For those that think we're going to hang with A&M ...

[Maroons]

Since 2011, we've scored 30+ points in only four SEC games:

2011
@ Auburn (mediocre team / Chizik)
Ole Miss (horrible team / Nutt)

2012
Tennessee (horrible team / Dooley)
Arkansas (horrible team / Smith)

That said, I hope you're right.

[MarketingBully01]

Texas A&M is giving up 37.8 points per game....

[cheewgumm]

I'm hoping we stay within 19.5

[Dawg61]

aTm is 2nd in the nation in offensive plays of 10+yards and 2nd in the nation in 20+ plays. MSU is 29th (not bad) but only 73rd in 20+. Ouch! We don't make enough big plays to keep up. Why? Because we don't try. Gentleman we have a Dansbury Stall problem at MSU. The Dansbury Stall is 60 minutes of football guaranteed to make you lose when playing as the underdog. Dan should write a book about it. He's a professional on the subject.

[TrapGame]

Texas A&M is giving up 37.8 points per game....

You know it would be our game vs them that their D has a break out game with season high sacks and INTs.

[JeanPeesSittingDown]

I would compare A&M's defense to Auburn 2011.

We score 39-45 IMO

If we can keep JFF below 38 we win- if we allow 39-45 coin toss- NO WAY IN HELL we will allow more than 45. so essentially this game is at worst a toss up.

[TopDog58]

I would compare A&M's defense to Auburn 2011.

We score 39-45 IMO

If we can keep JFF below 38 we win- if we allow 39-45 coin toss- NO WAY IN HELL we will allow more than 45. so essentially this game is at worst a toss up.

Puff puff give. Puff puff give. You are f-ing up the rotation!

[slickdawg]

Their defense is ranked 98th (was 112th) after beating lifeless UTEP last weekend.

[Bothrops]

aTm is 2nd in the nation in offensive plays of 10+yards and 2nd in the nation in 20+ plays. MSU is 29th (not bad) but only 73rd in 20+. Ouch! We don't make enough big plays to keep up. Why? Because we don't try. Gentleman we have a Dansbury Stall problem at MSU. The Dansbury Stall is 60 minutes of football guaranteed to make you lose when playing as the underdog. Dan should write a book about it. He's a professional on the subject.

You nailed it, Dawg. We'll see how the season shakes out, but it's definitely looking reminiscent of Houston Nutt's flop up north.

[Coach34]

but it's definitely looking reminiscent of Houston Nutt's flop up north.

I dont see it being even remotely anything close to that. We are not a bad football team. Hell, we outgained the the #12 team in the nation last week by 80 yards on their homefield. Turnovers killed us.

But the comment about us being in the 70's in 20+ yard plays is our problem. We dont have HR type threats on offense- and our drives are always 8-10-12 plays. Thats hard to keep doing drive after drive and be successful.

[maroonmania]

Let me just say this, on a scale of 1 to 10, if we stay within one score of A&M with Manziel playing the whole game, my shock level will be at a 10. Will be higher than that if we by some miracle win.

[Tbonewannabe]

I dont see it being even remotely anything close to that. We are not a bad football team. Hell, we outgained the the #12 team in the nation last week by 80 yards on their homefield. Turnovers killed us.

But the comment about us being in the 70's in 20+ yard plays is our problem. We dont have HR type threats on offense- and our drives are always 8-10-12 plays. Thats hard to keep doing drive after drive and be successful.
80 yards might also be from SC having short fields from the TOs. Our defense did have a good enough day to win. Without short fields we might have had a few more 3 and outs.

[Coach34]

80 yards might also be from SC having short fields from the TOs. Our defense did have a good enough day to win. Without short fields we might have had a few more 3 and outs.

We had Six- count them- six 3 and outs vs SC defensively.....short fields didnt cause that

[MarketingBully01]

Short fields were the only reason they scored. They were 2-8 on drives they had to drive the field. We don't turn it over. We win that game period.

South Carolina was not playing well. We shot our foot so many times in that game both feet would have been blown off. South Carolina couldn't sustain anything.

[CJDAWG85]

Without the TO's we win that game.

[JeanPeesSittingDown]

Without the TO's we win that game.

Of course we win that game. Dan had a perfect plan, but our players didn't execute. This is why I don't get all of these fire Dan threads.

Is it his fault they had turnovers? NO! That goes on either the position coaches for not teaching proper technique or the actual player.

Again I will say it Dan gives us a chance to win EVERY game.

That's why we need Trooper. I'm sure he can teach ball security/and correct decision making!!

[engie]

In the end -- only an 18 point loss...the NEW Moral Victory U**

"If only..." is the theme of Mullen's entire tenure to this point.

[TopDog58]

Of course we win that game. Dan had a perfect plan, but our players didn't execute. This is why I don't get all of these fire Dan threads.

Is it his fault they had turnovers? NO! That goes on either the position coaches for not teaching proper technique or the actual player.

Again I will say it Dan gives us a chance to win EVERY game.

That's why we need Trooper. I'm sure he can teach ball security/and correct decision making!!

Correct decision making at what? Twirling a towel clockwise or counter-clockwise?

[CadaverDawg]

Short fields were the only reason they scored. They were 2-8 on drives they had to drive the field. We don't turn it over. We win that game period.

South Carolina was not playing well. We shot our foot so many times in that game both feet would have been blown off. South Carolina couldn't sustain anything.

You know I have to play devil's advocate on this one...

You can't say "if we don't turn it over, we win". We may have, but at the same time, SC would have been way more aggressive in the second half too. They could have still beaten us just as bad.

Saying "we would have won IF _____", is just loser speak IMO.

Not trying to be an ass, I just can't keep seeing this garbage about "we would have won without the turnovers". It's just not true to say that. We would have had a better chance though.

[Coach34]

Saying "we would have won IF _____", is just loser speak IMO..


The bottom line- aGAIN- is that we went on the road and played the #12 team in the nation- and outplayed them in some areas. We just made too many mistakes to win the game. But that is progress, especially for a team that is young in places. We have to correct those mistakes, and keep the same effort. We'll play A&M well- they are not a good defensive team. We have to eliminate all turnovers to even have a chance. I look forward to it.

[CadaverDawg]

The bottom line- aGAIN- is that we went on the road and played the #12 team in the nation- and outplayed them in some areas. We just made too many mistakes to win the game. But that is progress, especially for a team that is young in places. We have to correct those mistakes, and keep the same effort. We'll play A&M well- they are not a good defensive team. We have to eliminate all turnovers to even have a chance. I look forward to it.

I agree. Not arguing those points...just the ones I listed.

Carry on

[Bothrops]

I dont see it being even remotely anything close to that. We are not a bad football team. Hell, we outgained the the #12 team in the nation last week by 80 yards on their homefield. Turnovers killed us.

But the comment about us being in the 70's in 20+ yard plays is our problem. We dont have HR type threats on offense- and our drives are always 8-10-12 plays. Thats hard to keep doing drive after drive and be successful.

We definitely have a lot of talent on the team, but outside the fanbase it wouldn't appear so, with the exception of Dak and Lewis. We are dragging an anchor. Win or lose, I want to see us play lights-out for 4 quarters. I don't care what he has to do, Mullen needs to fix this problem in the off season, once and for all.

[MadDawg]

I just find it ironic that *some* of the same people that say we were just a few turnovers away from beating SC will argue our best chance to win is with the player that had 4 of the 5 turnovers.

[Vancleave]

We CAN compete with A&M. No doubt. UTEP looked GOOD against them in the first half and they SUCK. Remember this, before you can win, you have to believe you can win. I think this is a 4 quarter game.

[MarketingBully01]

Bull shit. They didn't play well at all (South Carolina) and we shot off our feet with turnovers. No way they beat us that bad without us helping them out. Look at how every other game they had sans Arkansas played out. They may have still beaten us but it would have been maybe a 7 point game had they won. You and I must obviously watch different games. Have you known Spurrier to ever not play aggressive? Heck at halftime he was saying our defense was kicking their butts. Turnovers were THE reason we lost period. I guess we will agree to disagree here.

[CadaverDawg]

Bull shit. They didn't play well at all (South Carolina) and we shot off our feet with turnovers. No way they beat us that bad without us helping them out. Look at how every other game they had sans Arkansas played out. They may have still beaten us but it would have been maybe a 7 point game had they won. You and I must obviously watch different games. Have you known Spurrier to ever not play aggressive? Heck at halftime he was saying our defense was kicking their butts. Turnovers were THE reason we lost period. I guess we will agree to disagree here.

There is no disagreeing with what I'm saying actually, because I'm right because I'm stating truth and you are stating opinion. You have no way of proving "we would have won IF"....so I'm just clearing that up. You can say we could have this or he could have that, but it's all pure speculation, just like it's speculation that we "would have won without the turnovers". It doesn't matter what game you were watching, it's a fact that you cannot say that without it being pure opinion and speculation.

Not trying to argue, just stating that it has nothing to do with who feels what way...there is no guarantee that we would have won the game without the turnovers. Period.

[MarketingBully01]

Look, a couple of other stats proves you wrong.

5 turnovers = 20 points of 34 take away 20 points we win 16-14 at the minimum.

When having to drive the field, USC was 2 of 8 in scoring drives with at least six three and outs. I guess they weren't trying to score on those six three and outs with your logic.

There is just as much evidence from that game that supports more my theory then yours which is don't turn the ball over and we win. We also were driving on at least two of those turnovers which could have meant 7-10 more points for us. Just saying...we shall agree to disagree.

[blacklistedbully]

Look, a couple of other stats proves you wrong.

5 turnovers = 20 points of 34 take away 20 points we win 16-14 at the minimum.

When having to drive the field, USC was 2 of 8 in scoring drives with at least six three and outs. I guess they weren't trying to score on those six three and outs with your logic.

There is just as much evidence from that game that supports more my theory then yours which is don't turn the ball over and we win. We also were driving on at least two of those turnovers which could have meant 7-10 more points for us. Just saying...we shall agree to disagree.

Actuallly, each t/o in a head-to-head battle equals an 8-point swing, not 4. It's -4 points from the team giving and +4 for the team receiving. Even if you discount the 5th t/o, as SCar was just trying to run clock at that point, that's at least a 32-point swing. We lost by 18. Statistically speaking, our play on-the-field was good enough to possibly win with even 3 t/o's. Had we managed to be just -2, we most likely win that game. Had we been even on t/o's, we probably win by a shocking margin.

[CadaverDawg]

Look, a couple of other stats proves you wrong.

5 turnovers = 20 points of 34 take away 20 points we win 16-14 at the minimum.

When having to drive the field, USC was 2 of 8 in scoring drives with at least six three and outs. I guess they weren't trying to score on those six three and outs with your logic.

There is just as much evidence from that game that supports more my theory then yours which is don't turn the ball over and we win. We also were driving on at least two of those turnovers which could have meant 7-10 more points for us. Just saying...we shall agree to disagree.

My God, you just don't get it do you? You CANNOT PROVE IT. It is unprovable. You can agree to disagree if you want, the bottom line is You Are Wrong. Period.

That's like me saying if Kentucky didn't turn the ball over against us they would have won. That can't be proven so it is pure speculation. What happened the rest of the game doesn't matter because it could/would have gone differently without the turnovers. Just drop it, you're wrong on this one. I'm sorry.

[gravedigger]

For those of you who think we are going to win the 1980 Alabama game:

As of game time, we haven't beaten them in 22 years. So give it up already.

[blacklistedbully]

My God, you just don't get it do you? You CANNOT PROVE IT. It is unprovable. You can agree to disagree if you want, the bottom line is You Are Wrong. Period.

That's like me saying if Kentucky didn't turn the ball over against us they would have won. That can't be proven so it is pure speculation. What happened the rest of the game doesn't matter because it could/would have gone differently without the turnovers. Just drop it, you're wrong on this one. I'm sorry.

Neither side can "prove" it. But neither can disprove either. So we are left with statistical analysis to make an educated guess. And that educated guess clearly says we likely beat SCar without the t/o's. It even says we likely beat them with a -2 t/o margin. Add to the t/o stats the fact that we held them to 1 of 11 on 3rd down conversions, outgained them, out first-downed them by a large margin, and our position is even more supported than yours.

Even Spurrier said we "outplayed & outcoached them" and that turnovers were the crucial factor.

[CadaverDawg]

Neither side can "prove" it. But neither can disprove either. So we are left with statistical analysis to make an educated guess. And that educated guess clearly says we likely beat SCar without the t/o's. It even says we likely beat them with a -2 t/o margin. Add to the t/o stats the fact that we held them to 1 of 11 on 3rd down conversions, outgained them, out first-downed them by a large margin, and our position is even more supported than yours.

Even Spurrier said we "outplayed & outcoached them" and that turnovers were the crucial factor.

I'm not arguing what could have happened or what was likely to happen.....I'm saying he should not go around saying "If we don't turn the ball over, we win that game". Because that is not a fact. That's my point, he is acting like there is no doubt.

Obviously, it's a moot point because we Did turn it over a bunch....but the point is, you can't say we definitely win if we don't turn it over, because that just isn't true.

I agree about the averages...but we are MState, so averages don't apply to us, ha.**

[MarketingBully01]

Kentucky didn't turn the ball over against us.

[CadaverDawg]

Kentucky didn't turn the ball over against us.

Good grief. It was a hypothetical to use as an example of your ridiculousness. Forget it, it's clear who is right. I'm done.

[gravedigger]

Engie, that is reaching. "C" student is the theme of Mullen's entire tenure to this point.

And it may sound like it took a swipe at him, but it's not.

Your assessment is farcical. We certainly could have won games we let get away from us. We've won games under Mullen some of us 46 years old have never seen (Florida in Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Ole Miss when they were on top of the world headed to a good bowl) It is not an indication of fans clinging to moral victories. We just know this guy is capable of more and he hasn't shown it since the UT game last year.

Of course we are at a cross roads with our coaching staff and players. But don't pretend that Mullen cannot coach at all. We've seen coaches like Tyler, Bellard, Felker, Sherrill not be able to win in Florida under any circumstances. We've seen Croom beat both Auburn and Bama.

There is an opportunity for Mullen to succeed and it has shown itself even in bad losses and strange moments.

I don't think he'll be the best guy for MSU going forward either, but you can at least not act like an ass when you are making a point.

[DawgsBite34]

Of course we win that game. Dan had a perfect plan, but our players didn't execute. This is why I don't get all of these fire Dan threads.

Is it his fault they had turnovers? NO! That goes on either the position coaches for not teaching proper technique or the actual player.

Again I will say it Dan gives us a chance to win EVERY game.

That's why we need Trooper. I'm sure he can teach ball security/and correct decision making!!

Dan playcalled like pure shit in that game is the reason we had 5 turnovers

[Tbonewannabe]

[QUOTE=Coach34;81704]The bottom line- aGAIN- is that we went on the road and played the #12 team in the nation- and outplayed them in some areas. We just made too many mistakes to win the game. But that is progress, especially for a team that is young in places. We have to correct those mistakes, and keep the same effort. We'll play A&M well- they are not a good defensive team. We have to eliminate all turnovers to even have a chance. I loo havek forward to it.[


Without the turnovers Arkansas might have beat us last year.
So instead of 8 wins, we have 7 with a 6 game losing streak. How would that change perception of Mullen?

[Tbonewannabe]

Dan playcalled like pure shit in that game is the reason we had 5 turnovers

Also people act like TOs just started being part of the game. It isn't like Dak under no pressure threw the ball straight to SC. Their defense CAUSED the turnovers. The same way Croom went to the Liberty bowl and Jackie went to the SEC championship. Defenses can cause TOs.

[geotop]

This game is going to be exactly like last night's game between Oregon and Stanford.

We are like Stanford and we play smash mouth defense and we have a powerful running attack. Quick hitters right
down their gulley hole.

And TAMU is like that glitzy oregon,,,, no substance, just trickery and pizzazzzz AND LISTEN PEOPLE,,,,

THEY HAVE NO DEFENSE !!!!!!!

HAIL STATE

[Coach34]

[QUOTE=Coach34;81704]The bottom line- aGAIN- is that we went on the road and played the #12 team in the nation- and outplayed them in some areas. We just made too many mistakes to win the game. But that is progress, especially for a team that is young in places. We have to correct those mistakes, and keep the same effort. We'll play A&M well- they are not a good defensive team. We have to eliminate all turnovers to even have a chance. I loo havek forward to it.[


Without the turnovers Arkansas might have beat us last year.
So instead of 8 wins, we have 7 with a 6 game losing streak. How would that change perception of Mullen?

we had 505 yards of offense- turnovers didnt cause that

[DawgInMemphis]

I think it's more accurate to say that we beat ourselves at USC, we didn't force USC to beat us.

[JeanPeesSittingDown]

I think it's more accurate to say that we beat ourselves at USC, we didn't force USC to beat us.

Agreed^

[Tbonewannabe]

[QUOTE=Tbonewannabe;82157]

we had 505 yards of offense- turnovers didnt cause that



ARK
MSST

1st Downs 19 24

3rd down efficiency
6-12 5-12

4th down efficiency
0-1 1-2
Total Yards 359 505
Passing 233 302

Comp-Att
24-30 21-34

Yards per pass
7.8 8.9
Rushing 126 203

Rushing Attempts
33 36

Yards per rush
3.8 5.6
Penalties 9-70 5-41
Turnovers 5 1

Fumbles lost
3 1

Interceptions thrown
2 0
Possession 29:33 30:27


Looks like we won because Ark had 5 turnovers and a lot of penalties. So according to a lot of people on this message board, we weren't really better than Arkansas after they quit on their coach last year. This makes sense because we got dominated by a UM team in the 2nd half that wasn't as talented as we were last year.

Last year we also had 2 guys that now start in the NFL at corner. Bama can't even claim that.

[MarketingBully01]

LOL, good one. We also hung a lot more points on them then USC did us this year. Nice try though. We would have won even if they don't turn it over at all. *sigh*

[Coach34]

we didnt even score off of UPig's first two turnovers

[Tbonewannabe]

we didnt even score off of UPig's first two turnovers
But the turnovers did stop their momentum. I remember sitting there thinking holy shit we can't even stop a team that quit on their coach.
For whatever reason our team just quit on the coaches last year after Bama. It is like they don't have any confidence in the coaches.

Well coached teams don't have a lot of the stupid penalties and dumb playcalling.

Aub was lost when we went prevent after we had been kicking their ass on D.

SC has been talked to death but we don't have any routes for release valves on blitzes and no long pass plays to stretch the defense.

Everyone seems to think we will automatically solve these things by just waiting a year. These are the exact same problems we had last year. Everyone was bitching last year about these same playcalling issues. Tyler had long developing pass plays that made him hold the ball. It isn't the QB if it is a problem when you change the qb. Dak just has the ability to take off on a busted play. He is naturally better on run plays but passing is the same problems.