Started By
Message
re: Antrel Rolle thinks 2001 Miami would easily beat present-day Alabama
Posted on 11/8/16 at 4:28 pm to VOLLeyLLama
Posted on 11/8/16 at 4:28 pm to VOLLeyLLama
quote:
1989 the U won
Honestly, Miami didn't exactly slaughter us in 1989. They won by 8 - we hung in there the entire game.
And that's during the "greatest Miami teams ever" era. I think the 2011 Alabama team could beat 1989 Miami, if 1989 Alabama was within 1 score of them.
0
Posted on 11/8/16 at 4:30 pm to Wallacewade04
Don't have to have all that talent to be a BETTER FOOTBALL TEAM. Having more talent does not make you a BETTER football team! Alabama is a great football team and are extremely disciplined and well coached. And it shows.
If Miami was as GOOD a team as Alabama, they would have killed everyone they played all year. If 2016 Alabama played the 01 Miami schedule, they would not win a game by less than 21. 16 Alabama would destroy 01 Boston College, they could name the score. Miami, on the other hand, could only win 18-7. Inexcusable for the "greatest team ever" and for a team that MANY claim would beat modern day Alabama.
That Miami team is remembered for an absurd level of talent. Alabama's Nick Saban NC teams are remembered for being really fricking good football teams. Playing penalty free games and shutting out big time opponents.
Why do people keep ignoring this...
If Miami was as GOOD a team as Alabama, they would have killed everyone they played all year. If 2016 Alabama played the 01 Miami schedule, they would not win a game by less than 21. 16 Alabama would destroy 01 Boston College, they could name the score. Miami, on the other hand, could only win 18-7. Inexcusable for the "greatest team ever" and for a team that MANY claim would beat modern day Alabama.
That Miami team is remembered for an absurd level of talent. Alabama's Nick Saban NC teams are remembered for being really fricking good football teams. Playing penalty free games and shutting out big time opponents.
Why do people keep ignoring this...
Posted on 11/8/16 at 4:31 pm to David Ricky
I'm not saying they have, but college football competition across the board is far better now than in 2001. Hence why you get a lot of small-time schools hanging with big schools more, and things like that.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 4:34 pm to The Silverback
Boston College was DRIVING on that oh so great Miami defense, score was 11-7. Then the ball bounced off a receivers hands and returned for six by Miami. Against Boston College!
What would've happened if Miami played a team with almost as much talent as they do? And executes far better? And is far better coach, and far better prepared? Sounds the recipe for getting schooled.
What would've happened if Miami played a team with almost as much talent as they do? And executes far better? And is far better coach, and far better prepared? Sounds the recipe for getting schooled.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 4:35 pm to The Silverback
What does BAMA do to pro style teams ?
Posted on 11/8/16 at 4:37 pm to BAMAneck
They kick the shite out of them. And if they have a great defense, the arse kicking is delayed as Bama wears them out with their superior conditioning and depth.
That's another thing, these Saban Alabama teams are some of the strongest teams college football has seen. When the average bench press is 450 and you have one to two players a year benching 600 and squatting even more, then you're at the top physically.
That's another thing, these Saban Alabama teams are some of the strongest teams college football has seen. When the average bench press is 450 and you have one to two players a year benching 600 and squatting even more, then you're at the top physically.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 4:38 pm to The Silverback
The biggest flaw is the belief that athletes have not been evolving all this time.
Unless we presume some magical ray that makes the athletes of 2 decades ago the same level as modern day athletes, it doesn't work. The better question is, "Who dominates their current field more?" Because any team more than 10 years removed from this year's National Champion, regardless of who it is, is NOT going to keep pace.
Yes, a team from 2001 or so might have the occasional athlete you can point to as someone to keep pace, but there's just not a team from that era that matches with modern-day speeds of athletes. It's as absurd as asking who would win, 1966 Alabama or 1983 Auburn? Did AU's loss, and their close win in the Bowl game, mean that the undefeated 1966 squad would beat them? Heck no. They would get burned on any play AU wanted to run, and THAT AU team would get trashed by the 2004 team.
Sorry, as good as they were, very few 2001 AAs would be even third team AAs this year. Human physical peak is a wholly different animal than it used to be, even 15 years ago.
Unless we presume some magical ray that makes the athletes of 2 decades ago the same level as modern day athletes, it doesn't work. The better question is, "Who dominates their current field more?" Because any team more than 10 years removed from this year's National Champion, regardless of who it is, is NOT going to keep pace.
Yes, a team from 2001 or so might have the occasional athlete you can point to as someone to keep pace, but there's just not a team from that era that matches with modern-day speeds of athletes. It's as absurd as asking who would win, 1966 Alabama or 1983 Auburn? Did AU's loss, and their close win in the Bowl game, mean that the undefeated 1966 squad would beat them? Heck no. They would get burned on any play AU wanted to run, and THAT AU team would get trashed by the 2004 team.
Sorry, as good as they were, very few 2001 AAs would be even third team AAs this year. Human physical peak is a wholly different animal than it used to be, even 15 years ago.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 4:39 pm to skrayper
Bingo! This is correct.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 4:44 pm to The Silverback
quote:
More than likely this Alabama pass rush would kill Dorsey. Then Miami would get worn down and Bama wins by 14.
You people forget that Miami played a relatively shitty schedule. He'll Nebraska wasn't even the best option for an opponent in the NC that year. People at the time believed Oregon I think would have given Miami a heck of a game.
I'm not sure Alabama would score 14.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 4:46 pm to BlueIndian420
Why do people give these articles attention? Like he's going to say, nah, they'd destroy us. Even if he did feel that way (and I'm sure he believes Miami would win) there's no way he'd say it.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 4:47 pm to ohiovol
quote:
I'm not sure Alabama would score 14.
2001 Miami players would sh!t their pants. Athletes today are better across the board. I'm not sure why people have such a hard time understanding this.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 4:48 pm to ohiovol
So Virginia Tech scored 24, yet Alabama wouldn't be able to score 14?
You're full of shite.
You're full of shite.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 4:49 pm to nb200016
And if they think Boston College or Virginia Tech were tough...lololol
Posted on 11/8/16 at 4:49 pm to skrayper
quote:
The biggest flaw is the belief that athletes have not been evolving all this time.
Unless we presume some magical ray that makes the athletes of 2 decades ago the same level as modern day athletes, it doesn't work. The better question is, "Who dominates their current field more?" Because any team more than 10 years removed from this year's National Champion, regardless of who it is, is NOT going to keep pace.
Yes, a team from 2001 or so might have the occasional athlete you can point to as someone to keep pace, but there's just not a team from that era that matches with modern-day speeds of athletes. It's as absurd as asking who would win, 1966 Alabama or 1983 Auburn? Did AU's loss, and their close win in the Bowl game, mean that the undefeated 1966 squad would beat them? Heck no. They would get burned on any play AU wanted to run, and THAT AU team would get trashed by the 2004 team.
Sorry, as good as they were, very few 2001 AAs would be even third team AAs this year. Human physical peak is a wholly different animal than it used to be, even 15 years ago.
At least a couple of those guys are STILL playing in the NFL, and you don't think they were good enough athletes to keep up with Bama?
Posted on 11/8/16 at 4:50 pm to ohiovol
This years D would score 14...
Posted on 11/8/16 at 4:50 pm to The Silverback
quote:
So Virginia Tech scored 24, yet Alabama wouldn't be able to score 14?
You're full of shite.
Ole Miss scored 43. I'm pretty sure the 2001 Canes offense is better than Ole Miss. So you see how stupid that argument was?
Posted on 11/8/16 at 4:50 pm to nb200016
quote:
2001 Miami players would sh!t their pants. Athletes today are better across the board. I'm not sure why people have such a hard time understanding this.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 4:51 pm to ohiovol
quote:
At least a couple of those guys are STILL playing in the NFL, and you don't think they were good enough athletes to keep up with Bama?
Read my post:
quote:
Yes, a team from 2001 or so might have the occasional athlete you can point to as someone to keep pace, but there's just not a team from that era that matches with modern-day speeds of athletes
Not really a difficult concept to grasp.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 4:52 pm to ohiovol
You can sit and laugh, but...
Those guys playing in the NFL still today are FAR ahead physically now than when they were in 2001. They, like everyone else, had to adapt to the speed of the NFL as young players. And as they adapted, the physically matured even further. They weren't seasoned All Pro NFL players in 2001. In 2001, they were still in college and not completely physically mature, as they are now (and some aren't even that anymore because they're retired)
Those guys playing in the NFL still today are FAR ahead physically now than when they were in 2001. They, like everyone else, had to adapt to the speed of the NFL as young players. And as they adapted, the physically matured even further. They weren't seasoned All Pro NFL players in 2001. In 2001, they were still in college and not completely physically mature, as they are now (and some aren't even that anymore because they're retired)
This post was edited on 11/8/16 at 4:57 pm
Posted on 11/8/16 at 4:53 pm to skrayper
quote:
Not really a difficult concept to grasp.
Your argument is silly. Just because they couldn't play in the NFL into their 40's doesn't mean they wouldn't have been good enough in 2001 to compete with this Bama team. A bunch of those guys had long NFL careers. They would have certainly been able to keep up with this Alabama team.
This post was edited on 11/8/16 at 4:55 pm
Page 6 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News