|
Replies: 20
| visibility 82
|
Webmaster [∞]
TigerPulse: 100%
∞
Posts: 45380
Joined: 2012
|
Football Update: SI.com Bowl Prediction for Clemson-OSU
Dec 31, 2013, 11:41 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Medallion [20752]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 17339
Joined: 2008
|
Clemson really thrives in the underdog role. Thanks SI!***
Dec 31, 2013, 11:43 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [297]
TigerPulse: 92%
14
|
Not to rain on your parade, but...
Dec 31, 2013, 12:36 PM
|
|
We're 4-9 as underdogs over the past 4 years, including 1-2 this year...
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5636]
TigerPulse: 97%
39
|
don't take the sunshine from the pumpers
Dec 31, 2013, 3:21 PM
|
|
it's the holidays
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4506]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4876]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: Football Update: SI.com Bowl Prediction for Clemson-OSU
Dec 31, 2013, 11:47 AM
|
|
deff like being in this position. Same thing as LSU last year, sry Tigers....no chance in winning this game! Nothing like extra motivation to prove people wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1331]
TigerPulse: 100%
28
|
Did this guy watch college football this season?
Dec 31, 2013, 11:54 AM
|
|
We held two of the best backs in the nation (one who rushed for the holy grail number of over 2,000 yards) to two of their worst games this season.
Clemson played in 3 big games this season and obviously lost 2 of them. But the one with the entire off season of buildup we won. Ohio State played in two "big" games this season (if you count the Michigan game) lost one, and won the other one by a point on late game failed 2-point conversion. Is this writer from the buckeye state?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 58393
Joined: 2003
|
Yep...
Dec 31, 2013, 12:04 PM
|
|
I thought fans hard short memories, but apparently sports writers are just as bad. The repeated analysis of Clemson this year seems to suggest that our run defense isn't very good and that we couldn't win the big game. But we did win what looked like a huge game at the beginning of the year, and that's why Clemson was in the top 10 for pretty much the whole year. As you said, Clemson also did a good job of bottling up the run when it mattered.
Very few of the analysts seem to have noticed that Clemson has trouble when it turns the ball over and seems to give up the big play far too often. Maybe if they'd have contacted Tim Bourret they'd know something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14935]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 12319
Joined: 2006
|
We're holding opponents to just over 150 yds rushing/game
Dec 31, 2013, 12:09 PM
|
|
and that includes 2 triple option teams, the SEC East's leading rusher, and the NCAA's leading rusher.
I'm not worried about us vs. "the run." If he had said our D vs. Miller scrambling--that's another story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [846]
TigerPulse: 93%
23
|
Re: We're holding opponents to just over 150 yds rushing/game
Dec 31, 2013, 12:58 PM
|
|
I hope you do not mind, but I responded to the article using this info.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5304]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: We're holding opponents to just over 150 yds rushing/game
Dec 31, 2013, 1:13 PM
|
|
except you got the yards wrong about Andre Williams...he only had 24 carries for 70 yards...not 81.
http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?id=332850228
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rookie [14]
TigerPulse: 100%
2
|
Aren't particularly strong against the run...
Dec 31, 2013, 12:26 PM
|
|
Why don't they go ask Mike Davis or Andre Williams about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recruit [75]
TigerPulse: 100%
8
|
Why do people keep saying we aren't good against the run?
Dec 31, 2013, 12:31 PM
|
|
What evidence backs this up? I think we've done well against the run this year.
We beat UGA which had two great healthy running backs in Marshall and Gurley. We held BC's running back to his second worst game all season (better than FSU did). We kept Mike Davis in check (although we gave up yards to the QB).
It seems like fans are just supposed to accept that Clemson "isn't good against the run" without any facts supporting that claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addict [441]
TigerPulse: 34%
17
|
Probably the recency effect of Shaw, even thought that
Dec 31, 2013, 12:36 PM
|
|
really count as being good or bad against the run. The writer really needs to clarify- we are great against the traditional run with the runningback (see Davis and Williams' stats), but not great against the QB run. Big difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5304]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: Probably the recency effect of Shaw, even thought that
Dec 31, 2013, 1:16 PM
|
|
Problem is he never even mentions Miller as the run threat...he focuses on their backs...his big fail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3573]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
UGA had over 200 yards rushing.
Jan 1, 2014, 11:49 AM
[ in reply to Why do people keep saying we aren't good against the run? ] |
|
Gurley was 12 for 154. Take away his 75 yard TD and he still had around a 7 yard average per carry.
BC has no other option than running. We could focus on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Spirit [9295]
TigerPulse: 74%
44
Posts: 19295
Joined: 2009
|
Zac was bullied as a kid...poor Zac***
Dec 31, 2013, 2:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2916]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
And underdog vs FSU and SC got us?***
Dec 31, 2013, 3:52 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2537]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Re: Football Update: SI.com Bowl Prediction for Clemson-OSU
Jan 1, 2014, 12:01 AM
|
|
Point - camcgee, for pointing that out...because what other QB really ran it on us? Shut down GT, Jammys didn't, only Shaw ran it on us & that's QB runs. A little scary with Braxton...but think our guys have learned & step up!
Stop some of their run...& done!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2537]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
We all know what the "big - time " running backs did!
Jan 1, 2014, 12:08 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [415]
TigerPulse: 97%
17
|
Not strong against the run?!
Jan 1, 2014, 1:46 AM
|
|
We have held every RB minus gurley under their season average. What a idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 20
| visibility 82
|
|
|
50
