Kinda interesting to see it all in the national press that Randall is basically a lock. Of course all they are going off of is the spring game and nothing else. As LSU fans though we know better and realize its still a three-way race.
I think Randall gets the start for at least the first couple of games. If he holds his own, then he stays in. If he shows any signs of his former performances, then he's pulled and replaced with (Russell or Flynn). So at this point I don't think it's a three-way race anymore, I think Saban already plans on starting Randall, but what do I know.
You can bet that most of the national media haven't even seen the stats from the spring game much less the game itself. What most of the media is basing their predictions on is probably the snipets of quotes from Saban and Jimbo this spring. I think everyone will agree that it is Randalls job to lose but there is still a lot of time and practice before the first snap and anything can happen. At least we have some quality competition, we could be like Tennessee and have two sub par QB's in a dead heat for the starting job. :geaux: :lsug: :champs:
The freshmen accounted for 8 sacks against a split defensive squad...EIGHT SACKS... These guys are NOT ready for the passrush! They're not ready for shifting defenses, inside blitzes, disguised coverages, and the like... Marcus Randall, on the other hand, has started six conference games, with all 6 coming with the national televised pressure to go along with a tight championship stretch run. He's played with conference championships on the line, and he's played well enough to win. He's played in New Year's Day Bowl Games and played both well enough and poorly enough to both win or lose. If you think -102 yards rushing via 8 sacks and -36 yards total rushing for offenses operated by JaMarcus Russell and Matt Flynn in the Spring Game, along with them leading their offenses to a grand total of 3 points scored while Randall had an excellent day and led his team to 22 points and a win equates to a three man race, then sir, I humbly submit to you that you are indeed a smarter man than I am, because you saw something I haven't.
I don't put much stock.... in LSU spring game stats. The operative words in your post were "split defensive squads". Saban's primary concern with spring games is making it fun for the players. My guess is that Randall will start the season, and as it progresses his inconsistency will once again emerge, and at some point JR will take over. Again, just a guess, but as good a one as anybody else's.
TE, Of course it is still a three-way race. In our minds from what we saw at the spring game, of course we can easily say that Randall looked the best though. However, is the decision on the starter going to be based solely on what has happened thus far? I'd think not! The decision will be made in due time. Are you claiming that it is already made? Has Nick Saban visited you during your sleep and whispered into your ear the decision? If you are then YOU are the smarter man and know a LOT more than the rest of us. By the way, I realize you are an avid supporter of Randall. Nowhere did I say who should or should not start. But hey, I believe senior leadership and experience would get us a LOT farther than enduring a freshman learning curve would. That's not the point of my previous comments though. The point is that national media is not present to see what's going on behind the scenes, in practice, etc... Yet they are mostly calling Randall the starter. Perhaps Nick Saban visited them as well in their sleep?! :grin: :grin: :grin:
What gets me is that, the posters who are riding the Marcus Randall wagon, more than half believe he will be the starter but will be replaced at some point in the season by Flynn or Russell. That's real confidence. :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o: o:
