I'm under the understanding that great coaches tailor their offenses with the best tools they have. If Mullen is such a great offensive coach (numbers aren't proving that correct) then he should tweak his offense to suit his best player, Tyler Russell. If he is unable to do that and Dak Prescott makes his offense better just because he fits it better than Mullen is not a great offensive coach imo. Flame away.
Mullen vs Russell/Dak decision...
- Thread starter DAWG61
- Start date
The best coaches
Get the best players for their system. I don't see Chip Kelly changing his system. I don't see Petersen changing his. I don't even see Freeze changing his. Go get the players that fit what you want to do. That's the bottom line. Otherwise, you're going to be missing the pieces to run something else.
Get the best players for their system. I don't see Chip Kelly changing his system. I don't see Petersen changing his. I don't even see Freeze changing his. Go get the players that fit what you want to do. That's the bottom line. Otherwise, you're going to be missing the pieces to run something else.
Lol tell em Cadaver. Dawg61 you are right. Coach34, Cadaver, myself and a couple others were pretty much the same thing. People on here (Cookie, Rallyin (Goat) and other Tyler elitests seem to think we were insinuating Tyler isn't a good QB when instead we were saying Dak fits our personnel better than Tyler does. And changing the entire scheme isn't the answer either because the entire roster is built up of spread/zone read personnel and Tyler is either an Air raid or pro-set type of QB. We went through a crazy amount of back and forth and still the knuckleheads believe Tyler is THE guy despite a very young WR core. Sheesh!
If you are working on a building project and have a great hammer, but you need a screwdriver, change the plan, not the tool.
Gotcha
Gotcha
I agree, and as a service to Tyler, Mullen has tried to tweak his system to allow Tyler to be effective. It didn't do well against any of the decent/good teams we played. So, he should go with the guy that fits his system...Dak.
There seems to be a disconnect between those of us that think Dak should start, and those that think Tyler should start. And I think the difference is that those of us that think Dak should start, are basing it off of the fact that we know Mullen's not going to change the scheme for Tyler anymore than he did this year. We will have Mullen, Koenning, and a group of inexperienced WR's..,to go with a Spread Option offense with a passing tweak to it.
Everyone wanting Russell is saying, "all Mullen has to do is..", or "Mullen can make it work with Tyler if he...", or "Tyler is the best QB, we just need to...", etc..
And you're right. IF we changed those things, or IF we did this or that, then we could be successful. But we're not going to do the things required for this offense to succeed under Russell.
You want to argue that Mullen is stubborn? Fine. You want to argue that Mullen can't adapt? Go ahead.
But those of us calling for Dak, are doing it because we know the scheme will not change by more than a tweak...so Dak is the better fit for the Spread Option offense we WILL be running next year.
That's not Tyler's fault, nor does it make him a bad QB. It just is what it is. And I agree that if the Offensive scheme was changed, Tyler would be the best option. But I don't think it SHOULD be changed, because it's the scheme our coach knows best and has recruited towards. So basically we're saying...if the offensive scheme remains the same (which it will), do you really think Tyler gives us the best chance to win next year at QB? And if you're looking at returning personnel and strength of schedule, the answer is NO. Dak does.
Last edited:
The questions I want answered are about Mullen. You are already answering them without seeing if that's the case. I want Mullen to prove you right or wrong. It's only one year but we will learn a lot about our coach. The part of this equation you're overlooking is what if Dak starts and he sucks? It's pretty tough at that point to go back to Russell.
Are you suggesting we will get different results by using the same or equal offensive players against a more difficult schedule? Those different results being in the form of more wins?
There is a cliche regarding this I've heard before.......
There is a cliche regarding this I've heard before.......
Mesosorrydanielson
I mistook your post meaning something that had something to do with Msu having a better chance at winning games next year.
So what is the point again?
I mistook your post meaning something that had something to do with Msu having a better chance at winning games next year.
So what is the point again?
I see and understand what you're saying, but do you really think Mullen will go to an even more diverse scheme than he's used to running? For 1 season? Just for Tyler? I doubt it. And better yet, would you really want him too?? I sure as hell don't. What if we change the offense completely for Tyler and then he's hurt in game 1? Are you going to teach the offense two totally different schemes so that Dak can come in if Tyler is hurt? Or is Dak going to be expected to run that new passing offense and really 17 things up?
Do you see why I find this to be such a dumb argument?
Our best offensive season under Mullen was 2010, when we had an experienced OLine and a running QB to run the offense we brought Dan in to run....remember, the offense he perfected. So now, we have an experienced OLine, a dual threat QB that most believe is already far more talented than Relf(who won 9 games in said offense), and everyone wants to change the scheme for a year because Tyler broke some ****** passing records???? That makes no sense.
I want us to win. And we can be most competitive against tough teams (which our schedule is loaded with in 2013) by running the football, shortening the game, and getting back to being physical with our experienced OLine and stable of backs. How could anyone possibly believe that changing the offense even further away from what Dan Mullen knows, could result in better production and more wins? Come on people...we all love Tyler and the way he's played and represented the University, but you can't put one guy over what's best for the team, the offensive scheme, and the system we've recruited to and our coach knows how to run. Consistency and cohesiveness....repetition and familiarity....practice and recognition...these are all things that keep a coach from being able to just swap schemes back and forth every other year. These guys aren't pros. You think they can spend a spring learning a passing scheme, then turn around after Tyler leaves and get right back to pounding the ball, without even a hiccup? It's not logical.
I'm just confused as to how we have so many people that don't understand this concept.
But obviously, Mullen wouldn't pull Russell after 4 picks in one game, so there's no reason to think he won't start every game next year. Still doesn't change the point of the discussion, but I guess it makes it a moot point so I might as well give up.
Why did he sign Russell and spend 4+ years developing him only to bench him in his final season? Maybe Mullen can't adapt very well but maybe Russell can. He's a senior, been a pretty good leader, has a bunch of experience and he's from Mississippi. Bench Russell now and you can forever say goodbye to any pass first elite QB's from this state. Are you that committed to the run first spread? What good offensive coach can't run a productive offense with a great passing QB? Mullen is very limited if that's the case. I'm not saying Mullen should install a new offense. His offense has how many hundreds of plays? I'm just saying call much better plays from the offense everyone already knows and who besides the coaches knows the offense better than any other player on the team? Tyler Russell. Maybe Mullen should let Russell call the plays? He'd be better than Les.
We can make 100 more threads on this, but it simply is this:
Tyler is the best passer and is extremely accurate up to 20-25 yards- but he isnt mobile and looks like he absolutely 17'ing hates to run the ball. But he plays smart most of the time and has paid his dues. Been nothing but a good Bulldog and good role model for kids.
Dak is an upgrade over Relf in the passing department, smarter, and is faster- but we dont know if he has the durability that Relf had. And that is a must playing that style. Dak would get better as the year went on as a passer- but would not be as good as Russell throwing. But he wouldnt be clueless like Relf was back there either.
Mullen???? This is the problem. Mullen's offense simply works better with a mobile QB. Our routes and playcalling were absolute **** in 2012. Had we not played such an easy early schedule- there would be much more pressure on the offense.
Will Mullen sit Russell, insert Dak, and run the offense he knows best? 17 no he isnt. We all know that. Not to start the season anyway. With 3 tough games in our first 5 though- a bad situation could arise though with a struggling offense.
Is Mullen capable of making more changes to the offense to best suit Russell and make his Sr season and the offense a success? I have my doubts- and so do many others around here and in our fanbase. But that's why we pay the guy. It's his job to make those decisions and to make it happen.
We have to wait it out and see what happens...
Tyler is the best passer and is extremely accurate up to 20-25 yards- but he isnt mobile and looks like he absolutely 17'ing hates to run the ball. But he plays smart most of the time and has paid his dues. Been nothing but a good Bulldog and good role model for kids.
Dak is an upgrade over Relf in the passing department, smarter, and is faster- but we dont know if he has the durability that Relf had. And that is a must playing that style. Dak would get better as the year went on as a passer- but would not be as good as Russell throwing. But he wouldnt be clueless like Relf was back there either.
Mullen???? This is the problem. Mullen's offense simply works better with a mobile QB. Our routes and playcalling were absolute **** in 2012. Had we not played such an easy early schedule- there would be much more pressure on the offense.
Will Mullen sit Russell, insert Dak, and run the offense he knows best? 17 no he isnt. We all know that. Not to start the season anyway. With 3 tough games in our first 5 though- a bad situation could arise though with a struggling offense.
Is Mullen capable of making more changes to the offense to best suit Russell and make his Sr season and the offense a success? I have my doubts- and so do many others around here and in our fanbase. But that's why we pay the guy. It's his job to make those decisions and to make it happen.
We have to wait it out and see what happens...
Last edited:
He signed Russell because Russell was a highly rated QB and it was Mullen's first class, so he didn't have a lot of time to find a dual threat.
Maybe Russell can adapt?? What do you mean? Into a runner? No.
Do we want another Russell or a Pass first elite QB while Mullen is coach? Not really, we need a DUAL THREAT. And YES, we're committed to the run first spread...that's what has us in this situation to begin with. Also, look at where the NFL is headed....RGIII, Russell Wilson, Kapernick, etc. Dual threats are rising in pro potential.
"What good offensive coach can't run a productive offense with a great passing QB?".... First of all, "great passing QB" may be pushing it. He was really good against the cupcakes, but not great against the decent/good teams. Not all his fault though. And as to the "what good coach can't..." part...I guess Mullen. He didn't do much with Russell this year did he? And Russell's been here 4 years...so.
I agree the play calling sucks...been bad since Hud left in my opinion. Let Tyler call the plays? He's not Peyton Manning, but he should get more control over changing plays at the line if he starts next year.
Russell will start until he's injured or until he has three gator bowl type games in a row. As long as he keeps our turnovers down (2012 was fewest in Mullen tenure) and points up (2012 was most ppg in Mullen tenure) he'll be the guy.
Im more worried about our defense at the moment. But it appears Mullen is trying to rectify that.
As he said, 2012 was easily the weakest in Mullen's tenure. And as I said, had Russell had some of those tough games earlier in 2012, people would feel alot different about the offense. While we did score 6 more points then we did in 2010, the entire NCAA is going thru a scoring jump on offense the last couple of years- we arent. We ranked quite a few spots lower scoring-wise in 2012 than we did in 2010 even with 6 more points.
The defense redshirted some 4-star players and played some highly rated freshmen in 2012- they will be better. We dont know that to be true for the offense- all we have on offense is hope after losing our starting WR's and TE
Last edited:
God forbid, but if Dak starts because he fits THE system better and breaks his leg the first game, "the 5th year QB doesn't fit my system shat" won't excuse weak offensive production this season. So Mullen better have a System that will fit Tyler. If Dak is gonna be RGIII or Micheal Vick ....shat happens.
That came just before the fall...
Worth noting that it would have barely cracked the top 50 this year...
Say it with me, Cadaver......
We. Are. MState. Of course we can, and will, put one guy ahead of the team & program. It's what we've done throughout our entire 17ing history. Maybe one day we'll finally learn our lesson, but we both know we'll continue to be the poster child for Einstein's definition of insanity in 2013.
You also make an excellent point about the vast difference in practice time between the NFL & college. We have VERY limited practice time, and most of what these guys do is own their own. You're also spot on when you say that you can't ask us to be a finesse offense for another season, then turn around and be the nasty, physical offense in 2014 that we were in 2010. That doesn't happen overnight. It's a mentality that's built over multiple seasons and multiple games. It's developed in practice. When a team or program goes soft, it's hard to return it to its physical roots without MAJOR changes and pains.
Still, all this is really one giant pissing contest. The TR elitists will never change their minds. We won't change our minds, unless we see coaching changes that indicate the offense will undergo changes from a scheme standpoint in the offseason. And most of all, we all know Mullen will start TR in 2013 barring an injury.
We. Are. MState. Of course we can, and will, put one guy ahead of the team & program. It's what we've done throughout our entire 17ing history. Maybe one day we'll finally learn our lesson, but we both know we'll continue to be the poster child for Einstein's definition of insanity in 2013.
You also make an excellent point about the vast difference in practice time between the NFL & college. We have VERY limited practice time, and most of what these guys do is own their own. You're also spot on when you say that you can't ask us to be a finesse offense for another season, then turn around and be the nasty, physical offense in 2014 that we were in 2010. That doesn't happen overnight. It's a mentality that's built over multiple seasons and multiple games. It's developed in practice. When a team or program goes soft, it's hard to return it to its physical roots without MAJOR changes and pains.
Still, all this is really one giant pissing contest. The TR elitists will never change their minds. We won't change our minds, unless we see coaching changes that indicate the offense will undergo changes from a scheme standpoint in the offseason. And most of all, we all know Mullen will start TR in 2013 barring an injury.
This is definitely a dead horse
But I'm going to try to bring up some points that few have talked about to this point.
First I want to say this- I don't think anyone is saying to scrap the offense and run two separate offenses- one for Tyler and one for Dak. What most people are saying is- add some slants, shallow crosses and some screens and use our personnel- Perkins and Robinson in particular- differently. Those are things that SHOULD be in the offense already- and they SHOULD be there no matter if Tyler or Dak is the QB. We're going to have to pass the ball effectively in this era of football no matter what- that's not to say that we have to be pass first- but we can't be totally one dimensional running or passing and expect to do well in the SEC. Really, the only difference between the offenses with Tyler and Dak is simply Tyler runs less option of course. But what that should also mean is that we use other types of running plays more with Tyler.
The thing about this debate is we still don't know what we have in Dak yet. Yes, he did well with his package of plays- but he also had some issues throwing the ball at times as well. Dak has yet to make a SEC start, and no one outside of Dan knows how much of the playbook he has mastered at this point. Dak is still learning and developing as a QB and as a player. But we have to allow him to develop properly- because if we do not- we run a major risk in getting his confidence shot. That does NO ONE any favors. This is a MAJOR mistake MSU has made in the past for years with QB and is a big reason why we have had trouble developing them under other coaches. I suspect those are two reasons why Dan didn't put Dak in- not to mention we were behind, and when you're behind, you throw the ball, which of course is Tyler's strength.
The next part is about Tyler- only at MSU can you set school records and have fans put you down. No matter what your opinion about those records is, all in all- Tyler didn't do bad over the course of the year. He may have been 50th overall in the country- but that's still better than 60 something other QB's. Tyler himself still has room to improve as well. But, he is now an experienced 5th year senior and I think he will probably have a chip on his shoulder. Not only that- benching a guy that set school records before his fifth year senior year would send a VERY BAD message to QB recruits that we don't need to send- whether it's a dual threat QB, a drop back passer, or whatever. QB's need to know that they are going to go somewhere where they aren't going to get pulled after one bad pass, or a bad game, or whatever. That's part of getting good QB's to come here. Again, because we made horrible mistakes with QB development under previous coaches- that's how we end up with people like Dylan Favre or starting a walk-on like Tyson Lee. We actually do it right with Tyler and all of a sudden- boom, four star QB Cord Sandberg. And now our back-up options are a guy that was an Elite 11 QB and a guy that was the MVP of 7A in Florida in his only season.
Now, the WR's- first of all, I think Mirando was a bad coach. Not to mention we had a coaching change there before the season- and I think a full season with Brewster will help our WR's a lot. Who knows what Brewster will do with these guys with an entire off season to work with them? Not only that- but we are getting at least five new WR's in the form of JUCO's and freshmen- I would say the odds of SOMEBODY panning out is probably pretty good. Not to mention people that are already here improving. Including some that have some height- which leads me to my last point.
How in the hell can Dan be here for four seasons and we only have one guy in our WR rotation over 6'1" tall? Forget who the QB is- we're going to need tall WR's with Dak too. It's not like the spread option prefers midgets on the outside. How hard is it to project out a potential depth chart four years in advance and say- "oh, we have a bunch of slot WR's"? He did it with the o-line a couple of years ago too- that's how we ended up with Carmon at OT, and of course we got racked with injuries. The roster management is one of my biggest beefs with Dan, and actually my biggest beef about his recruiting.
But I'm going to try to bring up some points that few have talked about to this point.
First I want to say this- I don't think anyone is saying to scrap the offense and run two separate offenses- one for Tyler and one for Dak. What most people are saying is- add some slants, shallow crosses and some screens and use our personnel- Perkins and Robinson in particular- differently. Those are things that SHOULD be in the offense already- and they SHOULD be there no matter if Tyler or Dak is the QB. We're going to have to pass the ball effectively in this era of football no matter what- that's not to say that we have to be pass first- but we can't be totally one dimensional running or passing and expect to do well in the SEC. Really, the only difference between the offenses with Tyler and Dak is simply Tyler runs less option of course. But what that should also mean is that we use other types of running plays more with Tyler.
The thing about this debate is we still don't know what we have in Dak yet. Yes, he did well with his package of plays- but he also had some issues throwing the ball at times as well. Dak has yet to make a SEC start, and no one outside of Dan knows how much of the playbook he has mastered at this point. Dak is still learning and developing as a QB and as a player. But we have to allow him to develop properly- because if we do not- we run a major risk in getting his confidence shot. That does NO ONE any favors. This is a MAJOR mistake MSU has made in the past for years with QB and is a big reason why we have had trouble developing them under other coaches. I suspect those are two reasons why Dan didn't put Dak in- not to mention we were behind, and when you're behind, you throw the ball, which of course is Tyler's strength.
The next part is about Tyler- only at MSU can you set school records and have fans put you down. No matter what your opinion about those records is, all in all- Tyler didn't do bad over the course of the year. He may have been 50th overall in the country- but that's still better than 60 something other QB's. Tyler himself still has room to improve as well. But, he is now an experienced 5th year senior and I think he will probably have a chip on his shoulder. Not only that- benching a guy that set school records before his fifth year senior year would send a VERY BAD message to QB recruits that we don't need to send- whether it's a dual threat QB, a drop back passer, or whatever. QB's need to know that they are going to go somewhere where they aren't going to get pulled after one bad pass, or a bad game, or whatever. That's part of getting good QB's to come here. Again, because we made horrible mistakes with QB development under previous coaches- that's how we end up with people like Dylan Favre or starting a walk-on like Tyson Lee. We actually do it right with Tyler and all of a sudden- boom, four star QB Cord Sandberg. And now our back-up options are a guy that was an Elite 11 QB and a guy that was the MVP of 7A in Florida in his only season.
Now, the WR's- first of all, I think Mirando was a bad coach. Not to mention we had a coaching change there before the season- and I think a full season with Brewster will help our WR's a lot. Who knows what Brewster will do with these guys with an entire off season to work with them? Not only that- but we are getting at least five new WR's in the form of JUCO's and freshmen- I would say the odds of SOMEBODY panning out is probably pretty good. Not to mention people that are already here improving. Including some that have some height- which leads me to my last point.
How in the hell can Dan be here for four seasons and we only have one guy in our WR rotation over 6'1" tall? Forget who the QB is- we're going to need tall WR's with Dak too. It's not like the spread option prefers midgets on the outside. How hard is it to project out a potential depth chart four years in advance and say- "oh, we have a bunch of slot WR's"? He did it with the o-line a couple of years ago too- that's how we ended up with Carmon at OT, and of course we got racked with injuries. The roster management is one of my biggest beefs with Dan, and actually my biggest beef about his recruiting.
Nobody is putting Tyler down...not me anyway. It's about fitting an offensive scheme, period. Not sure why people think it's an anti-Tyler thing.
Risk the possibility of a big QB recruit not coming because we benched a Senior QB.....or risk an entire recruiting class of players not coming, because we show no identity or production on offense and don't go bowling because we put 1 guy over what's best for the offense, its' scheme, and its' returning personnel?
We need to bowl next year to keep momentum and not take steps back. And Russell showed me nothing against decent teams (with 5 senior receivers) that makes me think he can beat a schedule full of decent to great teams next year....regardless of scheme. At least with Dak we can get back to a physical, ground game, that eats clock and shortens the game, giving us a chance to beat some good teams.
ETA: I think I just want so bad for us to keep the bowl streak alive next year, because I feel like the recruiting and momentum depends on it....and I just feel that based on personnel, we have a better shot at bowling with a ground attack. With the schedule we have next year, if we can't run the ball and play good D...we have no shot at bowling. We didn't run the ball worth a **** in big games this year with our hybrid passing attack led by our passing QB. We don't have personnel to beat SEC teams throwing the ball next season, and I don't really even see a debate.
hopefully Tyler can lead us to 6 wins, because that's what most on here want...and definitely what Dan will do. I will be Russell's biggest fan if/when he starts.
Last edited:
Ididnt see nearly as many plays as y'all did because it seems like Ole Miss and Msu played a lot of games simultaneously this season. I saw Auburn, Tenn., Bama, And Egg Bowl. I know tenn. had a historically bad defense, but the way Russell played in that game really impressed me. It reminded me of some games Eli played when he was hot. He executed the offense and made the right reads consistently for four quarters, which is pretty rare to see in college football these days. It was fun to watch for a change (by both qbs in that game).
I think Russell was clearly held back by the wide receivers. During the Egg bowl, I was never worried about a huge play changing the momentum of the game like I usually was when ole miss played another sec team (d had to gamble a lot to compensate for lack of size).
ole miss had a similar season with eli in 02, going 6-6 with good passing stats but being very one dimensional on offense against good teams. The OL was older and better next year and I guess some changes were made to run the ball better, but nothing drastic scheme wise. That team in 03 set all offensive records and went 7-1 in conference.
A qb who can do what Russell does in terms of reading a defense and making throws is rare and you should be able to build around that. Surely the wrs will be more productive than what msu had last year.
I think Russell was clearly held back by the wide receivers. During the Egg bowl, I was never worried about a huge play changing the momentum of the game like I usually was when ole miss played another sec team (d had to gamble a lot to compensate for lack of size).
ole miss had a similar season with eli in 02, going 6-6 with good passing stats but being very one dimensional on offense against good teams. The OL was older and better next year and I guess some changes were made to run the ball better, but nothing drastic scheme wise. That team in 03 set all offensive records and went 7-1 in conference.
A qb who can do what Russell does in terms of reading a defense and making throws is rare and you should be able to build around that. Surely the wrs will be more productive than what msu had last year.
I think you may have just taken over as most rational Ole Miss poster on 6pack. And not just because you posted something halfway positive about MSU......because you see things for what they are. This comment:
.....is very very accurate, and probably what we will see next year. The OL is critical....CRITICAL.....to offensive success. And simply put, our offense hummed against teams where we had superior talent, and halted when we played the better personnel. The Egg Bowl and Northwestern were the two exceptions to that.....the offense did not play well in those two games. But Ole Miss' young talent was starting to gel in the Egg Bowl and, well, no excuses for Gator Bowl, Tyler played badly.
It still makes me cringe about C.J. Johnson. Out of all the flipping and BS we always talk about, he's the only one that really should get MSU fans pissed off.
.....is very very accurate, and probably what we will see next year. The OL is critical....CRITICAL.....to offensive success. And simply put, our offense hummed against teams where we had superior talent, and halted when we played the better personnel. The Egg Bowl and Northwestern were the two exceptions to that.....the offense did not play well in those two games. But Ole Miss' young talent was starting to gel in the Egg Bowl and, well, no excuses for Gator Bowl, Tyler played badly.
It still makes me cringe about C.J. Johnson. Out of all the flipping and BS we always talk about, he's the only one that really should get MSU fans pissed off.
I've definitely seen people say things like
"Breaking MSU passing records is not really that great of an accomplishment" paraphrased. How can that be anything other than putting him down? I'm not saying it's you that's doing it and I'm targeting anyone in particular either- but it's still silly to do it.
It's not just risking one QB- it will be used against us for years. And guess what? If you don't have a good QB- you likely won't have a good offense. Like I said- it's the vicious cycle of MSU QB's and we're just now starting to break it. That will hurt us MUCH more than having an offense "with no identity". Heck, at least if we are bad on offense we can tell recruits "Hey! Immediate playing time!" QB recruits study and research what kind of a situation they are going into. If we treat Tyler like crap after the season he had- it's going to hurt us for years to come.
OK- so you want to play Dak and be one dimensional which gives us about the same chance or worse of beating a big name SEC team and potentially stunt his growth as a player because you think it's somehow selfish to play a QB that is an experienced player that has been productive because he doesn't run the read option every five plays for an unproven and at this point lesser player? Got it. Why the hell not hold the coaches accountable for not having a decent passing game- again, forget whether the QB is Tyler or Dak. We as fans should EXPECT our team to be able to have a competent passing game instead of trying to band aid things (if that's even what you call it because it's not really a great alternative). I'm sorry- not having WR's that can get open is unacceptable whether it's Tyler, Dak, Henig, Brady- whomever our QB is. This shouldn't be about fitting really as much as it is about being competent. Imagine if we couldn't run a counter play- what you are saying right now is like saying we should throw it every down because we can't run a basic counter play. So why try? I EXPECT our WRs to do some very basic things that they didn't do. Getting open is not too much to ask for from anyone.
You say "well, I didn't see anything from Tyler and we don't have the personnel"- well, how do you know that we don't have it now? Maybe that's why Dan recruited a boatload of WR's? Because you didn't "see" it and you just assume that next year will be the same even though we will have totally different players including taller WR's which we lacked and a bruising RB in Shumpert that we are adding and is much needed? Not to mention a more experienced o-line and a healthy Malcolm Johnson? A more aggressive defense which will hopefully help get the other team off the field more quickly than last year thus making it easier for the QB to get into a rhythm? At least wait and see what we have in the new players before we decide to blow everything up.
"Breaking MSU passing records is not really that great of an accomplishment" paraphrased. How can that be anything other than putting him down? I'm not saying it's you that's doing it and I'm targeting anyone in particular either- but it's still silly to do it.
It's not just risking one QB- it will be used against us for years. And guess what? If you don't have a good QB- you likely won't have a good offense. Like I said- it's the vicious cycle of MSU QB's and we're just now starting to break it. That will hurt us MUCH more than having an offense "with no identity". Heck, at least if we are bad on offense we can tell recruits "Hey! Immediate playing time!" QB recruits study and research what kind of a situation they are going into. If we treat Tyler like crap after the season he had- it's going to hurt us for years to come.
OK- so you want to play Dak and be one dimensional which gives us about the same chance or worse of beating a big name SEC team and potentially stunt his growth as a player because you think it's somehow selfish to play a QB that is an experienced player that has been productive because he doesn't run the read option every five plays for an unproven and at this point lesser player? Got it. Why the hell not hold the coaches accountable for not having a decent passing game- again, forget whether the QB is Tyler or Dak. We as fans should EXPECT our team to be able to have a competent passing game instead of trying to band aid things (if that's even what you call it because it's not really a great alternative). I'm sorry- not having WR's that can get open is unacceptable whether it's Tyler, Dak, Henig, Brady- whomever our QB is. This shouldn't be about fitting really as much as it is about being competent. Imagine if we couldn't run a counter play- what you are saying right now is like saying we should throw it every down because we can't run a basic counter play. So why try? I EXPECT our WRs to do some very basic things that they didn't do. Getting open is not too much to ask for from anyone.
You say "well, I didn't see anything from Tyler and we don't have the personnel"- well, how do you know that we don't have it now? Maybe that's why Dan recruited a boatload of WR's? Because you didn't "see" it and you just assume that next year will be the same even though we will have totally different players including taller WR's which we lacked and a bruising RB in Shumpert that we are adding and is much needed? Not to mention a more experienced o-line and a healthy Malcolm Johnson? A more aggressive defense which will hopefully help get the other team off the field more quickly than last year thus making it easier for the QB to get into a rhythm? At least wait and see what we have in the new players before we decide to blow everything up.