Mullen article - Grab your coffee and/or go to the toilet
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
Not sure if his micromanaging style would translate to the NFL. Seems you need thick skin to make it there, and he doesn't.
I wonder what his role would be. Excellent QB coach, excellent game planner/organizer, average play caller at best. Hard to tell. One thing is certain - had he hired a dedicated OC he'd have been better off, especially at Florida, even with the micromanaging. Didn't need to be some super wizard, just an underling who knew his system.
After typing that out, I don't think he'd make it in the NFL at all. I'd like to see the experiment though.
It's OK to disagree. He got good results compared to Croom, and one season got unprecedented results compared to history, but I attribute that to his play calling, and happening to have a future NFL QB to make it happen. Good leadership is holding employees accountable. I guess I give him credit for OC but think he kinda Forrest Gumped through the rest of it. Seeing that FL article that could have almost literally been written around SPS rumors from when he was here definitely knocked him down a few notches on my assessment. Perhaps that's too harsh.
I'll also add that what Swede shared above, from a guy in the locker room, indicates that for whatever football stuff Dan knew, if he had been a good leader, we would have really had something to be proud of when he was here.
He got great results compared to every coach in our history. Fact. Period.
We can all attest to that by what’s in black and white in the record books.
Doesn’t matter what anyone thinks of him. His results were great for MSU.
Could he have been better?
could he have done things different to have more success?
Sure.
Even poor leaders can get good results at times, but eventually it all implodes. I've seen it over and over and over. I'm not arguing results, I'm arguing leadership, which if he was decent at it, he would still be the "CEO" of a high level football team. He is not. He got retired, he didn't retire.
Poor terrible leaders don’t have 9 years of success at msu.
that’s long term success.
I see a guy who was clearly an outstanding coordinator. That comes through clearly in the article. He knows offense forwards and backwards. That can obviously carry you a long way.
But there are too many signs that he never fully made the transition to HC.
And when you have that many full on azz holes in your inner circle, who you are not standing up to like a HC has to do. Well, you see what happens.
Sounds like the only positive thing to say about Grantham is that he wasn't Peter Sirmon
Hitting the nail on the head here. The evidence is clear.
And further, MOST guys that get their first head job aren't leaders. Usually it's a learned thing. He never did it. There's many styles of this dictator-type coaching set up. Bobby Petrino is Exhibit B. Ruled by fear rather than respect. The respect they did get, was due to the players realizing that these guys did know football and could put them in position to succeed.
I won't deny he did some great things as our coach. He made history. Then he spent November of every subsequent season job hunting. That would be understandable if he had stayed on top of his current job as head coach for Mississippi State. He checked out every season until he told us Friday he wasn't going anywhere, only to say goodbye Sunday. He should have kept his mouth shut until he was leaving. You can paint this decision any color you want, but it still sticks in your mind when you try to remember the good things he did here.
I've always liked Knox - but it is concerning if he was actually the one setting our RB depth chart, and not Mullen
Please tell me our defense didn't improve under grantham. If you don't think so then you are a dubmass
This is why I still do not think we have any coach who we can truly hail as 'our' guy. King Jackie had the final 3 years which tarnishes him, plus he beats off to Texas A&M daily. Mullen, as has been discussed here, just left too many what-ifs and unrealized potential and clearly didn't want to be here.
I'd lean toward Emory Bellard honestly. He gave us our singular best moment in history. And he showed us what it takes to win at MSU - a stout defense and a niche offense, full of underrated MS players with some other niche guys supplemented. But then he didn't recruit, and Emory became a memory.
This is why I'm not married to any uniform or logo. We don't have much nostalgia.
You have had a very fortunate career if you’ve only experienced good leaders having success.
Everybody talks about how amazing of a play caller he was, yet I can't get Holloway up the middle, that dumbass double reverse pass against BYU (that ended up an interception), and especially the games of Alabama and Ole Miss in 2014, and South Alabama 2016 out of my mind. He had flashed of unsubstantiated greatness that gave the appearance of a good play caller, but when crunch time hit you can better believe it was somebody up the middle on 3rd and 12.
General statement. It's probably hard to balance great play calling with also keeping the best players out of the game, or out of position. He certainly had a tendency to completely choke at the slightest sign of pressure to perform. #webelieve
You read the same article I did? No Mullen defender here, but there were multiple stories in the article about him NOT micro-managing his assistants and therefore not playing the best players.
Nah, he's a micromanager, for sure. Those are just his guys. That's actually the essence of his micromanaging.
I've made it through the Grantham part and here are my thoughts so far:
1. Did this writer ask Grantham for a comment? I can't find that he did, but I feel like a 'declined to comment on this article' sentence is usually included in these. If he wasn't asked for a comment, then I think that's a mistake on the writer's part. Also, implying that a former player refusing to comment is more of an indictment than what comments were actually made is kind of irresponsible.
2. I don't think the 'displaying a complete lack of care for their personal space' is a big deal when we're talking coach-player relationships. Nobody is saying Grantham grabbed them or shoved them or anything. Getting into a player's personal space is part of coaching, especially in the heat of the moment.
3. Grantham being inaccessible or acting aloof towards the players, I feel like, IS a big problem. I feel like that has to be the flip side of #2 above. If you're going to break them down a little bit, you need to help build them back up. Sure, growl, make faces, yell at them about what they did wrong, but you're a coach, COACH them on how to do it right.
4. Using increased playing time as a carrot for players lower on the depth chart and decreased playing time as a stick for players higher on the depth chart is a pretty standard motivator for any team on any sport after you leave little league, so I'm not sure why that was specifically pointed out as something special.
1. Did this writer ask Grantham for a comment? I can't find that he did, but I feel like a 'declined to comment on this article' sentence is usually included in these. If he wasn't asked for a comment, then I think that's a mistake on the writer's part. Also, implying that a former player refusing to comment is more of an indictment than what comments were actually made is kind of irresponsible.
2. I don't think the 'displaying a complete lack of care for their personal space' is a big deal when we're talking coach-player relationships. Nobody is saying Grantham grabbed them or shoved them or anything. Getting into a player's personal space is part of coaching, especially in the heat of the moment.
3. Grantham being inaccessible or acting aloof towards the players, I feel like, IS a big problem. I feel like that has to be the flip side of #2 above. If you're going to break them down a little bit, you need to help build them back up. Sure, growl, make faces, yell at them about what they did wrong, but you're a coach, COACH them on how to do it right.
4. Using increased playing time as a carrot for players lower on the depth chart and decreased playing time as a stick for players higher on the depth chart is a pretty standard motivator for any team on any sport after you leave little league, so I'm not sure why that was specifically pointed out as something special.
No it’s not.
Micromanaging is the opposite of what Mullen did to hevesy in that article.
Micromanaging would have been making hevesy make the player a starter.
In that instance he probably should have micromanaged. He really probably should have just fired him.
I didn’t say he was a good leader.
Said he wasn’t a terrible leader and he’s not.
At the end of the day does it matter if you are a good leader or not if you are successful?
If Florida had won the sec east his last year, do you think anyone would have cared if he was a “good” leader or bad one or just ok one?
I think it says more about Florida honestly. How many ceos have they gone through, you know eventually it's time to reflect for them and wonder if they are the problem
Thanks so much for this! I especially appreciate your comments about the Gator Bowl vs. Northwestern and I'd love to hear how "Mullen had made the prior 2 weeks so freaking miserable..." I'm not proud to say it but that was the last bowl game I attended--too much expense and traveling to watch an uninspired team get beat by, in my opinion, a much less talented opponent.
Yeah, but the culture at Northwestern was just "special"
I do not and never will get the hate for Mullen here. He did the best coaching job at MSU I've seen in my nearly 60 years. The only one that comes close was JWS but he left us in a huge mess. Mullen left us WAY better than he found us. The man also had no MSU ties. He was always going to move on eventually. That he did it on his own terms (for a bigger job) and wasn't fired, like EVERY other MSU football coach other than Leach in my lifetime was, speaks volumes about how good a job he did.
It's possible to dislike a guy and also acknowledge he's the best you've had as a coach.
It's pretty clear he is a grade A prick that you only tolerate if your paycheck depends on it or you like to hero worship.
Yep, not playing the best players should solely be left to high school coaches playing local town politics.
A disaster they also won the east. Put up great offensive numbers.
I do agree that msu was a better fit
You said you don't get the hate. I tried to explain it while acknowledging that he's the best we've had.
Most of the hate is because he left us with s loaded team and the couple of in between developed down years and the not finishing 14-15 stronger.
I don't get the hate. You think I didn't know he was a prick? Everybody knew that. A LOT of good coaches have that trait. You don't see many of little Nick's ex-players get warm and fuzzy about him either.
Not disputing anything in the article, as it (along with Swede's experiences) has solidified so many of the rumors that were common around here during Mullen's tenure.
But we are starting to decipher this too deeply without addressing the elephant in the room (article). It's a UF fan site, and UF, by and large, has a history of some of the worst team culture problems in college football. They've had issues before Mullen, and will have issues with Napier.
Use that as a lense to read that article through and it paints a pretty whiny picture, obvious issues with Mullen & Co notwithstanding. I always get the impression UF feels like they are owed something in the college football world akin to UTex.
But we are starting to decipher this too deeply without addressing the elephant in the room (article). It's a UF fan site, and UF, by and large, has a history of some of the worst team culture problems in college football. They've had issues before Mullen, and will have issues with Napier.
Use that as a lense to read that article through and it paints a pretty whiny picture, obvious issues with Mullen & Co notwithstanding. I always get the impression UF feels like they are owed something in the college football world akin to UTex.
And there's also the fact (it comes out much too late in the article) that the author is very good friends with a Florida player who transferred and obviously isn't a big fan of the coaches.
I've got a feeling much of his apparent unprecedented access to so many former players has a lot to do with his buddy. Whose perspectives on things is he likely to champion?
It just strikes me as things worth knowing.
How do you think the Bama fan base will talk about cuddly Nick if he leaves for Florida in 2 years (yes, I know that's not happening)?
There would be a lot of hate for the greatest CFB coach ever.