|
Replies: 28
| visibility 1
|
Orange Blooded [4423]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3407
Joined: 10/15/03
|
curious as to how the "bar has been lowered" here at clemson
Jan 11, 2013, 3:07 PM
|
|
now, let me start by saying that i am only 26 so i was not around in the 80's and can hardly remember the early 90's...
but i'm just curious as to how someone can sit on here and say that our bar has been lowered under Dabo.
Guys, look at what Dabo has done for us since getting here (as an assistant and a head coach).
Losing to South Carolina sucks, i get that. But finishing in the top 10, winning conference championships, being in national conversations, having heisman candidates (who LOVE their team, coach, and school), and putting up tombstones left and right certainly doesnt seem like the bar is being lowered to me.
The post that i'm referring to says that ball state was our best win this year, ok so if we trade our win against ball state (and lets say Wake Forest) for a win against South Carolina, is the bar where you want it to be with that crap?
The bottom line is, our rival is South Carolina and wins against them are great, but a coaches legacy and a teams success cannot be judged based on w-l's against them (especially when they are a top 15 team over the last 4 years.
Personally, i'd like to say thank you to Dabo and our staff/team for, in my opinion (and at least in my liftime), RAISING the bar at clemson....
THE SKY IS THE LIMIT!
Go Tigers!
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Guru [1351]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1025
Joined: 9/16/05
|
Re: curious as to how the "bar has been lowered" here at clemson
Jan 11, 2013, 3:18 PM
|
|
The bar has most definitely been raised. Whoever says its been lowered isn't paying attention. Back to back 10 win seasons?!? First ACC Championship in 20 years, first back to back 10 since 81-82. How could anyone in their right mind say the bar has been lowered. Why because of South Carolina loses? To a Carolina team that has had back to back 11 win seasons?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [75717]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 108847
Joined: 10/26/03
|
Is a 10-4 season really a special?
Jan 11, 2013, 4:18 PM
|
|
That doesn't mean what it once did. The number in the L column is the one that matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1776]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2566
Joined: 3/15/99
|
10-4 equals 9-3 maybe?***
Jan 11, 2013, 4:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19586]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17257
Joined: 7/25/07
|
deer lowered***
Jan 11, 2013, 3:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4896]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5278
Joined: 8/24/11
|
The bar here isn't any lower. The problem is that USuC
Jan 11, 2013, 3:22 PM
|
|
finally raised theirs so beating them is not as easy as it used to be.
Because of games with UGA and USuC, 2013 will be a huge opportunity to show that we not only have raised the bar but we can meet/exceed it as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16732]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16761
Joined: 8/19/04
|
Re: The bar here isn't any lower. The problem is that USuC
Jan 12, 2013, 9:19 AM
|
|
Agreed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [96848]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 29211
Joined: 9/14/05
|
Oh lowered***
Jan 11, 2013, 3:23 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enthusiast [139]
TigerPulse: 41%
Posts: 478
Joined: 12/20/12
|
Re: curious as to how the "bar has been lowered" here at clemson
Jan 11, 2013, 3:47 PM
|
|
read Im 26 stopped reading
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4423]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3407
Joined: 10/15/03
|
so because i'm young that means that i cant provide
Jan 11, 2013, 3:58 PM
|
|
good insight to clemson athletics?
that's good
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [6]
TigerPulse: 4%
Posts: 91
Joined: 11/7/12
|
correct
Jan 11, 2013, 4:06 PM
|
|
You haven't been involved with Clemson sports as long as some of us, thus you are not as knowledgeable. Your "good insight" is full of fallacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: correct
Jan 11, 2013, 4:16 PM
|
|
You're full of crap. Your pulse says it all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [116]
TigerPulse: 58%
Posts: 197
Joined: 12/2/10
|
Re: so because i'm young that means that i cant provide
Jan 11, 2013, 4:13 PM
[ in reply to so because i'm young that means that i cant provide ] |
|
I disagree that you are not old enough to qualify CLEMSON FOOTBALL!!! Your statement proves to me that you are a lot wiser than some of these old fart "EXPERTS" on TigerNet!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1776]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2566
Joined: 3/15/99
|
Actually, your bringing it up indicates you feel that way...
Jan 11, 2013, 4:18 PM
[ in reply to so because i'm young that means that i cant provide ] |
|
in terms of insight toward raising or lowering "the bar." Certainly, it isn't germaine toward your being a tremendously loyal and supportive fan.
I'll add my response in here. I'm one of the folks who used to think the bar was lowered, in terms of what is acceptable. One reason for that is "reasonably competitive" comment often-attributed to Barker.
Another is the fact that Clemson has not hired a head coach, in any sport, who had a history of success at the level we want to play since Ken Hatfield. Tommy West, Tommy Bowden, and Dabo Swinney took a big step up to the Clemson HC job.
Also, there is an element of relativity when it comes to considering where the bar is. Championships are norm-referenced. It's easier to win them when the rest of the league is down. Kind of a big fish/small pond thing.
I eased up on the idea that the bar is lowered after Morris and Venables got the big $$$. I felt like that was some evidence that the administration/board is willing to play bigtime football.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6639]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4998
Joined: 10/31/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15067
Joined: 8/6/10
|
The problem doesn't begin and end with SCAR. The problem
Jan 11, 2013, 4:15 PM
|
|
is that we faced 2 good teams in the regular season and we lost to both. So it is accurate to say the bar has been lowered, because the teams in the ACC have gotten worse, making it easier to get wins than it was in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1103]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 652
Joined: 12/23/10
|
More pure comedy. Please stop with the jokes.***
Jan 11, 2013, 5:10 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [32650]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14901
Joined: 6/29/11
|
Pitiful Tom is his own set up man....then he delivers punch
Jan 12, 2013, 9:12 AM
|
|
line after punch line.
One of the top 2 or 3 worst posters on here.
Congrats, Pitiful Tom . . . I know you wear that honor with pride.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4787]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9986
Joined: 6/12/10
|
Re: The problem doesn't begin and end with SCAR. The problem
Jan 12, 2013, 10:39 AM
[ in reply to The problem doesn't begin and end with SCAR. The problem ] |
|
losing to fsu in tally, and 1 upset loss to usuc, and the bar is lowered?. how many times in the heyday of the '80's did we go undefeated? and, in those games we lost, how many times was clemson the underdog? i guess you say babe ruth is still the home-run king,too, because the yankees at that time played less games than did the braves, and in ruth's day baseball was dominated by the few teams that would outright buy the best players off the team(s) that would give them any competition. my point is, the game changes, and you can't sit there and tell me that the '80's acc would annihilate todays acc- across the board. the acc as a whole has never been a powerhouse football conf.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4789]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7499
Joined: 10/24/00
|
A minor hair split with your statement. Our #1 rival is GT.
Jan 11, 2013, 4:32 PM
|
|
Usuck is our in state rival. Many forget that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58411]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46322
Joined: 4/23/00
|
What does that mean?
Jan 11, 2013, 5:21 PM
|
|
USuCk is far and away our "biggest" rival. There is no other opponnent that Clemson fans hate more or would rather beat - not even close.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4789]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7499
Joined: 10/24/00
|
Beating GT gives us a conference victory, U of Coot doesn't.
Jan 11, 2013, 6:31 PM
|
|
Lost coun't of how many times sportcasters call U of Coot our instate rival. U of Coot's rival is Georgia.
Speaking of rivalries I still think it would have been hilarious if the ACC picked up Penn State for 2014. Terps are going to resurrect their rivalry with PSU that hasn't been played since 93, and have not done too well with when they were playing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland%E2%80%93Penn_State_football_rivalry
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58411]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46322
Joined: 4/23/00
|
From a purely technical, analytical perspective, I guess
Jan 12, 2013, 8:59 AM
|
|
one could argue that in most years, beating GT is more important than beating the coots, but rivalries aren't fueled primarily by rationality, but rather rather a deep-rooted, mutually felt emotion. Rivalries are not determined after a careful cost/benefit analysis.
A true sports rivalry simply requires a mutually felt, long standing hatred, and that does not exist between GT and Clemson anywhere close to the degree it exists between Clemson and the coots. To suggest otherwise is preposterous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5024]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3549
Joined: 7/7/12
|
I've only been around since 1962 - and remember before that
Jan 11, 2013, 4:58 PM
|
|
and I wouldn't say the bar has been lowered since Dabo became the head coach.
I will say that (in my opinion) he didn't come out of the box with all perfect decisions on coaches - but - he learned fast and made better decisions as he grew in the job. He's still growing and gaining his own confidence in what he's doing.... the same as he teaches to his players.... and the results of what he has done are constantly improving.... for him, the players, the team, the fans and the University.
Whoever said we lost to the only two good teams we played must have been asleep during the LSU game. THAT WAS a good team that we beat.
The bar has been raised since Swinney has been in charge - just not as fast as some would like - those who lack recognition that you don't build a championship team in one or two seasons unless you start with everything you need - and we didn't.
Swinney began with coaches, made mistakes and corrected them with better (or at least more suitable) choices for what he envisioned for an offense. He drew some player talent to Clemson in his first recruiting season as head coach and you see the results of that now.
The offense is dynamic and only a couple of players away from championship caliber. The defense is greatly, GREATLY improved and should really be a tough bunch of guys next year..... I mean they're about to be NASTY good if they develop at safety and CB. Only a year ago (and for the past 4 years), we had some of the worst LB play I've ever seen.
What more could you have asked for from the kicking game?
Kick coverage is an issue and coverage guys need to learn to stay in their lanes and not over-run the kick receiver and let him out through the hole he left (name omitted to protect the guilty, but he was in the US Army).
Swinney has my vote as one of the best coaches we've ever had at Clemson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [130]
TigerPulse: 83%
Posts: 175
Joined: 10/1/05
|
Re: I've only been around since 1962 - and remember before that
Jan 12, 2013, 1:33 PM
|
|
couldn't agree with you more!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1103]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 652
Joined: 12/23/10
|
It hasn't. It was just an idiotic post by someone with his
Jan 11, 2013, 5:09 PM
|
|
panties in wad after losing to Scarolina. Notice he was nowhere to be found following our win against one of the nation's best teams and final top 10 ranking. Yeah, we're clearly not moving in the right direction 
Don't mind him - he's obviously out of touch and frankly not all that smart.
Good post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [255]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 321
Joined: 4/17/12
|
Re: Actually, your bringing it up indicates you feel that way...
Jan 11, 2013, 5:31 PM
|
|
I could be wrong but I seem to remember danny was the o-line coach when he became head coach. Was never a coordinator. So by you're reasoning that was a bad hire because he hadn't had success somewhere before here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1776]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2566
Joined: 3/15/99
|
Are you really saying it's better to hire
Jan 12, 2013, 12:08 PM
|
|
someone who has not proven himself/herself at the level we want to be than to hire someone who has?
My point is that keeping a high bar means going out and getting people who are established rather than up-and-comers with lots of potential but no depth to their resume.
Certainly, there are cases wherein the established person doesn't work out. Hatfield is one. Even Danny at Arkansas.
But do you really think hiring coaches who haven't had previous success at the level we want to compete shows a effort to "raise the bar?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [4]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 15
Joined: 9/22/12
|
Bar raised/lowered opinion
Jan 11, 2013, 5:40 PM
|
|
It really comes down to opinion. Most of the people saying we lowered the bar are referencing two losses to two top teams. One being upstate rival. To me raising the bar comes down to improving year after year. Taking baby steps cause a program can't go from a 7 win season to a national championship team over night. To me clemson raised the bar. We improved on the field from everything like pts per game to pts against. Went from a 10 win season in 2011 to a 11 win season in 2012. Some people might define a season off of one game (the rivals). But I don't. When we were beating Carolina every year we finished the season with 7,8 wins. I don't know about y'all but I would take a ACC championship and 10 win season over beating my rival anytime. Another thing that makes me feel like we have raised the bar is we are making it past those games we are supposed to win and we don't let a lost change the way we play. In other words we rebounded fast after losing to fsu and sc. We didn't snowball like we have in years past. These are just signs that I see we are not only getting better as a team but are raising the bar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 28
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
