You are correct sir.

I don't understand the injuries debate/excuse... would it be

york_tiger · 2014-11-16T19:54:06.450Z

accurate to say that the real effect of all our "injuries" is that we squeak by the Cuse's and BC's on our schedule, rather than blow them out? I mean... with our studs the last few years, we blow everyone out but still lose to FSU and SCU. This year, we have injuries, so we squeak by teams, but still lose to FSU (and likely SCU) Not a "bash" or "fire" post... I'm just trying to figure out the injuries argument. Other than GT (I have no idea what that was), we still win the ones we should and lose the ones we normally do. Is that not right?

hide the women and children!

This must be the stupidest collection of nitwits ever, to get on here and suggest that they have done a detailed comparative review of Ga Tech versus Clemson at each position on the team for the glorified, yet wholly undefinable,"Talent"!

You know, about 100 years ago when scientists were asked to explain what was in space they created an element called 'ether'. According to them it filled the vast emptiness as surely as if it had form and function. Startlingly though, they could not evidence any actual experimental results done on ether, nor provide any ether to test. Well, now we refer to 'ether' as dark matter and dark energy, and scientists actively try to test these concepts.

"Talent" is the great 'ether" of football numbskulls; it can't be defined, seen, nor quantified, yet whole seasons have been lost for the lack of it, and players have been put to pedestals for it.

Would it be that the "posters" on this site who profess to be "fans" of Clemson would have as much "talent" in their own cognitive perceptions of the game of football as they profess to see in the players on the Clemson team. Wow; then we'd really have a fan site worthy of the school.

epifunny

110%er [3821]

TigerPulse: 82%

Posts: 4395

Joined: 2009

if the only variables were winning & losing, then maybe so..

Nov 16, 2014, 3:52 PM

but that's not the only things that intelligent people consider...

So I think the reason for pointing out "injuries" is to note that this is just another factor that has weighed against this team this year in addition to the already knowns:

- loss of experienced talent at WR;
- loss of key players - both from an experience and a talent standpoint - on the O-line;
- loss of a RB who had proven himself in this system, and had the suddenness to the hole that the system requires;
- loss of experience at QB.

The injuries simply compounded this:

- the team has obviously missed Zac Brooks more than could have been imagined - in experience with the system, experience at the deep-back position, and experience in protections;
- the team has obviously missed Sam Cooper as a blocking TE more than could have been imagined as the O-line simply doesn't have the players to sustain an explosive running game threat without the extra blocker;
- the loss of Charone Peake at WR took away experience and explosiveness at a position already missing Sammy and Nuk and Tay Bryant from the last 2 years;
- the loss of Guillermo has created a lack of options at Center, and Norton has been unable to step up his game;
- the loss of Watson has hurt the opportunity to improve the QB position in certain areas that this system likes to take advantage of.

Clemson didn't lose to FSU because we're supposed to - remember that Dabo has beaten them twice already. Clemson lost to FSU due to a number of freak circumstances that combined with the already known issues and the injuries to overcome any positives we could bring to bear on the game. These would include but not be limited to:

- a hike over the QB's head from the opponent's 1 years line;
- Cole failing to hit a wide-open Leggett with a 6-yard pass for what would have been a TD;
- the failure of the refereeing crew to give us a TD right before the mis-snap;
- Davidson's needless fumble inside the opponent's 20 with less than 2 minutes to go;
- Ammon Lakip shanking a 23-yard FG;
- Mac Alexander falling down to create a long TD at a time when FSU had shown no ability to go the length of the field;

etc. ad nauseum.

Had any one of these things not happened, Clemson wins. End of story.

With regard FSU and the injuries, could the presence of Peake or Brooks have proven the difference in that game? Who knows? But one thing for sure, it didn't help not having them playing on the road at a team that has now won 26 games in a row.

And I find it hard to suggest that our loss to UGA this year is "one we're supposed to lose" since, well, according to unrevised pumper-adapted history, we beat them last year.

As for losing to USuCk - well we have't lost to them yet this year except for in the dark and dank, hopeless little souls of the TNET Naysayer Crew. Lord, when I get on this site these days all I can think of is the Gollum from the movie Hobbit.

My, my, little friends - Exiled2, badb, Tiger Woods, et al - have you gone and lost your 'precious'?

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

I don't understand the injuries debate/excuse... would it be

Seems to be the pattern, don't it?

Re: You are correct sir.

In your heart of hearts would you say without

dont really understand what you're saying... But

gallman had 82 on 14

Yes....

The O-Line/running back problem has been with

would you agree that our run game is primarily based on

Yeah. And here again is the question--how does

I'm not sure ours is as bad as we say...

True but missed blocks and being overpowered in the

IMO it's scheme, not technique or talent so much

All that is straight up coaching.

Re: dont really understand what you're saying... But

Yes, and that indicates....

I did at one time... and I was a big Morris fan when he was

The difference between Dabo and TB

Like I said...

hey, we came a lot closer to FSU anyhoo***

Here's what I believe . . . even with the injuries, the

yes

What does that leave? Not sure I understand your kweshun.***

sorry... I'm saying that when talent is close, either b/c

Thanks - agreed.***

oh Lord, they're bringing out the "TALENT" argument….

Lighten up - it's just an opinion, and it's my opinion that

We are, and it's not close***

if the only variables were winning & losing, then maybe so..

TigerBoard POTD