|
Replies: 28
| visibility 105
|
Webmaster [∞]
TigerPulse: 100%
∞
Posts: 44906
Joined: 2012
|
New Story: Jeff Scott: "They're not trying to turn the ball over"
Oct 19, 2016, 8:07 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
TigerNet Elite [73092]
TigerPulse: 100%
61
Posts: 117523
Joined: 1998
|
Re: New Story: Jeff Scott: "They're not trying to turn the ball over"
Oct 19, 2016, 8:28 AM
|
|
I'd like to see our D guys having a part in causing more fumbles
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6876]
TigerPulse: 99%
41
|
The one who caused the fumbles should have been ejected
Oct 19, 2016, 11:06 AM
|
|
for targeting Gallman!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Spirit [9839]
TigerPulse: 100%
44
|
Well tell them to stop.
Oct 19, 2016, 8:59 AM
|
|
nm
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 100%
26
|
2 turnovers
Oct 19, 2016, 9:15 AM
|
|
At FSU and we lose
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6166]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
|
5 turnovers vs Louisville and we lose ... oh, wait!***
Oct 19, 2016, 10:35 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 100%
26
|
Re: 5 turnovers vs Louisville and we lose ... oh, wait!***
Oct 19, 2016, 11:00 AM
|
|
We weren't @ Louisville
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6166]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
|
Guess the good news is that we take better care of the ball
Oct 19, 2016, 1:41 PM
|
|
in road games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1639]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
Re: New Story: Jeff Scott: "They're not trying to turn the ball over"
Oct 19, 2016, 9:54 AM
|
|
Ray-Ray has a bad habit of looking at the coverage right before the ball gets to him, then has to find the ball again. if in doubt, fair catch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Sports Icon [59295]
TigerPulse: 100%
59
Posts: 60796
Joined: 2007
|
Re: New Story: Jeff Scott: "They're not trying to turn the ball over"
Oct 19, 2016, 9:55 AM
|
|
Jeff, I don't think there is a fan in Clemson Nation that thinks or believes that any of our turnovers was done on purpose. What we think and believe, is that more emphasises should be placed on ball security bc hanging onto the ball is the only way we have a chance to score points. Here lately we have been giving our opponents more chances to score than we have had, and it makes it a lot tougher to win those games where we are a much better team than our opponents. Nine turnovers in two games isn't the perfect recipe for winning no matter how good or how lucky we are. We are talented enough that we should never have to depend on the other team missing a short FG to give us a chance to win. Plus that isn't good for our heart, our blood pressure, or our nerves!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Time Great [88986]
TigerPulse: 100%
63
Posts: 24700
Joined: 2006
|
Best is the standard.***
Oct 19, 2016, 10:44 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [21187]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
|
hasen't been the standard so far
Oct 19, 2016, 3:23 PM
|
|
hope they start walking the walk because talk is cheap
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [35206]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
|
Well, they ain't trying to hold onto it either
Oct 19, 2016, 10:48 AM
|
|
Gotta get that fixed. We left to many points on the field last Saturday. At least 21 by my count.
I still think it's incredible that we turned it over 5 times against Louisville and yet we still scored 42. That game wouldn't have been close if we had better ball security.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Time Great [88986]
TigerPulse: 100%
63
Posts: 24700
Joined: 2006
|
I completely agree with you, especially when you consider
Oct 19, 2016, 10:56 AM
|
|
that Louisville ran 99 plays on offense. They had the ball for a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [44]
TigerPulse: 88%
5
|
Re: I completely agree with you, especially when you consider
Oct 19, 2016, 11:01 AM
|
|
> that Louisville ran 99 plays on offense. They had the
> ball for a long time.
Morris used to say if you run 100 plays on offense it's hard to lose a game... guess that's proven wrong or that one more wouldversatile been the game for them
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [44]
TigerPulse: 88%
5
|
Re: I completely agree with you, especially when you consider
Oct 19, 2016, 11:01 AM
[ in reply to I completely agree with you, especially when you consider ] |
|
> that Louisville ran 99 plays on offense. They had the
> ball for a long time.
Morris used to say if you run 100 plays on offense it's hard to lose a game... guess that's proven wrong or that one more wouldversatile been the game for them
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
Posts: 16363
Joined: 1998
|
They actually WERE one play away from the win.
Oct 19, 2016, 11:07 AM
|
|
Of course, they would have had to "execute" play #100 better than they did play #99 ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Offensive Star [323]
TigerPulse: 100%
15
|
Kinda funny if you think about it...***
Oct 19, 2016, 11:36 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13782]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 23006
Joined: 2004
|
If you just look at the box score, there isn't a great
Oct 19, 2016, 11:12 AM
[ in reply to Well, they ain't trying to hold onto it either ] |
|
deal of difference between the State and Louisville games.
-4 TOs vs State and -2 TO margin. 5 TO vs UL and -2 TO margin
-1 TO for a TD to start 2nd half vs State. 1 TO deep in our territory that led to an immediate TD to start 2nd half vs UL
-3 TOs in plus territory against State (+24, +2, +4). 4 TOs in plus territory vs UL (EZ, +39, +5, +44)
-495 yards vs State, 507 yards vs UL
What made the difference? Neither the big plays nor the offensive efficiency was there in the State game. 6.5 yards per carry, 8.18 yards per play, and lots of big plays vs UL. 3.0 yards per carry, 5.44 yards per play, and virtually no big plays vs State.
Our longest run of the game against State was 10 yards. We had two such runs and 1 of them was by Christian Wilkins. Yuck! Our longest play was 21 yards. We had 3 go for that number, two to Williams and one to Renfrow. State managed to hit on plays of (39, 38, 24, and 27).
Despite the TOs we converted 6/9 scoring chances into TDs vs UL. We converted just 2/6 against State.
The overall pace of the game was also slower. Despite running 29 more plays against State than UL (91 vs 62) we had far fewer possessions. Only 10 in regulation against State compared to 17 against UL. 50% of our possessions against State ended in either a TO or a TO on downs. Ouch
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2923]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Great breakdown and comparison!
Oct 19, 2016, 12:22 PM
|
|
Go Tigers!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [16774]
TigerPulse: 91%
51
Posts: 26997
Joined: 2003
|
"they are not trying to turn it over"? Glad we got that
Oct 19, 2016, 11:57 AM
|
|
cleared up...and here I thought the turnovers were by design
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recruit [97]
TigerPulse: 93%
10
|
Re: New Story: Jeff Scott: "They're not trying to turn the ball over"
Oct 19, 2016, 1:16 PM
|
|
Thank you Jeff for the hard work this season.
I would note:
the plays need to get in quicker so the offense isn't rushed to execute. Also, we need an effort for getting as many yards as you can on firstdown, instead always trying the same thing on first. Finally, give the defense a break and execute a series of plays that uses the clock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1150]
TigerPulse: 66%
26
|
Really? I thought they were trying to?***
Oct 19, 2016, 1:21 PM
|
|
Nm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [1]
TigerPulse: 100%
1
|
Re: New Story: Jeff Scott: "They're not trying to turn the ball over"
Oct 19, 2016, 1:29 PM
|
|
Everyone is forgetting the number one fact and that is these turnovers are causing our defense to wear down and putting them in a bad position. Sooner or later if not corrected it will catch up with us!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mascot [21]
TigerPulse: 100%
3
|
Re: New Story: Jeff Scott: "They're not trying to turn the ball over"
Oct 19, 2016, 2:58 PM
|
|
They had the exact same problem last year, and they fixed it. They are more than capable of fixing the problem!
Go Tigers!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [21187]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
|
Deer Jeff Scott They aren't trying to hold on to the ball
Oct 19, 2016, 3:21 PM
|
|
either stop making excuses for the kids and coach them up
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102392]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 67339
Joined: 2002
|
He's right. They're not trying to. BUT
Oct 19, 2016, 3:46 PM
|
|
they are trying way too hard for an extra foot or two on plays where it's not needed. One fumble was when the receiver had already made a great catch and was holding the freaking ball outstretched trying to keep it in bounds to gain another foot or two. You do that when reaching for the cone in the corner of the endzone. Not where he was. Third and one, or third and goal, you pound it for every inch. But after a 20 yard catch and 10 more yard running, you don't stretch the ball out dangerously to get the spot at the 23.5 yard line instead of the 23 yardline.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [17087]
TigerPulse: 95%
51
Posts: 26051
Joined: 2006
|
but they are.and it needs to be fixed..
Oct 19, 2016, 8:03 PM
|
|
9 turnovers in the last two home games
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [74]
TigerPulse: 92%
8
|
Trying to...
Oct 22, 2016, 4:13 PM
|
|
Spare you all with the famous Yoda quote.
Things that were addressed back in March, like the turnover battle. It has got to be fixed. See the NE Patriots, Deon Branch and Welker used to avoid big hits by falling to the ground. We have a target on our back and the ball possession is key. Fighting for a few yards after contact equals more turnovers.
Why are we running the shotgun formation on the one yard line??? Leads to more pressure on the O-line.
When is our O-line going to show consistent and dominant performance that is expected from a #4 team looking for a Championship? They look like a whipped school girl most of the time.
I love CU like we all do. It is time to take off the rose colored glasses and perform. I grow weary of hearing coach after coach say, "oh that was a great win!" No, it wasn't.
Wake up Tigers!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 28
| visibility 105
|
|
|
50
