Good point about Florida.

Submitted by Jockobalbeno on December 9th, 2010 at 3:26 PM

Glad the Author could see this as well.

 

This isn't Brian Kelly walking into Notre Dame, saying he wants to win right away, but everyone with a brain knowing that it's going to take a few years. This isn't Rich Rodriguez going to Michigan a few years ago, with the program needing to change from IBM to Apple and needing to undergo a total overhaul in philosophies. This is a team and a program that can and should demand a national title next year. That's how much talent Meyer has amassed

 

http://cfn.scout.com/2/1029483.html

Comments

artds

December 9th, 2010 at 3:30 PM ^

Tebow was a 10 year prospect and Florida doesn't have another on of those right now. They have lots of top talent, but so do 6 or 7 other programs. Couple that with a coaching change and I think this writer is being just a tad bit unrealistic.

jmblue

December 9th, 2010 at 8:04 PM ^

We should note as well that those 9-4 and 8-4 seasons, Carr was under a considerable amount of scrutiny.  No one was trying to justify those seasons as "progress."  And obviously, his third year was fantastic.  

Frequently, when an elite coach comes to a big-time program, he achieves his breakthrough in year two.  Saban, Stoops, Carroll, Tressel and Meyer also did so.  Chizik, if he qualifies as an elite coach, has done so as well this year.  It's pretty rare to see a coach limp through three poor seasons and then go on to achieve big things at that same school.

Blue_Sox

December 9th, 2010 at 4:00 PM ^

Look at the talent Texas has, yet they went 5-7 this year after losing Colt McCoy. Mack Brown is a great coach, so I don't think that was their issue. Auburn is 13-0 and heading to the NC game after a mediocre year last year because they added Cam Newton. Miss State would probably be in a similar position had he gone there. Florida lost Tebow and don't seem to have a viable replacement (ironic, i know). You really do need a solid field general if you want to succeed, even if you have talent everywhere else.

 

Tater

December 9th, 2010 at 3:34 PM ^

It's great to see a national writer understand how daunting RR's task has been. 

As for UF, unless Trey Burton has a Denard-like spring, they are at least two years away from another NC.  But they should be able to find a way to win ten next year, especially if Dan Mullen is hired.  Speaking of Mullen, it certainly wouldn't hurt Michigan if he were hired at UF in the next week or so. 

mich_engineer

December 9th, 2010 at 3:52 PM ^

In 2006, UF primarily won the national title on the back of an all-world defense.  They likely still have an insane amount of talent and depth on the defensive side of the ball, and all Burton/Brantley/etc. has to do is approach Chris Leak levels of competence in order for the team to be successful.  They were pretty much held back this year by only by uncreative offensive playcalling, and disasterous QB play.

PurpleStuff

December 9th, 2010 at 4:08 PM ^

In 2006 he was a senior, four year starter who had been a 5-star recruit and the national player of the year in high school.  He was first team all-SEC.  As a true freshman he had beaten the eventual national champions (LSU).  As a sophomore he threw 29 TD's.  On top of that he got a helping hand as a senior in 2006 from a guy named Tim Tebow who turned out to be pretty good as well.

Burton/Brantley are nowhere near that level of "competence."

steve sharik

December 9th, 2010 at 4:27 PM ^

Here's the 1997 starting offense:

LT: Backus, NFL starter

LG: Hutchinson, NFL starter

C: Adami, 1997 All-Big Ten

RG: Ziemann, Brandt, both NFL players

RT: Jansen, NFL starter

QB: Griese, NFL starter (backup Tom Brady, NFL Hall of Famer)

FB: Floyd, NFLer

TB: Howard, NFLer

TE: Tuman, NFL starter (backed up by Campbell, NFL starter)

SE: Streets, NFL starter

Flanker: Knight, NFLer

So, that's 10 of 11 starters (not to mention multiple backups) who were NFL players and mostly starters in the league.

This offense also had the NFL-laden, best defense in college football setting them up with TOs and great field position.

This offense scored a whopping (wait for it) 26.83 ppg.

fatbastard

December 9th, 2010 at 4:35 PM ^

Debord all you want.  But the fact is that team played to its strength.  The strength was the defense.  Lloyd new and counted on the defense to keep the oppposition under wraps and pinned on its own end.  For that very reason, it was a very conservative offense, and rightfully so.  That may be the best college defense of all time. 

I'm not saying that Debord is the best.  I am saying that if you're going to criticize him, you probably shouldn't do that based on a season the team won the national championship by playing to its strength.

yostlovesme

December 9th, 2010 at 4:49 PM ^

See and this the exact thinking that cost Bo a NC or more Rose Bowl wins.  He almost never opened up the playbook (I dont know if there was a way to open it) and it cost him alot of wins.  I mean the expression 3 yards and a cloud of dust means alot of 4th and 1.  I am by no way saying Bo wasn't an excellent coach, but everyone has their flaws.  The same things Tressel gets criticized for is what Bo did all the time.  U can say it was a different game then, but lets be honest and say if they threw the ball more and kept the defense guessing more they would have probably scored more points and won more. (I like the word more apparently)

blueheron

December 9th, 2010 at 5:23 PM ^

I'm very fond of the '97 team, but ...

"That may be the best college defense of all time."

Seriously?

- - -

While we're on the general subject of '97, the risk-averse tendencies of the staff are exactly why they @#$%ed away a lot of 4th-quarter leads near the end of the regime.  No, thanks.

steve sharik

December 9th, 2010 at 7:15 PM ^

  • If the team had played to its stellar defense, it would've take more risks offensively b/c it could've afforded to.  Ball control plays better to a poor defense.  (Exhibit A: um, this year)
  • Ball control offense keeps your defense off the field.  So, you think it's good strategy to have "the greatest defense in the history of college football" on the sidelines?
  • M '90s talent + aggressive philosophy = '90s Florida State (i.e., 14 straight top 5 finishes)

PurpleStuff

December 9th, 2010 at 3:50 PM ^

He seems to assume they have plenty of talent because the players were highly rated recruits coming out of high school.  By that same logic, Kelly had loads of talent at ND this year too.  Believing this team is a national title waiting to happen when they struggled as much as they did with a junior/senior laden roster this year seems to be a big assumption.

PurpleStuff

December 9th, 2010 at 4:11 PM ^

The only reason to make that assumption is because Florida has been good recently and ND hasn't.  It is quite possible that this particular batch of touted Florida recruits is not as good as the ones from a couple years earlier (and the on-field results seem to support this conclusion in the absence of any other real mitigating factors like inexperience or coaching change).

EZMIKEP

December 9th, 2010 at 5:27 PM ^

It from top end talent, decommits, other various losses etc.. ND has had some bad luck in that dept. Yes your point about the star rating is valid but that goes both ways and ND has been a notch below. Im sure the coaching carousel hasn't helped but I would have to agree with the original article that this team is loaded and ready- with the right QB as many on here have stated.

Shoelaces_Pfft

December 9th, 2010 at 4:20 PM ^

I think Dave Brandon will realize that it was going to take time to go from a traditional offense to a spread. People keep saying we are in year 3 of RR but the first 2 we did not have a real dual threat qb that could hurt you. Our 1st year with Denard we finally get 7 wins and the gator bowl. Although the defense does concern me, I feel RR thought he had more time before people started calling for his head. So he focused on the offense a bit more. But none of this might not matter anymore if DB believes RR is not the future.