Hahaha. "Urban Meyer tells recruits that he coached one of the best teams of all time." No incentives there, and then the rest of the article talks about why he's wrong. That one's bad even for you.
Ok. http://www.maxpreps.com/high-school...wilson,va)/basketball-winter-13-14/roster.htm What a loaded team. Definitely seeing UNC/Louisville/Duke/Syracuse instant impact players all over the place. Mizzou would have no chance.
Some do, and most of them suck, especially further from the center. The list of players that can come in and immediately hold their own against NFL pass-rushers like Cliff Avril is very small, and I can assure you that undrafted Phil Trautwein isn't on it. Before we even get to college players trying to cover Calvin Johnson, or the Lions' OL against Lawrence Marsh and Terron Sanders, or 6'0 225-pound linebackers trying to get off NFL blocks, or gameplan complexity, or clock management and general efficiency, it's not looking too good for the best team ever.
Way to cherry pick the year they were ranked 27th. I didn't realize you had recently gone to the Droski Academy of Message Board Rhetoric. Will you be sending out announcements? Oh man, I eagerly await this year's NFL draft where you say that every QB sucks, and then years later, to avoid having to admit you were wrong, (1) imposing laughably absurd standards for what it takes to not suck and/or (2) selectively cherry picking random stats that players who obviously don't suck have nonetheless not met, (2a) selectively cherry picking new random stats when the players who obviously don't suck meet my previous proffered selectively cherry picked stats, (2c) rinse, lather, repeat this routine until they catch on to me, and then when they do, (3) switch over to using team wins as the standard. But don't settle for that -- go with the winning of super bowls as the only way for players who obviously don't suck to be taken off your own "no suck" list. Hey, only one team a year can win the SB -- your odds here are great. (4) If one of the players who obviously doesn't suck acheives all of my cherry picked stats and then also happens ot win the SB, point out that you were right about the other 97 percent. After you do this, actually work on believing that what you're saying here isn't outlandish nonsense. (5) Wake up five years later, and realize that you are the worst in the entire world at the thing you spend the most time and energy on, and have for years. (6) Get an epiphany that a world without me is a better place, and that this has always always been true. (7) Off yourself (8) Observe masses of people partying in the streets and crying tears of joy upon learning of said off'ing. (9) Realize that this observation means that there is afterlife, meaning that you were also wrong about that. (10) But you were totally right like 97% of the time. So take solace in that fact and return to confidently using lines like "call me when cam newton wins his first playoff game", which skillfully weaves together prior concepts of switching to team wins when necessary, and selective cherry picking of stats yet to be achieved. (11) [inserts steps 5-6 from above] (12) Off self again.
If the running backs were having their BEST seasons as rookies, you'd have more of a point. But they don't. RBs can do well from the start because a lot of it is about natural ability, but they improve after that as they get stronger and learn to set up blocks. NFL coaching is far superior and they have more time with the players, so the receivers run better routes and the QBs have better footwork. Le'Veon Bell is a completely different player now, and even Tebow from 2008 Florida would have a much harder time passing successfully on an NFL defense before he spent months overhauling his delivery. Those things do make a difference, and combined with the fact that the NFL is the top 1% of college players, makes it a pretty lopsided game.
Yeah, Erick Dickerson totally doesn't think he was at his best in year 1 and year 2. And didn't he come out early? Yes, yes I believe he did. Speaking of guys who came out early, how was that Gurley guy this year? Was he wildly ineffective on account of being a mere child in a man's game, or was he pretty obviously the best back in the league the minute he stepped on the field and certainly would have been two years ago as well? But I'm sure there aren't any more examples of this phenomenon.
The absolute best of the best do. How many college teams have an entire offensive line drafted? Tennessee's 2013 line had 3 NFL starters on it and Alabama has had 4 (I think, they may have had all 5) but the point is it's extremely rare.
A great college team may have 8 or so pro level players on their starting 22. Even the worst NFL teams have 22 pro level players playing every snap. No contest.
It would be high comedy watching Tebow attempt to run an offense against an NFL roster with college teammates.
This discussion is about a historically elite college team against a historically bad NFL team. You appear to be overlooking that second part in the above post and others like it.
My 21 year old self would beat up my 25 year old self, though it would probably be a good fight. My 17 year old self wasn't in college, and neither was yours.
Against Arkansas? Double digit like in a single game? What is it about this subject that prevents those on your side of the argument from being even in the ballpark of reasonable? I just don't get it. The difference in talent level between Alabama and SEVERAl teams on its schedule is far far far greater than the difference in talent between Alabama and an NFL team. This is inarguable. Do we see the Bama linemen getting double digit sacks? Of course not. I mean, focking OF COURSE not. And yet as soon as it switches over to NFL vs. college, the NFL guys -- many of whom were playing in college just several months before -- are now these indestructible machines that border on being classified as a different species. The bummer about that is that this topic could actually be constructive and interesting to discuss. Instead, Team "Wins By 60 With Bones Shattering Left and Right and Blood Gushing Like The Bellagio Fountains" just insists on partying at the Simpleton Festival.
Okay, case in point about why what could be an interesting, constructive conversation just is never allowed to be. Team "Wins By 60 yada yada..." just REFUSES to make concessions in this argument, even on points that are objectively inarguable. We'll use the above post as Exhibit A to illustrate this phenomenon. Note what it says and then note what the actual correct responsse would be if this were an argument being made in a reasonable manner: But you don't get that, you get VK absolutely unwilling to give an inch, and STILL attempting to advance his argument on a sub-issue where his argument is a loser. Even that little minor concession of a point that's not even arguable would get the ball rolling on a reasonable argument on this topic. But we just can't have nice things.
