Looks like Grantham has 100% control of the D

Will Sammon on OOB this am said based on his interviews with Grantham and others close to the program that he has the full reigns of the defense. He said there is a sense of a strong mutual respect between Mullen and Grantham. Mullen doesn't think he needs to babysit him. Grantham knows his shit.

Man, been waiting forever to hear that. Think of what that does for the offense too. I'm getting pretty wooly for this season.

Wait? are you saying that Dan has been meddling in the defense the last 6 to 7 seasons? Like some of us have clearly pointed out on here but been told we were crazy. No way Dan was calling the shots on defense.

If true, the O/U at 5.5 wins is a steal. Dan not meddling in the defense should be worth 1 win more a year at minimum, maybe 2 this year.

You don't pay a guy $1M+ and then do his job. I'm confident this may be one of best teams ever. Whether the records reflect that is a different story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RougeDawg

Wait? are you saying that Dan has been meddling in the defense the last 6 to 7 seasons? Like some of us have clearly pointed out on here but been told we were crazy. No way Dan was calling the shots on defense.

If true, the O/U at 5.5 wins is a steal. Dan not meddling in the defense should be worth 1 win more a year at minimum, maybe 2 this year.

---

You do realize Mullen is the HC, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RougeDawg

Wait? are you saying that Dan has been meddling in the defense the last 6 to 7 seasons? Like some of us have clearly pointed out on here but been told we were crazy. No way Dan was calling the shots on defense.

If true, the O/U at 5.5 wins is a steal. Dan not meddling in the defense should be worth 1 win more a year at minimum, maybe 2 this year.

---

Now we just need to fire and replace our special teams coach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RougeDawg

Wait? are you saying that Dan has been meddling in the defense the last 6 to 7 seasons? Like some of us have clearly pointed out on here but been told we were crazy. No way Dan was calling the shots on defense.

If true, the O/U at 5.5 wins is a steal. Dan not meddling in the defense should be worth 1 win more a year at minimum, maybe 2 this year.

---

Yep, lets infer long term assessments from the beat reporter who has been following state for .05 football seasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RougeDawg

Wait? are you saying that Dan has been meddling in the defense the last 6 to 7 seasons? Like some of us have clearly pointed out on here but been told we were crazy. No way Dan was calling the shots on defense.

---

I don't think anyone ever said he didn't stick his nose in and override the DC at times. What was argued against was the idea that no matter who the DC was, he ran Mullen's defense. That idea was and still is idiotic. The supposed proof was that we look the same and do the same things every year on defense no matter who the DC is, which was laughably false.

In any case, everyone should be excited that Mullen finally has a DC he apparently trusts to handle the other side of the ball 100%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thf24

I don't think anyone ever said he didn't stick his nose in and override the DC at times. What was argued against was the idea that no matter who the DC was, he ran Mullen's defense. That idea was and still is idiotic. The supposed proof was that we look the same and do the same things every year on defense no matter who the DC is, which was laughably false.

In any case, everyone should be excited that Mullen finally has a DC he apparently trusts to handle the other side of the ball 100%.

---

Not sure if you are serious or not. Defenses never look the same because you never have the same personnel. You apparently took the people literally when they said the defenses were the same.

Here's the point that should have been taken away from all the "defense looks the same" comments---- Our defenses played react and bend but don't break when Dan was meddling. On any given Saturday there was more aggression in the concession stand lines than on our defense. It's the same way Dan runs the offense, especially in big games. Play not to lose, rarely take chances, and hope the other team makes mistakes. I'm sorry you couldn't see that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RougeDawg

Not sure if you are serious or not. Defenses never look the same because you never have the same personnel. You apparently took the people literally when they said the defenses were the same.

Here's the point that should have been taken away from all the "defense looks the same" comments---- Our defenses played react and bend but don't break when Dan was meddling. On any given Saturday there was more aggression in the concession stand lines than on our defense.

---

Your message board themed oversimplification is off the mark.

Much of the problem has been a lack of talent (esp. Safety) or speed (LB) in some years. Those problems have to be masked somehow.

Also we value red zone defense above all else, and that's a huge component of winning games. Would you be ultra aggressive when the talent level can't support it?

If we had Bama's talent and could get pressure with 4, I think some people on this board would call us "aggressive".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maroons

Your message board themed oversimplification is off the mark.

Much of the problem has been a lack of talent (esp. Safety) or speed (LB) in some years. Those problems have to be masked somehow.

Also we value red zone defense above all else, and that's a huge component of winning games. Would you be ultra aggressive when the talent level can't support it?

If we had Bama's talent and could get pressure with 4, I think some people on this board would call us "aggressive".

---

So we should have blitzed more and brought more pressure outside of the red zone and played zone in the red zone until the other team got close to the goal line.

The defense we ran under Dan previously completely exposed our weaknesses and didn't take advantage of our strengths.

If what is being passed around about our defense and coaching, we will surprise a lot of people, and we will be better than the media gives us credit.

What was the salary for our new D.C.?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe Schmedlap

What was the salary for our new D.C.?

---

Bo said we are paying him 1 million a year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maroons

Your message board themed oversimplification is off the mark.

Much of the problem has been a lack of talent (esp. Safety) or speed (LB) in some years. Those problems have to be masked somehow.

Also we value red zone defense above all else, and that's a huge component of winning games. Would you be ultra aggressive when the talent level can't support it?

If we had Bama's talent and could get pressure with 4, I think some people on this board would call us "aggressive".

---

I think the problem was poor fundamentals by our players, especially with tackling. If I had a dollar for every time I saw the first guy whiff on a tackle in the backfield over the last 5 years I'd never have to pay for season tickets again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuadrupleOption

I think the problem was poor fundamentals by our players, especially with tackling. If I had a dollar for every time I saw the first guy whiff on a tackle in the backfield over the last 5 years I'd never have to pay for season tickets again.

---

They looked confused to me. Which can lead to being out of position and fundamentals breaking down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

They looked confused to me. Which can lead to being out of position and fundamentals breaking down.

---

That's what I saw also. Lot of guys running around looking completely lost

Last year's defense was awful every which way you slice it. Confusion, missed assignments, being out of place, poor tackling, you name it. Grantham has nowhere to go but up, and his track record says that's exactly where he's going to go. How much and how soon is the question. Overall, I think the talent's there to get it done in no longer than a season or so.

As for whether and to what extent Mullen has meddled with the defense, I'm not sure what I think. If he does actively meddle with DCs and inflexibly require them to run "his" system, we've had some pretty varied results with Mullen pulling the strings. In other words, some DCs have had success under whatever system Mullen imposes -- Diaz in 2010, Collins in 2013 and 2014 -- and others -- Torbush in 2009, Wilson in 2012, and Sirmon in 2016 -- have not. In scoring D and total D in conference play, we've been as high as 3rd in the SEC and as low as 11th. We've seen similar swings in rushing D, sacks, TFLs, 3rd Down D, and Red Zone D. Top 3 in the conference under one DC, bottom third in the conference under another, often within the span of a single calendar year. Ditto for advanced stats rankings. We've been in the Top 25 of the defensive FEI rankings multiple times under Mullen, including a Top 15 finish in 2010, yet we've also finished at 50th or worse multiple times. Those are some pretty big swings that are happening while we're changing coordinators every year or two under Mullen.

And as for style of play, some seasons the defense is aggressive and disruptive, and other seasons it's not. In 2014, for instance, in SEC play we were 3rd in sacks, 1st in 3rd down conversion D, 3rd in interceptions, and 1st in PBUs. Those are not the numbers of a "bend but don't break," passive defense. And in 2010 under Diaz, we were 5th in sacks, 4th in TFLs, and 4th in PBUs. But in 2012 under Chris Wilson, we were 11th in the conference in sacks and TFLs, and seemed to waste our two NFL-caliber corners by playing off coverage for huge swaths of the season (though we did have ok overall INT numbers that year). And if you look at advanced stats, there are similar swings. In 2014 and 2015, our "Havoc rate" ranks were top 20 and top 35 nationally, showing a penchant for a fairly disruptive style of defense. ("Havoc" rate, by the way, is "a team's total tackles for loss, passes defensed, and forced fumbles divided by total plays.") But in 2016, we were 82nd nationally in that category.

I don't think Dan has been that detrimental to the defense in how he's run it considering the staff and the budget at the time. He may be justified in his ways. A lot of good coaches tend to micro manage.

On that side of the ball the biggest ever gripe I have is hiring Sirmon. Stupid hire and Dan's usually a pretty smart guy.

Getting Grantham is like manna from heaven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prediction? Pain.

Last year's defense was awful every which way you slice it. Confusion, missed assignments, being out of place, poor tackling, you name it. Grantham has nowhere to go but up, and his track record says that's exactly where he's going to go. How much and how soon is the question. Overall, I think the talent's there to get it done in no longer than a season or so.

As for whether and to what extend Mullen has meddled with the defense, I'm not sure what I think. If he does actively meddle with DCs and inflexibly require them to run "his" system, we've had some pretty varied results with Mullen pulling the strings. In other words, some DCs have had success under whatever system Mullen imposes -- Diaz in 2010, Collins in 2013 and 2014 -- and others -- Torbush in 2009, Wilson in 2012, and Sirmon in 2016 -- have not. In scoring D and total D in conference play, we've been as high as 3rd in the SEC and as low as 11th. We've seen similar swings in rushing D, sacks, TFLs, 3rd Down D, and Red Zone D. Top 3 in the conference under one DC, bottom third in the conference under another, often within the span of a single calendar year. Ditto for advanced stats rankings. We've been in the Top 25 of the defensive FEI rankings multiple times under Mullen, including a Top 15 finish in 2010, yet we've also finished at 50th or worse multiple times. Those are some pretty big swings that are happening while we're changing coordinators every year or two under Mullen.

And as for style of play, some seasons the defense is aggressive and disruptive, and other seasons it's not. In 2014, for instance, in SEC play we were 3rd in sacks, 1st in 3rd down conversion D, 3rd in interceptions, and 1st in PBUs. Those are not the numbers of a "bend but don't break," passive defense. And in 2010 under Diaz, we were 5th in sacks, 4th in TFLs, and 4th in PBUs. But in 2012 under Chris Wilson, we were 11th in the conference in sacks and TFLs, and seemed to waste our two NFL-caliber corners by playing off coverage for huge swaths of the season (though we did have ok overall INT numbers that year). And if you look at advanced stats, there are similar swings. In 2014 and 2015, our "Havoc rate" ranks were top 20 and top 35 nationally, showing a penchant for a fairly disruptive style of defense. ("Havoc" rate, by the way, is "a team's total tackles for loss, passes defensed, and forced fumbles divided by total plays.") But in 2016, we were 82nd nationally in that category.

---

My thoughts exactly, but apparently anything less than a Joe Lee Dunn all out attack is "bend don't break, play not to lose" in the eyes of many.

I wish who ever planned the Ole Miss game would have done the planning all season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Lambert

I wish who ever planned the Ole Miss game would have done the planning all season.

---

I've rewatched that game a half dozen times. It boggles the mind on the kind of pass rush we were getting on Shea. Calvin and Lewis ate his lunch the second half.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Lambert

I wish who ever planned the Ole Miss game would have done the planning all season.

---

Probably Dan.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DancingRabbit

I don't think Dan has been that detrimental to the defense in how he's run it considering the staff and the budget at the time. He may be justified in his ways. A lot of good coaches tend to micro manage.

On that side of the ball the biggest ever gripe I have is hiring Sirmon. Stupid hire and Dan's usually a pretty smart guy.

Getting Grantham is like manna from heaven.

---

How dumb is petrino?? At least we had nothing on sirmon. Petrino had a year or sirmon. Guy is $$$ in the interview.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AROB44

Probably Dan.....

---

I had a Coach friend who said he was at the staff meeting and Dan laid it all out with the plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrapGame

I've rewatched that game a half dozen times. It boggles the mind on the kind of pass rush we were getting on Shea. Calvin and Lewis ate his lunch the second half.

---

One of best played and coached games I can remember in a while. OM will be the same this year, get ahead a couple TDs and they will fold

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thf24

My thoughts exactly, but apparently anything less than a Joe Lee Dunn all out attack is "bend don't break, play not to lose" in the eyes of many.

---

Which is funny considering his defense didn't work wo the proper talent either. Ask spurrier who dialed up a 52-0 trouncing in the swamp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thf24

My thoughts exactly, but apparently anything less than a Joe Lee Dunn all out attack is "bend don't break, play not to lose" in the eyes of many.

---

It goes both ways. Sirmon calls a blitz and then some people say "see! He we do blitz! It's not all bend and don't break!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prediction? Pain.

Last year's defense was awful every which way you slice it. Confusion, missed assignments, being out of place, poor tackling, you name it. Grantham has nowhere to go but up, and his track record says that's exactly where he's going to go. How much and how soon is the question. Overall, I think the talent's there to get it done in no longer than a season or so.

As for whether and to what extent Mullen has meddled with the defense, I'm not sure what I think. If he does actively meddle with DCs and inflexibly require them to run "his" system, we've had some pretty varied results with Mullen pulling the strings. In other words, some DCs have had success under whatever system Mullen imposes -- Diaz in 2010, Collins in 2013 and 2014 -- and others -- Torbush in 2009, Wilson in 2012, and Sirmon in 2016 -- have not. In scoring D and total D in conference play, we've been as high as 3rd in the SEC and as low as 11th. We've seen similar swings in rushing D, sacks, TFLs, 3rd Down D, and Red Zone D. Top 3 in the conference under one DC, bottom third in the conference under another, often within the span of a single calendar year. Ditto for advanced stats rankings. We've been in the Top 25 of the defensive FEI rankings multiple times under Mullen, including a Top 15 finish in 2010, yet we've also finished at 50th or worse multiple times. Those are some pretty big swings that are happening while we're changing coordinators every year or two under Mullen.

And as for style of play, some seasons the defense is aggressive and disruptive, and other seasons it's not. In 2014, for instance, in SEC play we were 3rd in sacks, 1st in 3rd down conversion D, 3rd in interceptions, and 1st in PBUs. Those are not the numbers of a "bend but don't break," passive defense. And in 2010 under Diaz, we were 5th in sacks, 4th in TFLs, and 4th in PBUs. But in 2012 under Chris Wilson, we were 11th in the conference in sacks and TFLs, and seemed to waste our two NFL-caliber corners by playing off coverage for huge swaths of the season (though we did have ok overall INT numbers that year). And if you look at advanced stats, there are similar swings. In 2014 and 2015, our "Havoc rate" ranks were top 20 and top 35 nationally, showing a penchant for a fairly disruptive style of defense. ("Havoc" rate, by the way, is "a team's total tackles for loss, passes defensed, and forced fumbles divided by total plays.") But in 2016, we were 82nd nationally in that category.

---

I think each DC was a different instance and circumstance.

Torbush- Washed up. Basically here because he has some head coaching experience and Dan had none at the time.

Manny I- Was good. Hired away by Texas.

Wilson- Hired because he was the co-DC. Biggest offender of bend but don't break IMO. Not a good DC.

Collins- Good DC. I think 1A\1B was his brainchild and when it hurt us against Bama and Ole Miss in 2014 Dan got pissed and let him go. Good DC. Dumb idea.

Manny II- Good DC who got distracted at the end with the Dan to Miami stuff and ended up in Miami. Without Dan.

Sirmon- LOL WTF?

I suspect Dan had the most input on Torbush, Wilson, and Sirmon. Maybe Collins to a lesser degree but I think a lot of it was "if your idea doesn't work and costs us some games your ass is gone" type of deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basedog

I had a Coach friend who said he was at the staff meeting and Dan laid it all out with the plan.

---

This is actually not the first time I've heard this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thf24

I don't think anyone ever said he didn't stick his nose in and override the DC at times. What was argued against was the idea that no matter who the DC was, he ran Mullen's defense. That idea was and still is idiotic. The supposed proof was that we look the same and do the same things every year on defense no matter who the DC is, which was laughably false.

In any case, everyone should be excited that Mullen finally has a DC he apparently trusts to handle the other side of the ball 100%.

---

I've had former players tell me that Mullen controls everything from the way we run out of the tunnel to the way we walk off the field. He wont me meddling with the D this year and hurting us in the process

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

I think each DC was a different instance and circumstance.

Torbush- Washed up. Basically here because he has some head coaching experience and Dan had none at the time.

Manny I- Was good. Hired away by Texas.

Wilson- Hired because he was the co-DC. Biggest offender of bend but don't break IMO. Not a good DC.

Collins- Good DC. I think 1A\1B was his brainchild and when it hurt us against Bama and Ole Miss in 2014 Dan got pissed and let him go. Good DC. Dumb idea.

Manny II- Good DC who got distracted at the end with the Dan to Miami stuff and ended up in Miami. Without Dan.

Sirmon- LOL WTF?

I suspect Dan had the most input on Torbush, Wilson, and Sirmon. Maybe Collins to a lesser degree but I think a lot of it was "if your idea doesn't work and costs us some games your ass is gone" type of deal.

---

Manny 1 was good because we had NFL players on all levels of that D. Collins was good couldve been great but he got tired of Dans shit and was done before the EB of the 14 season. Manny 2 was garbage so was Sirmon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GTHOM

Manny 1 was good because we had NFL players on all levels of that D. Collins was good couldve been great but he got tired of Dans shit and was done before the EB of the 14 season. Manny 2 was garbage so was Sirmon.

---

Manny has been good at other places as well. I think a lot of State fans don't like him because he left. Torbush wasn't very good with mostly the same players minus a couple.

Freeze was not in control of the D. Wrong thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

I think each DC was a different instance and circumstance.

Torbush- Washed up. Basically here because he has some head coaching experience and Dan had none at the time.

Manny I- Was good. Hired away by Texas.

Wilson- Hired because he was the co-DC. Biggest offender of bend but don't break IMO. Not a good DC.

Collins- Good DC. I think 1A\1B was his brainchild and when it hurt us against Bama and Ole Miss in 2014 Dan got pissed and let him go. Good DC. Dumb idea.

Manny II- Good DC who got distracted at the end with the Dan to Miami stuff and ended up in Miami. Without Dan.

Sirmon- LOL WTF?

I suspect Dan had the most input on Torbush, Wilson, and Sirmon. Maybe Collins to a lesser degree but I think a lot of it was "if your idea doesn't work and costs us some games your ass is gone" type of deal.

---

I think I agree with you. If Mullen was pulling the strings and dictating what schemes each DC had to run, I'm not sure that the stats and styles would've varied so much year to year. I'm sure he's involved in the defense to some extent every year, as he should be as the head coach. He admits as much in the offseason when he says that while the DCs change, his overarching defensive philosophy -- "11 guys running [to] the ball," an aggressive, disruptive, "attacking" style -- doesn't. But how each individual DC tries to get the job does indeed seem to change with each new hire.

Your comment on Torbush, Wilson, and Sirmon is interesting, especially on Torbush. When he hired Torbush, it looks like Mullen thought he was getting a guy that would implement an "attacking" style defense, at least based on how all our players were raving about Torbush implementing "a blitzing defense" that would let the defenders play with their "hair on fire" (http://newsok.com/article/feed/72852). But then I recall after the Auburn loss in 2009 that Mullen absolutely torched the defensive coaching staff in his post-game press conference. Maybe he started to rethink Torbush mid-season and then got more hands on as the year progressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

Manny has been good at other places as well. I think a lot of State fans don't like him because he left. Torbush wasn't very good with mostly the same players minus a couple.

---

Agreed. Diaz was awesome at MTSU and at La. Tech and improved both drastically in a single season. Hell, he took one of the worst defenses in college football at La. Tech. and made it a top 25 defense in 2014. He had one amazing year at Texas (making Muschamp's good 2010 defense elite in 2011), one mediocre year (but still with a top 40 or 50 defense with average to above-average in-conference stats), and then got canned after a terrible game early in his third season. Actually, his 2015 year with us may be the outlier, with below-average to bad in-conference stats and mediocre national ones. Because in 2016 at Miami, he was back on track. Miami was mediocre-to-bad in 2015. 12th in the ACC in both scoring D and total D in conference games. In a single season, Diaz got them to 4th in both categories, and ended up with top 15 rankings nationally in the S&P+ and FEI rankings. That's a massive turnaround, especially with only 61% of Miami's 2015 defensive production returning.

I'm interested to see how he fares in the long term under Richt since's he's never stayed at one place very long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

Manny has been good at other places as well. I think a lot of State fans don't like him because he left. Torbush wasn't very good with mostly the same players minus a couple.

---

Manny was garbage at Texas decent at La Tech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GTHOM

Manny was garbage at Texas decent at La Tech.

---

Manny walked into a shit show. Mack Brown let the culture run the program. A bunch of 5* divas with little work ethic or team support. But, that's on him. He made a terrible decision. If he would have stuck it out will Mullen till 2014 we would have been in the playoffs.