Top 5 performing SEC teams as of today.

[hatvol96]

I'll 2nd that!

Good to see Bizarro MENSA sticking together.

 

[hatvol96]

As far as LBs go, there aren't many LBs in the SEC that could have started on that team. All three were starting NFL material -- and Al Wilson is a Pro Bowler.

I think Wade will push for All SEC honors.

Meachem, McBride, Sears, Swain, Wade, and M Mitchell are the upper classmen that will get a shot. The younger guys are young to tell at this point.

If we had kept R Smith (OL), Harrell, and McDaniel, we would have upgraded both lines and had one of the best DLs in the country. But we don't, which hurts some.

Getting a shot and being an actual player are two different things. For God's Sake, Cedric Houston is a stiff and he gets a shot.

 

[Liper]

Getting a shot and being an actual player are two different things. For God's Sake, Cedric Houston is a stiff and he gets a shot.

That's true, there is a difference. But making an NFL team at all means you've got enough ability to be an outstanding college player.

BTW, I never thought Houston was very good, but he's good enough to play in the NFL; he actually plays a lot. That's surprising to me.

What really ruffles me is looking back at our late 90s and 01 teams and seeing how they looked like some of the most talented teams in college football over the last 10-15 years.

The talent on those teams sometimes makes it appear like we don't have the talent. Comparatively speaking, it is down. But compared to what most other good programs win with, we're still pretty darn good (except maybe OL). Point being, I don't see ANY teams in the SEC right now with the talent we had on 4 or 5 teams. And we don't have much to show for it. That remains my biggest problem with this coaching regime.

 

[hatvol96]

That's true, there is a difference. But making an NFL team at all means you've got enough ability to be an outstanding college player.

BTW, I never thought Houston was very good, but he's good enough to play in the NFL; he actually plays a lot. That's surprising to me.

What really ruffles me is looking back at our late 90s and 01 teams and seeing how they looked like some of the most talented teams in college football over the last 10-15 years.

The talent on those teams sometimes makes it appear like we don't have the talent. Comparatively speaking, it is down. But compared to what most other good programs win with, we're still pretty darn good (except maybe OL). Point being, I don't see ANY teams in the SEC right now with the talent we had on 4 or 5 teams. And we don't have much to show for it. That remains my biggest problem with this coaching regime.

LSU has some tremendous good talent.

 

[TravisHenryCBlockedMe]

1. Auburn: Theyre #2, they beat Lsu, theye won (I think) 20 out of 21 games against sec opponents (including the hat trick against phil). Sure, they struggled against the cocks, but everyone has a scare game or two.

2. Florida: They beat a top sec team on the road. Even though it was only a point, it was a come-from-behind win on the road in the sec against a ranked opponent and rival. Also took out a somewhat good (but not great) bama team.

3. Lsu: Almost put them at 2, theyll be there after this week. Definately some shady penalties and non-penalties in the Auburn game. Dont think Auburn wins that game if its at Death Valley. They have as much as talent as pretty much any team in the country.

4. Tennessee: Convincing win over California, and beat Memphis like they should. But games that shouldnt have been that close against af and marshall, along with blowing a 10 point lead at home against your rival (not that we're surprised thanks to Phil's abysmal record against top 10 teams at home) means this team is in a holding pattern before returning as an elite sec team.

5. Arkansas: They beat a ranked sec opponent and lead the league in rushing.

 

[Liper]

LSU has some tremendous good talent.

Yeah, it's good. I'd agree. But it's not the all-NFL type talent we've had in the past across the board 2 deep. That's kind of my point. Even the most talented teams around the country right now don't look as talented as some of our best teams.

We had dominant talent for several years in a row. Heck, we went 8-5 one year where we had the most players drafted of any school.

I mean, our 2001 team, in retrospect, looks much better on paper than what they got done on the field. 1999 was a joke.

We went for a stretch of about 5 or 6 years where it was an anomally if one of our defensive starters didn't end up in the NFL somewhere.

 

[hatvol96]

Yeah, it's good. I'd agree. But it's not the all-NFL type talent we've had in the past across the board 2 deep. That's kind of my point. Even the most talented teams around the country right now don't look as talented as some of our best teams.

We had dominant talent for several years in a row. Heck, we went 8-5 one year where we had the most players drafted of any school.

I mean, our 2001 team, in retrospect, looks much better on paper than what they got done on the field. 1999 was a joke.

We went for a stretch of about 5 or 6 years where it was an anomally if one of our defensive starters didn't end up in the NFL somewhere.

The 2001 team went 11-2. I'm no sure how they could have done much better.

 

[Liper]

The 2001 team went 11-2. I'm no sure how they could have done much better.

It was a good year; I'm not claiming failure. But it was an underachieving year because our two losses were to two inferior teams. Yet again, we took a great team and made them good. We then take good teams and make them average, and so on.

The team that went 5-6 last year was much more talented than this team.