»
Topic: Football Recruiting Update: Clemson OT target decides for more visits
Replies: 41   Last Post: Mar 21, 2014 8:58 PM by: Tall_Tiger_Two
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Board Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 41   Pages: 1  

Football Recruiting Update: Clemson OT target decides for more visits


Posted: Mar 19, 2014 5:51 PM
 

 
Clemson OT target decides for more visits

Read Update »



It cold up there, bruh


Posted: Mar 19, 2014 6:04 PM
 

IJS

"It's Baltimore, Gentlemen; the Gods will not save you."


Austin Clark


Posted: Mar 19, 2014 6:28 PM
 

Have you seen his footage...yikes, hes a MAN!!

Hope we land him as well.
#21


Lol


Posted: Mar 19, 2014 6:23 PM
 

That Michigan twitter account is getting happy.


this is why taking 2 OLINE a year


Posted: Mar 19, 2014 6:32 PM
 

and converting TEs and DTs is massive mistake . I hope many of you are ready for 2 disappointing seasons because our recruiting strategy has really backed us into a corner. Speaking of did anyone catch Strelows article on Oline recruiting this week?


I could be wrong, but I don't think it was strategy as much


Posted: Mar 19, 2014 6:34 PM
 

as necessity for the converting.

But yes, we do need to increase the amount of OL taken


Are you talking about the TE

[1]
Posted: Mar 19, 2014 7:58 PM
 

That is going into the spring as a starting guard because he weights 305? Yea, total mistake.


or maybe all the guys we recruited for the guard spot


Posted: Mar 19, 2014 9:29 PM
 

stink and a 4th year TE is better than all of them


Re: or maybe all the guys we recruited for the guard spot

[4]
Posted: Mar 19, 2014 11:45 PM
 

Serious question. I went and read some of your previous posts and with all due respect, why do you pull for Clemson? If everything you see with our sports programs is so bad...why not pull for someone who meets your standards? (Standards are a good thing)

You found fault with our OLine recruiting, S&C staff, coaches performance, coaches pay, players performance, players character, players eating habits, (Tajh got fat?)and this is just what I took the time to read! Not one single positive anything!

This is where most people start the coot name calling. (Possible, only you know the truth) I prefer to trust people and their motives. So, I really am curious as to why would you subject yourself to something that apparently brings no joy or happiness into your life?

I follow the Tigers because it makes me feel good! Win or lose... I find the positive stuff 99.9 % of the time. If that ever changed and I viewed it like you do...I'd move on to something / anything else and try to enjoy life.


Get your logic out of here


Posted: Mar 20, 2014 8:44 AM
 

It doesn't belong. Clemson fans or not, many posters on this site are disappointed with anything short of perfection when it is obvious they themselves are highly defective.


my opinion is my opinion and don't feel necessary


Posted: Mar 20, 2014 10:12 AM
 

to explain to anyone but since you asked I merely dont want to repeat the Tommy Bowden era with our program . We were always 6pts or 2 games away from something all the while the coaches were creating the problems that kept us away. My biggest gripes have been lack of not good but great strength and nutrition programs and a continuous neglect of offensive line issues with recruiting. Now for the guys that say I want to take numbers just for numbers read my post below that illustrates offers within the last 3year recruiting cycle for FSU , Alabama and South Carolina .


I smell a coot...judging by your handle name and the date

[1]
Posted: Mar 21, 2014 8:58 PM
 

you joined. Are you alluding to 'four fingers (wins) and growing?'

You fool no one. You know why people call USuCk fans shameocks? Cuz there afraid to even admit allegiance to such a suck ### university as USuCk...good day.


Mac Lain was considered an OL candidate out of HS by many

[1]
Posted: Mar 20, 2014 8:36 AM
 

so his conversion is not a big surprise.

Your contention that we need to be signing OL in large numbers just to be signing them is erroneous. Especially the part about signing guys who can "start right away".

A guy like Mitch Hyatt may fight for a starting position as a true freshman, but the majority of the OL we sign will need at least one year and probably two to break into the 2-deep.

We may actually sign 6 OL in this cycle, but not because we expect them to contribute immediately.


I think FSU won a national title with two OL that were


Posted: Mar 19, 2014 8:05 PM
 

converted from DL...

I could be wrong...but I know at least one was...


Tell em, coot!

[1]
Posted: Mar 19, 2014 8:29 PM
 

LOL....2 disappointing seasons......gimme a break!


What is why?


Posted: Mar 19, 2014 6:34 PM
 

This kid taking a visit? Cannot compute the coot.


because we need 6 in this cycle that can play


Posted: Mar 19, 2014 6:41 PM
 

immediately , not four converted TEs and high school DT that heard about playing offensive line somewhere. we are in deep s??? the next two years for sure.


We do? The kids we sign next year will have 6 seniors ahead


Posted: Mar 19, 2014 6:49 PM
 

of them their freshman year. Not sure why they would all have to be ready as true freshmen.

http://www.tigernet.com/view/scholarships/football.do


Actually, 7 seniors ahead of them.***


Posted: Mar 19, 2014 6:53 PM
 




When's the last time a true freshman contributed


Posted: Mar 20, 2014 1:27 PM
 

on the offensive line ? That's why we need 6 minimum this year.


Yeah those converted players

[3]
Posted: Mar 19, 2014 6:45 PM
 

Like Shatley and Beasley haven't really panned out.


Stick to Oline and then lets talk about


Posted: Mar 19, 2014 6:47 PM
 

how many converted players play on Sunday.


Re:yep, the coaches really blew it on those two.***


Posted: Mar 19, 2014 7:55 PM
 




They don't need to play on Sunday to play well on Saturday

[2]
Posted: Mar 19, 2014 6:50 PM
 

You really only need prototypical OL stock at the tackle positions. The interior positions require less natural talent for the position even though we have that too.


Do you remember the last time our Oline


Posted: Mar 19, 2014 10:03 PM
 

dominated a game?
Outside of the top 35 in rushing
103 in TFLs allowed
102 in sacks allowed and all of this was accomplished with Thomas which is our best Olinemen in 10 years at least

Clemson offered 53 oline in the last three years which equals to 17.3 offers per year

FSU offers an average of 33.6 per year
Alabama an average of 25 per year
South Carolina an average of 22 per year

But Clemson did offer 81 wide receivers though in a three year period . No the Oline and the way the coaches manage scholarships isnt a problem , only if your head is stuck squarely in your a**. wake up people.


Danny Ford routinely converted defensive players to the OL


Posted: Mar 20, 2014 8:44 AM
 

Two that come to mind immediately are Lee Nanny and John Phillips. Neither of them "played on Sunday", but they played ### good on Saturday's.


we didn't finish in the 100s in TFL and Sacks allowed under


Posted: Mar 20, 2014 11:08 AM
 

Danny.


ha ha-- you might want to check the # of plays and pass

[1]
Posted: Mar 20, 2014 11:10 AM
 

attempts before you try to make dumb #### comparisions


yes because no teams are running the HUNH


Posted: Mar 20, 2014 11:30 AM
 

We were 13th in total plays ,103 and 105 in allowing TFL and Sacks allowed.


umm this only proves my point-- 13th in total plays =


Posted: Mar 20, 2014 2:44 PM
 

more opportunities for sacks/TFL--

what's the per attempt sack ratio--- certainly not 103/105th -- I can tell you that


and 56th in yards per rush attempt. sometimes the


Posted: Mar 20, 2014 11:36 AM
 

do add up , I hate to disappoint but our Oline has been horrible for years.


According to Rivals, we've offered every OL in the top 100

[1]
Posted: Mar 20, 2014 1:39 PM
 

in the 2015 class (within our recruiting area) ... and we did the same the year before.

You act as if we have simply not offered any good OL for years and years. We always offer the best ones ... always.

And you also suggest that we should just sign any OL that we can, just to have numbers.

We have as many OL on scholarship now as almost any team in the country, so we're not short on numbers.

We cannot help it if the 5-star and 4-star guys have not chosen us the last few years. Things appear to be changing. Be patient.


we were one of the leading Offenses in the country- you


Posted: Mar 20, 2014 2:46 PM
 

don't do that with and average O-line. We're not great on the OL but we're pretty good.


56th in ypg is mediocrity


Posted: Mar 21, 2014 10:07 AM
 

throw in the TFL and sack #s and we are bad. We finished behind Duke for ypg and ypc with the same amount of attempts. DUKE, DUKE! Get your head out of your butts people , we finished behind all the major programs that run the HUNH offensive philosophy in TFL, Sacks allowed, rushing ypc and ypg. I'm not making it up the #s are out there for people that want the truth .


2006 until teams started loading the box because proctor


Posted: Mar 20, 2014 11:04 AM
 

Forgot how to complete a pass midway through the season.


read sts much ? that is what they wrote.***

[1]
Posted: Mar 20, 2014 11:20 AM
 




I forgot that all can information that wasn't


Posted: Mar 20, 2014 12:01 PM
 

procured from tnet can be ignored.


They don't need to play on Sunday to play well on Saturday


Posted: Mar 19, 2014 6:51 PM
 

You really only need prototypical OL stock at the tackle positions. The interior positions require less natural talent for the position even though we have that too.


I think we will find that we missed a true duel-threat


Posted: Mar 19, 2014 7:00 PM
 

Inline blocking TE more than anything else. Hopefully legget Richard or Cannon can fill in that role quickly.


speaking of heads up butts


Posted: Mar 19, 2014 11:23 PM
 

Masquerading Coots on TNet seem to be less intelligent than the Coots that stay away from rivals sites. Before you ask the obvious question , yes ...it is possible to be dumber than that.

DB23


From a Clemson alum living in south bend


Posted: Mar 20, 2014 8:29 AM
 

The snow is to #### high.


CU2013 youre a Coot.


Posted: Mar 20, 2014 5:01 PM
 

Some of you a$$holes need to stop calling other clemson fans "coots" bc you don't agree w what they say. I don't agree w anything you say so by your logic you must be a coot...Don't disrespect fellow fans, save it for the real coots.


Replies: 41   Pages: 1  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: ....SALE PENDING....2 aisle seats on about the 47 yard line. Section TDO, Row N, Seats 2 & 4. Awesom...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Board Archive ]
Start New Topic
3536 people have read this post