All you had to do was tune into the Sugar Bowl toninght. The offense that was being run tonight was the same offense that Myer and Mullen brought in from Bowling Green. I am not saying that we will be in the Sugar bowl, all I am saying is you can expect that type of football team at MSU over the next few years.
If wanted to know what MSU will look like under Mullen
- Thread starter dawgfan77
- Start date
All you had to do was tune into the Sugar Bowl toninght. The offense that was being run tonight was the same offense that Myer and Mullen brought in from Bowling Green. I am not saying that we will be in the Sugar bowl, all I am saying is you can expect that type of football team at MSU over the next few years.
All you had to do was tune into the Sugar Bowl toninght. The offense that was being run tonight was the same offense that Myer and Mullen brought in from Bowling Green. I am not saying that we will be in the Sugar bowl, all I am saying is you can expect that type of football team at MSU over the next few years.
That will depend on the players. I am sure with our RB, and QB next year we will be more run oriented, Mullen will design an offense around the players. I would think that once Russell gets up to speed, Mullen wil use his throwing ability like Johnson for Utah.
The thing about Utah, and us is the fact that Utah was big AND fast. It also seems like we have a lot of guys like Delmon Robinson that are small, but fast guys, not knocking him by any means, just pointing out the differences.
We still have no o-line, but hopefully that will change.
One thing is for sure- Saban still hasn't figured out how to stop it.
We still have no o-line, but hopefully that will change.
One thing is for sure- Saban still hasn't figured out how to stop it.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. You may want to research that a little further.FrenchQuarterDawg said:
What I don't get is people coming on here and saying we don't have the talent that Utah has, yet we have our recruited them according to the experts on Scout and Rivals. There DL averaged 270 and as I stated earlier other than speed, which we are improving on, there is not a lot of difference.
Some of you us have been blinded by the bad coaching over the last 5 years they have failed to see that we actually have some talent. </p>
Some of you us have been blinded by the bad coaching over the last 5 years they have failed to see that we actually have some talent. </p>
Utah finished 13-0 and won a BCS bowl game against a Top 4 team... We finished 4-8 and were skulldrug by our rival to the tune of 45-0 in our last game.
They beat two Top 15 teams (BYU and TCU)... We beat one Top 15 team (Vanderbilt) who went on to lose five of their last six regular season games after playing us.
They are ranked 35th in Total Offense... We are ranked 113th.
They are ranked 15th in Scoring Offense... We are ranked 115th.
They are ranked 12th in Total Defense... We are ranked 35th.
They are ranked 12th in Scoring Defense... We are ranked 60th
NCAA rankings are current as of tonight and reflect their bowl game against Alabama.
I'm curious to see your research.
Our recruiting classes have consistently been better than Utah's. Their performance is due to good coaching.
Is that had Willingham been our coach this year - with the exact same players on our roster - that we would be 13-0 right now after having just won a BCS bowl game simply because of better coaching?
I just want to make sure I understand because I have been drinking a little tonight.
I just want to make sure I understand because I have been drinking a little tonight.
Now prove that the difference in team results is due to Utah having superior talent.FrenchQuarterDawg said:
You're dumber than I thought ....
I've at least presented some facts to prove my side of the argument. I've yet to see anything from you to prove that the only difference between us and Utah is coaching other than some reference to recruiting rankings - rankings which frankly I don't put a whole lot of stock in since they are only created to sell magazines and website subscriptions.
You said: "<span style="font-weight: bold;">Our talent level across the board is in no way comparable to Utah.</span> Maybe a few players here and there, but <span style="font-weight: bold;">they are a much better team, talent-wise, than we are</span>."
I'm telling you that the do not have more talent than us. I said nothing about records and all of that jazz. Simply that they don't have more talent than us.
I'm telling you that the do not have more talent than us. I said nothing about records and all of that jazz. Simply that they don't have more talent than us.
They are definately better than us at pretty much every offensive position- and that's with their QB having bad knees.
Johnson is probably going to get a shot at the NFL at least as a FA. Lee is done with football unless he wants to be a Tupelo arena-baller when he graduates here.
Their o-line is much better at every position. Sherrod might have started for them, but that's about it.
Their receivers are at least twice as good as ours. I will grant you that some of that is coaching in this case. But their receivers are also bigger and faster than ours, which are two things you can't coach.
Their RB that they primarily used was just as big as Dixon, and looked faster and he was definately more physical than Dixon. I think AD was our best player on offense in terms of talent, and he would be second string at Utah at best.
Their d-line was a LOT faster than ours. Hard to say that they couldn't have done well in the SEC based on what they did to Bama, and I think they would have still given them some trouble even with Smith.
Linebackers- Chaney and Wright would definately play for them. Maybe even start.
Our safeties may have been better than theirs, but not by a whole lot. Pegues starts for them. Fitzhugh may start for them.
Their corners looked OK. I don't think it's a given that O'Quinn would have started for them.
Their ST's were better because we had the ambiguously gay duo Adam and Blake kicking for us.
Pegues probably returns kicks for them.
So, by my count that's one guy on offense, and three on defense that would have definately started for them this year, and one of the guys on defense would have returned kicks for them.
Johnson is probably going to get a shot at the NFL at least as a FA. Lee is done with football unless he wants to be a Tupelo arena-baller when he graduates here.
Their o-line is much better at every position. Sherrod might have started for them, but that's about it.
Their receivers are at least twice as good as ours. I will grant you that some of that is coaching in this case. But their receivers are also bigger and faster than ours, which are two things you can't coach.
Their RB that they primarily used was just as big as Dixon, and looked faster and he was definately more physical than Dixon. I think AD was our best player on offense in terms of talent, and he would be second string at Utah at best.
Their d-line was a LOT faster than ours. Hard to say that they couldn't have done well in the SEC based on what they did to Bama, and I think they would have still given them some trouble even with Smith.
Linebackers- Chaney and Wright would definately play for them. Maybe even start.
Our safeties may have been better than theirs, but not by a whole lot. Pegues starts for them. Fitzhugh may start for them.
Their corners looked OK. I don't think it's a given that O'Quinn would have started for them.
Their ST's were better because we had the ambiguously gay duo Adam and Blake kicking for us.
Pegues probably returns kicks for them.
So, by my count that's one guy on offense, and three on defense that would have definately started for them this year, and one of the guys on defense would have returned kicks for them.
were coaching Utah, the Utes would be 4-8 or worst because its all about coaching not player skills on the field. Sorry, I'm not buying. Sure coaching is important but it all starts on the field with a stud QB as your cornerstone. Throw in aggressive, strong and talented linemen and a few key skill people and you can be successful in spite of coaching. We had all the wrong ingredients. bad coaching and not enough talent. Ask Louisiana Tech if we have tons of talent.
But I am gonna say , no way in HELL does Croom have the record they have,had he been coaching there.
If anybody doesn't think coaching matters..... I give you Houston Nutt.
If anybody doesn't think coaching matters..... I give you Houston Nutt.
DynamicDawg said:
No, your recruiting classes have not been better. They've been rated higher, but your recruiting classes have very obviously not been better. Coaching is very important, but you can't coach up that much of a difference between what MSU put on the field and what Utah put on the field. Your players are rated higher because they signed with an SEC school. Utah's players are not rated highly because 1) they are out West and likely not being recruited by SC, and 2) they signed with a MWC school.
Utah is a prime example of why recruiting rankings are a load of ****.
Here is my point. I watched MSU play every game this year, either in person or on TV, and I can tell you that we had more talent than our 4-8 record would indicate. As far as Utah being 13-0, they played in the Moutain West this year, and regardless of the outcome of the Sugar Bowl, the Moutian West is not the SEC. With competant coaching, we are atleast 7-5 this year, and even with Croom we were two points away from being 6-6. Our problem over the last few years has not been a lack of talent, its been a lack of coaching. Utah has very good coaches who know how to take left over talent and coach them up, I have no doubt that if Willingham had our team in the Mountian West they would very well win there conference. As I stated earlier, some people on here have been blinded by the bad coaching for the last 5 years and have not seen the talent that we have. It's not top SEC talent, but its just as good if not better than some teams in the SEC. I will say that we have struggled at the QB postion, over the last 5 years, but that should change with Mullen.
MSU has talent, and its very comparable to Utah, but what Utah has is very good coaching top to bottom, and they have been able to develop players that other programs overlooked. They came ready to play against Bama, and Bama overlooked them. Again, we have been coached by one of the worst staff's in the history of SEC, don't let that blind you to the fact that we don't have any talent, because we do, and yes, again top to bottom its equal to Utah's.
MSU has talent, and its very comparable to Utah, but what Utah has is very good coaching top to bottom, and they have been able to develop players that other programs overlooked. They came ready to play against Bama, and Bama overlooked them. Again, we have been coached by one of the worst staff's in the history of SEC, don't let that blind you to the fact that we don't have any talent, because we do, and yes, again top to bottom its equal to Utah's.
Utah beat BYU handily. They beat TCU, and they beat a very good Oregon State team. That's three wins over teams that will finish in the Top 20, along with the win over Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. They also won in Ann Arbor to start the season, even though Michigan didn't turn out to be a great team.
You automatically assume that Utah played a bunch of nobodies because they are in the MWC. I'll bet you didn't know that the MWC went 6-1 against the Pac-10 this year during the regular season.
The MWC was a quality conference this year with some quality competition. On top of that, Utah went out of conference and took care of business as well. I'm fine with the fact that MSU had more talent than your 4-8 showing, but in no way was it comparable to Utah. Again, coaching doesn't make that big of a difference. You're obviously one of those that's a slave to the recruiting rankings. Bottom line, even though you may have been coached down and Utah may have been coached up, Utah still had far better players than MSU this year. To argue otherwise is ludicrous.
You automatically assume that Utah played a bunch of nobodies because they are in the MWC. I'll bet you didn't know that the MWC went 6-1 against the Pac-10 this year during the regular season.
The MWC was a quality conference this year with some quality competition. On top of that, Utah went out of conference and took care of business as well. I'm fine with the fact that MSU had more talent than your 4-8 showing, but in no way was it comparable to Utah. Again, coaching doesn't make that big of a difference. You're obviously one of those that's a slave to the recruiting rankings. Bottom line, even though you may have been coached down and Utah may have been coached up, Utah still had far better players than MSU this year. To argue otherwise is ludicrous.
Utah's coach's name is Kyle <span style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline;">WHITTINGHAM</span>!!!!
secondly, I think player for player we probably have more talent. However, since Utah's coaches are better and have a freaking clue what they are doing, their players are the exactly right positions which allow them to succeed at a greater level. I doubt you have players getting moved around and screwed over like Omar, Wade Bonner, etc. Add that with the fact that their players probably improve rather than regress once they get on campus and Utah appears to have more talent than us.
strength and conditioning of the linemen, quality practice time, play calling and all the other things the coaches are responsible for is what makes the difference....
I think some of you don't realize just how sorry a coaching staff we had...
I think some of you don't realize just how sorry a coaching staff we had...
"Again, coaching doesn't make that big of a difference."
Really? Then how can you explain a team that went 0-8 in the SEC and 3-8 overall last year ends up winning the Cotton Bowl??
I am not going to defend the MWC, and no I am not a recruiting Junkie like yourself. The point I was trying to make in the first place was that an exciting offense and an attacking defense is what Utah runs, and that is what Mullen is going to bring to MSU. Its taking less talented players and winning games against teams that have more talent. I will not back down from my statement that MSU and Utah have equal talent, but when you have coaches that can coach up players you get Utah.
Really? Then how can you explain a team that went 0-8 in the SEC and 3-8 overall last year ends up winning the Cotton Bowl??
I am not going to defend the MWC, and no I am not a recruiting Junkie like yourself. The point I was trying to make in the first place was that an exciting offense and an attacking defense is what Utah runs, and that is what Mullen is going to bring to MSU. Its taking less talented players and winning games against teams that have more talent. I will not back down from my statement that MSU and Utah have equal talent, but when you have coaches that can coach up players you get Utah.
All I know is that you were not one of the most talented teams in the SEC, and I'm pretty sure of that.
And no one outside of Florida managed to beat Alabama, despite many quality coaches being on the sidelines. Utah beat Alabama fairly easily. That means that either Whittingham should've been the guy you hired, or it means that Utah actually had a pretty talented football team.
I agree that talent isn't everything, but it coaching doesn't make that much of a difference. I truly believe Utah is one of the top 3 or 4 teams in the country, and that's not just coaching. They could compete with a lot of the top BCS teams this year.
And no one outside of Florida managed to beat Alabama, despite many quality coaches being on the sidelines. Utah beat Alabama fairly easily. That means that either Whittingham should've been the guy you hired, or it means that Utah actually had a pretty talented football team.
I agree that talent isn't everything, but it coaching doesn't make that much of a difference. I truly believe Utah is one of the top 3 or 4 teams in the country, and that's not just coaching. They could compete with a lot of the top BCS teams this year.
I think Utah won that game because of coaching. The first quarter won that game, and the first quarter was all coaching. The rhythm was not what Alabama was expecting, and the precision with which EVERYbody performed was amazing. I wonder how many times they had run those exact three drives in practice.
Forget the MSU argument, there's no way you can say Utah was as talented as Alabama. Yet Utah won "fairly easily".
Forget the MSU argument, there's no way you can say Utah was as talented as Alabama. Yet Utah won "fairly easily".
the fact that they had a quality QB come in.
If they have Billy Tapp, Ole Miss might have only gone to say the Liberty Bowl this year. If they have O instead of Nutt they still probably go to the Liberty Bowl with Snead. With both- Cotton Bowl. That's how they did it.
Winning football games is not so much about scheme and coaching as it is players. All are important, but if you have to pick one of the three, take the players every time.
If they have Billy Tapp, Ole Miss might have only gone to say the Liberty Bowl this year. If they have O instead of Nutt they still probably go to the Liberty Bowl with Snead. With both- Cotton Bowl. That's how they did it.
Winning football games is not so much about scheme and coaching as it is players. All are important, but if you have to pick one of the three, take the players every time.
We also realize that 2 of their weaknesses were in evaluating high school players and recruiting good players. I don't know or care where idiots like Rivals or Scout ranked Utah's recruiting classes, it's pretty damn easy to see that they have more talented players than we do. As someone else pointed out, the only offensive player we have who could clearly start for Utah is Sherrod, and really the only other one who even might start for them would be Dixon.. And #10 on their defense is every bit as good as any defensive player we have. Yeah, part of the reason our players suck is because they were poorly coached. But that's only part of the reason.
Regardless of how Scout/Rivals ranked them, many of those Utah's players either had few or no quality offers coming out of high school. Look up the receivers (Brown, Godfrey, Castell) - you can hardly even find them in any recruit data base. Not to mention they've got a small 6'1" 200lbs QB. The best impact recruit they've had recently was the RB Asiata, a JUCO. They aren't ranked low because they chose Utah. They chose Utah because that was pretty much their only choice to play for a decent team.
So either the Utah coaches have done the best job of finding diamonds in the rough, or they do a great job coaching these guys up. One other note - most of the players are SR or JR, so it is a veteran group - but there's no way they should have more raw talent as most of the SEC schools.
So either the Utah coaches have done the best job of finding diamonds in the rough, or they do a great job coaching these guys up. One other note - most of the players are SR or JR, so it is a veteran group - but there's no way they should have more raw talent as most of the SEC schools.