Does anybody still disagree with me about Ballard?
- Thread starter Coach34
- Start date
I know you said that we wouldn't miss the All-time leading rusher in school history Anthony Dixon. And I know you said that he would be replaced by a run-by-committee type of attack, with the addition that one would probably outshine the rest. Not once do I remember reading about Ballard being Dixon's sole replacement though
plus - where was our great rushing game vs. Auburn andLSU? Yes, Ballard looked like a beast tonight against a weak defense. Yes, he finally stepped up and earnedhis place atop the depth chart. No, I did not miss Dixon tonight. However,with Dixon (or Ballard stepping up his game sooner) we would probably be 5-1 right now with a win against Auburn.GuitarDawg said:
This is just like you, Radio. After we were 1-2 and all of your predictions weretrendingterribly,and everyone is calling you out, you run and hide and refuse to answer those posts for a week. Now that we ran all over the vaunted Alcorn State and Houston defenses, you're on here beating your chest again. Get a 17'ing lifeman.
ETA - Oh yeah, Radio,this is the same defense that gave up a 26yard run to Tyler Russell(who averaged 13.3 ypc). So, ifthis makes you right about Ballard (whoyou NEVER mentioned by name), does it also make youwrong about Tyler's running ability?
Even before today that would be a weak argument to say we shouldn't be running ballard until he drops dead.
By the way...14 carries....we still didn't give him the ball enough.
By the way...14 carries....we still didn't give him the ball enough.
with Perkins being the immediate back up. And yes I do still miss Dixon. I feel like if he had another year in this offense with Relf he would be outstanding.
but I can guarantee you I rather have seen us run the option with Ballard and Relf all 2nd half against Auburn instead of that ******** we did after we scored where we switched to the pass. LSU was a lost cause the way we continuously shot ourselves in the foot.
Regardless of what should have happened we are still in great shape. We will see if we have learned from our mistakes or not after our next three games. We should go at worst 2-1
Regardless of what should have happened we are still in great shape. We will see if we have learned from our mistakes or not after our next three games. We should go at worst 2-1
Meaning this: Ballard is a pretty good running back, but he still isnt Dixon. Ballard, is just fine and runs hard and is a different runner. Ballard's success is totally unrelated to previous running backs at MSU (Norwood,Dixon, etc).
No, the recipe for Ballards success has just as much to do with the fact that our OL is really doing a good job, and defenses not selling out to key on the running back because they know our qb cant throw (like they did with Tyson Lee). Dixon got his yardage IN SPITE of defenses selling out to go after him.
Ballard is a very good rb but is benefitting from the fact that this offense of Mullen's is effective BECAUSE you cannot sell out and key on one player or you will be burned. We are better at throwing the ball, and our qb is a very good runner, and Bumphis can kill you if you dont cover him. Defenses are now stretched. That has opened running lanes and Ballard is very good at hitting a hole hard.
But if he were relied on as Norwood or Dixon were....the story would be different.
What I love about the situation we have now is that the offense is effective for the reason it should be. That is 'spreads' the field.
You seem to be addressing the crowd that might have been lamenting the fact that because Dixon left our running game would suffer. What NOBODY ever considers is that maybe a great player leaving gives opportunity for the playcalling to change.
No, the recipe for Ballards success has just as much to do with the fact that our OL is really doing a good job, and defenses not selling out to key on the running back because they know our qb cant throw (like they did with Tyson Lee). Dixon got his yardage IN SPITE of defenses selling out to go after him.
Ballard is a very good rb but is benefitting from the fact that this offense of Mullen's is effective BECAUSE you cannot sell out and key on one player or you will be burned. We are better at throwing the ball, and our qb is a very good runner, and Bumphis can kill you if you dont cover him. Defenses are now stretched. That has opened running lanes and Ballard is very good at hitting a hole hard.
But if he were relied on as Norwood or Dixon were....the story would be different.
What I love about the situation we have now is that the offense is effective for the reason it should be. That is 'spreads' the field.
You seem to be addressing the crowd that might have been lamenting the fact that because Dixon left our running game would suffer. What NOBODY ever considers is that maybe a great player leaving gives opportunity for the playcalling to change.
in this thread disagrees with you and agrees with my sentiment.
With Dixon this year, no doubt we're 5-1 instead of 4-2, so yes, we still miss him. We miss him less each week however, as ballard comes along. You know as well as I do that we wouldn't have tried to "Texas Tech" those first few games if the staff would've had a RB they had confidence in (ala Dixon).
And BTW, your "rahtard" **** is past old. Yes, we get it. yes, the hangover was a funny movie. However, you typing it into every thread has gotten old. Just like all of your other cool phrases that you've beaten to death to that point that people have to call you out on it.
Move on Radio.
With Dixon this year, no doubt we're 5-1 instead of 4-2, so yes, we still miss him. We miss him less each week however, as ballard comes along. You know as well as I do that we wouldn't have tried to "Texas Tech" those first few games if the staff would've had a RB they had confidence in (ala Dixon).
And BTW, your "rahtard" **** is past old. Yes, we get it. yes, the hangover was a funny movie. However, you typing it into every thread has gotten old. Just like all of your other cool phrases that you've beaten to death to that point that people have to call you out on it.
Move on Radio.
We are 4-2 instead of 5-1 because our play-caller missed Dixon. Not because our team was going to be ineffective running the ball due to Dixon's departure. And because we're more effective, not less effective, at running the football - it can be said that the team doesn't "miss" Dixon.markymark said:
Would everybody and their yard dog rather have Dixon than Ballard? Hell yes, of course. Are we better, not worse, at running the football this year? Hell yes.
Now the more you say but but but and make excuses and reasons as to why we're more effective running this year - the more you prove C34's point.
FlabLoser said:
2009 - we finished 13th in the nation in rushingat 228 ypg
2010 - we are currently 18th at 212 ypg with half of our games against Memphis, Alcorn, and Houston. Let's see how this number looks after Florida, Bama, Ark, etc.