ESPN previews SEC West
- Thread starter msubullie4life
- Start date
- Status
Goat Holder said:
So you are calling Carroll an experienced QB.
He may have played a year, but he can't throw anything but a damn screen or a 15 yard out.
Playmakers.. I don't see a Michael Irvin on our roster. We have Dixon and Peagus...
Face it, we were lucky to win some of those games last year, it won't happen again this year.
Until Croom takes us out of the Gulf Coast Offense, we will not be able to even sniff a .500 record in the SEC again.
1st down, run, 2nd down run, 3rd down screen, 4th down punt... That's some great play-calling, let's give them all a raise...</p>
Goat Holder said:
</p>
I wasn't arguing about your season. I was just arguing the fact that it's ignorant to think that the best team wins every game. It's obvious that's not the case. Otherwise, you'd never have a single postseason series that wasn't a sweep. The better of the two teams would win every time. Things can happen. You can lose to teams you are better than, and you can beat teams that are better than you.
If you disagree with that, tell me which team was better last year, Florida, Georgia, or Tennessee? I'll help you. Florida beat Tennessee pretty handily. Tennessee beat UGA pretty handily, and UGA beat Florida pretty handily. So Florida is better than UT, who is better than UGA, but somehow Florida is not better than UGA? If the best team won every time, something like that would never happen.
G
Goat Holder
Guest
We know this is true:
1) Whoever wins on a given day was the best team on that given day.
2) The object of the game is to win.
3) Winning can be situational (See UF-FSU '96, Oregon State last baseball season, etc.)
I see your point, and you also see mine. It's the different agendas that are clashing. But the point of sports is to compete and WIN. Nobody wants to lose, not even in meaningless games like the ones at the end of the NFL regular season if you're say, the Patriots.
In college football, the idea is to win enough to be the highest in the BCS. So, Georgia was the "best". As far as SEC competition goes, the idea is to win enough to have the best record in your division. Thus, Tennessee was the "best". The "best" is situational as to what you're playing for. On the day they played, Tennessee was the better team. But on a national scale for the year, Georgia was the better team.
I mean, damn, you have to play the game. You probably think you all were better than Valpo. I think we were better than Butler. Doesn't matter, because there was a team out there that was good enough to go through and beat all the teams that beat everybody else, and they were rightfully the National Champs, because they WON.
That cannot be argued.
1) Whoever wins on a given day was the best team on that given day.
2) The object of the game is to win.
3) Winning can be situational (See UF-FSU '96, Oregon State last baseball season, etc.)
I see your point, and you also see mine. It's the different agendas that are clashing. But the point of sports is to compete and WIN. Nobody wants to lose, not even in meaningless games like the ones at the end of the NFL regular season if you're say, the Patriots.
In college football, the idea is to win enough to be the highest in the BCS. So, Georgia was the "best". As far as SEC competition goes, the idea is to win enough to have the best record in your division. Thus, Tennessee was the "best". The "best" is situational as to what you're playing for. On the day they played, Tennessee was the better team. But on a national scale for the year, Georgia was the better team.
I mean, damn, you have to play the game. You probably think you all were better than Valpo. I think we were better than Butler. Doesn't matter, because there was a team out there that was good enough to go through and beat all the teams that beat everybody else, and they were rightfully the National Champs, because they WON.
That cannot be argued.
One thing I think you've gotten away from during this whole argument was the original point. Someone ( I can't even remember who at this point) said that we have no excuse for losing to Auburn this year because we beat them last year. This is stupid because, while we were the better team on that particular day, we weren't the best team over the course of the year so you can't say that it would be an inexcusable loss if they were to beat us this year.
For the record, I personally think we're going to win that game but won't declare it "inexcusable" if we lose.
For the record, I personally think we're going to win that game but won't declare it "inexcusable" if we lose.
Goat Holder said:
</p>
I don't disagree with that. I still contend that Fresno State this year and Oregon State last year were probably not truly the best teams in the country. They just got hot at the right time and beat teams when they needed to.
We've had this argument before, and I've said that yes those teams deserve and earned the right to be national champions. I just don't think that the champion is always necessarily the best team, especially when you get in single elimination or double elimination tourneys. I don't think the Giants were the best team in the NFL last year, but the Giants won the championship, and therefore they deserve the championship.
As you said, that's why they play the games though, and the results are played out on the field for championships...well, except for in college football, but that's another debate.
G
Goat Holder
Guest
We apparently disagree on that. I'll take Mississippi State winning the National Title on the field everyday of the week, like Fresno and OSU, over being a subjective "best" like say, Miami this year, or Vanderbilt was last year.
And how can you say the Giants weren't the best? What I saw in the Super Bowl was a boatload of potential that was finally untapped at the end of the season and in the playoffs. I still don't think New England would have gone into Lambeau on that night and beaten the Packers.
And how can you say the Giants weren't the best? What I saw in the Super Bowl was a boatload of potential that was finally untapped at the end of the season and in the playoffs. I still don't think New England would have gone into Lambeau on that night and beaten the Packers.
I agree. I'll take the championship every day as well. That's definitely what you play for, and that's definitely where you get your bragging rights. No one cares that Miami probably had the best, most talented baseball team in the country this past year, or that UNC was probably right with them in that breath. Fresno State won the championship, which is all that matters.
I just think that you can always debate who was truly the best team. Not that you get anything for it, but I think it's a debatable subject, especially in college football, where only two teams get a shot at the title and there are plenty of variables coming into play.
I just think that you can always debate who was truly the best team. Not that you get anything for it, but I think it's a debatable subject, especially in college football, where only two teams get a shot at the title and there are plenty of variables coming into play.
Coach34 said:
</p>
What does that say about the job our coaching staff ALREADY did last year with THAT schedule and THAT team? We've improved in the secondary, at linebacker, at quarterback, at receiver, and at running back. And whether you agree or not, there's reason to believe our lines can improve on both sides. It's not like we have awful guys coming back. Plus they've had a year to improve. Any SEC staff SHOULD win 8 games with the players and schedule we have this year. But last year? Not so much.
Oh yeah, good move on shying away from the defense vs. offense argument. That was a battle you beat yourself with. And by the way, if Croom was as stubborn as you, we wouldn't have scored a point last year.
Secondary - replacing a future NFL corner with Marcus Washington isn't an improvement.
LB - should be good but not better than last year
QB - remains to be seen. Carroll was the 3rd lowest rated passer in the SEC (ahead of Henig & Schaeffer). He showed some flashes of being good, but he needs to improve. The fact that any coaching he gets from our staff will hurt him more than it will help him isn't really a good sign for improvement.
WR - We've got the same guys who didn't produce last year. Why should we expect any different this year?
RB - Again, we've got the same guys as last year minus their best blocker.
Again, losing your best OL and your best DL isn't the usual path to improvement.
You tend to get better year after year. Players usually don't hit an athletic plateau until long after their college years. In fact, I hear that teams these days work out and run during the off-season to improve their strength and conditioning. Imagine that, Patdog! I've even heard of some squads getting their receivers and quarterbacks together to work on route running and timing to improve their passing efficiency. Crazy stuff, huh? It should be especially beneficial to those teams whose starting quarterbacks weren't the starters at the beginning of last season. I wonder if we're a team like that.
It's more about who you return than who you lose, buddy. There's many ways you can look at that, but the gist of it is, there's no sense in worrying about who's gone. Because, well, they're gone. It's all about who we have coming back. And those guys SHOULD BE BETTER.
If they aren't, THEN it's on our coaching staff.
It's more about who you return than who you lose, buddy. There's many ways you can look at that, but the gist of it is, there's no sense in worrying about who's gone. Because, well, they're gone. It's all about who we have coming back. And those guys SHOULD BE BETTER.
If they aren't, THEN it's on our coaching staff.
I expect Dixon to improve next year. I would say the same for Carroll but for the fact his coaching is going to be a major liability for him. I don't expect the WRs to improve because they've proven to be worthless year after year now and I see no reason to expect anything different. As for the secondary, OL and DL, the returning players should be as good as or better than they were last year, but those gains will be more than offset by the losses of Johnson, M. Brown and T. Brown. Those are three huge losses.
If we go 6-6, I'll be disappointed. With the schedule we have, and the guys we have coming back, anything less than last year should be considered a failure. There won't be any excuses. At least nothing that could excuse a mediocre effort. Because that's what a team like ours having a 6-6 year will reflect.. a lack of effort. Either that or horrendous injuries. But I just don't see it happening. Croom has too much going for him. He's never created lofty expectations, and never been one to say we're going to do it this year. But he's been right about our improvements. And this year everything he says gives me the impression that he expects to do better than last year. Until he's wrong, I have no reason to expect otherwise. After all, he IS the head coach of our football team. If anyone knows what's going on with those guys, naturally it's him.
I hope your right and we go to the Cotton or Outback...
I just see the team taking one step back from last year.
I just see the team taking one step back from last year.
"If we go 6-6, I'll be disappointed. With the schedule we have, and the guys we have coming back, anything less than last year should be considered a failure."
Thanks Jam...Wonder why I get reamed every time I say that though? To me, thats common sense, UNLESS you dont have faith in your staff and you feel like last year was a fluke.
Some of you posters on here need to take a position. Either the staff can coach and should have a great season, or they will underachieve. Settling for 6-6 after what we accomplished last year is ********.
Thanks Jam...Wonder why I get reamed every time I say that though? To me, thats common sense, UNLESS you dont have faith in your staff and you feel like last year was a fluke.
Some of you posters on here need to take a position. Either the staff can coach and should have a great season, or they will underachieve. Settling for 6-6 after what we accomplished last year is ********.
You either don't know what you're talking about or you're outright lying just to make a point. Croom did create lofty expectations before the 06 season. I heard it with my own ears and read it in the papers multiple times. He claimed it would be the year when the wins started coming.jamdawg96 said:
"Oh yeah, good move on shying away from the defense vs. offense argument. That was a battle you beat yourself with. And by the way, if Croom was as stubborn as you, we wouldn't have scored a point last year."
I'll give you more examples and blister your *** some more
2007:
MSU- offense- 113th....defense 21st.....7-5
Fla- offense -14th.....defense 41st.....9-3 better bowl
UPig- offense- 17th.....defense 46th....8-4 better bowl
Ky - offense- 24th.....defense 67th...7-5- better bowl
3 teams went to better bowls that were clearly better on offense than defense in the SEC- seems like picking offense is the way to go
2006:
MSU- offense- 109th....defense 41st....3-9 no bowl
SC - offense - 20th .... defense 63rd...7-5 bowling
Tenn- offense- 36th .....defense 50th....8-4 bowling
Ky - offense- 31st .....defense 118th...8-4 and bowling
soooo..we get 3 more examples
So, to summarize, defense doesnt win out every time. Its quite ok to be better on offense than it is defense. Now get in the hottub and soak and think about how you got your *** blistered.</p>
I'll give you more examples and blister your *** some more
2007:
MSU- offense- 113th....defense 21st.....7-5
Fla- offense -14th.....defense 41st.....9-3 better bowl
UPig- offense- 17th.....defense 46th....8-4 better bowl
Ky - offense- 24th.....defense 67th...7-5- better bowl
3 teams went to better bowls that were clearly better on offense than defense in the SEC- seems like picking offense is the way to go
2006:
MSU- offense- 109th....defense 41st....3-9 no bowl
SC - offense - 20th .... defense 63rd...7-5 bowling
Tenn- offense- 36th .....defense 50th....8-4 bowling
Ky - offense- 31st .....defense 118th...8-4 and bowling
soooo..we get 3 more examples
So, to summarize, defense doesnt win out every time. Its quite ok to be better on offense than it is defense. Now get in the hottub and soak and think about how you got your *** blistered.</p>
Hey I like hot tubs, but c'mon, Coach... I'll give you the Kentucky stat in '06. That's a good find, and worth mentioning to downplay Nebraska's lack of success with a top 10 offense last year. But the rankings of the other teams aren't as unbalanced as ours. And you can't ignore the Top 70 stat from 2007 for total offense and defense I put in a post late last night. Teams in major conferences that have horrible offenses are much more likely to succeed than teams with horrible defenses. That was the case last year and in 2006. Check it out if you want. Over the last two years, 13 teams from major conferences with offensive units ranked outside of the Top 70 have had 8-win seasons. Flip it to poor defenses, and you only get five.
So I guess what I'm saying is, if we're going to suck at something, let it be the offense. That tends to be the unit that takes more time to progress anyways, so maybe with steady QB play, and a solid backfield, we'll finally see improvement on that side of the ball. I do agree, however, that we should strive to be great at both...we'd be foolish not too. But you know as well as I do, we're not quite to the point yet (and may not be for some time) that we have that luxury.
So I guess what I'm saying is, if we're going to suck at something, let it be the offense. That tends to be the unit that takes more time to progress anyways, so maybe with steady QB play, and a solid backfield, we'll finally see improvement on that side of the ball. I do agree, however, that we should strive to be great at both...we'd be foolish not too. But you know as well as I do, we're not quite to the point yet (and may not be for some time) that we have that luxury.
Bowls pick whoever they want. There was even talk of Bama going over us last year to get to the Liberty. Teams get passed over for better matchups and Offense does sell tickets. The bowls aren't there to congratulate a team for a good season, they are there to make money.
I do not know how much of a liability our coaches are going to be for Carroll. It seemed to me he had some football sense about him last year. Wasn't the dig last year that he did not have an arm? He ought to have recovered from last year's shoulder surgery. I agree that out WRs are sometimes pretty worthless and just get in the way of DBs from catching the ball.
And unless we change our OC and QB coach, anything good he does the rest of his career will be in spite of any coaching he gets at MSU. That was my first and biggest complaint about Croom and it still stands. He hasn't hired a proven QB coach.
Florida had a better record and finished 2nd in the East, Upig had a better record and beat us head to head.
As for Kentucky, the Liberty Bowl paid out $1.7 million to the Music City's $1.5 million. I'd argue that we got the better bowl.
- Status
Get unlimited access today.