|
Replies: 77
| visibility 1
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
Clemson O vs. UGA O: A closer look (II)
May 4, 2013, 12:34 PM
|
|
Back again to dispel some myths, and just to reiterate I'm not trying to denigrate the Clemson offense. They'll be a formidable force next year.
Let's look at another couple of measures of offensive production. Yards per play and number of play per each TD.
UGA
Yards per offensive play run - 7.09 (1st in the nation)
Average number of plays run per TD - 12.8 (4th in the nation)
Clemson
Yards per offensive play run - 6.28 (24th in the nation)
Average number of plays run per TD - 15.6 (22nd in the nation)
So, once again we can see that the UGA offense compares very favorably to the high powered Clemson O. This game is going to be a shootout. The kind of game where the team that has the ball last wins.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
You seem to be under the impression
May 4, 2013, 12:45 PM
|
|
That we think our offense last year was built around long scoring plays from scrimmage. It wasn't. It was based on a hybrid fast paced ball control offense that looked to continually keep defenses on their toes. Almost every formation we ran had plays and options that included runs, options, and short, medium, and long passes.
I don't think this game is in the bag at all for Clemson. I'm on record I can really see any outcome. I can see us blowing you out and I can see us being blown out, and everywhere in between.
But I would argue the important stats for our offense wouldn't be yards per play, but rather yards per game. And even then that is only good as a part of looking at scoring per game as the aim is to score the most points per game.
But I just don't think your stat says much when our offense isn't geared for that stat. And yes, I think it'll be a good game between to good teams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
I certainly understand that Clemson's offensive
May 4, 2013, 12:53 PM
|
|
gameplan is based upon an up-tempo, fast-paced offense. They also rely on a lot of misdirection. Combine those two and it creates a ton of opportunities to take advantage of defenses.
The impression that I'm under is that a lot of Clemson fans discount UGA's offensive abilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aficionado [194]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 309
Joined: 10/17/12
|
Re: I certainly understand that Clemson's offensive
May 4, 2013, 12:57 PM
|
|
You are mistaken. We don't discount UGA's offense. We just have a lot to faith in our offense and have consistently seen what it's capable of. The 2 offenses, while they may have similar stats, are like apples and oranges. And it doesn't matter how much it's debated on here. The only thing that will matter is what happens on August 31st. Ad lastly, why do you care so much what we clemson fans think? I can assure you, we don't care what any of your fans think about us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
Just fun to talk football. Nothing more ***
May 4, 2013, 12:59 PM
|
|
nm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aficionado [194]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 309
Joined: 10/17/12
|
Re: Just fun to talk football. Nothing more ***
May 4, 2013, 1:01 PM
|
|
Oh absolutely! I love to talk football as well, but you are not gonna get a "love fest" from us for anything UGA on here. Sorry, just not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
Not looking for a love fest. Just some fun debate. ***
May 4, 2013, 1:04 PM
|
|
NM
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [555]
TigerPulse: 23%
Posts: 2406
Joined: 11/29/10
|
Re: I certainly understand that Clemson's offensive
May 4, 2013, 5:18 PM
[ in reply to Re: I certainly understand that Clemson's offensive ] |
|
but the difference is Cu is replacing 5 parts of that offense. Ga only one. you can't just assume it won't miss a beat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5915]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8570
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: I certainly understand that Clemson's offensive
May 4, 2013, 5:34 PM
|
|
True, but please remind me how much of your defense UGA is replacing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [555]
TigerPulse: 23%
Posts: 2406
Joined: 11/29/10
|
Re: I certainly understand that Clemson's offensive
May 4, 2013, 7:19 PM
|
|
seven... and i have no idea how good they'll be in the season's 1st game. but you don't either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5915]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8570
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: I certainly understand that Clemson's offensive
May 4, 2013, 8:31 PM
|
|
So may I also assume that we lost less on offense than you did on defense, and we have back our QB on offense and you lost your "QB" on defense - your LBs, we should know more about our offense than you know about your defense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
I don't.
May 4, 2013, 12:57 PM
[ in reply to I certainly understand that Clemson's offensive ] |
|
But from what I saw last year (and that's all I can really go on since we haven't played games this year) y'all get the nod on defense and I'd give us the nod on offense. Both of those are closer than the other team would like to admit however.
I'd take our WR's easily. You may disagree.
I'd take your RB stable easily. Some Clemson fans disagree.
I'd take our QB, I'm sure you'd take yours.
I'd give you the edge on the line.
And I'd take our play caller over yours.
Again, you may disagree, but overall I'd take our O over yours. But it is a good bit closer than some Clemson fans would admit.
We'll see how it turns out. Should be fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: I don't.
May 4, 2013, 1:07 PM
|
|
I'd take our defensive tackles and free safety, as well. Probably LBs too now that Ogletree and Jones are gone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
Re: I don't.
May 4, 2013, 1:17 PM
[ in reply to I don't. ] |
|
Yep. It will be a fun game win or lose.
As for the positions here's how I'd take them.
QB - Both QBs are very good fits for the respective OC's systems. It's a wash IMO.
RB - UGA has one of if not the best one-two punches in the nation here. I can't see anyone going with Clemson if they are being completely honest.
WR - Both teams have talented, deep WR corps. Watkins is probably the best of both bunches, but Malcom Mitchell isn't far behind him. Both teams have three or four more would be studs that just haven't had the opportunities to prove themselves yet. I'd call it a wash.
TE - UGA gets the edge here with Clemson's graduation of last year's starter and the injury to the would be starter in the spring game. UGA returns two studs in Lynch and Jay Rome.
OL - Harder to say here. I know Clemson loses a stud at Center, and UGA returns everyone from their two deep last year. Clemson's group allowed more sacks last year and UGA's group paved the way for a higher yards per rush. I'll lean towards UGA for those reasons.
OC - Morris will be the majority pick here, but Bobo doesn't get his due respect nationally IMO. He's really matured as a play caller over the last few years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: I don't.
May 4, 2013, 2:03 PM
|
|
Agree with most all of that.
Except Malcolm Mitchell is nowhere close to Sammy. We're talking about a guy who was injured last year, missed all or most of 5 games, got 700 yards receiving and STILL drew enough attention that Nuk Hopkins got some one on one matchups.
I'd also take our other 3 receivers over your top guy.
There's a guy named Martavis Bryant that can take the top off any defense in the nation if they try and shade the safeties to Sammy's side. Charone Peake is a hard-nosed guy who will replace Jaron Brown's role.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
Re: Where in the world did you get that impression? I don't read
May 4, 2013, 1:31 PM
|
|
Maybe discount was a little strong. Just looking at other angles that I haven't seen discussed as much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
If "a litte stong" means non-existent, then we're good.***
May 4, 2013, 1:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
Re: If "a litte stong" means non-existent, then we're good.***
May 4, 2013, 1:40 PM
|
|
Well, in this thread alone, a poster predicted Clemson holding UGA to 17 points. I would consider that an example of discounting UGA's offense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Even if that was a valid "discount" and enough to form a
May 4, 2013, 1:46 PM
|
|
broad-based "impression", you made the initial statement prior to the score guess. Swing and a miss.
It's okay to admit you kinda made it up on the fly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
I'll just agree to disagree on this one.
May 4, 2013, 1:50 PM
|
|
::offers handshake::
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
*Shaking hands* while noting you have nothing to form that
May 4, 2013, 2:04 PM
|
|
"impression".
You may find one or two, but Clemson folks aren't "discounting" UGA's offense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
We certainly can look at those two, but
May 4, 2013, 1:01 PM
|
|
Per game stats for Clemson are highly variable depending upon how many plays they can run during the game. For example, Clemson was able to run 100+ plays against LSU but only about 60 against USCjr.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Well thanks for allowing us to look at those two. Fact is,
May 4, 2013, 1:25 PM
|
|
those two numbers are more important than the one's you threw out there. If you care to do a standard deviation study, then be my guest. Overall, our think our offense against your defense will be the difference in the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
Re: Well thanks for allowing us to look at those two. Fact is,
May 4, 2013, 1:38 PM
|
|
Actually in general, YPP is more highly correlated to wins than YPG.
There's a ton of info out there supporting this if you care to read up on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Can you offer a few links? And did you find anything on PPG?
May 4, 2013, 1:41 PM
|
|
I've always head scoring more points than you give up is a pretty good indicator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
Re: Can you offer a few links? And did you find anything on PPG?
May 4, 2013, 1:49 PM
|
|
Google can lead you in the right direction.
But no one stat is the best. All of them have strengths and weaknesses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
LOL. Seriously.***
May 4, 2013, 2:02 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
One link? "Barking Carnival"? One year? LOL. Falls a tad
May 4, 2013, 2:31 PM
|
|
short of your it's-all-over-Google insinuations, no?
Dude, please stop embarrassing yourself. You can cling to your meaningless stats if you want, but like I said, I'm extremely confident our offense will win the game. I'm sure you feel differently, and that fine, but please stop with the nonsense. Deal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
Only one that I felt like taking the time to look up
May 4, 2013, 2:49 PM
|
|
Feel free to do your own research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
LOL, yeah, research. Dude, I'm being dead serious with you..
May 4, 2013, 3:03 PM
|
|
You're funny. Maybe some reflection will show you how silly you're being, but for now it's probably best to move on to your next "straw man argument".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
And by the way, just for closure (I hope).. the stat you're
May 4, 2013, 2:38 PM
[ in reply to Link here ] |
|
clinging to (from one article, from one year) is about 3 sub-categories down, under "rare stats". That means it's under stuff like yards per game (which is opposite of your contention), and points per game, which you have tried to ignore. Seems your one article goes against what you think you said?
Anywho..it really doesn't matter. No matter how you slice it, citing yards per play as a reason you stand to win the game is kinda weak. Let's move on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
You should read it again.
May 4, 2013, 2:47 PM
|
|
YPP carried a 0.666 average while YPG was at 0.613.
Also, UGA comes out ahead in PPP which was rated at a 0.833. Clemson comes out ahead in PPG which carries a 0.820.
That being said, these numbers don't mean anything once the kickoff comes in August. They only support the fact that the offenses are fairly equal overall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Read it again. What I said stands as stated.
May 4, 2013, 3:01 PM
|
|
Your attempts are downright funny. Seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
Re: Read it again. What I said stands as stated.
May 4, 2013, 3:05 PM
|
|
Please do yourself a favor and re-read it.
You said it was under "rare" stats. It actually was under "rate" stats.
There is no category in the article of "rare" stats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Ooooh, okay, so the difference between rare and rate, in one
May 4, 2013, 3:14 PM
|
|
article based on one year, from a site going by "barkingcarnival", that actually means it's suddenly as relevant as YPG and PPG? Really??
But hey, at least your stat wasn't in "Miscellaneous Items of Interest", so you got that going for you.
Would you please give it a rest? The fact you gained half a yard more per play means virtually nothing. In fact, if we gain 3 less yards per play but have more offense, more TOP, and more points, then we win every time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
I agree that the stats from last year don't mean
May 4, 2013, 3:19 PM
|
|
Anything once kickoff occurs. They just support the notion that UGA and Clemson both have very good offenses coming back. They don't prove anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
Re: And by the way, just for closure (I hope).. the stat you're
May 4, 2013, 2:56 PM
[ in reply to And by the way, just for closure (I hope).. the stat you're ] |
|
> Anywho..it really doesn't matter. No matter how you
> slice it, citing yards per play as a reason you stand
> to win the game is kinda weak. Let's move on.
Nice straw man argument.
My assertion was that the offenses are just about equal overall. Never did I say that UGA would win the game because of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
"Straw man argument"?? LOL.
May 4, 2013, 3:00 PM
|
|
Seriously, do you hear yourself? Did you actually just type that in the midst of getting exposed for a straw man argument? That's rich.
And too, I thought we covered your imaginary "impression" already? Our offense is better than yours. Period. YPP does not dispute that nor make them equal. Please find some other straw to grasp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
Re: "Straw man argument"?? LOL.
May 4, 2013, 3:02 PM
|
|
Thanks for another example of discounting UGA's offense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
LOL. That comment is pure fiction. Please move on.
May 4, 2013, 3:06 PM
|
|
You're to the point of not making any sense whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [555]
TigerPulse: 23%
Posts: 2406
Joined: 11/29/10
|
Re: "Straw man argument"?? LOL.
May 4, 2013, 5:29 PM
[ in reply to "Straw man argument"?? LOL. ] |
|
isn't last years offense.....gone? your replacing 5 very important position players rb, wr, wr, te and c. and before playing a single down together they are already better than Ga's offense which returns 10 starters?.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5915]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8570
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: "Straw man argument"?? LOL.
May 4, 2013, 5:40 PM
|
|
Our offense doesn't play your offense. It plays your defense. Please remind me of your losses on defense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Of their top 20 tacklers, 70% of the tackles are GONE.
May 4, 2013, 7:15 PM
|
|
No big deal, say the mutts. They say "we have talent behind them" in the same sentence they say we're losing a bunch of our offense. Weird guys those mutts are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
Re: Of their top 20 tacklers, 70% of the tackles are GONE.
May 4, 2013, 8:16 PM
|
|
We aren't all the same person with the same mantra.
I, for one, believe there won't be much drop off, if any at all, for the Clemson offense. They have the core that they'll need to continue or even improve upon their success.
As for UGA's defense, even with all the talent they had last year, they didn't light the world on fire. There will be a new philosophy of rotating more along the DL with the entrance of a new DL coach, and the defense will be deeper overall numbers-wise becuase of actually having near the 85 number of total scholarships. UGA actually played at ~68 scholarship players last year. There are a lot of factors in play, and I guess I'm taking a more wait and see type attitude than automatically assuming I know how the unknowns will fall into place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5915]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8570
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Of their top 20 tacklers, 70% of the tackles are GONE.
May 4, 2013, 8:39 PM
|
|
I will agree that UGA reloads and has tons of talent. You lost your defensive "QBs" your excellent linebackers and safeties. Sure you can replace them, so I'm glad we catch you early.
I'm hoping you spend time preparing for usc the week after us since they are in your division and you embarrassed yourselves last year against them..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
Re: Of their top 20 tacklers, 70% of the tackles are GONE.
May 4, 2013, 8:45 PM
|
|
It was ugly for UGA up in Columbia last year. A true debacle. They ran into a buzzsaw and never recovered. Murray got hit early and often. The OL got taken to school by not just Clowney, but the rest of Jrs DL too. The defense could only do so much with the personnel losses and having to be out on the field so long with all the three and outs. A game I'd like to forget.
One thing we can agree on, no matter what happens in game one, that UGA needs to kick the stuffing out of USCjr in week two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11208]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18394
Joined: 2/2/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
Re: Good luck "rotating" along the DL, against our O.***
May 5, 2013, 11:55 AM
|
|
Can't really rotate during a series against Clemson, but could certainly rotate by series.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11208]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18394
Joined: 2/2/03
|
Absolutely. That's what LSU did.
May 5, 2013, 12:11 PM
|
|
As you have said, it all comes down to just how many plays Clemson can generate. If those numbers get up, somebody's gonna struggle. Add to that, the possibility of 95° and who gets gassed is anybody's guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
Re: Clemson O vs. UGA O: A closer look (II)
May 4, 2013, 12:45 PM
|
|
For comparison's sake, here is how some of Clemson's opponents from last year stacked up in those same measures.
Team YPP(Nat Rk)Plays/TD [Nat Rk]
AU 5.27 (90) 25.7 [100]
FSU 7.00 (4) 13.8 [7]
VT 5.19 (98) 24.8 [97]
NC St 5.26 (91) 22.1 [84]
USCjr 5.72 (60) 15.9 [24]
LSU 5.51 (75) 19.2 [57]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4787]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9986
Joined: 6/12/10
|
now, look at what uga returns on "d" to slow down our "o",
May 4, 2013, 1:01 PM
|
|
as compared to what we return on the defensive side of the ball to compete against uga's offense, and you will plainly see why we, as clemson faithful, are extremely optimistic about our chances in the season opener.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6681]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 9740
Joined: 9/22/11
|
agree, our d should be highly improved!
May 4, 2013, 1:07 PM
|
|
Yet, I am glad to see Gawja have confidence, I wish they would get overconfident. I wish they were favored. They will be ranked higher than us, and I think our d will be the big difference in the game! 48- 17!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
I just don't see any way that either defense holds
May 4, 2013, 1:21 PM
|
|
the opposing offense to just 17 points. Unrealistic.
It's will be a race to 40, and maybe even 50.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
UGA loses a ton on defense, but
May 4, 2013, 1:25 PM
[ in reply to now, look at what uga returns on "d" to slow down our "o", ] |
|
It isn't like the Clemson D set the world on fire last year. There are some good players returning, but there are also some question marks.
UGA on the other hand will have a lot of starters to replace, but it isn't like the replacements will be scrubs that other teams didn't want. They'll be inexperienced, but talented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4787]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9986
Joined: 6/12/10
|
we were also in the first yr. of bv's system, and a good bit
May 4, 2013, 3:52 PM
|
|
of the off-season practices were spent learning new schemes and terminology. as the numbers attest to, we improved as the yr. went along (except the secondary, in large part due to the unusually high number of injuries for those positions) . our team can expect improvement just due to the fact that they will spend this off-season "executing" bv's system, instead of "learning" it,not to mention the added yr.s game experience and physical/mental maturity of the defensive players (including the large number of starters) that return.
Message was edited by: sgt tiger®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
Agreed.
May 4, 2013, 4:06 PM
|
|
The second year in a system is usually better than the first. Less learning and more perfecting.
To that point, UGA is now in their DC's 4th year at the helm. He is just now able to start plugging in players that he recruited rather than making due with what was already in the cupboard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4787]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9986
Joined: 6/12/10
|
you are still dismissing the fact of the large number of
May 4, 2013, 5:14 PM
|
|
starters lost. yes, uga has recruited good - so has clemson. we still have the returning starters advantage, many of whom uga recruited. you keep posting stats of 1 side of the ball, while we have all 3 phases, returning PROVEN players, while you keep bringing up potential. i'll take the known level of ability over the "educated guessing" of the recruiting guru's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
There is a good reason that I'm not looking a lot at
May 4, 2013, 6:04 PM
|
|
Last year's defensive stats for UGA. As you have stated, most of those players have moved on. Therefore, IMO, those numbers are less relevant.
For instance, statistically speaking, UGA's defense was better in most categories last year, but that means very little with how many people UGA is replacing this year.
With all the new starters it's almost a clean slate. Could the new people be worse than last year? Absolutely. Is it even likely that they are? Yes, I'll concede that too.
But truly the most important thing will be how the individual match-ups play out. IMO, that's a better way to evaluate how an offense will do against a defense. The problem is we don't have too much information on the new folks at UGA. So, for me it's really hard to make a lot of judgments there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4787]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9986
Joined: 6/12/10
|
at this level, how many players aren't talented ?
May 4, 2013, 4:02 PM
[ in reply to UGA loses a ton on defense, but ] |
|
every team can say about the same thing. players start for a reason - they are better than their back-up's, which is why they (2nd/3rd string) don't start.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3336]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2847
Joined: 7/10/11
|
What if this turns into a defensive slug fest somehow?
May 4, 2013, 1:27 PM
|
|
Yeah, I know most likely won't happen. It could happen though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
Re: What if this turns into a defensive slug fest somehow?
May 4, 2013, 3:13 PM
|
|
That does happen quite a lot in Vegas. When everybody and their cousin's uncle thinks one thing will happen, the exact opposite ends up happening. Makes Vegas rich every year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [889]
TigerPulse: 87%
Posts: 734
Joined: 6/24/10
|
Clemson ran
May 4, 2013, 2:29 PM
|
|
A hell of a lot more plays than UGA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
Re: Clemson ran
May 4, 2013, 3:17 PM
|
|
They did average a ton more plays than UGA did. That is certain.
Will they be able to run 100+ plays against UGA like they did against LSU?
Or will they run 60 some like they did against USCjr?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Come on man, UGA gained 2.4 more feet per play than us!
May 4, 2013, 3:18 PM
[ in reply to Clemson ran ] |
|
Can't you see how that's more relevant than yards per game, scoring per game, and plays per game? 
The dawg said google agrees with him, so it must be true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enthusiast [121]
TigerPulse: 62%
Posts: 472
Joined: 3/18/13
|
How many plays did Clemson run per game last year?
May 4, 2013, 3:57 PM
|
|
On average.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3362]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3117
Joined: 2/26/03
|
Re: Clemson O vs. UGA O: A closer look (II)
May 4, 2013, 4:08 PM
|
|
We run 100 plays per game Vrs 60 plays per game, so what does that mean? ...more yards and scores
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
Re: Clemson O vs. UGA O: A closer look (II)
May 4, 2013, 4:16 PM
|
|
Clemson averaged 81.7 plays per game last year, but there was a ton of variation. The low was 59 plays and the high was 102.
UGA ran and average of 66 plays per game with a low of 57 and a high of 85.
The real question is how many plays will Clemson be able to run against UGA? Will it be the average? Low? High?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [358]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 773
Joined: 4/29/13
|
Correction
May 4, 2013, 4:19 PM
|
|
I was on the wrong year when looking at UGA's highs and lows.
The correct numbers for last year were a low of 49 and a high of 73.
Sorry for the confusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mascot [17]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 9
Joined: 4/23/13
|
Re: Clemson O vs. UGA O: A closer look (II)
May 4, 2013, 4:28 PM
|
|
Solid post.
Both teams are expected to have very good offenses, but at best some questions on defense. Both the Dawg and Tiger defenses will probably 'grow up' and get better as the season progresses, but there may be bumps in the road along the way.
Even if the UGA offense is slightly better, which is not an outrageous statement, this is somewhat balanced by Clemson's homefield advantage, on opening day, no less.
To be honest, it would not surprise me at all if we witness an ugly game. I'll guess and say that the score will be something like 24-20, 20-17, 23-19 (etc), with the losing team being the last one to make a major error. Despite all the hype, each quarterback throws at least two interceptions, and each team has 9+ penalties, and we'll see fumbles too. Sounds crazy? Keep in mind that this is opening day, where the wheels haven't been greased yet, and players, some redshirt freshmen and some sophomores, aren't 100% sure where they are supposed to be on every single play.
Then, after the game, outsiders will all be saying how terrible both teams look 
Had this game been played in October, I'd guess that the score would have been something like 35-31, with fewer penalties and turnovers. It would have had 'classic game' potential.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18133]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22431
Joined: 9/1/99
|
DA post of the week.***
May 4, 2013, 4:32 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8681]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8888
Joined: 10/19/11
|
how about you look at stats that actually matter
May 4, 2013, 4:42 PM
|
|
like points/game or yards/game
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2772]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3736
Joined: 1/15/13
|
Defense will win this game!
May 4, 2013, 7:38 PM
|
|
And Jawja will have to contend with 80+ plays on D.
Not a pace they are used to. High scoring game will favor the Tigers and come 4th....that UGA D will resemble LSU, that had the luxury of playing in a climate controlled dome.
Go Tigers!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1928]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2173
Joined: 12/27/99
|
Re: Defense will win this game!
May 4, 2013, 8:19 PM
|
|
bobo will be on the hotseat after the 1st loss, and then richt will be on the hotseat after they start 0-2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [0]
TigerPulse: 26%
Posts: 5
Joined: 5/2/13
|
Re: Defense will win this game!
May 4, 2013, 11:21 PM
|
|
We will limit Clemson's offensive possesions and grind down the clock with Gurshall.
We win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1904]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1573
Joined: 10/14/12
|
C'mon guys, at least he says USCjr***
May 5, 2013, 12:18 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 77
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
