ESPN keeps ranking the SEC teams by position and the Rebs keep coming up 14.

[JacksonDevilDog]

Defensive Line: MSU 7, UM 14
Offensive Line: MSU 9, UM 14
Ranking the QB's: Russell 9, Wallace 14
Top 10 Running Backs: Nick Griffin 10, UM None Listed

Moncrief did come in as the 10th best receiver in the conference.

It's going to be a long year in Oxford with inexperience and a lack of talent at QB and the worst defensive and offensive lines in the conference. I know this has already been stated multiple times, but their fans think that they are just as talented as we are and they are "a couple of players away".

 

[JacksonDevilDog]

Defensive Line: MSU 7, UM 14
Offensive Line: MSU 9, UM 14
Ranking the QB's: Russell 9, Wallace 14
Top 10 Running Backs: Nick Griffin 10, UM None Listed

Moncrief did come in as the 10th best receiver in the conference.

It's going to be a long year in Oxford with inexperience and a lack of talent at QB and the worst defensive and offensive lines in the conference. I know this has already been stated multiple times, but their fans think that they are just as talented as we are and they are "a couple of players away".

 

[JacksonDevilDog]

Defensive Line: MSU 7, UM 14
Offensive Line: MSU 9, UM 14
Ranking the QB's: Russell 9, Wallace 14
Top 10 Running Backs: Nick Griffin 10, UM None Listed

Moncrief did come in as the 10th best receiver in the conference.

It's going to be a long year in Oxford with inexperience and a lack of talent at QB and the worst defensive and offensive lines in the conference. I know this has already been stated multiple times, but their fans think that they are just as talented as we are and they are "a couple of players away".

 

[aTotal360]

[No message]

 

[MemphisMaroonClubDog]

You need that much moreso than you need a quality skill player. The OL last year for us was the biggest issue and it will be the biggest reason for our success this year </p>

 

[EAVdog]

But their talent is young and they don't have much depth. They really should sue Nutt for breach of contract.

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

ole miss has ranked 13th or 14th in every team position ranking thus far. QB, RB, WR/TE, OL, and DL.

 

[RonnyAtmosphere]

...Ole Miss is going to be bad because all the evidence points to them being bad.


But please spare me what the same network that still can't distingush between Mississippi State & Mississippi in articles & broadcasts thinks about MSU position players.


ESPN know as much about MSU position players as coach34 knows about neurosurgery.

 

[Sauron]

Are they getting ranked dead last because they went 2-10, or did they go 2-10 because they sucked that badly and deserve to be dead last?

 

[RonnyAtmosphere]

..you think ESPN is really going to go to the trouble to research all the SEC position players?


ESPN is just taking last year's records & formulating rankings around that.


You know, the exact same methodology all the summer magazines use.

 

[xxxWalkTheDawg]

For some reason.

 

[Resolved]

3) Recruiting rankings are ********,
2) UM's coaching has sucked,
8) Some/most of their 4 and 5 star guys never made it to campus,
5) UM has latent talent that is going to kick somebody's *** with good coaching (this option actually scares me).</p>

 

[coorslightdawg]

[No message]

 

[gravedigger]

research than most but he still sucks overall.

If you'll notice nobody ever predicts schools like MSU, OM, Vandy, UK etc to have a year that is not indicative of the year before. Never. They do recognize when a team has lost key players and say that translates into less wins. But that is about it.

Om is ranked low, just like Ronny said because of the past 2 year record and the idea that they have to get kids that fit the new coaches system. Just like we did in 2009. Their situation is far worse than ours in 2009 though.

 

[PBRME]

3) Recruiting rankings are ********,
2) UM's coaching has sucked,
8) Some/most of their 4 and 5 star guys never made it to campus,
5) UM has latent talent that is going to kick somebody's *** with good coaching (this option actually scares me).</p>

It's not just one thing that led to their decline. Some high profile players either never qualified, or dropped out soon after arriving. Their recruiting has concentrated more on skill players than on the lines, and still is which baffles me. Lastly, I keep hearing that Nutt's conditioning program went in the ******* after Bennie Abram passed away. Not sure how true that is, but from watching them late in games it did look like they weren't in great condition.

 

[GroveHard]

When the teams came out for warmups, it was clear that Ole Miss wasn't an SEC team. Slow, small, and weak isn't a recipe for success in the SEC.

 

[rebelrouseri]

<span class="post-title">

UM has outranked us in recruiting in the last dozen years

state has had plenty of higher ranked classes especially when looking at nutt's attrition rate.
</span>

 

[Todd4State]

Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life.

 

[Coach34]

the last 10 years. Just shows how much you can trust rankings and why the games are played on the field

 

[engie]

Since 2004(Croom's first real class), you are 6-1-2 against us in recruiting. The only one I'm calling unanimous is the class from last year, and ESPN actually had you rated higher then, so you "could" call that a toss up. Looking back at this, these ranking are a joke in general. State gets a Scout bias, OM gets a Rivals bias. That said, I fully expect this year's class to be another tie. Both will finish in the 18-25ish range, IMO...

year - scout, rivals
OM:
'12 - 58, 40 LOSS
'11 - 20, 19 WIN
'10 - 15, 18 WIN
'09 - 17, 18 WIN
'08 - 38, 29 TIE
'07 - 31, 27 TIE
'06 - 15, 15 WIN
'05 - 29, 30 WIN
'04 - 39, 45 WIN

State:
'12 - 18, 30 WIN
'11 - 45, 44 LOSS
'10 - 38, 38 LOSS
'09 - 19, 25 LOSS
'08 - 33, 44 TIE
'07 - 27, 39 TIE
'06 - 39, 46 LOSS
'05 - 39, 33 LOSS
'04 - 60, 87 LOSS

 

[57stratdawg]

That's what killed them. You've got to keep talent in the program.

Remember: Orgeron's highly ranked classes turned them into one of the best teams in the country before Nutt lost control.

 

[patdog]

And last I checked you currently have a higher ranked 2013 class. Forgive me for not beeing too terribly worried about that.

 

[rebelrouseri]

at least twice w/ several ties. what's also important is the space between the classes. If we have a slightly higher ranked class, you can pretty much call that a wash because of the unscientific nature of rankings. However, its import when you have a clearly higher ranked class like you did last year.

 

[GroveHard]

most on here clamored for re-ranking the classes based on who actually suited up when Nutt was "winning" the crootin' wars. That sentiment seems to have been abandoned, but a re-ranking of the classes would probably put State ahead for at least two more classes. There's no question that the most talented team has won the last two Egg Bowls, and as the draft would later show, the 2009 State team was pretty damn close.

 

[patdog]

If you're not careful you're going to start giving Dinkle a run for his money at being king of completely ignoring facts when they're put right in front of your face. How do you get that we had the better class at least twice plus several ties from that data? We all know the ranking are not scientific. The people ranking the classes aren't qualified to evaluate football talent plus they all have hidden (or not so hidden) agendas, the biggest one being to suck up to the schools that give them the most subscribers. But the fact is, in the last 10 years you've had the higher ranked class 6 times, we've had the higher ranked class 1 time (2012), and twice it's been a split between the 2 main recruiting sites. Doesn't mean you've had the better classes all those years, and especially not looking at them in hindsight. But at the time, your classes were ranked higher. That is a fact.

 

[Hump4Hoops]

You called Resolved's post not true, when you seem to agree with 2 of his 4 "one of these must be true" statements: "Recruiting rankings are ********," and "Some/most of their 4 and 5 star guys never made it to campus"

Don't be a dumbass, dumbass.

 

[engie]

I disagree with no part of that. Our 07 classes were close, while our 08 and 09 classes ended up being better. Will be interesting to see how the '10 and '11 classes classes turn out, because on paper, you kicked the crap out of us...and took a ton of talent that we wanted.

I would still like to see a reranking based on who gets into school, because we have had almost no trouble with that, so it could do nothing but help us...

 

[JackBauer.sixpack]

most on here clamored for re-ranking the classes based on who actually suited up when Nutt was "winning" the crootin' wars. That sentiment seems to have been abandoned, but a re-ranking of the classes would probably put State ahead for at least two more classes. There's no question that the most talented team has won the last two Egg Bowls, and as the draft would later show, the 2009 State team was pretty damn close.

<div>How was the 2009 Mississippi State team no the most talented team in the Egg Bowl? Was the 41-27 with a fumble on the goaline(48) and two knees inside the 10 yard line(55) not a clear indicator of Mississippi State being the more talented team? I dont see how anybody who watched that game could come to a different conclusion. </div>

 

[GroveHard]

The most talented team doesn't always win. Was Maine more talented than State when you lost to them? Are you willing to back Croom's statement to that effect?

I think it was close, but Dexter, Powe, Hardy, K. Lewis, Jerry, C. Vaughn, and Massie are all on pro rosters now. I haven't counted pro for pro, but I don't think State had that many on the field that day. Snead was the best QB on the field, though that isn't saying much. Trahan, Tillman, Laurent, M. Green, and D. Geralds, were very good college players. Look, it's not a slight to say that State beat a more talented team that day, and I think the talent gap was much smaller than both State and Ole Miss fans thought it was going in to that game.

 

[Coach34]

every February

 

[JackBauer.sixpack]

The most talented team doesn't always win.

I think it was close, but Dexter, Powe, Hardy, K. Lewis, Jerry, C. Vaughn, and Massie are all on pro rosters now. I haven't counted pro for pro, but I don't think State had that many on the field that day.

1)You can make that argument if the game is close. That game was not close AT ALL. Even without kneeling the ball, we did whatever we wanted to your defense all day. Everyone in the stadium KNEW what we were doing, and yet Ole Miss couldnt stop us from getting 7 yards a carry on the read option.<div>
</div><div>2)You listed 7 players on NFL rosters. How about Anthony Dixon, Derek Sherrod, Pernell McPhee, Kyle Love, Fletcher Cox, Chris White, Jamar Chaney, KJ Wright, Charles Mitchell, Quinton Saulsburry ? Thats 10, not including Johntahn Banks and Josh Boyd who are NFL talents(both received draftable reviews from the NFL Draft board this year) </div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>

</div>

 

[Spanky.sixpack]

We were 5-7 against one of the hardest schedules out there. They were 8-4 against a very easy schedule. We both got blown out by Auburn and Alabama. The LSU games were very close. They worked over Arkansas while Arkansas did a number on us. They beat Tennessee and lost to Carolina while we beat Kentucky and lost to Florida. Houston and Georgia Tech blows anybody they had to play OOC out of the water.<div>
</div><div>So, I'm leaning towards the fact that both teams were close in talent, with the edge in QB going to Ole Miss (that makes a big difference). During '08/'09, Ole Miss rose and fell with Jevan Snead, period. </div><div><div>
</div><div>
</div> </div>

 

[rebelrouseri]

simply not true. states had a number of higher ranked classes and also classes that clearly turned about better.

 

[JackBauer.sixpack]

Why look at schedules? When you play ONE-ON-ONE, the WINNER is the better team. Period. If it's a one score game (TD or less), then you can make an argument that a different result would occur if they played additional times. <div>
</div><div>Winning by 2 TD's and kneeling within the ten yard line and forgoing a 3rd TD says that 2009 team was better. The score says it and the talent says it.</div><div>
</div><div>

</div>

 

[gravedigger]

the original point.

As the Rivals and scout sites show, OM has been rated higherover the last 12 years, both more often and if you combined the rankings and made an overall average, you'd see a disparity there too.

Which is what the original poster is pointing out. Those rankings must mean only a couple of things. One, they are ********, or two these talented players are washing out at an alarming rate after the fact (signing day)

Either way, OM and Statefans crowing NOW and on signing day seems to be just a bunch of crap.

Recruiting rankings should all be done after the fact. THey should be based on statisticalcontributions to the team they signed with. THe best recruiting services wouldnt be rating players based on what major college football program has 'slipped them their list' of who they are going to go after this or next year. (argument in a circle.....Who are the best players signing with?Alabama.Why are they the best? BecauseSaban always gets the best players).

Of course I'm a pragmatist that is to say that the only truth is what is functional.

Brassell is a talented kid. But as of this moment you got his talents for one year and he produced. IN the end, he didnt amount to much of a great deal. A solid 3 star lineman that starts 2 years of his 5 and does his job is far more valuable than the one year Brassell dazzled crowds during his freshman year. Same was true for the lateDarren Williams and the hoopla that went around his recruitment for us.

 

[GroveHard]

1) Do you remember the score at the half? 13-10 Ole Miss. What was
that about doing what you wanted "all day?" State's offense didn't get
rolling until Mullen rode Relf in the 2nd half. It's also hilarious
that you mentioned your turnovers, but not ours in your previous post.
I'm sure those were just oversights.

2) Fletcher Cox hardly counts as he was a freshman who recorded .5
tackles in the game. I'm not even sure if he started that day. If
Saulsberry counts, then so does Brandon Bolden. Trahan, E. Stephens, G.
Harris, and M. Green are all also on rosters which brings
the Ole Miss total to 12. I can't remember if R. Johnson played in that game or not, but if so, he makes 13.

3) Who was more talented in 2000- Ole Miss or State?

 

[57stratdawg]

[No message]

 

[rebelrouseri]

twelve years. during that period, there were clearly better state classes based on signing day star average alone. but the average ranking on signing day means very little because classes closely ranked might as well be deemed identical and attrition and grade casualties are extremely import. implying that om out recruiting state for 12 years is just stupid. I guess you like to believe that to enforce your god complex of mullen. the notion that he has no talent to work w/ and just coaches them up is just stupid. he's certainly not a great recruiter but he has taken advantage of nutt's lazy early efforts like any good coach should.

 

[Resolved]

hell, I hope you win another one come February.

Seriously,it seems to methat UM's classes havecontained more 3 - 5star recruits from OUT-OF-STATEthat simply never panned out. Would love to see some stats on that compared to our classes in the last 12 years. If it proves to be true, is it because they were out-of-staters or is it just bad luck for the Rebs?

 

[JackBauer.sixpack]

overall talent of Mississippi State vs. Ole Miss in 2009. Take away Saulsberry. That puts MSU at 11 NFL players on that one team that started. You mentioned seven. <div>
</div><div>You mention players like Geralds and Green; every roster is full of moderate to good players who help build up your roster. Guys like Sean Ferguson and Saulsberry who start for 4 years. Guys like J.C. Brignone and Marcus Washington who start for 3 years. Were they all conference? No, but they was solid contributors.</div><div>
</div><div>Fletcher Cox and Josh Boyd both started as freshman at different points in the year. They also played half the snaps that day. They count. </div><div>
</div><div>But aside from all of the banter, the final score tells the final story. Mississippi State was the better team. It's quantifiable. It's not subjective.</div><div>
</div><div>41-27</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>