|
Replies: 118
| visibility 4,051
|
Editor [∞]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43523
Joined: 12/12/12
|
TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
5
5
Apr 15, 2024, 7:00 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
110%er [8038]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 10474
Joined: 11/28/03
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
3
Apr 15, 2024, 7:07 AM
|
|
Perhaps they should half of good on good so fans won’t be confused?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1045]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2083
Joined: 4/7/22
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
2
Apr 15, 2024, 7:25 AM
|
|
No. Fans need to have more common sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3629]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3481
Joined: 12/1/19
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
3
Apr 15, 2024, 7:31 AM
|
|
And .. not believe what they saw ..
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1045]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2083
Joined: 4/7/22
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
1
Apr 15, 2024, 9:22 AM
|
|
Agsin, everyone said the same thing after Klubnik played in the North Carolina game, and look how that turned out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8038]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 10474
Joined: 11/28/03
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
5
5
Apr 15, 2024, 7:38 AM
[ in reply to Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think ] |
|
No. Fans need to have more common sense.
My common sense says to believe what I actually saw over what someone else says. That's pretty basic for reasonable people who are not sheep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
2
Apr 15, 2024, 7:43 AM
|
|
If half of you did that after every spring game, Chase Brice starts over Trevor Lawrence in 2019, and Hunter Johnson starts over Kelly Bryant in 2017.... sure that's what you wanted?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8038]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 10474
Joined: 11/28/03
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
1
7
7
Apr 15, 2024, 8:05 AM
|
|
If half of you did that after every spring game, Chase Brice starts over Trevor Lawrence in 2019, and Hunter Johnson starts over Kelly Bryant in 2017.... sure that's what you wanted?
The difference is the size of the data set. TL16 did not struggle over an entire season at doing the basic things required of a good QB. Most of us want whichever QB gives us the best chance to win. Our eyes say that is Pearman based on all of last season and the spring game. Had we kept the squads together (1st D vs 1st O and 2nd D vs 2nd O) we would have a better feel. Dabo can do what he wants but we expect a functional Offense and QB against UGA unlike last year against Duke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
3
Apr 15, 2024, 8:11 AM
|
|
It's the exact same thing... what is your data set for Pearman? One spring game?
Ends right there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44063]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32972
Joined: 2/22/03
|
I think it's more the data set for Klubnik.
5
1
5
Apr 15, 2024, 10:20 AM
|
|
He's been in the program over two years now. He doesn't seem to be the elite QB we need if we want to compete at the highest level.
There is no way to know if Pearman is better, and the spring game is certainly not going to tell us anything definitive about him.
The spring game did confirm what we already know about Cade, which is that he is erratic, inconsistent, and turnover-prone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5016]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 6048
Joined: 10/9/08
|
For once, I agree with JK! #### hath frozen over! ***
3
Apr 15, 2024, 10:31 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3965]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3810
Joined: 8/6/13
|
Re: For once, I agree with JK! #### hath frozen over! ***
1
Apr 15, 2024, 11:43 AM
|
|
No kidding
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1461]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 715
Joined: 1/10/16
|
I was thinking the same thing
Apr 15, 2024, 7:32 PM
|
|
… now I have to go back and rethink my position.
Nope. I agree… but that really scares me. 🤣
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1045]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2083
Joined: 4/7/22
|
Re: I think it's more the data set for Klubnik.
Apr 15, 2024, 10:32 AM
[ in reply to I think it's more the data set for Klubnik. ] |
|
That doesn't tell us if Pearman is actually the answer. People said the same thing about Uiagalelei, and claimed Klubnik was the answer. We see how that turned out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44063]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32972
Joined: 2/22/03
|
Of course it doesn't tell us if Pearman is the answer.
1
1
Apr 15, 2024, 11:20 AM
|
|
No one should be suggesting that it does.
But I do think people want some hope since our QB play has stunk for a few years now. People are disappointed and even discouraged that our offense hasn't been better. The thought is that perhaps Pearman is the answer, although I don't think he is (nor will he be given a chance to truly show it).
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1045]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2083
Joined: 4/7/22
|
Re: Of course it doesn't tell us if Pearman is the answer.
1
Apr 15, 2024, 12:03 PM
|
|
But people are suggesting that it does, that's the problem
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44063]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32972
Joined: 2/22/03
|
I haven't seen many people here saying that Pearman should be our starter.
2
1
Apr 15, 2024, 12:51 PM
|
|
Sure, there have been a few, but I think most people are just wanting to see him be given a real chance to compete to see if he's better than Cade.
Wanting a true competition for any starting position, including QB, isn't a lot to ask. It's weird how every other position is seemingly open for competition, but the QB position is treated as this weird variant where we can't question the starter or give backups a reasonable shot unless the starter totally screws the pooch or gets hurt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1045]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2083
Joined: 4/7/22
|
Re: I haven't seen many people here saying that Pearman should be our starter.
Apr 15, 2024, 12:58 PM
|
|
It's not weird. As I said to you in another post, DeShaun Watson was a starter by game 4 and Trevor Lawrence was the starter by game 5.
The only thing that you can point to to support your argument is 2022 Uiagalelei versus Klubnik. Like I said to you before, based on Klubnik's play in 2023, we see the reason that Dabo didn't replace Uiagalelei is because Klubnik just really isn't much better, if at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: I haven't seen many people here saying that Pearman should be our starter.
Apr 15, 2024, 1:21 PM
|
|
They both hand the exact same issue...what they did in HS doesn't work in college ball. The game is faster. DJ doesn't get all day long to throw a ball with his hard throwing cannnon arm unless he sits behind the best pass blocking OLine in the NCAA (which is what Oregon St was)... didn't work behind ours. Stanky leg doesn't look so fast running the ball with those cinder block ankles in college, does he? Cade can't just Baker Mayfield scramble and make plays like he did in HS...we even thought Baker he couldn't when we played him with a real defense. Cade is still needing the game to fully slow down for him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: I haven't seen many people here saying that Pearman should be our starter.
Apr 15, 2024, 1:22 PM
|
|
*have
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44063]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32972
Joined: 2/22/03
|
In general, I feel that it's a double standard for QBs.
1
Apr 15, 2024, 1:33 PM
[ in reply to Re: I haven't seen many people here saying that Pearman should be our starter. ] |
|
This isn't just a Dabo thing, it's fairly universal in the sport of football. Most coaches seem to be extremely devoted to their starting QB, and almost never play a backup unless things get really bad.
But for other positions, we routinely see backups come in and play.
The double standard is weird to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: In general, I feel that it's a double standard for QBs.
Apr 15, 2024, 1:49 PM
|
|
That's likely because the QB is usually seen as the leader of the offense...the voice. Throwing a guy in there randomly can have negative effects on others. You need to have a good reason so that the others get behind it, or you could lose that side of the locker room. Others get changed around to help in wear during the game. Also, on most teams, there is a very big separation usually between the skill set and between QB 1 and the rest...usually has the most separation in talent of any position on the field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5016]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 6048
Joined: 10/9/08
|
Exactly. I wouldnt start Pearman against UGA, but if we get to half time and
3
Apr 15, 2024, 12:06 PM
[ in reply to Of course it doesn't tell us if Pearman is the answer. ] |
|
Klunbnick looks lost or ineffective, give Pearman a shot for a series or two. Especially if it is clear we ain’t gonna win continuing things “as is” in that game. Now I hope it doesn’t come to that b/c it means things are not going well for us. But that should be how things go if we are in a dire situation and things look lost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: I think it's more the data set for Klubnik.
Apr 15, 2024, 11:03 AM
[ in reply to I think it's more the data set for Klubnik. ] |
|
No it didn't.... no more than it showed you Trevor is erratic, can't hit a receiver, etc when he got his butt kicked by Chase Brice in 2019's spring game. You just view it differently because of what Trevor did the yr prior. You personally lost faith in a QB in his first year because games were lost by turnovers, several of which were his running backs that caused it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44063]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32972
Joined: 2/22/03
|
Look, Cade seems like a great kid who had an outstanding career in high school.
1
1
Apr 15, 2024, 11:22 AM
|
|
But if we're being honest, he really hasn't shown any ability in his 2+ years here to suggest that he will be an elite QB at this level.
I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see it.
I do think he's the best QB on our roster, but I still have concerns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: Look, Cade seems like a great kid who had an outstanding career in high school.
1
Apr 15, 2024, 11:43 AM
|
|
Why do you keep trying to say 2+ years? He didn't play vast majority of year 1. DJ was so bad at times, Klubnik couldn't even get in Vs LA Tech and Furman.... yet you think he had any significant playing time that year to learn a thing?
Come on Keller, you are smarter than that. His first start ever was the bowl game vs TN....his first significant playing time was the ACC CG vs UNC..beyond that, he played bench warmer all 2022 season. 2023 is the first year he saw any significant playing time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44063]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32972
Joined: 2/22/03
|
I keep saying 2+ years because that's how long Cade has been in our program
1
Apr 15, 2024, 12:21 PM
|
|
receiving expert coaching, teaching, strength and conditioning, rehab, nutrition, etc.
Shouldn't we expect to see some significant improvement by this point, which is over halfway through his college football career?
Don't get me wrong, our offensive struggles recently are not all due to him. We've had subpar play from our offensive line as well as our wide receivers, as well as what I consider lackluster play calling at times.
But Cade hasn't been a difference maker, and in fact, he's been a liability at times. You're free to defend him all you want, but I just don't see him being the elite QB we hoped he would be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: I keep saying 2+ years because that's how long Cade has been in our program
1
Apr 15, 2024, 12:29 PM
|
|
You can't bar on how long he's been in the program. He didn't barely play at all year 1...year 2, his OC, playbook, and all changed. 2023 was technically his year 1. This will be year 2 in the same system and with significant playing time beyond a single drive in one game or so. That's just facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: I keep saying 2+ years because that's how long Cade has been in our program
Apr 15, 2024, 12:31 PM
|
|
*base
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44063]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32972
Joined: 2/22/03
|
That's all fine and well, but it doesn't change the fact that he hasn't been
1
Apr 15, 2024, 12:53 PM
[ in reply to Re: I keep saying 2+ years because that's how long Cade has been in our program ] |
|
what he hoped he would by by this point.
Hopefully the stability of having the same OC this year, and what we hope is an improved offensive line and wide receiver group, will make a big difference for Cade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5016]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 6048
Joined: 10/9/08
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: Cade was responsible for 50% of the turnovers, it wasnt just the RBs***
1
Apr 15, 2024, 12:33 PM
|
|
So who were the ones that fumbled at the 1 yard line that teams ran back down to the other side....Cade, or Shiplay and Mafah? Who missed the block vs FSU to allow DeLoach to run in unblocked screaming....Cade, or Mafah?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: Cade was responsible for 50% of the turnovers, it wasnt just the RBs***
1
Apr 15, 2024, 12:57 PM
|
|
Don't get me wrong, Cade had his issues... but he also unjustly gets blamed for the offensive issues when it was just all around everyone. Oline couldn't block, RB's had issues in ball security, blocking, and hand offs (some of that was Cade pulling when he shouldn't have too), WR's couldn't get separation...or keep it when they did...some ran bad routes (did in the spring game too). Cade made some dumb first year decisions... it wasn't just him, so why is everyone just focused on his play, and not everyone else's too? If everyone around him gets better, he may get better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12883]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/30/16
|
Re: I think it's more the data set for Klubnik.
3
Apr 15, 2024, 12:33 PM
[ in reply to I think it's more the data set for Klubnik. ] |
|
Agree with Judge but there's not a lot we can do about it at this point. For now we have to take CK to the prom. Its the same old same old. Supposedly (and probably true) he gives us our best chance of winning.
I think we should roll with him but if he performs anything similar to last year, bench him for a series or two but not wait until the season is practically blown. Dabo does not have a good history for that strategy with his QB's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: I think it's more the data set for Klubnik.
1
Apr 15, 2024, 12:42 PM
|
|
That's more the correct answer. A spring game doesn't tell you that Pearman is better than Cade. He'd actually have ru be given a series...a serious series vs serious competition, to get a better feel. Dabo has to be ready to test the waters on that. Like in 2021, DJ did nothing vs UGA...Cade does the same, TRY Pearman.... but if he does nothing too, you all get your answer that he's not the solution you think he is off a spring game. You don't just throw Pearman to the wolves and hope for the best. That could be a recipe for disaster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [55434]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58434
Joined: 7/18/07
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5016]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 6048
Joined: 10/9/08
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1045]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2083
Joined: 4/7/22
|
Re: Data set for Klubnick was all year and now spring game give a new guy a shot!***
Apr 15, 2024, 10:30 AM
|
|
The same thing was said in regards to Uiagalelei. How did that work out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44063]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32972
Joined: 2/22/03
|
Again, I think many people are basing their opinions more on the fact that
1
1
Apr 15, 2024, 11:25 AM
|
|
Cade didn't play well in the spring game. In fact, he played pretty poorly.
When that happens, and a backup comes in and outplays him considerably, people are going to notice.
No one knows if Pearman is better, or can be better, than Cade. It's ridiculous for anyone to say that Pearman should start based on the spring game.
But with that said, people are naturally going to question Cade at this point, and wonder if we might have a better solution.
The bottom line is that Cade's play thus far hasn't been good enough of we are hoping to return to being an elite football program. Hopefully he's improved and the spring game was just a bad day for him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1045]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2083
Joined: 4/7/22
|
Re: Again, I think many people are basing their opinions more on the fact that
Apr 15, 2024, 12:06 PM
|
|
I don't care if people question Klubnik. My problem is there are a lot of people who are saying that Pearman should start, literally on this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5016]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 6048
Joined: 10/9/08
|
Pearman starting is an overreaction, but Cades leash should be short
Apr 15, 2024, 12:12 PM
|
|
Even in the UGA game. If he resumes where he left off in that first game, Pearman should get a shot. It is that simple. If for no other reason than to dispel that he may be the guy so folks will shut up and just wait til next hoping the next guy is the guy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1045]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2083
Joined: 4/7/22
|
Re: Pearman starting is an overreaction, but Cades leash should be short
Apr 15, 2024, 12:54 PM
|
|
No that would be a dumb reason.
If Klubnik is struggling in the Georgia game, the only reason to replace him is because you actually think the backup would do a better job. If you don't think that's the case, then you just play whomever is the best player you have, even if that player's not all that great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44063]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32972
Joined: 2/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
1
Apr 15, 2024, 8:13 AM
[ in reply to Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think ] |
|
Chase Brice beat Trevor Lawrence in 2019's spring game 30-10....made Trevor come back out there because he was embarrassed how he played in it...and he still lost by 20. THAT data set would have told you Chase was better than Trevor who had a year experience. Was he really?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5016]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 6048
Joined: 10/9/08
|
Trevor didnt wait til his 3rd year to show he was better!***
1
Apr 15, 2024, 10:30 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1045]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2083
Joined: 4/7/22
|
Re: Trevor didnt wait til his 3rd year to show he was better!***
Apr 15, 2024, 10:34 AM
|
|
That's not the issue. The issue is if Pearman is actually good, or if the spring game is a fluke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: Trevor didnt wait til his 3rd year to show he was better!***
Apr 15, 2024, 11:11 AM
|
|
I wouldn't put my money on the one that has teams split up, missing key players out, and made Hunter Johnson look better than Kelly Bryant, and Chase Brice look better than Trevor Lawrence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5016]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 6048
Joined: 10/9/08
|
CK needs to show he is much improved in that UGA game or the spring game lore of
1
Apr 15, 2024, 12:16 PM
|
|
Pearman will grow exponentially. It will be hard to quell the restless natives at that point until Pearman gets his shot and fails miserably. Just the nature of the beast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1045]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2083
Joined: 4/7/22
|
Re: CK needs to show he is much improved in that UGA game or the spring game lore of
Apr 15, 2024, 12:19 PM
|
|
Again, that's exactly what happened with Uiagalelei and Klubnik, and people just ignore that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1045]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2083
Joined: 4/7/22
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5016]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 6048
Joined: 10/9/08
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
1
Apr 15, 2024, 10:26 AM
[ in reply to Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think ] |
|
Johnstone… these people, after seeing what they saw all last year and in the spring game, would rather keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results knowing that is the definition of insanity! You can’t fix insane people!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1045]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2083
Joined: 4/7/22
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
Apr 15, 2024, 10:35 AM
|
|
You're actually doing the same thing over and over. You keep thing the backup is the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5016]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 6048
Joined: 10/9/08
|
I think the leash for Cade should be short is what I am for
3
Apr 15, 2024, 12:20 PM
|
|
If Cade goes into that UGA looking pretty much like he did most of last year and our O is stuck in neutral, throw Pearman in and let him sink or swim then. Either he proves to be the best option or he proves he ain’t the answer either, but one way or another you will get an answer!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58457]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46341
Joined: 4/23/00
|
No - that's not what I want. I just don't want obvious spin that conflicts
9
9
Apr 15, 2024, 9:09 AM
[ in reply to Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think ] |
|
with the reality we all just witnessed. Something like this would do:
"First, Trent Pearman had a great day, and was the best QB on the field today. We've known all along he had it, and we know we can win with Trent. You all just saw what we all have seen all along. We saw a lot we liked from Cade and Vizzina today too, but it wasn't their best showing, for sure, but today was just one scrimmage, so you can't read too much into it. I can promise you, Cade and Vizzina are 1 and 2 for a reason; they have shown out all spring and even though it may not have looked like it today, Cade is still #1, based on the entirety of this spring - without question. But today, it was Trent Pearman's day."
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: No - that's not what I want. I just don't want obvious spin that conflicts
Apr 15, 2024, 9:26 AM
|
|
Hint word most of you aren't focusing on...day. just like Chase Brice had a DAY vs Syracuse, but wouldn't have beaten Alabama in 2018 44-16 like Trevor did. A spring game alone is hardly a data set anyone should use to determine who is actually better. Spring games have stars that show in them to later show that person wasn't actually as ready as the spring game made it look....Frank Ladson ring a bell as one example?
Most of you are just reading because you are frustrated with DJ for 2 years, and now Cade last year in his first full year starting. Though the frustrations are just, you are also overreacting because Deshaun and Trevor spoiled you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58457]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46341
Joined: 4/23/00
|
That would have been better than what we got.
2
Apr 15, 2024, 10:02 AM
|
|
I, and I think most of us were looking for some indication that Cade had progressed, and that the offense was going to be better. I didn't expect to see a totally different, polished, smoothly functioning powerhouse of an offense in the spring game - not at all. Just hoping for some little sign that things were going to be better. A reason for hope. While I fully realize you can't base too much off of the spring game, we just didn't get that glimmer of hope we were looking for. That alone was disappointing. But then, to not even address the elephant in the room, that was the hard part I guess.
I accept, with no problem, that we don't have a DJ or Trevor. I just know we've got to be better at QB than we were last year, and that doesn't require a DJ or Trevor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: That would have been better than what we got.
Apr 15, 2024, 10:23 AM
|
|
So in a 4-5 week span (all they had for spring practice), you were looking for Cade to have made leaps and bounds over what you saw only a few months ago? Lol. There's your first issue. Overly high expectations for a short time window? They didn't start practicing until the beginning of March.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58457]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46341
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Re: That would have been better than what we got.
1
Apr 15, 2024, 10:25 AM
|
|
you were looking for Cade to have made leaps and bounds over what you saw only a few months ago?
Please show me where I said that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: That would have been better than what we got.
1
Apr 15, 2024, 10:31 AM
|
|
Explain what you expected he'd have accomplished in 4-5 weeks, most of which isn't live scrimmages... with his TE1, his WR1, and his RB1 all out while his OLine is pieced together... though he's practicing with it not that way in practice? Most of what he needs to improve with will not come that fast with pieced together groups. His interception was Randall running a wrong route...you can read that almost anywhere. They have to get in the same page, and that's not necessarily Cade that has to make that fix. He doesn't run routes for Randall. He can't block Sammy Brown for the OLineman that missed him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44063]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32972
Joined: 2/22/03
|
Based on this, why even have a spring game?
1
Apr 15, 2024, 11:58 AM
|
|
Players can scrimmage on their own without fans there. The crowd in attendance doesn't come close to simulating a regular season game in the fall.
For a game that only generates a bunch of unknowns, resulting in fans overreacting and coaches clamoring to reassure people that it was "just a scrimmage," what's the point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: Based on this, why even have a spring game?
Apr 15, 2024, 12:06 PM
|
|
It's mainly there to give fans something to see in the long break. Something for enjoyment. Like I mentioned to someone earlier, if it were there to make implications on for future seasons, should we expect to see Dawn Staley making TD's for the Gamecocks sometime soon because she did in 2014?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44063]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32972
Joined: 2/22/03
|
I understand that it's for the fans.
1
Apr 15, 2024, 12:56 PM
|
|
My point is that it might do more harm than good. Yes, it's a chance to watch football since we've been deprived of it for a few months, but if it's not a realistic way to evaluate players and just leaves more questions than answers, is it worth it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: I understand that it's for the fans.
Apr 15, 2024, 1:10 PM
|
|
Not sure you realize what players are being evaluated though.... it's more for the backups and guys that redshirted than it is the starters. That's why the calls are always vanilla looking, why they split the teams and don't just run 1's vs 1's, 2's vs 2's, 2's vs 1's.... they'd do exactly that if they were trying to evaluate who's the best to be starters. They are evaluating where people are and final notes for summer work at best....especially guys that haven't had any significant playing at the collegiate level and could be big contributors. It is not to evaluate QB1, WR1, TE1, RB1, and all 5 OLineman starters as a unit they as they would be in the season. They get that view in practice and in other scrimmages where they don't break them up into "even" groupings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44063]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32972
Joined: 2/22/03
|
I understand the point of a scrimmage, and how it's different from practice.
1
1
Apr 15, 2024, 1:36 PM
|
|
The point is that a scrimmage can be accomplished whether fans are there or not.
If the coaches feel that the fans in attendance add something for the players in terms of creating more of a game day environment, then it's valuable. But if it's just for football-starved fans, then maybe it's not a great idea since it seems to cause more strife than enjoyment for some people.
It shouldn't be this stressful for people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58457]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46341
Joined: 4/23/00
|
As I said ...
3
Apr 15, 2024, 12:14 PM
[ in reply to Re: That would have been better than what we got. ] |
|
I, and I think most of us were looking for some indication that Cade had progressed, and that the offense was going to be better. I didn't expect to see a totally different, polished, smoothly functioning powerhouse of an offense in the spring game - not at all. Just hoping for some little sign that things were going to be better.
You act as if that was some kind of unrealistic fantasy, and I don't agree with that at all. I think it's perfectly reasonable and normal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1045]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2083
Joined: 4/7/22
|
Re: As I said ...
1
Apr 15, 2024, 12:21 PM
|
|
That part is perfectly reasonable and normal. The part that's not reasonable, not saying you said this, is thinking that Pearman is the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58457]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46341
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Re: As I said ...
1
Apr 15, 2024, 12:32 PM
|
|
Right - and I did not say or even suggest that Pearman was the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: As I said ...
Apr 15, 2024, 12:27 PM
[ in reply to As I said ... ] |
|
In 4-5 weeks though, 15 practices? I get you saying that if he's not sounding progressed by end of fall camp, or by game 1....but you thought in only 15 practices, with no off season work yet, and an OLine with a brand new coach, you'd see enough progression from what you saw late December? The issues he has, he's working on, and Swinney sais they are seeing progression in those areas but they aren't going to completely disappear in 15 practices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1045]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2083
Joined: 4/7/22
|
Re: That would have been better than what we got.
1
Apr 15, 2024, 10:39 AM
[ in reply to That would have been better than what we got. ] |
|
That's the problem. Just because Klubnik hasn't progressed, you can't go off half cocked thinking a 3rd string quarterback having a decent scrimmage means this guy is the answer. The cold hard reality is that we don’t have an elite quarterback on the roster, and that includes Pearman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58457]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46341
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Re: That would have been better than what we got.
1
Apr 15, 2024, 12:17 PM
|
|
Just because Klubnik hasn't progressed, you can't go off half cocked thinking a 3rd string quarterback having a decent scrimmage means this guy is the answer.
I did not say that he was, nor did I suggest it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22768]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11560
Joined: 10/12/14
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5067]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 8310
Joined: 12/9/12
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
3
Apr 15, 2024, 8:52 AM
|
|
This...
I don't trust Cade at all but I haven't seen enough to trust Pearman...I will say that he put some folks on notice and that has created a leash on Cade unbeknownst to him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
1
Apr 15, 2024, 9:32 AM
|
|
Ding ding. All the spring game did is show everyone that Pearman does have the skill to push Cade and Vizzina to make improvements. A glorified single scrimmage is not enough to just say Pearman actually would be better if he faced UGA, or FSU. There's just not enough shown. There actually can be days the better guy isn't the hottest. Go back and look at us vs Syracuse 2018... the game Trevor went out injured in his first start after Bryant left. Chase won that game, and Trevor looked bad until he went out. But that doesn't mean Chase was the better guy overall. He just was THAT DAY.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1045]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2083
Joined: 4/7/22
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
Apr 15, 2024, 9:40 AM
|
|
That's the thing... no one is actually"looking"
Turnovers were the issue last year. Offensively, we outplayed every team we lost to. We offensively outplayed Duke, we offensively outplayed Jordan Travis in regulation (if Weitz makes his FG, Clemson wins that game and Cade's numbers passing end better than Travis), we offensively outplayed Miami... we offensively outplayed NC St. We lost all 4 simply by turnover issues. That can get cleaned up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [101]
TigerPulse: 77%
Posts: 84
Joined: 6/27/22
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
1
Apr 15, 2024, 10:01 AM
|
|
If it's so easy to clean up turnovers, why didn't the coaches do that last season? Maybe you needed to let them know? Not being an a$$, but it's easier to say some thing than to actually do them. Some players don't learn. Some QBs carry the ball like a loaf of bread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
Apr 15, 2024, 10:11 AM
|
|
They have to put more focus on ball security. It's not an overnight fix... but go look at the end of the season. They did in fact clean it up. Not that you noticed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
Apr 15, 2024, 10:17 AM
|
|
Clemson won the turnover battle 4 vs 1 vs KY....2 vs 1 vs SCar, wasn't quite as clean vs UNC but still won it 3 to 2, won it 4 to 1 vs GTech, win it 3-2 vs Notre Dame (and beat them).... it was exactly the opposite in the previous games that were lost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
Apr 15, 2024, 10:21 AM
|
|
Games lost... Clemson lost the turnover battle 2-0 vs NC St, 3-1 vs Miami, 1-0 vs FSU, and 3-2 vs Duke....many of those turnovers though, went into the redzone for the opponent or were immediate scoring (scoop and score/pick 6). By the end of the season (games after NC St), they weren't as costly when they happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44063]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32972
Joined: 2/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: Those turnovers mean that we didn't outplay those teams.
Apr 15, 2024, 10:51 AM
|
|
No, we outplayed them. Every offensive stat was on Clemson's side beyond the turnover battle. Vs FSU, Clemson had the higher total yards, passing yards, rushing yards, YPP and all at the end of regulation. Similar with Duke (who only had better YPP because the turnovers caused less plays for a score), and NC St. Only Miami is slightly and exception with their rushing yards... that not Cade, FYI....he had 314 passing yards vs their 151.
That's outplaying them offensively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44063]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32972
Joined: 2/22/03
|
Sounds like you're handing out moral victories.
1
Apr 15, 2024, 1:37 PM
|
|
In reality though, we were who our record says we were, and that was a 9-4 team in 2023.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [568]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 6276
Joined: 8/30/14
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12883]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/30/16
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4309]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 3172
Joined: 11/7/22
|
when Trent Pearman TDed he had the exact same team
8
8
Apr 15, 2024, 7:25 AM
|
|
that Cade had
Cade was sacked play 1 because he refused to throw to Wesco on the first read. And Bryant Wesco was wide open . in a real game . Cade would have gotten strip sacked at the 15 yard line . he did not even see Sammy Brown
if he plays like this vs Georgia. he will not go NFL .
last year. he lost to Duke . Never scored a TD vs SCar (the 2nd lowest ranked team in the SEC east) and Clemson barely beat Kentucky (the 3rd lowest ranked team in the SEC east)
he's got to just make it happen
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1943]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2289
Joined: 1/13/18
|
Re: when Trent Pearman TDed he had the exact same team
3
Apr 15, 2024, 8:44 AM
|
|
Wait, so Cade lost to Duke? All by himself? I didn’t know this was a UFC or boxing site. 11 guys on the field and the QB didn’t lose that game by himself
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: when Trent Pearman TDed he had the exact same team
2
Apr 15, 2024, 9:53 AM
|
|
You'd think Mafah didn't fumble the ball in the redzone, setting up a Duke TD.... that WR's didn't fail at separating, we didn't run a bunch of failed screens, and that the defense didn't allow Riley to get a44 yd TD run. 🤷♂️
That's all on Cade I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [101]
TigerPulse: 77%
Posts: 84
Joined: 6/27/22
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1797]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1115
Joined: 4/6/18
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
2
Apr 15, 2024, 7:30 AM
|
|
Good analysis. David's obviously been doing this awhile. Of course, for us, it doesn't matter a bit who we think is the better quarterback, we don't have a say in the matter. But it IS something to talk about over the summer...Fall can't get here soon enough! Go Tigers! Beat the fowl smelling chickens!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [55]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 37
Joined: 9/21/19
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
2
Apr 15, 2024, 7:32 AM
|
|
My take away from this article is everyone understands Pearman gives us the best chance to win, but Dabo will never make the move because Cade has a higher ceiling and Dabo is too stubborn to make a change until we lose multiple games. Is that how y’all interpreted this article?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1045]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2083
Joined: 4/7/22
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
2
Apr 15, 2024, 9:24 AM
|
|
No, that's notvwhat the article says at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38206]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9365
Joined: 6/13/19
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
1
Apr 15, 2024, 8:14 AM
|
|
As Tin Cup would say, "Nice par, David."
Thanks for the update.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6687]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 9747
Joined: 9/22/11
|
Stetson Pearman and that walk on running back
Apr 15, 2024, 8:25 AM
|
|
were the best out there...why not mention them ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [921]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 536
Joined: 10/8/10
|
I don't care if it's Paul Crewe or Dottie Hinson
Apr 15, 2024, 8:25 AM
|
|
I just want a competent QB/offense for the first time in 4 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22768]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11560
Joined: 10/12/14
|
Good read as usual, David
4
Apr 15, 2024, 8:38 AM
|
|
But I do think Sammy Brown may have won a spot this spring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58457]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46341
Joined: 4/23/00
|
I get it; we haven't seen the totality of spring practice. We just saw one
4
Apr 15, 2024, 8:43 AM
|
|
controlled scrimmage. Dabo and his coaches know far more about football than I ever will. I'm cool with all of that.
Now - I know what I saw that Saturday, and that Saturday, Trent Pearman was by far the best QB on the field. On that day. By far. And by "best", I mean most effective at moving the offense down the field, most comfortable and efficient running the offense, and best at making the right reads and getting rid of the ball quickly, and the best and most effective at knowing when to tuck it and run.
To tell me otherwise is to tell me that water isn't wet, or the sky isn't really blue. Somebody is pizzing on my leg and telling me it is raining.
Cade and Vizzina may be our best QBs, and may give us the best chance to win. They may have been impressive throughout the spring. If so, they both had God-awful days on Saturday, and that's not what we are hearing. We are hearing that yes, Pearman had a good day, and coaches are not shocked by that at all, as they've known all along that he's a good QB who can help the team ... but Cade and Vizzina had a good day too, made some really great throws and played really well, and did some things the coaches really like. The cold hard fact that Pearman was clearly better that day was totally side-stepped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1045]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2083
Joined: 4/7/22
|
Re: I get it; we haven't seen the totality of spring practice. We just saw one
Apr 15, 2024, 9:25 AM
|
|
I'll point out yet again, the same thing was said about Klubnik vs. Uiagalelei.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58457]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46341
Joined: 4/23/00
|
To be clear, I'm not saying that Pearman is better than Klubnick.
1
Apr 15, 2024, 10:05 AM
|
|
I'm just saying that on that particular day, he was was clearly better, and I don't think that was acknowledged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: To be clear, I'm not saying that Pearman is better than Klubnick.
Apr 15, 2024, 11:16 AM
|
|
Does it need to be? The coaches aren't looking at the spring game as "this is the definitive game that tells us who is better" like some fans are. They use it to see where things are, where they need to go, what's good, what needs work...what to focus on during summer break. It's not made to be a litmus test for the next season like some of you are treating it. The first thing some of you need to learn is it is just a glorified early scrimmage for the fans to get enjoyment. If it were for holding serious implications, you wouldn't see Dawn Staley (the female basketball coach) making TD's in South Carolina's a few years back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1045]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2083
Joined: 4/7/22
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [133]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 77
Joined: 2/2/24
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
2
Apr 15, 2024, 9:10 AM
|
|
People thinking Pearman should be the starter blows my mind. Have you never seen spring games before. There are always spring game stars who shouldn't be on the field for the real games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44063]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32972
Joined: 2/22/03
|
I'm not sure many people here think Pearman should be the starter.
1
2
Apr 15, 2024, 11:19 AM
|
|
At least I certainly hope not.
But I do think people have concerns about Cade, and are looking for any sort of optimism - and Pearman provided that during the spring game.
As I've said before, I don't think Pearman is better than Cade, but I do hope we will have a true QB competition in the summer and fall (as we should every year). We didn't seem to have that during Cade's freshman year when DJ was our starter. We found out later in the year that Cade got almost no reps with the first team, despite DJ having significant struggles at times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1045]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2083
Joined: 4/7/22
|
Re: I'm not sure many people here think Pearman should be the starter.
Apr 15, 2024, 12:26 PM
|
|
Oh some do think that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44063]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32972
Joined: 2/22/03
|
Correct. Some, but not many.
1
1
Apr 15, 2024, 1:39 PM
|
|
I think most people here are being reasonable, acknowledging that Pearman played well while Cade and Vizzina didn't. Most people here realize that it's only April, and that we have a lot of time until our opening game.
The concern a lot of people do have, which I feel is quite reasonable at this point, is angst over Cade's development and whether or not he has improved much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15138
Joined: 2/13/15
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
3
Apr 15, 2024, 9:13 AM
|
|
I'm just here for the comments
🍿🍿🍿🥤🥤🥤
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [101]
TigerPulse: 77%
Posts: 84
Joined: 6/27/22
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
Apr 15, 2024, 9:57 AM
|
|
Is anyone else worried we're about to see another mediocre season from Klubnik after that spring game? He doesn't seem to progress year to year. Has he reached his ceiling?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44063]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32972
Joined: 2/22/03
|
Well, he's being coached by one of the highest paid staffs in the country.
1
Apr 15, 2024, 1:40 PM
|
|
I sure hope this isn't his ceiling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [541]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 560
Joined: 5/19/12
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
Apr 15, 2024, 10:04 AM
|
|
Way to start the fire for no reason just to put it out LOL.
Nothing muddled here but it's great to see him shows that he can play and frankly I'd love to see all the quarterbacks get more reps which is something Dabo simply will not do.
If you aren't a freshman named Deshaun or Trevor you aren't seeing the field unless it's 40 to nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44063]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32972
Joined: 2/22/03
|
Anyone who knows Dabo realizes that Cade is his guy.
1
Apr 15, 2024, 10:17 AM
|
|
And that it would take a lot (way more than just a spring game) to change that - if it can even be changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1045]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2083
Joined: 4/7/22
|
Re: Anyone who knows Dabo realizes that Cade is his guy.
Apr 15, 2024, 12:47 PM
|
|
Actually no that's not true. DeShaun Watson was starting by his fourth game, and Trevor Lawrence was starting by his fifth game.
The only example anybody can put up to support your theory is 2022, with Uiagalelei vs. Klubnik. However, this doesn't support the conclusion that Dabo "has a guy." With Klubnik's subsequent performance in 2023, it just proves that the reason Dabo stuck with Uiagalelei is because Klubnik wasn't really any better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44063]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32972
Joined: 2/22/03
|
Yes, we are all aware that Dabo eventually started Deshaun and Trevor.
1
Apr 15, 2024, 1:44 PM
|
|
That's what any decent coach would've done in that situation. Dabo doesn't deserve a gold star for that.
However, it could be argued that Dabo was too slow to adapt, and that he could've/should've made the switch sooner.
Stoudt was pretty bad as our starter, and I think Deshaun was clearly the better QB from game one. Bryant was a little different in that he had been our starter the year prior, and wasn't a new starter that year, and had led us to the playoffs. He was arguably a little harder to replace, although Trevor was outstanding from the get go.
Dabo seems to have a different relationship with Cade. I feel like their bond is even tighter than most. I don't think Dabo would consciously start Cade if he isn't our best QB, but I do think Dabo would subconsciously do so due to how much he loves Cade and believes in him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2000]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2868
Joined: 2/10/02
|
Propaganda campaign***
Apr 15, 2024, 11:07 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [166]
TigerPulse: 61%
Posts: 216
Joined: 2/22/17
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
Apr 15, 2024, 11:15 AM
|
|
Back to mediocrity we go
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1087]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 973
Joined: 4/23/22
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
1
Apr 15, 2024, 12:14 PM
|
|
We are going to be ok. CK is our guy and that isn't changing barring an injury.
Last years performance was an anomaly.
Not only CK turn the ball over , they usually contributed to points , immediately
in the form of a pick six or a scoop and score. It can't be overstated how unusual that it is.
If only by virtue of improved line play ( near certainty ) that will translate over to
the QB position. We should all agree on that ( or not ).
We will show notable improvement at WR albeit not immediately evident in the opener.
My hope is that this discussion doesn't create a QB controversy that could easily parlay
over into the season after the opener in the event we suffer a lopsided loss.
Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot before taking the field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12883]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/30/16
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
1
Apr 15, 2024, 12:42 PM
|
|
Yep, we had a couple 14 point swings last year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10824]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13439
Joined: 10/13/14
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
1
Apr 15, 2024, 5:16 PM
|
|
David, you say say Sammy Brown is different, which tells me very little. Every player is different from every other player. Do you mean he is good, better, or incredible?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17645]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14177
Joined: 10/24/10
|
The jury's still out on Cade Klubnik
1
Apr 15, 2024, 5:36 PM
|
|
It's Clemson's Offense (Dabo's Offense) that sucks. Dabo hired and promoted Streeter and Austin then fired them indicating they were hires who could not get the job done. And last year, Dabo was real clear that Riley was not bringing in his Offense, Riley would be managing the Clemson Offense.
Thumbs-up for Wes Goodwin and the Defense. The Offense is in Dabo's hands until he lets Riley do his job with new co-pilot Matt Luke. Cautiously optimistic improvement for 2024 Offense will come soon. With Game 1 opponent at another level than Duke, the question is how soon?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [55434]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58434
Joined: 7/18/07
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's quarterback situation isn't as muddled as some think
Apr 16, 2024, 10:06 AM
|
|
When speaking about TJ Moore, you think he was given the link that would allow him to look over the play book before he gets on campus?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 118
| visibility 4,051
|
|
|
50
