Started By
Message
re: '16 Bama and '95 Nebraska. Who ya got?
Posted on 11/27/16 at 2:30 pm to arwicklu
Posted on 11/27/16 at 2:30 pm to arwicklu
quote:
It's only 20 years ago. It's not that big of a difference. We're not talking about the 50's. People talk about '01 Miami and this is just a few years earlier.
wrong. statistically 21 years ago was a huge difference with players adding about .25% bf per year on average. that's a huge difference in 21 years.
This post was edited on 11/27/16 at 3:56 pm
1
Posted on 11/27/16 at 2:37 pm to JuiceTerry
so being heavier makes them superior? I'm not saying gains haven't been made, I'm saying it's very marginal. So to say a team like 2001 Miami could have success in todays game, is ridiculous. I think a lot of people arbitrarily assume since Bama has had a run with a freak at RB(Henry) and your DL is incredibly athleitic, you couldn't assume the same for the rest of the CFB world.
Posted on 11/27/16 at 2:40 pm to MrCarton
quote:
wrong. statistically 21 years ago was a huge difference with players adding about .25% bf oer year on average. that's a huge difference in 21 years.
The averages are fine but Nebraska was elite. They were way above average at the time just like Bama is now.
Posted on 11/27/16 at 2:50 pm to Cdawg
I've explained it enough. 275 linemen are FCS school rosters today. Alabama '16 would completely dismantle that team on the field. If you want to argue about which team was better during their own era, that's a different discussion.
Posted on 11/27/16 at 2:51 pm to CharlotteSooner
That's their current roster, fool.
Posted on 11/27/16 at 2:51 pm to Ag Zwin
Anybody that doesn't pick the Huskers never saw them.
Posted on 11/27/16 at 2:54 pm to MrCarton
quote:
todays players are bigger, faster, and stronger. Posting arbitrary metricS from Combine Events Doesnt Prove Your Point.
That may all be true (though I don't think there is much of a speed difference), but the triple option (when run extremely well with instinctive players) can really take away size and strength advantages of the D. For instance, Bama dwarfed Georgia Southern's players in 2011 and Georgia Southern's O-line averaged about 270lbs. Yet, it didn't affect their ability to completely run all over Bama's incredible defense. Nebraska had 10x the talent that a team like that had. So you can see why things would be interesting.
Posted on 11/27/16 at 2:56 pm to Big EZ Tiger
quote:
That may all be true (though I don't think there is much of a speed difference), but the triple option (when run extremely well with instinctive players) can really take away size and strength advantages of the D. For instance, Bama dwarfed Georgia Southern's players in 2011 and Georgia Southern's O-line averaged about 270lbs. Yet, it didn't affect their ability to completely run all over Bama's incredible defense. Nebraska had 10x the talent that a team like that had. So you can see why things would be interesting.
Agree with you entirely. That being said, I think Bama would beat 95 Nebraska 6 of 10 games
Posted on 11/27/16 at 2:58 pm to Cdawg
quote:
so being heavier makes them superior? I'm not saying gains haven't been made, I'm saying it's very marginal.
It's not marginal.
Posted on 11/27/16 at 3:00 pm to Ag Zwin
I want to say Nebraska, but players are just getting bigger and stronger so I'm taking Bama.
Posted on 11/27/16 at 3:00 pm to JuiceTerry
Stop talking.
Posted on 11/27/16 at 3:01 pm to CharlotteSooner
quote:
Here's their roster. They don't look smaller than today's players to me.
LINK
The only 275lb Olineman I see on there is a Fr. So there goes the smaller theory.
wrong roster. look, you can deny reality all you want, Bama has bigger faster and stronger defense than any team that 95 Nebraska saw. bama is also bigger faster and stronger on offense than any team Nebraska saw in 95.
Stats dont lie. It's fact. It detracts nothing from what Nebraska did. why are you so butthurt about college football getting better?
This post was edited on 11/27/16 at 3:01 pm
Posted on 11/27/16 at 3:05 pm to MrCarton
Yes that's the incorrect roster. Too many windows open and posted the wrong link. You should still consider silence as a "best practice"
This post was edited on 11/27/16 at 3:06 pm
Posted on 11/27/16 at 3:07 pm to CharlotteSooner
quote:
Yes that's the incorrect roster. Too many windows open and posted the wrong link. You should still consider silence as a "best practice"
kill yourself.
Posted on 11/27/16 at 3:11 pm to MrCarton
"Agree with you entirely. That being said, I think Bama would beat 95 Nebraska 6 of 10 games"
No
No
Posted on 11/27/16 at 3:14 pm to CharlotteSooner
convincing case buddy.
I dare you to post the Nebraska roster from 95. not that I needed to do so, but I took a gander.
looks like bama is not only significantly bigger, faster, and stronger than every team Nebraska played...they are also bigger faster, and stronger than Nebraska at virtually every meaningful position.
But you got me man. very convincing case you made.
I dare you to post the Nebraska roster from 95. not that I needed to do so, but I took a gander.
looks like bama is not only significantly bigger, faster, and stronger than every team Nebraska played...they are also bigger faster, and stronger than Nebraska at virtually every meaningful position.
But you got me man. very convincing case you made.
Posted on 11/27/16 at 3:19 pm to CharlotteSooner
I'm still laughing at you guys.
Post the Bama roster against the Nebraska roster. Please. I beg you.
hint: Alabama is about the same average on d line that Nebraska is on Oline.
hint: bama is probably a full 25 lbs heavier on average across the o line.
hint: this correlates very well with a .25% increase in body fat every year for 21 years.
Post the Bama roster against the Nebraska roster. Please. I beg you.
hint: Alabama is about the same average on d line that Nebraska is on Oline.
hint: bama is probably a full 25 lbs heavier on average across the o line.
hint: this correlates very well with a .25% increase in body fat every year for 21 years.
This post was edited on 11/27/16 at 3:21 pm
Posted on 11/27/16 at 3:25 pm to Ag Zwin
If '95 Nebraska was just another team on Bama's schedule, and no one knew anything about them, I do think Nebraska would take them down.
I'd actually say for intangible reasons, the chip on Bama '92's shoulders might give Nebraska more fits...
I'd actually say for intangible reasons, the chip on Bama '92's shoulders might give Nebraska more fits...
Posted on 11/27/16 at 3:27 pm to vandelay industries
quote:
I'd actually say for intangible reasons, the chip on Bama '92's shoulders might give Nebraska more fits...
Would have been a good game. Bama 2016 destroys Nebraska 95 6 out of 10 games. that's being generous to Nebraska.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News