So we have two choices....

[CadaverDawg]

We probably would if we had an NFL-type receiver like Michael Crabtree though.

So we just need an NFL star? Oh, well that seems like a good recruiting pitch..."come to State! We'll have a fun offense and stretch the field a bit more if you or one of the other guys we're bringing in is a future NFL Pro Bowler.

This is the system you're defending to your death? Lord have mercy

[CadaverDawg]

If Ole Miss can keep Kiffin and maintain this new elevated level for the next decade, then good for him. However, I suspect that they'll be back to "less than a 7-5 program" next year without Kiffin and we'll win more games during the Mullen-Leach Era than they do over the same time frame.

I could be wrong, but I bet I won't be.

So our program sucks so bad that we're back to hoping other teams drop back to our level since we're incapable of rising up to theirs? Do you even hear yourself right now? We deserve better than this mentality. We are in the best conference in football. Are we going to have the money A&M or anyone else has? Maybe not. But we still have the capability to maintain a Top 15-25 program....but guess where we aren't? The Top 25.

Maybe if we beat the team Vandy beat yesterday we'd be closer to the top 25. Disgusting

[CadaverDawg]

The only stretch is Dan having us knocking on the door of anything.

FWIW- Neither MSU nor Ole Miss have a win over a team with six wins right now and if they beat us we would be their best win of the year won/loss wise.

Are you REALLY trying to compare our football season to theirs at this point???! My God you and Quars have lost it. Why don't you dedicate your fandom to Leach instead of State. Do you even watch the damn games? How anybody on Earth could watch the way we performed at home against Georgia yesterday and compare it at all with what Ole Miss did against Bama....I just can't.

Unfortunately I've found my answer in this thread. I was hoping more people would rather risk losing to try and take a gamble on taking a step forward....but the majority have accepted that we are poor MSU that can't compete, so we should be thrilled with a boring ass 7-5 where we beat absolutely nobody, and don't even compete with the good teams in our league. Oh, and Kentucky. What a damn joke. What a loser mentality a large portion of our fan base has. Call me unrealistic, but as a competitor I'd rather go 0-12 every year going forward trying to achieve that ultimate goal of a Championship, than to accept just being better than the worst teams in the league and willfully not make any attempts to get better.

It's that mentality that will keep people like me from investing more in NIL going forward. Why should I invest in something that our administration and fan base majority isnt serious about? I can do more with my money and my Fall Saturdays

[Quaoarsking]

Then under that criteria Mullen was pretty close for you then, his first 4 years he averaged 7.25 wins a season building the program, then averaged 8 wins over his next 5 years. (8.2 if you include the 2017 bowl game he didn't coach).

Mullen was 7.1 - 4.9 in regular seasons. I don't really count bowls for or against a coach either way because you never know who you're going to draw.

It should be pointed out that Mullen only had to play a P5 non-conf twice in his career here and he lost both of them (2009 Georgia Tech and 2013 Oklahoma State) so even that comparison doesn't quite line up.

[Quaoarsking]

So our program sucks so bad that we're back to hoping other teams drop back to our level since we're incapable of rising up to theirs? Do you even hear yourself right now? We deserve better than this mentality. We are in the best conference in football. Are we going to have the money A&M or anyone else has? Maybe not. But we still have the capability to maintain a Top 15-25 program....but guess where we aren't? The Top 25.

Maybe if we beat the team Vandy beat yesterday we'd be closer to the top 25. Disgusting

I think you're putting some pretty intense strawman onto what I'm saying. I think we have been a better program than Ole Miss and Tennessee over the last 14 seasons (not debatable really), and that just because they've been good the last 2 years isn't enough to change that.

[EdwardDrayton]

The difference is Leach has a good track record with patience.

Statistically our offense has been as good or better than most of Dan's. And that's with a p**** playing QB. Georgia was allowing like 10 PPG coming into tonight. We scored 13.

I want to see what Leach can do with a different QB and 4-5 classes of receivers.

You can say he isn't changing but then we have Chris Parson as a QB recruit.

Yes, not ready to jettison Leach; let?s give him a chance to get a different QB. And apparently it will have to be somebody from the portal. We only can assume that the rest of the QB room is not even at the level of our starter. But Leach is on thin ice; he was either wrong about WR or he has not been able to recruit a bona fide QB. If it?s the latter, he has to go.

[CadaverDawg]

Mullen was 7.1 - 4.9 in regular seasons. I don't really count bowls for or against a coach either way because you never know who you're going to draw.

It should be pointed out that Mullen only had to play a P5 non-conf twice in his career here and he lost both of them (2009 Georgia Tech and 2013 Oklahoma State) so even that comparison doesn't quite line up.

Yeah football at State is way more fun and enthusiastic under Leach than Mullen.*

This isn't about Mullen VS Leach though. I brought Dan up bc I was referring to better recruiting not helping a finesse team like Leach's as much as it would a physical team like Mullen's. This Mullen takeover of the thread seems like a way to derail the original debate of whether you're satisfied with 6-6/7-5 every year with no chance of competing for the West...or if you're willing to gamble on being better and possibly competing for the West but risking losing that auto bowl every year?

Mullen has nothing to do with this other than being more balanced, and getting us to this floor we now sit at. Leach has not built on it, and hasn't even done as good as Moorhead yet.

[CadaverDawg]

I think you're putting some pretty intense strawman onto what I'm saying. I think we have been a better program than Ole Miss and Tennessee over the last 14 seasons (not debatable really), and that just because they've been good the last 2 years isn't enough to change that.

No I totally understand what you're saying. Tennessee sucked for many years, and Ole Miss was trash under Luke. And yet both have easily springboarded past ol 6-6/7-5 MSU pretty quickly. And I would definitely trade the Belk bowl and Music City bowls we got to experience while they were down, to be competing for the SEC like they are currently. You're actually doing a great job of proving my point. They are committed and didn't accept being mediocre or worse...and now they have 2 of the best 3-4 coaches in AMERICA. Meanwhile we're piddling along with Leach getting whipped by everyone with a pulse and taking a coachless Auburn to overtime on our home field. You totally made my point, thank you

[Quaoarsking]

Yeah football at State is way more fun and enthusiastic under Leach than Mullen.*

This isn't about Mullen VS Leach though. I brought Dan up bc I was referring to better recruiting not helping a finesse team like Leach's as much as it would a physical team like Mullen's. This Mullen takeover of the thread seems like a way to derail the original debate of whether you're satisfied with 6-6/7-5 every year with no chance of competing for the West...or if you're willing to gamble on being better and possibly competing for the West but risking losing that auto bowl every year?

Mullen has nothing to do with this other than being more balanced, and getting us to this floor we now sit at. Leach has not built on it, and hasn't even done as good as Moorhead yet.

I don't care if we are "balanced" or not, "physical" or not (those are just buzzwords anyway without objective definitions). All that matters is winning, so yes, Leach ≈ Mullen right now. And I liked Mullen like most people here (although to be fair, a lot of people didn't like him while he was here and have just retroactively changed to say they did), so therefore I also like Leach.

[Really Clark?]

Mullen was 7.1 - 4.9 in regular seasons. I don't really count bowls for or against a coach either way because you never know who you're going to draw.

It should be pointed out that Mullen only had to play a P5 non-conf twice in his career here and he lost both of them (2009 Georgia Tech and 2013 Oklahoma State) so even that comparison doesn't quite line up.

Well don't care what you count, the record is the record and it's always recorded that way. Historically written down that way so you have to include the total numbers. Also, when you add bowl games, the number of P5 teams go up as well. It all counts.

You have to look at a tenure breakdown to see the trends. It's pretty obvious that the last 5 years were nearly a game better on avg than the first 4 years. That's an upward trend.

[CadaverDawg]

Yes, not ready to jettison Leach; let?s give him a chance to get a different QB. And apparently it will have to be somebody from the portal. We only can assume that the rest of the QB room is not even at the level of our starter. But Leach is on thin ice; he was either wrong about WR or he has not been able to recruit a bona fide QB. If it?s the latter, he has to go.

So what I'm reading from a culmination of posts is, if we can just get Josh Allen at QB and Michael Crabtree and Wes Welker at WR, maybe then we can see what Leach can do and whether or not he's the guy. Seems reasonable.

Why can we spend 70 million on a baseball stadium but can't offer a good damn coach $6 million a year to give us a shot at the West?

[Goldendawg]

Will at QB in this "Offense" and Holloway up the middle both yield similar results against SEC defenses with a pulse.

[Quaoarsking]

Why can we spend 70 million on a baseball stadium but can't offer a good damn coach $6 million a year to give us a shot at the West?

Like I said, if, like, Mike Gundy will agree to become our next coach, then by all means fire Leach.

But ... would our fans be any happier with him? Is there an amount we can give him to make him come here? And would he really be better than the 7-5 Mullen/Leach standard?

[CadaverDawg]

I don't care if we are "balanced" or not, "physical" or not (those are just buzzwords anyway without objective definitions). All that matters is winning, so yes, Leach ≈ Mullen right now. And I liked Mullen like most people here (although to be fair, a lot of people didn't like him while he was here and have just retroactively changed to say they did), so therefore I also like Leach.

You always take the shit that isn't the point of a post and make your response to that instead of the point. Weird. I guess it's because you know I made a great point but can't admit it.

All I care about is winning too...but you aren't winning this league with a 90% pass rate. Just aren't.

So when Todd brought up "just needing to recruit better", I said no, maybe if Dan was still here...but recruiting better doesn't change the fact that we will still throw it 90% of the time, so we will still never succeed at a high level. Dan was simply an example of a coach that could benefit more from better recruiting bc he played a physical style that required more man vs man heads up strength. Leach's finesse offense doesn't require that, which is why he spits out the same results with WSU players as he does with MSU players.

Y'all are getting too hung up on the Dan comments. Probably on purpose, bc comparing Leach to Dan paints a much better picture (although still a worse one) than comparing him to his current peers and his current efforts

[CadaverDawg]

Like I said, if, like, Mike Gundy will agree to become our next coach, then by all means fire Leach.

But ... would our fans be any happier with him? Is there an amount we can give him to make him come here? And would he really be better than the 7-5 Mullen/Leach standard?

Who knows? If he wins they will. If he takes us to another level they will. And even if he hits status quo for Leach, you will still gobble him up, so why the F do you care? If he will still bring us a minimum 6-6/7-5 but possibly gives us a prayer at more, what's the reason Not to? If you would quit obsessing over Leach and us being a program that can't do better than mediocre, you'd see that your posts are actually agreeing with me.

[Quaoarsking]

You always take the shit that isn't the point of a post and make your response to that instead of the point. Weird. I guess it's because you know I made a great point but can't admit it.

All I care about is winning too...but you aren't winning this league with a 90% pass rate. Just aren't.

So when Todd brought up "just needing to recruit better", I said no, maybe if Dan was still here...but recruiting better doesn't change the fact that we will still throw it 90% of the time, so we will still never succeed at a high level. Dan was simply an example of a coach that could benefit more from better recruiting bc he played a physical style that required more man vs man heads up strength. Leach's finesse offense doesn't require that, which is why he spits out the same results with WSU players as he does with MSU players.

Y'all are getting too hung up on the Dan comments. Probably on purpose, bc comparing Leach to Dan paints a much better picture (although still a worse one) than comparing him to his current peers and his current efforts

I brought up Mullen on my own because he is a good comparison to Leach and I like both of them, not because of anything you said.

[Quaoarsking]

Who knows? If he wins they will. If he takes us to another level they will. And even if he hits status quo for Leach, you will still gobble him up, so why the F do you care? If he will still bring us a minimum 6-6/7-5 but possibly gives us a prayer at more, what's the reason Not to? If you would quit obsessing over Leach and us being a program that can't do better than mediocre, you'd see that your posts are actually agreeing with me.

Yes, I think we agree that if Mike Gundy will take our job, we can fire Leach this month. But it would take someone on that level (a level that Leach was generally considered to be on before he came here, by the way) for it to even be a plausibly good idea. Playing mid-major roulette to hope for someone better than Mullen and Leach is not likely to pay off.

[CadaverDawg]

I brought up Mullen on my own because he is a good comparison to Leach and I like both of them, not because of anything you said.

Except he's not a good comparison. Mullen built us from Croom, to #1, and to where we now consider the "status quo" of a 7-5 program. Leach has built us into...nothing. He's actually taken a step back from Dan. Hasn't even matched JoMo's best. So no, Dan is not a good comparison for Leach.

[RezDog7]

I thought we were talking about if our recruiting was significantly better under specific coaches. Leach isn't a big time
Recruiter either...so I thought you meant using the money to help us recruit. It won't increase the amount Leach puts into it, just like it wouldn't Mullen. But the money would help.

And since Mullen won 10 games and had a balanced attack with stout defenses....and Leach isn't even our best coach on the field each Saturday....I would definitely say Mullen could win much bigger than Leach if each had a top 15-20 class each year. But that's just me and I'm aware it can't be proven.

I mean, Mullen is available if you want him back so bad. I can't wait to run the QB up the middle on 3rd and 8. "Spread the fun"

Maybe one day y'all will realize msu is just a mediocre program at best.

[CadaverDawg]

Yes, I think we agree that if Mike Gundy will take our job, we can fire Leach this month. But it would take someone on that level (a level that Leach was generally considered to be on before he came here, by the way) for it to even be a plausibly good idea. Playing mid-major roulette to hope for someone better than Mullen and Leach is not likely to pay off.

I never compared Leach to Gundy. And I'm not saying Gundy is the answer. I don't like Gundy actually and think he wouldn't be a good fit. Better than Leach, absolutely. I was just using your Gundy response to say if you think we are going to be 6-6/7-5 regardless, why not hire someone that will keep us there at minimum but gives us a shot at more? Leach won't do that. And if you have been watching us play under him you know that already