Fans of other schools often have an exaggerated sense of how "talented" LSU is, based on past recruiting classes. Yes, LSU is very talented, but the peak of Nick's recruiting hauls, his #1 and #2-ranked classes, have already graduated. But the legend lives on. The Barners are always saying that LSU is loaded with talent every year because they have no in-state recruiting competition. Those of us that sat through 6 years of Archer/Hallman losing seasons, know that LSU doesn't always automatically get reloaded with in-state talent every year. I think the difference in starting talent between LSU, Auburn, Florida and Tennessee is not significantly different. LSU has been fortunate recently to also be talented in depth . . . and we still are on defense.
Ok as I stated the UT fans were not bragging or anything of this sort. So there was no reason to start a war with them. Not once did they toss out the NC last year, etc. The discussion was simply their observation and I am sure by many others that coming into this season LSU was tagged as a real threat for the NC. Maybe they see LSU a different way than locals do. Since they are really on the outside looking in and can get a different perspective on what others might not see or want to see. I am sure there were a lot of you out there on this board that had those same ideas so lets not start backin up like a bunch of crawfish here. I recall reading and hearing from many different places at the beginning of this season LSU was a major threat to contend for NC and that yes LSU was loaded in the eyes of those persons, etc. Regardless of whether you want to call it experienced or whatever they were considered loaded. Loaded, experienced, etc is the same on LSU, OSU, Michigan but the fact remains they are getting it done while we are not. As for meaning who will get the blame if they lose I am sure it will fall on Miles. The reality is so far this season there has been plenty of areas to put blame, perhaps Miles and Jimbo for the game plan approach and lack of adjustments, JR has made some major gaffs, the O-line run blocking scheme has been terrible, plus I am sure there are some other areas. So it really has become a team breakdown so to speak at some point or another in any given big game they have lost this season and probably last season. B
Really? I remember people saying that LSU's tough road schedule with four games against potential top-10 teams precluded a real shot at a national titile in 2006. Consensus opinion on this board was that LSU would be 10-2 or 9-3 this year depending on how well they handled the rugged road schedule. Talented--yes, favorable schedule--no. 2007 is another matter entirely, We get our tough games at home next year.
We already have those -2 out of the way, and it ain't looking good, pardner. Regardless of the "consensus", LSU has shown no ability (either from the coaches or the players) to win out the rest of their games, especially on the road against Tennessee and Arkansas. Nobody thought Arkansas would be as good as they are. Otherwise, 8-4 would have been most people's picks.
not trying to "start a war with ut fans" (not even sure what that is), just pointing out how unusual lsu's schedule has turned out to be. to reiterate---3, and possibly 4, road games against top 10 teams. im sure this has happened before, but its gotta be rare. only one team wins the NC (well, sort of), so you could say that about 10 teams are disappointments every year. you mentioned Michigan as an example of a team thats looking great and not disappointing, but swap schedules with LSU and id bet the records would swap too. Iowa and ND on the road isnt close to Auburn and UF this year.
I am a Miles Supporter. I have to wonder why they get conservative when we go on the road against tough opponents.... If I remember, the Auburn game was played VERY close to the vest. I thought that we played alot more aggressively against Florida, but turnovers killed us....usually my wife corrects me, but anyone else is free to join her!!!:lol: :rofl: :lol: :geauxtige :geauxtige :geauxtige :geauxtige
Red I doubt you can name an LSU defensive team with better talent. Not only are the starters all star type players but Steltz and McCray would be starting on most LSU teams the last twenty years. The DL is the same. We bring players off the bcnch that would have started for most Tiger teams. The only area of weakness, that is mentioned, is the OL. However, before last weekend, the open date, we were third in rushing in the conference and had done a great job of protecting JR. I think we were second in the conference in sacks allowed. On many of the pass plays JR has enough time look over the field and then throws it late, giving the DB time to recover.
For those blaming Miles for our losses: Is it not agreed that when Saban was here he was known for his smothering defenses? Is it also not agreed that while he was here we were never an offensive powerhouse? Ok, so why do any of you think he(Saban) would have made much of a difference in our losses this year. Our defense has played just as well, if not better, this year as when Saban was here. That puts the blame on our offense for our losses. Saban had little, if any, to do with our offense. It was Jimbo's call, and he's still here. In other words, we all didn't want Saban to leave because of the type of defense he brought to our team, not for his offensive mind. Saban is gone, our defense is still just as good. If you think Saban being here would have made a diffence in our lack of offense against AU and UF, you're mistaken. Miles is not the sole reason for our losses this year.
This is a terribly inflated stat at best. Our rushing stats have been accumulated against the likes of Fresno, UK, Tulane, ULL, and Arizona. Florida: 90 net yards MSU: 108 net yards Auburn: 42 net yards We have had good rushing yardage against only one SEC team.
Not many, but the 2003 team was more talented. It's hard to compare teams from the two-way era, but the 1959 team allowed only 29 points and 3 TD's all season. The 1937 team allowed only 27 points and shut out 6 opponents.
