Started By
Message
re: 2018 SEC runningback unit rankings per SEC Country
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:59 am to Jake_LaMotta
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:59 am to Jake_LaMotta
quote:
Do you remember the Spurrier quote about recruits and what happens to them when they get to Athens?
You are probably too young. Georgia has wasted more talent than any other SEC program the last 30-35 years. You have guys that don't play and end up having 7-10 year NFL careers
Why is that? It is a pattern. It also isn't changing.
So an off-hand jab from Spurrier somehow constitutes factual basis for an argument. God damn... it's like you don't even try to be cogent. Keep making the same tired statements and we'll continue to watch you look like a buffoon.
0
Posted on 2/2/18 at 11:01 am to fibonaccisquared
quote:
but if you can't see the change in the program that makes one of us.
You had a Senior laden team that played in the shitty SEC East and lost the NC game and finished #2. Richt also was able to finish #2. Again, the fact that you refuse to accept this is what makes it so funny.
Posted on 2/2/18 at 11:02 am to Jake_LaMotta
LSU doesn't have a well-known back for the first time in over a decade.
But I think Clyde Edwards-Helaire is going to really surprise people. He's like 5'8" 215, so he's stout, and he's shifty AF and runs angry like Guice.
Against Dylan Moses:
But I think Clyde Edwards-Helaire is going to really surprise people. He's like 5'8" 215, so he's stout, and he's shifty AF and runs angry like Guice.
Against Dylan Moses:
This post was edited on 2/2/18 at 11:04 am
Posted on 2/2/18 at 11:07 am to DawgsLife
What was the better era for Georgia?
Richt's 15 years or Dooley's 25 years?
Dooley had a lot of 5-5, 6-5, 7-4 type seasons.
Richt won 2 SEC Championships in 15 years.
Dooley won 3 SEC Championships in his first 15 years. See the pattern here? Georgia is a perennial under achieving program. Always has been always will be. 1980.
Richt's 15 years or Dooley's 25 years?
Dooley had a lot of 5-5, 6-5, 7-4 type seasons.
Richt won 2 SEC Championships in 15 years.
Dooley won 3 SEC Championships in his first 15 years. See the pattern here? Georgia is a perennial under achieving program. Always has been always will be. 1980.
Posted on 2/2/18 at 11:10 am to Jake_LaMotta
quote:
You don't have to have a #1 recruiting class to win a NC. All you need is to be in the top 10. What Bama has done the last 10 years is not normal and has never been done in the over 100 year history of college football. I am absolutely fine with us having #5, #6, #7, #8, etc recruiting classes it won't change anything. Recruiting is such a small part of the whole picture. You still have to develop these kids, coach them up, get them at their ideal position on the field and get them in the weight room/training table and get them physically ready.
Tell us more about your football knowledge. It's entertaining watching you look like a complete fricking idiot.
The statement that "there is no difference between a 1, 5, and 10 class" is incorrect. There is a huge difference. Particularly when it's aggregated over 4 years of one team ending in the top 1-3, and the other team consistently being in the 5-10.
In the last 10 to 15 years, which teams have won a national championship without having *at least* one top 5 ranked recruiting class... how about #1 overall?
Obviously Clemson... but other than that, I'm actually not sure. Maybe Auburn 2010 (looked it up, they had the #6 class that year, and clearly the Cam pickup was the difference). It may be "one piece"... but it's also the biggest piece. There is a reason that Saban looks for recruiters first, coaches second. College football is a jimmies and joes game first and foremost. You can X/O until the cows come home, but over the long haul, if I have better players, I'm going to win more games.
NB4: UGA underperformed with more talent... UGA averaged 10 wins a year under Richt... As I said... over the long haul, you'll win more games. We lost occasional games to teams that we shouldn't, but more frequently, we lost to teams that were as talented or more so... (just happened to be in epically bad fashion sometimes
)Posted on 2/2/18 at 11:11 am to Jake_LaMotta
quote:
You had a Senior laden team that played in the shitty SEC East and lost the NC game and finished #2. Richt also was able to finish #2. Again, the fact that you refuse to accept this is what makes it so funny.
Selective quotes for the win. Remind me when Richt played for the national championship.
Posted on 2/2/18 at 11:18 am to fibonaccisquared
quote:
The statement that "there is no difference between a 1, 5, and 10 class" is incorrect
Actually it isn't. If you looks at the most recent National Champions (sans Alabama) what they have in common is having top 10 recruiting classes. They don't have #1 or top 5 classes every year. They are in the top 10 every year which is all that is needed. In fact to further illustrate this look at the teams that have actually made the playoffs since 2014. Sans Alabama they have had top 10 classes or if you are Washington, Michigan State, Oregon, or Clemson worse than that and still made the playoffs.
You don't have a goddamn clue what you are talking about. Typical Georgia fan acting like you have to have a #1 recruiting class to win anything which just like firing a guy that was averaging 10 wins a season will make this even funnier when you don't make the playoffs again for another 25 or 30 years.
Posted on 2/2/18 at 11:25 am to Jake_LaMotta
quote:
I am absolutely fine with us having #5, #6, #7, #8, etc recruiting classes it won't change anything.
Yeah I’m sure not having better players than everybody else wouldn’t change anything at all.
quote:
Recruiting is such a small part of the whole picture.
Every coach ever would disagree with you. You always want more gifted players.
In summary, you are wrong.
Posted on 2/2/18 at 11:29 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Yeah, I'm not sure where he was going with that. We have recruited very, very well across the OL, but after 7 straight #1 recruiting classes, Alabama still has the better OLine. They still have more depth, too. Maybe in the next year or two, we will get there, but not right now.
It was a friendly gesture. Going back to Bama's 2014's class, they has twice as many high rated olinemen as UGA. But UGA's last 2 classes have been on par.
This post was edited on 2/2/18 at 11:57 am
Posted on 2/2/18 at 11:35 am to Jake_LaMotta
quote:
Thirdly, your trip to the NC Game was literally a once in a lifetime/generation type event.
Well, I'm over 40 so............
Posted on 2/2/18 at 11:49 am to Crowknowsbest
quote:
Yeah I’m sure not having better players than everybody else wouldn’t change anything at all.
If you continually have Top 10 recruiting classes you have better players than 90% of other teams
The team with the best players doesn't always win. If that was the case we would never lose. Georgia would never lose to GT but you have. Do you see the stupidity in your thinking?
You don't have to have all #1 or all top 5 classes to win the National Championship or make the playoffs.
Posted on 2/2/18 at 12:14 pm to Jake_LaMotta
quote:
Actually it isn't. If you looks at the most recent National Champions (sans Alabama) what they have in common is having top 10 recruiting classes. They don't have #1 or top 5 classes every year. They are in the top 10 every year which is all that is needed. In fact to further illustrate this look at the teams that have actually made the playoffs since 2014. Sans Alabama they have had top 10 classes or if you are Washington, Michigan State, Oregon, or Clemson worse than that and still made the playoffs.
You don't have a goddamn clue what you are talking about. Typical Georgia fan acting like you have to have a #1 recruiting class to win anything which just like firing a guy that was averaging 10 wins a season will make this even funnier when you don't make the playoffs again for another 25 or 30 years.
Derp...
Let's stick with *champions* and *top 10 recruiting* since that was your argument. You may *want* to shift the picture to teams in the playoffs or top 5 classes now, since you realize you're wrong... but that wasn't the argument you made...
Teams to win a National championship in the last decade:
Alabama - multiple
Ohio State - 2014
Clemson - 2016
Auburn - 2010
Florida State - 2013
Florida - 2008
Honorable mention... LSU - 11 years ago.
What were their recruiting rankings leading up to those championships?
2008 - Florida: 3 years prior to national championship: Rivals #2, #1, #3/Composite #2, #1, #5 - or in other words... all top 5 classes by any reasonable standard and at least one #1 overall (Side note: Also won a title with that #2 class in 06 - which still had another #2 class on the roster from '03)
2010 - Auburn: Year of championship, went from previously ~20th ranked classes to #4 Rivals/#6 Composite - Win championship on back of generational *player* and solid defense. We can call this a slight outlier, but at least one of their classes was ranked in the top 5 by at least one service.
2013 - FSU: The two prior year classes were #2 composite (about 1.5 points separated Alabama and FSU this year... 10 points separated 2 and 3) and #4 composite (less than 1 point from 3rd, 4 points from 5th...)... Again... not "just top 10" but rather top 5, and more than one class.
2014 - tOSU: Composite 6, 5, 2, and 3 the 4 years prior to winning... #2 class behind incredible Alabama class, still 12 points higher than the next closest. #3 class behind LSU by 3 points... still 10 points higher than the next closest... Again... top 5 classes > national championship. Crazy... and we're not talking about consistently #5.
Alabama - Multiple championships, multiple #1s... no reason to go through the paces here.
2016 - Clemson - the lone *true* outlier... again, an incredible QB took the team a long way... not terribly dissimilar to Auburn's run in 2010, they just had him longer.
Honorable mention: LSU - 2007 - (Rivals rankings arguably more reliable than 247 composite this far back) - Rivals #2 overall class in 2004 (#4 composite), #4 overall class in 2007 (#4 composite)... 2 top 5 classes again...
It's almost like there's a pattern there that you're not getting. The pattern isn't that they *average* top ten classes... it's that they have one or more *exceptional* class... in many cases it's a top 2 or 3 class, but in all but Clemson's case, it's at least a top 5 class as rated by one service. But please, continue to wax poetic about some of us not having a clue.
ETA: can't find the old Scout or ESPN rankings, but pretty confident I recall FSU having a "#1 class" under one of those services at one point... would guess it was the year they were 1.5 points behind Bama in the composite. Probably see some higher rated classes for some of the others as well...
This post was edited on 2/2/18 at 12:23 pm
Posted on 2/2/18 at 12:19 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
But I think Clyde Edwards-Helaire
Will go really well in the new offense, he's a perfect 3rd down back
Posted on 2/2/18 at 12:19 pm to Jake_LaMotta
quote:
If you continually have Top 10 recruiting classes you have better players than 90% of other teams
You don't *play* against all 90% of other teams... you play the teams on your schedule, and then you play the teams in the post season...
quote:
The team with the best players doesn't always win. If that was the case we would never lose. Georgia would never lose to GT but you have.
No one made this claim. Your logical fallacy is: Strawman
The argument for elite recruiting classes is that *over the long run*... you will win more games where you have the more talented roster. If you'd like to take a swing at a counter argument to that, I'd love to see it.
quote:
You don't have to have all #1 or all top 5 classes to win the National Championship or make the playoffs.
Strawman Part Deux - The strawkening
No one said "all #1" or "all top 5" classes, nor was it tied to *making the playoffs*...
What was said, was that every national championship team in the last decade had *at least* one class still on the roster that was rated in the top 5 by a service, sans Clemson. As you'll see above... *that* statement was accurate.
Compare that to this statement from you:
quote:
All that is needed is a top 10 class. There is very little to no difference between the #1, #5, and #10 classes.
But we already knew that you were an idiot...
quote:
Do you see the stupidity in your thinking?
Gonna go with no... unsurprisingly.
This post was edited on 2/2/18 at 12:29 pm
Posted on 2/2/18 at 12:21 pm to thunderbird1100
quote:
Will go really well in the new offense, he's a perfect 3rd down back
From what I've seen of him, I like his skillset. Is there an LSU RB that you guys envision taking the lionshare of the carries (if you see him as more of a 3rd down back), or is it likely to end up pretty heavily RB by committee?
Posted on 2/2/18 at 12:24 pm to fibonaccisquared
quote:
From what I've seen of him, I like his skillset. Is there an LSU RB that you guys envision taking the lionshare of the carries (if you see him as more of a 3rd down back), or is it likely to end up pretty heavily RB by committee?
Next year I expect a pretty big split among Brosette, Edwards-Helaire and Curry the incoming freshman. Curry got hurt which affected his ranking, but he was really quite good.
This post was edited on 2/2/18 at 12:25 pm
Posted on 2/2/18 at 12:29 pm to Poker Dough
quote:
Auburn won't be and never has been that low
Which is all the more puzzling why Gus chose to run KJ down to the bone the last three games of the season.
Posted on 2/2/18 at 12:30 pm to thunderbird1100
quote:
Next year I expect a pretty big split among Brosette, Edwards-Helaire and Curry the incoming freshman. Curry got hurt which affected his ranking, but he was really quite good.
Cool. About what I expected. Looking forward to the matchup in BR. Expansion has really effed up the frequency of our matchups.
Posted on 2/2/18 at 12:40 pm to Jake_LaMotta
quote:
If you continually have Top 10 recruiting classes you have better players than 90% of other teams
Yes, which is why teams with top 10 recruiting classes win most of their games.
quote:
The team with the best players doesn't always win.
No shite. I never said that. The team with the best players wins most of the time, though.
quote:
You don't have to have all #1 or all top 5 classes to win the National Championship or make the playoffs.
You don't have to, but it damn sure helps.
Posted on 2/2/18 at 12:44 pm to fibonaccisquared
quote:
No one said "all #1" or "all top 5" classes
Which is what I have been saying all along. You don't have to have #1 or top 5 classes to win the NC or go to the playoffs. Top 10 classes are sufficient enough as the evidence shows us. Or if you are Washington, Michigan State, Clemson, Oregon it literally doesn't matter what kind of classes you have. What do all those have in common? I would argue they have very good head coaches. This #1 class stuff only has applied to Alabama which by the way is on the single greatest run in College Football History.
Do you understand that having the aggregate #4, #2, #8, #9 and #6 class in a 5 year span can win you a NC? They don't have to be all top 5 or #1. It is if you think coaching doesn't matter which is laughable.
Page 5 of 7
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News