Originally Posted by
RiverCityDawg
You make some fair points, but I feel like there's this underlying sentiment by many, and I see it in your post, that it would have been easy just to plug any Tom, Dick or Harry in at coach and do what Dan Mullen did. Not only what Dan did, but I what he did in 2014 or at least 2015 & 2017.
1) We just weren't set up to sustain that level of success based on personnel. Yes, for 2018 and especially on defense, and that's a failing of Moorhead's, but there were some holes in the roster that are coming home to roost. There's a great T&L podcast episode from a week or two back that breaks down the last few recruiting classes and it's a mess.
2) Dan was/is a damn good coach. Yes, he lost some focus and drive with us towards the end, but what he did at his peak isn't easily replicated. He's a top coach and we were fortunate to scoop him up on the rise. Hiring a head coach in the SEC is hard, especially at State. We just don't have the ability to pick whoever we want. It's not poor ol missippi state, it's just the truth. You make a bad hire in Moorhead and a program like ours gets in a hole in a hurry. Mike Leach is a proven winner at the P5 level and has always done so with inferior talent relative to his opponents in his conference. That's exactly what we're facing, so it makes sense to get someone with that resume. You could try and land another up and comer like Dan, but the failure rate on that approach is higher than the success rate. The obvious guys have "better" options than State.
All that to say, maybe we didn't have to take on THIS transition, but I think some of what we're seeing would have happened with any coach just based on what was being taken over. We could be MORE successful on offense, but how much more? Enough to win one more game maybe? The hope obviously is that the medium/long term success will outweigh the short term sacrifice. We'll see.