Started By
Message
re: Your thoughts on Auburn
Posted on 7/7/12 at 10:02 pm to plutonium55
Posted on 7/7/12 at 10:02 pm to plutonium55
Plutonium...I think Auburn has averaged a #7 recruiting class ranking over the last 5 years compared to Alabama's #2. LSU is pretty close to Auburn there. Bama HAS been better...but not THAT much better. LSU and Auburn have been very, very close if you are looking at all of the major services.
2
Posted on 7/7/12 at 10:14 pm to plutonium55
quote:
Who told you that?
The websites that are dedicated to recruiting. Compare the star rating out of high school of the Auburn players to that of LSU and Alabama (current players; non-quals and "processed" players don't count), and I'd be willing to bet that they are pretty danged close.
Posted on 7/7/12 at 10:14 pm to tkane311
quote:
Plutonium...I think Auburn has averaged a #7 recruiting class ranking over the last 5 years compared to Alabama's #2. LSU is pretty close to Auburn there. Bama HAS been better...but not THAT much better. LSU and Auburn have been very, very close if you are looking at all of the major services.
HOLY shite!!!!!! More barner math...
7 is not greater than 2 or even close to being "on par" and believe me 99% of the SEC would take LSU's recruits over what auburn signed anyday, I know I would. LSU will abuse your team and make you look like the paper tigers you really are and you need to stop listening to phillip marshall and jeffery lee.
Posted on 7/7/12 at 10:19 pm to CapstoneGrad06
quote:
AE told him.
You believe that Alabama has 14 national championships because UAT told you that retrospective titles count. Even if I did get my opinion from AE, is that really any worse than what you learned from a university of "higher learning"?
Posted on 7/7/12 at 10:21 pm to tkane311
quote:
tkane311
I see you have been following recruiting closely, dumbass...err...iglass
I actually have been following recruiting. Auburn's problem is that even though the fambly is recruiting at near record levels, LSU and BAMA have taken THEIR recruiting to a whole 'nother level. And as we all know, the team that puts the most talent on the field will win 75%% of their games. Coaching is a huge factor for the rest - and no way does Chizik's staff outcoach - ON A CONSISTENT BASIS - the staffs at LSU or BAMA.
Because of that, I maintain my hypothesis that the Barn will be locked in a struggle with Arkansas for 3rd-5th place in the SEC West for the foreseeable future. If you can't see the logic in this, you've been drinking too much orange koolaid.
Posted on 7/7/12 at 10:23 pm to plutonium55
quote:
plutonium55
Two years ago, Auburn dropped from #2 to #7 on rivals based on a single player (Cyrus Kouandjio) going back on his declaration of commitment to Auburn and signing with Bama. There isn't THAT much difference between the two rankings, and considering how subjective rankings are in the first place, it kinda makes sense.Posted on 7/7/12 at 10:24 pm to tkane311
quote:
...I think Auburn has averaged a #7 recruiting class ranking over the last 5 years compared to Alabama's #2. LSU is pretty close to Auburn there. Bama HAS been better...but not THAT much better. LSU and Auburn have been very, very close if you are looking at all of the major services.
Discussing recruiting ranking is f'n pointless. They are simply opinions, mostly influenced by subscription. Jake Holland was a four star recruit, that alone should tell you all you need to know about recruiting rankings.
Posted on 7/7/12 at 10:29 pm to CaptainBrannigan
quote:
Discussing recruiting ranking is f'n pointless. They are simply opinions, mostly influenced by subscription. Jake Holland was a four star recruit, that alone should tell you all you need to know about recruiting rankings.
So was Josh Bynes. Holland's and Bynes' statistics through their first two years of college are pretty similar, and Bynes did okay his last two seasons.
Posted on 7/7/12 at 10:37 pm to rednilla
Bynes numbers were hurt because he was slow as Christmas.
Holland's numbers are padded because stats do not record where the tackle took place. Because Holland makes tackles when the ball is 8-10 yards on our side of the LOS does not make him a good player. He plays because our recruiting at LB has been bad and we have no one else.
Holland's numbers are padded because stats do not record where the tackle took place. Because Holland makes tackles when the ball is 8-10 yards on our side of the LOS does not make him a good player. He plays because our recruiting at LB has been bad and we have no one else.
Posted on 7/7/12 at 10:42 pm to CaptainBrannigan
7 or 8 wins. Clemson/MSU games decide the season.
This post was edited on 7/7/12 at 10:43 pm
Posted on 7/7/12 at 10:43 pm to CaptainBrannigan
quote:
He plays because our recruiting at LB has been bad and we have no one else.
That's true to some extent, but his greatest strength is leadership; I expect he'll be the unsung hero of this year's defense specifically because he's not the most athletic guy in the world, but he's smart enough to grasp the defense and, hopefully, become the leader that BVG and Thig want him to be. With the complexity of the scheme Van Gorder runs, that will be critical.
Posted on 7/7/12 at 10:48 pm to Hump
quote:
Clemson/MSU games decide the season.
The MSU game only has relevance to the season if Auburn loses. Beating Mississippi State doesn't do anything to change how good the season will be.
Posted on 7/7/12 at 10:52 pm to rednilla
I don't root for Auburn to ever win anything, except when it comes Iron Bowl time.
Posted on 7/7/12 at 11:34 pm to rednilla
quote:
You believe that Alabama has 14 national championships because UAT told you that retrospective titles count.
No, but these do:
This post was edited on 7/7/12 at 11:36 pm
Posted on 7/7/12 at 11:36 pm to BradPitt
nb4bearbryantletter
Posted on 7/7/12 at 11:40 pm to BradPitt
quote:
BradPitt
So what you're saying is that the Eufaula Times National Championship Auburn was awarded in 2004 is valid then?
Posted on 7/7/12 at 11:46 pm to rednilla
I don't think those papers were crowning anyone as national champions; just reporting on who unanimously won the de facto title game (for those that argue a national champion did not exist during that period).
1941, on the other hand, those poor white boys won that title fair and square. Helluva season and one helluva team...
Are we talking about that very Sandusky-esque letter he sent a potential recruit? Or something else (if so DO please enlighten moi)?
1941, on the other hand, those poor white boys won that title fair and square. Helluva season and one helluva team...
quote:
nb4bearbryantletter
Are we talking about that very Sandusky-esque letter he sent a potential recruit? Or something else (if so DO please enlighten moi)?
This post was edited on 7/7/12 at 11:51 pm
Posted on 7/7/12 at 11:49 pm to BradPitt
tl;dr
Posted on 7/7/12 at 11:58 pm to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:
tl;dr
Yeah, frick that.
I just read the headlines (I'm from Alabama so I should receive a free pass anyway).
Posted on 7/8/12 at 12:10 am to BradPitt
quote:
I don't think those papers were crowning anyone as national champions; just reporting on who unanimously won the de facto title game (for those that argue a national champion did not exist during that period).
The first paper doesn't say anything about a national champion, just Rose Bowl champion, the second and fourth claim that Stanford and Lafayette were both champions along with Alabama, and the third puts Notre Dame alongside Alabama. How could there be a "de facto title game" with more than one champion?
But okay, while we're on ancient teams with retrospective titles, how about Auburn in 1910, 1913, and 1914? Hell, the '14 bunch didn't allow a point the entire season, the only blemish being a scoreless tie.
Page 4 of 7
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News