Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
Steele: Missed tackles and missed assignments hurt defense during scrimmage
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 25
| visibility 1

Steele: Missed tackles and missed assignments hurt defense during scrimmage


Aug 15, 2010, 2:37 PM

 
Steele: Missed tackles and missed assignments hurt defense during scrimmage

Clemson defensive coordinator Kevin Steele said that his defense look "dead-legged" at times durign Saturday's scrimmage, but he said his group has to tackle better. Full Story »


flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Sounds like the ACC Championship game again***


Aug 15, 2010, 4:29 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

And the USuC game.***


Aug 15, 2010, 7:27 PM



2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

There's something in these hills.


Nice to have a new name mentioned at linebacker.***


Aug 15, 2010, 5:12 PM



2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Steele's claim of 2.3 YPC is hard to fathom.


Aug 15, 2010, 5:24 PM

Steele claimed that, outside of 2 big runs, his defense held the rushing attack to 2.3 yards per carry. But that's hard for me to grasp.

McDowell went 12-for-127 for 10.6 YPC. But even if you take away his 12yd TD and his 53-yard run, that’s still an average of 6.2 YPC.

Buice went 10-for-36. That’s 3.6 YPC.

Ellington went 5-for-24. That’s 4.8 YPC.

Harper went 8-24. That's 3 YPC.

The article only mentions one big 53-yard run. But even if you assume that there were TWO 53-yard runs, that would still be 3.2 YPC from the aforementioned four RBs.

Maybe Steele’s claim of 2.3YPC includes big sacks (counted as rushing losses) and a bunch of weak runs by some newbie/walk-on RBs or something? It sure doesn’t look like the defense had much success stopping McDowell, Buice, Ellington, or Harper. And I assume some of the scrimmage situations were goal-line, where the RBs couldn't have run for more than a yard or three anyway. Kinda scary in light of how SCar, GT ran all over us at the end of last season.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Do you just TRY to be trouble maker? The article


Aug 15, 2010, 5:27 PM

clearly says Rod ran against the twos. Get a life, will ya?

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up




The definition of awesome!


Doesn't explain the 2.3 YPC. If you don't know, don't reply


Aug 15, 2010, 7:15 PM

Your reply makes no sense. The article says nothing about which RBs ran against the ones or the twos. You provide no explanation of how Steele gets to 2.3 YPC, when EVERY RB THAT I LISTED ran for more than 2.3 YPC. Obvously, it's mathematically possible with two long runs but that wasn't mentioned in the article. So if you have no stats and no logical explanation, then PLEASE don't feel any need to reply with non-answers and childish insults. I was really hoping that somebody with some actual knowledge would respond with some actual data so that I could gain a better understanding.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Shocking you bring up "logic"...


Aug 15, 2010, 8:05 PM

...when the entire point of relative panic about these numbers is not logical.

badge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

There's no such thing as a stupid question, just stupid people who ask questions.


Panic? Nice reading comprehension skills.


Aug 15, 2010, 10:06 PM

You too have no data and no logical explanation for the point that I raised about the YPC numbers. So instead, for some reason you feel compelled to reply with childish insults. Amazing.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Considering that every one of your posts...


Aug 16, 2010, 8:38 AM

...is only about how something in our football camp must be some kind of cover up/not admitting where we have issues or some other such nonsense...it is apparent that you are panicking about it.

But hey, keep looking for answers from closed practices where if one thing goes well you must assume the other side is terrible or coaches aren't "admitting everything".

Keep it up, you're amusing.

badge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

There's no such thing as a stupid question, just stupid people who ask questions.


Here are my last 10 posts. 6 positive. 0 negative.


Aug 16, 2010, 3:41 PM

Your reading comprehension skills apparently need some work. "Every one" of my posts is negative? That's funny. Six out of my last 10 posts about the articles (not my replies to people like you) were VERY positive. The other 4 were either neutral commentaries or jokes. Sorry to prove you wrong, but the links follow. Ouch! Why do you feel the need to post negative comments and insults when you have no idea what you're talking about?

http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=9358893#9358893

http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=9352665#9352665

http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=9308628#9308628

http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=9303206#9303206

http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=9300314#9300314

http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=9300310#9300310

http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=9299069#9299069

http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=9298143#9298143

http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=9297373#9297373

http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=9290894#9290894

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I'm talking about the article that gives a summary of the


Aug 16, 2010, 7:23 AM [ in reply to Doesn't explain the 2.3 YPC. If you don't know, don't reply ]

scrimmage. You ARE allowed to apply info from one article to interpret another. Makes perfect sense.

What also makes sense is you always try your best to spin things as negatively as possible.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up




The definition of awesome!


I read the articles. Neither explains it. Nor did you, AGAIN***


Aug 16, 2010, 3:43 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

And WRT to negative spin. You're wrong. See proof above.***


Aug 16, 2010, 3:44 PM [ in reply to I'm talking about the article that gives a summary of the ]



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Feathers are flyin'.***


Aug 15, 2010, 5:31 PM [ in reply to Steele's claim of 2.3 YPC is hard to fathom. ]



badge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

There's no such thing as a stupid question, just stupid people who ask questions.


Razz, it might be because I'm exhausted...


Aug 15, 2010, 7:54 PM [ in reply to Steele's claim of 2.3 YPC is hard to fathom. ]

... but I'm not understanding your math. If there were TWO long runs, that would INCREASE the YPCs, right? Maybe I'm not understanding how you're basing the question. You'd have to know how many total running plays there were to calculate the YPC. And unless I missed something, we don't know that number. You site 35 plays. I'm assuming there were about twice as many as that in a 2 hour scrimmage. But not 100% sure. But you're right, 2.3 does seem like a low number based on what we DO know.

badge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

..:: ru4god2 ::..


Chill! It's all fluff until you spot the #### ball!


Aug 15, 2010, 8:25 PM

Relax, youngsters, and try to understand that until the season starts, you don't know a #### thing about your team.

Go Tigers! Fight! Win!

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Win, lose or draw . . . I'm a Tiger fan forevermore!

Hurricane Duane


^^^^This guy is awesome.


Aug 15, 2010, 9:35 PM

"Tiger Tails to you"

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Razz, it might be because I'm exhausted...


Aug 15, 2010, 9:39 PM [ in reply to Razz, it might be because I'm exhausted... ]

If I interpreted Steele correctly, it seems that he was saying that if you disregard two (presumably busted assignment) long runs, then the 1st team defense held the offense to 2.3 YPC. For example, if on 5 rushing attempts, the 1st team defense held the offense to runs of 50 yards, 50 yards, 2 yards, 2 yards, & 3 yards, then if you disregard the two long runs, the defense would have averaged 2.3 YPC.

Of course if one were to include the two long runs (as would normally be the case) then the defense apparently allowed a higher YPC, which neither Steele, nor this article precisely explains, hence my puzzlement.

Based on the numbers provided in the article, it's kinda hard to figure how they got to 2.3 YPC. It would be fun to see the detailed stats.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

1st String D was who the 2.3 YPC applies to*******


Aug 15, 2010, 11:20 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

2.3 vs The Attack--- The Attack is the name of the 1st team


Aug 16, 2010, 7:42 AM [ in reply to Steele's claim of 2.3 YPC is hard to fathom. ]

defense--- the writer should have capitalized it. The Swarm is the name of the 2nd team D.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Steele's claim of 2.3 YPC is hard to fathom.


Aug 16, 2010, 8:41 AM [ in reply to Steele's claim of 2.3 YPC is hard to fathom. ]

Steele's claim was the 1st team D had a 2.3yp average. Mcdowell did his damage against the 2nd unit. Just to help clear it up.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Steele's claim of 2.3 YPC is hard to fathom.


Aug 16, 2010, 2:30 PM

"What we have here is a failure to communicate".

Steele is wrong to take only the stats that he wants to use and make some prideful statement about how they only allowed 2.3 ypc - which is speaking "with forked tongue" since he just finished saying that he didn't want to make excuses. Pick your side Steele and man up. The D pretty much stunk it up - Dabo was nice about it - just deal with it.

Having said that - stats are what they are - STATS. Give me some numbers and I'll twist them, bend them, and basically beat them into anything that you want to hear. What Steel did was a crime against STATS and he should be sorry to ever had done that. Dabo needs to call him on that. Do NOT ever do that again.

We all know that a D that missing 2 key starters makes all the difference int he world - so just chill - the D is still our strongest unit until I actually see the O do something in a game.

Can't we all just get along? lol - We're going to be fine. Let's just hope our O somehow shows up this year. They appear to have some life - so let's wait and enjoy.

BTW: Anyone on the O shouldn't get too over-confident just yet. A single scrimmage against a weakened D isn't impressing anyone - so get over it already.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I just happy that easily predictable bubble screens are gone


Aug 16, 2010, 7:04 AM

from the playbook.

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: I just happy that easily predictable bubble screens are gone


Aug 16, 2010, 8:09 AM

Oh, I imagine they still are in there. Hopefully, they don't get run too much, so they are not predictable like when Spence was here.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"gotta"? "kinda"?***


Aug 16, 2010, 10:49 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 25
| visibility 1
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic