Mullen and Manny

[GTHOM]

Ive seen a lot of people saying that Mullen believes ''Diaz is the intellectual equivalent'' of himself. Im taking that as hoping that Mullen doesnt put his hands all in Diaz's defense. I think we could have made a better hire especially for 1.8 million dollars but thats another topic. I know diaz blitzes like hell and that was supposedly supposed to be what the ''psycho defense'' was about, we all saw how that turned out. (cover 2 and corner blitzes) any of you guys think this will be mannys baby or will mullen have say so again?

[CadaverDawg]

Ive seen a lot of people saying that Mullen believes ''Diaz is the intellectual equivalent'' of himself. Im taking that as hoping that Mullen doesnt put his hands all in Diaz's defense. I think we could have made a better hire especially for 1.8 million dollars but thats another topic. I know diaz blitzes like hell and that was supposedly supposed to be what the ''psycho defense'' was about, we all saw how that turned out. (cover 2 and corner blitzes) any of you guys think this will be mannys baby or will mullen have say so again?

We couldn't have made a better hire at 600k per year. We've got a bargain if Manny is as good as he was the first time he was here. That 1.8 is over 3 years.

As for your question, I think it's Manny's D to start. How they perform will determine Mullen's meddling.

[Really Clark?]

See, I say we go the other way with this logic. If he was meddling this year and it got us 10 wins, then it's time we turned it over to him as well. The more he took over on offense the better it was this year and the more it has been believed that he meddles with the defense, we get ranked #1. Get out his way and we might be in the title game this year. Hopefully Manny will know his role.

[yjnkdawg]

Ive seen a lot of people saying that Mullen believes ''Diaz is the intellectual equivalent'' of himself. Im taking that as hoping that Mullen doesnt put his hands all in Diaz's defense. I think we could have made a better hire especially for 1.8 million dollars but thats another topic. I know diaz blitzes like hell and that was supposedly supposed to be what the ''psycho defense'' was about, we all saw how that turned out. (cover 2 and corner blitzes) any of you guys think this will be mannys baby or will mullen have say so again?

. The three-year deal is worth $1.8 million. Diaz will be paid $575,000 his first year, $600,000 in 2016 and $625,000 in 2017, and a buyout is included in the contract.

[GTHOM]

We couldn't have made a better hire at 600k per year. We've got a bargain if Manny is as good as he was the first time he was here. That 1.8 is over 3 years.

As for your question, I think it's Manny's D to start. How they perform will determine Mullen's meddling.

Oh okay i didnt know the exact numbers per year. In 2010 we had numerous NFL players on that defense and I still wouldnt say we were dominant on that side of the ball. I just hope Mullen lets him run the defense. With our offense next year i think an aggressive blitzing defense would be great. We're going to score so why not take some chances

[GTHOM]

See, I say we go the other way with this logic. If he was meddling this year and it got us 10 wins, then it's time we turned it over to him as well. The more he took over on offense the better it was this year and the more it has been believed that he meddles with the defense, we get ranked #1. Get out his way and we might be in the title game this year. Hopefully Manny will know his role.

not trying to be a smartass but i really hope your not trying to defend the defense we put out there the last month or so. they had 2 good performances since the auburn game, arkansas and vanderbilt. vandy is a train wreck so you could really not count that one if you wanted too. they played well in the 2nd half against bama, every other game was pretty bad. especially the last 2. no excuse to be that unprepared and unmotivated

[yjnkdawg]

Manny Diaz has not been running a bend don't break defense, so if we see that again next year, chances are that he is not in complete control of our defense. His type of aggressive defensive philosophy would have probably sent Bo to the sidelines in the Egg Bowl.

[Really Clark?]

not trying to be a smartass but i really hope your not trying to defend the defense we put out there the last month or so. they had 2 good performances since the auburn game, arkansas and vanderbilt. vandy is a train wreck so you could really not count that one if you wanted too. they played well in the 2nd half against bama, every other game was pretty bad. especially the last 2. no excuse to be that unprepared and unmotivated

The problem I have and have been clear about, is this idea that the bad defense has been Mullen's doing and meddling while the good defenses were only because he was letting the DC do there job. There is absolutely no evidence that this is the case and yet people want to propagate this conspiracy theory. Even in Manny's remarks he mentions how the scheme and terminology is pretty much the same as what HE installed in 2010. Not Dan. But Manny. The point is the logic is flawed if you don't also comprehend that without further evidence it could have been Mullen trying to keep the defense together and that's why Collins is not longer here. That makes as much sense. I don't agree with that either but you can't fault that statement because it using the same type of thought process with no real evidence. Just like people trying to make out he is too mean for people to work with and that's why DC were leaving. Haven't seen that so much since a previous DC just rejoined the fold.

[GTHOM]

Manny Diaz has not been running a bend don't break defense, so if we see that again next year, chances are that he is not in complete control of our defense. His type of aggressive defensive philosophy would have probably sent Bo to the sidelines in the Egg Bowl.

which is exactly what we need

[Johnson85]

The problem I have and have been clear about, is this idea that the bad defense has been Mullen's doing and meddling while the good defenses were only because he was letting the DC do there job. There is absolutely no evidence that this is the case and yet people want to propagate this conspiracy theory. Even in Manny's remarks he mentions how the scheme and terminology is pretty much the same as what HE installed in 2010. Not Dan. But Manny. The point is the logic is flawed if you don't also comprehend that without further evidence it could have been Mullen trying to keep the defense together and that's why Collins is not longer here. That makes as much sense. I don't agree with that either but you can't fault that statement because it using the same type of thought process with no real evidence. Just like people trying to make out he is too mean for people to work with and that's why DC were leaving. Haven't seen that so much since a previous DC just rejoined the fold.

We have had bend but don't break in place since 2010 (who knows what Torbush's defense was) and it's looked pretty consistent. You say it's what "HE installed in 2010", but that doesn't mean he had the keys to the defense any more than Koenig installing the offense meant he was in control of the offense.

I think it's pretty clear Mullen has a philosophy he believes in, even if he largely leaves the DC alone as far are implementing it. Doesn't mean Mullen makes the D better or worse, it just means it seems like he has a philosophy that he is going to look for his DC's to follow. Maybe he will change now that our offense is a little better but it seems unlikely that we landed on that philosophy every year if Mullen wasn't pushing it (or selecting DC's that fit it).

[GTHOM]

The problem I have and have been clear about, is this idea that the bad defense has been Mullen's doing and meddling while the good defenses were only because he was letting the DC do there job. There is absolutely no evidence that this is the case and yet people want to propagate this conspiracy theory. Even in Manny's remarks he mentions how the scheme and terminology is pretty much the same as what HE installed in 2010. Not Dan. But Manny. The point is the logic is flawed if you don't also comprehend that without further evidence it could have been Mullen trying to keep the defense together and that's why Collins is not longer here. That makes as much sense. I don't agree with that either but you can't fault that statement because it using the same type of thought process with no real evidence. Just like people trying to make out he is too mean for people to work with and that's why DC were leaving. Haven't seen that so much since a previous DC just rejoined the fold.

anybody saying mullen is ''too mean'' needs to put a tampon in, im just saying our defensive playcalling this year, combined with our lack of players at safety led to in reality a pretty bad defense. mullen for me this year his performance was like two semesters, september and october he had an A, November thru December he slipped. a lot. the best we have played in a long time was the arkansas game and we all bitched about how we played in that game. that is sad. regardless if he interfered with collins or not, you cant say that our playcalling offensively and defensively didnt change for the worse after the auburn game. the teams we played had a lot to do with it, but mullen showed that he was not able to, or not willing to adjust anything when we played teams that could stop dak up the middle and throw the ball down the field.

[Really Clark?]

We have had bend but don't break in place since 2010 (who knows what Torbush's defense was) and it's looked pretty consistent. You say it's what "HE installed in 2010", but that doesn't mean he had the keys to the defense any more than Koenig installing the offense meant he was in control of the offense.

I think it's pretty clear Mullen has a philosophy he believes in, even if he largely leaves the DC alone as far are implementing it. Doesn't mean Mullen makes the D better or worse, it just means it seems like he has a philosophy that he is going to look for his DC's to follow. Maybe he will change now that our offense is a little better but it seems unlikely that we landed on that philosophy every year if Mullen wasn't pushing it (or selecting DC's that fit it).

Look firstly the bend don't break or read and react defense is being played a lot in college and NFL. The patriots I run it but out of a 3-4 scheme. Sometimes people see the Tampa 2 and heavy zone concepts with a secondary and think that is bend don't break. Seattle run a lot of cover 3 and cover 1 but their front are aggressive. It is very very effective, if ran right. Now Dan may have that philosophy as well, but so do a ton of other coaches. Including great defensive minded coaches. Talking bout Seattle and Pete Carroll, who did he learn under? Monte Kiffin at Arkansas.

But having a philosophy is different than scheming and game calling. I don't think he has time to be HC and OC and to be intimately involved with the defensive strategy. I suspect whatever amount he is involved has been about the same. Unless there were problems. Now were there question marks early on with this defense? Yes in the secondary. That leads to wanting to play more zone and read and react. But you need to recognize as well that our front seven didn't play that way as much. Aggressive play up front (notice sack and tackle for loss totals). You don't see the attack from a read a react as much. What about halftime adjustments? He couldn't be working on offense and defense both. Not as the offensive play caller. I think it's just too big of stretch to believe he had the time to be able to put anymore into game planning outside of the offense and what he has done in the past.

Eta. I didn't mean to quote you

[SallyStansbury]

"The problem I have and have been clear about, is this idea that the bad defense has been Mullen's doing and meddling while the good defenses were only because he was letting the DC do there job."

What if it were exactly that?

What if Collins were allowed to do his thing early and it worked well. What if Coach Mullen's sphincter tightened up later in the year and in response we saw more Dak up the middle on offense and (less aggression and risk exposure) that resulted in more bend but don't break on Defense. That is in fact what we saw, simultaneously in fact, which is why people question if it happened. That is logical enough to me.

What if you were Collins and were told simply to limit the aggressive nature of your defense, drop the corners back in zone, have the LB's "react" have the D linemen "take up space" and not rush up field, can't imagine what the safties role was because they had no effect, etc.....then your defense sucks and you get the blame for not being successful under this "philosophy" or set of parameters. I think that would be a shit sandwich to eat.

Now here is the hard one for you to comprehend. I am overall pleased with Mullen and thankful to him for 10 wins. I want him to do whatever he wants because he earned that right. If the above scenario happened, (who knows) I hope Mullen has learned how to not do that shit again. I think he is a smart guy who wants to win and that will drive his decisions. My fingers are crossed.

[engie]

We have had bend but don't break in place since 2010 (who knows what Torbush's defense was) and it's looked pretty consistent. You say it's what "HE installed in 2010", but that doesn't mean he had the keys to the defense any more than Koenig installing the offense meant he was in control of the offense.

We didn't play "bend don't break" in 2010 or 2013. We led the country in 3 and outs last year. That is not "bend don't break".

[SallyStansbury]

ENGIE,
How many 3 and outs did we have against olemiss and bama? I concede that these were good if not great teams, but how many....?
Thanks.

I would also compare our defensive output in these two games (and maybe GaTech) to the other good teams we played like Arkansas, LSU, AU, and TAM.

[engie]

ENGIE,
How many 3 and outs did we have against olemiss and bama? I concede that these were good if not great teams, but how many....?
Thanks.

Pay attention to what years I referenced.

We had a bunch of them against both teams in both of those years.

[Really Clark?]

"The problem I have and have been clear about, is this idea that the bad defense has been Mullen's doing and meddling while the good defenses were only because he was letting the DC do there job."

What if it were exactly that?

What if Collins were allowed to do his thing early and it worked well. What if Coach Mullen's sphincter tightened up later in the year and in response we saw more Dak up the middle on offense and (less aggression and risk exposure) that resulted in more bend but don't break on Defense. That is in fact what we saw, simultaneously in fact, which is why people question if it happened. That is logical enough to me.

What if you were Collins and were told simply to limit the aggressive nature of your defense, drop the corners back in zone, have the LB's "react" have the D linemen "take up space" and not rush up field, can't imagine what the safties role was because they had no effect, etc.....then your defense sucks and you get the blame for not being successful under this "philosophy" or set of parameters. I think that would be a shit sandwich to eat.

Now here is the hard one for you to comprehend. I am overall pleased with Mullen and thankful to him for 10 wins. I want him to do whatever he wants because he earned that right. If the above scenario happened, (who knows) I hope Mullen has learned how to not do that shit again. I think he is a smart guy who wants to win and that will drive his decisions. My fingers are crossed.

And what if it wasn't that. What if the defense didn't just tackle as well? Which they didn't. And didn't we see issues early in the season as well? Yes we did. And as more film got out and add better competition, etc. Of course during all this we want to forget the fact that our defense (besides one series) played a great second half against Bama. I mean crap we gave up only 335 total yards and 25 points against them. With our backs against the wall with terrible field position all day. That's a lot less yards and points than Auburn, A & M, and LSU. Well except Auburn in points. We lost the game but don't act like our defense was bad or even had a bad game plan. And that was most definitely the second half of the season. So while you are proposing "what if" also remember what we actually did. So if Dan meddled the second half his meddling did a heck of a job against Bama and Arkansas the second half of the season.

[SallyStansbury]

naw man, you got me, I misread thinking 2014.

for the conspiracy theorists keeping score, '10 Diaz = 1st YR and '13 Collins' = 1st YR....maybe Mullen had not had time to break them down enough to inflict his defensive will on the coaching staff in the first year of said Defensive coaches tenure?

How do you explain us playing so completely passively on D vs bama and olemiss in 2014? Someone said Collins was busy playing video games in a prior thread, or I am assuming that was a video game as I had never heard of it. I guess it was a time sink of some sort that kept him from prepping a suitable defense? That is a peculiar excuse, but an explanation none the less? Maybe it was that?

[smootness]

We have had bend but don't break in place since 2010 (who knows what Torbush's defense was) and it's looked pretty consistent. You say it's what "HE installed in 2010", but that doesn't mean he had the keys to the defense any more than Koenig installing the offense meant he was in control of the offense.

I think it's pretty clear Mullen has a philosophy he believes in, even if he largely leaves the DC alone as far are implementing it. Doesn't mean Mullen makes the D better or worse, it just means it seems like he has a philosophy that he is going to look for his DC's to follow. Maybe he will change now that our offense is a little better but it seems unlikely that we landed on that philosophy every year if Mullen wasn't pushing it (or selecting DC's that fit it).

I would not say our 2010 defense was 'bend but don't break'. I remember a distinct change after Diaz left, especially in the way our DBs played. We played much further off the line and didn't do any kind of press coverage. We essentially let teams get 10-12 yards on us all the way down the field. I don't remember that in 2010. That year was the year that Banks really started turning heads as a CB.

People are too critical of Collins' defense, too. Yes, it looked bad against Ole Miss. But that's pretty much it. Our offense is what killed us against Bama, not our defense. And last year, along with the majority of this year, we were very good when it mattered. The 1A/1B stuff in big games deserves to be criticized, though. The only times Bama moved the ball consistently were with 1B guys in the game.

But I think people need to take a step back on the '2010 defense had NFL guys all over the field' thought. It's true in a sense, but most of them are guys who barely made NFL rosters. It had McPhee, Cox, Banks, and Wright, but Cox and Banks were still true sophomores, and the other guys (Chris White, Mitchell, etc.) weren't in any way sure-fire NFL guys. Very good college players, not real NFL talent. And then we relied on guys like Sean Ferguson, Corey Broomfield, etc. who certainly weren't NFL guys. I would expect our defenses from now on to feature NFL talent, so I don't think that should be a knock on what Diaz did. Take next year - Chris Jones, Redmond, Calhoun, B Brown, Jefferson and a lot of the young guys (Green, Bryant, Peters, Adams, etc.). We're going to consistently have several guys who at least make NFL rosters.

[smootness]

naw man, you got me, I misread thinking 2014.

for the conspiracy theorists keeping score, '10 Diaz = 1st YR and '13 Collins' = 1st YR....maybe Mullen had not had time to break them down enough to inflict his defensive will on the coaching staff in the first year of said Defensive coaches tenure?

How do you explain us playing so completely passively on D vs bama and olemiss in 2014? Someone said Collins was busy playing video games in a prior thread, or I am assuming that was a video game as I had never heard of it. I guess it was a time sink of some sort that kept him from prepping a suitable defense? That is a peculiar excuse, but an explanation none the less? Maybe it was that?

We didn't play passively against Bama this year. Why do people keep saying that? We shut them down for large stretches in that game. They had a couple of drives on us, both when we had a lot of 1B guys in. Zach Jackson particularly got burned but not because we were playing passively.

ETA: That video game deal was hilariously ridiculous. I'm guessing all of our coaches have something they do in down time. I don't expect our coaches to be game-prepping during every waking moment. I honestly can't believe we had a fan actually bring that up as though it explains anything. Collins did a good job here, both on the field and in recruiting.