- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Who would you rather have on last year's team? Mathieu, Randle, or Brooks?
Posted on 1/22/13 at 6:52 pm
Posted on 1/22/13 at 6:52 pm
Mathieu - playmaker
Randle - deap threat
Brockers - force in the middle
This is a very hard decision as all three were sorely missed on last year's team. Mathieu in all likelihood makes a play on that screen pass in the Bama game & closes it out for the win. Randle's deep threat ability would definitely have accounted for several more touchdowns, increasing the teams overall margin of victory & not leaving games so close. Brockers's presence in the middle would have killed Florida's run game & more than likely secured a Tiger win.
My pick would have to be Mathieu, as this team sorely missed his playmaking ability & leadership on defense. I could have definitely seen this team going undefeated & getting another shot at the NC with him back on.
What say the Rant?
Randle - deap threat
Brockers - force in the middle
This is a very hard decision as all three were sorely missed on last year's team. Mathieu in all likelihood makes a play on that screen pass in the Bama game & closes it out for the win. Randle's deep threat ability would definitely have accounted for several more touchdowns, increasing the teams overall margin of victory & not leaving games so close. Brockers's presence in the middle would have killed Florida's run game & more than likely secured a Tiger win.
My pick would have to be Mathieu, as this team sorely missed his playmaking ability & leadership on defense. I could have definitely seen this team going undefeated & getting another shot at the NC with him back on.
What say the Rant?
This post was edited on 1/22/13 at 7:07 pm
39
Posted on 1/22/13 at 6:53 pm to StealthCalais11
Simple Mathieu
Posted on 1/22/13 at 6:54 pm to StealthCalais11
Easy the doper.
Posted on 1/22/13 at 6:55 pm to TIGRLEE
And LSU let Mathieu go for more reasons than his herbal habit.
Posted on 1/22/13 at 6:56 pm to StealthCalais11
If we would've had Randle we wouldn't have lost a game IMO. Our defense was fine last year
Posted on 1/22/13 at 6:57 pm to StealthCalais11
quote:
Brooks - force in the middle
Brockers?
And the answer is Mathieu
Posted on 1/22/13 at 6:57 pm to FreeLesMiles
Stupidess decision the university could have ever made was cutting Mathieu. They should have just stuck it out with him for one more year but instead decided to get rid of him & severely decrease the team's chances at the NC.
Posted on 1/22/13 at 6:59 pm to StealthCalais11
Tom Hodson and Wendall Davis
Posted on 1/22/13 at 6:59 pm to StealthCalais11
Brockers
Posted on 1/22/13 at 7:01 pm to StealthCalais11
TM7 and we don't lose a game.
Posted on 1/22/13 at 7:02 pm to StealthCalais11
It would not have been any more enjoyable to watch Mett repeatedly overthrow Randle, IMO.
Posted on 1/22/13 at 7:06 pm to StealthCalais11
quote:
This is a very hard decision
Not if you want to win it isn't.
Or if you're retarded. It maybe a hard decision if you're retarded, too.
Posted on 1/22/13 at 7:06 pm to StealthCalais11
Mathieu is my favorite LSU player ever but Randle would've had a bigger positive effect.
Posted on 1/22/13 at 7:10 pm to amiznit
quote:
Mathieu is my favorite LSU player ever but Randle would've had a bigger positive effect.
We'll never know, obviously, but I'm guessing we don't come up just short in either the Florida or the Bama game with Badger back there. I don't think anymore offense would've even been necessary to go undefeated or at least pull out 1 out of the 2 regular season defeats. More offense still would've been nice, though, of course.
Hey, are you retarded or what?
Posted on 1/22/13 at 7:10 pm to StealthCalais11
Honestly, Id say Randle. He would have absolutely flourished last year and its a shame he didn't stay
There's no overthrowing Randle
quote:
It would not have been any more enjoyable to watch Mett repeatedly overthrow Randle, IMO
There's no overthrowing Randle
This post was edited on 1/22/13 at 7:12 pm
Posted on 1/22/13 at 7:12 pm to Brettesaurus Rex
quote:
Honestly, Id say Randle.
Are you sure you're not just trying to say something different than the obvious, Brett?
If not, then I must ask...are you...retarded, as well...Brett?
Posted on 1/22/13 at 7:17 pm to DaveDog
No. Randle gave us a deep threat no one else could and As I said, there's no or throwing Randle. Lets say he provided an extra 5-8 touchdowns, yeah I'd say that's be worth more than the badger.
Personally I would have rathered Mathieu back, but offense was the problem, not the defense (for most of the year.)
Personally I would have rathered Mathieu back, but offense was the problem, not the defense (for most of the year.)
This post was edited on 1/22/13 at 7:18 pm
Posted on 1/22/13 at 7:17 pm to DaveDog
quote:
There's no overthrowing Randle
I'd have to agree. The recievers last season were not deep threat receivers; Randle is.
Posted on 1/22/13 at 7:23 pm to MrPackSix
Randle is the only correct answer he was a receiver who made getting open easy and would have caught everything.
Posted on 1/22/13 at 7:27 pm to StealthCalais11
Mathieu all day, we may go undefeated (if he played like he did last year)
Page 1 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News