quote:
You people are ridiculous. LOL. So the team overachieves last year after BK taking over a team with 39 scholarship players and a bowl game where the WR played QB. Could have easily gone 7-5 or 8-4 but got lucky in a few games then loses most of it's veteran defensive players and you think 9-3 is a failure.

Each season is judged on its own merits and the variables in effect at that time.

Last year was year 1 of an (almost) completely new coaching staff. There were also several new players (including true freshmen) who were forced to play key positions. Most notably QB, LT, RT, TE. In addition, the competition faced was better. I don't think anyone (unless they just want to be disingenuous) would disagree that, at least, Alabama and Tennessee were better last year than they are this season. Most anticipated it was going to take a bit of time for all of the changes to be navigated.

This season much of the "new" was no longer there. The players had been in Kelly's program for a full season. Virtually the entire coaching staff returned. LSU brought back essentially an entire starting offense. Only this time the LT, RT, and TE were true freshmen playing in their first games. They were experienced players. The QB had now been in the system for a year. 4 of your top 5 receivers returned.

On defense you brought back an All SEC DT in Wingo. Smith, who was thought of as LSU's best defensive prospect returned. Harold Perkins, one of the most disruptive players in the SEC returned. You brought in an All Pac-12 LB in Speights. Yes, there were more questions on offense than defense. But most thought the group could at least be decent. However, more than that, the schedule was favorable. Auburn had a new HC and was rebuilding. Alabama was looked at as having the most questions they've had in a long time. Mississippi State had a new HC with new approach that may not work. Tennessee was off the schedule. Expectations for Florida were very low. And you got Auburn, A&M, and Florida (three of the tougher road venues) at home.

There was a reason LSU was ranked 5th to start the season with many, many people picking them to win the west and possibly reach the CFP. There was a reason they had one of the highest odds to win the NC. It wasn't because of delusion. It was because many of the variables that weren't favorable last season were favorable THIS season.

"Rebuilds" don't always occur in a linear fashion. But by your logic, the apparently do. So despite the fact LSU will likely lose many of their big playmakers on offense this season (Daniels, Nabers, possible Thomas); may have a new defensive staff next season with, again, multiple new players, and will have games AT Florida, A&M, and Arkansas, to go along with home games vs Alabama and Oklahoma, plus a neutral site game against USC, and dropping a G6 opponent for UCLA, next year's team should at least be 10-2 right? Georgia has won back to back national championships. By your linear logic this should be their best team ever. But its not...because the variables of this season aren't as favorable for them at the last seasons.

The pieces for a run were in place THIS season. And frankly, if LSU could just put together an AVERAGE defense (which doesn't seem like a monumental task), they would be 4-1 with 4 double-digit wins and in the discussion for the CFP.

Instead, they are likely to waste the second best offense in school history because they may have the worst defense in school history. All at a time when many of their historically good opponents may be at their weakest points in a while (Alabama, Florida, Auburn just to name a few.

So yes, 9-3 would be a disappointment relative to THIS season, whereas 9-3 may not be a disappointment at all relative to last season or even next season.