5wide

Losing Jarmon hurt a lot. The front four was already expected to be the weak line in the defense, IMO, and they lost the best player and best pass rusher. If Lindley's injury causes him to miss any time, they're in trouble. On top of that, they have to deal with an anemic offense that can't score, can't move the ball at times, puts them in bad situations, and can't keep them off the field. The last 9 games are going to be a real struggle. I'd love to see the Cats reach 6 wins and get to another bowl, but I just don't know if they can do it.

These things cycle up and down...the SEC just has great players and athletes across the board. The defense are always very athletic and good. The offenses ebb and flow, I think, based on turnover. Sometimes the conference returns several experienced, offensive stars, and sometimes teams are breaking in new QB's and young skill players. Nobody knows what to expect then. This seems like a typical year for the SEC to me...a couple of elite teams, a bunch of good teams to various degrees and a 1-3 that aren't so good. But, the SEC is never unbeatable...there are always teams around the country capable of beating them at all levels...top, middle, and bottom. Just like OK State beat Georgia and Arizona State almost did.

:thumb: I like the way you stated that. That seems like something I should have heard before, but that's the first time I've ever heard it put that way.

I haven't watched LSU. I'm sure they're loaded with talent as usual, but to answer your question, no. I'm not a Les Miles fan and I don't expect to see LSU win another championship as long as he's there. As for the first question, what is your point? Do I get to remove the two best teams from every conference and then decide. Or do I have to send the SEC's third and fourth best teams against the rest of the nation? Take Texas and Oklahoma out of the Big 12, Penn State and Ohio State from the Big Ten, and USC and somebody from the Pac-10, etc. Are you telling me the SEC wouldn't be in contention with what's left?

Again, you seem to be judging the SEC vs. itself. In that case, it cannot win.

Two elite teams in a conference is pretty good. You're judging the rest of the SEC against the best of the SEC, instead of judging them against the rest of the nation. I buy the SEC "hype" because it is real. 1. There have been very few seasons in my lifetime when it hasn't been the best conference. 2. There have been a few season when it was significantly better than the rest. 3. The challengers rotate in cycles...sometimes its the Big Ten, sometimes the Pac-10, sometimes the Big 12 and sometimes the ACC. The constants? The SEC. Whichever of those 4 happen to be in an up cycle, they're always challenging the SEC for top billing. So, even in a "down" year, the SEC will likely be the second best conference, and certainly no worse than third. Since the BCS was put instituted, the SEC is 12-5 in BCS Bowls, including 5 national champions. Five champions in 11 years, and 4 in the last 6. Since the BCS championship game started three years ago, the SEC has won all three. The average margin of victory? 17 points per game. The closest game was last year's 10 point margin. If you go back to the beginning of the Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance days, the SEC is 15-8 with 7 champions. Four different teams combined to win those 7 championships, and one other, Auburn, went undefeated and was inexplicably denied a shot at the title (we can only wonder). So, you see, its not hype. Its fact. Haters call it hype. It looks like you've done a nice job convincing yourself, but you'd be hard pressed to win any converts since there's little to support your argument. Considering the conference sports 3 of the top 4 teams in the nation and a couple more top 25 teams to boot, if its overrated and overhyped, well, then, I think that says more about the level of excellence expected of the SEC than anything else. But, maybe it is overhyped. Sometimes that happens. But, one thing I've found is that the SEC is often judged against itself, as you're doing. Most of the time, when it is overhyped, its still the best conference in college football. This year is no different.

Six? That's the number that comes to mind, but I wouldn't swear to it.

How many other conferences have 4 elite defenses? Just curious. That's one third of the conference. Georgia is averaging almost 31 points per game. What is exactly is required to be "good" offensively? Where would 26 per game rate?

I don't know if he's intelligent or not...and I've never said otherwise. What he hasn't shown the ability to do is think fast, which is a must for an NFL QB. He could be a genius for all I know. The two are related, but not the same. My guess is that you wouldn't be able to process things as fast as QB's have to if you weren't fairly intelligent. Conversely, I think being intelligent doesn't automatically mean you can read, recognize and react on the split second level that QB's are required to do. That's my thoughts on Russell. Whether he's smart or not is irrelevant to me. He's not a starter quality NFL QB and I'll be surprised if he ever is.

That was Vince Young. :cry::lol:

:thumb: Just having a little fun with you...glad you took it that way. I hope the Sox and Yanks get to play in the ALCS. Its been a while since the Sox spotted a team three games and then broke out the brooms. I'm about ready for them to do it again. :popcorn:

'Bama is allowing 202.5 yards per game (47.3 rushing yards per game). And, their defense has allowed 5 TD's this season. The good news is that they have allowed 2 90+ yard first quarter kickoff returns this year. Maybe if UK could strike on special teams, play an efficient mistake-free game, force some turnovers and capitalize on them, they could steal this one. I don't see that happening. 'Bama 45, Kentucky 0

When a team wins as much as the Yankees, you have to take your shots when you can. :lol: And, with that, I must say that I never thought I'd see the day that Yankees fans were so excited just to make the playoffs. I thought only teams like the Brewers and Rays celebrated playoff berths like championships. Have the expectations dropped that much? For goodness sake guys, act like you've been here before!:sssh:

And, again, it's a lot easier for Matt Barkley to succeed at USC than it would be at UK. He's surrounded by former 5-star recruits and future NFL draft picks. So is Terrelle Pryor. Who are the 5-star guys on UK's roster? Where are the future draft picks?

:thumb: 'Bama, Florida and Tennessee have all looked pretty good on the defensive side to me. I haven't seen enough of the rest to know, although Georgia and Arkansas have given up a lot of points by looking at scores. Ultimately, I'm not against a freshman playing, but I'm against sticking a guy in who isn't ready just because you don't like Hartline. Brooks is old-school alright...he doesn't yield to public pressure. If he thinks Hartline is the best option or that the freshmen aren't ready, he won't make a change just to satisfy the fan base for a week. He took over as head coach during one of our lowest points and has given us some of our best. I trust his judgment and so should any UK fan that's been half-way paying attention for the past few years. If Brooks came out and started Newton for the next few games and he bombed and never developed into the player we hope he will be, I can hear it now...the same fans calling for Hartline's head would be ripping Brooks to shreds for throwing a freshmen to the dogs during the toughest part of UK's schedule and ruining his career by shattering his confidence. Alabama. At South Carolina. At Georgia. (I can't help but think of Tim Couch's first start in the swamp under Bill Curry.)

Pitcher: 2009 Stats (Career Postseason Stats) Sabathia: 19-7, 3.21 ERA (2-3, 7.92 ERA) Burnett: 12-9, 4.10 ERA Pettite: 14-7, 4.11 ERA (14-9, 3.96 ERA) Chamerlain: 9-6, 4.72 ERA (0-0, 4.91 ERA) Beckett: 16-6, 3.78 ERA (7-2, 2.90 ERA, 3 Shutouts) Lester: 14-8, 3.52 ERA (2-2, 2.25 ERA) Buchholz: 7-4, 3.74 ERA (N/A) I'm not sure who Boston's fourth guy will be...Dice-K, Wakefield, Byrd? If Beckett and Lester are healthy, and stay true to previous playoff form, I like their chances in a series against anybody. But, the Sox margin for error is not what it used to be because Manny is gone and Ortiz is not the player he once was. So, not only have you lost their production, but more importantly in the postseason, you've lost their ability to deliver big hits at crucial moments. I think its similar to the Yankees during their great run with guys like O'Neill, Bernie Williams and Tino Martinez. They replaced those guys with better production on paper, but they couldn't replace that ability to make the big plays in the big moments. The Red Sox and Yankees need somebody to step into that role if they want to win another World Series.

To be fair, he run the tank dry just to get the Brewers to the playoffs last season. He had nothing left once they got there.

Do you really watch the Raiders? :sssh::lol:

It's a tough position to predict for sure. But, people should have known Russell was a likely bust. Typically, underachievers at QB in college do not turn into franchise players. Most of the busts are guys who were very good, if not great, college football players. Couch, Leaf, Quinn...all were great in college. Russell wasn't. He had amazing physical gifts, but considering what he had to work with at LSU, never showed any signs of being a franchise QB. So, I agree with your argument in general, just not in the case of Russell.

I think you're both right. His size, strength and arm are second to none. And, his athleticism is very good for a man his size. However, OR is correct as well. His accuracy and touch are horrible. And, I'm not sure that's something you can teach or learn. Obviously, with repetition, it could improve, but I think there's a limit as to how far he could take it. And, as everyone else has correctly noted, his decision making is as bad as I've ever seen from a starting NFL QB. You know how gunslingers like Romo, Cutler and Favre will make throws sometimes that make you wonder what on earth they were thinking...JaMarcus is like that almost all the time. To be honest, considering how terrible his decision making is, I think his equally poor accuracy is a good thing for Oakland. Otherwise, he'd throw more picks. Half the time he's so far off only the fans have a realistic chance at catching the football. Some guys have it and some guys don't, and you can usually tell early on. Look at the young rising stars at QB...Rodgers, Ryan, Flacco, Sanchez...you know. Russell is now in his third season and he's been given ample opportunity to show us something...anything. To play QB in the league, you have to be able to process information quickly and make the correct decision in a split second. Then you deliver the football. Russell can do neither. Recognize defenses, understand how to attack, make an adjustment if necessary, then make the throw. He hasn't shown me that he can read defenses and he sure can't get the ball where it needs to be consistently. There is some validity to the changing coaches and lack of quality WR's argument, but it doesn't go too far. Perhaps I'd buy into it more if he'd show some noticeable improvement. As it is, I think he may be getting worse.

:thumb: I was just amazed that so many people jumped on Russell the way they did. It wasn't just Oakland. I'm sure there were a few teams with enough sense to realize what he was, but had the Raiders passed, somebody would have snagged him early.

Jeff Garcia would give them a serious chance to win the west. Especially, had they started the season with him...they likely would have beat San Diego with Garcia under center, and who knows how the Denver game would be different. At worst, they'd be 2-1 right now. And, we can only guess how much a real QB would help McFadden and Bush in the running game. I think Oakland would have one of the top rushing attacks in football if they had a QB to balance things out.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I seem to remember his stock sky-rocketing heading into the draft. The Raiders may have valued him more than others, but from what I can recall, most "experts" had him tabbed as a first round pick. I couldn't believe it, because I'd watched him at LSU for 3 years and always felt like QB was the position that kept them from being a championship team when he was there. They were loaded with talent during that span. Skyler Green, Dwayne Bowe, Craig Davis, Early Doucet, Joseph Addai, Jacob Hester. That's who he had around him. Who wouldn't post good numbers? Ironically, I believe they won the championship right after he left.

It looks like he's going to get ample opportunity to do that.

^I started thinking about this after week two. Mewelde Moore might be P'burgh's best back. Or, at the least, what he brings to the table is the best fit for their offense, thus they're a better offense and team when he's on the field.