|
Replies: 17
| visibility 4
|
Athletic Dir [1121]
TigerPulse: 77%
26
|
Is it time to axe the co-offensive coordinator experiment?
Sep 4, 2016, 12:57 AM
|
|
Bout time?
|
|
|
|
 |
Clemson Icon [24064]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 20307
Joined: 2011
|
Aren't they 16-2 ?
Sep 4, 2016, 12:59 AM
|
|
Dumb post
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [1121]
TigerPulse: 77%
26
|
Re: Aren't they 16-2 ?
Sep 4, 2016, 1:00 AM
|
|
Not saying they both need to go, just we need to pick one like all other teams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11397]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
Posts: 13352
Joined: 2014
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [877]
TigerPulse: 100%
23
|
Re: Aren't they 16-2 ?
Sep 4, 2016, 1:07 AM
[ in reply to Aren't they 16-2 ? ] |
|
16-1, they will get better, Go Tiger's
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [916]
TigerPulse: 100%
24
|
Agree with you. Dumb post. Smell chicken***
Sep 4, 2016, 1:26 AM
[ in reply to Aren't they 16-2 ? ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5876]
TigerPulse: 91%
39
|
Re: Is it time to axe the co-offensive coordinator experiment?
Sep 4, 2016, 12:59 AM
|
|
nah
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [31869]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 16409
Joined: 2015
|
Re: Is it time to axe the co-offensive coordinator experiment?
Sep 4, 2016, 12:59 AM
|
|
Ummm no.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Cub [13]
TigerPulse: 68%
2
|
No!***
Sep 4, 2016, 1:03 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2490]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
ah, no. Too much success to throw in the towel after
Sep 4, 2016, 1:03 AM
|
|
One game against a very good D. Biggest problem was running game. Not sure why we didn't test the perimeter more, but t I trust that the coaches had a #### good reason not to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3824]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: ah, no. Too much success to throw in the towel after
Sep 4, 2016, 1:13 AM
|
|
I agree about not going outside more also throwing underneath, across the middle, and I guess we didn't want to give away our play book in the opener.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [1121]
TigerPulse: 77%
26
|
Re: Is it time to axe the co-offensive coordinator experiment?
Sep 4, 2016, 1:04 AM
|
|
Imho, this is the 2nd badly called game in a row, not the first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
Posts: 16363
Joined: 1998
|
Exactly how was the Bama game badly called? Seriously?
Sep 4, 2016, 1:21 AM
|
|
You score 40 points on Alabama and it's a poorly called game?
Come on ... be serious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1898]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
Yes, of course. The win tonight plus
Sep 4, 2016, 1:05 AM
|
|
winning 14 last year don't count for anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4142]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
Re: Is it time to axe the co-offensive coordinator experiment?
Sep 4, 2016, 1:07 AM
|
|
Experiment ? Lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4573]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
good lord...***
Sep 4, 2016, 1:08 AM
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7834]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 20499
Joined: 2004
|
Re: Is it time to axe the co-offensive coordinator experiment?
Sep 4, 2016, 1:13 AM
|
|
All barn had a good game plan.
Basically 6 DBs and let the other 5 take the run. It worked.
Our receivers didn't really help out. Leggett dropped one, Williams dropped 3. .... In the EZ.
Too many bone headed mistakes. But we won. That's a BIG W.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [39224]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 51764
Joined: 2004
|
Y'all are ####### ridiculous.
Sep 4, 2016, 1:28 AM
|
|
We very clearly, very obviously played a super vanilla version of our offense tonight because that's what was needed and best for our ultimate goal, which is a lot bigger than covering the spread in the opening game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 17
| visibility 4
|
|
|
50
