|
Replies: 19
| visibility 2,783
|
CU Guru [1950]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 2548
Joined: 9/12/04
|
Clemson D vs South Carolina D
Sep 8, 2013, 11:11 PM
|
|
One thing the typical box score won't show you is the drive chart. When you actually analyze what happened, you can see that Clemson was able to stop Georgia, while South Carolina couldn't.
Against Clemson, Georgia was forced to punt, had a turnover on downs, or had a turnover on 9 possessions.
Against South Carolina, Georgia only had 2 possessions that ended in a punt or turnover.
Georgia's offensive output was only similar against us because they had way more possessions against us just because of the nature of our offense. We like to go as fast as possible, which results in more plays and possessions per game.
If we had a slower-paced run-based offense like SC, our defensive numbers would be more impressive.
|
|
|
|
 |
Standout [340]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 544
Joined: 8/14/01
|
Re: Clemson D vs South Carolina D
Sep 8, 2013, 11:21 PM
|
|
Great point. Was thinking about this yesterday.
Also - throw in the junk 60+ yards on their last TD against our prevent defense, and begins to looks a bit better
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3635]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3334
Joined: 10/1/01
|
Re: Clemson D vs South Carolina D
Sep 8, 2013, 11:22 PM
|
|
But those are factual based comments. Coots will never understand those.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [36]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 48
Joined: 6/15/12
|
Re: Clemson D vs South Carolina D
Sep 9, 2013, 12:07 AM
|
|
The coots played a different Georgia team than we did. Tommy Suggs made that very clear on the radio yesterday. GA replaced their entire team, including another Aaron Murray at QB. We would have lost to the GA team that played SC. Just ask the coots...they will tell you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3233]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 4960
Joined: 11/3/06
|
Since it was a conference game they had more SEC speed
Sep 9, 2013, 12:10 AM
|
|
You see, when a SEC team plays an OOC foe they lose their SEC speed. They do this in order to give the other team a fair chance at winning. If they played with SEC speed all of the time all of the teams from another conference would take their ball and go home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2222]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3403
Joined: 9/2/07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4787]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9986
Joined: 6/12/10
|
i ACTUALLY HEARD one sec fan say the usuc/ ugay game
Sep 9, 2013, 3:49 AM
[ in reply to Re: Clemson D vs South Carolina D ] |
|
mattered. (implying that ugay didn't care about the clemson game !)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2507]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4135
Joined: 1/9/12
|
Our DL is deeper, our LBs are better and DBs is a wash
Sep 8, 2013, 11:26 PM
|
|
They MIGHT have more talent on their DL, which after watching these past two games is debatable, but we are 5 deep at DT and 4 deep at DE. I actually think our DTs on a whole are better then theirs.
LB is no contest. In both of their games UNC and UGA have gotten good yardage running the ball because SC lost all their starters last year and the new guys just aren't that good yet. Meanwhile Venables has no problem rotating up to 8 guys in our LB position.
both of the secondarys are a bit suspect but I believe we have more experience out there which will result in fewer busts. Say what you want about our secondary giving up yards but they didn't bite on UGA's play action once all game. When UGA tried it Murray always had to hit his checkdown because the long bomb just wasn't there. Are they good, not really, but the secondary so far is playing a bit better then I would assume.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [68390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 115657
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Our DL is deeper, our LBs are better and DBs is a wash
Sep 9, 2013, 6:58 AM
|
|
I agree. Our coverage at times is ok but the tackling is not good in the open field. even if they cant get them they also cant slow them down for pursuit to help
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1813]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2419
Joined: 9/24/07
|
Almost inconceivably, our DL appeared to fare better
Sep 8, 2013, 11:30 PM
|
|
Between Clowney, Quarles and the others, I'm sure most feel SCAR's DL is far superior to ours. Maybe it was home field advantage. For whatever reason, the UGA offensive line seemed to perform a lot better vs SCAR. I feel like they were just more prepared. It was almost like in our game they didn't know what to expect from our unit. I think the performance of Jarrett and Beasley to a lesser extent really surprised them. I think most would say our LB core is maybe slightly better than theirs. Secondaries are both equally as bad I think. I really can't wait to see how we play vs UMD. I feel like CJ Brown is like a poor man's Connor Shaw. He's probably a better runner, actually. Both suffer from inconsistent passing. It will be encouraging if we can contain him when we play them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [57923]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39850
Joined: 11/12/04
|
home field advantage will be huge. we better be ready to play in that
Sep 9, 2013, 12:15 AM
|
|
cesspool in cootlumbia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3233]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 4960
Joined: 11/3/06
|
Agree with you 100% about UMD
Sep 9, 2013, 12:15 AM
[ in reply to Almost inconceivably, our DL appeared to fare better ] |
|
CJ Brown worries me. He's not going to see the seas part like he did during the Steele days, but he's elusive. The way we play against him will be a good indication of how we'll play against Shaw.
On the DLine. Our home fields advantage definitely came into play. We won't have that against USuC. However, our DLine is better than UGA's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
From the way USuC played
Sep 9, 2013, 8:18 AM
|
|
I would say our D-Line is better than theirs as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [333]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 916
Joined: 4/21/05
|
Re: Almost inconceivably, our DL appeared to fare better
Sep 9, 2013, 12:15 AM
[ in reply to Almost inconceivably, our DL appeared to fare better ] |
|
No. I don't agree with most of your post. Their DL is not far superior to ours. Their first 4 are probably better right out of the gate, but our quality depth and experience shines as the game wears on. Which D got stronger as the game went on against UGA, and which D got gassed? Which D harassed Murray and the RB's more in the backfield?
And to say the LB's are equal is just silly. DB's...Murray threw less times for more TD's, no interceptions, and equal yardage against SC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1813]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2419
Joined: 9/24/07
|
Our LBs have been mediocre at best for awhile now
Sep 9, 2013, 12:27 AM
|
|
Christian is too slow, but a sure tackler and very experienced. Shuey missed his gap assignment on numerous occasions as did Anthony, although Anthony played better on the whole. I like Shuey's motor though. Steward and Jones still seem like they have a lot to learn. Sorry but they just haven't lived up to my expectations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [333]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 916
Joined: 4/21/05
|
Re: Our LBs have been mediocre at best for awhile now
Sep 9, 2013, 12:53 AM
|
|
but the comparison is Clemson's LB's vs SC's LB's.
Not Clemson's LB's vs your expectations.
Clemson has better LB's at this point in time. We just do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4787]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9986
Joined: 6/12/10
|
are you comparing our current 'backers against our former
Sep 9, 2013, 3:56 AM
[ in reply to Our LBs have been mediocre at best for awhile now ] |
|
'backers ? if so, you may have a point, but our lb corp right now is as good and as deep as it has been in many a year, without a doubt.
and yes, they are better then usucs' group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [54068]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43637
Joined: 11/17/03
|
What was the total number of possessions in both games?
Sep 9, 2013, 12:09 AM
|
|
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2755]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3840
Joined: 5/22/07
|
Re: What was the total number of possessions in both games?
Sep 9, 2013, 12:39 AM
|
|
UGA ran 70 plays agianst us and they ran 76 against us
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40970]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42979
Joined: 11/30/98
|
uhh okay***
Sep 9, 2013, 5:12 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 19
| visibility 2,783
|
|
|
50
