing field talent wise to an extent. We need to live in that 8-10 win a year space for about another 5-10 years to change perception of the program. With that will come the ability to attract higher profile recruits. Mullen had us headed there but Cohen fumbled the hire.

[Dawgology]

Gotta find a way to RS guys like whop and Murphy. Mullen's RS plan is a good one. We will never out talent the west, so we have to offset that with maturity and experience


Yes! This.

[TrapGame]

Gotta find a way to RS guys like whop and Murphy. Mullen's RS plan is a good one. We will never out talent the west, so we have to offset that with maturity and experience

You are 100% correct on this.

[CadaverDawg]

Gotta find a way to RS guys like whop and Murphy. Mullen's RS plan is a good one. We will never out talent the west, so we have to offset that with maturity and experience

I agree

[TrapGame]

Let's say we go 6-7 wins next year, then 5 wins in 2020 and make a coaching change....

Would you want to go back to a Mullen-esque system? Obviously, it worked to give us our best years ever, but on the other hand we never really truly had a team that could win the West.

Or...

Do you look at it like this.....We could go with something we've never done before like a super young guy that has tons of imagination like a young McVey or Andy Reid mindset type, and if it doesn't work, we'll still be back in the 6-7 Win range in no time if we have to fire him, so no real harm?

Just curious where the fans are. Do you truly want to take some risks at a chance for major success...or are you cool with lingering between 6 & 9 wins forever? I feel like our fan base tends to lean heavily towards the safe bet/low risk side...not saying that's bad, just saying that's how it appears. That's why I posed the question

But, if we go young guy doesn't that open us up to some really shitty coaching decisions. No HC experience usually equals failure in the SEC. Mullen took his lumps but he had already learned a lot from Urban.

[CadaverDawg]

But, if we go young guy doesn't that open us up to some really shitty coaching decisions. No HC experience usually equals failure in the SEC. Mullen took his lumps but he had already learned a lot from Urban.

Great points

[CadaverDawg]

Honestly, Mullen competed for the West in 2014 (I am convinced that we would have won it if we got Alabama in Starkville). Although I am well aware of the deficiencies that this team had, I also believe Mullen would have competed for the West this year simply by virtue of being more familiar with this team's strengths and limitations and being better at masking them. Don't think we would have won it. With Alabama, LSU, Auburn, and Texas A&M in our neighborhood, twice a decade is probably our only realistic shot at elevating to a division-championship-level team. A spread option system is probably a better fit for what we can consistently recruit to in Starkville, so if Moorhead doesn't work out, that's probably where we need to go.

Good post

[CadaverDawg]

Team Moorhead likes to change the question and spin the answer. It’s a pattern and part of the process of acceptance. Some of us have gotten to acceptance much more quickly.

To answer: we need to go back to a spread style offense. Moorhead’s system was super in about 7 years ago. Most college coaches are going to no huddle/tempo, spread offense because it levels the playing field talent wise to an extent. We need to live in that 8-10 win a year space for about another 5-10 years to change perception of the program. With that will come the ability to attract higher profile recruits. Mullen had us headed there but Cohen fumbled the hire.

This is where I think I am too

[msstate7]

A run first offense with an athlete at QB fits our recruiting area. Miss doesn't produce lots of good passing QBs and WRs.

[TrapGame]

I'm going up the ante on this hypothetical question.

Does Cohen make the hire?

[bluelightstar]

I'm going up the ante on this hypothetical question.

Does Cohen make the hire?

If Moorhead tanks, probably not. Foley at UF is basically the only SEC AD I can think of who screwed a football hire and got to make a second one.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

Team Moorhead likes to change the question and spin the answer. It’s a pattern and part of the process of acceptance. Some of us have gotten to acceptance much more quickly.

To answer: we need to go back to a spread style offense. Moorhead’s system was super in about 7 years ago. Most college coaches are going to no huddle/tempo, spread offense because it levels the playing field talent wise to an extent. We need to live in that 8-10 win a year space for about another 5-10 years to change perception of the program. With that will come the ability to attract higher profile recruits. Mullen had us headed there but Cohen fumbled the hire.

Back to it? What are you talking about? Mullen ran a 3 WR 1 TE 1 RB set with a running QB out of shotgun formation. Moorhead runs the exact same thing. If anything, Moorhead is MORE OF A SPREAD COACH since he wants to pass it deep a lot more than Mullen.

[Gutter Cobreh]

Because it's MY hypothetical. Are you serious? Do you know what a hypothetical is.

Well, in another thread you mentioned that your friends are suggesting that you're being too negative. I'm simply trying to illustrate that in YOUR hypothetical situation, there were no positive outcomes for the next two years. If those that are rationale in their approach to things and generally wish or hope for the best are called "sunshine pumpers", what are those that continue to see the pessimistic side and look for ways to bitch and moan about the smallest of items called? Negative Nancies, maybe?

Carry on with your hypothetical debate... at the least you've created something where all those "like-minded" individuals have a place to melt and bitch.


Team Moorhead likes to change the question and spin the answer. It’s a pattern and part of the process of acceptance. Some of us have gotten to acceptance much more quickly.

Never changed the question, simply provided another option and questioned why success wasn't an option? Pardon me for not knowing that after the first year of a coach's tenure - their future is already mapped out.

[WeWonItAll(Most)]

Team Moorhead likes to change the question and spin the answer. It?s a pattern and part of the process of acceptance. Some of us have gotten to acceptance much more quickly.

To answer: we need to go back to a spread style offense. Moorhead?s system was super in about 7 years ago. Most college coaches are going to no huddle/tempo, spread offense because it levels the playing field talent wise to an extent. We need to live in that 8-10 win a year space for about another 5-10 years to change perception of the program. With that will come the ability to attract higher profile recruits. Mullen had us headed there but Cohen fumbled the hire.

We've only won 8-10 games in 6 of the last 9 years. Mullen got us there in 5 of his 9 years here.

[msstate7]

We've only won 8-10 games in 6 of the last 9 years. Mullen got us there in 5 of his 9 years here.

3 of his last 4

[bluelightstar]

We've only won 8-10 games in 6 of the last 9 years. Mullen got us there in 5 of his 9 years here.

Or 4 of his last 6. Or 3 of his last 4. Depends how you want to slice that.

[WeWonItAll(Most)]

Or 4 of his last 6. Or 3 of his last 4. Depends how you want to slice that.


3 of his last 4

Or 3 of his last 5. None of which is exactly consistently getting us to 8+ wins. Thanks for helping me establish this.

[Dawgology]

Or 3 of his last 5. None of which is exactly consistently getting us to 8+ wins. Thanks for helping me establish this.

Right...we were obviously building toward that being more regular. With where our program was after the end of JS tenure and the Croom debacle it took some time to recover.

Also...more consistently than before. When was the last time we went to 8 straight bowl games? Anyone?

[BuckyIsAB****]

Back to it? What are you talking about? Mullen ran a 3 WR 1 TE 1 RB set with a running QB out of shotgun formation. Moorhead runs the exact same thing. If anything, Moorhead is MORE OF A SPREAD COACH since he wants to pass it deep a lot more than Mullen.

Exactly. I was baffled at that. Moorhead is doing what you see the Chiefs and Eagles do. He is doing what Clemson and Bama do. Mullen is really a unique offense guy in that he is the one still running what was the trend 7 years ago. (Tebow, Pat White QB read option game)

[StarkVegasSteve]

Exactly. I was baffled at that. Moorhead is doing what you see the Chiefs and Eagles do. He is doing what Clemson and Bama do. Mullen is really a unique offense guy in that he is the one still running what was the trend 7 years ago. (Tebow, Pat White QB read option game)

The difference is that Mullen can still outscheme people because of his familiarity with his system he knows the type of QB he wants. Moorhead on the other hand is trying to take a run first QB and turn him into Jimmy Garappolo. And he's been running his system long enough to know the QB's that work in it and the ones that don't.