4 chatters in TigerActive Chat   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This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.



[ Archives - Tiger Board Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 46   Pages: 1  

FB Update: SI's Stewart Mandel on Clemson and SCar


Posted: Jan 15, 2014 11:03 AM
 

SI's Stewart Mandel on Clemson and SCar

Read Update »



OK...

[1]
Posted: Jan 15, 2014 11:14 AM
 

I appreciate that he recognized the reason SC wasn't more highly acclaimed was that they lost to Tennessee and Georgia (a team Clemson beat). I would argue, however, that South Carolina hasn't been "clearly stronger" the last couple of years, despite winning the game. Of course, the argument that Clemson had a better and more talented team the last two years would be a lot more easily made if Clemson would've won... But still, especially this year, I don't think you can say South Carolina did anything particularly well against Clemson.


...except win the game.***


Posted: Jan 15, 2014 11:17 AM
 




and recover 6 turnovers***

[2]
Posted: Jan 15, 2014 11:17 AM
 



"We establish no religion in this country, we mandate no belief. Nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate." ~Ronald Reagan


guess you shouldn't have 6 turnovers then *******


Posted: Jan 15, 2014 11:23 AM
 




Yep...

[2]
Posted: Jan 15, 2014 11:32 AM
 

But I think it would be hard, even for South Carolina fans, to have watched that game and to come out thinking that you got anything but lucky. Nobody knows what could've happened had Clemson hung onto the ball, but the stat sheet shows that Clemson held South Carolina to 40 less yards than Clemson gained on 21 more plays. You held the ball for 17 more minutes, got 2.8 yards/ rush, and barely completed 50% of your passes. That's a game you get blown out in without big turnovers- specifically two screwed up punt returns (I'm not so bothered by the turnovers after long Clemson drives, or the second Boyd interception in the 4th quarter).


That BS offsides by Clemson was a tunover too.

[4]
Posted: Jan 15, 2014 11:34 AM
 

Center screaming and bobbing his head was an illegal play.

"We establish no religion in this country, we mandate no belief. Nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate." ~Ronald Reagan


forgot about that

[1]
Posted: Jan 15, 2014 11:57 AM
 

More time off the clock for Clemson's offense and led to a SC score, I believe.


SC also had an offsides that led to a TD for us.


Posted: Jan 15, 2014 12:30 PM
 

Goes both ways.


On the offsides, maybe, but that's beside the point***


Posted: Jan 15, 2014 12:37 PM
 




Re: SC also had an offsides that led to a TD for us.


Posted: Jan 16, 2014 12:18 AM
 

Go back to your chitten little coup, coot!!!


Re: That BS offsides by Clemson was a tunover too.


Posted: Jan 15, 2014 10:20 PM
 

The center moved his left hand up in a quick motion. It was intentional

We do Chicken right...it's not just for frying anymore!


Re: guess you shouldn't have 6 turnovers then *******


Posted: Jan 16, 2014 12:15 AM
 

Guess you should go suck you some on fgf. Tigers aren't into that gay chit, like chitten little fans are.


Re: and recover 6 turnovers***


Posted: Jan 15, 2014 11:24 AM
 

....and force 6 turnovers. Don't forget that part.


yeah...forcing those two punt reception fumbles was


Posted: Jan 15, 2014 11:34 AM
 

commendable.


The first one was a gift, the second one was a strip on the


Posted: Jan 15, 2014 12:30 PM
 

return.


Re: and recover 6 turnovers***


Posted: Jan 16, 2014 12:19 AM
 

Which ones were forced, F boy!!!


Only two of those really mattered, in the end


Posted: Jan 15, 2014 11:27 AM
 

And those were the muffed punt and the fumbled punt return. Maybe you can say we took points off the board on Tajh's fumble and the WR pass, but at least we didn't give them the ball on our side of the field, put our defense right back onto the field, and take away two entire series there. Given the way our defense was smothering pretty much everything SC was doing (we let Shaw loose far too often, but we still stopped them 10/19 on third down and held them to around 4 yards/ play), if they have to drive all the way down the field, I don't think they score.

Even with the other 4 TOs, I think Clemson wins by 10 if it doesn't lose the two punts.



If you aren't buying this, look at how huge of a momentum swing it was when OSU muffed the punt late in the third quarter. Instead of them either holding onto the ball for a couple more minutes or making it a three score game, Clemson comes right back onto the field and scores immediately. Now it's just a one score game, and Clemson has the momentum.


Re: ...except win the game.***


Posted: Jan 15, 2014 11:00 PM
 

hard to say SC is lucky when there hasn't even been a close game in the finish yet. Not saying they were all blowouts, but they were all double digit victories and none of them came down to the wire.


None of the excuses for the 2013 game explain the other 4


Posted: Jan 15, 2014 2:17 PM
 

Let's face it Clemson fans. They have been the better team. I think the nation doesn't give them respect though because people think that the SEC lEast is down not that USuC is up.


Hey guys did you hear

[2]
Posted: Jan 15, 2014 11:26 AM
 

The coots are on pace to recover over 60 turnovers next year. Pretty incredible that they are so good. You think there is anyway they can win a real trophy next year.


clearly


Posted: Jan 15, 2014 11:27 AM
 

Cannot be understated. It is just the truth.


Re: FB Update: SI's Stewart Mandel on Clemson and SCar

[1]
Posted: Jan 15, 2014 11:39 AM
 

Tough to keep going back and talking what ifs without feeling like a loser since that is what losers always do.

Trying to find an excuse for losing a game is the elementary way to make one feel better when the results showed on the field

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.

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.

Many would also say without 4-16 with 2 minutes left the LSU game would not be a Win. Can;t have it both ways. A crazy non typical 4th-16 play leads to a win for Clemson over LSU but turnovers to the coots are lucky and Clemson should have won

The real answer is Clemson won on the field against a good LSU team and the coots won on the field against a good Clemson team


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.


Re: Right, but wrong in a lot of ways, too...


Posted: Jan 15, 2014 2:26 PM
 

Well said and very well thought through.


Camcgee - which teams usually commit fewer turnovers?


Posted: Jan 15, 2014 10:20 PM
 

The correct answer is the better coached team.

The fact is that teams who are well coached make fewer turnovers.

Since we all know that coaching is the biggest component of what makes a team good or not, we can extrapolate the above fact about turnovers and coaching and conclude that that the better team is usually the team with the better coaching.....and better coached teams typically commit fewer turnovers.

In a football game, each team has to survive 60 minutes without doing something stupid and giving the game away......that alone is a huge accomplishment in a football game. How a team may choose to go about not doing something stupid is up to coaching and it is just as important as to how impressive some team's stats may look.

So, based on the above, ON THAT NIGHT, the better coached team was SCAR and the better team ON THAT NIGHT, was SCAR. This says nothing about talent, etc. It simply means that when the game was played, SCAR was the better team.


Tell 'em coot!***

[1]
Posted: Jan 15, 2014 1:24 PM
 



"Gamecocks aren’t ready to take college football by storm just yet. They’re not even ready to compete in their own state – Clemson will still own the territory. Gamecocks fans would be smart to keep their heads buried until that time. Avoid talking trash to a much better Clemson program.” -Dustin Tackett


###########***


Posted: Jan 15, 2014 12:21 PM
 



Most of you.


Re: ###########***


Posted: Jan 15, 2014 12:44 PM
 

Same excuses for the last five years! Turnovers and defense are part of the game. South Carolina could say the same thing about the Tennessee an Ga. game and be undefeated also but that is not the way it turned out.


stop making excuses. they beat our tails!***

[1]
Posted: Jan 15, 2014 12:42 PM
 



..:: ru4god2 ::..


Re: stop making excuses. they beat our tails!***


Posted: Jan 15, 2014 12:46 PM
 

If that WR from Tennessee had not made that last second diving catch South Carolina would have been in the SEC championship game too. But he did make that 1 out of 20 catch and that is part of the game.


You beat us. Period. But...

[1]
Posted: Jan 15, 2014 1:38 PM
 

You lost to a terrible Tennessee team and to a team we beat the week before. No way you beat OSU in the Orange bowl. Are you better than us? No. Head to head, you beat us. But play that game again, remove the turnovers, and you're smoked. If you don't admit that, you're just an i d i o t


Seattle - just stop.


Posted: Jan 15, 2014 9:51 PM
 

It's 5 years in a row dude.

The bottom line is Dabo and the team HAD TO WIN THIS GAME! Ranked in the Top 10, already lost 4 in a row, 5th year qb and most dynamic player in college football on the offense, the strongest defense in years, excellent kicker......

Still couldn't score more than 17, lost by 14.

Just stop. Congratulate and move on.


Re: You beat us. Period. But...


Posted: Jan 16, 2014 12:23 AM
 

Well, you just called all coots and idiot b/c, none of them have enough FB smarts to see that.


On the conference respect angle, Clemson was second in

[1]
Posted: Jan 15, 2014 12:48 PM
 

the ACC and the Coots were 4th in the SEC. I guess they don't teach simple math anymore.


Tennessee is better than Carolina

[1]
Posted: Jan 15, 2014 12:50 PM
 

Mark it down I want the rankings to reflect it as well. Same with Georgia.


Foot Cuckers.


Posted: Jan 15, 2014 1:12 PM
 

I smell cooty. Y'all won we lost. But y'all did not beat us so accept it. And whoever said "##########" is obviously blinded by hatred. We haven't lost to any bull #### teams this year unless y'all include yourselves.. Buuuuttttt I do recall 2, almost 3, completely embarrassing losses by you little cooters...we'll take it...and the Orange Bowl Title that y'all never could have won!!! Its great to be a Clemson Tiger and not a coot with an inferiority complex. TigerNation.


"Recovered 6 turnovers"


Posted: Jan 15, 2014 1:24 PM
 

You boys have got to be kidding.


This is TigerNet


Posted: Jan 15, 2014 2:04 PM
 

Classic


Re: This is TigerNet

[1]
Posted: Jan 15, 2014 2:08 PM
 

Tell 'em COOT!!!!!!!


Re: This is TigerNet


Posted: Jan 15, 2014 3:50 PM
 

Clemson's only claim to History!

Danny Ford Era: 1978–1989: On November 21, 1982, the football program was placed on probation for a 2-year period to include the 1983 and 1984 seasons. This sanction was enforced on the program by the NCAA Committee on Infractions due to a lengthy history of recruiting violations to gain an athletic advantage that had taken place from 1977 through the Tigers' 1981 National Championship season and into 1982, under the administration of two head coaches, Charlie Pell and Danny Ford. Over 150 documented violations were found to have been committed under NCAA bylaws in the categories of improper recruiting inducements, extra benefits to student-athletes, ethical conduct, improper financial aid, improper campus visits, improper transportation and entertainment, improper use of funds, improper employment, improper recruiting contact, and distribution of cash to players by members of the coaching staff.[1] As a result of these violations, Clemson was publicly reprimanded and censured by the NCAA. The football team was barred from participating in bowl games following the 1982 and 1983 seasons, and barred from appearing on live television in the 1983 and 1984 seasons. Also, the number of scholarships that the university could allocate to football players was restricted to 20 (from the normal limit of 30) for the 1983-84 and 1984-85 academic years. Charles Alan Wright, chairman of the NCAA Committee on Infractions said at the time, "Due to the large number and serious nature of the violations in this case, the committee believed that institutional sanctions related to appearances on television and in postseason football bowl games were appropriate. In addition, because the violations indicated a pattern of improper recruiting activities, the committee determined that a two-year limitation on financial aid to new recruits should be imposed to offset any recruiting advantage that was gained improperly by the university."[2][3] Just five years after their probation ended, Clemson once again found their football program accused of multiple recruiting violations in January 1990.[4] The NCAA accused Clemson of giving cash to players and having illegal contact with recruits over a period from 1984 to 1988. In June 1990, the Tigers found themselves on probation once again, for the second time in less than a decade.[5] This chain of events contributed, in part, to the forced resignation of popular head coach Danny Ford.[6] After a few years away from coaching, Ford was hired by the Arkansas in 1992, where he would spend five seasons guiding the Razorbacks.


Re: This is TigerNet


Posted: Jan 15, 2014 9:20 PM
 

You are correct Coot Breath. South Carolina has WAY more experience making marks in the history books-
"South Carolina hasn't had an arrest in nearly one year and it can be attributed to players and coaches doing a better job of holding each other accountable for their actions."(Big Spur)Nearly a year! Wow, history book material.

"NCAA rules violations committed by the University of South Carolina football program under Lou Holtz will cost new coach Steve Spurrier.
The Gamecocks have accepted NCAA sanctions that include a three-year probation, the school announced Wednesday.
South Carolina already had self-imposed a two-year probation, a limit of 50 paid campus visits - six fewer than the maximum - for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 academic years and two fewer scholarships.
The violations included impermissible tutoring, participation by ineligible players and illegal summer workouts.
On August 16, the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions sent a letter to the school saying it was adopting the self-imposed sanctions but was adding an extra year of probation." More marks for the ages!

"The NCAA has ruled that South Carolina failed to monitor its athletic program that resulted in various rules violations and has accepted the school's proposed sanctions to cut six football scholarships and slash its official recruiting visits by more than half in the coming year.There were no forfeiture of games or bowl ban attached to the penalties, which stemmed from athletes receiving $59,000 in impermissible benefits." We could rewrite the books with all these great achievements!
Oh yes, it goes on and on...And who could ever forget...
"With the NCAA already looking into tight end Weslye Saunders' spring trip to Miami and whether it was agent-funded, several South Carolina players, including Saunders, were asked by school officials to move out of a Columbia hotel Thursday evening that also has become part of the investigation.
Last week, the NCAA interviewed a number of players about their occupation of The Whitney Hotel, where South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier and other coaches have stayed in the past, The State (Columbia, S.C.) newspaper reported."
To be fair I will post the Shamerigs achievements by posting their Conference Championships and BCS bowl wins.....crickets chirping.......


How many times are you going to post this? History does NOT


Posted: Jan 15, 2014 11:25 PM
 

matter. Ask your fellow coots. Any of them will tell you history began five seasons ago.

BTW, aren't YOU on probation NOW? That penalty from 2012 was for three years--the best three of your program's history, according to Spurrier.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-27/south-carolina-gets-three-years-of-probation-for-ncaa-violations.html

"It is not part of a true culture to tame tigers, any more than it is to make sheep ferocious."
--Henry David Thoreau


sludgemuffin is an idiot...


Posted: Jan 16, 2014 12:39 AM
 

The best team has the best talent in football.


Finished 4th in sec


Posted: Jan 16, 2014 3:44 AM
 

And 4th in the country. Confusing stuff understanding your math


Face it.


Posted: Jan 16, 2014 5:58 AM
 

We beat y'all, AGAIN. Y'all dropped one punt. Every other turnover was forced. ####, we flat took the ball out of Boyd's arms. You should be blaming him instead of acting like a bunch of little girls. You lost again.


Feel - thanks for the inspiring post


Posted: Jan 16, 2014 8:59 AM
 

My wife probably wouldn't argue with you.

However, great talent with poor coaching will result in a losing record against average talent and good coaching. There are too many examples to list.

Your comment brought nothing to the conversation.


Replies: 46   Pages: 1  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: 2017 Season Tickets
FOR SALE: I'm selling my 1 2017 Season Ticket in the Lower Deck, West End-zone. Asking $1200 or best reasonabl...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Board Archive ]
Start New Topic
3470 people have read this post