- 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
re: In retrospect this team probably overachieved
Posted on 11/29/18 at 11:40 am to Lester Earl
Posted on 11/29/18 at 11:40 am to Lester Earl
quote:
You keep your rivals rankings & I’ll evaluate the roster like a grown up. Deal?
Lester Earl. The Tiger Rant poster who's better at roster evaluation than the people who are paid to do it. In his spare time no less.
Man, you're a talented guy.
Posted on 11/29/18 at 11:40 am to Powerman
quote:
In retrospect this team probably overachieved
Wow man. That's profound and stuff.

Posted on 11/29/18 at 11:42 am to RB10
quote:
The Tiger Rant poster who's better at roster evaluation than the people who are paid to do it.
Do you think an outfit like Rivals is an expert in "roster evaluation" for the needs of individual teams?
Posted on 11/29/18 at 11:43 am to Powerman
quote:
Sure but you have to have the roster to do that
was our roster good enough to beat UGA?
think before you answer that one too.
because if you say “yes”, then our roster is also good enough to be no worse than 11-1 (probably in playoffs) and Bama game should have been much closer than it was.
but if you say “no”, then that means it is entirely possible to coach your way past a talent deficiency, and your statement of “you have to have the roster” becomes false.
your move
Posted on 11/29/18 at 11:44 am to Powerman
quote:
How many juniors do you expect to declare early?
White
Greedy
Fulton
Anderson
Sullivan
Lawrence
Feheko
Divinity
All possible. I expect 4-5 from this group to be gone and another 3-4 transfers on top of it.
quote:
He said draft eligible which was silly. What he really meant (and you know what he meant but you're just intentionally being a cock sucker) was those that are likely to leave.
It's not my job to discern what someone meant to say. Lester should learn to express his thoughts more clearly.
Posted on 11/29/18 at 11:46 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Do you think an outfit like Rivals is an expert in "roster evaluation" for the needs of individual teams?
I think 247's composite talent ranking, which takes into account all 4 recruiting service's rating of each player, the players' class and adjusts for transfers is absolutely a good measure for evaluating a roster.
I'm sure you disagree though.
Posted on 11/29/18 at 11:46 am to RB10
quote:
All possible
Perhaps you need some clarity on the question
quote:
How many juniors do you expect to declare early?
This may be a new concept to you but words mean things.
Posted on 11/29/18 at 11:48 am to Powerman
quote:
Powerman
Perhaps you should learn to read?
"I expect 4-5 from this group to be gone and another 3-4 transfers on top of it."
Posted on 11/29/18 at 11:48 am to RB10
quote:
I'm sure you disagree though.
Somewhat. I think an amalgamation of overall rated "talent" a team has recruited doesn't really tell you everything you need with regard to an actual team roster.
Posted on 11/29/18 at 11:52 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Somewhat. I think an amalgamation of overall rated "talent" a team has recruited doesn't really tell you everything you need with regard to an actual team roster
Not a single person has said it tells you all you need to know. It is, however, much more reliable that some random message board poster spouting off.
Again, I'll trust the people who do this for a living.
Posted on 11/29/18 at 11:57 am to RB10
quote:
Again, I'll trust the people who do this for a living.
That's fine, but their "living" is not creating a roster for a specific college football team.
I don't think Lester's is either, of course.

Posted on 11/29/18 at 11:58 am to RB10
quote:
Lester Earl. The Tiger Rant poster who's better at roster evaluation than the people who are paid to do it. In his spare time no less.
Man, you're a talented
My baw, the problem here is you & how you interpret the rankings you are reciting, not Rivals or 24/7.
I think we can all generally say that LSU has a talented collection of players. But based on context & reality that doesn’t mean they are the 7th most talented team in the nation. They could be more like 12th, 15th or even closer to 20th.
It’s fun to talk about but to put as much stock into as you are trying to do right now is kids stuff.
Posted on 11/29/18 at 12:00 pm to Lester Earl
Problem is, the guy is conflating two things that aren't completely related. One is simply a component of the other. You can certainly argue it's a big component, but it doesn't tell you everything you need to know about the other, or even necessarily most of what you need to know.
Posted on 11/29/18 at 12:02 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
I think we can all generally say that LSU has a talented collection of players. But based on context & reality that doesn’t mean they are the 7th most talented team in the nation. They could be more like 12th, 15th or even closer to 20th.

Ok Lester.
Posted on 11/29/18 at 12:02 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Problem is, the guy is conflating two things that aren't completely related
Recruiting isn't directly related to roster talent? You can't be serious right now.
This post was edited on 11/29/18 at 12:04 pm
Posted on 11/29/18 at 12:05 pm to RB10
No, I'm simply saying "talent" rating may or may not completely correlate to roster needs of a specific team.
Posted on 11/29/18 at 12:07 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
No, I'm simply saying "talent" rating may or may not completely correlate to roster needs of a specific team.
So you're saying what we all are, you're just poo-pooing the only person in the conversation using measurable data and not just feelings?
Got it.
Posted on 11/29/18 at 12:09 pm to RB10
quote:
So you're saying what we all are, you're just poo-pooing the only person in the conversation using measurable data and not just feelings?
Got it.
Nah, I'm not doing that at all. But you seem oddly angry for some reason. Rage on, I guess.

Posted on 11/29/18 at 12:09 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Nah, I'm not doing that at all. But you seem oddly angry for some reason. Rage on, I guess.
At least you didn't use "you mad", I guess.

Posted on 11/29/18 at 12:16 pm to Powerman
quote:you can only accept this, if you accept that Orgeron has allowed the program to decline below the level that Miles had established (and that includes the later Miles years).
In retrospect this team probably overachieved
Consider the wins/losses:
Big home win over UGA. Miles had continued to win big games long after it was determined LSU was "slipping"; the South Carolina game with Clowney and Lattimore for example. That isn't overachieving, that's "we aren't dead yet".
Wins over Miss St, at Auburn, opening game vs Miami. Those are wins over decent-to-good teams, not great ones. Maybe the best team was Miss State and that was at home; maybe the best win was the road game vs Auburn. Again, LSU "isn't dead yet"; might not be Top 5 anymore but definitely still ranked, and should win more matchups than not.
Losses at Florida and A&M: we've had these games since Saban was here. Road games vs good-not-great SEC teams are tough, and close losses are not to be ashamed of (unless you are in the crowd that thinks we should win every game or quit playing).
Loss to Alabama: really, 29-0 by itself isn't a reflection of the game. Offensively we did move some, probably almost as good as last season's game. Couldn't finish any drives, but it was more than all 3-and-outs for us. Defensively, given that Bama now has Tua and were up for the game, we actually played very well.
So, we had a typical later Miles type of season. Beat solid teams, had the one marquee win that keeps us relevant, still can't match Bama. That's neither overachieving or underachieving, that's making par.
Popular
Back to top
