Most Talented Team

[TAYLORKEETON 858]

Apologize if this has been discussed before, but I want to hear everybody's opinion on the most talented AU team of all time. As far as the players go...I say 03 was the most talented team, even though it didn't say so on the field. Offense was STACKED. Defense...STACKED. I will never understand how that team underachieved so much that year.

[cooltigger21 0]

Apologize if this has been discussed before, but I want to hear everybody's opinion on the most talented AU team of all time. As far as the players go...I say 03 was the most talented team, even though it didn't say so on the field. Offense was STACKED. Defense...STACKED. I will never understand how that team underachieved so much that year.

coaching or the lack thereof was the issue. Promoting Hugh Nall to OC was a disaster waiting to happen. They also bought into the preseason hype as well.

[Mikey 16,781]

Apologize if this has been discussed before, but I want to hear everybody's opinion on the most talented AU team of all time. As far as the players go...I say 03 was the most talented team, even though it didn't say so on the field. Offense was STACKED. Defense...STACKED. I will never understand how that team underachieved so much that year.

I didn't see them play, but those who did say the undefeated 1957 team that gave up 40 points all season was the most talented. In the day when most players didn't play pro football, guys like Jackie Burkett, Joe Childress, Jim Phillips, Dave Edwards and others I can't think of right now stuck in the NFL for a long time.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Yeah, Nallsminger was the undoing of that '03 team. Also, whatever weird mojo that led up to Jetgate might've had some effect.

I dunno. '04 might've been a more talented roster? Some folks point to '83? I don't remember them well enough to compare.

I'm guessing that this particular roster we have now might've gotten you thinking about it? Hard to argue against this being the most talented offense. I suspect we have around 7 future NFL players in our starting lineup, but possibly more than twice that in our 2-deep. On defense, though, it's hard to compare to the '03-'06 glory years. We've got a little more star power, I feel like, but we're only slowly emerging from the Chizik experiment.

Going strictly by recruiting analysis, next year we will be off the charts across the board. 2 deep with 4-star talent on average at every position on the field, except maybe Star, which it seems hard to recruit highly rated guys to. Experience will be a different story, though.

[Auctoritas 2,912]

Apologize if this has been discussed before, but I want to hear everybody's opinion on the most talented AU team of all time. As far as the players go...I say 03 was the most talented team, even though it didn't say so on the field. Offense was STACKED. Defense...STACKED. I will never understand how that team underachieved so much that year.

coaching or the lack thereof was the issue. Promoting Hugh Nall to OC was a disaster waiting to happen. They also bought into the preseason hype as well.

Up the middle! Up the middle! Short pass, punt!

[JDUBB4AU 5,304]

2004 team

[AubTigers 25]

I'll go with the 1988 team. Tracy Rocker, David Rocker, Walter Reeves, Craig Ogletree, Benji Rowland, Ed King, Lawyer Tillman, Ron Stallworth, Carlo Cheattom, and Rodney Garner just to name a few.

[WDavE 332]

I will go with the 1983 version of the Auburn Tigers.....

11-1

We got screwed out of the NC. We played Michigan I believe in the Sugar Bowl and won 9-7. At the time, we were ranked third in the country going into the game. #1 and #2 lost their bowl games and we got jumped by the 5th placed team.

[augolf1716 21,979]

I will go with the 1983 version of the Auburn Tigers.....

11-1

We got screwed out of the NC. We played Michigan I believe in the Sugar Bowl and won 9-7. At the time, we were ranked third in the country going into the game. #1 and #2 lost their bowl games and we got jumped by the 5th placed team.

I believe that was Miami

[trout54 55]

2003..... team and coaches divided over who the starting quarterback should be. the team wanted Jason Campbell, but didn't get him. unfortunately, the players got to flop until they got who they wanted. as difficult as it is to believe, I had a former player tell me (upon my asking what happened the previous year) "don't you think it is strange that the defense even started playing better once Jason was put in the game?(referring to the USC game, and again the next week against GT)". They pulled together as a team, and basically sacrificed their season to make a point. SMH

[WarEagle84 0]

I will go with the 1983 version of the Auburn Tigers.....

11-1

We got screwed out of the NC. We played Michigan I believe in the Sugar Bowl and won 9-7. At the time, we were ranked third in the country going into the game. #1 and #2 lost their bowl games and we got jumped by the 5th placed team.

#1 Nebraska lost to #4 Miami 31-30 on failed 2-pt conversion late (by far the most entertaining game of the day). Nebraska was scoring 60+ when that was a rarity, and there was discussion that they were the best college team ever.

#2 Texas (our only loss) lost to #5(?) UGA

#3 Auburn beat #8(?) Michigan 9-7 on 3 Al Del Greco FGs (on at same time as Orange Bowl).

At the time, all the major bowls were on Jan 1, with 2 on at the same time. This was before DVRs, so you watched one game and read about the other (and most poll voters were watching #1 Nebraska in the Orange Bowl).

1983 definitely belongs in the discussion, but I am impressed with the undefeated, unscored-upon 1913 team. Given the bigger, faster, stronger, better conditioned athletes today, our 2012 team probably could have beat them, but relative to the other teams at the time, they were dominating.

Golf, perhaps you can give us a first hand account of what it was like to watch that team play.

[caleb1633 1,421]

This one may be the most talented when we look back on it

[tombigbeetiger 223]

1988 and the next is 1983 and the others don't come close....those two teams should have been NC's....different circumstances prevented either one from doing it, but they were the best teams in the country for those years

[juscAUse 1]

I will go with the 1983 version of the Auburn Tigers.....

11-1

We got screwed out of the NC. We played Michigan I believe in the Sugar Bowl and won 9-7. At the time, we were ranked third in the country going into the game. #1 and #2 lost their bowl games and we got jumped by the 5th placed team.

Yes, Yes, Hell yes! I don't know if we could have beaten USC in ' 2004. I know we were much better than OU, and I think we could have come out on top.The best team I ever saw played Michigan in the Sugar Bowl (?) We watched in a bar in Fort Walton Beach. Thank goodness for a bar owner that went to the Plains! Strength of schedule alone made us the best team in the nation that year. Great lines on both sides of the ball.

[AUbritt 611]

2003 had the most talent, if you judge by performance in the pros.

[Rednilla 5,449]

I will go with the 1983 version of the Auburn Tigers.....

11-1

We got screwed out of the NC. We played Michigan I believe in the Sugar Bowl and won 9-7. At the time, we were ranked third in the country going into the game. #1 and #2 lost their bowl games and we got jumped by the 5th placed team.

#1 Nebraska lost to #4 Miami 31-30 on failed 2-pt conversion late (by far the most entertaining game of the day). Nebraska was scoring 60+ when that was a rarity, and there was discussion that they were the best college team ever.

#2 Texas (our only loss) lost to #5(?) UGA

#3 Auburn beat #8(?) Michigan 9-7 on 3 Al Del Greco FGs (on at same time as Orange Bowl).

At the time, all the major bowls were on Jan 1, with 2 on at the same time. This was before DVRs, so you watched one game and read about the other (and most poll voters were watching #1 Nebraska in the Orange Bowl).

1983 definitely belongs in the discussion, but I am impressed with the undefeated, unscored-upon 1913 team. Given the bigger, faster, stronger, better conditioned athletes today, our 2012 team probably could have beat them, but relative to the other teams at the time, they were dominating.

Golf, perhaps you can give us a first hand account of what it was like to watch that team play.

It was 1914 that the team held every opponent scoreless, but one game (I think against Ga. Tech) ended in a scoreless tie. The 1913 team did outscore opponents like 224-13, though, and was the more dominant of the two squads.

And I was thinking Miami was #5? In any case, their one loss that season came to Florida, whom we beat, and four of the last five games were against top 20 opponents, three of which were against the top 10. There's just no way we shouldn't have at least won a share of the title that season.

Anyway, if I had to choose one team as the most talented in Auburn history, I'd have to go with either '57 or '88, even though I'm not old enough to remember either of those teams. Hard to argue with the 03 team being the most talented, though, even if it didn't play out on the field.

[DivisionN 102]

I didn't see the 57 team, but they sure had some legends. The most talented teams, overall, that I have seen were Pat Dye's squads in his heyday. Those teams were deep and talented. The 03 team was loaded, but had the dumbest coaching staff since Barfield. I think we may see all of those teams eclipsed within the next few years.

[mcgufcm 4,109]

2003 only comes close if you measure them by what the players became. If you're looking at that particular year, Jason wasn't ready, Devin had the yips, Rosegreen was an over matched CB, etc. that team looks great on paper, but the OC wasn't the only reason for its demise. We also got manhandled in Baton Rouge and Athens by those offenses. 2003 had a few great players in their prime and a bunch of soon to be great players that weren't ready.

2004, 1983, and one of those late 80s SEC champs are the most talented groups of my lifetime.

[eibua12 81]

does anyone think the 1993 team would have beaten FSU that year?

[mcgufcm 4,109]

Personally, no.

[NoALtiger 4,034]

I'm trying hard but I really can't come up with a team more talented across the board than the '88 squad. They the the first I thought of when I read the title for a reason I guess. Like others, I'd say the '03-'04 teams were also extremely stacked. I am also very confident you'll see some CGM teams listed in this in the future.

[cooltigger21 0]

I'm trying hard but I really can't come up with a team more talented across the board than the '88 squad. They the the first I thought of when I read the title for a reason I guess. Like others, I'd say the '03-'04 teams were also extremely stacked. I am also very confident you'll see some CGM teams listed in this in the future.

88 oh what could have been but for one stinking offsides penalty.