|
Replies: 7
| visibility 1
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Defensive play needs perspective?
Dec 2, 2013, 10:15 AM
|
|
Although the defense had trouble on 3rd down for much of the game - keep in mind that we limited their attack to one guy. We also got the critical stops at times that you would think would have turned the tides.
If Humphries doesn't fumble that 2nd punt and if Boyd doesn't get the ball stripped, would we be talking about how the defense came through for us in the clutch? Rewatching this game, I can't help but think that the defense got us the stops when the game was close and when it mattered. Obviously, that's when the turnovers came in to play.
Just think it's interesting that a lot of folks are ignoring their contributions when the game was close, or are throwing them under the bus.
In a game like this, it's useless to look at yards, 3rd down conversion rate, etc. because that ignores the play of the d in crucial situations down the stretch. The more I evaluate what I'm seeing, I see a defense that gave our offense opportunities when the game was close despite not having an answer for Shaw (as many teams haven't).
Sucks for them. They got thrown under the bus in the FSU game, too, despite holding strong while the offense was reeling and giving us a chance to get back within 3.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Yep, it hasn't really been defense that has lost games
Dec 2, 2013, 10:25 AM
|
|
And I would argue that it wasn't the offense that lost the game for us this year, either. I'm not sure Boyd is pressing on those last two int's if Humphries doesn't fumble the ball twice on punts. If you bracket the two int's and the fumbled punts, we've got two turnovers deep on their side of the field. That can be overcome. What can't be overcome is 6 turnovers with three of them giving South Carolina easy scores.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1571]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1857
Joined: 9/8/02
|
Yeah somebody else gets it, Defense played well but you
Dec 2, 2013, 10:25 AM
|
|
guys get down on the defense not stopping connershaw. When they finally get off the field we turn it over and the defense runs right back out on the field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [5]
TigerPulse: 87%
Posts: 23
Joined: 11/25/12
|
Robinson was another reason for their passing execution..
Dec 2, 2013, 11:52 AM
|
|
I haven't seen anyone mention how poor Robinson played. I know our secondary has been depleted at times this year, and not having Blanks in this game hurt, but it's inexcusable for Robinson to give up so many big plays. At times he was turned around and on that huge pass interference play he basically pulled the receiver down but he was still able to catch the ball.
I can't wait for M. Alexander to come in next year and give us that shutdown corner we so desperately need. I'm excited about Kearse upside as well and a few others, but it was obvious, especially in the FSU game, that we need more size and speed in our secondary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
Robinson was fine
Dec 2, 2013, 2:52 PM
|
|
Shaw threw the ball where Roland could catch it and Robinson couldn't defend it. Shaw (and Spurrier) go with the best physical matchup, and Robinson couldn't defend Roland on high balls. We could do the same thing, but for some reason (either Boyd or Morris) refuses to use our 2 6'5 Wide receivers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Robinson was fine
Dec 2, 2013, 2:54 PM
|
|
I thought we would put Breeland on Roland, seeing as how that was the ideal physical matchup. But I guess we ran a lot of zone so it was more of a boundary side vs. field side thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
Yep
Dec 2, 2013, 2:56 PM
|
|
We played zone, and Spurrier and Shaw went with the best match up in the zone. Shaw allows his team mates to make plays in the passing game. Boyd tries to make the plays himself with the perfect throw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6883]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 9173
Joined: 7/11/03
|
You are exactly right. Defense was not the primary issue...
Dec 2, 2013, 2:57 PM
|
|
in this game. Turnovers and a non-productive O were bigger culprits. play calling had alot to do with the O being less productive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 7
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
