Something to keep in mind about the '05-'06 champs

[DuPontGator]

Originally Posted by whitelakegator

Hey, hopefully they surprise me. I will be cheering my arse off and I am going to enjoy it.

Totally agree. I'll be cheering too. Hopefully I will be enjoying it.
Go Gators!

[ofmgator]

That team was down in 2006 but Al Horfords father (or another dad) had dinner with the players and told them that they were playing from behind and how to win. Then they went on a tear. However, for comparisons sake remember that in 2006 the SEC was a much stronger league then it is today. Thus there is no reasonable way to compare '06 with 2013.

[regurgigator]

There's no need to compare the teams!

The thread starter can correct me if I'm wrong, but the point of the OP is to illustrate - which the OP does very well - that just because a team falters, and does so at "critical" moments when regular season games are on the line, doesn't mean the team is terminally flawed and incapable of competing well in the Tourney.

It's a simple concept, which the 05/06 team (and many others teams), and the specific examples given, demonstrates with great clarity and flair

Yes, you can point out why you believe this team is otherwise flawed or has weaknesses and won't do well, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. But, the fact that this team has faltered and blown leads a few times is no guarantee of failure. Not sure why there's so much argument against a premise that has been so well, and so simply, proven.

[MadduxFanII]

The thread starter can correct me if I'm wrong, but the point of the OP is to illustrate - which the OP does very well - that just because a team falters, and does so at "critical" moments when regular season games are on the line, doesn't mean the team is terminally flawed and incapable of competing well in the Tourney.

This is basically right.

It's easy to say, "Oh, this team is nothing like the 05-06 teams," but it's only easy because of hindsight. We know what happened in the SEC Tournament and NCAA Tournament that season and next. That knowledge colors all perceptions and comparisons.

At this point in 2006, that wasn't looking like a special team. It was a team that had greatly exceeded expectations, whereas this team as pretty much met pre-season expectations, and it was a team that even then clearly had more future NBA talent (Noah and Horford were lottery picks even before the tournaments started).

Beyond that, however, there was no evidence that the team had some great willpower or clutch ability. In fact, most available endgame situations indicated pretty much the exact opposite.

[tommyuf21]

Originally Posted by regurgigator

Yes, you can point out why you believe this team is otherwise flawed or has weaknesses and won't do well, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. But, the fact that this team has faltered and blown leads a few times is no guarantee of failure. Not sure why there's so much argument against a premise that has been so well, and so simply, proven.

You make a good point.

I maintain that the close losses can be attributed to our weaknesses in specific areas and that we depend on at least 3 (if not all four--I include Murph here) of our guards to play well in order to win against good competition.

We simply do not have the low post go to guy that can bail us out if two to three of our guards are not hitting.

The reason they are close losses (and not blow out losses) is due to our outstanding defensive play. Previous teams would have been destroyed at Missouri and UT because of the mediocre defense those teams displayed.

This is the first season in many years where we have been in just about every game we played. There has always been at least two-three games where we were totally outclassed and never had a legitimate shot at winning.

[gatordavisl]

Can't rep you now, tommy, but you make a whole lotta sense. . . again.