Mississippi State Football 2009 Prediction
[Note: I never got around to actually reading what they wrote.]
[Note: I never got around to actually reading what they wrote.]
Awesome football prediction site [link]
- Thread starter TR.sixpack
- Start date
Mississippi State Football 2009 Prediction
[Note: I never got around to actually reading what they wrote.]
[Note: I never got around to actually reading what they wrote.]
Its a tough schedule not a favorable one.
Grammar aside, you also won two games (Ark. and Vandy) by a narrow margin.
Niiiiiiice.
W
Wooderson
Guest
man, i used to love reading any and all previews, but the ignorance coming out of the media these days is alarming. absolutely no real research is being done.
Not to go too Phil Steele on you, but I think that's a valid point. When I look at a season, I like to look at how a team did in its tight games to see if they were really that good/bad, or they were just lucky/unlucky. State was 2-2 in games decided by 7 points or less last year, so it's hard to argue that they were better than the 4-8 record indicated.
Florida, for example was 13-1 last year, and they were 0-1 in games decided by 7 points or less. They were obviously for real. Ohio State's 2002 undefeated national title team was 7-0 in games decided by 7 points or fewer. They were a team that needed a lot of breaks to get their title.
Florida, for example was 13-1 last year, and they were 0-1 in games decided by 7 points or less. They were obviously for real. Ohio State's 2002 undefeated national title team was 7-0 in games decided by 7 points or fewer. They were a team that needed a lot of breaks to get their title.
W
Wooderson
Guest
let's face it, had MSU had a coach that wasn't holding them back, the vanderbilt game would have been more like 24-7, and the arkansas game would have been 31 or 38-14. that's as close to fact as it can be. Croom was that bad on gameday. Not to mention we would have beaten LTech, Auburn and UK. We legitimately held our selves back through coaching. It really wasn't even player blunders. It was the head man. but we hired him, so we get to live with it.
If we'd have had a field goal kicker, we win the Auburn and Kentucky games undoubtedly. I don't buy the 'well, you won 2 other close games, so your record evened out' argument. If we had won those close games on the road, then maybe yes, you could say that, but the fact is if we had a fg kicker last year, we win those 2 games and finish 6-6. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the season played out like it did because we got a new coach out of it, but we were realistically a kicker from going to a Bowl last year. If we had a coach that wasn't a complete and utter dumbass, we win the La Tech game too and finish 7-5. Fortunately for us though, the season turned out like it did.
I understand what you're saying, but you're still playing the IF game. In the Auburn game, Auburn missed 2 FGs. Your kicker missed 1. So it more than evened out, plus you got outgained by about 200 yards. You had no business winning that game.
The difference in the UK game was the extra point, but both kickers missed a FG in that one. In the Arkansas game, they missed 2 FGs. You missed 1, and you won it by 3 points. Point being, you won't get all of those breaks in most cases, and if you do, your record will not accurately reflect how good you were as a team.
You got all those breaks in 2007. In 2008, they evened out.
The difference in the UK game was the extra point, but both kickers missed a FG in that one. In the Arkansas game, they missed 2 FGs. You missed 1, and you won it by 3 points. Point being, you won't get all of those breaks in most cases, and if you do, your record will not accurately reflect how good you were as a team.
You got all those breaks in 2007. In 2008, they evened out.
You would have wanted a new coach? That's not credible. If you still would have wanted Croom gone after two winning seasons (following the horrendous six we had endured before) then your reason has to do with something other than football or coaching.
I hope our new coach is great and all, but we got some tough games down the road before that is determined.
I hope our new coach is great and all, but we got some tough games down the road before that is determined.
W
Wooderson
Guest
Croom did a lot of things right behind the scenes. We were very competitive other than his dumbassness on gameday and it's a shame. we are all fired up about mullen, but i just hope he does the things croom did behind the scenes AND does the gameday stuff well too.
think about it. We were good enough to make bowls under Croom. He tangibly held us back. that's what rebelbruiser is refusing to acknowledge.
think about it. We were good enough to make bowls under Croom. He tangibly held us back. that's what rebelbruiser is refusing to acknowledge.
<h1 align="center">Mississippi State Football Predictions 2009</h1>
<div class="date">
Written June 16, 2009 by InfoPlays</p> </div>
Mississippi State's first season under Dan Mullen will be viewed on his ability to install the spread offense he's bringing over from Florida. If he can get his team to buy into the offense, and get the players to run it effectively, the <font color="#FF0000">Mississippi State Bulldogs</font> have enough on defense to compete. There's enough on the roster and a favorable schedule to contend for a bowl. This 4-8 team in 2008 was very close to winning more game on more than once occasion. According to the <font color="#FF0000">NCAA football odds</font> to win the 2010 BCS National Championship, <font color="#FF0000">the Bulldogs are listed under "The Field" at +5000 odds</font>.</p>
Offense: Coach Mullen has stated that he wants a dozen or so receivers to get playing time to keep players fresh. Injuries in the spring prevented this from happening, but by August this problem should on on the road to a solution. Of the seven receivers signed, the most likely recipients of significant playing time will be Chad Bumphis, Chris Harris and junior college transfer Leon Berry. The key will be capitalizing immediately on this recruiting class.</p>
Tyler Russel, Mississippi's Mr. Football in 2008, will be given every chance to win the starting quarterback spot. Tyson Lee is the incumbent starter, but at 5-10 his lack of height has long been considered a problem, especially in this spread attack. Finding a running back is not a concern, unlike other positions on offense. Anthony Dixon, who has a 1,000-yard season under his belt, is primed to be the showcase of the offense. The line was a trouble spot last year, and it will need to show improvement if Mullen's spread is to show improvement on the ground or in the air.</p>
<div class="date">
Written June 16, 2009 by InfoPlays</p> </div>
Offense: Coach Mullen has stated that he wants a dozen or so receivers to get playing time to keep players fresh. Injuries in the spring prevented this from happening, but by August this problem should on on the road to a solution. Of the seven receivers signed, the most likely recipients of significant playing time will be Chad Bumphis, Chris Harris and junior college transfer Leon Berry. The key will be capitalizing immediately on this recruiting class.</p>
Tyler Russel, Mississippi's Mr. Football in 2008, will be given every chance to win the starting quarterback spot. Tyson Lee is the incumbent starter, but at 5-10 his lack of height has long been considered a problem, especially in this spread attack. Finding a running back is not a concern, unlike other positions on offense. Anthony Dixon, who has a 1,000-yard season under his belt, is primed to be the showcase of the offense. The line was a trouble spot last year, and it will need to show improvement if Mullen's spread is to show improvement on the ground or in the air.</p>
Wooderson said:
He held you back because he didn't bring in enough talent, and he didn't develop it well enough, which means you just weren't good.
I just refuse to believe you had enough talent to win 7 or 8 games without a little luck on your side. You got flat out destroyed on both the scoreboard and the stat column in 4 of your games last year. Decent, talented teams don't get destroyed like that just because of poor coaching. You honestly got dominated in the Auburn and LSU games too in the stat column. You were just fortunate that they didn't capitalize more to make those games uglier.
Again, you went 4-0 in close games in 2007, and you went 2-2 in 2008. That was the primary difference between the two seasons. One year, your record made it look like your team was better than it really was. The other year, your record was a pretty accurate reflection of how good you were.
Having a different coach wasn't going to make Tyson Lee or Wesley Carroll SEC caliber QBs. I'll admit he wasn't the best gameday coach, but a lot of his problems were related to his inability to bring in enough talent to win. See your OL, your receivers, and your QBs last year.
The simple fact is we were damn lucky to make the one bowl we did in 2007 under him and it would have taken a repeat of that kind of luck for us to make a bowl in 2008 under him. We didn't get lucky in 2008 like we did in 2007 and we finished with the record we deserved. Bruiser is right that our talent level right now is very, very bad. We probably have the least talent on this team today (excluding incoming signees) as we've had at any time since the mid-1980s.Wooderson said:
Tyson Lee is the incumbent starter, but at 5-10 his lack of height has long been considered a problem, especially in this spread attack.
Lee is 5-7 in '70's disco shoes.
Lee is 5-7 in '70's disco shoes.
W
Wooderson
Guest
This is why it is hard to take your take on this situation seriously. in bold there, is the definition of bias. You're point in the earlier posts is trying to say we got the breaks one year, and not the next. i can understand that. but you blew it out of the water here.RebelBruiser said:
W
Wooderson
Guest
sort of like our baseball conversation last night, i disagree with the view point. QB and WR i full heartedly agree with you on, even though Tyson Lee was not our problem last year. other than that i think we are OK. Croom always motivated us for the wrong games. many of the rebel fans are basing their opinion on the eggbowl, and who can blame them, i would too if i was them, it suits their agenda. But we weren't 45 points worse than them last year. And they were very very hot at the end of the year, playing about as well as any team i've ever seen.
To add to that, you also cannot judge Ole Miss's entire season on a four game run. Nor can you judge their 2009 season on it, although it's very easy to do.
To add to that, you also cannot judge Ole Miss's entire season on a four game run. Nor can you judge their 2009 season on it, although it's very easy to do.
every team's and every coach's record in close games is going to trend towards .500. We went 2-2 in close games last year. So we've got no room to ***** about how we really weren't as bad as our 4-8 record indicated. We were. Sure we could have caught a break in the Auburn or Kentucky games, but Vandy or Arkansas could have just as easily caught a break in those games. Another way to look at it is that if you start saying that every team that was just a few points short in a couple of games away from being bowl eligible, you'd wind up with damn near 100 teams that were "good enough to go to a bowl."
You are correct about Mississippi though. Way too many people are jumping on their bandwagon based on a very strong last few games of the season. I fully expect them to be good again next year, but I'll be very surprised if they finish anywhere near as high as many people are predicting them to.
You are correct about Mississippi though. Way too many people are jumping on their bandwagon based on a very strong last few games of the season. I fully expect them to be good again next year, but I'll be very surprised if they finish anywhere near as high as many people are predicting them to.
You won the West in 1998 on a MADE FG in the final minutes against Arkansas where the FG just barely snuck in there.
I couldn't remember which team it was that made or missed the kick. All I knew is that it was a small margin. Still can't remember the argument that it was related to, but I think it was something about how small of a difference there can be between a win and a loss.
I couldn't remember which team it was that made or missed the kick. All I knew is that it was a small margin. Still can't remember the argument that it was related to, but I think it was something about how small of a difference there can be between a win and a loss.
is the fans like RebelBruiser who in one breath will say they aren't obsessed with how MSU does, yet he wishes for some of our players to blow out knees and talks about how LUCKY we were to go to Atlanta 11 years ago (not to mention he has 3800 posts on the team's site he is not obsessed with). Fact is we may or may not have been "LUCKY" that year, but it was 11 years ago and Ole Miss still has not done it so deal with it and quit crying about it.
I looked back at our last 20 seasons, and only three times have we ever done better than 2 games over .500 in games decided by a TD or less. In 1990 and 1992 we were 3-0 in games decided by 7 points or less. Both seasons we went 9-3. In 1989, we were 5-2 in games decided by a TD or less, and we were 8-4 overall. We were fortunate to do that well in each of those seasons. 1989 in particular was a very lucky season. We had some big breaks in 3 of those close wins to pull out victories, giving us a chance at the Liberty Bowl that year. Our largest regular season victory that season was by 10 points in the Egg Bowl. That team was not nearly as good as its record.
It's just a stats thing that you're going to naturally end up close to .500 in the close game category over time. Rarely will you have a year where you deviate more than a game or two either way from .500 in those close games. Obviously, as I said, you still get credit for the wins either way, but I think looking at the record in close games can give you a good measure of whether a team was fortunate or unfortunate in their result, which can be important when trying to look ahead to the next season.
Florida is receiving so much hype this year because they return almost everyone from a team that won 13 games by 10 points or more and 11 games by 20 points or more, with their one loss coming by 1 point. If they had won all of those games by only a TD or two, they wouldn't be receiving quite the same level of hype. That wasn't a team that was fortunate to be 13-1. It was more that they were unfortunate to not be 14-0.
It's just a stats thing that you're going to naturally end up close to .500 in the close game category over time. Rarely will you have a year where you deviate more than a game or two either way from .500 in those close games. Obviously, as I said, you still get credit for the wins either way, but I think looking at the record in close games can give you a good measure of whether a team was fortunate or unfortunate in their result, which can be important when trying to look ahead to the next season.
Florida is receiving so much hype this year because they return almost everyone from a team that won 13 games by 10 points or more and 11 games by 20 points or more, with their one loss coming by 1 point. If they had won all of those games by only a TD or two, they wouldn't be receiving quite the same level of hype. That wasn't a team that was fortunate to be 13-1. It was more that they were unfortunate to not be 14-0.
yea this one makes alot of sense. on one hand bruiser says the 4-0 mark in 2007 was luck and the 2-2 mark in 2008 showed more accurately how good our team really is. while on the other hand, since this is his theory about how things work, it is obvious that the games ole miss lost in 2007, all 8 in conference in case you forgot, meant exactly the opposite for them. i mean wouldn't you rather be 2-2 in close games with two conference wins than 0-8 in conference. our 2008 team must have been a little better than your 2007 team by your own theory so in turn couldn't our 2009 team also turn out to be better than your 2008 team?
regardless of how you put it, with a good field goal kicker state would of been 6-6 last year. yes if arkansas had this and kentucky had that, and lets not forget the if auburn would of had then it wouldn't of made a difference, but i don't give a crap about what any of those schools had or didn't have. bottom line is a good kicker would have given us 2 more wins.
whats even more rediculous is i'll bet your one of those ole miss fans that say you should have beaten bama, vandy... last year.
regardless of how you put it, with a good field goal kicker state would of been 6-6 last year. yes if arkansas had this and kentucky had that, and lets not forget the if auburn would of had then it wouldn't of made a difference, but i don't give a crap about what any of those schools had or didn't have. bottom line is a good kicker would have given us 2 more wins.
whats even more rediculous is i'll bet your one of those ole miss fans that say you should have beaten bama, vandy... last year.