our main weakness will be our defensive front. Returning only one starter (Lamarcus Williams- DT) and no depth at DE. I really don't know what our 2 deep will look like on defense, lots of holes and questions. I think most agree we had a pretty good defense over the last couple of years that carried the team- but next season if we win at all, it will have to be the offense carrying the load. We are not in near the shape I thought we would be after year 5. If Croom would have stayed our coach next year - he would have posted his worst record.
While I'm worried about our OL next year..
- Thread starter Hector.sixpack
- Start date
our main weakness will be our defensive front. Returning only one starter (Lamarcus Williams- DT) and no depth at DE. I really don't know what our 2 deep will look like on defense, lots of holes and questions. I think most agree we had a pretty good defense over the last couple of years that carried the team- but next season if we win at all, it will have to be the offense carrying the load. We are not in near the shape I thought we would be after year 5. If Croom would have stayed our coach next year - he would have posted his worst record.
This was a huge senior class with some pretty good players, especially on defense. There is really not a position that we come up short regarding true SEC talent besides Dixon and Sherrod. Its really bad. We will be lucky to win 3 games next year. For those that want to argue, please let us know who we will beat in the SEC in 2009. I just don't see a win. I think we have a good freshman class and some talent that has been redshirted. If Mullen can put together two more solid recruiting classes we might go bowling in 2010.
Don't worry. We also have Kyle Love coming back, along with Josh Jackson. I expect Josh Boyd to be a backup DT next year along with Jackson.
Without McPhee, we probably start Charles Burns and Sean Ferguson. We also have a plethora of freshmen DE's- Trevor Stigers, Nick Bell, and Shane McCardell- all who RS and Fletcher Cox who may very well play right away as well.
Without McPhee, we probably start Charles Burns and Sean Ferguson. We also have a plethora of freshmen DE's- Trevor Stigers, Nick Bell, and Shane McCardell- all who RS and Fletcher Cox who may very well play right away as well.
Defense can be rebuilt very fast. It is not as hard to coach defensive players up. All you need is some speed and guys who like to hit. However there did not seem to be much of that in the egg bowl. Ole Miss could have drop 60 on us if they wanted.</p>
vicious said:
We match up very well with Vandy. Our defense is a lot faster than their offense. I actually picked us to beat them and was right- for a change. I don't think Vandy will be as good as they were this year.
Auburn doesn't have very many good players, and they're not going to get any help from their recruits this year. I think Mullen can probably outcoach Chizek to. I'd take Tyson Lee over Kodi Burns. Not only that, Auburn will probably be 0-1 after getting beat by West Virginia while we will be coming off of a feel good blowout of Jackson State.
Those are probably our two most likely SEC wins in a worst case scenario. I think we could also possibly beat UK and Arkansas on the road. All of our tough SEC games are at home- Bama, LSU, Florida, Ole Miss which is actually in our favor, I think. At least I'd rather play them at home. And as odd as it may sound, we may have a better winning percentage on the road than at home.
the rest of our DL will be either Freshmen or Soph. Like I said, this will be our weakness. I do however believe since our defense won't be on the field for 52 minutes a game, so that should help.
I think Burns was a senior, right?
I think Burns was a senior, right?
for a DE at 270 while still being very fast. Most of these other DE types we have are smallish in the 230-250 pound range and younger. Without McPhee, I tend to agree that we are going to have trouble generating much of a pass rush.
First of all, Burns was injured all last year so he can take a medical redshirt and be a 5th year senior. Thats assuming Mullen asks him to come back for that 5th year of course. You'd think he would but you never know.Hector said:
And that is not really true about all Fr or So. You'd have Cooper and Burns at DE then you have Odom and Prince at DT, all Jrs and Srs. True Odom and Prince have done nothing and probably never will, but Cooper and Burns should be in the rotation at least.
I stand corrected as far as who we got coming back. I'm still not confident we will have the quality defensive front we've had the past few years- and it's going to show.
Our D-Line is in better shape (and I think we get McPhee to supplement it) than our O-Line.
I also think we'll have some younger DL's play well. One thing about the last few years that I've liked, we seem to have had young DL's (particularly DT's) play well.</p>
I also think we'll have some younger DL's play well. One thing about the last few years that I've liked, we seem to have had young DL's (particularly DT's) play well.</p>
Players like Delmon Robinson, Sophmore Arceto Clark, and Robert Elliot. They appear to have SEC speed and can create problems for a defense. I would also expect Bumphis to come in and get about 15-20 touches a game and really make a difference for MSU.
I really think Dixon may end up on the bench by the end of next year.
The only problem i see with the offense at MSU is that Relf seems to be the only QB built to run it. He has the size and speed to run the spread option. I don't think Lee can take the pounding of running option plays, but he does have the speed.
I know its been said before but if you are going to run the FL spread, it relies on running QB's and Russell is not a running QB. He can run, but he is your classic pocket passer. I think a good comparison is a more mobile Drew Bledsoe. Should be interesting how Mullen adjusts his offense to Russell's strengths.
I really think Dixon may end up on the bench by the end of next year.
The only problem i see with the offense at MSU is that Relf seems to be the only QB built to run it. He has the size and speed to run the spread option. I don't think Lee can take the pounding of running option plays, but he does have the speed.
I know its been said before but if you are going to run the FL spread, it relies on running QB's and Russell is not a running QB. He can run, but he is your classic pocket passer. I think a good comparison is a more mobile Drew Bledsoe. Should be interesting how Mullen adjusts his offense to Russell's strengths.
I could see it happening. It has been somewhat rare that he's done exactly what we want him to do, which is run north and south.
out of the Shotgun.
Remember Tebow ran a good bit out of the Shotgun sets
The Utah/FL spread has always had a running QB, and though Leak was never great at running the ball he was certainly mobile, just not big enough to handle the amount of running that they implement.
I think Relf could give MSU that running threat, and Russell could be the Leak part of the offense.
Omar Conner is the perfect QB for this offense in my opinion.
Remember Tebow ran a good bit out of the Shotgun sets
The Utah/FL spread has always had a running QB, and though Leak was never great at running the ball he was certainly mobile, just not big enough to handle the amount of running that they implement.
I think Relf could give MSU that running threat, and Russell could be the Leak part of the offense.
Omar Conner is the perfect QB for this offense in my opinion.
I just don't know if he can take the pounding of being the running QB part of the offense.
If you have a two QB system running the FL spread, you would have a passer that could run, and a runner that could pass.
I would think Russell would be the passer that could run, and Relf could be the runner that could pass.
Lee could fill both roles, Im just not sure you want him running between the tackles with his size.
If you have a two QB system running the FL spread, you would have a passer that could run, and a runner that could pass.
I would think Russell would be the passer that could run, and Relf could be the runner that could pass.
Lee could fill both roles, Im just not sure you want him running between the tackles with his size.
Leak had 30 yards rushing in 06. Granted that total includes sacks, but its also around the 4th lowest rushing totals for qbs in the conference that year.
You don't want Lee running between the tackles anymore than you wanted Leak. The point is that you don't have to have a great runner at QB, there are other playmakers to get the ball to ideally.
You don't want Lee running between the tackles anymore than you wanted Leak. The point is that you don't have to have a great runner at QB, there are other playmakers to get the ball to ideally.
of what our players can actually do, instead of what they are incabable of doing (running a prostyle offense with seventh grade playcalling). Mullen will build his offense on the players he has and what they can do- not force them to do things they can't then blame them for screwing it up (Crooms).
I guess you believe the spread can rely on 240 lb HB's that have a tendency to hesitate before hitting the hole.
Considering your man love for Croom at the beginning of the season and the number of times you scoffed at posters who dared question the success of the 2007 season, and Croom's future legacy at MSU, Im pretty sure that this is now officially going to be true.
Considering your man love for Croom at the beginning of the season and the number of times you scoffed at posters who dared question the success of the 2007 season, and Croom's future legacy at MSU, Im pretty sure that this is now officially going to be true.
but if they hadn't had Tebow, they would have still had a great offense in 06. The whole point is that its not a necessity. These coaches find a way to get the ball to the right people. If those people are qbs, then so be it. As Mullen stated, the offense is about getting people in space to make plays.
Dixon is not only a potential all SEC RB going into next season, he is also one of the best receivers on the team. Dixon will fit perfectly into a spread offense.OMlawdog said:
You know nothing about Dixon specifically & MSU football in general.
I've seen you come here & tell out & out lies about the MSU football program, then when you are called on it, you went to the "I got faulty imformation" card.
Lastly, my former stances on Croom are nothing compared to your current longing to become Houston Nutt's gay lover.
to fit our personell the best. I think that point has been hammered home, and that's why everyone likes Mullen. I have no doubt he would love to get a running threat at qb..that' s just another playmaker on the field. But as he has shown, he can get the ball up and down the field with a classic drop back passer.
Im not sure what lies I have told about the MSU program, I usually don't get into pissing matches with people on here.
I don't think I have ever said claimed something and said I had "faulty information" The last time I got called out on something is when I said Chris Spencer (MSU) was barely 6 feet tall, and I was told I was full of it, and I stand by that today.
You may have to go to your vault on this, because Im calling bullsh!t on that.
Have I really been that big of a Nutt fan on here? I think he did a great job this season and I hope we are able to keep him.
Gay lover? Really?
Im not even sure what you think is antagonistic in my post. I think certain players fit the spread well, I think certain players won't. Just my opinion, not sure why it pisses you off so much. Too much coffee this morning?
I don't think I have ever said claimed something and said I had "faulty information" The last time I got called out on something is when I said Chris Spencer (MSU) was barely 6 feet tall, and I was told I was full of it, and I stand by that today.
You may have to go to your vault on this, because Im calling bullsh!t on that.
Have I really been that big of a Nutt fan on here? I think he did a great job this season and I hope we are able to keep him.
Gay lover? Really?
Im not even sure what you think is antagonistic in my post. I think certain players fit the spread well, I think certain players won't. Just my opinion, not sure why it pisses you off so much. Too much coffee this morning?
He was a pocket passer- and a darn good one. As someone stated earlier, he didn't exactly tear up the rushing yds. (30 or something) the year they won the NC.
He rushed it like 77 times. That is my point, that even if they don't have a running threat at QB, he will still run the ball with the QB a good bit.
I do think Mullen won't make the same mistake Rodriguez made at Michigan, and will run plays that fit his personnel. I would think players like Robinson/Clark/Bumphis will all get the ball a ton.
I do think Mullen won't make the same mistake Rodriguez made at Michigan, and will run plays that fit his personnel. I would think players like Robinson/Clark/Bumphis will all get the ball a ton.
One thing, does that 77 rush attempts include sacks? I know they count sacks against rush yards but I don't remember if they mark them down as rush attempts. If they do, then you are probably looking at more like 50 or maybe even 45 true rush attempts. That would be around 4 QB runs a game. Not too bad.
WTF vicious??? You think next year could be worse than this past year in football??? 3 winnable games next year??? If Croom could win 4 games in '08, then I feel confident that Mullen can do at least that. If not better!!!! I respect your opinion, but DAMN! Really???
This year was one of the easiest schedules you will probably ever have due to how teams fell apart this year and played well below their norm. Tenn was worse then I have ever seen them, Auburn was horrible, Sela, La Tech, MTSU, Arkansas being down, Having Vandi and Kentucky at home. That really should have been 6-8 wins right there, and then there was a still tough but down LSU, because of QB play, Bama, GT, and Ole Miss. So with that schedule you would think 8-4 or 6-6 at worst. Next years schedule becomes more difficult, and then you add in a whole new coaching staff and system, it could be rough.