I completely agree with what you were TRYING to say, even if you had trouble rounding out your point. This same comparison can be done with ANY team that has won the NC in the past 10 years...except the Trojans and their damn HS conference that LSU at its worst could sleepwalk through. Teams just simply struggle after a NC year. They won't lose more than two games next year, and they are going to play no less than SIX teams in the final top 25. Book it.
This whole line of discussion is ludicrous. NONE of LSU's players played for Saban last year. Assuming the basis of this argument is that Saban left THE MOST talented group of kids in the country, that still doesn't guarantee wins. If talent ALONE won championships, there'd be no need for coaches at all. Can we please get off this now?
There are pros and cons to regarding keeping Fulmer or not: go to a Vol forum and you can see heated debates going back and forth on whether it was a good idea or not. But rather than get into all that, I just want to reiterate what I'm trying to communicate: Just because you get a new coach doesn't mean things are going to get better. Like I said, look at ND and Nebraska.
Just because a new coach takes over a program loaded with talent does not mean he will be successful.
I agree, however, winning with LSU's talent level from 2005-present has been much easier (and much easier to watch in some cases) than winning with LSU's talent level from 2000-2004. Saban taking over for Dinardo was much different than Miles taking over for Saban. I like Miles, and I'm not trying to trash him, but it would be dishonest to downplay the fact that the talent level Miles started with played a large part in his success. The guy inherited a gold mine. Saban inherited rocky terrain that took some hard work to get it to the gold mine status it is today. Pre-Saban, we were losing lots of Louisiana players to other teams. He got here, and started working on keeping in-state recruits, and ever since, our recruiting has improved immensely. Miles hasn't had to deal with those kinds of issues. For example, it's like taking a '57 Chevy that is dilapidated, restoring it into a fine-tuned beauty and selling it to someone. Because of the work of the previous owner, whatever work the new guy will do on the car will be much easier, and it would be stupid to suggest otherwise. The new guy should get the credit for keeping it the finely tuned vehicle it was restored to be. Again, I'm not saying one is better than the other, but c'mon. Let's not be homers extraordinaire.
