ESPN previews SEC West
- Thread starter msubullie4life
- Start date
- Status
WillemWallace said:
Yes, just look at the score of the game. If Michigan was better then they would have a W against App., but they have the big L. Thus App. was better then Michigan last year. There really is no arguing the fact.
</p>
...I bet we lose TWO of the gimme games, plus we go back and forfeit the Ole Miss game from last year because Orgeron is not the coach anymore, and he "gave" us the game.
</sarcasm, negative, whining, refuse to acknowledge anything good about the football team and coach croom contest>
</sarcasm, negative, whining, refuse to acknowledge anything good about the football team and coach croom contest>
and raise you two more wins that we should count as losses from last year because the only reason we won them is because of pick-6's, of course those games being Bama & AU. Everyone knows that points from pick-6's should not really count for M-State. They were just pure luck, you know, lightning in a bottle so to speak.
I feel like ESPN knows what they are talking about this time. I will be disapointed with less than an 8 win season, but I can see us going 6-6, 7-5....We could be between 3rd and 5th. I feel like we will all know more after week 2.
What is the point of Offense? I would think it was scoring points. last year we averaged 21.9. 1999 we averaged 21.6. We also had better rushing last year than 1999 which translates to better ball control. 1999 we also had the #1 ranked defense which gave us more opportunities for Offense. Sorry to bring logic into the argument. As always Coach is right. I will admit. I thought 1999 was alot worse than last year. Could be because I went to all those games and witnessed the crappy offense firsthand. I don't approve of the offense now and I wish Croom would change but I will give them this year to show something since we have a QB now.</p>
....and I was being serious when I was making fun of your refusal to be fair to Coach Croom or the football program.
We had a great year last year, but many of the wins were by the skin of our teeth. That doesn't bode particulary well for continuing that success in the following year, especially when you bullheadedly refuse to do anything at all to improve the black hole that is our offense. Hell, not only did we not do anything to improve the offense, we committed ourself to a 2-year contract and a large raise to reward the continued failure of the offense.
Stansfield said:
</p>
So Georgia was better than Fresno State right? Obviously, in a one game shot, they beat Fresno State, which means they are better. Nevermind that they played twice more with FSU winning.
And what about in 1996. Florida State was obviously better than Florida. After all, they won the head to head match up 27-24. Too bad they had to play again, and Florida beat FSU by 32. So which one is the better team if they both won against each other?
What about this past season? Was Arkansas not the best team in the country? After all, they beat the national champions, and therefore by your logic, they were a better team than the national champions. And Stanford should've been in the Rose Bowl. After all, they beat USC who went to the Rose Bowl, so they were a better team than USC.
Point is, in a one game match up anything can happen. You might be the better team on that day, but it doesn't mean you are necessarily the better team overall.
patdog said:
It's also a fact that he had gone 16-35 against USF with two picks in a home loss and 17-30 with two picks in a close win over K State to open it. His confidence was shaky coming into that game, and completely shot after the Pegues pick 6. The second interception forced Tuberville and Borges to try something different because the J-H crown would have gone into all out revolt if Cox had gone back out for the next series. He was getting booed pretty heavily, to the point the Dean of Students sent an email to the student body asking them not to boo.
</p>
G
Goat Holder
Guest
I personally think we were better, you personally think we were lucky. We'll find out soon enough.
trends toward .500 over time. The reason is that in games that are not close, luck can't make any difference in the outcome, while in games that are close it can determine who wins and who loses. I researched Mike Kzychevski's record a year or so ago to make this point. I'm not checking it again, but I found that he won something like 60% of games that were decided by 7 points or less and something like 85% of games that were decided by more than 7 points. Last year we were 4-0 in close games. That's great. But we're not going to continue to win every close game we play. To continue to win 8 games per year, we're going to have to improve as a team. And you don't improve by losing several key players and ignoring your biggest weakness.
RebelBruiser said:
You just said that the better team won that day. How can you argue when you just admited that the better team won?
</p>
patdog said:
The difference is that in 2006 we lost some key games by the skin of our teeth. Then in 2007 we were able to win those games by the one touchdown, or one kickoff defecit that we screwed up the year before. That shows that when we made an improvement on converting those close games to benefit us. So in 2008 we should continue that trend and build even more upon those little things that we missed in 2006 and found in 2007.
</p>
...it's that you have a Peachesesque track record (just in football, mind you) of taking a set of facts and twisting them around to fitting your established viewpoint instead of letting the set of facts determine your viewpoint.
You decided a long time ago (for whatever reason, I'm not going to touch that) that in your mind, we can't be successful under Croom. Maybe you decided it when we hired him and we didn't hire Fisher, or maybe you decided it after the Maine game, or maybe you decided it after we won 9 games in his first 3 years, but you aren't budging from that. Last year was the ultimate fluke to you since, in your mind, we can't be successful under Croom. Since we were successful under him last year, we were just "lucky." But in order to support your argument, you post about how we wouldn't have won if it wasn't for all those pick sixes (which has been proven wrong time and time again), and then yesterday, you blame Auburn's coaching staff for our victory over them last year, when Cox was absolutely terrible all damn day. You also blamed "Croom's conservative offense" for the loss against South Carolina, even though we happened to be starting an extremely inexperienced quarterback, AND the tide of the game turned on a blocked punt, which you refused to acknowledge.. But no, it had to be Croom's fault because you don't like the man.
And here we go again. This year, it's "well, we won 8 games, so we should win 8 or more, but Croom can't coach, so we won't. And by the way, if we win six and go bowling, that doesn't defeat my argument because that's not good enough." It's just brutally unfair. Why do you not want to pull for the man? All he does is generate tons of positive publicity for your alma mater, and he also is an extremely likable guy who his players really respect.
It's gotten past the point of ridiculous with both you and Peaches (which is expected with him), but you obviously are capable of having rational thoughts and don't post things just to try to get internet attention.
You decided a long time ago (for whatever reason, I'm not going to touch that) that in your mind, we can't be successful under Croom. Maybe you decided it when we hired him and we didn't hire Fisher, or maybe you decided it after the Maine game, or maybe you decided it after we won 9 games in his first 3 years, but you aren't budging from that. Last year was the ultimate fluke to you since, in your mind, we can't be successful under Croom. Since we were successful under him last year, we were just "lucky." But in order to support your argument, you post about how we wouldn't have won if it wasn't for all those pick sixes (which has been proven wrong time and time again), and then yesterday, you blame Auburn's coaching staff for our victory over them last year, when Cox was absolutely terrible all damn day. You also blamed "Croom's conservative offense" for the loss against South Carolina, even though we happened to be starting an extremely inexperienced quarterback, AND the tide of the game turned on a blocked punt, which you refused to acknowledge.. But no, it had to be Croom's fault because you don't like the man.
And here we go again. This year, it's "well, we won 8 games, so we should win 8 or more, but Croom can't coach, so we won't. And by the way, if we win six and go bowling, that doesn't defeat my argument because that's not good enough." It's just brutally unfair. Why do you not want to pull for the man? All he does is generate tons of positive publicity for your alma mater, and he also is an extremely likable guy who his players really respect.
It's gotten past the point of ridiculous with both you and Peaches (which is expected with him), but you obviously are capable of having rational thoughts and don't post things just to try to get internet attention.
G
Goat Holder
Guest
football scores are less than basketball scores and are made in different increments, so you have to adjust for that.
And you don't think our remaining players are going to be better? You don't think our offense improved from '06 to '07? Stands to reason it would happen again.
And you don't think our remaining players are going to be better? You don't think our offense improved from '06 to '07? Stands to reason it would happen again.
"we're loaded with seniors" part of your bipolar argument? It must be tough to switch from "the team sucks and we'll be lucky to finish 5th in the SECW" line to the "we've got the talent to win 8 games" line.
I agree with you patdog. Occasionally you get that year where all the close ones go your way. Ohio State's national title team in 2002 is a good example.
These were their close games:
at Cincinnati - W 23-19 (trailed 19-14 after 3 quarters)
at Wisconsin - W 19-14 (trailed 14-13 after 3 quarters)
Penn State - W 13-7
at Purdue - W 10-6 (tied at 3 after 3 quarters)
at Illinois - W 23-16 (OT)
Michigan - W 14-9 (trailed 9-7 after 3 quarters)
Miami - W 31-24 (OT)
They went 13-0 on the season and went 7-0 in games decided by 7 points or less. They were a good team with a very good defense, but teams typically don't get years like that where they win that many close games. If you're in a lot of close games, you're typically going to have a bounce or two go the other way.
In contrast, Texas in 2005 had 2 games decided by one score or less. One was at Ohio State, and the other was the national title game against USC.
These were their close games:
at Cincinnati - W 23-19 (trailed 19-14 after 3 quarters)
at Wisconsin - W 19-14 (trailed 14-13 after 3 quarters)
Penn State - W 13-7
at Purdue - W 10-6 (tied at 3 after 3 quarters)
at Illinois - W 23-16 (OT)
Michigan - W 14-9 (trailed 9-7 after 3 quarters)
Miami - W 31-24 (OT)
They went 13-0 on the season and went 7-0 in games decided by 7 points or less. They were a good team with a very good defense, but teams typically don't get years like that where they win that many close games. If you're in a lot of close games, you're typically going to have a bounce or two go the other way.
In contrast, Texas in 2005 had 2 games decided by one score or less. One was at Ohio State, and the other was the national title game against USC.
Remember that argument? It's just as pathetic. We call called it out then, and I am calling you out now.
You are who your record says you are, no matter if you won or lost games by 3 points or less. I'm sure you were going around talking about how sorry we really were after 1999.
You are who your record says you are, no matter if you won or lost games by 3 points or less. I'm sure you were going around talking about how sorry we really were after 1999.
Stansfield said:
</p>
You are freaking dense. Was Stanford better than USC last year? Would they have beaten USC in a 7 game series? It probably wouldn't have been close. Anything can happen in a one game setting. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the better team will always win. The Celtics were a better team than the Lakers, and they still lost two games to LA. According to your theory, if you just looked at one of the Laker wins, you'd say the Lakers were a better team, even though they clearly weren't.
To bring it back to football, who was better the Giants or the Patriots? What about the Giants or the Cowboys?
The Giants beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl, so they are better, right? Well, if they were better, why didn't they beat the Patriots in the regular season. The Cowboys must have been better than the Giants since they beat them twice in the regular season right? Well, what about the game in the playoffs? If they were the better team, wouldn't they have won that game?
I have no preconceived bias against him at all. In fact, the ironic thing about all of this is that I used to get blasted on this board for saying that Croom needed to be given more time because of the shambles of a program he inherited from Sherrill. I'm still one of the few that gives Croom no blame at all for the Maine game (I've been blasted a lot for posting that over the years too).
But I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and ignore our pathetic offense and the fact we're doing nothing to even try to improve it. I can't ignore the fact that we're not likely to win all of our close games this year like we did last year. I can't ignore the fact that we lost a future NFL left tackle and a future NFL cornerback due to stupidity during the offseason. I can't ignore the fact that we averaged the fewest yards per carry of any team in the SEC last year.
I want to believe we'll improve on last year's record. But looking at it objectively, I just don't see it. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I am. But right now, I just don't see it.</p>
But I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and ignore our pathetic offense and the fact we're doing nothing to even try to improve it. I can't ignore the fact that we're not likely to win all of our close games this year like we did last year. I can't ignore the fact that we lost a future NFL left tackle and a future NFL cornerback due to stupidity during the offseason. I can't ignore the fact that we averaged the fewest yards per carry of any team in the SEC last year.
I want to believe we'll improve on last year's record. But looking at it objectively, I just don't see it. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I am. But right now, I just don't see it.</p>
G
Goat Holder
Guest
See, this argument is stupid. We were fvcking 8-5 last year, and our team should be improved. That's the end of it.
1) "State didn't do things right, the other team did things wrong." If not for this train of thought, this board wouldn't exist.
2) Coach34 pulls his bait & switch act: "I'm really concerned about MSU, because I'm a MSU fan (the bait). But I'll always belittle State because they'll never be as good as other teams I admire more than State (the switch).
3) patdog displays grave concern MSU "is not going to be as good this year as last year." (Arrowdog soon to follow, I'm sure).
4) Time-worn adage "offense sells tickets; defense wins game" ignored because it doesn't fit the narrative that State will be bad in 2008 because the offense sucks.
5) Scores of people who constantly make fools of themselves off of bad predictions, are making predictions.
6) A typically uninformed, ignorant prediction by ESPN begins it all.
Standard sixpackspeak.com fare. The more things change, the more they stay the ame.
2) Coach34 pulls his bait & switch act: "I'm really concerned about MSU, because I'm a MSU fan (the bait). But I'll always belittle State because they'll never be as good as other teams I admire more than State (the switch).
3) patdog displays grave concern MSU "is not going to be as good this year as last year." (Arrowdog soon to follow, I'm sure).
4) Time-worn adage "offense sells tickets; defense wins game" ignored because it doesn't fit the narrative that State will be bad in 2008 because the offense sucks.
5) Scores of people who constantly make fools of themselves off of bad predictions, are making predictions.
6) A typically uninformed, ignorant prediction by ESPN begins it all.
Standard sixpackspeak.com fare. The more things change, the more they stay the ame.
I am an antagonist and do enjoy messing with everyone too much...but these points i'm dead serious on:
1. I think a good coaching staff could win 8 games with the players and schedule we have
2. I like the fact we play good defense, just like I loved the teams in the late 90's, HOWEVER, watching our current offense makes me physically ill. I cant for the life of me understand why Crooms remains the most stubborn human on the planet. Mississippi and Auburn saw their offenses werent working and changed, yet we give our guys WHO WERE WORSE a raise.
3. I think this is Crooms most important season as head coach. He has primarily the same talent as last year and a better schedule. 6 wins would be underachieving a little and 5 wins would be inexcuseable. I think Crooms stubborness will be his downfall
4. Harbison should do an ok job, but it does concern me a little that he hasnt ever been a DC. There is going to be a big mistake somewhere, you can count on it. You are just going to have those in your 1st year. But with the talent we have, we should still be one of the top 5 SEC defenses. Anything less would be very disappointing.
1. I think a good coaching staff could win 8 games with the players and schedule we have
2. I like the fact we play good defense, just like I loved the teams in the late 90's, HOWEVER, watching our current offense makes me physically ill. I cant for the life of me understand why Crooms remains the most stubborn human on the planet. Mississippi and Auburn saw their offenses werent working and changed, yet we give our guys WHO WERE WORSE a raise.
3. I think this is Crooms most important season as head coach. He has primarily the same talent as last year and a better schedule. 6 wins would be underachieving a little and 5 wins would be inexcuseable. I think Crooms stubborness will be his downfall
4. Harbison should do an ok job, but it does concern me a little that he hasnt ever been a DC. There is going to be a big mistake somewhere, you can count on it. You are just going to have those in your 1st year. But with the talent we have, we should still be one of the top 5 SEC defenses. Anything less would be very disappointing.
It's a fact in every sport that everyone's record will trend towards .500 over time. I defy you to find me a coach in any sport who has coached at least 100 games whose record in close games is further from .500 than his record in games that aren't close.
As for our offense improving from 2006 to 2007, I'm not sure what you were looking at. Our scoring did go up by 3 points per game, but that was because of defensive touchdowns, not anything the offense did.
As for our offense improving from 2006 to 2007, I'm not sure what you were looking at. Our scoring did go up by 3 points per game, but that was because of defensive touchdowns, not anything the offense did.
...I don't see it either, but that doesn't mean that we're terrible. 7-5 would be another good season, and we have to establish consistency before we start talking division championships, especially in this division. 6-6 is most people's bare minimum, including mine, but again, that probably means a bowl. Going bowling two years in a row is a great thing for Mississippi State, coming off 6 years of 3 win or less football and probation. We are reaping the benefits of last year's bowl game with the 2009 class, and if we can continue to recruit like that, we can challenge for the division again, but it's a process. The first step is to get to a bowl. The second step is to do it again and become consistent.
RonnyAtmosphere said:
</p>7) Ronny rips on other people's poor predictions while refusing to ever make any of his own.
G
Goat Holder
Guest
Then tell me how Croom's 47 games coached can define him thus far. Four more years, maybe when he approaches your "100" that you used as a statistical benchmark. Not to mention playing in the toughest conference in America.
I'm talking about next year. Our senior laden team with proven playmakers. Steady improvement every year with our first full recruiting class under Croom as seniors. More maturity. A steady experienced QB. A favorable schedule. Depth. Talent being added every recruiting class.
Now you tell me how in the **** we will be worse this year. We will be in an even BETTER position to make those game-changing plays that we made last year.
I'm talking about next year. Our senior laden team with proven playmakers. Steady improvement every year with our first full recruiting class under Croom as seniors. More maturity. A steady experienced QB. A favorable schedule. Depth. Talent being added every recruiting class.
Now you tell me how in the **** we will be worse this year. We will be in an even BETTER position to make those game-changing plays that we made last year.
I think we'll go 6-6 this season (which is my bare minimum too) and like you say will probably get us to a bowl. I just think our program is a lot further from being a consistent winner than some on this board do. And we're going to have to make some major changes to take that step of being a consistent winner. So far, Croom hasn't shown any inclination to make those changes and I agree with Coach that that will probably be his ultimate downfall at MSU.
patdog said:
Here's the probelm with your logic. You're just looking at aour record in close games last year and saying that the law of averages should play out and we're more likely than not going to do poorly in close games this year. But if you go back to when Croom got here, we're 7-7 in close games. Therefore, we're just as likely to do well in close games this year as poorly, according to your own logic.</p>
We do have Pegues, but he rarely touches the ball. But he is the ONLY playmaker we have on our roster. We don't have one single playmaker on offense. Not one.
In football, I'd say that a close game is one that can go to overtime on one play (plus a 2-point conversion), so 8 points or less would be a close game to me. And there's no 17-ing way Croom's going to continue to win 100% of those games like he did last year.
In football, I'd say that a close game is one that can go to overtime on one play (plus a 2-point conversion), so 8 points or less would be a close game to me. And there's no 17-ing way Croom's going to continue to win 100% of those games like he did last year.
Exactly. We're just as likely to win close games this year as we are to lose them. Which is NOT what happened last year. We won ALL of our close games last year. But over time, we will win about 1/2 of our close games. So it's foolish to expect to continue to win all of our close games in the future. I expect we'll win about 1/2 of our close games this fall. Which, unless we make some substantial fundamental improvements in out team will translate to 6 wins rather than the 8 wins we posted last fall Thanks again for proving my point.
G
Goat Holder
Guest
because who wins the game doesn't determine who's better. I would expect that from Ole Miss fans, I guess, after Valpo.
I don't give a damn if we were better than Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, whoever. We won the games, so we own the mfers.
Winning is how you define "best". </p>
I don't give a damn if we were better than Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, whoever. We won the games, so we own the mfers.
Winning is how you define "best". </p>
It seemed to me like you had been arguing that since we were 4-0, then this year we're likely to do poorly in close games to bring us back down to .500. I was just pointing out that, according to that logic, last year was the "fix" and now we're starting out back at even. But if you were just saying we'll likely win half of our close games, then nevermind.
However, I don't agree with your logic because it ignores experience which is an important factor in close games. I admit luck plays a part in it, but experience and coaching does as well. And we will have experience on our side in most games we play.
I also think that our record in those games that aren't decided by 7 or less will be better this year because our schedule is easier.
However, I don't agree with your logic because it ignores experience which is an important factor in close games. I admit luck plays a part in it, but experience and coaching does as well. And we will have experience on our side in most games we play.
I also think that our record in those games that aren't decided by 7 or less will be better this year because our schedule is easier.
Football luck is....kicking a field goal to tie or win and missing it, only to have the other team jump offsides to give you another chance.
Football luck is not....having your All SEC defensive end in the face of an opposing team's quarterback from the moment the ball was snapped causing to throw a wounded duck to your cornerback who was where he was supposed to be on the play.
Football luck is...having an official totally blow a call that goes in your favor.
Football luck is not....teaching your defensive lineman to get their hands up in the air to tip the ball as it goes by on a forward pass, thereby deflecting the ball into a defender's hands.
Football luck is...recovering a fumbled kickoff when nobody but the returner touches the ball.
Footbal luck is not....manning up and stopping a team on 4th and 1 in the 4th quarter down by 14 points.
Some people need to rethink their definition of luck.
Football luck is not....having your All SEC defensive end in the face of an opposing team's quarterback from the moment the ball was snapped causing to throw a wounded duck to your cornerback who was where he was supposed to be on the play.
Football luck is...having an official totally blow a call that goes in your favor.
Football luck is not....teaching your defensive lineman to get their hands up in the air to tip the ball as it goes by on a forward pass, thereby deflecting the ball into a defender's hands.
Football luck is...recovering a fumbled kickoff when nobody but the returner touches the ball.
Footbal luck is not....manning up and stopping a team on 4th and 1 in the 4th quarter down by 14 points.
Some people need to rethink their definition of luck.
- Status
Get unlimited access today.