Quote Originally Posted by the_real_MSU_is_us View Post
Some rose colored glasses looking back at Mullen.

His recruiting was lazy and it gave us 0 chance to compete at a high level. His offense was only balanced under Dak, and he failed to turn that success into real QB talent (Fitz was a great runner but an awful QB overall). He could not keep a DC and the turnover capped our defensive potential. He had the WORST WR room in the SEC most years. He kept got awful assistants and we called them the "Country Club". That also capped our potential. He clammed up in big games, capping our potential.

Ultimately, Dan averaged like 7 wins a year. He had 1 good season and we went 10-3, loosing handily to Bama.

I do not understand how so many here are infatuated with him. He did not win big, and his recruiting/poor assistants/high DC turnover/poor skill position players/poor big game playcalling meant we had no chance to ACTUALLY win the West. But so many here make excuses like "he played a harder schedule!" even when it's pointed out we play 4 top 11 teams this year.
First of all, it was 19-13 Bama in the 4th quarter in 2014. We outgained them 428-335 in total yards, had 26 first downs to their 17 but we had 3 turnovers and one of Dak's worst games. If that is "losing handily" (not to be confused with "loosing handily") then I'd like to hear what you call Leach's performances against the elites where the stat sheet is completely lopsided the other way and he's scored 1 td in 12 quarters against Bama, which was a garbage td at that.

Second of all, why is it if someone says something negative about Leach people automatically throw you into a Mullen argument. I don't want to go back to that offense or system either but at least his teams played physical