re: 2018 SEC runningback unit rankings per SEC Country

quote:

---

What we're saying is that having #1 classes makes a NC more likely than if you didn't have those.

---

You don't have to have a #1 recruiting class to compete for or win NC's. What you do have to have is continual top 10 classes.

There is more to college football than just 'recruiting'. How do I know this? All those Georgia players that are in the NFL over the last 25 to 30 years that you all wasted.

Selective quoting... rather than actually respond to all of the things that rebut any point that you thought you made, you elect to ignore it. Congrats on being a functional retard that at least knows when he's been bested.

quote:

---

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.

---

Can? Sure. Again... literally no one claimed that "all top 5 or top 1" was what we were talking about. The "laughable" part is that you're attempting to backpedal into that, rather than owning that there is a big fricking difference between the #10 class and the #1 class... and in many years, the difference between the #1 class and #5 class is pretty steep as well.

Solid job introducing *another* strawman argument around "coaching doesn't matter" as well.

Stick to trolling... you're out of your fricking depth if you want to try and have a logical debate with me. I take shits with more brain cells than you've got rattling together up there.

quote:

---

"Wasted" - averaging 10+ wins over a 15 year period with Richt

---

Yes. Wasted. You won very few big games under Richt and were often blown out in them

You had a ton of talent as evidenced by the NFL. Nobody in college football has wasted as much talent as Georgia the last 30 years. It is like a running joke at this point. 1980 was forever ago. That isn't going to change. You can keep pumping yourself up for having a #1 class but it won't change anything. Georgia playing for a NC is an anomaly and 2017 was literally a once in a lifetime/generation event for a huge portion of your fan base. And you blew it to a backup QB surrounded by a bunch of True Freshman. You won't be back anytime soon.

UGA returning RB stats (career):
Swift: 81 car, 618 yds, 7.6 ypc, 3 TD
Holyfield: 56 car, 322 yds, 5.8 ypc, 2 TD
Herrien: 124 car, 628 yds, 5.3 ypc, 4 TD

total: 261 yds, 1,568 yds, 6.0 ypc, 9 TD

UF returning RB stats (career):
Scarlett: 210 car, 1070 yds, 5.0 ypc, 7 TD
Davis: 79 car, 526 yds, 6.7 ypc, 2 TD
Perine: 227 car, 987 yds, 4.3 ypc, 9 TD

total: 516 car, 2.583 yds, 5.0 ypc, 18 TD

So overall, your RBs have played more, but at the same time ours have a full YPC better on average. You're bringing in a solid RB (#8 in 2018 class) who almost averaged 9.5 ypc in 4A Ga HS fb, and we're bringing in a solid RB (#1 in 2018 class, but coming off ACL surgery) who averaged over 14 yards a carry in 4A NC HS fb. We're also bringing in the #5 ranked RB.

I can kind of understand why you might think yours are better, but I don't think them playing more necessarily means they're better. I think most people who didn't have a dog in the fight would definitely take our RBs over y'alls.

quote:

---

This is my favorite. Davis has proven himself despite getting fewer carries than Swift last year.

---

I couldn't pick a favorite there was so much derp in there... but this one was up there.

quote:

---

3) Florida

---

lol

I'm trying to decide if you're related to Mark Richt, or if you're from Georgia and then got denied from UGA and Auburn so you ended up at Bama.

Look, Bama is the best program in the history of college football. Does that make you feel validated? No one is arguing that. But to say that recruiting ranking doesn't really matter is just so incredibly stupid. There's a reason that Bama started winning when bringing in top 3 classes when Saban got there. He's obviously an incredible coach, but even he can't win with a bunch of crap players (see: year 1 at Bama, and time in NFL).

quote:

---

But to say that recruiting ranking doesn't really matter is just so incredibly stupid.

---

Never said this. Top 10 classes matter. Additionally, there is very little difference between the #1, #5, and #10 classes. That is what I have said. For example, I will take a #8 Nick Saban coached and developed recruiting class over a Mark Richt, Kirby, Jimbo Fisher, Dabo, etc #1 or #2 class. It is that simple. Some kids that are rated 5* recruits end up really being 3*'s. Some 3*'s end up really being 5*'s. It isn't an absolute or definitive system. What I just explained to you is how the #1 class isn't much different than the #10 class. There are hits and misses. Everyone rated a 5* doesn't actually end up being a 5* player. Can you understand this? There is a margin of error involved. Then you factor in kids who transfer out, quit, or get kicked off. It makes a huge difference.

You realize most of the guys that rank these kids never played football let alone any sports. Ever. Not even little league.

quote:

---

Never said this. Top 10 classes matter. Additionally, there is very little difference between the #1, #5, and #10 classes. That is what I have said. For example, I will take a #8 Nick Saban coached and developed recruiting class over a Mark Richt, Kirby, Jimbo Fisher, Dabo, etc #1 or #2 class. It is that simple. Some kids that are rated 5* recruits end up really being 3*'s. Some 3*'s end up really being 5*'s. It isn't an absolute or definitive system. What I just explained to you is how the #1 class isn't much different than the #10 class. There are hits and misses. Everyone rated a 5* doesn't actually end up being a 5* player. Can you understand this? There is a margin of error involved. Then you factor in kids who transfer out, quit, or get kicked off. It makes a huge difference.

---

All of the things you just mentioned are exactly why the #1 and #10 classes *are* different.

You have a bigger margin of error if you're signing higher rated classes... it's not about *one* five star or *one* four star athlete panning out or not panning out... it's the totality of the talent that you are bringing in (as well as how much of it you are able to retain). If you average out the busts and surprises... the school pulling in #1, 2, and 3 classes has more room for error than the school pulling in #10, 9, or 8...

Example: Let's ignore Alabama for now

#2 class in 2017: 5 - 5* players, 14 - 4* players, (19 blue chippers) Average player rating of 94.59
#3 class in 2017: 3 - 5* players, 17 - 4* players, (20 blue chippers) Average player rating of 92.27

#9 class in 2017: 1 - 5* player, 10 - 4* player, (11 blue chippers) Average player rating of 89.34
#10 class in 2017: 0 - 5* players, 10 - 4* players, (10 blue chippers) Average player rating of 89.37

You can knock the ratings if you want, but the proof has been in the pudding for a long time... when you average out the data, they are more right than they are wrong... So for a team to be in the top 2, 3 or 5... they are getting nearly 2x the number of high quality athletes than if they're in the bottom of the top 10 in most seasons.


ETA: Also... L.O.L. at taking "a #8 recruiting class with Saban"... First of all, it wouldn't happen at this point... The Bama-bump/Saban-bump is real... not because recruiting sites love Alabama or anything... but because rankings follow offers, not vice versa. If Saban throws out an offer, it's seen as a metric of approval. Look no further than a guy like Christian Barmore... was totally unrated until his offers started piling up. Similarly, for Justin Young, the UT wide receiver pick up... somehow flew under the radar, got the late pick up by Tennessee... now he's a 4*. The ratings are a business, so there is manipulation to keep classes more interesting (see late bumps/decreases for certain schools to keep the conversation more interesting about who ends up with #1, or in top 5/10...), but in a lot of ways they rely on the guys who *do* know football to help them out as well.

Second of all, you're talking about a coach who is arguably (perhaps inarguably at this point) tGOAT. Sure... I'll take a 10th ranked class with Saban and his staff doing the evaluations, development, and coaching over Mark Richt, Dan Mullen, or Ed Oregeron with a #1 ranked class. At this point, there isn't a big enough sample size to say one way or the other who Kirby is as a coach, but it would appear that he learned a lot from his time with Saban. I can tell you I wouldn't do that with Urban Meyer though... Would probably do it with Dabo, but not with a great degree of confidence... even with the results he has had in the past 3 years. Dunno who else you would put up in the conversation for coaches you'd be willing to take sub-par recruiting classes with relative to elite teams. Probably Petersen is the only other one I can think of right now. Scott Frost or Lincoln Riley might get there one day?

In other words, the quality of coach that it takes to make up for a 2x differential in blue chip recruits is pretty substantial. You're better off getting a coach who can get the recruiting part figured out, and hope that any coaching deficiencies can be accounted for with staff augmentation.

Getting back to the original topic at hand...

quote:

---

Auburn won't be and never has been that low.

---

Going to be interesting... I think this might be the lowest talent level at the RB position I can recall at Auburn in a while... at least from a perception standpoint. You guys probably know that position group a lot better than the rest of us though.

Does seem like perhaps State and Mizzou maybe a little high, could easily see Auburn bouncing ahead of them, particularly from a production standpoint. More likely to hold the lead in more games - yielding more runs, both will have brand new OCs, and Gus' tendency on offense is to lean on the run whenever possible anyways.