The stats are a bit misleading. The '03 stats are for the full season. This year is just mid way through. If I had to choose Id take the '03 D. This year is damn good and only getting better. We have a lot of play makers on this team, with many of them being very young and only getting better. Id pick the '03 D because of their aggressiveness. Webster was a shut down CB like Peterson is this year. Daniels is better than Claiborne though. I think the LBs on that team were better as well. Both are championship Ds but I think the '03 D was special. This one may be, but time will tell.
:geaux: I'll say the '03 "D" right now, although this year's defense can still be special. And will be if they can avoid the injury bug. I'd really like to have seen what type of player Sam Montgomery would have developed into had he not gotten hurt. :rolleye33: He would have really made this years defense something special. I hope he can come back from the injury and pick it back up next year. The 2011 defense will really be something to behold as well with all the young talent Chavis is developing, but replacing Nevis, Sheppard & Peterson will not be easy by any means. :LSU231:
one thing to consider when comparing the '03 and '10 defenses ..... the odd/even scheduling impact on the stats. Stats alone don't do this debate justice. personally, I would take the '03 defense over the current one because I feel thier strength was the defensive front (nasty) while the strength of the current defense is more the back 7. however, the current defense faces more of it's key opponents on the road than in '03. Additionally, IMO, the SEC as a whole was stronger in '03 than it is today .... not by much, but enough to make me consider the '03 squad as better.
Although it can't be done and shouldn't be, but if the numbers from the UNC game were out of the equation this 2010 D would be #1. I think as the season progresses it will only get stronger.
We played Va Tech in '02. Through the first 6 games in '03, we had played Louisiana-Monroe, Arizona, Western Illinois, Georgia, Mississippi St, and Florida. We gave up an average of 265 yards per game through those first 6 games, which included only 4 BCS teams (one of which was an Arizona team that finished the season 2-10 with the 108th ranked offense), a 1-11 ULM team that finished 100th in total offense, and a 1-AA team. The landscape has changed, though. Ole Miss, Tennessee, and Georgia were good then, Alabama sucked. Arkansas wasn't nearly as good. All teams that we played. Agree here. Jack Hunt wasn't exactly instilling fear in opposing QBs, though he was a good, serviceable safety. Marcus Spears, Marquise Hill, Chad Lavalais, and Kyle Williams on the other hand...whew. I have to disagree strongly here. LSU and Ole Miss were the only two teams in the west that finished that year ranked. In the east, Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida were ranked. There are 4 teams in the west ranked in the top 12 right now, along with South Carolina, and Florida toward the bottom. Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, Florida, and South Carolina are all much better this year than they were in 2003. Georgia, Tennessee, and Ole Miss are worse.
I agree, and if the offense can put them in fewer bad situations, that will help their numbers, as well. In regard to UNC, if you just take away the two pass plays that we gave up 172 yards on, this defense would be averaging giving up only 217 yards per game. That is just sick. Unfortunately, they all count.
Try to be objective, ya' wannabe. Getting down the field fast is important, but not as important as getting down the field fast and making the friggin' tackle. Graff = 9 tackles, 6 solo. Reid = 4 tackles, 2 solo
