Raven_tiger 5 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Losing CW and RB will be a factor but it's not like we rode them to a 13-0 season.2003: 2389yds-541-32tds / 4.42 2004: 2383yds-552-27tds / 4.32 Our rushing numbers were actually better in 2003 yet we lost 5 games. The biggest difference was in our passing game and Campbell's record breaking season. The backs we currently have are good enough to average 183 yards per game but how Brandon Cox competes at QB, will determine what kind of season we will have in 2005. 168327[/snapback] Dammit Stat! You just can't keep quiet can you? Auburn is only going to win 3 games this year after losing Ronnie and Carnell, remember? Auburn is nothing without those two....good grief. Please delete your post before some cajun or bammer stumbles upon it. Thanks! 168461[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 LSU has to be the odds on favorite. AU 2nd. We should find out which Tiger will win the west Oct. 22. 168323[/snapback] That's the bottom line.The winner of the West will be the winner of the AU-LSU game, simple as that. LSU will be favored going into the game, and probably rightfully so, but we will be capable of pulling off the upset. Also, they do play Florida the week before us. Sorry Bama, but you still don't have the depth to hang with either Tigers over the course of a full season. And your OL is going to be your very vulnerable Achilles' heel. so..my logic says LSU--but my heart says Auburn, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgr4lfe 220 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 I agree with quietfan. it is going to be b/t AU and the other tigers. But, let's please not count out Bama. I really think they are going to have a good team. Yes, lack of depth and very inexperienced OL, but their defense is going to be just as good as ours. They will have a better O with Brodie and RB back. Like I said in a post about the East, this is going to be a fantastic SEC season this year. Three teams in each division than could be in contention for the SEC crown, with a few of those possible NC contenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,457 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Tgr4lfe, I hope you do not mind if "I" count uat OUT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EllisHugh 0 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Note the rushing consistentsy that Borges brought to the offense. This was a result of having a balanced offense (and competent OC). So the overall numbers, are close, but the way that they were achieved are vastly different. In 2003 we struggled to rush the ball against good opponents (SC, GT, LSU and UGA). In 2004 it was a VERY different story. Balance and consistentsy. We actually piled on Borges’ back to a 13-0 season. Not to rain on your parade, but Borges had the benefit of Brown, Williams and Campbell last year, which I suspect is why there was "balance and consistency". If you don't believe there we'll be a drop with the loss of 3 1st round NFL picks then I have a deal for you. I voted for LSU, the amount of talent in Baton Rouge is impressive and their home slate sets up well for a trip to Atlanta. Auburn and Alabama are the only other viable contenders in the West right in my eyes. Auburn does have to go to Red Stick where Tubby and the gang haven't won since 1999. Two things are going for Auburn though to win the West is that LSU is overrated at home in Death Valley and lately the odds on "favorite" to win the divsions and the conference have not won it lately. 168457[/snapback] Overrated at home??? LSU's home record for the last 5 years: [30-5 or 86%] 2000 - 6-1 (8-4 overall) 2001 - 5-2 (10-3 overall) 2002 - 6-1 (8-5 overall) 2003 - 6-1 (13-1 overall) 2004 - 7-0 (9-3 overall) Add the Hallman and DiNardo years in the 90s and you can perhaps say that LSU is overrated at home but then you can say that they were overrated on all occasions in the 90s. That being said LSU's home record (under Dumbnardo) from '95 to '99 is [21-12 or 64%]: 1995 - 5-1 1996 - 6-1 1997 - 4-3 1998 - 3-3 1999 - 3-4 The 10 year total is 51-17 or 75%, which IMO is not too bad considering LSU sucked in the 90s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AuNuma1 1 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 ...considering LSU sucked in the 90s. 168651[/snapback] Yeah, what was it, like 3 winning seasons over 10 years or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUslug 1 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 That is a good winning % at home for LSU, but reading on LSU boards you would think that no other team has ever won at Tiger Stadium. Don't get me wrong, TS is one of the best venues in college football and is very intimidating(sp) for a first time visiting team or fans. In the last ten years LSU has gone undefeated at home once,2004; while Stat can back me up on this but I'm very sure Auburn has gone undefeated at home at least twice in the last decade. I know the 90's were a rough year for LSU football, and that day games should be banned forever at TS but Tiger Stadium is just like most of the other places in the SEC, tough but not impossible to win at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,457 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Note the rushing consistentsy that Borges brought to the offense. This was a result of having a balanced offense (and competent OC). So the overall numbers, are close, but the way that they were achieved are vastly different. In 2003 we struggled to rush the ball against good opponents (SC, GT, LSU and UGA). In 2004 it was a VERY different story. Balance and consistentsy. We actually piled on Borges’ back to a 13-0 season. Not to rain on your parade, but Borges had the benefit of Brown, Williams and Campbell last year, which I suspect is why there was "balance and consistency". If you don't believe there we'll be a drop with the loss of 3 1st round NFL picks then I have a deal for you. I voted for LSU, the amount of talent in Baton Rouge is impressive and their home slate sets up well for a trip to Atlanta. Auburn and Alabama are the only other viable contenders in the West right in my eyes. Auburn does have to go to Red Stick where Tubby and the gang haven't won since 1999. Two things are going for Auburn though to win the West is that LSU is overrated at home in Death Valley and lately the odds on "favorite" to win the divsions and the conference have not won it lately. 168457[/snapback] Overrated at home??? LSU's home record for the last 5 years: [30-5 or 86%] 2000 - 6-1 (8-4 overall) 2001 - 5-2 (10-3 overall) 2002 - 6-1 (8-5 overall) 2003 - 6-1 (13-1 overall) 2004 - 7-0 (9-3 overall) Add the Hallman and DiNardo years in the 90s and you can perhaps say that LSU is overrated at home but then you can say that they were overrated on all occasions in the 90s. That being said LSU's home record (under Dumbnardo) from '95 to '99 is [21-12 or 64%]: 1995 - 5-1 1996 - 6-1 1997 - 4-3 1998 - 3-3 1999 - 3-4 The 10 year total is 51-17 or 75%, which IMO is not too bad considering LSU sucked in the 90s. 168651[/snapback] 1 0 - 9 WAR EAGLE ! ! ! (That is what you were "fishing" for...right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven_tiger 5 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Note the rushing consistentsy that Borges brought to the offense. This was a result of having a balanced offense (and competent OC). So the overall numbers, are close, but the way that they were achieved are vastly different. In 2003 we struggled to rush the ball against good opponents (SC, GT, LSU and UGA). In 2004 it was a VERY different story. Balance and consistentsy. We actually piled on Borges’ back to a 13-0 season. Not to rain on your parade, but Borges had the benefit of Brown, Williams and Campbell last year, which I suspect is why there was "balance and consistency". If you don't believe there we'll be a drop with the loss of 3 1st round NFL picks then I have a deal for you. 168651[/snapback] Nall had the benefit of Brown, Williams and Campbell, and could not muster a consistent offense. Do I think there will we a drop off on offense? Certainly. How much, I don't know. It largely depends on the play of Brandon Cox. Do I think that we can replace 3 top 10 NFL draft picks with player with little/no experience (sans T. Smith) and expect no drop off. Absolutely not. That would require far more Kool-Aid than I could ever consume in 2 lifetimes. Who knows, we may have a NFL caliber backfield, we'll see this season. Right now they have some VERY big shoes to fill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.