ESPN previews SEC West

[RebelBruiser]

"We weren't the "better" team last year. Yes, we happen to have won the game, but that doesn't necessarily make us the better team.
Better teams lose games all the time - it's why the term "upset" was coined."

Will someone explain to me what the better team is if it isn't the team that won??? That has gotta be one of the worst statements I have ever read on here.

</p>

I don't think this necessarily applied to State and Auburn last year, because you were basically on the same plane, and that's the way the game was played, but Stanford beat USC last year. Was Stanford the better team than USC? Definitely not.

They may have been the better team for that day because USC had an off day and had some tough injuries, but USC was definitely the better team all season. If they played that game 10 times, USC probably would've won 9 of them. The best team doesn't always win every game. The Celtics were better than the Lakers, but even so they didn't win every single game of the series.

For that matter, if the best team won every game, there would be no reason to have a 7 game series, because every series would be a sweep.

 

[patdog]

Your logic that we should beat Bama & Auburn just because we beat them last year is so weak, it's hard to believe you're even being serious.

We beat Auburn on the road last year. NO excuse not to beat them at home. If you want to base everything on their offense from one BOWL game, go ahead, but I'm not sold on Auburn being the team to beat in the West just yet. We're improved, they're improved, the game's in Starkville, Bulldogs win.

I don't base everything on that one bowl game. I do base it on the entire season last year. Auburn had a better team than we did, they had a better record than we did, and they went to (and won) a better bowl than we did. They're probably improved, but we're not. I hope we can win, but I think Auburn wins that game.

Same thing with Alabama. We've owned their offense the last two years and all of a sudden they're a lot better on that side now? Because of who? A freshman wide-out? An offensive line we've had no problem with the last two years? And don't bring up losing Titus. There's still a lot of strength and speed on our D-line. Losing to Bama shouldn't be a given. Yes, it's in T-Town, but we won there two years ago with a weaker team. Basically...it's doable.

We beat a Mike Shula coached team in Tuscaloosa 2 years ago. I somehow think Nick Saban just might be able to get a little more out of his players than Shula did. I guess if we're not going to bring up losing Titus, we may as well not bring up losing Brown or Johnson either. Bottom line is, this will be a tough game to win. We've only won there twice in the last 50 years.

 

[patdog]

Their issue was their coach was too dumb to realize that the 5th year senior QB who would go on to beat Florida in the Swamp a couple of weeks later was the QB he should have been playing for the whole game instead on only 1/4 of it. If Tubby doesn't pull Cox after ONE bad pass, that game would have turned out differently. Not saying we couldn't have still won it, but we'd have had a hell of a lot harder time shutting their offense down.

 

[FlabLoser]

Yes, we one because we played lights out defense.

Now ask yourself this question - is our defense going to be as good or better than last year?

No? Then let's all hope our offense shows some competence this year. Last year's Kentucky game, our first and only complete game on offense, needs to become an average day for us.

 

[Afro Dawg]

And as far as QB issues go, I'd say us playing 3 QBs that day and then running seven straight times on the game-winning drive is the very meaning of QB issues. Either way, it's pointless to argue about last year now, but this season's game shouldn't be chalked up as an automatic AU win. I know that's the thing to do since we all hate MSU so much, but where's the proof that Auburn won't have the same QB issues this year? Plus it's at home, at night, should have one of the most jacked-up crowds at DWS in a while, so I'd say the chances for a win are definitely there.

 

[Goat Holder]

We were destroying Cox. He had zero confidence. He hadn't done anything remotely successful that day. Mainly because our defense was swarming and his FIRST pass of the game was a TD for the other team. That can sting you quite a bit.

Kodi Burns was the reason it was 14-13 at the half and not 0-13 or maybe even 0-20.

And I know we intercepted two of his passes that day. So how the 17 did he get pulled after one bad pass? Hell they are both on Youtube.

 

[patdog]

We're just disputing the guy who said we WOULD beat Auburn this year. Auburn will be favored to win that game and they will be favored to win it for good reason. They will have a better team than we will, despite the fact they will have QB issues again all year unless the JUCO guy they signed can take over and get the job done. But as has been pointed out, the better team doesn't always win, especially when it's on the road. So while I'm not predicting us to win that game, I'm certainly not saying it's one we can't win.

 

[DowntownDawg]

It wasn't by accident that we did it at the right times.

That's heresy to many on this board. Don't you know that we won 8 games by sheer luck?

 

[DowntownDawg]

...you are exactly right on this one. Cox was consistently terrible that day. You can debate whether or not we had anything to do with it, but he was terrible. Leave him out there and we win by more than 5. If it wasn't for Burns, we would've had the lead at halftime.

Some people are unbelievable. Going back and changing facts to suit their argument against Croom.

 

[TBonewannabe]

We CAN beat AU and Bama, not should but maybe 40% chance. I think we might possibly be favored in UM, 55% and Ark 60%. LSU is a loss 0 %. UT is a possibility 30%. UK 70% and Vandy 70% we should beat . We should win all our nonconference 95% with Gtech 60% being a slight lean to us.

So out of the whole schedule I see only one sure fire loss. The rest will be decided in the season. Injuries and how new coaches and new offenses are working will decide. Our big ? naturally is the offense. Can Carroll improve and actually complete passes down field? Will our so called receivers actually catch the ball? Will the Oline keep improving like it has under Croom?

I believe our season will live and die by our receivers. We are good enough on the Oline and QB to make some noise. It will all boil down to can we catch the ball and will Woody call plays like he did at UK.

 

[patdog]

At the time Cox was pulled, he had thrown 2 passes. One of which hit his receivers perfectly in the hands for what should have been a 10-yard gain and the other of which was intercepted 25 yards downfield on a 3rd down play (not too much different result than a punt would have been after an incomplete pass). He hadn't been sacked. That's hardly a QB who has been destroyed by a defense. Hell, most of our QB's would call that a good day.

 

[jamdawg96]

We beat them at their place! And they had a better record.. by ONE game. The Stanford logic applies in extreme upsets, but that's not the case with Auburn and State. The only team they beat that we didn't was Arkansas. Sure, they had the win over Florida... who pounded Tennessee... who pounded Georgia... who pounded Auburn. So you could go on and on about who beat who, who beat who, who beat who, but guess what? It doesn't matter. The best way to compare two teams is how they fared against each other. And we won. We were better. So what if it was just that day? That's all we have to go on. Match-ups are an important factor in determining how teams will do against their opponents. And yes, I'm stating the obvious so you can see how your logic stacks up.

Let's think here... One reason our secondary is so highly regarded this year is because of the numbers they put up last year. Case in point... the AUBURN game. We picked 'em off three times. They had nothing through the air. That's why they didn't match up well with us. We could put several guys in the box to contain the run and not risk getting beat deep. We also blew them off the line of scrimmage late in the game and were able to sustain our rushing attack and grind the clock. You want an excuse for Auburn? Try Brad Lester. He didn't play. He could've been the difference last year, but guess what? He didn't play against Florida either. And they still won there, so I guess that's out too. Yes, Auburn is probably improved, but we're not? This year's season hasn't started yet. How could you know that? Meanwhile, I'm speaking in hypothetical terms for the upcoming season, based on last year's FACTS. Get that straight before you call my logic weak.

And yeah, Saban got just as much out of his guys as Shula did against us... A LOSS. So you got that going against ya too. And again, I never said we would win any of these games. I just said CONSIDER the following, to give you a scenario, which is logical based on last year's results (which tend to help people predict how teams will do the following year). It's a fun thought. But it's only that... a thought. Don't argue against opinion with things that aren't true, or can't be proven, that you accept as facts. It'll (almost) never win.

In closing... there's no need for "weak" minded attitudes. I'm just showing you that faith and facts can create a beautiful thing: optimism. Try it some time.

 

[OMlawdog]

the issue was the O-line after MSU manhandled AU's O-line, AU started Ramsey and Ziemba the following week or whenever they played FL.

Ramsey and Ziemba really stabilized the line for AU and their OL should be a real strength this year.

 

[bulldogbaja]

Maybe you should hit up RobbieRandolf.

(I don't really care about the Auburn QB argument, it was just too easy to pass up.)</p>

 

[OEMDawg]

It is refreshing to see someone that has some common sense posting in this thread. A lot of these pro-Crooms sheep responses are just stupid.

Jamdawg, you are an idiot.....

 

[WillemWallace]

I hate you **** that say we won because of turnovers, we weren't better, etc. Take your **** elsewhere. We were the better team because we scored more points, you know, the object of the game. Last time I checked, the good teams are the ones that won the most games.</p>

Yeah, we just "upset" Auburn, Kentucky and Alabama in the same year. Give me a 17-ing break. We got better because we had a QB that didn't make stupid decisions.</p>

...using your logic, App State was better than Michigan last year.

I don't think even you would argue for that one....

...but I wouldn't be surprised.

"Last time I looked," AU won more games than MSU last year.

So, I guess AU was the better team.

Which would lead to the already discussed term of "upset." </p>

 

[jamdawg96]

OEMDawg, way to get in on things with an intelligent comment. I don't mind the haters, but please, if you're going to post an insulting reply, please do so with evidence. Otherwise you just sound like a punk.

I was simply trying to show the doubters that there was a chance, based on reasonable predictions and facts, that State could tie for the West if we perform well and the other teams fall victim where they should. I'm not being a sheep, just making a point. I cover the SEC on a daily basis. So most of the time, I know what the hell I'm talking about. I realize Auburn should be good this year. Tony Franklin's system should work well with the talent they have if the quarterback position is stable. And I realize most people think Alabama will be better than us, although most of that is still the "Saban mystique" and not based on the players he'll put on the field.

The numbers don't lie. We've beaten both of those teams on their own turf recently, and with most of the same guys going up against each other this year, it's not out of the question to say we'll have a good chance to hang in there with both of 'em.

As of now, however, I personally think State will finish 3rd in the West and end up in the Music City Bowl... or possibly the Chic-Fil-A Bowl. But we'll see.

 

[WillemWallace]

Stansfield,

You think App State was better than Michigan last year?

Sincerely,

Reality</p>

 

[Coach34]

"way to get in on things with an intelligent comment. I don't mind the haters, but please, if you're going to post an insulting reply, please do so with evidence."

Here's your evidence:

1. Crooms heads up our offense. We run his system. We have yet to show a competent offense in 4 years.
2. We finished 113th in total offense- only 4 out of 20 teams finshed 6-6 or better that ranked 100th or lower in total offense. Lightning wont strike twice in a row
3. We lost some good OL guys and our best WR. Carroll will be a year older but we cant score. We couldnt even score in our own damn Spring Game.
4. We have a 1st year DC. He is going to make mistakes, count on it.</p>

You can be a fan of a school without being a sheep. We have weaknesses. We will struggle to run the ball in big games, and we still cant throw the football. We have a rookie DC and lost one helluva DE. LSU, Auburn, Bammer have better teams than we do. We are about even with Mississippi but we have to play at their place. Whats funny, the two other teams that struggled on offense in the West (Auburn and Mississippi), changed offenses. Yet we stand pat and even give ours a raise.

We have more of an outside shot at 6th than we do 1st in the West</p>

 

[TBonewannabe]

have new coordinators. So isn't that kind of a moronic comment? Bama = new O coord, AU = both?, UM = entire new staff, Ark = new staff. We promoted someone to run the exact same defense.

Very rarely do new coaches come in and improve very much from the year before. Such as Saban who everyone knows names his score before the game he is so godlike.

 

[Coach34]

Bama's new OC?- led the 38th ranked NCAA offense last year
Auburn?- both Coordinators have experience..and we saw their new OC in the bowl game make them much better in 8 practices than they were all season...not to mention their Head Coach was a very successful DC
Mississippi?- Their offense did well in its years in AR-Kansas
Ar-Kansas?- their offense is led by a very successful offensive guru

What do we have? A guy who has never been a DC and was a WR coach 2 years ago

Your and idiot

 

[jamdawg96]

And although I disagree with you, I do appreciate you at least offering up some facts (mostly) to go with your opinion.

In response: I see what you're saying, statistically, but can you at least admit that we have a good chance at a great season?

Enough with the offense. Wins trump stats. End of discussion. You walked right into that one, Coach. And as for this coming season, we should have as much depth on the O-Line as we've had under Croom, more talent at the skill positions than we've had in a while, and TWO quarterbacks I feel pretty good about. Yes, Tyson Lee. The guy can play. To quote the crackhead from Half Baked, "I seen him!" And another thing, our best WR is coming back. His name is Jamayel Smith. Maybe you saw his 200-yard game last year. That unit will be as good as it's been under Croom, which doesn't say a whole lot, but they should be able to open up the run game a lot more this year.

And even if our offense struggles at times, we still have basically the same defense that "won" (as you'd suggest) eight games last year. And just to be cliche, the best offense, as you may know Coach, is a good defense. Especially one that can score. Our secondary shouldn't miss a beat (they might be the best in the conference even without Johnson), and our LB's will be tough as nails (Chaney, Douglas, Wright). My only concern is the D-Line, but again, there's plenty of experience there (Love, Bowman, Bailey), and a decent amount of depth. Now I'm not saying we'll have as many pick-6's this year. THAT would be lightning striking twice. But to suggest we don't have a chance at a good season is just foolish.

We won't be world beaters, but ****, give 'em a chance. You (a coach) of all people should know this. Those that expect the worst are usually just afraid of failure. Or used to it. You gotta believe god damn it... Anyways, I'm done with this ****. This topic, I mean, for now. It's July and we're talking like it's the last week in August. The beauty of college football, I guess.

 

[Coach34]

"wins trump stats"

only in 2007. They didnt however in 2004, 2005, and 2006...And I will say while you are working at 25% of being right, it's even less than that

"And as for this coming season, we should have as much depth on the O-Line as we've had under Croom"

depth is good, but doesnt ensure success. We were the worst in the SEC last year at yards per rush, and we had a better OL last year

"That unit will be as good as it's been under Croom"

while better at QB, we still have the same RB's getting the majority of the carries. Our OL is worse, and losing Burke is going to hurt. Their best CB will be on Smith now, not Burke. As far as seeing Tyson Lee, thats all well and good, but we couldnt score in the Spring Game for a reason. When our offense matches up against a decent defense, it cant produce. Period. We have remained 100+ on offense for a reason, and that isnt going to change.

Defensively, we will be pretty good. I think this unit will score less, and give up a few more big plays. But its still the strength of the team and keep us in games.

I was like you were about our teams from the time I was 4 until 34. But once you get away a little and see it from a distance, its easier to see it more truthfully. And the truth is, we are an average team with a poor offensive scheme. Our schedule gives us a chance to be successful, too bad our offense doesnt.</p>

</p>

</p>

 

[Reb95]

a stout defense over a good offense any day. That is how State won the games last year. With a new DC I only wonder if the intensity will remain on the field. The talent is still there but intensity kept y'all in games with forced turnovers.

I like the order and the picks. I believe Ole Miss will be lucky to win 3 SEC games.

 

[Coach34]

and too many people say it-

"I would take a stout defense over a good offense any day."

Why do you have to choose? Why cant you be competent on both sides of the ball? Ar-Kansas had a great offense and a ****** defense and ended up in the Cotton Bowl. Why does it have to be one or the other?

I'd prefer to have a good defense and a good offense. People win lots more games with teams like that rather than being one-sided

 

[TR.sixpack]

Does it hurt to speak out of both sides of your mouth so much?

 

[HD6]

Says the braniac who believes you can't have talent and character, you have to choose choirboys who can't play or thugs who can.

Why do we have to choose? Because we aren't LSU or USC that recruits five stars to every position, that's why. Our best athletes are on defense, so that's our strength. The teams that are strong on both sides compete for national titles, not the Music City Bowl. And for the time being, that's where we are.

And what exactly does your Arkansas example prove? You showed another one-sided team that went to a bowl. And lots of one-sided teams win lots of games. Virginia Tech was terrible offensively last year, they went to the Orange Bowl. Texas Tech can't stop anybody, but they went to the Gator Bowl.

 

[HD6]

on Harbison just shows your ignorance. The guy coached WR's early in his career, Bama brought him in to do it, and he did well. His last stint as a DB's coach, he did well. Do you just not believe that a guy could be succesful as a coach on both sides of the ball? Is it just beyond your comprehension?

The fact that he coached WR's two years ago has exactly zero bearing on whether or not he'll be a successful defensive coordinator.

 

[TR.sixpack]

some slack for moving around. Bama thought enough of him to bring him on, even coaching a non-defensive position. Of course Saban let him go, but again, you'd think a FORMER coach would understand that good assistants get fired all the time during regime changes. Besides, Croom kicked started C34's hero, Ellis Johnson's career -- so I'll give him the benefit of doubt with DCs.

It's clear Coach34 has a position staked and will contort himself into any number of positions to defend it.

 

[Coach34]

"Says the braniac who believes you can't have talent and character, you have to choose choirboys who can't play or thugs who can."

I never said that. I said we have enough damn character, we need some players that can ball. Their character level isnt as important as their ability to make plays

"Why do we have to choose? Because we aren't LSU or USC that recruits five stars to every position, that's why."

But UPig, Missouri, Kansas, Wisconsin, and West Virginia can? Riiiiiightttttt...those teams are managing to put together good teams on both sides of the ball- sans UPig this past season. And those arent exactly recruiting hotbeds, they just have had good coaches

"And what exactly does your Arkansas example prove?"

It proved exactly what I meant it to prove moron. He said if he had the choice of a good offense or good defense, he'd choose defense every time. I showed him an example of where a good offense can get you. Cotton Bowl > Liberty Bowl. Florida is another example. Their defense was worse than ours by 20 spots, but they have an offense. So, basically, I have blown to hell the "give me a good defense every time" argument

 

[WillemWallace]

...you won't be disappointed with less than 8 wins?

Because I always thought the goal was to win MORE games than the year before, not less....

Guess I was wrong.

 

[jamdawg96]

I said I was done but I just couldn't resist...

Your honor, I present the following:

Exhibit A
TOTAL DEFENSE

Exhibit B
TOTAL OFFENSE

Take a good look at the Top 4 teams in particular on both lists.

Nebraska's a good example too. They take Coach34's new "best defense is a good offense" philosophy and put it to test in the major conference ranks...

9th ranked Offense
112th ranked Defense

5-7 record

Go write a book, genius. And put this on the back cover.. It's science:

Nevermind that a grand total of ZERO teams from major conferences with defenses not ranked in the Top 70 had 8 wins. And don't pay any attention to the fact that EIGHT teams from BCS schools that had offenses ranked outside the Top 70 had 8 wins or more. Teams like Georgia, Wake Forest, Auburn, Virginia Tech, even Mississippi State. Coach34 is here to tell you why he'll take an offense any day. His secret: He doesn't care about wins. He cares about mythical, statistical championships, and he thinks you should too...

Would you like to know more ? . . .

 

[megadawgmaniac]

Bama's new OC?- led the 38th ranked NCAA offense last year
Auburn?- both Coordinators have experience..and we saw their new OC in the bowl game make them much better in 8 practices than they were all season...not to mention their Head Coach was a very successful DC
Mississippi?- Their offense did well in its years in AR-Kansas
Ar-Kansas?- their offense is led by a very successful offensive guru

What do we have? A guy who has never been a DC and was a WR coach 2 years ago

Your and idiot

</p>Bama's new OC? Also coached special teams.
Auburn's new OC? Former indoor football coach.
Auburn's new DC? Never been a DC before.

Croom spent 10 years coaching linebackers at Alabama, a couple of them named Cornelius Bennett and Derrick Thomas.
Fulmer once coached both offensive line and linebackers during a four year period.

Mississippi's offense did well in Arkansas? That one just can't be explained.

AA - but you'll find a way

 

[TBonewannabe]

not saying you have to sacrifice the offense to do that but when you have a guy who could play WR or DB, Croom has moved him to Defense first. Defense gives you the best chance at winning. 1999 is a prime example of that. That offense was pathetic. Alot worse than last year by ALOT. I am not saying that I think Croom's gulf coast Offense is going to work but with Carroll running it, it should be drastically better than when Money Mike was at QB. Like I said before, our O will come down to play calling and receivers actually catching the ball. Smith is the only receiver I have any faith in. Our Oline is better with depth across the line. Mike Brown did hurt us but not like in years past when we had noone behind him.

Our new defensive coordinator is an unknown commodity. He could continue what Johnson had going or he could be horrible. To say he will be bad before the season even starts is moronic. The defense has the players to be one of the better ones in the SEC.</p>

 

[stevo1a]

Harbison's D did pitch a shutout in the spring game.

 

[Coach34]

"Defense gives you the best chance at winning. 1999 is a prime example of that. That offense was pathetic. Alot worse than last year by ALOT."

88 Mississippi St. -------------- 718 3562 323.82 (1999)

<table class="statstable" align="center"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="crailbg">113</td> <td class="crailbg">Mississippi St.</td> <td class="crailbg">13</td> <td>880</td> <td>3863</td> <td>4.39</td> <td>36</td> <td>297.15</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

Clearly you dont know what you are talking about. I'll just leave it at that

 

[TR.sixpack]

<span class="post-title">Are you stating that</span> ...you won't be disappointed with less than 8 wins?

Because I always thought the goal was to win MORE games than the year before, not less....

Guess I was wrong.

For the record, I think we will win 5 to 8 games this year. The question isn't what the goal of the team is, the question is what win total will be disappointing to you. For me it's 6 wins or less.

Anyone who thinks we will win 9 games or more lives in fantasyland.

 

[Coach34]

here's why i'll be disappointed if we cant win 8 games:

we have 5 gimme wins- LaTech, SELa, Middle Tenn, Vandy, and Kentucky

we also have 3 more games a good coaching staff can win- UPig, GaTech, and Mississippi

UPig is at home, they are down, and totally switching offensive direction. If we dont beat them this year, its going to be awhile before we do
GaTech is a little down, and totally switching offensive direction. Now is a great time to play them
Mississippi is no better than us talent-wise, we may even be better top to bottom. Its also our rival.</p>

8 wins is attainable with a good coaching staff. Personally, I think we win 5-6.</p>

 

[HD6]

I know you don't believe a word you type, you just do it as some sort of hobby. I don't know why I respond, but I do. Anyhoo......

Are we at least going to be fair and look at the teams those schools play? Wisconsin plays in the Big 10, not exactly a good league. They gave up 501 yards and 34 points to a 1-11 Minnesota team, and 31 points to the Citadel. West Virginia, can our conference games include Louisville and Syracuse? Kansas played a schedule that was widely considered the worst in college football. And Mizzou wasn't very good defensively, they finished 59th overall. For God's sake, they gave up 534 yards of offense to Ole Miss.

And do you think it was less the flashy offense and more the fact that Arkansas beat us that got them a better bowl over us?

 

[HammerOfTheDogs]

Both teams fired a career assistant who was a good recruiter but a lousy Head coach. Both teams had good talent coming back, but it wasn't properly coached. Both teams have a great Head Coach with a shady past in their first year. Nobody expects/expected anything from either team. Both will probably lose/lost to Alabama after getting 17ed over by the refs. Both beat/will probably beat their rival, who in the previous year had a season that had their fanbase crowing that "We's back!"