Started By
Message
0
Posted on 6/12/15 at 3:55 pm to LSU_Saints_Hornets
I had a lot typed out, and realized it's pointless. Good luck guys, and looking forward to the season 
Posted on 6/13/15 at 5:14 pm to Nguyening
quote:
Sadly Steele ruins defenses slowly over time. Won't be enough in year one for it to matter in recruiting.
Sadly Steele NEVER, and I mean ever, ever, ever, EVER, in his his life, NEVER, has had the talent he will be exposed to at LSU. Also he has two of the best in the business as DL and DB coaches.
There will potentially be 8 guys in the secondary alone that were previously top 4 at their position coming out of high school. Seven of them top three.
Adams #2 5 star
Toliver #2 5 star
Smith #2 5 star
Monroe #2 4 star
Paris #3 4 star
Jackson #3 4 star
Fulton #3 4 star
Mullen #4 4 star
This post was edited on 6/13/15 at 5:17 pm
Posted on 6/13/15 at 5:19 pm to Datbayoubengal
The talent you have is relative to the talent you play. The Titans would destroy the SEC, but they're not so hot in their division.
Clemson 2008-2011 vs acc during that time is a much bigger talent advantage than LSU will have over it's opponents.
Also his recruiting classes on campus were better each year he was there, and the defense still got worse at the same rate.
Clemson 2008-2011 vs acc during that time is a much bigger talent advantage than LSU will have over it's opponents.
Also his recruiting classes on campus were better each year he was there, and the defense still got worse at the same rate.
Posted on 6/13/15 at 5:59 pm to Nguyening
quote:
The talent you have is relative to the talent you play. The Titans would destroy the SEC, but they're not so hot in their division.
Clemson 2008-2011 vs acc during that time is a much bigger talent advantage than LSU will have over it's opponents.
Also his recruiting classes on campus were better each year he was there, and the defense still got worse at the same rate.
Let me tell you one thing, LSU prides itself on defense and has for a very long time. Steele isn't the only guy working on the defense.
Nobody is coming close to that secondary so just stop. Our recruiting classes are actually becoming even better than they were just 5 years ago. We are starting to pull in Bama level, UF during Meyer, USC during Carol, classes of talent. Doesn't matter what division you are in, that shite will take over.
When your DL is rocking like Coach O will have it along with crazy athletic LBs and a ridiculously fast and play making secondary, nothing short of the end of the world could mess that up.
Like I said, we have two of the best as DL and DB coaches around and Steele isn't so shabby himself as an LB coach. So we have the coaching. The talent will beat out anything Steele could mess up.
Posted on 6/13/15 at 6:18 pm to Datbayoubengal
Who are you trying to convince? Soapbox unnecessary, I was just providing a little context.
Posted on 6/13/15 at 7:00 pm to Nguyening
Let me guess Texas am didn't want him but Texas did right? Poor teasips right?
Posted on 6/13/15 at 7:52 pm to Nguyening
quote:
Clemson 2008-2011 vs acc during that time is a much bigger talent advantage than LSU will have over it's opponents.
Clemson's class rankings in the ACC from 2008-2011 were 2nd, 6th, 4th, and 2nd. So, your assertion that their talent gap was so wide over the rest of the ACC during Steele's time there is bullshite.
Posted on 6/13/15 at 8:12 pm to Nguyening
You can take this to the bank,if he shits the bed he will be replaced by someone on staff.
Posted on 6/13/15 at 8:29 pm to RB10
quote:
Clemson's class rankings in the ACC from 2008-2011 were 2nd, 6th, 4th, and 2nd. So, your assertion that their talent gap was so wide over the rest of the ACC during Steele's time there is bull shite.
The classes that matter for play from 2009-2011 would be 2005-2010.
You then have to take into account their classes averaged as a whole, vs other opponents averaged as a whole.
The only team with composite classes better is Florida state. Miami had a couple good classes, a couple average. UNC had a good class. Maryland had a good class. It's not about one class though, it's the cumulative total.
2nd best talent in the conference, which is fairly comparable to what LSU has. The difference is, there is a much larger variance in the acc as a whole, and larger variance in each teams respective classes.
Posted on 6/13/15 at 8:41 pm to Nguyening
I didn't like the hire but you might want to take into consideration who he has for a supporting cast.
Posted on 6/13/15 at 8:44 pm to FightinTiga
Corey Raymond is excellent. He's an a+. I think orgeron is talented, but I don't like him as a person, and I think he's a locker room cancer.
Posted on 6/13/15 at 8:52 pm to Nguyening
quote:
The classes that matter for play from 2009-2011 would be 2005-2010.
Clemson class rank in coference:
2005 - 4th
2006 - 2nd
2007 - 4th
2008 - 2nd
2009 - 6th
2010 - 4th
LSU's last 3 in conference:
2013 - 3rd
2014 - 2nd
2015 - 3rd
So again, your assertion is bullshite. You can keep spouting this nonsense that Clemson's talent gap was so much wider all you want, it won't make it true.
This post was edited on 6/13/15 at 8:54 pm
Posted on 6/13/15 at 8:53 pm to Nguyening
O's players love him and play their asses off for him,that's all that really matters.LSU's D-Line will be much improved this season.
Posted on 6/13/15 at 9:11 pm to RB10
do you know what variance means?
The difference is LSU is second behind Bama, but 3-7 are all in the top 20 nationally.
Clemson was second behind FSU, with 3-7 being anywhere from (speculation, I'll do the math sometime when I have my laptop) 15ish - 75ish nationally.
If you've ever had a statistics class you know that ORDINAL VARIABLES are a very poor indicator of what's really going on. Even their national rank isn't a great measure, because they're still just an ordinal rank, but they at least peel away a layer of misinformation clouding the real picture.
The difference is LSU is second behind Bama, but 3-7 are all in the top 20 nationally.
Clemson was second behind FSU, with 3-7 being anywhere from (speculation, I'll do the math sometime when I have my laptop) 15ish - 75ish nationally.
If you've ever had a statistics class you know that ORDINAL VARIABLES are a very poor indicator of what's really going on. Even their national rank isn't a great measure, because they're still just an ordinal rank, but they at least peel away a layer of misinformation clouding the real picture.
Posted on 6/13/15 at 9:34 pm to Nguyening
quote:
If you've ever had a statistics class you know that ORDINAL VARIABLES are a very poor indicator of what's really going on. Even their national rank isn't a great measure, because they're still just an ordinal rank, but they at least peel away a layer of misinformation clouding the real picture.
I'm going to prove you wrong one more time and then I'm done.
Average player ranks from 2006-2008 (3 years prior to Steele):
2006:
Clemson - 85.29
Rest of ACC - 81.46
Difference - 3.83
2007:
Clemson - 84.10
Rest - 83.23
Difference - 0.87
2008:
Clemson - 88.64
Rest - 82.36
Difference - 6.28
Average player ranks for LSU vs. SEC (Last 3 classes)
2013:
LSU - 91.03
Rest - 86.55
Differense - 4.48
2014:
LSU - 90.49
Rest - 87.61
Difference - 2.88
2015:
LSU - 89.92
Rest - 88.00
Difference - 1.92
The talent on Clemson's roster was marginally better, in comparison to the rest of the ACC, than LSU's is in comparison to the SEC. Not some huge gap like you continue to imply.
This post was edited on 6/13/15 at 9:51 pm
Posted on 6/13/15 at 9:45 pm to RB10
Thanks for that. Every time steele's days at Clemson come up, LSU fans (in droves) point to the fact that his talent is better at LSU. No argument. All I've maintained was that the talent gap relative to opponent, was the same and likely leaned towards Clemson.
Officially, Steele had a bigger talent advantage at Clemson than he will at LSU. Especially at the rate you're recruiting. -___-
No hard feelings, and I don't think your team is gonna fall off the map or anything.
This post was edited on 6/13/15 at 9:54 pm
Posted on 6/13/15 at 9:53 pm to Nguyening
quote:
Officially, Steele had a bigger talent advantage at Clemson than he will at LSU.
You're using this as some sort of self confirmation? You've been spouting off for months acting like Clemson's talent gap was huge over the ACC, as a whole, compared to LSU's over the SEC. When, in fact, it's so minimal that they are practically the same.
quote:
All I've maintained was that the talent gap relative to opponent, was the same and likely leaned towards Clemson.
Um, bullshite.
From this page, in this thread:
quote:
Clemson 2008-2011 vs acc during that time is a much bigger talent advantage than LSU will have over it's opponents.
This post was edited on 6/13/15 at 9:59 pm
Posted on 6/13/15 at 9:58 pm to RB10
Well, despite the talent, or lack of Talent, Clemson won their first, and last ACC title while Steele was the DC. They haven't won one since........
Posted on 6/13/15 at 10:25 pm to RB10
I definitely was exaggerating in this thread but it's because I've become frustrated with hearing the same bogus talent argument over and over again.
I'm not sure what you're looking for here? I apologize for using hyperbole to prove a point?
I'm not sure what you're looking for here? I apologize for using hyperbole to prove a point?
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News