Tui better clutch QB (at least, 2 years into Browning's career) but there are some things that Browning does better. 2000 team was lucky to go 11-1. The 2016 team would have gone undefeated that year with few close games and completely destroyed Purdue in the Rose Bowl. Pete > Rick and not even close.
Like anticipating the quick crosser and executing the under thrown play action pass???
No, like completing 62% of his passes last year vs Tui completing 52% of his as a senior (2000). Or Jake throwing 43 TDs against 9 picks (as Sophomore) vs Tui throwing 14 TDs with 9 picks in the 2000 season. In the short to medium range game, Jake is more accurate than Tui was and it's not even close. But against a team like Bama last year, I'd take Tui over Jake. Tui better at improvising and dealing with a dirty pocket.
Tui better clutch QB (at least, 2 years into Browning's career) but there are some things that Browning does better. 2000 team was lucky to go 11-1. The 2016 team would have gone undefeated that year with few close games and completely destroyed Purdue in the Rose Bowl. Pete > Rick and not even close.
Browning is irreparably damaged by getting curb stomped by Miami in 2000. 2000 played a better schedule in a better Pac without Utah and Colorado who Tui beat as a non conference foe
I don't buy that. The team that showed up Friday night on ESPN to curb stomp the Trees could probably have beat that 2000 Miami squad at home.
Allow me to axe you this: Let's say the 2000 team never plays Miami at home early in the year, but instead gets them in a big time bowl in the deep south - what do you think the score would have looked like? In other words would it be closer to us losing 24- 7 or 17- 7 or more like 65- 7?
2016 would put the 2000 team away before they showed up after halftime. 2016 was better at probably 9 positions on defense and most of the skill positions. OL was about even. 2000 was better at QB, TE and not having Psalm. That's about it.
2016 rather easily.
This is why 2000 wins rather easily, say 34-17?
I know you are being sarcastic but the guys from 2000 are in their mid to late 30's now. Have they even lifted or worked out since then? No way could Tui run away from Bierria
Louis Prima: With all the great players playing ball right now, how well do you think you would do against today's pitchers?
Ty Cobb: Well, I figure against today's pitchers I'd only probably hit about .290
Louis Prima: .290? Well that's amazing, because you batted over .400 a... a whole bunch of times. Now tell us all, we'd all like to know, why do you think you'd only hit .290?
Ty Cobb: Well, I'm 72 fucking years old you ignorant son of a bitch.
2016 would put the 2000 team away before they showed up after halftime. 2016 was better at probably 9 positions on defense and most of the skill positions. OL was about even. 2000 was better at QB, TE and not having Psalm. That's about it.
2016 rather easily.
This. The 2000 team did beat Miami though. They weren't that great though. The 2016 team was a lot more consistent and had better talent.
2016 would put the 2000 team away before they showed up after halftime. 2016 was better at probably 9 positions on defense and most of the skill positions. OL was about even. 2000 was better at QB, TE and not having Psalm. That's about it.
2016 rather easily.
This. The 2000 team did beat Miami though. They weren't that great though. The 2016 team was a lot more consistent and had better talent.
It's easy to be consistent when you play dogshit every week.
Tui better clutch QB (at least, 2 years into Browning's career) but there are some things that Browning does better. 2000 team was lucky to go 11-1. The 2016 team would have gone undefeated that year with few close games and completely destroyed Purdue in the Rose Bowl. Pete > Rick and not even close.
Browning is irreparably damaged by getting curb stomped by Miami in 2000. 2000 played a better schedule in a better Pac without Utah and Colorado who Tui beat as a non conference foe
I don't buy that. The team that showed up Friday night on ESPN to curb stomp the Trees could probably have beat that 2000 Miami squad at home.
Allow me to axe you this: Let's say the 2000 team never plays Miami at home early in the year, but instead gets them in a big time bowl in the deep south - what do you think the score would have looked like? In other words would it be closer to us losing 24- 7 or 17- 7 or more like 65- 7?
Great point. In a bowl game Miami would have named the score on the 2000 team in a rematch or if they were meeting for the first time that year.
2016 Defense doesn't allow that to happen even if offense is anemic just like we were against Bama.
Tui was a warrior, but the 2000 team isn't hanging with last year dawgs
The 2000 Dawgs weren't great from top to bottom. But they had a great, and senior-laden, OL. Much better up front than 2016. Not close.
I was just fucking with J when I said 2016 is greater, but I do think they're basically even. 2000 is remembered very fondly but I think it was a good line that is overrated based on two things: the option made it look better than it was, and the ensuing dreck OL's made it look better than it was.
2000 was a very good OL, not a great one. Just like 2016.
Tui better clutch QB (at least, 2 years into Browning's career) but there are some things that Browning does better. 2000 team was lucky to go 11-1. The 2016 team would have gone undefeated that year with few close games and completely destroyed Purdue in the Rose Bowl. Pete > Rick and not even close.
Browning is irreparably damaged by getting curb stomped by Miami in 2000. 2000 played a better schedule in a better Pac without Utah and Colorado who Tui beat as a non conference foe
I don't buy that. The team that showed up Friday night on ESPN to curb stomp the Trees could probably have beat that 2000 Miami squad at home.
Allow me to axe you this: Let's say the 2000 team never plays Miami at home early in the year, but instead gets them in a big time bowl in the deep south - what do you think the score would have looked like? In other words would it be closer to us losing 24- 7 or 17- 7 or more like 65- 7?
Comments
Allow me to axe you this: Let's say the 2000 team never plays Miami at home early in the year, but instead gets them in a big time bowl in the deep south - what do you think the score would have looked like? In other words would it be closer to us losing 24- 7 or 17- 7 or more like 65- 7?
Ty Cobb: Well, I figure against today's pitchers I'd only probably hit about .290
Louis Prima: .290? Well that's amazing, because you batted over .400 a... a whole bunch of times. Now tell us all, we'd all like to know, why do you think you'd only hit .290?
Ty Cobb: Well, I'm 72 fucking years old you ignorant son of a bitch.
One team lost to #2 and #3 and beat some teams ranked over 10.
But 2016 is better cause John Ross is fast and Brownsocks threw a bunch of TDs against hot garbage defenses ZOMG
2016 defense >>>>>>>> 2000 defense. That's why they'd win.
2016 Defense doesn't allow that to happen even if offense is anemic just like we were against Bama.
Tui was a warrior, but the 2000 team isn't hanging with last year dawgs
2000 was a very good OL, not a great one. Just like 2016.
Turnover margin vs Pac12 opponents (since 2000 clearly paid a tougher non con): 2016 + 13, 2000 (-3).
2016 takes the ball away at least two more times against 2000. Ballgame.