|
Replies: 26
| visibility 1
|
110%er [9059]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 13817
Joined: 7/1/02
|
Golden Age of Clemson football??
Oct 12, 2016, 10:31 AM
|
|
I enjoyed David Hood's column today about this being the Golden Age of Clemson football - certainly quoted some impressive statistics, etc.
But it is really? For someone my age (61), I still consider the Golden Age of Clemson football to be the 80s when we won the 1981 National Title. I know a lot of you may disagree, though.
Now, I'm confident that a National Title is on our horizon in the near future. Then that will become the Golden Age of Clemson football.
|
|
|
|
 |
110%er [6858]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 6499
Joined: 10/7/07
|
Truth be told, we should have won a couple more
Oct 12, 2016, 10:33 AM
|
|
In the late 80s / early 90s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40933]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42953
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Early 90's - Who wins the MNC Coach Hatfield or Coach West?***
Oct 12, 2016, 10:58 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
if we don't get a natty this yr
Oct 12, 2016, 10:34 AM
|
|
it may be a while til we're even back in the playoffs imo. I don't see any of our qbs even close to DW right now. But I haven't seen Cooper yet so maybe he's head and shoulders above anyone right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9059]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 13817
Joined: 7/1/02
|
Am eager to see the guy coming in.......
Oct 12, 2016, 10:39 AM
|
|
from Indiana, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40933]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42953
Joined: 11/30/98
|
We have the number 1 rated QB coming in
Oct 12, 2016, 10:59 AM
[ in reply to if we don't get a natty this yr ] |
|
He might be pretty good. A hand full of 4 star QBs might be pretty good too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [39020]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 51623
Joined: 11/20/04
|
Unless you're at practice regularly
Oct 12, 2016, 5:44 PM
[ in reply to if we don't get a natty this yr ] |
|
you haven't seen Cooper or Israel at all.
I don't know why people seem concerned with QB after DW leaves when we will have five or six 4* or better QBs on the roster next year, barring transfer after a starter is named.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11685
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: Unless you're at practice regularly
Oct 12, 2016, 8:40 PM
|
|
> you haven't seen Cooper or Israel at all.
>
> I don't know why people seem concerned with QB after
> DW leaves when we will have five or six 4* or better
> QBs on the roster next year, barring transfer after a
> starter is named.
I have been to several practices...and I am concerned.
We are not "2 deep" or "too deep" or whatever buzzword fanboys like to throw around. Of the ones on the roster, Bryant and Cooper have the physical tools to get it done. Bryant is actually the superior athlete of the group, but he's still very raw as a thrower...and to be honest, I question how fast he sees the field and processes information. He's got a big arm but he is not a natural thrower the way Watson is.
Cooper is a tremendous natural thrower in terms of how pretty and how accurate his thrown ball is. He's less of an athlete than Bryant, though, and he's quiet...and really did not have a handle on the offense or the speed of the game as a true frosh, which is why he's redshirting.
Neither is remotely ready. I was hoping Cooper would be ahead of where he is, frankly, because Bryant still looks like he's a couple years away from being ready and the light as a thrower may never truly come on there.
Hunter Johnson looks the part but he's light in the butt - maybe 180 - and is even skinnier than Watson was as a senior in high school and while his mental game and throwing arm and upside may be there I do wonder if he could use a year in the weightroom.
Somebody needs to step up, whoever, and take that big step forward...and they probably will not be Deshaun, and certainly not right away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [39020]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 51623
Joined: 11/20/04
|
Nobody is going to be DW
Oct 12, 2016, 9:40 PM
|
|
he's a once in a decade QB.
You also don't have to be DW to pilot the offense we will have next year.
Cooper is redshirting because there's no reason not to. He shouldn't be expected to surpass Schussler or Bryant given the playing time they'd already seen. He was never going to see the field.
Your detailed analysis still left out Chase Brice, who definitely has the size, and the potential of getting Trevor Lawrence who certainly looks the part.
We're plenty deep. Mark my words, in two years one of the aforementioned QBs will be our starter, and two will have transferred out to be the starter somewhere else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [52370]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23016
Joined: 10/10/11
|
The 80's could have been, but thanks to the ACC
Oct 12, 2016, 10:40 AM
|
|
tacking on more punishment, it did not live up to what it should have been. Even though we had a natty, I say this is the golden age--and I lived through the 80's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6403]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4626
Joined: 8/20/07
|
Re: Golden Age of Clemson football??
Oct 12, 2016, 10:42 AM
|
|
From 81 to 91 was a strong stretch with the exception of 1985. Hope we can make this one go for 10+ years. Enjoy the ride while you can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [60229]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42557
Joined: 11/30/98
|
this is definitely the start of a second Golden Age
Oct 12, 2016, 10:48 AM
|
|
but you are correct about the 1980's- we won 5 of 8 ACC Championships 1981-1988, and would have won 2 more had we not been on probation. Had a bunch of seasons with just 1 loss or 2.
We lost just 6 games in my 4 years as a student (1981-1984). That included a "bad" 7-4 season in 1984. They could tie that mark this year if they go undefeated (11-2, 10-3, 14-1, 15-0)
A few more bigtime seasons and this era certainly may surpass that one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1813]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1656
Joined: 8/7/14
|
Re: this is definitely the start of a second Golden Age
Oct 12, 2016, 10:57 AM
|
|
Biggest difference:
Playing two or three more games per year now.
Not losing to unranked teams each year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1813]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1656
Joined: 8/7/14
|
Re: Golden Age of Clemson football?? YES, and not even close
Oct 12, 2016, 10:54 AM
|
|
Think about how:
Danny got along with the board et al (he put himself on an island)
We used to lose to or tie a team we should've beaten - at least once per season
We embraced the whole "We're just little ol' Clemson" bit
Now:
Dabo orchestrated cooperation among all parties from day 1
We win the games we're supposed to win
The Paw and brand awareness is at an all-time high
Add to that the quality of recruiting - solid talent and solid character at the highest level
And the best part is that we could be five or six years into a 20-25 year run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5572]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4060
Joined: 10/3/03
|
Re: Golden Age of Clemson football??
Oct 12, 2016, 11:01 AM
|
|
Agree with you. I graduated in 1996 and remember the 90's and early 2000's being some pretty lean years. Clemson's come a long way under Dabo.
But, I'd still say the 80's with the 81' Nat'l Title was The Golden Age. Right now we're in the Silver Age, but a National Title would change that. Once Dabo wins a Natty (and I do think he'll win at least 1) it'll become the Golden Age of Clemson Football. Until then I'm pumping the breaks on Golden Age talk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7114]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7324
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Hiring Ken Hatfield was a total disaster
Oct 12, 2016, 11:07 AM
|
|
You can thank Marx Lenin for dooming our football program to years of mediocrity with that move. Hatfield is the Hillary Clinton of coaches - a fraud and a disaster from day 1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5572]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4060
Joined: 10/3/03
|
Epic
Oct 12, 2016, 11:18 AM
|
|
No kidding. When that happened Clemson Football was stuck on "mediocrity" cruise-control until the West End Zone project began.
As a student in the early-mid 90's it felt like Clemson cool with only winning 7 games a year and being just good enough have a 3/4 full stadium on Saturdays. They did not want to be known for their Football program anymore. It was a completely different vibe than the one surrounding the program now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4019]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1574
Joined: 8/28/16
|
Re: Hiring Ken Hatfield was a total disaster
Oct 12, 2016, 11:24 AM
[ in reply to Hiring Ken Hatfield was a total disaster ] |
|
And don't forget that sawed-off runt AD named Robinson for his role in that fiasco. I still believe that the fix was in to bring in his buddy Hatfield.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2455]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5725
Joined: 12/27/05
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16363
Joined: 11/30/98
|
What if ...
Oct 12, 2016, 12:26 PM
|
|
What if, after beating Nebraska in the Orange Bowl, the 1981 team had to face two more increasingly talented teams in order to be crowned?
IMHO, 2015 was at least a "tie" for the best season in Clemson history even though it ended 14-1.
And the past five years are as good or better than any stretch in the 1980s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3025
Joined: 8/19/08
|
This so much. The 81 team had to win 12. Last year's team
Oct 12, 2016, 1:12 PM
|
|
needed to win 15.
Plus, how many years in a row Danny win double digit games?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [243]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 450
Joined: 10/20/13
|
Re: This so much. The 81 team had to win 12. Last year's team
Oct 12, 2016, 2:38 PM
|
|
Was a little harder to have double digit win seasons back then as there was a max season of 12 games including the bowl game not 14 or possible 15 if you make it to the title game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [243]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 450
Joined: 10/20/13
|
Re: This so much. The 81 team had to win 12. Last year's team
Oct 12, 2016, 2:46 PM
[ in reply to This so much. The 81 team had to win 12. Last year's team ] |
|
To take it a step further, if you look at the best 10 year periods from Tiger football per CFB data warehouse 1981-1990 ranks as #1 while 2006-2015 is #9. Best 5 year period is 1979-1983 at #1 even though serious ranking points were missed due to the probation in 82&83. 2011-2015 ranks 6th.
Still is the second golden age but still needs another year or two of sustained success to take the lead as the best period of Tiger Football.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16363
Joined: 11/30/98
|
If we're going to rank "decades", I'll wait 5 more years ...
Oct 12, 2016, 4:22 PM
|
|
It will be a great surprise if in 5 years, 2011-2020 isn't the best Clemson decade by a long margin.
And if we can accomplish that without having to include any "probation years", so much the better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4299]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2985
Joined: 10/17/02
|
Re: This so much. The 81 team had to win 12. Last year's team
Oct 12, 2016, 5:00 PM
[ in reply to Re: This so much. The 81 team had to win 12. Last year's team ] |
|
best 5 year period is 79-83?? by what standard? we were 8-4 in 1979 and 6-5 in 1980. Over those years we were: 44-11-2 (77%W)
In 2011-2015, we went 56-12 (82%W)
Over the last 60 games, we are 87%. I'd say there is no other 60 game period that is beter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4820]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6169
Joined: 9/16/06
|
I give you TU for this take
Oct 12, 2016, 7:53 PM
[ in reply to What if ... ] |
|
I was there from 83 to 87, and we didnt have to beat the same level of competition as we do now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [473]
TigerPulse: 64%
Posts: 522
Joined: 9/29/07
|
I was really young in the 80's
Oct 12, 2016, 11:11 PM
|
|
So I realize that I won't have the ability to truely compare, but my thinking says that right now is a better time period for Clemson football.
1) We play more regular season games now, and with the ACC championship game, and playoffs could- like last year play 15 games where as in 1981-1989 (Danny's best period) we played 12.
I think it would stand to reason that playing more games gives more opportunity to lose games.
2) It's way more exciting to watch offensively than the old days of 3 yards at a time grind it out football- win on deffense cause you only gave up 10 points.
3) So far (and highly unlikely) no probation years- questionable recruiting tactics, Championship bans or recruiting losses.
4) The National Title is a huge benefit to Danny and the 80's, but had we played anyone else than Bama last year we win another one. And, as we all know, truely should've won last year even though it was Bama. I felt like they won because they had been there, the coaches, the players- they all knew the expectations and the grind. Bama players made a pact not to look at their draft grades while ours were playing to protect their future paychecks ( Mac, Shaq, and Kearse ). One play here or there and it would've been a Clemson victory.
*I do believe longevity wise, that we will likely never see the record that those 9 seasons had in this time period.
Danny had some great teams and probably had the longest consistent quality football era that we may ever have.
I feel like the reason we are this good right now is DW4 and once he's gone we will definitely take a huge step backwards, not a collapse but a 10-2 regular season next year would foreseeable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 26
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
