Truly hilarious that any of you think this is about Dan Mullen......

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

09-06-2016, 02:01 PM
cheewgumm

Good point . No reason to go to or watch games anymore.
09-06-2016, 02:02 PM
Leroy Jenkins

Quote:

Originally Posted by Really Clark?

Not agreeing or disagreeing with the OP but his logic has nothing to do with one game. That's simplistic beyond a reasonable comparison. Using your statement if the loss is all Mullen then the #1 rankings is all him as well.

That Dan and this Dan are not the same person. So, not simplistic.
09-06-2016, 02:02 PM
Taog Redloh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnson85

I think Mullen is going to continue to have a lack of energy and is going to sulk. We'll see though.

Me too, but not because Dan Mullen did anything out of the ordinary. It's just what happens to our coaches. They all just give up at some point. Jackie did it in 2002, but we let him have one more year because he had earned it, and 2001 felt like a fluke. Croom did it in 2008. Mullen is doing it now. I do think we'll have to give him one more year though, he's earned that, but it'll probably end in 3-9 or worse.

I don't know that Felker every gave up, he was very passionate about MSU. He just didn't get it done. Bellard certainly lost it.
09-06-2016, 02:03 PM
Taog Redloh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gutter Cobreh

Your assuming that Mullen wanted to be here past 2017...The great debate is whether he was actually working for the future at MSU or hoping to ride Prescott's coat tails to greener pastures over the past 2 years.

I don't care if it's with or without Mullen. Was I not clear about that? (not being a smartass - just curious).
09-06-2016, 02:09 PM
HSVDawg

Dan Mullen would probably win big at a "have" school? You don't say. He can win big here (and HAS won big here), so of course he could do well at a school with more resources. But he isn't going to win big here or Ohio State or Starkville High School if he doesn't start acting like he gives a shit and acting like he wants to be there. That is the main beef that everyone has right now. South Alabama was a symptom of a bigger problem.
09-06-2016, 02:12 PM
Gutter Cobreh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taog Redloh

I don't care if it's with or without Mullen. Was I not clear about that? (not being a smartass - just curious).

No, you were offering advice about how he should have been plugged into the JUCO pipeline. I was simply replying back that I don't think he put a whole lot of emphasis on the team dynamic past last year's squad.

I do agree w/ you though. I realize some JUCOs don't pan out, but with the way the system is set up in MS - I'd be all over it.
09-06-2016, 02:13 PM
Liverpooldawg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taog Redloh

This is about Mississippi State football. A normal coach cannot build a consistent winning football program here. We simply do not have the resources that the 'haves' possess. Make peace with this fact. I'll spare you details, because certain posters will just get bogged down on them. Bottom line is, we are at the bottom when the historical equation spits out what's needed to be a successful football program.

Until we redefine how we want to compete in football, this historical trend will continue. Dan Mullen is as good as the next guy, and he'd probably win big at a 'have' school. He nearly won big here. So let's quit thinking that we can just go get another guy. I know we have more money than ever before, but if you hadn't noticed, the price to play is higher than it's ever been before too. Not to mention assistants.

Ole Miss chose to pay players and recruit better. That's them - not us. It fits them - not us.

No, we're going to have to jar our line of thinking. I don't know the answer, but it's going to have to revolve around JUCO players and a true outside the box innovative offense. Great defense should come with the territory, that's what the state of MS produces better than anything.

This is correct. It is what it is but a lot of you just can't seem to get your heads around this. It has nothing to do with accepting poor little whooped down MSU. It has everything to do with where we were/are when we finally decided to try and change it. It also has everything to do with the fact that the goal posts are always being raised.
09-06-2016, 02:20 PM
MadDawg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg-gone-dawgs

I am so sick of this cop-out that, "This is just the way it's gonna be"..BS. This lame ass excuse is what has and will continue to give Dan a pass.

A pass? From whom? From what?
09-06-2016, 02:20 PM
Really Clark?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leroy Jenkins

That Dan and this Dan are not the same person. So, not simplistic.

Really? Because the 2013 talking points of why we need to get rid of him were very similar as today. Very similar.
09-06-2016, 02:22 PM
MadDawg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnson85

But I don't think that's what's going to happen. I think Mullen is going to continue to have a lack of energy and is going to sulk. We'll see though.

Where do you get this from? The players? Other coaches? Your couch?
09-06-2016, 02:24 PM
BoomBoom

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taog Redloh

This is about Mississippi State football. A normal coach cannot build a consistent winning football program here. We simply do not have the resources that the 'haves' possess. Make peace with this fact. I'll spare you details, because certain posters will just get bogged down on them. Bottom line is, we are at the bottom when the historical equation spits out what's needed to be a successful football program.

Until we redefine how we want to compete in football, this historical trend will continue. Dan Mullen is as good as the next guy, and he'd probably win big at a 'have' school. He nearly won big here. So let's quit thinking that we can just go get another guy. I know we have more money than ever before, but if you hadn't noticed, the price to play is higher than it's ever been before too. Not to mention assistants.

Ole Miss chose to pay players and recruit better. That's them - not us. It fits them - not us.

No, we're going to have to jar our line of thinking. I don't know the answer, but it's going to have to revolve around JUCO players and a true outside the box innovative offense. Great defense should come with the territory, that's what the state of MS produces better than anything.

this is where you lost track. Dan Mullen COULD be as good as the next guy. But the Dan Mullen that is responsible to no one, cannot admit his mistakes, employs his buddies instead of better assistants, and stubbornly accentuates his negatives instead of minimizing them, THAT Dan Mullen is for damn sure NOT as good as the next guy.

THAT Dan Mullen is a below average coach.

So, is your position that MSU cannot get an average or above average coach?

Yours and Liver's position seems to be Dan is a pretty good coach, and we shouldn't expect to bring in a world-beater coach, or at least one that won't bolt pretty quickly. i think most of us can agree with that. where we disagree is on the assessment of Mullen.
09-06-2016, 02:29 PM
RougeDawg

Holy f*cking shit this OP makes my head hurt. First you say it's not on Dan Mullen, then you agree his lack of fire is the reason? Do you even listen to yourself or just spew what 2 cents come to mind at any given moment.

Dan is the problem. His lack of fire and don't give a shit attitude is the root of all of our current problems. He's the same guy if we win or lose. That's not who I, nor any of us, should want coaching. We should demand a coach that lives to win and is pissed off when he loses, especially to a shit team like USA. He should own it and show he's going to fight like hell to fix the issues. But in reality the issues are himself and we know he's rarely ever fixed issues that lie within himself. That's why most of us are pissed and see the writing on the wall.

Lastly, we are not poor ole MSU anymore. We can pay top 15 money for a coach which means we can bring in top talent to coach our program. We are no longer a "have not". Jesus Christ it's not that difficult. Can someone please understand it for the OP, because he's missing the forest for the trees?
09-06-2016, 02:34 PM
maroonmania

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnson85

Yea, people are being morons here. People are acting like we were upset by UK on Saturday. This was not having a normal slipup that every coach is going to have. This was a bad sign stacked on top of a lot of bad signs. If Mullen goes 4-8 this year, that without looking at the circumstances would be just a bad year that he certainly should be able to withstand at this point. But not having the team ready to play a sunbelt team? This wasn't a fluky game where we had ridiculous turnovers and bad breaks; our offense and defense looked shitty. There were virtually no bright spots outside of Leo Lewis because for the most part we stuck with upperclassmen that we know aren't the answer. If Mullen gets his head right and rights the ship, I'll be ready to move forward with him, even if he has put himself into a hole where we don't do better than 4 wins. But I don't think that's what's going to happen. I think Mullen is going to continue to have a lack of energy and is going to sulk. We'll see though.

Thanks for adding some sanity to this thread. Like you say, this wasn't a "fluke" loss. In fact, I don't believe there was a turnover for either team the entire game. They just came out and whipped our butts the second half. This crap about "a normal coach cannot build a consistent winning football program here" is just that, crap. A normal coach may not ever be able to build a championship level football program here but today, with the resources the SEC provides, building a consistent winning program should not be that difficult especially as long as you keep what should be 3 "gimmees" on the OOC schedule (of course USA was supposed to be one of those). And I'm talking winning 7 to 9 games every year with a rare 6 win season now and again. BUT a normal "winning" coach doesn't let recruiting lapse like it did in 2013 and 2014 (and probably 2016 though the jury is still out there). A normal winning coach doesn't have to change his DC every freakin' year. A normal winning coach doesn't let his best buddy continue to coach the OL even though its a drag on the program (especially in recruiting). AND a normal winning coach doesn't spend every Dec/Jan looking to see what other jobs he can put his name in the hat for.
09-06-2016, 02:36 PM
Taog Redloh

Quote:

Originally Posted by HSVDawg

Dan Mullen would probably win big at a "have" school? You don't say. He can win big here (and HAS won big here), so of course he could do well at a school with more resources. But he isn't going to win big here or Ohio State or Starkville High School if he doesn't start acting like he gives a shit and acting like he wants to be there. That is the main beef that everyone has right now. South Alabama was a symptom of a bigger problem.

That is a symptom of the whole deal. It isn't mutually exclusive. He seems to me like he's just sort of given up DUE to the fact that he didn't get it done when he had the chance. He knows it's pretty damn hard to do. He knows his method (the same method that is used all over the country) results in a 'peak'. Can't keep it consistent.
09-06-2016, 02:39 PM
Taog Redloh

Quote:

Originally Posted by RougeDawg

Lastly, we are not poor ole MSU anymore. We can pay top 15 money for a coach which means we can bring in top talent to coach our program. We are no longer a "have not". Jesus Christ it's not that difficult. Can someone please understand it for the OP, because he's missing the forest for the trees?

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
09-06-2016, 02:46 PM
BoomBoom

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taog Redloh

That is a symptom of the whole deal. It isn't mutually exclusive. He seems to me like he's just sort of given up DUE to the fact that he didn't get it done when he had the chance. He knows it's pretty damn hard to do. He knows his method (the same method that is used all over the country) results in a 'peak'. Can't keep it consistent.

so you think he's given up, and you want to keep him??!!
09-06-2016, 02:48 PM
BoomBoom

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taog Redloh

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

from your own source:

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries
09-06-2016, 02:49 PM
Taog Redloh

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoomBoom

so you think he's given up, and you want to keep him??!!

Quote where I said this.

My post was in no way meant to project my opinion of Dan Mullen. It's simply to illustrate how this scenario plays out over and over and over again in MSU football history.
09-06-2016, 02:50 PM
BoomBoom

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taog Redloh

Quote where I said this.

My post was in no way meant to project my opinion of Dan Mullen. It's simply to illustrate how this scenario plays out over and over and over again in MSU football history.

At what point in MSU history were we offering top 15 pay?
09-06-2016, 03:00 PM
I seen it dawg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liverpooldawg

This is correct. It is what it is but a lot of you just can't seem to get your heads around this. It has nothing to do with accepting poor little whooped down MSU. It has everything to do with where we were/are when we finally decided to try and change it. It also has everything to do with the fact that the goal posts are always being raised.

And it's finally in the open. You and goat are on the same page which makes total sense. 2 worst posters ever on a message board and now officially together.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page