3 quality WR's committed. Does this silence the Croom critics for now?

[Goat Holder]

I mean, that's all we've been wanting for 3 years right? To sign some receiver talent. That was our problem. I heard it from alot of Henig apologists.

If this class holds, would this crop of WRs satisfy you? I think we need one, if not 2 more burner type receivers. Assad from Mobile and Lampley from Wayne Co.

 

[Goat Holder]

I mean, that's all we've been wanting for 3 years right? To sign some receiver talent. That was our problem. I heard it from alot of Henig apologists.

If this class holds, would this crop of WRs satisfy you? I think we need one, if not 2 more burner type receivers. Assad from Mobile and Lampley from Wayne Co.

 

[Goat Holder]

I mean, that's all we've been wanting for 3 years right? To sign some receiver talent. That was our problem. I heard it from alot of Henig apologists.

If this class holds, would this crop of WRs satisfy you? I think we need one, if not 2 more burner type receivers. Assad from Mobile and Lampley from Wayne Co.

 

[patdog]

And I think most all of Croom's critics have said that we're happy with they way recruiting is going right now.

 

[Temple of the Dawg]

but here are my thoughts. Croom is off to a huge start on getting honest to God talented HS WR this season. He is to be commended for his efforts so far. This class, from a WR point of view*, is good to very good right now. What would make it excellent, in my mind, would be to get two more in this class that are essentially equal in talent. I would prefer for them to be shifty/burner types, but two more highly sought after WR would be fine. My reasoning is I would like Croom to have the luxury of being able to RS a couple of guys for next year so he could balance out the talent in the classes. So far, Croom seems to favor loading up on players at a given position in one season and then ignoring that position for the next couple of years (obviously, this doesn't apply to QBs, DEs, or LBs).

*Note: This is not a shot at the whole class by any means. This class is by far his best so far & is shaping up to be very good.

 

[8dog]

silence the criticisms for not signing any good ones the last 2-3? I mean, we are going into this year with 1 WR that is not a senior and has a modicum of experience.

Recruiting couldn't be going any better but getting committments right now doesn't give us anyone more to throw to in a month and a half.

 

[eckie1]

Why did it take 5 years for Croom to get a commitment from his first bona fide, blue chip HS WR?

I'm not gonna complain too hard... but, it's puzzling.

 

[Frances Drebin]

Just because Croom has the verbal of some good WR prospects, doesn't mean he is now free to escape the criticism of the shape of things today. We are short on athletes on the offensive side of the ball. That is on Croom.

Everyone pretty much is pleased with our recruiting to this point. But verbals are non-binding, and even if they all do end up signing, we're looking at a year or two down the line before any of them contribute anything.

So no, the Croom critics still have a valid gripe for the talent level on the offensive side of the ball.

 

[cps36]

well i think it's a miracle ANY good WRs or QBs come to MSU. We have never had any good qbs or wrs. Now if i was a RB i would love to go to MSU. I know i'm gonna get my carries. WRs though? We throw the ball like once or twice a possesion. Although we may be playing from behind a lot. so we'll see.

 

[Goat Holder]

so why complain? I know we haven't had much of an offense but it is improving every year, plus we won last year. We moved the ball. We showed glimpses of putting together a passing offense, see Arkansas game. And we will win again this year, and the offense will be better.

I think we've recruited some solid WR talent. Oneal Wilder, Terrance Davis (I think will be a big surprise) and Shane McCardell could all be possibly good receivers.

Now, we're getting the talent to take us to the next level. I really like recruiting the athletes playing QB to play receiver, like T. Davis and M. Phillips.

 

[Shmuley]

We have never had any good .... wrs

Signed,
Mardye McDole
Glen Young
Eric Moulds

 

[cowbell9]

Glen Young , Bruce Threadgill, Don Smith , Wayne Madkin, Jackie Parker,Brek Tyler and Dave Marler would disagree. You are obviously a young en.

 

[patdog]

we've won without them

We're 17-30 with without them.

I know we haven't had much of an offense but it is improving every year

No, the offense hasn't improved one iota since Croom took over. Remember the Florida game his first year? Still probably the best offensive showing of Croom's career.

plus we won last year. We moved the ball.

We did win last year, but we didn't even come close to moving the ball on any consistent basis.

We showed glimpses of putting together a passing offense, see Arkansas game.

Did you even notice how bad Arkansas's defense was last year? Or did you notice that we only started moving the ball on them AFTER they had built up a huge lead? Or that we threw 4 interceptions in that game. I don't care how many yards passing you had, 4 interceptions is NOT a good game.

 

[jlat13]

nm

 

[Goat Holder]

I disagree with most of what you said, so let's don't go down this path lined with dead horse body parts.

 

[patdog]

But disagreeing with facts doesn't change them.</p>

 

[Goat Holder]

I just think since we've got so many DE's, and this guy is such a freak athlete (tall, runs a 4.6), he could probably be a dangerous receiver. Croom has shown a knack for putting guys in the right positions, at least over time through trial and error.

 

[DowntownDawg]

...while it is very encouraging that we have some good wr's finally committed, the logic of "We've won without them, we didn't need them" makes absolutely zero sense. If we use the same logic that many used on Cohen and threw out his first two years, we are 11-14. That's not exactly "winning without them." And the offense has most definitely not gotten better from 2004-2007, except that we hit an extreme low point when Henig was hurt in early 2006 and Rutland had to come in, and we have gotten modestly better from that.

My opinion is that it's great that we are finally getting some WR help, but the complaint that the first good receivers are finally coming in the class of 2009 is a very valid one.

 

[Goat Holder]

The ONLY fact you spewed was that we were 17-30. Not to mention most of that was when the offense was the least of our concerns.

Like I said, just quit.

 

[BriantheDawg]

nt

 

[muddawgs33]

We have never had any good qbs or wrs.

Burks had 850 yards and 5 touchdowns just a over a year ago. I would consider that good. I think the QB situation had alot to do with his numbers dropping off this past year, considering we didn't throw the deep ball very much with Carroll.

 

[Goat Holder]

We obviously didn't need them to win 8 games. We also obviously could have used them to make winning those games easier and maybe to even win a few more games.

I disagree about our offense getting better. I think it has. I saw many many more sustained drives in 2007 than I did in 2004-2006.

 

[Goat Holder]

at the last minute to Alabama/Florida/Tennessee.

 

[maroonmania]

Willie Harris and Olanda Truitt was pretty dang good back in the early 90's. No, we didn't gave great passing QBs back then, but both of those WRs were high quality SEC ball players. Truitt even played in the NFL for 5 years or so. Of course these guys were followed by Eric Moulds, who was one of the most electrifying players I have ever seen in an MSU uniform. Some of the runs and catches he made while at MSU were worth the price of admission by themselves.

 

[cowbell9]

nm

 

[Shmuley]

nm

 

[8dog]

maybe it would have helped us move the ball or sustain more drives against TN and keep our defense (and punt unit) off the field and establish better field position.

Additionally, last year we had Burks and Jamayel. This year, we only have Jamayel. And that's the point, he didn't use the last 2-3 years to have WRs ready to contribute and take the place of a guy like Burks.

 

[Goat Holder]

nm

 

[DowntownDawg]

14 games we lost over the last two years? I don't understand your argument. We damn well need all the talent we can get on that side of the ball. Any team that doesn't win the national championship has some "needs," and to say that we didn't need better receivers last year, or especially the year before when we won 3 games makes zero sense.

 

[Goat Holder]

Here's another thought: Read my post.

"We also obviously could have used them to make winning those games easier and maybe to even win a few more games."

 

[patdog]

Offense still ****** - FACT - last in SEC in almost every category, including scoring (unless you want to give the offense credit for touchdowns scored by the DEFENSE).

Didn't move the ball well last year - FACT - see above.

Arkansas defense ****** - FACT - Gave up the second most points in the SEC last year.

Only started moving the ball on Arkansas after they got a huge lead - FACT - Arkansas was up 31-10 in the middle of the 3rd quarter before we started moving the ball and scoring.

4 interceptions vs Arkansas - FACT

Look, I'm as glad as anybody that recruiting is going to well this year and I give Croom full credit for it. But it doesn't change the fact that his performance on the offensive side of the ball has been worse than I'd even imagined an MSU offense could possibly be for a 4-year period so far. If he can bring in the kind of talent he's bringing in this year, that might change in the future.

 

[8dog]

that your position is ludicrous. Clearly, we needed then and now better receivers.

Hell, why are we wasting scholarships on Tyler Russell. We won 8 games last year without an SEC caliber QB.

 

[thelaw]

Goat Holder,

It doesn't mater how many wrs you have if ole Woody runs it up the gut on 3rd and long everytime.

 

[Goat Holder]

We can always get better. Like I said, we need a good QB and WRs to ever win anything big (SEC, BCS game, etc.). But we are improving, and with improvement comes more talent, in all facets of the game. We won 8 games last year with a stout defense and solid special teams, so adding offensive talent should take us to the next level.

I'm not disagreeing or arguing. Jackie won in much the same way.

 

[Goat Holder]

Probably because we want to win more than 8 games and a Liberty Bowl. I would prefer an SEC title.

Of course we need better receivers. But we didn't need them last year to win 8 games. That is, however, contingent on our defense and special teams holding up.

Nothing ludicrous about that, pal.

 

[patdog]

I saw many many more sustained drives in 2007 than I did in 2004-2006.

Yards per game:

2004: 303.2
2005: 276.2
2006: 286.8
2007: 297.2

Croom's "best" year offensively was his first year. Improvements from 2005 to 2007 have been pretty meager. When the SEC as a whole is averaging 385 yards per game, does it really matter all that much if our offense averages 276 or 303?

 

[DerHntr]

we haven't broken the 100 mark in offensive rankings since croom has been here. what part of that is it that you see as improvement?

for me, i saw some sustained drives last year. but i saw them in other seasons too and i don't think there were more last year than any other of Croom's seasons. we simply had a better defense and were able to win games by holding on for dear life by being good at defense and making plays at opportune times, which is what good defenses do.

if anything, i saw us minimizing mistakes on offense AFTER croom's preferred QB got hurt (not that I wanted him hurt but that is the situation that unfolded). by minimizing mistakes we helped ourselves out with better field position and then made the plays necessary to win. i couldn't give croom more credit for this. but.....to say the offense from an offensive numbers standpoint has improved is simply wrong in my opinion. we did what we had to so that we could win and i am glad for that but we did it despite the productivity of our offense. and for me, if we can continue to win the same number of games for a while by having a much less than mediocre offense and a great defense, then i am happy. i'll ***** about the offense but overall i will simply be glad we are back to winning.

 

[DowntownDawg]

...it's much more plausible to say that we sucked, and therefore we couldn't get good players, and now that we won we are able to get good players, than it is to say we didn't have good receivers because we didn't need them.

We needed alot from 2004-2007, including receivers.

 

[bonedaddy401]

patdog wrote: _________________________________________________

I saw many many more sustained drives in 2007 than I did in 2004-2006.

Yards per game:

2004: 303.2
2005: 276.2
2006: 286.8
2007: 297.2

Croom's "best" year offensively was his first year. Improvements from 2005 to 2007 have been pretty meager. When the SEC as a whole is averaging 385 yards per game, does it really matter all that much if our offense averages 276 or 303?

</p>to argue with. If we can't get over the 300 ypg mark this year I think a lot of people are going to walk away disappointed. I seriously doubt we have as many clutch pick six occasions as we had last year. Getting the WR talent is crucial but they are just another body until they produce on the field. Not only will we see if Croom can utilize his talent but also if he is a good judge of offensive talent.

I personally think he is (see his NFL experience) but it is a lot easier to judge a college standout than a high school standout.

Nice statistical find. I think we need to be at 315 a game at least next year if we hope to duplicate the success we had last year.

 

[Frances Drebin]

Last year was a fluke. Our defense is not going to score touchdowns every year like it did last year. Take away three of those scores last year and we're 4-8 with the exact same offensive production.