Toggle sidebar

The CL says we don't miss Dixon

D

Dawgzilla

Redshirt
Mar 3, 2008
5,406
0
0
When I pressed coach for an objective standard on what he meant be not missing Dixon, he said MSU's QBs and RBs would rush for more yards in 2010 than than the QBs and RBs rushed for in 2009. The 2010 guys came up about 300 yards short.
 
C

Coach34

Redshirt
Jul 20, 2012
20,283
1
0
Dawgzilla said:
When I pressed coach for an objective standard on what he meant be not missing Dixon, he said MSU's QBs and RBs would rush for more yards in 2010 than than the QBs and RBs rushed for in 2009. The 2010 guys came up about 300 yards short.
Click to expand...

we were only 143 yards behind last year's rushing total- Because of the guys we had this year, we more than accounted for that yardage in the passing game by throwing for over 400 more yards, not to mention we were better in the red zone with Ralph and Ballard this year

We didnt miss Dixon
 
T

tenureplan

Senior
Dec 3, 2008
8,374
983
113
turn in to a 400 yard boost in the passing game? It sounds like we didn't miss yah boy Tyson.
 
G

Goat Holder II

Guest
Missing him is the difference between having him on the team this year and not having him. Sorry but a backfield of Dixon, Ballard and Perkins is better than Ballard, Perkins and Elliot. Why the hell do I really need to explain this?
 
Bulldog from Birth

Bulldog from Birth

All-Conference
Jan 23, 2007
2,477
1,038
113
Webster's dictionary defines "Missing Anthony Dixon" in this way. "Missing Anthony Dixon" is the act of sitting in the stands at least once per game and thinking to one's self, "Man, I sure do wish we had Anthony Dixon right now. He'd have sure made these plays that we aren't making in this game."

Therefore, the results are clear. Would we have loved to add Anthony Dixon to this team? Of course we would, he's an NFL caliber running back. But did we MISS Anthony Dixon? Absolutely not.

BFB
 
C

Coach34

Redshirt
Jul 20, 2012
20,283
1
0
when I said we would not have a RB as good as him this season- but we wouldnt miss him and still get the production. And we did.

C-L agrees
Chris Low agrees
Most people not wanting to suck off Dixon agree

We didnt miss him this season
 
A

AzzurriDawg4

Redshirt
Nov 11, 2007
3,206
12
38
and that is also how I define "missing him"<div>
</div><div>We would have been better on offense in 2010 with Dixon on the team. Thus, he was missed. End of story. </div>
 
M

MSUArrowCS

Redshirt
Dec 19, 2006
686
0
0
Would we have loved to add Anthony Dixon to this team? Of course we
would, he's an NFL caliber running back. But did we MISS Anthony
Dixon? Absolutely not.
Click to expand...
We compensated for the loss quite nicely, to the point that we didn't find ourselves an NFL-caliber running back short of making progress. This year's team is more balanced and overall, more talented than last year's. And we were only overmatched in two games all year. It's been a while since that happened.
 
C

Coach34

Redshirt
Jul 20, 2012
20,283
1
0
are we missing him too? How about Johnnie Cooks- we missing him at LB? Ya know, Donald Lee would have made us better at TE also- we missed him too come to think of it- end of story
 
A

AzzurriDawg4

Redshirt
Nov 11, 2007
3,206
12
38
Bottom line. That is the statement we are all talking about. Would we miss him? I think we would have been a better team with Dixon, therefore I think we miss him. Did we end up having a much better season largely because of less turnovers, better QB play, much better defense and a softer schedule? Yep. Was a continued solid running game a factor in that success? Sure. Did we get better on offense this year? Yep...that probably has something to do with the above points AND this being the 2nd year in the spread offense. But that doesn't mean we didn't miss Dixon. I think we probably beat Auburn with Dixon on the team FWIW.
 
J

jcdawgman18

Redshirt
Jul 1, 2008
1,379
0
36
Bulldog from Birth said:
Webster's dictionary defines "Missing Anthony Dixon" in this way. "Missing Anthony Dixon" is the act of sitting in the stands at least once per game and thinking to one's self, "Man, I sure do wish we had Anthony Dixon right now.<span style="font-weight: bold;"> He'd have sure made these plays that we aren't making in this game."</span>
Click to expand...
There were so many times that I would watch a run and think, "yeah, Vick got 4 there, but Boobie gets 8" or on plays where Vick was one step from scoring thinking "Boobie throws that guy and scores". Now in a lot of games it didn't make that big a difference, but in games like Arkansas where we went a long stretch without moving the ball there's no question having Boobie would have made us better.

If we have Boobie, we win ten games. Beat both Auburn and Arkansas.
 
G

Goat Holder II

Guest
so I'll put this in plain English.

Comparing our production from 2009 to 2010 doesn't prove we did or did not miss Anthony Dixon. What does, is the damn near FACT that Anthony Dixon would have been the best running back, ****, best offensive player, on our team this year. And he's a proven play maker and been successful in this environment.
 
C

Coach34

Redshirt
Jul 20, 2012
20,283
1
0
multiple people are agreeing with me. And Bulldog from Birth put it in it's best and simplest terms:

"Therefore, the results are clear. Would we have loved to add Anthony Dixon to this team? Of course we would, he's an NFL caliber running back. But did we MISS Anthony Dixon? Absolutely not"
 
F

FlabLoser

Redshirt
Aug 20, 2006
10,709
0
0
Bulldog from Birth said:
Webster's dictionary defines "Missing Anthony Dixon" in this way. "Missing Anthony Dixon" is the act of sitting in the stands <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">at least once per game</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">when Ballard fumbled in OT against Arkansas</span> and thinking to one's self, "Man, I sure do wish we had Anthony <span style="font-weight: bold;">Dixon</span> right now. He <span style="font-weight: bold;">would have</span><span style="text-decoration: line-through;"> sure made these plays that we aren't making in this game</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">scored right there</span>."

Therefore, the results are clear. Would we have loved to add Anthony Dixon to this team? Of course we would, he's an NFL caliber running back. But did we MISS Anthony Dixon? Absolutely not.

BFB
Click to expand...
I still agree with the conclusion.
 
M

MSUArrowCS

Redshirt
Dec 19, 2006
686
0
0
may I ask why you find that line of thinking so inferior?

I'm not the biggest fan of ole C34, but all I ever remember was the claim that we wouldn't "miss Dixon" because we'd be getting good rushing yards from Relf. Our offense didn't miss a beat, even in close losses. Yes, it's a different but much less hypothetical way of looking at the word "miss," but damn, dude.
 
G

Goat Holder II

Guest
Yes, it's a <font size="5">different</font> but much less hypothetical way of looking at the word "miss,"
Click to expand...
Am I missing something here? So you're admitting you don't know what missing a player means? We're not comparing offensive stats. We're comparing a player and the difference he could make on one offense vs. another. We would have been much better this year with Dixon. The end, and this isn't debatable. I see your point and all, but it's just an incorrect way to assess this.
 
M

MSUArrowCS

Redshirt
Dec 19, 2006
686
0
0
and those who disagree with your meaning, which asks if we'd hypothetically like to have a player for a fifth season, and instead interpret as the replace-ability of a player, which is indeed measurable in multiple ways and is what the original poster was pointing out in context, are retarded and illogical.

So that's how things work in Goat's world .... measurable/arguable = illogical and retarded because you said so. Got it.
 
C

Coach34

Redshirt
Jul 20, 2012
20,283
1
0
MSUArrowCS said:
and those who disagree with your meaning, which asks if we'd hypothetically like to have a player for a fifth season, and instead interpret as the replace-ability of a player, which is indeed measurable in multiple ways and is what the original poster was pointing out in context, are retarded and illogical.

So that's how things work in Goat's world .... measurable/arguable = illogical and retarded because you said so. Got it.
Click to expand...


why Goat is the worst poster in the message board universe and why he has had to have 27 usernames
 
K

klerushund

Redshirt
Sep 12, 2010
313
0
0
There is no way to empirically prove that we would have been better or worse with Dixon. It is impossible to say either way without replaying the entire season with him at tailback.<div>
</div><div>That said, if you really do think we are better without Dixon or that we don't "miss him" (which, again, is at best conjecture), why are you trying to build a list of people that might or might not agree with you?</div><div>
</div><div>"Me thinks he doth protest to much."</div>
 
M

MSUArrowCS

Redshirt
Dec 19, 2006
686
0
0
I thought we weren't arguing stats? We're just calling people retarded, which is apparently way better than username smack. Definitely.

Here's the thing: The meaning of a word depends on its context. This is pretty fundamental of the English language, speaking of retarded.

And in the original post, the one that said "we won't miss Dixon," even though the poster is a self-proclaimed baiting ******* and was trying to get a rise out of the *populace here, the point was that we could replace Dixon's production because Relf's would increase. That's exactly what happened. Beyond that, with rare exception, we didn't find ourselves a "running back away" from any of the team's goals. We're ahead of where we wanted to be.
 
T

Todd4State

Redshirt
Mar 3, 2008
17,411
1
0
I felt like we would make up for his production in terms of yardage. I averaged it out in the offseason, and our backs only needed something like 600 yards of rushing a piece to do that, which is not all that hard in a run heavy offense.

But, I have also always said that we would miss AD in terms of leadership and the inatangibles that he brought to our team in the form of energy and enthusiasm.

I think the real question is what would AD have done this year. I couldn't imagine that it would be worse, and would likely be better, than what he did last year because Relf is a better QB than Tyson Lee was last year, which would have forced people to choose between keying in on Relf or AD, and that's certainly a pick your poison situation on the option. Even if someone plays it correctly, they still could very well get plowed by either one of those guys. Our o-line is better this year too, we have a better defense that is getting the ball back to our offense better than we did last year. Ballard is very good, and he certainly would have been an upgrade over Ducre. Perkins is also an upgrade over Stallworth from last year, and Elliott is no worse than last year, and is probably a little bit better.

I am of the opinion that with AD we beat Auburn and Arkansas this year, which might have vaulted us into the Sugar Bowl and probably no worse than the Capitol One.
 
57stratdawg

57stratdawg

Heisman
Dec 1, 2004
148,358
24,133
113
weren't as good as the ones we played in Dixon's Sr year. The SEC was the highest scoring conference in America this year.

I just look at those 2009 Bama D (McClain, Javier Arenas, Terrance Cody), Florida D (Spikes, Haden, Cunningham), and even GT were alot better than the teams we replaced them with this year. Even OM lost alot from '09 to '10.

If the 2009 MSU team would have played the 2010 schedule, they would have gone to a bowl game too.
 
G

Goat Holder II

Guest
Listen, if you want someone to post their arguments over and over and over, twist **** and debate useless details, godo itwith Coach or LionO. I've stated and backed up my position (the one you keep arguing against without even looking at my posts) at least 3 times in this thread. I don't agree with you and I won't. I think you're wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom