UCLA at Texas

[Lkr]

13-3 UCLA at the half

[magicbalala245]

LET'S GO BRUINS

[Lkr]

20-3

[Flash]

UCLA has a ton of talent, probably 2nd or third most talent in the Pac 10 so they can knock off a ranked team who isn't taking them seriously. How UCLA isn't a top program anymore is puzzling to say the least.

[magicbalala245]

UCLA FOOTBALL BABY

[Lkr]

UCLA has a ton of talent, probably 2nd or third most talent in the Pac 10 so they can knock off a ranked team who isn't taking them seriously. How UCLA isn't a top program anymore is puzzling to say the least.

USC

Oregon

Oregon St

Arizona

Arizona St

Stanford

 

how wrong you are

[Flash]

USC

Oregon

Oregon St

Arizona

Arizona St

Stanford

 

how wrong you are

 

If you think that those teams have more talent on their roster than UCLA aside from USC and possibly Oregon...you're blind. One thing is having talent but the other is having good coaching to get the most out of that talent.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Flash

[Flash]

From Rivals.com:

 

UCLA has had a top 15 recruiting class each year since 2008, with their most recent class being ranked 8th in the country. That's something no one in the Pac10 can say aside from USC.

[Lkr]

If you think that those teams have more talent on their roster than UCLA aside from USC and possibly Oregon...you're retarded. One thing is having talent but the other is having good coaching to get the most out of that talent.

No, you just don't know the first thing about football. Talent is relevant to the performance on the field. Neuheisal has the team playing the best they have in a while and they still suck. You know diddly poo about the Pac 10. Arizona is more talented than UCLA by FAR as well as Stanford. Oregon St's Rodgers brothers alone are better than the entire UCLA football program. Arizona St has an outstanding defense, probably the best in the Pac 10. You obviously don't watch college football, you think Miami is better than countless teams when they are trash. Quit posting in threads when you don't know what you are talking about, it gets old VERY fast.

 

WHO GIVES A [expletive] ABOUT RECRUITING CLASSES? Jamarcus Russell was the #1 pick in the NFL draft, it means he is better than Tom Brady who was a 6th round pick!

Edited September 26, 2010 by Lkr

[Flash]

Better yet from Scout.com:

 

UCLA's classes from 2008 to 2010 were all top 10. You can't deny there being tons of talent on that team. Neuheisal sucks and is on probably the hottest seat in the nation next to Mark Richt.

 

WHO GIVES A [expletive] ABOUT RECRUITING CLASSES? Jamarcus Russell was the #1 pick in the NFL draft, it means he is better than Tom Brady who was a 6th round pick!

 

One has nothing to do with the other..

[Lkr]

Neuheisal may suck but he's the best they've had in a while. Mark Richt isn't going to be canned. And yes, it does. Russell was seen as being talented, hence taken with the number 1 pick, based on his college stats. Kind of like how recruiting classes are ranked - with irrelevant stats from high school. If UCLA was more talented than Stanford, that would mean they are hands down better. They would not have been blown out of the Rose Bowl by that team either.

[Flash]

No, you just don't know the first thing about football. Talent is relevant to the performance on the field. Neuheisal has the team playing the best they have in a while and they still suck. You know diddly poo about the Pac 10. Arizona is more talented than UCLA by FAR as well as Stanford. Oregon St's Rodgers brothers alone are better than the entire UCLA football program. Arizona St has an outstanding defense, probably the best in the Pac 10. You obviously don't watch college football, you think Miami is better than countless teams when they are trash. Quit posting in threads when you don't know what you are talking about, it gets old VERY fast.

 

Lol @ you bringing Miami into another thread. They're such trash they went in to Pitt and made them look like a JV team. The same Pitt team that almost beat Utah on the road in OT. Yeah, we suck.

 

How is Arizona more talented? The Rodgers brothers are great but Riley always gets the most out of his guys at OSU. ASU has a nice defense but top to bottom none of those rosters are as talented as UCLA's. UCLA is a sleeping giant in CFB like it or not.

[fish7718]

LOL @ 1 game making UCLA the 2nd best team in the pac-10. That's something Sacha would say.

[Lkr]

Lol @ you bringing Miami into another thread. They're such trash they went in to Pitt and made them look like a JV team. The same Pitt team that almost beat Utah on the road in OT. Yeah, we suck.

 

How is Arizona more talented? The Rodgers brothers are great but Riley always gets the most out of his guys at OSU. ASU has a nice defense but top to bottom none of those rosters are as talented as UCLA's. UCLA is a sleeping giant in CFB like it or not.

 

Miami got brought into this thread because you don't know how to evaluate college football teams. Jacorry Harris was struggling against the Pitt defense for most of the game. Pitt isn't too strong this year either, but then again, I doubt you actually watched the game.

[Flash]

Neuheisal may suck but he's the best they've had in a while. Mark Richt isn't going to be canned. And yes, it does. Russell was seen as being talented, hence taken with the number 1 pick, based on his college stats. Kind of like how recruiting classes are ranked - with irrelevant stats from high school. If UCLA was more talented than Stanford, that would mean they are hands down better. They would not have been blown out of the Rose Bowl by that team either.

 

Even if he's better than Dorrell was he still sucks. Richt is definitely gone if they lose tonight, not sure how that's even debatable as his job has been in question for 2 seasons now.

 

Stanford has a top 5 coach in the nation. Harbaugh is miles ahead of any other coach in the Pac10, not even close. With the academic standards at Stanford its pretty remarkable what he's done there in developing that team.

 

If recruiting rankings don't mean a thing, then how do you explain the dominance of UF, USC, LSU, FSU, Miami and basically every other top program this past decade?

[Flash]

Miami got brought into this thread because you don't know how to evaluate college football teams. Jacorry Harris was struggling against the Pitt defense for most of the game. Pitt isn't too strong this year either, but then again, I doubt you actually watched the game.

 

J12 had a decent game, he went 21 of 32 for 250 and 2 TD's along with 2 INT's. I don't think anyone thought he played a perfect game. Pitt might not be great, but they took Utah as far as they could and Utah is a top 15 team.

[Lkr]

FSU was done after 01

Miami has been a dead program for a while. I haven't seen them contend for anything in a long [expletive] while

UF always gets good players because they are the biggest university in a football pipeline state

Just get out

[Flash]

FSU was done after 01

Miami has been a dead program for a while. I haven't seen them contend for anything in a long [expletive] while

UF always gets good players because they are the biggest university in a football pipeline state

Just get out

 

Your point? The whole point of my post was that the common theme within those teams, who have been the dominant programs in the last decade was the talent on their rosters.

 

With the teams you mentioned above, at some point coaching killed them. FSU with Bowden after about 2003, UF with Zook and UM with Coker.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Flash

[Lkr]

A recruiting class doesn't mean you are getting the best talent. Tim Tebow wasn't the highest rated player when recruited but he is seen as possibly the greatest player of all time. Tom Brady in the NFL was never seen as possibly ever making an impact in his career, but he has become a HOF QB. Several #1 overall players have been busts. A pre-season recruitment class ranking doesn't mean [expletive]. UCLA is not more talented than Stanford. UCLA throws the ball worse than high school teams do. Stanford blew them out of the Rose Bowl. UCLA won because of an implosion from Texas, not from talent.

[Flash]

A recruiting class doesn't mean you are getting the best talent. Tim Tebow wasn't the highest rated player when recruited but he is seen as possibly the greatest player of all time. Tom Brady in the NFL was never seen as possibly ever making an impact in his career, but he has become a HOF QB. Several #1 overall players have been busts. A pre-season recruitment class ranking doesn't mean [expletive]. UCLA is not more talented than Stanford. UCLA throws the ball worse than high school teams do. Stanford blew them out of the Rose Bowl. UCLA won because of an implosion from Texas, not from talent.

 

Tebow was a 5 star on both Rivals and Scout and played in a system tailor made for him. Not to mention he has the best intangibles out of any QB in a while a the college level. Brady is the exception, not the rule in terms of the NFL. Who on Stanford besides Luck is as talented as UCLA's top players? Stanford is so much better coached that it was bound to happen.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Flash

[Lkr]

You can't coach players to be more talented. The fact of the matter is that Stanford's players are more talented than UCLA. Can you name a stud on UCLA? They have 2 good backs, but they haven't done much in their careers yet. Stanford has better running backs so far, they can obviously just pound a team out of the game.

[Flash]

You can't coach players to be more talented. The fact of the matter is that Stanford's players are more talented than UCLA. Can you name a stud on UCLA? They have 2 good backs, but they haven't done much in their careers yet. Stanford has better running backs so far, they can obviously just pound a team out of the game.

 

Franklin is averaging over 5 yards a carry. Randall Carrol and Morell Presley are super talented but they're playing out of position because UCLA recruited them with the pitch of letting them play wherever they wanted. Carroll should be at RB and Presley at TE.

 

And no you can't make someone more talented, but coaches are supposed to get the most out of the talent they recruit and clearly Neuheisal hasn't done that and Harbaugh has done much more with much less.

 

EDIT: How could I forget Rahim Moore? One of the best safeties in the country.

Edited September 27, 2010 by Flash