- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: 30 for 30: Trojan War - anyone else find it pretty terrible?
Posted on 10/14/15 at 9:31 pm to maringer11
Posted on 10/14/15 at 9:31 pm to maringer11
Much better offensive personnel and a very solid defense by the end of 2003.
Posted on 10/14/15 at 9:41 pm to Dr Rosenrosen
They would of only won eight in a row going into the title game.
Much better offensive personal?
USC QB/HB > LSU.
WR/TE equal
LSU OL > USC
Defense
LSU DLs > USC
USC LBs > LSU
LSU DBs > USC
Much better offensive personal?
USC QB/HB > LSU.
WR/TE equal
LSU OL > USC
Defense
LSU DLs > USC
USC LBs > LSU
LSU DBs > USC
Posted on 10/14/15 at 9:47 pm to maringer11
USC receivers were better. Mike Williams and Keary Colbert. Plus Bush was such a weapon in the passing game. Oh and LenDale White was pretty good.
Posted on 10/14/15 at 9:49 pm to Dr Rosenrosen
Lol Williams was the most overrated WR in cfb that year easily.
Posted on 10/14/15 at 9:50 pm to Dr Rosenrosen
Corey Webster would of shut him down.
Posted on 10/14/15 at 9:54 pm to Dr Rosenrosen
You lose credibility when you forget that they lost games in both 2002 and 2003 leading up to the end of that championship season.
Bush had 521 rushing yards and 300 something receiving yards in thirteen games in '03. More credibility lost
Bush had 521 rushing yards and 300 something receiving yards in thirteen games in '03. More credibility lost
This post was edited on 10/14/15 at 9:57 pm
Posted on 10/14/15 at 10:00 pm to bgtiger
What does 2002 have to do with anything?
USC's only loss in 2003 was a fluke 3 OT loss that occurred before true freshmen Bush and White emerged.
USC's only loss in 2003 was a fluke 3 OT loss that occurred before true freshmen Bush and White emerged.
Posted on 10/14/15 at 10:01 pm to Dr Rosenrosen
It has to do with you being so far off with the 34 wins in a row, and how that is totally irrelevant to the 2003 season. You were saying that 2003 USC beats LSU because of 34 wins that the bulk of which happened the two years later, and with different starring players than the one that would have been in this hypothetical match up.
This post was edited on 10/14/15 at 10:04 pm
Posted on 10/14/15 at 10:05 pm to bgtiger
It's not irrelevant. USC had a core of players that won 34 straight from 2003-2005. It further shows how good USC was at that time and validates the AP title.
This post was edited on 10/14/15 at 10:07 pm
Posted on 10/14/15 at 10:08 pm to Dr Rosenrosen
That doesn't have any effect on the 03 season if they would of played. They weren't as seasoned or good as they were like they were years later.
Posted on 10/14/15 at 10:08 pm to Dr Rosenrosen
No it doesn't. I won't even argue all the differences, you have your made up idea of how guys like Reggie Bush was such a weapon on that team(I refuted with facts for 2003) because you compress those three years into one team.
Posted on 10/14/15 at 10:10 pm to Dr Rosenrosen
If you want to compare future success then let's compare how their NFL careers have gone as well and LSU trumps in that area too.
Posted on 10/14/15 at 10:15 pm to maringer11
Had USC gone 8-5 in 2004 I wouldn't even make the argument. But they went 13-0 with Leinart/Bush/White and most of the same defensive starters. Even leaving out 2005 completely, it was practically the same team in 2004.
LSU gets a bump for the hypothetical game in NOLA, but on a neutral field USC would have been clear favorite.
LSU gets a bump for the hypothetical game in NOLA, but on a neutral field USC would have been clear favorite.
Posted on 10/14/15 at 10:25 pm to slackster
It was about USC, how could it be anything else?
Posted on 10/14/15 at 10:26 pm to Dr Rosenrosen
They might of been the favorite but they wouldn't have play any team that had the speed that LSU had that year. Lendale White said it best when he was talking about playing Texas that he hadn't had that kind of speed against them. LSU had 4 NFL DB's on the field and all 4 defensive linemen starting went on to play in the NFL. Our QB play is what would be my concern Mauck was a average QB at best.
Posted on 10/14/15 at 10:41 pm to Dr Rosenrosen
quote:
Had USC gone 8-5 in 2004 I wouldn't even make the argument. But they went 13-0 with Leinart/Bush/White and most of the same defensive starters. Even leaving out 2005 completely, it was practically the same team in 2004.
C'mon, is the 2006 Florida BCS NC invalidated because they lost 4 games the next year?
USC was ranked #1 in 2003 for two reasons: They were ranked #8 in the preseason poll while LSU was ranked #14, and they lost on September 27th while LSU didn't lose until October 11th. LSU wasn't going to pass USC in the AP poll as long as both teams kept winning.
As far as on the field results, LSU and USC thoroughly dominated their schedules, outside of each of their losses. LSU beat 2003 Auburn 31-7 at home, while USC beat them 23-0 on the road. Seems pretty difficult to determine a "clear favorite."
Posted on 10/14/15 at 11:10 pm to slackster
No, but history has a way of revealing the truth. I did not know how good USC was in 2003, but I do now given the full picture of 2003 and 2004.
This post was edited on 10/14/15 at 11:11 pm
Posted on 10/14/15 at 11:44 pm to Dr Rosenrosen
The 2003 team was not the 04 or 05 team idk why that matters.
Posted on 10/14/15 at 11:46 pm to maringer11
It's like Michigan fans saying they deserved to rematch Ohio State for the 06 season because they beat us in a bowl game during the 07 season.
Posted on 10/14/15 at 11:50 pm to Korin
Ha some of their fans still think they should of gotten a rematch.
Popular
Back to top


1


