Maybe, but our D doesn't play their D. Our D plays their O and so on and so forth. I get that we are statistically better on D, but I am not sure the competition has been similar. Honestly, I haven't looked at it and don't care enough to.
Which is why I said that the flip side is that our O would wear them out too.
Fair enough, and no worries. You know I don't get worked up about being wrong. I think the "thin" issue has more to do with the unknowns more than reality. We just aren't entirely sure what kind of depth we may or may not have. Take Turnage as an example. I had no idea how he would play when forced into action. He looked great. We still don't know if that will be consistent. One game is not enough data. But he did look good so no reason to believe that he isn't capable. The same goes with the O-line. They looked suspect earlier, and especially the 2s and 3s. Some of those guys are playing a lot better. Still, the second half of the SC game showed some potential depth issues. There were more mistakes once we started subbing more and the level dropped off, and it did appear that the O-line and D-line groups got sluggish. Maybe to be expected, but still.
Also, for the record, I never said we were untalented compared to anybody. I actually like the talent level right now with the first team. I think we could improve here and there, but overall, I think we are on par with a lot of teams in the SEC and better than quite a few. With regards to Ole Miss, I think we match up with them pretty well at the skill positions. I just don't know enough about their O-line though.
I'll reiterate though, that the factor that seems important here to me is that Ole Miss played a tough game to the wire, while we coasted along. This sets up to be a great opportunity to get a win against a ranked opponent.
