Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: After even longer to calm down and reflect

  1. #1
    Senior Member thf24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3,543
    vCash
    3200

    After even longer to calm down and reflect

    I'm starting to renege on the idea that Saturday definitively proved Dak should start and Tyler should be benched. Do I think that Mullen's offense is limited with Tyler at QB and that he'd be more comfortable and open-ended with a mobile QB? Yes, no doubt. But then I started to think about the fact that Tyler only got five or six plays before taking the first hit to the head, and he looked awfully sharp before that. I think that while most of us acknowledged that he wasn't the same after that hit, we discounted it as being a significant factor in his performance since the offense seemed to have the same problems that it had late last year. I now think that we ought to give Tyler another chance to play significant snaps at full capacity and get a better chance to show what he's learned since last season before writing him off as ineffective and calling for the younger, less experienced QB that displayed some glaring issues of his own on Saturday. There's no doubt in my mind that at full potential, Dak should run our offense, but I need a little more evidence that TR doesn't give us the best chance to win at the current point in time, even with the obvious limitations he puts on our offense. If he's just learned to be more decisive and get rid of the ball a little quicker (which he seemed to in the short sample of plays before taking the first hit Saturday), combined with having multiple athletic receivers with better ability to get open, then I think this year's offense can/will be much more effective.

    That somewhat brings up another point I've been wanting to discuss. Many of you have been stressing a necessity to go back to a physical, run-first offense. I understand the physical part and would like see more JRob and use of fullbacks/wings no matter what we do, but as for being unconditionally run-first... why? I've always thought with any style of offense, you should be pass-first ideally, and run-first out of necessity. I noticed multiple people in the last few days saying that Dak wasn't completely effective when he came in the game because he was put into a situation where he had to pass to have a chance at coming back. What guarantee do we have that we won't get in a hole with him starting and running a physical, run-first offense, taking us completely out of the game? If we have the option, I think being pass first and using it to set up the run gives us the best chance to win, not vice versa. I think by next year Dak will be just as effective as a passer as he is a runner, but this year, I'd rather have the guy with the ability to make all the throws. That's why I'd like Tyler to get one more chance to show he can be effective for us this year despite the limitations. If at halftime of the Auburn game, we're seeing the same old problems, then I hope we put Dak in and start him the rest of the season.

  2. #2
    Super Moderator CadaverDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    33,673
    vCash
    3002900
    Because our team is built for a run first offense. We have a strong OLine, great RB's and a solid dual threat QB. Our WR's are talented, but young. I think most people say that we need to be a more "run heavy" offense with Dak....not necessarily "run first". So I wouldn't look too deep into that terminology.

    If our defense is as strong as we think, having Dak and a good run game will allow us to shorten the game against good opponents, and allow us to utilize our defense and our ground game to win the field position battle, and to win the time of possession battle, thus wearing out opposing defenses. Dak is not going to win us any games by airing it out all game....he's not that type of QB. At least, not this year anyway. He is a better passing Chris Relf in most of our eyes. So he will be best utilized in the zone read, option, and play action pass game. You have to establish a run game to work the play action pass effectively, or otherwise it will be up to Dak to throw it into tight windows against pass coverages and that is not his forte at this point. His passing thrives when he can use play action to free up receivers when defenses are cheating up and loading the box to stop the run.

    Just my opinion anyway
    Last edited by CadaverDawg; 09-03-2013 at 06:53 PM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member ShotgunDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    37,277
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by thf24 View Post
    I'm starting to renege on the idea that Saturday definitively proved Dak should start and Tyler should be benched. Do I think that Mullen's offense is limited with Tyler at QB and that he'd be more comfortable and open-ended with a mobile QB? Yes, no doubt. But then I started to think about the fact that Tyler only got five or six plays before taking the first hit to the head, and he looked awfully sharp before that. I think that while most of us acknowledged that he wasn't the same after that hit, we discounted it as being a significant factor in his performance since the offense seemed to have the same problems that it had late last year. I now think that we ought to give Tyler another chance to play significant snaps at full capacity and get a better chance to show what he's learned since last season before writing him off as ineffective and calling for the younger, less experienced QB that displayed some glaring issues of his own on Saturday. There's no doubt in my mind that at full potential, Dak should run our offense, but I need a little more evidence that TR doesn't give us the best chance to win at the current point in time, even with the obvious limitations he puts on our offense. If he's just learned to be more decisive and get rid of the ball a little quicker (which he seemed to in the short sample of plays before taking the first hit Saturday), combined with having multiple athletic receivers with better ability to get open, then I think this year's offense can/will be much more effective.

    That somewhat brings up another point I've been wanting to discuss. Many of you have been stressing a necessity to go back to a physical, run-first offense. I understand the physical part and would like see more JRob and use of fullbacks/wings no matter what we do, but as for being unconditionally run-first... why? I've always thought with any style of offense, you should be pass-first ideally, and run-first out of necessity. I noticed multiple people in the last few days saying that Dak wasn't completely effective when he came in the game because he was put into a situation where he had to pass to have a chance at coming back. What guarantee do we have that we won't get in a hole with him starting and running a physical, run-first offense, taking us completely out of the game? If we have the option, I think being pass first and using it to set up the run gives us the best chance to win, not vice versa. I think by next year Dak will be just as effective as a passer as he is a runner, but this year, I'd rather have the guy with the ability to make all the throws. That's why I'd like Tyler to get one more chance to show he can be effective for us this year despite the limitations. If at halftime of the Auburn game, we're seeing the same old problems, then I hope we put Dak in and start him the rest of the season.
    You make some decent points, but thats why we are just going to see how Dak plays this weekend. If Dak doesn't play well this weekend, then I agree maybe we should just stick with Tyler. But at the same time, if Dak plays well on Saturday and shows command of the offense, then we would be stupid to not start him at Auburn. Then if he isn't effective in the first half against Auburn, then maybe we should go to Tyler in the second half.

    Like Cadaver, I agree that the offense is more suited to Dak than to Tyler. I think an idiot could figure that out at this point, but, at this point, I just want the coaches to play the hot hand. We have talent and a good defense. We can win games, and, possibly pull an upset or two, if our offense is clicking.

    What we don't want to hear is: 1. We are playing Tyler because he is senior 2. We are playing Tyler because he broke school records 3. We are playing Tyler because he was a highly recruited QB 4. We are playing Tyler because he is the best throwing QB in MSU history.

    I WANT MSU TO PLAY THE QB THAT GIVES US THE BEST CHANCE TO WIN. That is my only concern. I don't care about records, I don't care about how it looks, and I don't care if the media hates us because we playing boring football. I only care about winning, and want us to play the QB that offers the best chance to do that.

    Making decisions about players becomes much much easier when you remove the name from their jerseys and only focus of what is productive in winning games. Decisions become much clearer that way, and I think if you do that in this situation, you will come up with the same conclusion many of us have. Remove all exterior factors and make decision that only have to do with getting first downs , scoring points, and winning games.


    Our fan base has grown wiser over the past few years in understanding 1. Who is MSU is 2. What we have to do to be successful 3. What type of players we have to recruit to do that.
    Last edited by ShotgunDawg; 09-03-2013 at 07:25 PM.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    17,158
    vCash
    1003450
    Im not sold on the "we have a strong ol"

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    4,462
    vCash
    32000
    Quote Originally Posted by CadaverDawg View Post
    Because our team is built for a run first offense. We have a strong OLine, great RB's and a solid dual threat QB. Our WR's are talented, but young. I think most people say that we need to be a more "run heavy" offense with Dak....not necessarily "run first". So I wouldn't look too deep into that terminology.

    If our defense is as strong as we think, having Dak and a good run game will allow us to shorten the game against good opponents, and allow us to utilize our defense and our ground game to win the field position battle, and to win the time of possession battle, thus wearing out opposing defenses. Dak is not going to win us any games by airing it out all game....he's not that type of QB. At least, not this year anyway. He is a better passing Chris Relf in most of our eyes. So he will be best utilized in the zone read, option, and play action pass game. You have to establish a run game to work the play action pass effectively, or otherwise it will be up to Dak to throw it into tight windows against pass coverages and that is not his forte at this point. His passing thrives when he can use play action to free up receivers when defenses are cheating up and loading the box to stop the run.

    Just my opinion anyway
    "Run heavy" as opposed to "run first" is a very good point. That's what it should be defined as.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    4,864
    vCash
    3200
    Quote Originally Posted by Bully13 View Post
    Im not sold on the "we have a strong ol"
    I agree, I watched the game again last night, and they played terrible.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,065
    vCash
    7855
    Regardless of what Dak does, I think you have to start TR if he's healthy. You've got to give him the chance to prove that he's ineffective (and not hurt) before pulling him from the starter role. If you move him to the backup role without giving him a chance, then you're basically telling future recruits that if you come to State, put in your time to earn the starting position, then get hurt, you're done.

  8. #8
    Senior Member thf24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3,543
    vCash
    3200
    Quote Originally Posted by msstatelp1 View Post
    Regardless of what Dak does, I think you have to start TR if he's healthy. You've got to give him the chance to prove that he's ineffective (and not hurt) before pulling him from the starter role. If you move him to the backup role without giving him a chance, then you're basically telling future recruits that if you come to State, put in your time to earn the starting position, then get hurt, you're done.
    This was pretty much my point with this thread. We know Dak fits the offense better, and we know we're (seemingly) built to run better than pass. But we can't take the chance that Tyler might actually give us the better chance to win by benching him now, when he's only gotten six plays at 100% this year to show us he's improved enough to be run an effective passing offense. The recruiting part is a good point too. If he looks lost against Auburn, then pull him and start the Dak era.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    101,296
    vCash
    3800
    On winning big games TR hasn't been effective for 3 years. I'm sure he's a good person but he can't lead the team to victory in the big games. I'm not saying demote him but give Dak some snaps before we're three touchdowns behind and his running game is virtually taken away.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Coach34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    30,715
    vCash
    17200
    Quote Originally Posted by msstatelp1 View Post
    Regardless of what Dak does, I think you have to start TR if he's healthy. You've got to give him the chance to prove that he's ineffective (and not hurt) before pulling him from the starter role. If you move him to the backup role without giving him a chance, then you're basically telling future recruits that if you come to State, put in your time to earn the starting position, then get hurt, you're done.
    Alabama- 0 points
    Texas A&M- 2 1st half first downs and 13 points after the game was out of hand
    LSU- 10 points
    Ole Miss- 10 points
    NW- 4 INT's to give the game away
    Ok State- 3 points and another shitty performance

    I think we would be telling recruits that we wont settle for QB's not getting the job done...and isn't Dak a recruit also? Playing Dak would show recruits that you wont have to sit behind upperclassmen that arent performing
    Walk like the King or walk like you don't care who the King is

  11. #11
    Senior Member thf24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3,543
    vCash
    3200
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach34 View Post
    Ok State- 3 points and another shitty performance
    So are we not cutting him any slack for the possibility of a mild concussion after the early first hit to the head? Has that been ruled out? If so and he was 100% up to the point where he was actually knocked out of the game, then yeah, this thread is void and he should be benched in favor of Dak. If not, and he only got a few snaps in at 100%, how do we know he hasn't gotten better with his reads and decision making since those bad games you listed from last year?

  12. #12
    Senior Member msstate7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    72,644
    vCash
    10439
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach34 View Post
    Alabama- 0 points
    Texas A&M- 2 1st half first downs and 13 points after the game was out of hand
    LSU- 10 points
    Ole Miss- 10 points
    NW- 4 INT's to give the game away
    Ok State- 3 points and another shitty performance

    I think we would be telling recruits that we wont settle for QB's not getting the job done...and isn't Dak a recruit also? Playing Dak would show recruits that you wont have to sit behind upperclassmen that arent performing
    Good post

  13. #13
    Senior Member msstate7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    72,644
    vCash
    10439
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach34 View Post
    Alabama- 0 points
    Texas A&M- 2 1st half first downs and 13 points after the game was out of hand
    LSU- 10 points
    Ole Miss- 10 points
    NW- 4 INT's to give the game away
    Ok State- 3 points and another shitty performance

    I think we would be telling recruits that we wont settle for QB's not getting the job done...and isn't Dak a recruit also? Playing Dak would show recruits that you wont have to sit behind upperclassmen that arent performing
    Do you think recruits are watching OM's true freshmen play and getting upset bc they unseated some upperclassmen? I don't think so. I think recruits see an opportunity for early playing time. It should be player that benefits team the most

  14. #14
    Senior Member Todd4State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    40,713
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by Bully13 View Post
    Im not sold on the "we have a strong ol"
    I'm not either. Our tackles absolutely suck. I'm not sure of the solution there, but the first thing I would do is bring Tobias Smith out of retirement after Alcorn and hope that he holds up somehow. I'd try to rotate Damien Robinson in at LT and maybe play Justin Malone at RT when he gets back or vice versa if it works better. I'd also have Ben Beckwith playing a LOT more at guard as well.

  15. #15
    Senior Member ShotgunDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    37,277
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by thf24 View Post
    So are we not cutting him any slack for the possibility of a mild concussion after the early first hit to the head? Has that been ruled out? If so and he was 100% up to the point where he was actually knocked out of the game, then yeah, this thread is void and he should be benched in favor of Dak. If not, and he only got a few snaps in at 100%, how do we know he hasn't gotten better with his reads and decision making since those bad games you listed from last year?
    I don't know how any of us can answer whether or not he was competent after being hit. If he wasn't then thats another strike against him for staying in the game when he was hurting his team in doing so. That would be pretty selfish don't you think?

  16. #16
    Super Moderator CadaverDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    33,673
    vCash
    3002900
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd4State View Post
    I'm not either. Our tackles absolutely suck. I'm not sure of the solution there, but the first thing I would do is bring Tobias Smith out of retirement after Alcorn and hope that he holds up somehow. I'd try to rotate Damien Robinson in at LT and maybe play Justin Malone at RT when he gets back or vice versa if it works better. I'd also have Ben Beckwith playing a LOT more at guard as well.
    I disagree. They MAY not be as good as I think they are....but when everyone in the stands is calling out the plays before we run them, it's not very likely that the OLine is going to hold back the defense that knows what we are running. No creativity by our OC's and terrible audibles by Russell make it hard for e OL to prove anything in my opinion. But I guess we'll find out in the coming weeks

  17. #17
    Senior Member thf24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3,543
    vCash
    3200
    Quote Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg View Post
    I don't know how any of us can answer whether or not he was competent after being hit. If he wasn't then thats another strike against him for staying in the game when he was hurting his team in doing so. That would be pretty selfish don't you think?
    Good point, I was going to mention that but forgot. Yeah, if he was concussed then he should have taken himself out. Then again, maybe he thought he'd be selfish and abandoning his teammates by taking himself out. Maybe he couldn't tell anything was wrong himself. All I know is he looked great on his first three passes, and then not the same after the hit. You're right though, no telling if he was 100% or not, and if he wasn't, a senior leader should know to take himself out.
    Last edited by thf24; 09-03-2013 at 10:16 PM.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    9,964
    vCash
    3200
    Does Tyler even want to play anymore? I definitely think he wanted out of that game. Frustration can take a toll on your proficiency. Been there.

  19. #19
    Senior Member PassInterference's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,910
    vCash
    3200
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach34 View Post
    Alabama- 0 points
    Texas A&M- 2 1st half first downs and 13 points after the game was out of hand
    LSU- 10 points
    Ole Miss- 10 points
    NW- 4 INT's to give the game away
    Ok State- 3 points and another shitty performance

    I think we would be telling recruits that we wont settle for QB's not getting the job done...and isn't Dak a recruit also? Playing Dak would show recruits that you wont have to sit behind upperclassmen that arent performing
    Exactly.

    I have seen recruits and friends of recruits on Twitter saying Russell sucks.

    I'm not sure I disagree. Russell has been bad several games in a row now. He seems to play well until he gets hurt, intimidated, or both.

    PI is back in town. I'm sure y'all have discussed the game to death. I'll just say this and I'm ready to move on


  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,819
    vCash
    3200
    Quote Originally Posted by msstate7 View Post
    Do you think recruits are watching OM's true freshmen play and getting upset bc they unseated some upperclassmen? I don't think so. I think recruits see an opportunity for early playing time. It should be player that benefits team the most
    You are exactly right. The higher profile recruits, aka the guys you want, aren't thinking about putting in their dues and playing as upperclassmen. They want opportunities to make immediate contributions and showcase their skills for the next level. This move says nothing negative towards potential recruits, at least the type we have trouble getting.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Disclaimer: Elitedawgs is a privately owned and operated forum that is managed by alumni of Mississippi State University. This website is in no way affiliated with the Mississippi State University, The Southeastern Conference (SEC) or the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The views and opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the post author and may not reflect the views of other members of this forum or elitedawgs.com. The interactive nature of the elitedawgs.com forums makes it impossible for elitedawgs.com to assume responsibility for any of the content posted at this site. Ideas, thoughts, suggestion, comments, opinions, advice and observations made by participants at elitedawgs.com are not endorsed by elitedawgs.com
Elitedawgs: A Mississippi State Fan Forum, Mississippi State Football, Mississippi State Basketball, Mississippi State Baseball, Mississippi State Athletics. Mississippi State message board.