Word is spreading that the two WR Freds are showing out

[ShotgunDawg]

Can anyone with more knowledge than I, add to this?

Heard they are both doing well at practice. Thses two are kinda wild cards that could give us a huge boost if they are explosive.

[thf24]

I read somewhere the other day that Fred Brown is currently running a 4.4 40. If that's true, combined with his already known strengths, he's going to be ridiculous.

[Ralph]

Can anyone with more knowledge than I, add to this?

Heard they are both doing well at practice. Thses two are kinda wild cards that could give us a huge boost if they are explosive.

Bob Carskadon said Fred Ross will be pushing rojo for starting spot within a few games

[War Machine Dawg]

I'm on record as saying that I think this could be a breakout year for Fred Brown. Dude has serious skillz. And I wouldn't be surprised to see Ross make some progress.

[Pollodawg]

I'm on record as saying that I think this could be a breakout year for Fred Brown. Dude has serious skillz. And I wouldn't be surprised to see Ross make some progress.

Ross was high on Okie Lite's board when we snatched. He may have even been their number one WR. If Gundy saw something there with his known abilities to coach offense, there's something to the kid.

[AlSwearengen]

wasn't Ross turning heads the minute he stepped on campus and was playing a lot early until he got hurt?

[I seen it dawg]

This is not your grandpappys WR crew for state

[DudyDawg]

Ross is my pick to lead the receiving corps in yards or catches next season. Yes, over bear and everyone else. Something about him makes me think he will be a star. Of course, I've been wrong before, but I truly feel that way. Seen some (little) of him, but he's seemed like he's got serious ability from it.

[War Machine Dawg]

Ross was high on Okie Lite's board when we snatched. He may have even been their number one WR. If Gundy saw something there with his known abilities to coach offense, there's something to the kid.

Agreed. I'm high on him for that very reason. Anyone Okie State wanted badly at WR is probably pretty damn good. Just don't know if this is going to be his breakout year with RoJo in front of him. RoJo is a badass that brings serious physicality to our WR corp. And he's a very good run blocker, which can't be underestimated in our offense. That's the biggest question mark I have for Ross. Can he run block and is he willing to? If not, he'll be a fixture on the bench.

[EAVdog]

I just hope Dak/Damian can feed all of these WR's because we have probably the deepest corp ever at MS State.

[Coach34]

#RTGDF

SEC rushing leaders win championships- not SEC passing leaders...we have to throw because we want to- not because we have to

[I seen it dawg]

#RTGDF

SEC rushing leaders win championships- not SEC passing leaders...we have to throw because we want to- not because we have to

Joe Dumars approves this message

[cheewgumm]

Yep... I'm hoping for 70% run this year. Run. Run, run then run some more.

[msstate7]

#RTGDF

SEC rushing leaders win championships- not SEC passing leaders...we have to throw because we want to- not because we have to
I want to run and run until we can bring safeties up and hit hr's in the passing game. Do we have a hr hitter or 2?

[War Machine Dawg]

#RTGDF

SEC rushing leaders win championships- not SEC passing leaders...we have to throw because we want to- not because we have to


Yep... I'm hoping for 70% run this year. Run. Run, run then run some more.

WMD concurs. I'm going to be pissed if we aren't at least 65% run this season. Let our OL & RBs batter opposing Ds this year. Ugly it up, wear 'em down, then break hearts in the 4th.

[Reason2succeed]

I don't want to see us get too cute either. Run the football but when it's open throw it.

[dawgs]

Yep... I'm hoping for 70% run this year. Run. Run, run then run some more.

Balance wins. Even Bama is balanced.

[smootness]

Balance wins. Even Bama is balanced.

Yep, and this has always been Mullen's goal. We will be balanced, and we should be. We have the running game and should have the passing game to keep teams constantly off-balance. This won't be your typical State offense where we have to run because we can't throw.

As Mullen talked about with McIlroy, even the zone read now has a passing option. If it's open, take it.

[ShotgunDawg]

WMD concurs. I'm going to be pissed if we aren't at least 65% run this season. Let our OL & RBs batter opposing Ds this year. Ugly it up, wear 'em down, then break hearts in the 4th.

So if we run it 64% of the time and go undefeated, you'll be pissed?

Why do you put absolute percentages on things?

[Leroy Jenkins]

So if we run it 64% of the time and go undefeated, you'll be pissed?

Why do you put absolute percentages on things?

Only a sith deals in absolutes.

[Dawg61]

I prefer a balanced 50/50 attack. Why'd we bother getting 8 big boy WRs if all we are ever going to do is RTGDF. It's not 1985 anymore.

[MarketingBully01]

So if we run it 64% of the time and go undefeated, you'll be pissed?

Why do you put absolute percentages on things?

Here is what I think happens these first three games

MSU 49 or 56 USM 7
MSU 45 UAB 7
MSU 35 USA 14

I don't care how we get there but those will be close to the scores we have on the first three games. The trickiest of the first 3 will be South Alabama but I still see us winning by 3 touchdowns.

[The Federalist Engineer]

Honestly, until I see them catch balls in games, i never bye into receivers. Antonio Hargro was good for everything except playing football. Any word on Morrow? Love to see a 6-4 210 receiver become consistently productive for us.

[Really Clark?]

Didn't we have this debate already last week? Nobody who wins the SEC is balanced 50/50 run to pass. It's about being very efficient throwing the ball but you should be running the ball about 60% of the time. And someone said even Bama is balanced. What games are you watching? 2007 was the only time it was 50%.

[War Machine Dawg]

Didn't we have this debate already last week? Nobody who wins the SEC is balanced 50/50 run to pass. It's about being very efficient throwing the ball but you should be running the ball about 60% of the time. And someone said even Bama is balanced. What games are you watching? 2007 was the only time it was 50%.

Exactly. C34 needs to go sticky that thread showing how much the teams that won the SEC ran the ball. You wanna win in this league? RTGDF.

[1bigdawg]

I do like to see yardage balanced. If we run 65% of the time and the yardage is about even, we'll be winning lots of games.

[ShotgunDawg]

Exactly. C34 needs to go sticky that thread showing how much the teams that won the SEC ran the ball. You wanna win in this league? RTGDF.

I agree that we need to RTGDB, but this post is full of holes.

This is
"Causation vs Coorelation" debate

Did teams who won the SEC, win it BECAUSE they ran the ball?

or

Did teams who won the SEC, win it because they COULD run the football?

In the first question, we are insinuating that regardless of the outcome, you are better off endlessly running the football.

In the 2nd question, it is understood that teams that won the SEC had good offensive lines, running backs, and a threat to pass, and thus were ABLE to run the football.

This debate drives me nuts during the NFL season when ignorant analyst say that, so-n-so team has won the last 10 games that (insert running back name) has gotten 20+ carries. Therefore, it makes sense to give (insert running back name) the ball 20+ times.

This way of thinking is incredibly flawed because it's not the number of carries that matters, it's the success of those carries.

This is a common flaw in logic that threatens to intelligence of mankind.

[smootness]

I agree, Shotgun. Also, in college football, a large majority of teams still run more than pass in general. And that is increased for the teams who are often ahead late in games.

I have no doubt the stats will show we end up running a good but more than passing. But that will be partly because of running clock and because Dak will pull it down and run.

We're not going to run the Relf Coast or just sit back and run, run, run, run. And I'm not sure why people would want that if we can also be successful passing. It will be a balanced spread attack.

[Todd4State]

I agree that we need to RTGDB, but this post is full of holes.

This is
"Causation vs Coorelation" debate

Did teams who won the SEC, win it BECAUSE they ran the ball?

or

Did teams who won the SEC, win it because they COULD run the football?

In the first question, we are insinuating that regardless of the outcome, you are better off endlessly running the football.

In the 2nd question, it is understood that teams that won the SEC had good offensive lines, running backs, and a threat to pass, and thus were ABLE to run the football.

This debate drives me nuts during the NFL season when ignorant analyst say that, so-n-so team has won the last 10 games that (insert running back name) has gotten 20+ carries. Therefore, it makes sense to give (insert running back name) the ball 20+ times.

This way of thinking is incredibly flawed because it's not the number of carries that matters, it's the success of those carries.

This is a common flaw in logic that threatens to intelligence of mankind.

Also, even if you are a passing team, if you have the lead- you're going to run the ball. Or at least you should. So, if you have the lead a lot in the second half, which a team like Alabama does have a lot of times, they're more likely to run the ball. And that's going to drive the run play call percentage up some.

[Really Clark?]

I don't see it as a causation vs correlation because you have to have a basic core philosophy of who you are as an offensive. You adjust it somewhat because of personnel but build off of that. I believe you find that teams who run the ball and run it well is because they are committed to running the ball. It's both the cause and the correlation. When your philosophy and schemes are predicated to being a running team then guess what you end up running it more than throwing it.

Edit: Don't overthink this stuff but look at the big picture. You made a statement about people making a flawed analysis at times because so and so runs the ball x numbers the team usually wins. Your statement is correct especially in a one game scenario but after a length of time if it holds true then the analysis is correct and is good logic.

[ShotgunDawg]

I don't see it as a causation vs correlation because you have to have a basic core philosophy of who you are as an offensive. You adjust it somewhat because of personnel but build off of that. I believe you find that teams who run the ball and run it well is because they are committed to running the ball. It's both the cause and the correlation. When your philosophy and schemes are predicated to being a running team then guess what you end up running it more than throwing it.

Edit: Don't overthink this stuff but look at the big picture. You made a statement about people making a flawed analysis at times because so and so runs the ball x numbers the team usually wins. Your statement is correct especially in a one game scenario but after a length of time if it holds true then the analysis is correct and is good logic.

Arkansas it committed to the run, and runs it well, but they suck.

[Dawg61]

I do like to see yardage balanced. If we run 65% of the time and the yardage is about even, we'll be winning lots of games.

This is basically what I mean. I like an offense that can line up and attack any part of the field by either run or pass and the defense can't tell which is coming and where it is going. It makes the run and the pass both more effective. Then speed up or slow down in addition to this and you can really start fu@king with the defense. It's a little bit like pitching in baseball. Get them thinking fastball and slip in the change/slider and vice versa. When you advertise you want to run the ball a ton and then you do run the ball a ton you take away some of the surprise element and it makes your offense less effective. It just does. Spare me the macho bullshit that you pound on the defense and wear them down response. You RTGDF boys need to rub one out about running the football.

[Really Clark?]

Arkansas it committed to the run, and runs it well, but they suck.

Yes. But Bama, Lsu, Auburn, Florida didn't when they ran the ball about 60% of the time or more in route to their national titles did they? That's the model you should at wouldn't you say and why so many in the league in the last decade have committed to the run.

Arkansas is one dimensional because they can't throw effective at all and you still have to play defense. That is why they suck

[Really Clark?]

This is basically what I mean. I like an offense that can line up and attack any part of the field by either run or pass and the defense can't tell which is coming and where it is going. It makes the run and the pass both more effective. Then speed up or slow down in addition to this and you can really start fu@king with the defense. It's a little bit like pitching in baseball. Get them thinking fastball and slip in the change/slider and vice versa. When you advertise you want to run the ball a ton and then you do run the ball a ton you take away some of the surprise element and it makes your offense less effective. It just does. Spare me the macho bullshit that you pound on the defense and wear them down response. You RTGDF boys need to rub one out about running the football.

The balance in yardage I believe is a totally different debate. And you see that happen more so even with run heavy teams. Hitting big pass plays because of teams trying to stop the run. Don't have a problem with that. But most of the people are talking about actually being 50/50 in run vs pass plays. Totally different debate.

[Dawg61]

The balance in yardage I believe is a totally different debate. And you see that happen more so even with run heavy teams. Hitting big pass plays because of teams trying to stop the run. Don't have a problem with that. But most of the people are talking about actually being 50/50 in run vs pass plays. Totally different debate.

That's not what I am saying though. Sorry for the confusion. I did say 50/50 but I am meaning yardage not plays. If you want to put it into snaps it's more like 2 runs per every 1 pass.

[War Machine Dawg]

I don't see it as a causation vs correlation because you have to have a basic core philosophy of who you are as an offensive. You adjust it somewhat because of personnel but build off of that. I believe you find that teams who run the ball and run it well is because they are committed to running the ball. It's both the cause and the correlation. When your philosophy and schemes are predicated to being a running team then guess what you end up running it more than throwing it.

Edit: Don't overthink this stuff but look at the big picture. You made a statement about people making a flawed analysis at times because so and so runs the ball x numbers the team usually wins. Your statement is correct especially in a one game scenario but after a length of time if it holds true then the analysis is correct and is good logic.

Nailed it. We're a running team that is damn good at running the ball. So why would we NOT want to RTGDF at least 60% of the time? It's what suits our personnel and the strength of our team.

[ShotgunDawg]

I completely agree with having an identity. I think that one thing that Mullen has struggled to do since Relf left.

It's almost like Relf's limitations as a passer made us a better team because it forced Mullen to develop an offensive identity. I am all about identity, and hopefully we see that this season.

[War Machine Dawg]

Yes. But Bama, Lsu, Auburn, Florida didn't when they ran the ball about 60% of the time or more in route to their national titles did they? That's the model you should at wouldn't you say and why so many in the league in the last decade have committed to the run.

Arkansas is one dimensional because they can't throw effective at all and you still have to play defense. That is why they suck

Exactly. Arkansas has shit for QB play. If they could hit a few passes, they'd be pretty good. I'd like to see the yardage itself closer to even, but in terms of % plays called, I want to see us at 60% or better. As The Kang always said, we can't get in a track meet with teams like FL and LSU. But we CAN beat them by making it nasty and physical.

[War Machine Dawg]

I completely agree with having an identity. I think that one thing that Mullen has struggled to do since Relf left.

It's almost like Relf's limitations as a passer made us a better team because it forced Mullen to develop an offensive identity. I am all about identity, and hopefully we see that this season.

We had an identity under TR, it just wasn't an identity Mullen was comfortable with. We were a finesse passing team with limitations running the ball. Mullen prefers a physical running team capable of hitting the HR passing.

[FISHDAWG]

I prefer a balanced 50/50 attack. Why'd we bother getting 8 big boy WRs if all we are ever going to do is RTGDF. It's not 1985 anymore.

totally agree with this ... of our RB's only J-Rob has shown consistency. Jury is still out on N Griffin and his recovery, A Shumpert has yet to show us anything against an SEC team, A Williams is a true freshman .... I have no idea what makes everyone think we are dominant in the run game yet - other than Dak our QB .... truth is that nobody KNOWS yet, it's all speculation at this point.... and aside from J Lewis - the recv corp is in the same boat ... at this point it's better to use a balanced approach

[Coach34]

Balance wins. Even Bama is balanced.

for one of their title runs- Bama ran the ball 601 time and threw it 330 times. On what planet is that "balanced"?

[Coach34]

I prefer a balanced 50/50 attack. Why'd we bother getting 8 big boy WRs if all we are ever going to do is RTGDF. It's not 1985 anymore.

we got those WR's to be able to throw the ball when needed. We also got bigger WR's to block with- that's very important

[ShotgunDawg]

for one of their title runs- Bama ran the ball 601 time and threw it 330 times. On what planet is that "balanced"?

That is absolutely not balanced, but we all knew they could throw the football with effectiveness. Therefore, the fear of balance helped them run the football.

If only we had an NFL offensive line and Heisman trophy candidates in the backfield, maybe we could run the ball 601 times and compete for a national title.

I am all for running the football as much as possible, but teams must fear our passing game in order to be consistently successful. Especially against good teams.

[Dawg61]

for one of their title runs- Bama ran the ball 601 time and threw it 330 times. On what planet is that "balanced"?

Ok that's snaps though, what are the yards? Probably closer to 50/50 and I said the run to pass should be 2 to 1 but not the yards.

[Todd4State]

for one of their title runs- Bama ran the ball 601 time and threw it 330 times. On what planet is that "balanced"?

That year they also passed for 2631 yards and rushed for 3011 yards. Not to mention they also had Mark Ingram who they were trying to make the first Heisman winner in Bama history.

Usually, their yardage discrepancy is closer to being 50/50% even though they run the ball more plays typically.

Based on looking at their stats during their championship seasons since 2007, my thought is they run the ball more plays because more often than not they are ahead and want to run the clock out, which is smart football. But even though they don't throw it as much as they run it, they are very effective at throwing the ball when they do pass. I suspect the year you are referencing is an outlier to a degree because of the push on their part to have a Heisman winner by padding his stats. And I use the term outlier very loosely since we're talking a difference of about 350 yards or so.

So, when you analyze them, they're pretty balanced.

[Dawg61]

Denver Broncos last year, 675 passing attempts for 5,444 yards and 55 tds.
461 rushing attempts for 1,873 yards and 16 tds.

[Coach34]

That's my whole point. RTGDF- because teams have to commit their D to stop it this gives you bigger pass plays. If we RTGDF- we"ll get what need out of the passing game. We need to be 65/35 run to pass. That will allow us to control games and make big plays in the passing game.

As I pointed out-during the SeC title run- the teams were all run dominant. The worst one was only 58%- the rest were mid-60's to as high as 73% run. That's how you win big in the SEC- RTGDF

[Coach34]

Denver Broncos last year, 675 passing attempts for 5,444 yards and 55 tds.
461 rushing attempts for 1,873 yards and 16 tds.

Pro football is a different animal- but while we are at it- why didn't you list the team's attempts that beat the dogshit out of them? The team that won the trophy was a RTGDF team

[Dawg61]

That's my whole point. RTGDF- because teams have to commit their D to stop it this gives you bigger pass plays. If we RTGDF- we"ll get what need out of the passing game. We need to be 65/35 run to pass. That will allow us to control games and make big plays in the passing game.

As I pointed out-during the SeC title run- the teams were all run dominant. The worst one was only 58%- the rest were mid-60's to as high as 73% run. That's how you win big in the SEC- RTGDF

2 to 1 is 66% run 33% pass. We are saying the same damn thing.

[Coach34]

I'm talking play calling Todd. You can't control your yardage- but
you can control the play calling. No excuse
for us to be less than 65% run this season

[Dawg61]

Pro football is a different animal- but while we are at it- why didn't you list the team's attempts that beat the dogshit out of them? The team that won the trophy was a RTGDF team

Seattle had 89 less pass attempts than rushes BUT had 1,048 more yards from passing than rushing AND 27 passing tds compared to 14 rushing tds. I agree that we need to run more times than pass but passing as you can clearly see does creates way more "damage" in terms of yards and touchdowns.

[Pollodawg]

Auburn ran the ball to perfection last season on their way to a NC. Marshall hit just under 2,000 yards threw the air, very comparable to Dak. Mullen is more comfortable and we are a better team when we find ways to get our best athletes in space and run the ball. There's not a position on the field where they are better than we are, imho.

And our D is way better than theirs.

[Pollodawg]

And to add to my above post, Dak doesn't have to throw for 3500 yards for us to be succesfull. With our D, if he can chunk it for around 2300-2500 yards and add another 900 maybe closer to a 1,000 on the ground, we will be ok.

[Coach34]

Seattle had 89 less pass attempts than rushes BUT had 1,048 more yards from passing than rushing AND 27 passing tds compared to 14 rushing tds. I agree that we need to run more times than pass but passing as you can clearly see does creates way more "damage" in terms of yards and touchdowns.

Exactly- very few pro teams run more than pass- it's a different game.

Im in not saying we should never pass- I'm saying that we need to commit to the run. When we do- we will be a better offense because of it. We need bigger pass plays- not more passes

[Dawg61]

Auburn choked and lost the NC to a team that threw the ball better than them. If we want to be a truly elite team we have to continue to grow as a passing offense on top of being a very strong rushing team. We have to be dangerous in both aspects and we are getting there. Let's look at a similar style player to Dak, Cam Newton. Cam was an elite elite runner his heisman winning national championship winning junior season. He rushed for 1473 yards and 20 tds. But he passed for 2854 yards and 30 tds and he did that with only attempting 16 more passes than he rushed it. My point is that passing does more damage. A lot more damage. Cam Newton is at the top of the list in terms of running QBs similar to Dak and even he has almost double passing yards and 2 to 1 tds from passing compared to running.

[Really Clark?]

Auburn choked and lost the NC to a team that threw the ball better than them. If we want to be a truly elite team we have to continue to grow as a passing offense on top of being a very strong rushing team. We have to be dangerous in both aspects and we are getting there. Let's look at a similar style player to Dak, Cam Newton. Cam was an elite elite runner his heisman winning national championship winning junior season. He rushed for 1473 yards and 20 tds. But he passed for 2854 yards and 30 tds and he did that with only attempting 16 more passes than he rushed it. My point is that passing does more damage. A lot more damage. Cam Newton is at the top of the list in terms of running QBs similar to Dak and even he has almost double passing yards and 2 to 1 tds from passing compared to running.

I'm sorry but the one loss Auburn had last year doesn't matter so much when nearly the last decade the SEC winner
was winning the national title and they were running ball. A lot. Win the SEC you do it by running the ball. Win the SEC you are playing for the national title. 95% of the time the SEC wins that game. Run the ball. Yardage can be balanced and should be closer. But not the play calling.

You do know that the Cam year Auburn ran the ball 68.8% of the time right? 57.1% of their yards came from running the ball. That was the worse example you could use as they were very run heavy.

[Dawg61]

You do know that the Cam year Auburn ran the ball 68.8% of the time right? 57.1% of their yards came from running the ball. That was the worse example you could use as they were very run heavy.

Not at all. You are completely missing the point. I picked an obvious run heavy offense on purpose. 1. because their QB is similar to ours but 2. look at the 2 numbers you just showed. They ran it 69% of the time yet only 57% of their offense came from the run. Where is passing was only used 31% of the time yet still managed to produce 43% of their offense and almost 50% of their touchdowns. It was more effective and caused more damage. Passing does way more damage in terms of yardage and touchdowns. Cam Newton had almost double the passing yards than running yards and only threw it 16 more times than he rushed it. Passing offense is the extra base hit in baseball and running offense is the single.

[War Machine Dawg]

And to add to my above post, Dak doesn't have to throw for 3500 yards for us to be succesfull. With our D, if he can chunk it for around 2300-2500 yards and add another 900 maybe closer to a 1,000 on the ground, we will be ok.

You get it. Post more.

[War Machine Dawg]

Exactly- very few pro teams run more than pass- it's a different game.

Im in not saying we should never pass- I'm saying that we need to commit to the run. When we do- we will be a better offense because of it. We need bigger pass plays- not more passes

THIS ALL DAY. More explosive pass plays will win us games, not more passes. You RTGDF, get teams tired and cheating up/selling out to stop the run, then burn them over the top for big chunks. It's what Bama, Auburn, FL, and LSU have all done consistently during this streak of SEC dominance.

[War Machine Dawg]

I'm sorry but the one loss Auburn had last year doesn't matter so much when nearly the last decade the SEC winner
was winning the national title and they were running ball. A lot. Win the SEC you do it by running the ball. Win the SEC you are playing for the national title. 95% of the time the SEC wins that game. Run the ball. Yardage can be balanced and should be closer. But not the play calling.

You do know that the Cam year Auburn ran the ball 68.8% of the time right? 57.1% of their yards came from running the ball. That was the worse example you could use as they were very run heavy.

Ouch, that's gonna leave a mark.

[aerodawg]

This thread is hilarious. You guys are arguing over 6 in one hand and half a dozen in the other. Both of you want 2/3 of the plays to be running plays, aka 66%. This should typically lead to a fairly balanced offense in terms of yardage assuming one aspect is not horrible. Imagine 75 actual offensive plays. 50 are running and 25 are passes. At 4 yards per carry that would be 200 rushing yards which would be a great stat. If Dak completes about 65ish % of the attempts that would be around 18 completions. That would only take about 11 ypc to have a balanced attack that calls 66% running plays.

Like coach said you can't control the yardage but that's something you gotta consider when gameplanning. It is very plausible that running it 66% of the time would be a balanced offense yardage wise.

[Barking 13]

I like the idea of running the ball, with a pass thrown in if it's there. The simple fact that has been overlooked, is that the last few seasons, we get to 3rd and 2 and some dumbass calls a pass play when somebody besides Perk is getting ~6 yards a carry... If I see that shit again this year, I'm going to set my hair on fire...

[Really Clark?]

Not at all. You are completely missing the point. I picked an obvious run heavy offense on purpose. 1. because their QB is similar to ours but 2. look at the 2 numbers you just showed. They ran it 69% of the time yet only 57% of their offense came from the run. Where is passing was only used 31% of the time yet still managed to produce 43% of their offense and almost 50% of their touchdowns. It was more effective and caused more damage. Passing does way more damage in terms of yardage and touchdowns. Cam Newton had almost double the passing yards than running yards and only threw it 16 more times than he rushed it. Passing offense is the extra base hit in baseball and running offense is the single.

It's a ridiculous argument to use just the QB numbers with even an outstanding runner. If course passing the ball is going to get more yards per play. But it is in no way indicative to that team being balanced in play calling. They were not balance in play calling or yardage. That's why it was the worse example you could use. They ran the ball extremely well and was efficient enough throwing the ball that they made you pay because you had to try and stop the run first. Early and into the middle of the year it was even worse. They were running it 77% of the time in some games with very little passing to support the offense. But were still able to hit some big plays because they were efficient enough throwing the ball. Bit everything and I mean that whole offense is set up off the run. Period.

[Dawg61]

Of course passing the ball is going to get more yards per play.

Then why would you want to suppress it? For the last time, I am NOT saying call 50/50 plays pass/run. I AM saying we need to have a 50/50 passing rushing offense meaning total yards not plays. Somewhere around 60-65% run and 35-40% pass.

[Really Clark?]

Then why would you want to suppress it? For the last time, I am NOT saying call 50/50 plays pass/run. I AM saying we need to have a 50/50 passing rushing offense meaning total yards not plays. Somewhere around 60-65% run and 35-40% pass.

I guess it's an issue because you used Auburn and Cam Newton as an example. That example did not help your argument especially since they had more plays running and nearly 1,000 more yards by running the ball. It was a terrible example for your argument. And used only the QB stats to try and prove your point.

[FISHDAWG]

Auburn ran the ball to perfection last season on their way to a NC. Marshall hit just under 2,000 yards threw the air, very comparable to Dak. Mullen is more comfortable and we are a better team when we find ways to get our best athletes in space and run the ball. There's not a position on the field where they are better than we are, imho.

And our D is way better than theirs.

Auburn's passing is what hurt us in that game .... and against LSU

[Schultzy]

Numbers be damned, just get first downs when you need them, TD's when you need them, FG's when you need them and stops when you need them.

All stats can be misleading,; who can make the big play?

[Dawg61]

I guess it's an issue because you used Auburn and Cam Newton as an example. That example did not help your argument especially since they had more plays running and nearly 1,000 more yards by running the ball. It was a terrible example for your argument. And used only the QB stats to try and prove your point.

I wanted to use the most ridiculous running team to win a NC lately that I could think of. That's Auburn 2010. Reason? To show how important the pass is even for them. You guys keep saying that the run opens up the pass and it does but the pass also opens up the run. Yes Auburn had nearly 1,000 more rushing yards than passing yards that season but that's just 57% of their offensive production when they ran it 69% of the time. In other words that's a negative return on use (-12%) where the pass has a positive return on use (+12). They avg 6.1 yds a carry but avg 10.1 yds a pass. They scored 43% of their offensive tds from the pass despite passing it only 31% of the time. 31 passing tds 41 rushing tds and that difference can be likely assumed because they ran it most of the time inside the 5. Every 10.5 pass attempts they scored a touchdown. At that rate they would of scored 62 touchdowns passing if they had thrown it as much as they ran it. That's more touchdowns passing than the Denver Broncos just scored with Peyton setting the all-time record of tds thrown in 4 more games played. Again I love the run and it is extremely important to be a very good running team but it is clear as day that the pass is the more dangerous weapon and the more effective source of yards and touchdowns. Sabermetrics doesn't just work for baseball.**

[smootness]

That's my whole point. RTGDF- because teams have to commit their D to stop it this gives you bigger pass plays. If we RTGDF- we"ll get what need out of the passing game. We need to be 65/35 run to pass. That will allow us to control games and make big plays in the passing game.

As I pointed out-during the SeC title run- the teams were all run dominant. The worst one was only 58%- the rest were mid-60's to as high as 73% run. That's how you win big in the SEC- RTGDF

Very, very few teams in college football run the ball less than 58% of the time, period. And the ones who do tend to be less talented and/or down big a lot. So the stat of SEC champions is sort of just common sense.

[Really Clark?]

I wanted to use the most ridiculous running team to win a NC lately that I could think of. That's Auburn 2010. Reason? To show how important the pass is even for them. You guys keep saying that the run opens up the pass and it does but the pass also opens up the run. Yes Auburn had nearly 1,000 more rushing yards than passing yards that season but that's just 57% of their offensive production when they ran it 69% of the time. In other words that's a negative return on use (-12%) where the pass has a positive return on use (+12). They avg 6.1 yds a carry but avg 10.1 yds a pass. They scored 43% of their offensive tds from the pass despite passing it only 31% of the time. 31 passing tds 41 rushing tds and that difference can be likely assumed because they ran it most of the time inside the 5. Every 10.5 pass attempts they scored a touchdown. At that rate they would of scored 62 touchdowns passing if they had thrown it as much as they ran it. That's more touchdowns passing than the Denver Broncos just scored with Peyton setting the all-time record of tds thrown in 4 more games played. Again I love the run and it is extremely important to be a very good running team but it is clear as day that the pass is the more dangerous weapon and the more effective source of yards and touchdowns. Sabermetrics doesn't just work for baseball.**

It just doesn't work like you think. That Auburn team used the pass to supplement what they were doing running the ball. Everybody just remembers that offense at the end of the season. Those last two games had the two highest passing totals because the season of them running the ball also set up those games to open up the passing. It's not just what happens in a quarter or game. The pass does get you more yards per play because of the nature of passing the ball. Let's look at the argument in reverse. How many teams have actually won the SEC or a national title by passing the ball 55% more a game? Heck how many have done it just strictly 50/50 in play calling? Find that answer you will see why running the ball more times per game is important. Yardage is much harder to determine because you can't control how many yards a play may gain. But you can make sure you are calling the right plays to be effective. With your argument on passing yards it seems you had rather throw the ball more, use the pass as the focal point of your offense. That's fine but in this league and the vast majority of time even on the national scale that does not get it done. Make no mistake, you cannot be one dimensional even by strictly running the ball. You have to be effect throwing it but throwing it off of your running game. The yards you gain is more dependent on your on personnel, what the opposing teams are given you defensively, their personnel, etc. I mean every defensive coach in this league preaches stopping the run first and is the most important component to having a good defense. And teams still want to run the ball more than throwing it against defenses who are scheming to stop it first.

[Dawg61]

Not advertising throwing it more than passing. Just letting the RTGDF crowd look at a few stats. This faction seems to get a little hardheaded imo towards the run and I think it's important to understand that the offensive machine doesn't work like it's supposed to if one of the two options (pass/run) is getting neglected or overworked. They both have to be used for both to be most effective. At some point the production goes down per attempt when being overused. Teams will start stacking 9 guys in the box and you'll be essentially running straight into a brick wall. Balanced offense imo is the best offense. And balanced offense doesn't mean balanced snaps. I am very excited for our passing attack this year. That is the other big reason why I am speaking up on this. We have serious weapons all throughout the wide receiver position that we've never had at MSU. I want them to get used. When we have 2-3 serious wr threats mixed in with 100 yard running backs and a QB playing like Superman we will have the closest thing to an elite offense that MSU has ever witnessed. We can't take the easy route and just RTGDF when the potential to have a much more efficient higher scoring offense is there for the taking.