So dan wasn't successful in his tenure here? Got it. Lord have mercy.
Printable View
Dan succeeded in bringing us out of the cellar and getting us to bowl games but he really blew it on real opportunities ... so yes he had limited success to a degree but he was also a 1st time head coach for us.... ML has been a HC for 18 years before coming here - expectations should be a little higher for him and I would bet that Dan will win at least a division title in his first 19 years ...... If you want to say ML elevated WSU to average 7 win seasons and bowl games and consider that as success then go ahead .... We just have different opinions of success
Joe didn't have 20 years of track record and Joe was also following Mullen so it made the regression so much easier to see.
At this point, I don't know what our offense players have been taught for 2 years.
As for the track record though, that's pretty elementary and obvious to understand
I guess that depends on what your definition of rebuilding is. The way I see it Tech all through the 90's aside from two losing seasons they rode the fence line barely finishing above .500 with several seasons at .500. If that's successful to you then I guess. It's clear that Leach took Tech to the next level which they had never been at before.
In Spike's 13 years there he went 82-67. A .550 win percentage. Outside of two anomaly years where he won 9 games he never won more than 7.
Leach at Tech during 9 years went 84-43 .661. Leach at Tech was the equivalent of Mullen at State. Tech and State had some success here and there usually far and few between but never consistent until those two arrived. As far as competing for the conference championship Tech arguably should've had a chance in '08 but was snubbed from being able to be included in the cointoss between OK and TX.
This was my main concern as well. Why go through all that for a coach whose track record is middling to modest success. Then when I read all the talk about CML doing more with less and the talent gaps he had to overcome, plus the quality D MSU has been able to churn out over the years, something CML teams haven't been known for in the past, I bought in and got really excited.
Leach had never gone so long without an offensive touchdown, never not scored at least one touchdown per game, until this year. No matter how it's sliced, he's never struggled like this. Maybe Dan's JUCO heavy lackluster recruiting at the end (especially OL) plays a huge role in this. If so, does Moorhead get slack for his on the field performance and was his getting fired strictly about disciplinary issues?
I'm going to support the Bulldogs no matter what. Always have, always will. But dang I loathed the Croom years, when support barely rose above apathy.
"limited success to a degree" That's how you define dans tenure here?
Dan averaged 7.1-4.9 here over a decade. Bowl every year after year 1. The sec and the cfb world overwhelmingly label his time here a success. If our fans cant call that a success, we are the problem.
If leach stays here a decade and averages 7+ wins a year and never misses a bowl after year one, he will be labeled a success by the cfb world regardless if we ever win the west.
The problem is that there is a faction of our fan base who thinks we're Alabama, UGA, LSU, etc. What Dan did is the blueprint for how to be successful at outlier SEC schools such as State, Ole Miss, Mizzou, USCe, UK, etc. You win between 6 to 8 for the first two years of a recruiting class and then you hope to catch some breaks in years 3 and 4 and put yourself in the playoff conversation. It's what he did in 14 and 15 and what he was set up to do in 18 because we had peaked a year before he thought we would in 17.
We're a developmental program and always have been. You have to be able to bring kids in at all skills levels, whether 5 star or no star and max out their contributions at the end of 3 to 4 years. We can only have 2 to 3 misses a class. Dan was amazing at doing this. Look at guys like McKinney, Slay, Preston Smith, Cam Lawrence, Dillon Day, Ben Beckwith, JBanks, Fitz, and the list goes on and on. Then you look at higher rated guys like Simmons, Jones, Sweat, KJ Wright and it's the same thing. We were able to get everything out of each one of those guys because of CULTURE. It's what we lost under Joe
#1 True. We still had a real shot at being in the playoffs in 2014 had we not lost to OM. We were #4 in the rankings at the time. Dan blew it when it really counted.
#2 Absolutely. The difference being that Dan is at a blue blood now. Dan is a good coach and coaching at a blue blood raking in the star recruits will counteract some of his tendency to blow it in big games. He'll win the SEC East eventually mostly because Bama isn't in there with him. Now as long as Saban is coaching SEC title is another story.
#3 No question that Leach put WSU on the map. Outside of a few 10 win years in the early '00s WSU has perennially been a doormat since it's inception. Before '11 WSU all time record sat at 424-480 a consistent loser. They achieved their first ever 11 win season under Leach.
#4 Yes.
Funny because game 4 of Moorhead's career was that awful Kentucy loss in the pouring down rain.
I do feel like I remember people saying "square peg, round hole" etc. after that loss. Might not have been quite that soon though.
On the flip side you had people making excuse. The rain, lack of effort, coaching, etc.
100000% correct. It's cynical for fans to ignore Leach in all of his tenure has never struggled to this degree on offense. Regardless of what the narrative of excuses are for him we have enough talent to score touchdowns. The irony of the situation is being he's coached so long he should have figured this out.