Spurrier DID have better talent at Florida

[redman]

I took this statement by Art in another thread:

Originally posted by Art

People often point to the fact that this isn't college and point out Spurrier's players being better than others. As we know, Florida didn't really have more studs than most teams in the SEC. And, in the pro level, not only are other teams better, but, his own team is better. The real difference is the guy on the other sideline who is better than just about anyone he's coached against before and he'll be doing so against fine minds every week. Hell, even a guy like Campo with a 10-22 record has a better mind than a good coach at most of the SEC schools.

. . . along with my response to it:

Originally posted by redman

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree there, even if I agree with your conclusion that Spurrier will succeed in his adjustment to the NFL.

But most teams in the SEC had players that matched up to Spurrier's at Florida in terms of talent? I'm not sure a single program has produced as many NFL receivers during the last decade as Florida's did, although Tennessee doesn't do badly for itself. I mean, for example, can you name a single Auburn WR who's in the NFL? I sure can't and that's not because Auburn's a bad program. I can't even think of any Georgia (I don't count Champ . . . yet) or 'Bama WR's.

When it gets right down to it, the only SEC team that can claim it rivaled Spurrier's in terms of overall talent on offense that was pro caliber in the last ten years was Tennessee, and you'll note that they too won a national championship during that time. Tennessee may have even had an edge in terms of talent on the o-line.

Now the fact that Spurrier beat them consistently even when they had Peyton Manning QB'ing them looks good, and I can agree that coaching there may well have been the difference with Tennessee. But I think that conference-wide, Spurrier had a distinct talent advantage over his rivals. That's not a criticism of him, just the truth.

. . . and I did a little research. What I found was that, in fact, I was exactly right. Florida did in fact have "have more studs than most teams in the SEC."

I looked at the players drafted by the NFL out of the SEC between the years 1991 and 2002, which would encompass all of the players who would have logged playing time in that conference while Spurrier coached at Florida (Spurrier was there from the 1990-2001 seasons). I used drafthistory.com's sort function by college. The assumption is, of course, that the number of NFL draftees from a college, especially over time, correlates to the amount of football talent on that college team over that same period of time.

I've broken down all of the teams in the SEC and ranked them in terms of the total number of players drafted between 1991 and 2002. I also took note of how many offensive players, the rankings of both total players and offensive players, and the percentage that the numbers represent as a proportion of the numbers that Florida had:

NAME - - - - - #OffPlayers/Total# - - %Off/%Total - RankOff/RankTot

1)Tennessee - - - - 41/80 - - - - - - - - - 132/123 - - - 1/1

2)FLORIDA - - - - - - 31/65 - - - - - - - - - 100/100 - - - 2/2

3)Alabama - - - - - - 19/47 - - - - - - - - - - 61/72 - - - - 5/3

4)Georgia - - - - - - 20/46 - - - - - - - - - - 65/71 - - - - 4/4

5)Auburn - - - - - - - 21/38 - - - - - - - - - - 68/58 - - - - 3/5

6)Miss. St. - - - - - - 17/35 - - - - - - - - - - 55/54 - - - -6t/6

7)LSU - - - - - - - - - 17/28 - - - - - - - - - - 49/43 - - - 6t/7

8)Miss. - - - - - - - - 12/24 - - - - - - - - - - -39/37 - - - -8/8

9)S. Carolina - - - - 11/22 - - - - - - - - - - - - 35/34 - - - -9/9t

10)Kentucky - - - - - - 10/22 - - - - - - - - - -32/34 - - - 10/9t

11)Arkansas - - - - - - 7/19 - - - - - - - - - - -23/29 - - - 11/11

12)Vanderbilt - - - - - -1/10 - - - - - - - - - - - 3/15 - - - 12/12

As you can see, Florida had significant advantages over all but one SEC team - Tennessee, as I suspected - in terms of numbers NFL-caliber players on their team during the Spurrier era. Even when compared to the next highest ranked team, Alabama, Florida had 28% more elite players roster-wide, and 39% more on offense specifically, which is of course Spurrier's forte'.

Again, Spurrier's a great coach. But let's cut the crap about him not having personnel advantages in the SEC. :shootinth

[Art]

Again, Redman, as I wrote, if you take the numbers, it's certainly fair to say Florida has had more talent. If you take a look at players of any consequence on the NFL level, Florida really does not. The numbers of players I gave earlier were present players in the NFL.

There are 43 present Florida players and there are 39 present Georgia players. Take a look at the two lists and tell me which you'd prefer. Same with Tennessee. Same with Auburn. There really is no question that Florida produces a very good number of NFL players and probably ranks highly among colleges with current players in the league.

But, as I said, Florida didn't really have more studs than most teams in the SEC and though I take no issue with your view that more players in the league is how you'd define studs, I was discussing more impact players in the league than simply numbers. Since I wrote this in my response to you, I'm a little shocked you didn't cite it here.

It's of no real consequence though. Spurrier beat teams like Georgia and Tennessee and Auburn and Alabama, all of which really don't lack the number of studs that Florida had, and Florida won because of one advantage those teams did not enjoy. Steve Spurrier.

[redman]

Originally posted by Art

It's of no real consequence though. Spurrier beat teams like Georgia and Tennessee and Auburn and Alabama, all of which really don't lack the number of studs that Florida had, and Florida won because of one advantage those teams did not enjoy. Steve Spurrier.

I agree with this particularly with the Tennessee example. He beat their arses repeatedly despite them having an abundance of talent.

Art, where are you getting your data regarding current numbers of NFL players from certain colleges?

[dchogs]

not that i'm taking sides here but...

art has a good point. the fact that the gators were drafted doesn't necessarily make them legit studs. they produced big numbers in HIS system, so they were drafted accordingly. many of those drafted (no time to do research like redman, which was quite impressive by the by) never panned out in the NFL. were these guys studs? i'd say probably not, because true studs will continue to produce.

i'd be interested, if someone cares to run the stats, to see the numbers the players drafted have put up in the NFL. that, in my mind, would be a better indicator of studliness.

[Art]

Redman,

Go to TSN's NFL player page, and you can do a sort by college and do a simple count. It's nice. It doesn't have the whole count of all players as you've sorted by, but it has present players and if you look over Florida's list, other than Jevon Kearse presently and Emmitt Smith there just aren't a good number of top level pro performers right now, though certainly a guy like Fred Taylor could get back to that level just as Emmitt is likely to fall from that level. Not that other schools have that either, but, they are on par in general.

[Art]

Redman,

Here's the actual link if you need it. Just pick by college and scroll around. It's a nice feature especially as you watch Miami grow .

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/players/

[laurent]

Ok, so let's assume Spurrier's success was in large part due to his recruiting edge, then tell me just how the heck did he win with Duke and the his first few years at UF?

Couldn't it be possible that the reason UF had so many players drafted was because of the outstanding job Spurrier did as HC?

Since you brought up drafthistory.com I went there and checked how many Duke players were drafted during Spurriers tenure and it wasn't pretty.

1990 no.18 9th round Clarkston Hines Bills WR 1990 no.16 12th round Chris Port Saints G 1989 no.18 3rd round Anthony Dilweg Packers QB

Quite a collection of talent there huh? :laugh:

Ps: Shouldn't you all be in bed by now???

[Art]

Both dchogs and laurent have put into words something that is certainly a key factor here, I think. Some of the exposure and draft status of Florida players is certainly a byproduct of Spurrier's excellence as a coach. Just as certainly some of Spurrier's success is because of the players.

I do think though that some of Spurrier's guys get drafted because you simply have to look at guys as productive as he produces. A number of these guys don't really work out on the pro level though and I think much of the success you've seen Spurrier get out of his offensive players is due to his system and his scheme. But, as always, I'm a coach bigot. I think coaching is more important than many people do.

[redman]

True enough, laurent, although the ACC in the late-80's wasn't exactly a football powerhouse. Again, I think he's an excellent coach. But people seem awfully willing to attribute all of his success to "X's and O's" rather than to other factors.

[redman]

And on the subject of Gators being drafted because of Spurrier's system, I'm sure there are cases of that, I would think especially in the lower rounds, but that goes against what we always observe/complaint about the draft. NFL scouts go off of measurables and readily observable talent.

While it's an art not a science, the fact is that a merely above-average player simply isn't going to fool a lot of NFL scouts into drafting him after multiple combine and individual pre-draft workouts simply on the basis of how well he fit into his college system.

No, I think those Gators were drafted because they were good college players who projected to be good NFL players.

[redman]

All right, all right, so I'm not in the mood to sleep. :laugh: But what I've done is appy the very same analysis that I did above, but in terms of the number of players active in the NFL according to the TSN site. Not surprisingly, it roughly equates to the data above. I've copied the college data above, and then it's followed by the current NFL data for relative ease of comparison.

SEC PLAYERS DRAFTED BY THE NFL, 1991-2002

NAME - - - - - #OffPlayers/Total# - - %Off/%Total - RankOff/RankTot

1)Tennessee - - - - 41/80 - - - - - - - - - 132/123 - - - 1/1

2)FLORIDA - - - - - - 31/65 - - - - - - - - - 100/100 - - - 2/2

3)Alabama - - - - - - 19/47 - - - - - - - - - - 61/72 - - - - 5/3

4)Georgia - - - - - - 20/46 - - - - - - - - - - 65/71 - - - - 4/4

5)Auburn - - - - - - - 21/38 - - - - - - - - - - 68/58 - - - - 3/5

6)Miss. St. - - - - - - 17/35 - - - - - - - - - - 55/54 - - - -6t/6

7)LSU - - - - - - - - - 17/28 - - - - - - - - - - 49/43 - - - 6t/7

8)Miss. - - - - - - - - 12/24 - - - - - - - - - - -39/37 - - - -8/8

9)S. Carolina - - - - 11/22 - - - - - - - - - - - - 35/34 - - - -9/9t

10)Kentucky - - - - - - 10/22 - - - - - - - - - -32/34 - - - 10/9t

11)Arkansas - - - - - - 7/19 - - - - - - - - - - -23/29 - - - 11/11

12)Vanderbilt - - - - - -1/10 - - - - - - - - - - - 3/15 - - - 12/12

SEC PLAYERS ACTIVE IN THE NFL AS OF 7/27/2002

NAME - - - - - #OffPlayers/Total# - - %Off/%Total - RankOff/RankTot

1)Tennessee - - - - 21/43 - - - - - - - - - 80/102 - - - 2/1

2)FLORIDA - - - - - - 26/42 - - - - - - - - - 100/100 - - - 1/2

3)Georgia - - - - - - 17/39 - - - - - - - - - - 65/93 - - - - 4/3

4)Auburn - - - - - - - 18/30 - - - - - - - - - - 69/71 - - - - 3/4

5)LSU - - - - - - - - - 16/27 - - - - - - - - - - 62/64 - - - 5/5

6)Alabama - - - - - - 7/23 - - - - - - - - - - 27/55 - - - - 8t/6

7)Miss. - - - - - - - - 10/21 - - - - - - - - - - -38/50 - - - -6/7

8)Miss. St. - - - - - - 8/20 - - - - - - - - - - 31/48 - - - -7/8

9)S. Carolina - - - - 7/19 - - - - - - - - - - - - 27/45 - - - -8t/9

10)Arkansas - - - - - - 6/14 - - - - - - - - - - -23/33 - - - 10/10

11)Kentucky - - - - - - 5/10 - - - - - - - - - -19/24 - - - 11/11t

12)Vanderbilt - - - - - -1/10 - - - - - - - - - - - 4/23 - - - 12/11t

What you'll note is that this comparison of current SEC players, if anything, suggests even more that Florida benefitted from better talent under Spurrier than even the data regarding players drafted out of the SEC during the Spurrier era.

Keep a couple of things in mind, especially when comparing the two tables. First, the first "draft table" does not take into account when players were drafted, so obviously a player drafted ten years ago is less likely to be counted as still active in the "active table" than one drafted this year. Also, the "active table" conceivably includes not only players who were drafted, but also ones who were signed as FA's after the draft. In addition, the "active table" can also include players from the pre-Spurrier era.

Anyway, that was some goo-oood mental masturbation on a Friday nite! :jerkoff: Now that I've gotten that out of my system, I think I'll hit the hay and fend off the inevitable sniping tomorrow. :laugh:

[Art]

Redman,

I'm not sure what you are attempting to validate or where you think you'll get sniping from. I think it's certainly fair to say Florida has had more talent if you base it on player count of present players in the league. If it is your view that the players make the coach then these numbers are meaningful and substantial because the prove your point.

They do not, though, disprove the point that was made earlier that Florida really had more studs than the other schools in the SEC in terms of players who've really done much of anything on the pro level. As a comparision, look at Georgia and Florida. There's no question which team has produced more better if not more AND better players and which had substantially more talent than the other.

Hell, one could argue somewhat convincingly and with some merit that Frank Sanders of Auburn is better than any receiver yet turned out by Spurrier despite the numbers of players his teams have turned out. And as mentioned, if you don't believe the players make the coach, but, vice versa, that would explain the larger numbers in the NFL, but, the very small number of players who've done much of anything.

Like Gibbs who seemed to have the ability to make a team appear somewhat greater than the sum of its parts, Spurrier's ability on the college level to do the same is apparent to me. That a number of players have made the NFL doesn't really mean much to me when you look at the players Florida has produced and you see, largely, players who've made little impact on the professional level.

If you believe the system created the NFL future for some of these players, you'll understand that thought. But, again, just look at Georgia and Florida and it's pretty clear Georgia didn't lack for talent to compete with the Gators. In fact, it's fair to believe the Gators had much less talent than the Bulldogs, because Georgia has been producing Pro Bowl level players in the NFL with some regularity.

[amsterdamgator]

You can't just blindly look at that Draft. The reason why UF had so many picks Especially late in his tenure was because of the exposure the players got (uf played on tv all but 2 games last year) and the numbers players put up in his system.

Beside Fred Taylor,.Kevin Carter, Mo Collins and Reggie Mcgrew most of the players he put in the nFl were not highly recruited.

Jevon Kearse came in as a Safety, Mike Peterson was a little know guy out of Gainesville as was Willie and Terry jackson, Travis Mcgriff and Chris Doering (walkon).

J. Green was a qb, Shane Mathews was 4th of the depth chart and was suspended his first year for gambling. R. anthony was a throw in for Fred Taylor. Ike was a CB. Zach Pillar was a transfer from GT (who never did anything there).

Jabar Gaffney wasn't wanted by anyone. Elijah Williams (falcons) was a RB moved to CB. Brad Culpeper was an undersized DL as was Tony McCOy.

SOS made all of these guys. But going into college these guys were mostly nobodies.

It was his system especially on O that gave all these guys exposure. But to say his talent was better than the rest of the SEC is a joke.

Look at UGA they had Zeier, T. Davis, Garrison Hearst, Hines Ward and others on a team that UF beat soundly. UGA routinely had better recruiting classes than UF under Ray Goff. In fact after beat UGA for the 5th time in a row....SOS said something to the extent of "I don't understand it they out recruit every year, but some how we seem to beat them every year" throwing a dart at GOff.

Auburn has had a few Wr's in the league Frank Sanders, Robert Baker among others for a mostly running team.

In UF's first year he took over a 6-5 team and won the SEC.

LOOK at SOS record at vs. UT (a team with more draft picks).

You are flat out wrong...the reason so many uF guys got drafted as I said before is b/c of exposure they got and the numbers they put up in his system.

For that matter UF had more stud WR's who started as nobodies when we signed them out of high school then we had four or five star recruits that all the teams wanted.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Oh yeah, how much more talent did he have at duke or with the bandits where he was pretty successful?

[DougWilliams]

If SOS can a pretty good passing offense this year (with Danny Wuerrful starting), then I think you will have answer.

[DougWilliams]

Yeah, his early years at Florida 90-93 did not produce much in the way of superior NFL talent, at least offensively. Erict Rhett, Shane Matthews, Jack Jackson; Willie Jackson is one of the few wide receivers from the early years that have had a good nfl career--or any nfl career. And he was dominating the SEC in those early years too.

Well, this is all just words. The proof will be out there soon. Certainly no one is going to do any fancy stat-bending analysis on this year's WR's and QB's and say the skins have superior talent.

[amsterdamgator]

And of those guys E. Rhett was the biggest recruit of them. The rest of them were mainly leftovers that SOS made into players.

[GatorEye]

Well you know I had to weigh in here.

First off, watching the games week in and week out there is no question that we had what most would call superior talent across the board. I think what you are missing are three key points.

First - as a WHOLE our team had more talent than all other SEC teams period. I will include Tennessee as a very close second in most years. Other teams might have a star WR or star LB, but the rest of the players were probably mediocre. The whole is better than the sum of the parts in this case because as a starting group our 22 guys were better than anyone elses 22 guys. Football is after all a team game.

Second - our team had more QUALITY DEPTH than all other SEC teams. Plain and simple, guys riding the pine at UF would probably start for maybe 9 other SEC teams. We could rotate players in and out to keep them fresh or if we lost a player due to injury, we had someone fill in who would probably still be on par with any other SEC starter. That depth makes a difference in the second half.

Third - speed. Speed neutralizes just about everything. Overall team speed is better than anyone else in the SEC. Take a look at the Maryland game. When the runnng backs can consistently turn the corner and wide receivers either blow by defenders or have a 10 yard cushion because the corners know they'll get beat deep if they don't, that makes a difference. If you call a 'faster' player a 'superior' player then you can ignore this argument, but that's another important factor.

Finally, I dare anyone to name a better coach in the SEC. I mean, there wasn't any coach of a team that when we played we were afraid of. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that if you swapped the Tennessee and Florida rosters in most years, SOS would still win 8 or 9 out of 10 games. As a coach, he's just that much better than everyone else. Fulmer arguably in my mind does less with the talent that he has than any coach I've seen. Georgia had some good teams, but Ray Goff couldn't coach his way out of a paper bag and of course lost his job because he couldn't beat SOS.

Coaching makes a difference. How do you explain South Carolina? They go from winning one game to contending in the SEC East and a good bowl game in 2 years because of Lou Holtz. He didn't get that much talent in one year.

The word 'superior' in itself is a relative term. I may be superior to you in football, but that doesn't mean I'm NFL material. In fact MOST college players don't end up playing pro so while I'll agree that the # of players going to the NFL is a decent yardstick, someone can still have superior talent to other teams and not be sending 10 guys to the NFL.

My argument is simple:

A) We had better talent

We had a vastly superior coach

Whether those factors will play out in the NFL remains to be seen. However, success breeds success. That's SOS in a nutshell.

:cool:

[amsterdamgator]

In SOS first few years UGA had more talent hands down.

Equal speed too.

Not until the later years would I say our talent was superior

C'mon Aubrey HIll, Monty duncan, Harrison Houston weren't better than the Other WR's in the league.

Shane came from nowhere to become a star.

I agree with you about UT though. A SOS coached UT team would have beat UF just as many times as UF under SOS beat UT.

[redman]

Originally posted by amsterdamgator

. . . SOS made all of these guys. But going into college these guys were mostly nobodies. . . . You are flat out wrong...the reason so many uF guys got drafted as I said before is b/c of exposure they got and the numbers they put up in his system. . . For that matter UF had more stud WR's who started as nobodies when we signed them out of high school then we had four or five star recruits that all the teams wanted. . .

So if Spurrier is the reason for all these guys' success, why is it that so many of them have remained in the NFL? Is Spurrier continuing to coach them? And is he coaching ALL of them? I counted not only QB's and WR's, but also C, T, G, TE, and RB. That's what an offensive number represents on those charts.

And like I said before, we continually bash the NFL scouts for focusing on speed and size and athleticism that's measurable, but now you have them ga-ga over the subtleties that Spurrier added to his otherwise mediocre players games? C'mon!

The total number represents all of the other positions excepting K and P. I thought Spurrier had absolutely no interest in defense, and yet he's got a large number of those guys in the NFL too.

And don't give me this Duke or Tampa Bay Bandits stuff. In leagues with less than elite talent, coaching can make all the difference. And the late-80's ACC and the USFL were most certainly not elite leagues/conferences. Surely you're not saying however that the SEC was not an elite conference. That's all college football fans have heard for the last decade from SEC fans is how much better their football is to the rest of the NCAA.

Art, the reason why I pursue this is that I'd prefer debates to be based upon true information. Right now, everyone's operating under a myth that Spurrier built the astounding success that he had at UF without any advantage in talent over the other SEC teams. And I'm sorry, but that's a load of crap. The guy's a great coach, but let's temper the enthusiasm a bit over our new coach and see what happens.

[amsterdamgator]

How do you propose then that he took a 6-5 team and won the confrence the next year. Do you think Gary Darnell or Galen Hall would have done this. LOL

You obviously haven't watched SOS for the past 10 plus years nor saw UF football before he arrived.

ZERO SEC championships prior to him arriving.

ZERO!

ZERO!

Zero!

I do believe that same ****ty acc produced the National champs in 90 with G. Tech.

The same USFL had numerous future NFL studs in it.

For that matter compare UF to FSU or Miami and you will see UF was clearly the third best team in the state before SOS came to town.

But UF has always had the talent...LOL

yes I do believe so many of his players have stuck around b/c of his coaching in college. For the most part most of them have regressed without his coaching (Take note of his quotes on Danny and Shane). He said they were better as Seniors than they are now. Nothing that a little coaching can't fix he has said!

The defense at UF over the SOS tenure was less than spectactular. hell in the first few years UF had to out score everyone to win.

I can't believe you doubting what he did at duke.

I do believe in the 80's that UVA, Clemson and Ga tech were pretty good programs. Didn't Clemson win a National championship in the 80's and Gatech in 90.

So much for your knowledge.

[Dirk Diggler]

I'm with Amsterdam. 0 SEC championships prior to Spurrier speaks volumes.

The man was the best coach in the best conference in college football for 10 years. I'll take him over some retread coach anyday. Even if he is an unknown. :notworthy

[GatorEye]

I'd say that him having success at Duke speaks more about him than anything he could do at UF. At UF he was clearly able to get the talent, but to win a championship at Duke who was in the dumps before he came and ever since he left just goes to prove how good a coach he is.

Clearly, the competition in the SEC was left in his wake.

[redman]

You're hilarious, amsterdam. I'm not arguing he's not a good coach. I've referenced him being a good coach in every post I've made on the subject. But your defensiveness - no, fanaticism about defending him truly has no bounds. Are you a relative of his or something? Are you a member of a cult?

Let's take a look at what you wrote for a moment:

Originally posted by amsterdamgator

ZERO SEC championships prior to him arriving. (etc, etc.)

Maybe he was just a better recruiter. The guy certainly has charisma. Are you honestly telling me that that had no effect upon what he did?

Originally posted by amsterdamgator

I do believe that same ****ty acc produced the National champs in 90 with G. Tech. . . I can't believe you doubting what he did at duke. I do believe in the 80's that UVA, Clemson and Ga tech were pretty good programs. Didn't Clemson win a National championship in the 80's and Gatech in 90.

So has the equally crappy Big East with Miami, and that means virtually nothing in this discussion, which is about conference-wide talent, and as we've seen, despite the SEC being an elite college football conference, only one, possibly two teams - Tennessee and Georgia - can rival UF's talent during the Spurrier era.

Originally posted by amsterdamgator

The same USFL had numerous future NFL studs in it.

For that matter compare UF to FSU or Miami and you will see UF was clearly the third best team in the state before SOS came to town.

If I had a way to quantify NFL players off of Spurrier's Tampa Bay Bandits team, then we'd do that. But I'm sure you're not going to be ticking off the long string of elite CB's to have played in the USFL, are you?

And as for the intra-state rivalries, that's always interesting, but we were talking about SEC play. However, as long as we're taking a momentary detour and discussing those two other teams, I don't believe that Miami was always an elite team during that time. Remember, part of Spurrier's tenure had Miami suffering from the NCAA's harsh sanctions.

Originally posted by amsterdamgator

yes I do believe so many of his players have stuck around b/c of his coaching in college. For the most part most of them have regressed without his coaching (Take note of his quotes on Danny and Shane). He said they were better as Seniors than they are now. Nothing that a little coaching can't fix he has said!

Thanks again for the info on UF QB's. But why is it that that the other offensive positions, including line positions have made it in the NFL off of UF's team, and stayed there? Name me some offensive linemen who wouldn't have made it to the NFL but for Spurrier? You can't because that would be lunacy. No NFL coach is going to confuse a flattering college system for NFL talent when it comes to linemen and even RB's. If you can't hold a block or drive a D-lineman backwards, then you're not going fool anyone on your way into the NFL, no matter what system you play in. And if you can't get around the corner, make cuts, plow over or outrun defenders, and hold onto the football, then NFL scouts won't pay you much heed as a RB no matter what your system is.

And lest it look like I'm conceding the point on the passing game to the point of poor-mouthing it, there have been some solid NFL WR's who have come out of that program. Travis Taylor, Jabar Gaffney, Ike Hilliard, Darrell Jackson, Willie Jackson and Reche Caldwell don't exactly embarrass that UF program.

Originally posted by amsterdamgator

The defense at UF over the SOS tenure was less than spectactular. hell in the first few years UF had to out score everyone to win.

Ok, so if defense was a weak spot for Florida, why is it that more, not fewer non-offensive players were drafted out of UF during Spurrier's tenure than offensive players, 34-31? And by my count, only Tennessee has more active NFL non-offensive players among SEC teams than Florida (I say "non-offensive" because I'd have to go back to sort out special teams guys).

Anyway, you're not trying to give Spurrier credit for defensive success too, are you? I thought he was the offensive "ball coach".

Originally posted by amsterdamgator

So much for your knowledge.

So much for your blind fanatacism.

[redman]

And BTW amsterdam, if Spurrier was the deciding factor in so many pro careers as a college coach as you say he was, then you'd think you'd have seen a spike in the numbers of NFL draftees from the otherwise mediocre Duke around the time that he was there. Here's a list of Duke's NFL draftees from the last 20 years from drafthistory.com:

2000

6 7 173 Chris Combs Steelers DE

1999

2 30 61 Lennie Friedman Broncos C

1998

6 36 189 Patrick Mannelly Bears G

1996

4 26 121 Ray Farmer Eagles DB

6 36 203 Spence Fischer Steelers QB

7 14 223 Jon Merrill Vikings T

1990

9 18 238 Clarkston Hines Bills WR

12 16 320 Chris Port Saints G

1989

3 18 74 Anthony Dilweg Packers QB

1988

12 23 328 Steve Slayden Browns QB

1987

1 5 5 Mike Junkin Browns LB

1984

6 8 148 Ben Bennett Falcons QB

1983

5 11 123 Chris Castor Seahawks WR

1982

3 1 56 Cedric Jones Patriots WR

4 25 108 Charles Bowser Dolphins LB

5 23 134 Dennis Tabron Bears DB

Do you see the spike? I don't. If anything, there were more Blue Devils drafted before he arrived or after he departed than from the time he was there or shortly after.

Again, it's to his credit that he got his Duke teams to win without superior talent. That's diminished to a degree by the mediocrity of the conference. As I've said (and as you've ignored), he's a good coach.

However the point to this analysis is that there is no "Spurrier effect" when it comes to NFL drafting as a general matter. Therefore, you can use the number of draftees from his programs as at least a rough guage of the overall raw football talent on his rosters.

[OrangeSkin]

Maybe he was just a better recruiter. The guy certainly has charisma. Are you honestly telling me that that had no effect upon what he did?

Duke had no ACC championships, and he had no time to build his program through recruiting before he won it there. Look at them since he left. They're Quite possibly the worst D-1A football team in the entire country. Not to mention, SS went 9-2 in his first year at Florida. Not bad for a guy that hadn't had time to bring his own players and develop them yet.

So has the equally crappy Big East with Miami, and that means virtually nothing in this discussion, which is about conference-wide talent, and as we've seen, despite the SEC being an elite college football conference, only one, possibly two teams - Tennessee and Georgia - can rival UF's talent during the Spurrier era.

Just because players get drafted in the NFL doesn't mean they're suddenly all-starts. Hilliard was not worthy of his spot, Jackson has only had one decent year, Gaffney looks good but is only a rookie, etc. This actually lends credence to the success of the Fun 'N Gun, because these players were generally NOT up to the level of talent they were considered to be in college. Same with Matthews, Wuerffel, so on and so forth.

However, as long as we're taking a momentary detour and discussing those two other teams, I don't believe that Miami was always an elite team during that time. Remember, part of Spurrier's tenure had Miami suffering from the NCAA's harsh sanctions.

Miami was sanctioned in the early '90s, Right around the time Steve came to UF, give or take a year. Don't quote me on that. Anyway, if Miami had harsh sanctions before SS's tenure, and Flordia was STILL the third best team in the state, that tells you something about SS's skills.

Thanks again for the info on UF QB's. But why is it that that the other offensive positions, including line positions have made it in the NFL off of UF's team, and stayed there? Name me some offensive linemen who wouldn't have made it to the NFL but for Spurrier?

Being a lineman is pretty much the same no matter where you play. You have to keep D-lineman away from your QB and RB. This doesn't speak to the success or unsuccess of UF players in the NFL, because an O-lineman's responsibilities do not differ greatly from system to system.

Ok, so if defense was a weak spot for Florida, why is it that more, not fewer non-offensive players were drafted out of UF during Spurrier's tenure than offensive players, 34-31? And by my count, only Tennessee has more active NFL non-offensive players among SEC teams than Florida (I say "non-offensive" because I'd have to go back to sort out special teams guys).

SS had some of the best college D-coordinators in the game on his staff. Bob Stoops chief among them, who went on to win the national title at Oklahoma. This just speaks to the immense skill of his defensive coaching staff. Something we have in Marv Lewis.

And about there being less draft picks from Duke, I don't think anybody is disputing the fact that Florida has and always will have superior talent to Duke. So does Rutgers and Eastern Michigan. What's your point? SS was only there for a short time, and it just shows what a great coach he is in that he was able to win an ACC title with the losers that he had.

Like AG said, Clemson was a powerhouse in the '80s, and G-tech in the early '90s. FSU is a perennial winner. Miami was dominant last year. Does it belittle their accomplishments because they come out of weak conferences? I dare you to go up to any pundit and say, "FSU is only a great program because they play in the ACC."