Well, you're an idiot. This ain't 1963 and we couldn't even put together a damn scout team last year. We win 5+ this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldendawg
Printable View
Well, you're an idiot. This ain't 1963 and we couldn't even put together a damn scout team last year. We win 5+ this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldendawg
People fail to realize what a dumpster fire this program has become since Mullen left. Cohen lit the fire with Moorhead. Leach was not the answer and his death made it worse. Arnett was lighter fluid sprayed on a smoldering heap. Lebby has his work cut out for him. This is tall task for a new head coach. If he pulls it off and makes us relevant again in football it's going to be hard to keep him. He's going to have a lot of suitors.Quote:
Originally Posted by vv83
Leach left us at 9-4. If that's not the answer then we're Alabama.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapGame
Furthermore- our situation now is way more on Arnett than anything else. We didn't fall off of a cliff with Moorhead- he managed to win 8 games and Leach almost won as many top 25 games as Dan did.
Things went down when the boosters insisted on going back to blue collar football again. You know- the same thing that hasn't worked for 100 years at MSU.
While true, he left us with the worse roster in the conference going into 2024. 2023 would have been fine if he were alive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd4State
His recruiting classes were almost entirely misses. Arnett compounded the issue.
I asked Grok how it would divide up MSU NIL/Rev Share money by position group to build a "moneyball roster" for Mississippi State. Nothing too surprising with what it spit out....
Money Ball Strategy
The "money ball" approach involves allocating more funds to positions that are undervalued relative to their impact. Offensive and defensive linemen are critical for controlling the line of scrimmage, yet their NIL valuations are lower than those of quarterbacks or wide receivers. By prioritizing linemen, Mississippi State can build a strong foundation, allowing less expensive skill players to perform effectively. This strategy leverages the depth required at these positions (10-15 players each) and their relative affordability compared to elite skill players.
Quarterbacks
8%
Sufficient to attract a competent quarterback, acknowledging scarcity but avoiding overinvestment in a single player.
Running Backs
5%
Reduced due to lower importance in modern offenses and ability to develop talent in-house.
Wide Receivers
12%
Balances scarcity and need for multiple starters, slightly reduced to prioritize lines.
Tight Ends
4%
Versatile but less critical, requiring a modest share.
Offensive Line
20%
Increased to build a strong foundation, critical for both run and pass games.
Defensive Line
22%
Highest allocation to ensure a dominant defense, exploiting undervaluation.
Linebackers
8%
Reduced slightly, as modern schemes rely more on linemen and secondary.
Defensive Backs
20%
High allocation to secure top cornerbacks, critical for pass defense.
Special Teams
1%
Minimal share due to lower impact and fewer players.
correct. Leach wasnt recruiting at allQuote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
Well Leach left at 8-4 first. That was not his average either. Didn't he still finish with a losing overall record here? We were not about to go on this massive winning streak everyone thinks. Croom looked good in 07 too hugh? He won 8 games same as Leach. Saw how that ended. You can hold to that argument since he passed but fact is our D was on the skids since Leach came in and was about to come apart - and it did. We had got soft on OL too. Leach wasn't the answer. When are folks going to let him RIP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd4State
Yes we are in trouble now; Arnet didn't dismantle MSU by himself in less than a year.
Arnett didn't kill us in 10 months; that was already going on. Arnett inherited a mess and it got worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd4State
Moorhead had #1 D in nation and 3 #1 draftpicks and lost 5 games. No other team with #1 D in nation hasn't made playoffs but us. Also he had SEC all time leading QB rusher. Think about that a minute.
Leach's top 25 wins were a mirage. Almost all of those ranked teams at the time tanked before year end - see LSU game 1.
Can't argue with that. LOS is where it is. We have decent skill players to choose from behind good LOS. DBs being that high is interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by CovertDawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd4State
Tood, there are multiple situations leading to where we are now. We gave Lebby shit on platter and told him we wanted steak in year one. Leach won some games but recruiting went into the shitter with him, especially on defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd4State
The problem with hiring leach as a coach was the roster overhaul with half the team being wr’s. Once you leave the leach offense, it’s tough to flip to a traditional roster. Arnette tried to flip our philosophy too fast and we didn’t have the $ thanks to cohen to buy the players we needed to compliment the flip. Also, with Moorhead to leach, we lost our dominance of in state front 7 defensive recruiting. Combine all that and we have the results of last year.
I don't put 2020 on leach.
I don't put 2024 on lebby.
Ole miss matters a lot. Im not one that pretends that they don?t. You can call it rent free or little brother if you want to, but that is the biggest game every single year and it is time to win it again. They have done well, caught a lucky break here and there and we have wrecked since we had an unprecedented tragedy. We are dueQuote:
Originally Posted by vv83
So a bowl game every year and a 9 win season is dumpster fire? I know yall hated him and the QB but that is non sense. Moorhead was awful, Leach brought it back and was gonna be a consistent winner till God said otherwise. Keenum and Arnett then made Moorhead look like the BearQuote:
Originally Posted by TrapGame
There were some valid problems with Leach. Him leaving a lot of the recruiting to Arnett and Dudek on defense wasnt a good move. However the culture and Leach himself was good enough to offset it a little bit. We would have been right where Mullen had us consistently if he were still with us. Every coach in the country has flaws. People are forgetting how bad we wanted Mullen gone at times. 2011 and 2017 were huge underachieving years. 2017 we flopped after the bama screw job and he was one foot out the door again. 2016 would be remembered as a catastrophe if it wasnt for 55-20 and running freeze off. I remember Damian Williams playing over fitz and losing to USA in shorty shortsQuote:
Originally Posted by bigbub50
We are in this predicament b/c of every single coach post Mullen. Every single one of them has contributed to the pile of shit Lebby was given. Leach wasn't the answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckyIsAB****
If Leach were still alive, we would have won at least 15 games across 2023-24 (maybe more) and would be licking our lips at our schedule this year.
Any cursory look at his career record tells us what he would have done here long term.
The only reason some people don't like Leach is that they've gotten it in their heads that you're "supposed" to win football games by physically dominating other teams, running between the tackles and imposing your will on them. Those fans hate the idea of turning football into a cerebral game of outwitting and outscheming the opponent. It's not "manly" enough for them.
Ironically, the team was in much better physical shape under Leach than the coaches before or after him.
Very few of us don't like leach.
I have little doubt he would have kept us at least solid offensively.
The question would have been whether he could have gotten enough defensive guys out of the portal, because his recruiting, particularly on the defensive side, was D2 quality.