6 chatters in TigerActive   Go!  
Front Page » TigerNet Forums » Archives » Tiger Board Archive

Topic: FB Update: SI's Stewart Mandel on Clemson and SCar
Replies: 46   Last Post: Jan 16, 2014 8:59 AM by: Sludgemuffin®
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.



Back to [ Archives - Tiger Board Archive ]
Right, but wrong in a lot of ways, too... [5]
Posted: Jan 15, 2014 12:36 PM
 

"They gave up the run to stop Tajh and rush his decision making. It worked, he threw too many ints. Those could be viewed as takeaways rather than giveaways if he was rushed or frazzled which he is everytime he plays the coots."

That's the kind of statement I would expect from somebody who didn't watch the game and didn't realize that Tajh threw one pick that was forced when we were trying to come back after the second time we messed up the punt, and that he threw the other pick in garbage time. Other than the two interceptions, he was 19/ 25. Since he was averaging more than 8 yards per pass, if Clemson has the chance to run just 6-8 more passing plays, he gets over 300 yards. Had Humphries not dropped the two punts, we get those plays.

So if "they gave up the run to stop Tajh," then they didn't do a very good job of it.



"The biggest stat is the huge dropoff in avg yards the coots held Clemson to. Take a close look at the yardage. Clemson was stuffed again with 200 yds less offense than usual. Some may say that would be different without 6 turnovers."


Uh, duh. Yes, there was a "big dropoff in avg yards," but the reason was the number of plays Clemson ran, not the amount of yards per play Clemson gained. For the year, Clemson averaged 6.38 yards per play. Against South Carolina, they averaged 6.2 yards per play. That tells us that Clemson would've done about as well as they usually did had they been able to have their normal amount of plays (78.7, on average), rather than the 57 plays they ended up with (South Carolina finished with 78 plays, and ran the ball 50 times).

Now, if Clemson's defense hadn't been playing well, or if South Carolina converted on an abnormal amount of third downs, you could chalk that up to South Carolina just having a better game. However, Clemson converted on 6/11 third downs, which was 10% better than their season average, while South Carolina converted on 10/19. While South Carolina's third down conversion percentage was a good bit better than what Clemson usually gave up, Clemson still had a higher third down conversion percentage than South Carolina. So I don't think we can chalk up South Carolina's advantage in number of plays called to poor third down defense.

Instead, there were two turnovers on punts that took away plays from Clemson and gave them to South Carolina. After the first muffed punt, South Carolina took 6 plays to score from the Clemson 39. After the second fumbled punt, South Carolina took 3 plays to score from the Clemson 34. So South Carolina gains 9 plays and scores 14 points. If we assume that Clemson runs at least as many plays as South Carolina did (and I think we can assume that, given the longer field Clemson would've been facing), those 9 plays might've resulted in another 56 yards. Clemson then ends up with 408 yards. But if we assume Clemson runs just 6 plays on each drive, then Clemson at least gets into field goal range both times. Either way, I think it's pretty clear that South Carolina's defense wasn't the reason Clemson didn't gain their average number of yards.


Now this is way too many "ifs and buts" for me, but I think the idea that South Carolina really beat Clemson in any facet of the game other than holding onto the ball needs to be disproven. No, South Carolina didn't "dismantle" Clemson, no they didn't "dominate" them. If anything, aside from the turnovers, Clemson did those things to South Carolina.

192 people have read this post

Subject (Replies: 46) Author Date Posted
FB Update: SI's Stewart Mandel on Clemson and SCar
TigerNet News® Jan 15, 2014 11:03 AM
OK...
camcgee® Jan 15, 2014 11:14 AM
...except win the game.***
Topher Jan 15, 2014 11:17 AM
and recover 6 turnovers***
Tiger Woods Jan 15, 2014 11:17 AM
guess you shouldn't have 6 turnovers then *******
gamecock9 Jan 15, 2014 11:23 AM
Yep...
camcgee® Jan 15, 2014 11:32 AM
That BS offsides by Clemson was a tunover too.
Tiger Woods Jan 15, 2014 11:34 AM
forgot about that
camcgee® Jan 15, 2014 11:57 AM
SC also had an offsides that led to a TD for us.
Mike1189 Jan 15, 2014 12:30 PM
On the offsides, maybe, but that's beside the point***
camcgee® Jan 15, 2014 12:37 PM
Re: SC also had an offsides that led to a TD for us.
allorangeallthetime52® Jan 16, 2014 12:18 AM
Re: That BS offsides by Clemson was a tunover too.
MackDaddy® Jan 15, 2014 10:20 PM
Re: guess you shouldn't have 6 turnovers then *******
allorangeallthetime52® Jan 16, 2014 12:15 AM
Re: and recover 6 turnovers***
EazyE Jan 15, 2014 11:24 AM
yeah...forcing those two punt reception fumbles was
tigrjm76® Jan 15, 2014 11:34 AM
The first one was a gift, the second one was a strip on the
Mike1189 Jan 15, 2014 12:30 PM
Re: and recover 6 turnovers***
allorangeallthetime52® Jan 16, 2014 12:19 AM
Only two of those really mattered, in the end
camcgee® Jan 15, 2014 11:27 AM
Re: ...except win the game.***
IvegottheCooties Jan 15, 2014 11:00 PM
None of the excuses for the 2013 game explain the other 4
BentZero Jan 15, 2014 2:17 PM
Hey guys did you hear
Purple_Panther Jan 15, 2014 11:26 AM
clearly
DrDre Jan 15, 2014 11:27 AM
Re: FB Update: SI's Stewart Mandel on Clemson and SCar
kiknchkn® Jan 15, 2014 11:39 AM
Right, but wrong in a lot of ways, too...
camcgee® Jan 15, 2014 12:36 PM
Re: Right, but wrong in a lot of ways, too...
Dugatiger® Jan 15, 2014 2:26 PM
Camcgee - which teams usually commit fewer turnovers?
Sludgemuffin® Jan 15, 2014 10:20 PM
Tell 'em coot!***
cutgrfan® Jan 15, 2014 1:24 PM
#Clemsoning***
OberTiger Jan 15, 2014 12:21 PM
Re: #Clemsoning***
tigerstripe777 Jan 15, 2014 12:44 PM
stop making excuses. they beat our tails!***
RU4GOD2® Jan 15, 2014 12:42 PM
Re: stop making excuses. they beat our tails!***
tigerstripe777 Jan 15, 2014 12:46 PM
You beat us. Period. But...
SeattleTiger Jan 15, 2014 1:38 PM
Seattle - just stop.
Sludgemuffin® Jan 15, 2014 9:51 PM
Re: You beat us. Period. But...
allorangeallthetime52® Jan 16, 2014 12:23 AM
On the conference respect angle, Clemson was second in
Tigers Rule Jan 15, 2014 12:48 PM
Tennessee is better than Carolina
Purple_Panther Jan 15, 2014 12:50 PM
Foot Cuckers.
TigerNation88 Jan 15, 2014 1:12 PM
"Recovered 6 turnovers"
Spook Jan 15, 2014 1:24 PM
This is TigerNet
Spook Jan 15, 2014 2:04 PM
Re: This is TigerNet
92TigerJohn Jan 15, 2014 2:08 PM
Re: This is TigerNet
tigerstripe777 Jan 15, 2014 3:50 PM
Re: This is TigerNet
Tigerluvr Jan 15, 2014 9:20 PM
How many times are you going to post this? History does NOT
TigerzzRoar® Jan 16, 2014 12:14 AM
sludgemuffin is an idiot...
FEEL Jan 16, 2014 12:39 AM
Finished 4th in sec
jmj212 Jan 16, 2014 3:44 AM
Face it.
Spook Jan 16, 2014 5:58 AM
Feel - thanks for the inspiring post
Sludgemuffin® Jan 16, 2014 8:59 AM