Started By
Message
0
Posted on 5/22/13 at 12:04 pm to Choctaw
Wade has a point, but what LSU fans don't understand is both Bama and ATM have the QB play to make up for the other losses. They have QB's that are more than capable of winning games for their teams. To this point, LSU cannot say the same.
Posted on 5/22/13 at 12:06 pm to gatordmb89
quote:
Why is okie state 6. Are they gonna be that good or is that just an edgy pick
So someone in Big12 areas will buy the mag?
Posted on 5/22/13 at 12:07 pm to gatordmb89
quote:
Wade has a point, but what LSU fans don't understand is both Bama and ATM have the QB play to make up for the other losses. They have QB's that are more than capable of winning games for their teams.
QBs don't play defense
quote:
To this point, LSU cannot say the same.
neither can Florida
Posted on 5/22/13 at 12:08 pm to Choctaw
quote:
neither can Florida
I don't think he ever said they did
Posted on 5/22/13 at 12:10 pm to gatordmb89
quote:
Wade has a point, but what LSU fans don't understand is both Bama and ATM have the QB play to make up for the other losses. They have QB's that are more than capable of winning games for their teams. To this point, LSU cannot say the same.
We won't have a problem winning 10 games even with average QB play. If Mett is good, we'll do better.
But as of now, Florida doesn't look any better at QB than LSU.
Posted on 5/22/13 at 12:11 pm to Patton
quote:
I don't think he ever said they did
he didn't. you're very perceptive
Posted on 5/22/13 at 12:14 pm to Choctaw
quote:
he didn't. you're very perceptive
Oh well great job showing him who's boss than
Posted on 5/22/13 at 12:18 pm to Patton
quote:
Oh well great job showing him who's boss than
thanks. some people need reminding sometimes
Posted on 5/22/13 at 12:19 pm to Dawg in Beaumont
quote:
scrooster,
Are you using the article posted here recently for those schedule rankings? We discussed the problems with that publication using overall records to determine schedule difficulty (for example an 8-4 FCS team would be considered more difficult than a 7-5 FBS team). Also, that was taking into account the non-conference games that have no bearing on getting to Atlanta.
We also never got to finish up the discussion of how you felt the SEC was giving UGA an unfair advantage even before the bridge schedules. I'm extremely curious to know your theory on that, so I'll pose the question again:
Do you believe the SEC has been cheating South Carolina back when the SEC schedule was 100% determined by rotation?
And if so, how do you believe that rotation was skewed against South Carolina? I'm honestly intrigued by this whole mindset.
Yes, I was referring to the schedule comparisons based on what teams the previous season. And I agree with your contention insomuch that the FBS teams should not be counted. But you gotta count the OoC FCS teams, do you not, and SC goes to Central Florida (not a gimme, it's a trap game) and we've got Clemson at home.
I just bust UGA balls about their schedules, that's all. Y'all have lucky draws with the exception of last season - there was something wrong about how it went-down last season IMHO.
No, I do not believe the SEC was cheating SCAR, it was just unlucky rotations.
The rotation, for most years, just happened to work-out so that SCAR played the tougher opponents from the West, especially during the 90s when Florida and Tennessee were so dominant, which when added to our opponents from the West (remember, we had MSU and Arkansas as permanent opponents and they both played in Atlanta during those years) while Bama and LSU were down. You did play Auburn during those years - and they had some good years in the 90s.
Posted on 5/22/13 at 12:20 pm to Choctaw
quote:
thanks. some people need reminding sometimes
They sure do
Posted on 5/22/13 at 12:21 pm to im4LSU
You didn't start/play more than Ole Miss. So, no, it's not true.
edited: You have a better team, not arguing that.
edited: You have a better team, not arguing that.
This post was edited on 5/22/13 at 12:22 pm
Posted on 5/22/13 at 12:23 pm to dallasga6
I think it is crazy for USCe to be ranked that far ahead of Texas A&M University
Posted on 5/22/13 at 1:10 pm to wadewilson
quote:
But as of now, Florida doesn't look any better at QB than LSU.
100% correct. Never said UF was in better shape. I would actually give Mett a slight slight edge.
Posted on 5/22/13 at 1:14 pm to Choctaw
quote:
Choctaw
quote:
QBs don't play defense
Hoo wulda thunk it
If you knew anything about football, you would understand what I was insinuating.
Posted on 5/22/13 at 1:15 pm to gatordmb89
I'm sure he knows plenty about football. He was not here to talk about football he was here to flame and troll. That's what he does. He's pretty good at it.
Posted on 5/22/13 at 1:20 pm to gatordmb89
quote:he has the brain capacity of the coach he loves so much.
If you knew anything about football, you would understand what I was insinuating.
Posted on 5/22/13 at 1:24 pm to DawgFARKer
quote:
No LSU or UGA in the top 10...I know it's preaseason and all that crap but the media hype machine is cranking up for Louisville, Ohio St and of course never stops for ND.
The most intelligent approach I can take to this would be, is that SN thinks the UGA offense won't be much better than it was in '12. They are hitting their ceiling, and should expect to AT BEST match their offensive production from last season. Which in itself wouldn't be too bad as the offense last year was prolific in most cases....
But the UGA defense will take a sizable hit: their pass D was poor in '12, and their run D was much worse than it appeared to be. And now all those veteran defensive players are gone...
But then you wonder about UF being ranked so high: their defense was much better than UGA's last season - they too lose several key components from last season, but are returning more on D than UGA will. But UF's offense was worse than UGA's defense last season, to be honest. And UF seems (IMO) to have bigger questions on how to correct that issue for 2013 - issues at OL and QB, no returning leaders at RB or WR...
My guess is that the folks at SN is thinking that defense will be more important in the SEC than offense, which is why they seem to be penalizing UGA more than UF for issues in returning producers...
Posted on 5/22/13 at 1:27 pm to scrooster
quote:
CGSC Lobotomy:
#7 to start the season is fine with me. I'd prefer 9 or 10.
Me too, but this year it is less important as the cat gets out of the bag (one way or another) in week 3.
quote:
scrooster:
Thirdly, if SCAR ends-up in Atlanta, then who are all the other teams that you would rank ahead of them, if they are not worthy of 3rd? I realize it is subjective, but I'd seriously like to read who you honestly believe should be ranked-ahead of SCAR if we end-up in Atlanta and are, say, undefeated when we get there?
I haven't read to the end but I doubt anyone thinks an undefeated SC will or should get left out. Somewhat related: Because of A&M's weak OOC schedule I can see them winning the conference (when I'm feeling optimistic) with 1 loss and being left out.
Posted on 5/22/13 at 1:27 pm to TT9
quote:
he has the brain capacity of the coach he loves so much.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News