Re: Simple solution

and being #2 and 12-1 doesn't contradict it's point, b/c the article isn't about whether Clemson is resilient under pressure or not- and whether they are able to win in such situations or not - they clearly are. But the point still stands that the inability to finish off a team a bit early when they're on the brink is a regular phenomenon. And not just this year, but for a while now, last year included (L'Ville, ND, NCSU, Syracuse, USC, UNC).

And the issue is also not just teams that end up being tough outs - even if unexpectedly. It's this deal where, if we come out on fire, and go up, say, 17-0, 21-0, 24-3, etc, or work our way to a similar margin later in the game, you just KNOW it's not over.

Now, VT is a good team. And so are some of the others, but there are other factors than just that. The dynamic of a game changes, and how it's approached should change, when you have a big lead - and the team with a sizeable lead has their foot on the opponents neck. Occasionally it won't pan out anyway - and not every instance is an indictment of a team's killer instinct. But when it's regular, predictable, foreseeable, and - as this article put in, almost as if on ###### - you can't wave that off with references to 12-1 and #2. It's similar to the criticism of the turnovers. There is both a legitimate compliment AND criticism related to the turnovers in some games this year. Yes they are able to WIN in spite of them, very often. But they are also committing those turnovers. It's "both/and."

mrmatt

Orange Blooded [2753]

TigerPulse: 91%

Posts: 5047

Joined: 10/18/06

Yeah that's a good point that we don't want to miss . .. but

Dec 5, 2016, 2:12 PM

but I still think we can appreciate that difference while still noting the unnecessary nature of it all. I'd much rather be where we are now than back when we lost all the close ones. But some of the shenanigans we pull are simply unforced errors, and when we win in spit of them, Dabo does all his cheerleading about BYOG and finding ways to win and such, and then we go back the next week and pull all the same unnecessary crap again. Clemson is too good to being doing this as often as we do.

Like any game, the Pitt loss was the result of the sum total of it's parts. Our mistakes and missed opportunities, and Pitts great plays, and the bad officiating all played a part, and it can't be said that this or that play, or call, or flag ALONE - TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHERS, quote-unquote LOST us the game. But it CAN be said of some things that had it been done/called differently, that we'd have won IN SPITE of all else that went wrong. Many of the same things that contributed to the Pitt loss were also present in most of the other games this year, but we still pulled them out.

THE TRICK is the minimize the damage that you CAN control - especially that which can be controlled easily, so that you can absorb as much adversity as possible. WE DON'T DO THAT. We are just so good that it often simply overwhelms the mistakes and the bad coaching decisions. Then, when our talent and good coaching decisions outweigh the fallout from our mistakes, we call it "resiliency" or "finding a way to win," or BYOG or whatever. Now, to be fair, that's all true to an extent. But we aren't maximizing the "little" things that we can control to minimize risk. We're simply overwhelming the cons with the pros. We could have made EVERY LAST MISTAKE we made in the Pitt game, and suffered EVERY LAST bad officiating error, and STILL won the game if Dabo/Elliot/Scott had simply made the kindergarten-level-complexity decision NOT TO PASS THE BALL at the three yard line with under 6 min left and an 8 point lead and a FG in our pocket.

There's more to it than just that, but that is plenty enough for starters, and until we quit stuff like this, we'll still be a half-octave down from Alabama's stratosphere. I saw an article the other day entitled something like "Clemson Is The Next Alabama." Close, but not quite. If our staff would mix in a little more strategic-game-situational-smarts along with our basic offensive philosophy, then we would have been 15-0 and finished #1 last year, and would be 13-0 this year with a chance to do it again.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

Painfully accurate article about our lack of killa instinct

Re: Painfully accurate article about our lack of killa instinct

Yeah, that lack of "killa" instinct...

Re: Yeah, that lack of "killa" instinct...

12-1 says otherwise***

No team is a carbon copy...

Re: Yeah, that lack of "killa" instinct...your post

We had chances to put Bama away last year and didn't***

How was this ACCCG any different from the close game

There was one difference, VT actually fields a defense...

Re: Painfully accurate article about our lack of killa instinct

yes, it's always frustrating to go 12-1***

It's Painfully Accurate we are the #2 Seed In The CFP

Did she even watch the same game I did Saturday

can't hold them, how are we 12-1 then? Can't believe...

This is not propaganda...it's why we are 12-1, not 13-0.***

That article is dead on . . .

##### = scrip(t)*****

Re: That article is dead on . . .

Exactly . . . I had a friend put it well the other day . . .

Re: Exactly . . . I had a friend put it well the other day . . .

Bama only played one team with a good offense all season...

Possibly, but that's not the whole story . . .

with there schedule, we would have gotten more big wins than Bama...

Re: Bama only played one team with a good offense all season...

We Used to lose a lot of those close games before Dabo

Yeah that's a good point that we don't want to miss . .. but

you just exposed yourself as a coot by calling Dabo a cheerleader...

God, we get it. You're a better fan than everyone.***

Lost me at 35-17***

I have to pause the DVR.

Simple solution

Maybe the problem is that the players are

Re: Maybe the problem is that the players are

Re: Painfully accurate article about our lack of killa instinct

TigerBoard POTD