dew1679666265

8 p.m. on Fox It'll be leaked earlier, though, I'm sure.

That's absurd. Not a big enough difference? I'd say Jevan Snead is a pretty MASSIVE difference just in himself. Our QB last year rated damn near dead last. Snead is ranked 3rd this year in the SEC only behind Tebow and Stafford and was leading the conference in TD passes before tonight. Our rushing offense was 11th in the SEC last year and 3rd this year thanks in large part to two freshman, one with 441 rushing yards (Brandon Bolden with 5.1 ypc) and the other with 222. Offense: 2007: 12th (dead last) in SEC 2008: 4th Defense: 2007: 11th 2008: 4th (led the SEC in sacks) I didn't say it wouldn't be any difference, I said I didn't think it would be enough. Ole Miss is obviously much improved(though those rankings are a bit skewed by a much weaker SEC this year), but Mizzou put them away in 2 quarters last year on the road. The final margin in last year's game was 13 points. You say this year's Ole Miss team is "much improved" and Missouri is worse than last year, and yet, your final margin in this year's hypothetical game is 14-17. Nutt and Snead, along with close to vast improvements through most of the rest of the team, would be enough to make the game a tossup - not a near blowout for Mizzou. I'm not sure who would win, but it'd be much closer than 14-17.

Hawaii winning is part of the process to get Florida into the BCS title game. No idea how, but that's what Meph is saying.

Did you see who Tebow said his favourite actress was? Zeta-Jones indeed! Hey, Tebow and I actually agree on something! And her acting ability is only moderate to pretty good.

The monstrous upgrade from Orgeron to Nutt cannot be overlooked as well. It's like coming home and expecting to see Rosie O'Donnell waiting for you, but instead seeing Catherine Zeta-Jones.

If only Ole Miss and Mizzou had played each other with largely the same players they have now sometime recently. Last year Ole Miss didn't have a QB and they had Ed Orgeron coaching instead of Houston Nutt. That's an incredibly huge difference. I don't know how soundly Ole Miss would win this year, but I think they'd have a real good chance to pull it out.

Nope.

Along the same lines. Ohio State has played two teams as good or better than Alabama and they to both of them. I think Alabama and Ohio State matchup well against each other. That would be a fun game to watch. I don't think Alabama would run away with it like Florida and Louisiana State were able to. I have to disagree with you 2. OSU's offense this year has been so much predicated by the big play. Their offense does not sustain drives or methodically move the ball down the field via the pass or even Chris Wells. They rely so much on the home run threat its not even funny(i.e. they beat Michigan because of 5 plays). Alabama is too good to give up the big plays time and time again. Pryors big run plays comes when the pocket breaks down and the dline loses contain, i just dont see bama getting beat by Pryors feet in thatfashion, Pryor doesnt run between the tackles like Tebow does. Bama may not blow them out but i would feel very confidently they would win. I think Bama would win and probably by 10-14. It'd definitely be competitive the entire time.

Seeing Ohio State get blown out in another BCS Bowl would make me a saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad panda. Seriously, has anyone learned their lesson with them yet? Bama has played one team as good or better than OSU and they lost to them. Bama should be favored, but it's far from a foregone conclusion that they'd win. Despite the loss to Georgia Tech (gimmick offense, etc), I think Georgia is comparable to Ohio State. LSU might be semi-close too, but that's more debatable. Bama blew one out and won another in OT.

And Tennessee's offense might just look competent against their defense. (That was mainly a joke, though there's a shred of seriousness in it)

"Dominique Franks is a cornerback who will cover ya," - Brent Musberger. :-)) I would hope so.

Florida might put up 100 on Utah. Urban would show respect. It's Utah. student (Whittingham) vs master (Meyer) It would actually be interesting - for the first 10 minutes that it was competitive.

Games without defense are just about as boring to watch as a game with no offense. Give me a little bit of defense, please.

Nobody in the Big XII can.

Hope Sarkisian has fun with that. Bama is pushing Florida around at will right now. This is exactly what they needed.

What, no love for Waitress? Alabama is a little better than I thought. They're no better than I thought, but they're controlling Florida's athleticism better than I thought they would. The Crocs are missing Harvin more than they'll admit, though, I think.

The Bama physicality is working on this drive.

Don't forget his rugged good looks that make Verne lust.

Yeah, I see no real logic behind not calling a timeout. Extremely explosive offense with a minute to drive = good chance for a score of some type. hes got the old school mentality late in the halves. i think, with florida getting the ball to start the third quarter, he was content going into the half up a touchdown. Really right now they have given up the 10 points because of two plays. One the great kickoff coverage on james that pinned them inside the 20 and gave the tide great field position afterwards. the other the big jones play. Really after the jones play the gators went away from their defensive game plan, they got scared of jones, but really they had two defenders right on jones and he made them both miss. as long as they make tackles, they can live with giving up a 15 yard pass play here and there, not 60 yard ones. It took them about two more possessions to realize they needed to go back to the style they had started out with. Since then theyve shut down the Tide offense. The second half ought to be great. The only coach in the SEC who makes better halftime adjustments than meyer is probably saban. Still don't like the call.

Yeah, I see no real logic behind not calling a timeout. Extremely explosive offense with a minute to drive = good chance for a score of some type.

My main thinking that Cut preferred Crompton was that while it was thought that Coleman passed Crompton on the depth chart for a while in 07, I never heard that Stephens even really challenged him. But then again, I could well be wrong. And you are certainly right that it's a futile debate between two super crappy QBs. Maybe Bryce Petty will be amazing from day one or something . . . . The reason Stephens didn't pass him? Class. Given two somewhat equal options, Fulmer would always choose the older guy. Nearly every time. Mark Levine ring a bell? Most coaches are that way and it makes sense if they're similar players. I still think if Cut had greatly preferred Stephens to Crompton, Nick would have passed him. Coleman passed Crompton, after all.

It's not so much love (I've talked to you about how I wish we had brought in Tajh Boyd simply because our QBs suck), but it's a mixture of physical ability and, somewhat, ranking when he got here. The only thing keeping Crompton from being a good QB is his pitiful decision making ability. If he would quit making stupid mistakes (far, far easier said than done) he has all the physical tools to succeed. Stephens, from what I saw, has close to as strong an arm, but is a tad bit shorter and less accurate than Crompton. Recruiting rankings also play a little part in my preference. While I fully realize rankings are wrong all the time, Crompton was much more highly hyped than Stephens and I think Cutcliffe preferred Crompton. That said, if Kiffin likes Coleman, I'd be more than happy to see him get the starting gig next year. B.J. intrigues me in that he's very smart (according to Cutcliffe and he studies film like crazy apparently), is more mobile than the other two and Cut loved him. That said, I expect nothing out of any of the three QBs, so I definitely won't be dissappointed next year. That's just it... I don't think Cut did prefer Crompton. Remember, Crompton was a Sanders guy. Yes, Rivals ranked him more highly, but one of the first things that Cutcliffe did when he got to Tennessee was to contact Stephens to see about his commitment to Ole Miss. Ultimately, though it's like arguing about which sucks worse: an earache or a toothache. I, too, am hopeful that Coleman is the guy. Cut loved him, and he seems to fit what Kiffin wants to do on offense. My main thinking that Cut preferred Crompton was that while it was thought that Coleman passed Crompton on the depth chart for a while in 07, I never heard that Stephens even really challenged him. But then again, I could well be wrong. And you are certainly right that it's a futile debate between two super crappy QBs. Maybe Bryce Petty will be amazing from day one or something . . . .

It's not so much love (I've talked to you about how I wish we had brought in Tajh Boyd simply because our QBs suck), but it's a mixture of physical ability and, somewhat, ranking when he got here. The only thing keeping Crompton from being a good QB is his pitiful decision making ability. If he would quit making stupid mistakes (far, far easier said than done) he has all the physical tools to succeed. Stephens, from what I saw, has close to as strong an arm, but is a tad bit shorter and less accurate than Crompton. Recruiting rankings also play a little part in my preference. While I fully realize rankings are wrong all the time, Crompton was much more highly hyped than Stephens and I think Cutcliffe preferred Crompton. That said, if Kiffin likes Coleman, I'd be more than happy to see him get the starting gig next year. B.J. intrigues me in that he's very smart (according to Cutcliffe and he studies film like crazy apparently), is more mobile than the other two and Cut loved him. That said, I expect nothing out of any of the three QBs, so I definitely won't be dissappointed next year.

Oh, I hope, I hope, I hope. So, interesting story, and one of the reasons I am glad Fulmer is gone. This is from Arian Foster's brother... Nick Stephens goes to the coaching staff to complain about Josh Briscoe's playing time and effort in games where Stephens was playing QB. (Remember that Briscoe is the player that Stephens chewed on the sideline on National TV after Briscoe gave up a sure first down and proceeded to joke about it during the South Carolina game.) The coaching staff's response? Crompton starts the final two games of the year and Stephens doesn't see the field. Was that the reason for the benching, or is it because Nick Stephens sucks, sucked while he was playing and doesn't have close to the potential of Crompton? I don't know, but there was ample reason without his complaint to bench him. Perhaps that was why he was benched, but I'm not sure you can just assume it. Again, this is all according to Foster's brother. Apparently, it was common knowledge among players that Briscoe (and a handful of others) dogged it when Crompton was benched. I'm not saying Briscoe didn't dog it - though I don't necessarily blame him too much for that play. At the time, I felt like he was fighting for more yardage. Seemed more like being dumb than dogging it on that particular play. Stephens might have sucked a little less than Crompton, but Crompton has a lot more potential than Stephens. Once the season was toast it would make sense to give Crompton more playing time in hopes he can figure something out as opposed to spending time on a career backup. I wanted Coleman at the time anyway, though.

Florida punted to Javier Arenas. That was dumb.