Coach34 has outdid himself lately if that's even possible...

[Goat Dawg]

1) We won't miss Anthony Dixon

2) We can pay Butler's coach a cool 2 mil a year

Awesomeness

 

[Goat Dawg]

1) We won't miss Anthony Dixon

2) We can pay Butler's coach a cool 2 mil a year

Awesomeness

 

[Goat Dawg]

1) We won't miss Anthony Dixon

2) We can pay Butler's coach a cool 2 mil a year

Awesomeness

 

[Goat Dawg]

1) We won't miss Anthony Dixon

2) We can pay Butler's coach a cool 2 mil a year

Awesomeness

 

[Coach34]

I didn't say we could pay Butler's coach 2 million...I thought he made around 650K, not 900K...a 300K raise for him still wouldnt be bad


and we won't miss Dixon

 

[38843dawg]

wondering minds want to know....

 

[DowntownDawg]

nm

 

[skb124]

The ony reason we will really miss dixon is if we don't have a serviceable passing game. We have enough horses to handle the load as long as we can get some defenses spread out. If we don't have a good passing game, though, well we wouldn't be very good even if we had Dixon (last year). I'm expecting big things from Ballard.

 

[TheBigBadDawg]

But you can't honestly say that we won't miss the school's all time leading rusher, a guy who produced 1,400 yards of offense and 12 TDs last year. Don't be ridiculous (I know that's not easy for you).

 

[futaba.79]

seemed like they did.</p>

 

[Agentdog]

Yeah, the offensive scheme/counter play may still open up some holes. However, I don't know if any of the new guys can stiff arm a DB to the ground and continue another 60 yards for a TD.

 

[8dog]

but finding a running back is the single easiest position to fill on offense.

We have the shittiest program historically in the conf (next to vandy) and we've almost always had a really good running back.

Replacing a guy like Harvin is a huge deal b/c it also impacts Tebow.

 

[saltslugs]

...writing "Coach34 has OUTDID himself" is just plain sad.

 

[Coach34]

comparing a mid 1st round draft pick to a 3rd round pick is not the best of comparisions

My statement is going the way of the same **** that went on last year during this time. I said we would be able to move the football and be much better on offense just because our scheme is better. Many here would call ******** because we didnt have any WR's and our OL was so ******. Mullen was going to need time to recruit so we could actually run the Spread...And as usual, I was right- we moved the football well all season except in 2 games and won more games than anybody expected us to.

This will go the same way that did. Our running game will be just as good or even better, we will make bigger plays in the passing game, win 7, maybe 8 games next year, and then everybody on the board will post about how they knew we were going to be better offensively this year even without Dixon...It's the Sixpack way...

 

[FlabLoser]

[No message]

 

[Coach34]

.

 

[AustinDawg]

While I may disagree with him regarding hoops, I think he's right with
regards to the running back situation.

While I don't think any single one of the backs is better than dixon, collectively,
the production from the RB position should be about the same, if not better.

Factors include:
1) more experienced OL
2) a QB taller than 4'9
3) a hopefully improved passing game (see #2)

Of course this is all spring-talk.

 

[TBonewannabe]

Naturally we would be better with Dixon but I believe Coach34 is referring to the fact that we might have as good a running game as we had this year. The improvements everywhere else will more than offset the loss in talent at the RB position.

 

[Goat Dawg]

there is virtually no way they will play at Dixon's level for at least one half of the year. Therefore we will miss Dixon. You aredelusional to think otherwise. We may and probably will have a good offense next year. And I hope like hell we have a running back step up and take the reins. But they won't be as good as Dixon was last year. You know, if our offensive line and everything else is good enough to where the running backs don't have to make plays like Dixon last year, go ahead and book Sugar Bowl tickets.

 

[Goat Dawg]

not to mention all the intangible things he brought to the table on topof the stats- the energy, the leadership, the fact that teamshad to gameplan for him, the way he could shoulder the entire offensive load sometimes. ****, the very reason we moved the ball90% of the time (Coach referred to us moving the ball earlier) was because of the possibilities Dixon gave us. You saw what we looked like against Jackson State without him.

I didn't know there were this many football knowledgeless football fans on this board.

 

[Dawgzilla]

All you really seem to be saying is that you expect the running game to be even better this Fall than it was last year. That's certainly possible, although I'm not sure how you quantify that -- more total rushing yards; a higher yards per carry average; a higher percentage of running plays that net 5 yards or more?? -- whatever stat you choose, you may very well be right. I suspect MSU will run the ball less often, but we'll see.

The problem, I think, is that you have couched this prediction behind the phrase "we won't miss Dixon." That not only hits people sentimentally, it is also impossible to quantify. If Conner, Elliott, and Ballard combine for 3,000 yards rushing next season, you would say, "See, we didn't miss Dixon", whereas the Dixon fans would argue that with him in the mix they could have rushed for 3,500 so he was missed.

So just put it out there: What do you think the statistical improvements will be offensively this year? Then if people want to argue with you, you have something to bash them with next December.

 

[markymark.sixpack]

that's how he makes his living on here. he says vague *** ****, then comes back months later and no matter what has happened in that time span "he was right" and he was the "only one" who thought X and "everybody else" thought Y and "whe see what happened". He just spins ****, lies, and then makes up his own version of message board history so he can be right. It's actually pathetic, but that's his gig.

So, in summation, you're not going to nail him down to any facts that can be used against him later. It's funny how the most intellectually challenged people you ever meet are the same ones who are NEVER wrong.

 

[Goat Dawg]

Coach34, after saying MSU would in fact lose to Tulane, circa some time in the Croom Error. I think it was 2007.

 

[FlabLoser]

not to mention all the intangible things he brought to the table on topof the stats- the energy, the leadership, the fact that teamshad to gameplan for him, the way he could shoulder the entire offensive load sometimes. ****, the very reason we moved the ball90% of the time (Coach referred to us moving the ball earlier) was because of the possibilities Dixon gave us. You saw what we looked like against Jackson State without him.

I didn't know there were this many football knowledgeless football fans on this board.

Your logic cannot explain why our offense didn't lead the SEC in rushing. We had the SEC's leading rusher, so we must have been one hell of a rushing team, right?

OK...see that that works. Its a team game. The team will be as good or better than last year in rushing. We won't have any one back beat Dixon's rushing mark from last year. But the offense will do just as well if not better rushing.

 

[TBonewannabe]

If Dixon was playing this year, he would probably put up 1600 yards. I am not saying that losing Dixon won't hurt us but we will gain in so many other aspects on the offensive side of the ball.

 

[Todd4State]

But we will be a totally different team than we were with him. Not necessarily in a bad way either. I think Elliott, Ballard, and Montrell Conner can be effective, and on top of that, we still have Relf who will probably be a 1,000 yard rusher himself. I haven't seen many people mention him, but he will be a huge part of our running game next year. Also, Chad Bumphis and maybe Heavens will get some more carries as well and that will help. I think we are already working on option plays with our WR's and I think the reason why should be pretty obvious.

Also, as far as Harvin, their problem was they had no one that was nearly as effective to replace him as a group.

I think where we will miss AD is as far as emotion. And while I will say I will miss him, and I do think that the team will miss him, I think that we can and probably will overcome that loss.

 

[rugbdawg]

after the game.

 

[sleepy dawg]

comparing a mid 1st round draft pick to a 3rd round pick is not the best of comparisions......

Comparing how someone is projected to do in the Pros vs. what they were able to do in college is not the best of "comparisions" either.

 

[Goat Dawg]

I am not saying that losing Dixon won't hurt us

It will hurt us, but we won't miss him? Uhh....

 

[Goat Dawg]

OK...see that that works. Its a team game. The team will be as good or better than last year in rushing. We won't have any one back beat Dixon's rushing mark from last year. But the offense will do just as well if not better rushing.

Will it? How exactly does that mean we won't miss Anthony Dixon?

 

[Goat Dawg]

I agree that we won't miss AD that much.......I think where we will miss AD is as far as emotion. And while I will say I will miss him, and I do think that the team will miss him, I think that we can and probably will overcome that loss.

So we won't miss him, but we will?

 

[Coach34]

rushed for 1,400 yards this past season?

That will be taken care of this year...we will be fine

 

[Goat Dawg]

nm

 

[Coach34]

comparing a mid 1st round draft pick to a 3rd round pick is not the best of comparisions......

Comparing how someone is projected to do in the Pros vs. what they were able to do in college is not the best of "comparisions" either.

A staple of the Stansbury Sheep is that Stansbury shouldn't have been in a Sweet 16 because he hasn't had any big-time NBA players play for him...supposedly you have to have future pro players to make a Sweet 16 according to them

 

[sleepy dawg]

comparing a mid 1st round draft pick to a 3rd round pick is not the best of comparisions......

Comparing how someone is projected to do in the Pros vs. what they were able to do in college is not the best of "comparisions" either.

A staple of the Stansbury Sheep is that Stansbury shouldn't have been in a Sweet 16 because he hasn't had any big-time NBA players play for him...supposedly you have to have future pro players to make a Sweet 16 according to them

so we're back on basketball... yes, third round of the nba draft...

 

[Coach34]

because the players we have this season will get that 1,600 by committee...we won't go without those yards, it just won't be one player getting them

 

[Coach34]

tp Lawdawg yesterday when referencing what I had said about the Spread, the search feature is great at showing who said what in past threads...there is no changing of history...it's all there

As to the point at hand...

our RB's this season will match or surpass Dixon's totals and we will have as high or higher yards per carry average this season compared to last season- ergo, we won't miss Dixon...and both of these will be easy to measure

There is nothing vague nor any spin in that

 

[jonathanbarden]

I think I may actually agree with Coach34 here. A lot of people are misreading the argument IMO. Yes, Dixon is gone, along with his rushing records and 1,400+ yards or whatever it was that he had last year. But what C34 is saying is that we have 3 running backs, that while not all of them will rush for 1,400 yards, can combine for around that amount. If we have a guy rush for 700+ yards, another for 450+, and then one for 250+, while it may not seem like much individually, it still compensates for what we lost. And with the whole offense being better thing, that's assuming the passing game is better. Last year we were pretty much a one dimensional team. We ran the ball effectively, but we couldn't establish a consistent passing game. If we do so, it will take a good bit of pressure off the running game. That's where C34 is saying we wouldn't miss him as much...because our offense wouldn't be as dependent on the run (i.e. Anthony Dixon), yet it would still be more effective because it would be better all around. Now he does leave a void in terms of leadership and work ethic. But that's going to happen. That's where we have another player step up into that role to be a leader of this football team. If we have that, then no...we won't miss Dixon as much because we will have filled all of the roles he played for this team. Dixon was a force in the rushing game, but I think there are going to be some players step up in other positions that will make the loss a little less noticeable.

 

[Goat Dawg]

You are cornered. I have defeated every point you have.

 

[Goat Dawg]

but WE ARE GOING TO MISS ANTHONY DIXON. We're having to change the offense basically because we don't have him anymore. If you're going to do the cumulative route, go ahead and add in Ducre and Elliot's total to 2009's stats.