Mullen was an unimaginative and uninspired play-caller who won so much because he had great players like Tebow and Harvin. We won in spite of his play-calling, not because of it. He showed that again Saturday night. They didn't win because he had a great game plan, or because he called a good game. They won because we were so bad that they couldn't help it. They tried to give us every chance to win, but we wouldn't take it. Adazzio is certainly worse, but I sure don't want Mullen back.
Rob Sent from my iPad On Oct 17, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Scott Lucas <floridagat...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Let me preface this by saying some of you may not like this: We have not > been very good since Dan Mullen left, and HE may be the reason for Urban's > success at Florida and previously. > > Let that sink in. > > Without Dan, Florida's offense is lifeless. A shell of its former self. > Former? Yes, former... as in when Mullen was here calling the shots. Oh > sure, Adazzio had a great offense against Cincinnati. Whoopie! It was > Cincinnati-- hardly a perennial power, not from a powerhouse conference, and > they got exactly what any middle of the road SEC would give them. That is > Adazzio's best game. A game in which he had 3 weeks to prepare. He has not > accomplished anything real other than that. > > As for Dan, why is he the key to UM's success? He makes his offense work > with what he has. He inherited Chris Leak, the offense was modified, and we > won with him. Won it all. We had our Tebow years, modified the offense, and > we won with him. Mullen leaves, we have a Leak clone, we don't modify and we > are losing horribly. But what has Dan done? He went to an underachieving > school. Looked at what he had, he modified and is winning. He took a > perennial cellar dweller and is making it work, with someone else's recruits > because a good carpenter can work with the tools he has... > > Dan does what MUST be done to win. He ran the ball 29 out of 30 times > against us. Why? It was working and it was what he needed to do to win. He > saw what Alabama did to us up the middle, and he copied it. He say what LSU > did to us, and he copied it. He is adjusting... modifying. He is doing what > must be done to win, and he did it with far less quality of player than Bama > and LSU had. This does not bode well for us. > > Our coaches insist on running an offense that is ill suited for our > personnel. Dan wouldn't do this. We are trying to force TOO many square > pegs into round holes. Dan wouldn't do this either. > > You think it is just about Brantley? It is not. Without adequate blocking, > and by adequate I mean they open a hole occasionally, running backs will go > nowhere. Especially a 190 pound running back when you run right up the > middle. It doesn't matter how fast you are when all there is in front of you > is a wall of defenders. We have no solid tight end threat. We have hybrids. > We have kids playing positions that they can play but maybe shouldn't be > playing, at least not yet. Dan wouldn't do this. > > We have a complete and total lack of a deep threat. Are all these blue chip > recruits suddenly slow? Or can Brantley just not complete the long ball? Or > are we just plain not calling them? And where is the mention of our QB > coach? Why have we heard nothing about him or in regards to him? Is he all > of a sudden a bad coach? I haven't heard his name mention since Tebow left. > Wasn't Dan Mullen also our QB coach? > > Or, just maybe, this offensive line, supposedly the strength of the team, > can't even figure out what to do with this offense either. They may be ill > suited for the zone blocking and reads that the first half offense relies on. > They seem to do MUCH better in the second half when Brantley starts throwing > it around, when they are told to man up and block a person instead of an > area. Again, an area in need of much change-- similar to what Dan has done > with MSU. Take what you have, evaluate it, figure out what you do well, and > then ride that horse. 29 out of 30 rushing plays. The one pass? A shovel > pass, practically a running play as well. Dan does what you have to do to > win. He does what works. > > We see this week in and week out, yet no adjustment, no improvement, no > change. Its as if we (and dare I say it?) are stubborn just like SOS was > when his passing game didn't work. What did Spurrier do when you squashed > his passing? He continued to throw it, bound and determined to show the > world a thing or two and that it will work. Well, by then, it didn't... and > we would lose. I see that all over again, except this time it is this > bastardization of the spread offense. When you stop our 3 or 4 plays, that > we call 10 times each a game, we don't seem to make any changes until the > second half. > > So what happens in the second half? We let Brantley be Brantley! We open it > up a little, we hit the quick routes DOWNFIELD and not behind the LOS. We > throw the out patterns, we mix it up, and we become more effective. > > Sure, the defense has relaxed. They already know they have us exactly where > they want us. They know we are not explosive and are no longer a quick > strike offense, so maybe they do drop back into a soft zone. But in the past > 3 games, the offensive output, cohesiveness, drive sustaining plays have been > there!!! We have converted the third downs, and even teams protecting a lead > want to stop those. > > So why do we NOT do this going into the first half? Why not setup the run by > passing? Make them defend that middle zone, soften the corners up, and force > the defense to attack downfield in a pass rush which would create running > lanes when we do hand it off. Instead, the defense holds the line, blitzes > at will from the ends and pummels our backs and quarter back. Yet, we do > nothing til halftime to adjust? > > So what is the difference between Dan and no Dan? Effectiveness. Period. > MSU came out with a game plan that worked. We did not. They scored ALL of > their points in the first quarter and then rode that game plan for an entire > 60 minutes and won. Dan did what they had to do to win. > > We came out with the same offense that hasn't worked in weeks. We beat our > head against that wall for 30 minutes. We made half time adjustments, and we > moved the ball much more effectively just like in the Bama and LSU games. > Three games, all identical, and all with the same results. Those coaches did > what they had to do to win. > > I would love for the Gators come out and throw in the first have like we have > been forced to do in the second half. But, if we CHOSE to throw in the first > half, we set the tempo and we control the defense. By sticking to this same > ol' mockery of the spread, we are playing right into the defense's game plan. > We are NOT doing what we have to do to win. Its as if we are trying to > prove that this can and will work, results be damned! You don't look at the > Bama, LSU, and MSU defense and think we are going to run at them. We didn't > change. Dan would have. > > We must change. We must adapt. And it must not happen during the halftime > speeches. > > Do SOMETHING! > > -- > GATORS: ONE VOICE ON SATURDAY - NO VOICE ON SUNDAY! > 1996 National Football Champions | 2006 National Basketball Champions > 2006 National Football Champions | 2007 National Basketball Champions > 2008 National Football Champions | > Three Heisman Trophy winners: Steve Spurrier (1966), Danny Wuerffel (1996), > Tim Tebow (2007) - Visit our website at www.gatornet.us -- GATORS: ONE VOICE ON SATURDAY - NO VOICE ON SUNDAY! 1996 National Football Champions | 2006 National Basketball Champions 2006 National Football Champions | 2007 National Basketball Champions 2008 National Football Champions | Three Heisman Trophy winners: Steve Spurrier (1966), Danny Wuerffel (1996), Tim Tebow (2007) - Visit our website at www.gatornet.us
