re: Do some people forget that Nick Saban...

I love how rantards think because a majority of people think Saban is better than Miles, it means we think he's immune to failure. Trust me, we don't think Miles is that good.

quote:

---

Saban has learned, it seems...to overcome average QB play. In fact, he seems to thrive under it.

---

he wants to win with D and have his QB not f up, Bama last year was perfect for that, great D, 2 great RB's to pound the ball (the 2000 Ravens probably give him wood )

But he is as much to blame for avg QB's as he is able to over come it. He just proves that you don't need a stud QB to win.

quote:

---

Still not convinced he is the top X-0 guy out there, but he has the best program of any coach, hands down

---

Saban is probably the premier defensive mind in college football today. When you consider his success and his background working with coaches like Glanville, Perles, and Belichick, I'm not sure who is better than him.

quote:

---

No one will accept this fact and If the Hatter blew the Iowa game like Nick did it would have brought the world down on him.

---

The difference is that Miles would make the same dumb frick up up mistake again in another game or make some mealy mouthed excuse as to why it happened, while Saban would have fixed it and moved on.

quote:

---

But he is as much to blame for avg QB's as he is able to over come it. He just proves that you don't need a stud QB to win.


I agree. Saban doesn't want the game to come down to one player. He effectively neuters the QB role. His game doesn't rely on QB talent. Just manage the game..

---

not true in 2002. 5-1 with mauck, 3-4 without (including the bluegrass miracle).

quote:

---

what's not true?

---

"His game doesn't rely on QB talent."

===

most definitely other factors could have had an effect on going from five wins in a row (with a blowout victory in the swamp) to 3-4 without mauck, but i doubt they came close to losing mauck. for example, i assume we would have scored more than a combined 7 points against aub and bama if mauck was under center.

quote:

---

"His game doesn't rely on QB talent."

---

The explain Greg McElroy. Saying he doesn't rely on QB talent does not mean he can win with just any QB or some dude from the student section. The point is he does not build his team around the QB and has shown you can win at a high level with avg QB play. My comment was in response to someone saying Saban would not have gotten RP we don't win the 2007 SEC CG without RP.

quote:

---

most definitely other factors could have had an effect on going from five wins in a row (with a blowout victory in the swamp) to 3-4 without mauck,for example, i assume we would have scored more than a combined 7 points against aub and bama if mauck was under center.

---

1 of those factors was the schedule. Mauck started the VT game which we lost 26-7, the 5 strait wins were: Citadel, Miami (Ohio), Miss State, ULL and Florida, that's 4 scrubs and an 8-5 Florida team.

So maybe we score more than 7 vs AU/Bama with MM. We gave up 31 in both games, how does MM prevent that? The other games we lost were to Ark on a last second TD (ie due to defensive breakdown, not QB play) and Texas who frankly had much more talent.

In short, even with Mauck I I think we still finish 3-4 in 2002. The loses were to good teams, and more on the D. Remeber, Spears amd Hill were hurt, James was kicked off the team, the overall defense was not that good. You are giving the QB position too much credit and relying on basically a coincdence.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

I've had it with this mothafrickin Nick on this mothafrickin Rant!

He's gone and is never coming back. He was a good coach for LSU but now it's time to MOVE ON and be glad we have someone that's not Lane Kiffin

quote:

---

with mauck we put up 36 in the swamp on a team that only lost one other game at home, miami (who could have easily been national champs that year).
i doubt we would have beaten texas regardless of mauck's injury, but auburn (who lost at the swamp), bama (who lost to aub at home), and ark (who lost to kentucky at home) would all have been winnable games with a healthy mm.
====
The transitive property of who beat who where is fun, but utterly meaningless

---

well aware transitivity does not always work that way in sports. simply pointing out they were teams that lsu could have beaten with a healthy qb, comparable to the impressive road victory against florida. auburn losing at the swamp and arkansas losing at home to kentucky most definitely support this contention. bama losing at home to auburn is less supportive given their rivalry, but it still shows bama was definitely beatable with a healthy mm.

suggesting the auburn and bama games would still equal a loss with mm b/c we were blown out without him is probably more invalid than the transitive property applied to sports. aside from having a proven qb, there would be far too many intangibles that would likely change. maybe bama's and aub's defenses change significantly with mm to the point they are far less effective? maybe our team gave up the second they were down by 2 scores b/c they knew the qb could not bring them back? maybe mm leads us on an impressive drive to start each game and the momentum rolls from there? ....

we will never know, but i'll stick with the belief that losing the most important position player on the field in 2002 was a season changer (oklahoma fans probably agree). going from 5-1 with to 8-5 without is not definitive support, but it's the best purely objective data we've got.