MSU offense

[Sbee]

in 2012 we scored 250 points all year, we have 201 through 4 games, hard to believe we've come this far and we haven't altered our system or tempo. Defense isn't quite at the level that we've come to expect over the last few years but we've also been spoiled.

 

[everyoneneedsasmil]

The offense is rather amazing in retrospect. Incredible what the difference can be between Cook and Maxwell, especially with Maxwell being the more prototypical high ranking recruit. It continues to prove that touch and smarts are more important than raw arm strength or athleticism. The O-line could still use some seasoning and improvement if we want a real shot at the playoffs/title, but the WRs, RBs, TEs, and QB are so much better than 2012 that they can actually make up for weaknesses.

The defense isn't top of college football great right now, but we've also blown out teams in each of our wins, leading to a lot more play from the backups.

 

[Sbee]

The offense is rather amazing in retrospect. Incredible what the difference can be between Cook and Maxwell, especially with Maxwell being the more prototypical high ranking recruit. It continues to prove that touch and smarts are more important than raw arm strength or athleticism. The O-line could still use some seasoning and improvement if we want a real shot at the playoffs/title, but the WRs, RBs, TEs, and QB are so much better than 2012 that they can actually make up for weaknesses.

The defense isn't top of college football great right now, but we've also blown out teams in each of our wins, leading to a lot more play from the backups.

funny to think that two guys from that awful 2012 left early for the NFL, to be fair Sims was hurt for a lot of the year and they would have been better with him but regardless, pretty stark

 

[Spartanmack]

The offense is rather amazing in retrospect. Incredible what the difference can be between Cook and Maxwell, especially with Maxwell being the more prototypical high ranking recruit. It continues to prove that touch and smarts are more important than raw arm strength or athleticism. The O-line could still use some seasoning and improvement if we want a real shot at the playoffs/title, but the WRs, RBs, TEs, and QB are so much better than 2012 that they can actually make up for weaknesses.

The defense isn't top of college football great right now, but we've also blown out teams in each of our wins, leading to a lot more play from the backups.

The o-line is definitely the biggest weakness (has been for years in my opinion) but I think we're still pretty mediocre at RB - the big difference there is more the passing game. Now, we have guys that can catch the ball and that makes the passing game more of a threat. Cook is definitely better than Maxwell, especially in terms of football IQ but Maxwell probably led the nation in dropped passes - opposing defenses could sell out on the run and make us beat them w/ the pass which we just couldn't do. But with the passing game much improved, the running game is pretty unimpressive. Bell, our #1 TB in '12 would easily be the starter on this team and I think he'd be kicking ass w/ the LBs and safeties backed off the line. Bell was able to make plays/overcome the weak line and absence of passing game. Now the passing game is better, line is still weak but probably improved and the running game is still unimpressive.

And to be fair to Cook, while Maxwell was 4-star rated vs. Connor's 3, scouts had Maxwell as the 9th best QB his year while Cook was 13th. Granted they were different years but it doesn't seem like there was a huge difference in the recruiting rankings.

 

[Spartanmack]

This brings up an interesting albeit unanswerable question - what would last year have been like if Bell stayed? Does he give us enough offense to overcome the horrible PI calls against us in the ND game? Does the passing game still eventually evolve to what it was by the end of the year or does it maybe evolve faster and would we be further along this year?

 

[Spartan23MSU]

This offense is a far cry from the 2 yard passing gains in the flat of years past, good riddance. We are going to have to put up a lot of points given our defense isnt as good as we and analysts predicted.

 

[Spartan23MSU]

in 2012 we scored 250 points all year, we have 201 through 4 games, hard to believe we've come this far and we haven't altered our system or tempo. Defense isn't quite at the level that we've come to expect over the last few years but we've also been spoiled.

This is also with Cook playing 50 % of the time in 2 of the games...:rush:

 

[LuciousGameWinner]

You guys remember the Maxwell days where we'd be on 3rd and ten and we throw the slant for 3 yards or dump pass to bell for 2 yards EVERY fucking time? I've never been so frustrated in my life as I was back then. Worst play calling ever.

 

[Spartan23MSU]

You guys remember the Maxwell days where we'd be on 3rd and ten and we throw the slant for 3 yards or dump pass to bell for 2 yards EVERY fucking time? I've never been so frustrated in my life as I was back then. Worst play calling ever.

Ohh yeah and years before that to boot or the tie game with 2 minutes left in the half and downing it on the 50 and run out the clock. Good riddance to that Busch League basura

Even Saban was Busch League

 

[everyoneneedsasmil]

Maxwell's problem always seemed an inability to throw a catchable ball. There were a ton of drops in 2012, but those same WRs suddenly became much more competent once Cook took over. The playcalling in 2012 sort of evolved to be bad because the players failed so often at anything reasonable. Maxwell was throwing short passes and dumping the ball to Bell because anything over 10 yards in the air was almost guaranteed to be off target or more difficult than it need to be (he would often try to throw THROUGH defenders instead of over or around).

Would we have beaten ND last year if Bell was still around? It's tough to say. We would have been better, and maybe in that one game swapping Nick Hill's carries with Bell would easily have produced superior results. That said, the team didn't even fully change QBs until week 3 last year, and that was due entirely to the lack of scoring against low end teams in weeks 1 and 2. If Bell had still been there, perhaps we score another couple touchdowns in each of those first two weeks, and perhaps because of that the coaches decide that Maxwell is doing enough not to get in Bell's way (the basic premise of sticking with him in 2012).

So while Bell staying would, in a vacuum, have made the team better against ND, I would also fear what it might have meant to the QB situation. Maxwell is just not a good QB, and anything that might have kept him starting would have done more harm than good long term.

 

[Spartanmack]

Maxwell's problem always seemed an inability to throw a catchable ball. There were a ton of drops in 2012, but those same WRs suddenly became much more competent once Cook took over.

This isn't really true. The passing game and offense in general struggled for a big chunk of 2013 - Cook didn't fix things overnight. We won a lot of games on defense and field position alone. I'm not defending Maxwell - he didn't have much touch especially on short passes but the receivers couldn't get any separation, he was rushed or hit on almost every play and balls that should be caught were being dropped - no way that was all on him. As the season progressed though, I do think it all got into his head (especially all the hits) because he was clearly just getting rid of the ball as fast as he could. I completely agree about the play calling but I also wonder if a lot of those dumps weren't just him panicking and going right to the release to avoid getting killed.

Would we have beaten ND last year if Bell was still around? It's tough to say. We would have been better, and maybe in that one game swapping Nick Hill's carries with Bell would easily have produced superior results. That said, the team didn't even fully change QBs until week 3 last year, and that was due entirely to the lack of scoring against low end teams in weeks 1 and 2. If Bell had still been there, perhaps we score another couple touchdowns in each of those first two weeks, and perhaps because of that the coaches decide that Maxwell is doing enough not to get in Bell's way (the basic premise of sticking with him in 2012).

So while Bell staying would, in a vacuum, have made the team better against ND, I would also fear what it might have meant to the QB situation. Maxwell is just not a good QB, and anything that might have kept him starting would have done more harm than good long term.

who knows how the rest of the season plays or even that game but I gotta think it helps us extend a few more drives in that game and probably get us more points or at least chances for points - he was leaps and bounds better than our RBs last year.

 

[Sbee]

Only Texas am and Baylor have more offensive td ' s than msu this year. We have 35 already

 

[Spartanmack]

could you imagine how many TDs those teams would have if they played in the B1G?

 

[everyoneneedsasmil]

could you imagine how many TDs those teams would have if they played in the B1G?

Probably the same or fewer. Nobody in the Big 12 has been playing much defense this year.

 

[Spartanmack]

Probably the same or fewer. Nobody in the Big 12 has been playing much defense this year.

Except for MSU, nobody in the B1G has been playing defense for about 5 years.

 

[Sbee]

Probably the same or fewer. Nobody in the Big 12 has been playing much defense this year.

he wasn't looking for an answer, he was just trying to bash the conference

 

[Spartanmack]

he wasn't looking for an answer, he was just trying to bash the conference

Calling a spade a spade is hardly "bashing". Anyone who thinks the B1G hasn't been in serious decline for the better part of a decade is simply in denial.

 

[everyoneneedsasmil]

Calling a spade a spade is hardly "bashing". Anyone who thinks the B1G hasn't been in serious decline for the better part of a decade is simply in denial.

I think the public perception of the conference has continued to decline. I think the actual decline is overstated. OSU outside of this year when their QB goes down has been highly ranked like they always are. MSU has been a legitimate second power most of the past 5 years. Wisky and Iowa have been highly rated as well at different times.

OSU may have been in the national championship if it weren't for the sanctions at the time. This year is a lot of bad timing, but I hardly think the conference is falling apart. The only team that's been in serious decline the last decade is Michigan. Michigan is a big name program, for sure, but teams have stepped up to fill that void pretty well (MSU/Wisky).

This is like the reverse Notre Dame syndrome. People see the ND name and assume it's a good team, even though they haven't actually been that good for the last 20 years. People see Michigan bad in the B1G, and they assume the whole B1G is bad. This then becomes a self-fulfilling belief. Because if the conference is perceived to be bad, they don't get highly rated and then don't get the bumps up the charts from beating other teams in conference. This gets worse and worse because it means any loss is a terrible loss and any win is a pointless win. Again, that's not to say this isn't an actual down year, but down from the heights of having a team at the top of the ranking all year is not the same as down to a division 2 level, which is how a lot of people talk.

 

[Spartan23MSU]

I think the public perception of the conference has continued to decline. I think the actual decline is overstated. OSU outside of this year when their QB goes down has been highly ranked like they always are. MSU has been a legitimate second power most of the past 5 years. Wisky and Iowa have been highly rated as well at different times.

OSU may have been in the national championship if it weren't for the sanctions at the time. This year is a lot of bad timing, but I hardly think the conference is falling apart. The only team that's been in serious decline the last decade is Michigan. Michigan is a big name program, for sure, but teams have stepped up to fill that void pretty well (MSU/Wisky).

This is like the reverse Notre Dame syndrome. People see the ND name and assume it's a good team, even though they haven't actually been that good for the last 20 years. People see Michigan bad in the B1G, and they assume the whole B1G is bad. This then becomes a self-fulfilling belief. Because if the conference is perceived to be bad, they don't get highly rated and then don't get the bumps up the charts from beating other teams in conference. This gets worse and worse because it means any loss is a terrible loss and any win is a pointless win. Again, that's not to say this isn't an actual down year, but down from the heights of having a team at the top of the ranking all year is not the same as down to a division 2 level, which is how a lot of people talk.

Good post, im with. I think a NC would remedy most of that "if you dont win the big one you suck" attitude. Right now thats running high in the public eye because we havent sniffed one since 1997 and even then many want to debate that.

 

[Sbee]

Good post, im with. I think a NC would remedy most of that "if you dont win the big one you suck" attitude. Right now thats running high in the public eye because we havent sniffed one since 1997 and even then many want to debate that.

The thing that nobody mentions is that the SEC is dirty as hell. It's not like every recruitment in the big ten is 100 clean but in the south its like the wild west. They have horrible academic standards, rampant fraud, tons of improper benefits, over signing, and steroid use.