|
Replies: 30
| visibility 4564
|
Playmaker [396]
TigerPulse: 95%
16
|
Jack Clark really didnt
2
18
18
Mar 30, 2024, 11:05 PM
|
|
Have much impact this season, not gonna miss him
|
|
|
|
 |
Legend [7097]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: Jack Clark really didnt
6
6
Mar 30, 2024, 11:07 PM
|
|
I was thinking the same thing. So much hype for basically nothing. All I heard all year was, "wait till we get clark back" and he's been a non factor
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14661]
TigerPulse: 80%
49
Posts: 23153
Joined: 1998
|
Re: Jack Clark really didnt
1
18
18
Mar 30, 2024, 11:28 PM
|
|
you people truly are idiots. we would not be on this run without clark. he always guarded the best player. some of you need to get a new hobby
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Protector [1487]
TigerPulse: 100%
29
|
Re: Jack Clark really didnt
8
8
Mar 30, 2024, 11:09 PM
|
|
He has dominated of defense.. he’s a non factor most game offensively but he is usually shutting down whoever he guards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3253]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
Re: Jack Clark really didnt
2
Mar 30, 2024, 11:11 PM
|
|
The offense/defense combo with him and Wiggins could've worked if Wiggins had filled his role
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [135]
TigerPulse: 99%
11
|
Re: Jack Clark really didnt
18
18
Mar 30, 2024, 11:12 PM
|
|
He was the best defender and no way Clemson makes elite 8 without him. He was a great impact and hopefully we get someone as flexible of a defender as him next year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5464]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
BS, he made a heckuva contribution...
8
8
Mar 30, 2024, 11:20 PM
|
|
this season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1588]
TigerPulse: 91%
30
|
Re: Jack Clark really didnt
2
Mar 30, 2024, 11:21 PM
|
|
BS, he made a heckuva contribution this season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4607]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: Jack Clark really didnt
2
Mar 30, 2024, 11:22 PM
|
|
6’10 guy who played like he’s 6’3. Should’ve been a matchup nightmare attacking the rim the remainder of the season. Instead he stayed park out at the 3 point line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27374]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 33572
Joined: 2009
|
He was more of a defensive piece
2
Mar 30, 2024, 11:29 PM
|
|
Not meant to be a big scoring threat. Coaches highly regarded his value
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2618]
TigerPulse: 92%
33
|
He didnt do Jack. Wish we had Middlebrooks***
3
Mar 30, 2024, 11:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2982]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Obviously some of you dont watch basketballhes a defensive specialist
3
Mar 30, 2024, 11:33 PM
|
|
And that was his role on this team.
Look at our record with and without him and you’ll see what he meant to this team.
Not everyone scores lots of points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [16948]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
Posts: 16889
Joined: 2004
|
Re: Obviously some of you dont watch basketballhes a defensive specialist
Mar 31, 2024, 3:02 PM
|
|
For a “defensive specialist” he sucks big time when it comes to blocking out when the shot goes up. Alabama had 13 offensive rebounds in the first half last night. Half of those were due to Clark not blocking out. That lost the game for us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1764]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
Re: Jack Clark really didnt
2
Mar 30, 2024, 11:47 PM
|
|
Then you don't know roundball, Clark was a lockdown defender.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7853]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 15768
Joined: 2001
|
This is the dumbest post of the year
2
Mar 30, 2024, 11:50 PM
|
|
But there is still 9 months to go so you may catch a break. You should obviously stick to something else besides basketball.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5464]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Absolutely dumb, wrong, and tasteless....i agree
Mar 30, 2024, 11:53 PM
|
|
maybe a few more as well
Message was edited by: Lennon-McCartney®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1840]
TigerPulse: 90%
31
|
Re: Jack Clark really didnt
1
Mar 30, 2024, 11:50 PM
|
|
You know literally nothing about basketball. Jack Clark was by far our best perimeter defender. His length and impact on the perimeter is going to be a massive loss. If we can even get 75% of that from Wiggins it'll be huge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [1091]
TigerPulse: 100%
25
|
Re: Jack Clark really didnt
2
Mar 31, 2024, 12:01 AM
|
|
Dumb post
Jack’s role was to play defense and get rebounds… he did that in spades
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1805]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
Re: Jack Clark really didnt
2
Mar 31, 2024, 12:04 AM
|
|
Huh? Did you actually watch the games when he was healthy including the tournament, he’s never been nor did we bring him in to be an elite scorer… but he is an elite defender without a doubt and can give you some spurts on offense. He was a huge part of this run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1551]
TigerPulse: 100%
30
|
Re: Jack Clark really didnt
2
Mar 31, 2024, 12:20 AM
|
|
Weren’t you ripping on Chase a couple of weeks ago? I remember when I was first following basketball too. You’ll figure it out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2881]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Re: Jack Clark really didnt
Mar 31, 2024, 12:22 AM
|
|
Lmao....y'all are dumb mofo's...you haven't watched every game!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [925]
TigerPulse: 100%
24
|
Re: Jack Clark really didnt
1
Mar 31, 2024, 12:37 AM
|
|
Anyone that thinks Jack Clark didn't help this team never played a sport. Listen you bunch of nerds go back to playing dungeons and dragons and watching ####.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redshirt [90]
TigerPulse: 100%
10
|
Re: Jack Clark really didnt
1
Mar 31, 2024, 12:37 AM
|
|
|
|
Statistical models would disagree with this assessment. You could argue that he wasn't the top offensive option of our starting 5; however, his all-around game had the 2nd largest impact on our team behind PJ Hall (see attached results).
Source: https://evanmiya.com/?player_ratings
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [46605]
TigerPulse: 78%
58
Posts: 34843
Joined: 2003
|
He did a lot of things that didnt show up in the stat sheet.
Mar 31, 2024, 12:37 AM
|
|
He is an excellent defender and made it hard on the man he was guarding. His length and athleticism is a problem.
He is also a very good rebounder, which did show up in the stat sheet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27997]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 15785
Joined: 2015
|
This is a DA post... if I ever seen one...***
Mar 31, 2024, 9:15 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4176]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
The fun question: would Middlebrooks have been better for Clemson?
Mar 31, 2024, 9:18 AM
|
|
Since all we did was swap.
Ben is playing some great ball these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [1043]
TigerPulse: 100%
25
|
Re: The fun question: would Middlebrooks have been better for Clemson?
1
Mar 31, 2024, 9:52 AM
|
|
Pretty easy question to answer. No. He would have been in the same role he has played for the wolfpack. He was used the same way at Clemson. He spelled Burns this year, and PJ previously. Clark started when healthy, played great defense on the perimeter, and was an added rebounder to help Ian and the team. Ben has improved, but he will not be a player that will get you double figure scoring and rebounding on a nightly bases. Just not that type of player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11815]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
|
Really dumb take, he drew the toughest defensive
Mar 31, 2024, 12:54 PM
|
|
Assignments. He tied PJ for most steals.
Your post is like saying Dennis Rodman didn’t contribute to the Chicago Bulls Championships when in fact his defensive prowess, rebounds, and most importantly willingness to sacrifice personal offensive stats for the greater good was invaluable to his teams success.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2764]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Uh...
1
Mar 31, 2024, 1:28 PM
|
|
I don't feel that way about Jack Clark, but this is exactly how I would feel if you left the Clemson fanbase.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2298]
TigerPulse: 92%
32
|
we will badly miss himnbext yr.***
Mar 31, 2024, 1:54 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4135]
TigerPulse: 95%
36
|
Re: Jack Clark really didnt
Mar 31, 2024, 2:10 PM
|
|
You’re delusional
I don’t know any other response to this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 30
| visibility 4564
|
|
|
50
