This will probably p*** you off...

[nin_usc_freak92]

Originally Posted by Latt7more

Go Cocks or GTFO i assume this link will be moved to smack talk

Hahaha +1

[Florida Cock]

What a pretentious a$% hole. I don't care about his analysis, just his arrogance that they undoubtedly will not be able to back up. Michigan's fans keep hanging on to a reality that has been long gone. They should remember the last time Carolina came up TO their stadium in 1980 and whipped butt! GO COCKS!

[RudeCock]

Haha, a Michigan fan feeling dirty from watching the SEC. He must have seen how physical we are started sweating.

[Acockolypse Now]

For the most part the analysis of our team is pretty spot on. We don't have as many JUCO's as he states, I think he's counting prep players as JUCOs. We also only signed 6 more players over 5 years, but he makes it sound like we're the kings of oversigning. Methinks the Urban Meyer recruiting machine is a little shocking for Big 10 folks.

I'm used to Yankees feeling superior to those of us in the South, so the Big 10 brain thing didn't really bother me all that much. I like being underestimated.

He's spot-on about or O-line and makes a good point, we can beat people straight up pretty easy, but we've struggled with stunts and blitzes all year.

Disagree about our D-line though. He states that other than Clowney our line is pretty meh.

Yeah... OK. We'll see about that.

[Cocky2001]

The analysis was decent, but you can't call it good when there is no mention of Shaq Wilson, Victor Hampton, or Kenny Miles...or that he calls Busta Buster...not much research represented there...nor was there a mention of TJ Johnson...other than that, pretty good.

[CockLurker]

Few mistakes (Bruce being our #4 WR lol, uf doing well offensively) but decent at least. I'd like to see what he's talking about with the whole usc using illegal formations thing?

[Cocky2001]

Originally Posted by CockLurker

Few mistakes (Bruce being our #4 WR lol, uf doing well offensively) but decent at least. I'd like to see what he's talking about with the whole usc using illegal formations thing?

Sometimes our LOS on offense isn't a straight line. It is shaped kinda like a boomerang, but, that is legal to an extent. He is trying to say that we exceed what is legal, but SEC officials have a reputation for being sticklers for calling formation violations so I think he is just crying a little here.

[CockLurker]

Originally Posted by Cocky2001

Sometimes our LOS on offense isn't a straight line. It is shaped kinda like a boomerang, but, that is legal to an extent. He is trying to say that we exceed what is legal, but SEC officials have a reputation for being sticklers for calling formation violations so I think he is just crying a little here.

lol yeah I know what he meant, I was just saying I'd like to see maybe a few screenshots of the plays in question because he seems to be reaching a lot in this writeup (which is natural to do when you're scouting an opponent who's expected to beat you).

[SimpleGamecock]

I enjoyed the Clowney analysis especially a Big Ten blogger noticing how much Clowney gets held and STILL dominates!

[Glamcock]

It was a crappy, inaccurate analysis done off of probably 1 hr worth of film study. Pretty much nothing in there is true beyond a couple of circumstances. He did get right who some of our good players are.

Some decent jokes in there. I do want my 15 min back, though.

[Cocky2001]

Originally Posted by CockLurker

lol yeah I know what he meant, I was just saying I'd like to see maybe a few screenshots of the plays in question because he seems to be reaching a lot in this writeup (which is natural to do when you're scouting an opponent who's expected to beat you).

Sorry man, just trying to help. Finding pix of it should be easy, we do it all of the time...so do most teams.

[reddot8481]

Well the guy says he based his entire analysis off of watching the UGA game and message board analysis.

So here you go, here's his evidence.



and a little extra to help out.



and his sources....

http://uga.rivals.com/forum.asp

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=135

[bmccall]

There's several factually inaccurate items in the article. Other than that, entertaining, but not trustworthy.

[CocksB2BChamps24]

Originally Posted by gobluejeff86

SC 28, M 10 is my new prediction.

You must have looked at my bowl pool bracket (actually I hope you didn't, because I've only gotten 3 games right ffs, I think I've cursed the teams I chose). Anyways, my tie breaker score was 38 points in this game, with me thinking the score was going to be 28-10 good guys.

Also, haven't read the article yet, but I doubt it would piss me off. Actually, I haven't found anything on the net to piss me off yet, here's to hoping that'll change!

[gacock]

148 years ago, they were known as "blockheads". Not much has changed since then.

Go Gamecocks!!!

gacock