|
Replies: 23
| visibility 1
|
Varsity [204]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 116
Joined: 11/11/15
|
Clemson - Watson = Auburn
Aug 30, 2016, 10:02 AM
|
|
Hypothetically, if we didn't have WATSON, I believe this game would be a virtually even.
Agree or Disagree?
|
|
|
|
 |
110%er [7971]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3543
Joined: 10/18/09
|
Disagree, I think we're still better at nearly every
Aug 30, 2016, 10:03 AM
|
|
position, including QB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2507]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4135
Joined: 1/9/12
|
Heavily Disagree
Aug 30, 2016, 10:05 AM
|
|
We have the advantage at WR, TE, RB, OL, LB, DT and QB depth. Take away Watson and we still have more weapons on offense and better options at backup QB to use said options. They're better at DE and possibly DB but that's about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64586]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88994
Joined: 3/27/01
|
I respectfully disagree....
Aug 30, 2016, 10:05 AM
|
|
Even without DW4, overall Clemson would still be the better team offensively and defensively. The only areas where Auburn may have a slight advantage, special teams notwithstanding, is at defensive end and possibly in the defensive backfield.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3981]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 5094
Joined: 8/23/16
|
Re: I respectfully disagree***
Aug 30, 2016, 10:07 AM
|
|
They are not better at db. I think they have the edge at DE but maybe just barely. Ferrell is going to be a freak
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [204]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 116
Joined: 11/11/15
|
Re: Clemson - Watson = Auburn
Aug 30, 2016, 10:13 AM
|
|
I was speaking from more of a talent/potential standpoint, which is largely based in recruiting.
and what good are offensive weapons if you have no one to throw it to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4947]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6981
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Re: Clemson - Watson = Auburn
Aug 30, 2016, 10:29 AM
|
|
What good are talent/potential if you have no one to coach it? Auburn's potential didn't produce many wins last season and Clemson was winning 10 before Watson showed up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [204]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 116
Joined: 11/11/15
|
Re: Clemson - Watson = Auburn
Aug 30, 2016, 10:41 AM
|
|
> What good are talent/potential if you have no one to
> coach it? Auburn's potential didn't produce many wins
> last season and Clemson was winning 10 before Watson
> showed up.
Can we not have playful discussions on this board?
GeeZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93662]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95412
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Sure.
Aug 30, 2016, 11:22 AM
|
|
Are we placing too much confidence in the recruiting writer's evaluations? I know we've done well according to their opinions but the recruiting rankings fail many times. I submit Hunter Renfro as a prime example. Dabo has a knack for finding pearls which others overlook.
We must also consider last year's team. We return so many playmakers and add to them a couple more who were injured last year. Namely, a WR who we expect to be the best in the land and a running back who is expected to backup a 1500 yard rusher.
Honestly, being minus DW on this roster is something I did not wish to consider but I'm satisfied our backups are ready to take a shot. Any QB in the land would be a step down from DW but our guys are well versed in our offensive scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13360]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9886
Joined: 1/23/06
|
Re: Clemson - Watson = Auburn
Aug 30, 2016, 10:17 AM
|
|
Clemson - Watson - 9 - 7-16-10-42= AU
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5093]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17074
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: Clemson - Watson = Auburn
Aug 30, 2016, 10:17 AM
|
|
Clemson is probably still a better team but Auburn would be able to win.
It's going to be impossible for Auburn to beat Clemson with Watson though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13360]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9886
Joined: 1/23/06
|
Re: Clemson - Watson = Auburn
Aug 30, 2016, 10:28 AM
|
|
Is this a 1 out of 10 thing
or a 5 out of 10 kinda thing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16134]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 26435
Joined: 11/18/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2111]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2835
Joined: 6/30/14
|
disagree
Aug 30, 2016, 10:19 AM
|
|
we have better oline, more steady backs, better WR's, a better TE
on defense we have better LBs, better DBs (even though inexperienced on one side), better DT's
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [450]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 713
Joined: 11/27/11
|
I'll have to disagree as well
Aug 30, 2016, 10:22 AM
|
|
We are better at WR and RB and OL so offensively we are still better than Aubrun
Defensively it's hard to say but we are stacked with talent as are they but we a guy named Boulware and that I think makes us better than Auburn
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10402]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 17413
Joined: 8/9/10
|
Re: Clemson - Watson = Auburn
Aug 30, 2016, 10:24 AM
|
|
If our D is skrong then we skrong
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [167]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 92
Joined: 12/2/08
|
Re: Clemson - Watson = Auburn
Aug 30, 2016, 10:28 AM
|
|
I disagree and agree. Agree, only to the point that Shaun White would be the most experienced QB in the game and the game is being played in Auburn. I think home field carries about 7 points in this case. So, without DW.....we would be playing a inexperienced qb with KB or NS at the controls, and that could be difficult in that environment.
And now to disagree. We have better talent and experience at all positions with the exception of DE and maybe DB's.....so without DW we can still win with better talent and maybe coaching.
On a side note.....I think Gus M and auburn overall are so desperate for a big win they might take a cheap shot at DW early in the game to try and knock him out. I think they realize that their only chance to win is to eliminate DW. Gus is fighting for his job. And people fighting for their jobs will take cheap shots if necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17786]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13387
Joined: 9/16/03
|
you should read up on Clemson***
Aug 30, 2016, 10:29 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4659]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6063
Joined: 10/20/15
|
Re: Clemson - Watson = Auburn
Aug 30, 2016, 10:43 AM
|
|
Watson is one of many offensive weapons. He's super-human but I would have to disagree with your statement. Our 4th string quarterback is better than Auburn's first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15216]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 18247
Joined: 6/10/09
|
Overall talent, their guys were more highly recruited
Aug 30, 2016, 11:09 AM
|
|
overall. But QB is a huge deal. Some of their guys haven't panned out as well, i.e., coaching matters.
Their entire DL is a bunch of 5 stars. Maybe they haven't quite lived up to the billing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16363
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Minus the best player in America @ the most crucial position
Aug 30, 2016, 11:35 AM
|
|
Minus the best player in America @ the most crucial position on the field and ... yes, things would even up pretty quickly with a lot of other teams.
That's the reason why teams that have great QBs are generally better than teams that don't.
Even against great teams like Alabama, Clemson's QB makes them the better team ... at least until there is a kickoff 
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12314
Joined: 3/28/06
|
Corrected equation:
Aug 30, 2016, 12:50 PM
|
|
Clemson - Watson = Auburn + WRs, TEs, Oline, RBs, DBs, LBs
|
|
|
|
|
|
null [23]
TigerPulse: null%
Posts: 3
Joined: 2/15/09
|
Re: Corrected equation:
Aug 30, 2016, 1:46 PM
|
|
> Clemson - Watson = Auburn + WRs, TEs, Oline, RBs,
> DBs, LBs
This equation could only be balanced if you took DW4 away from us and gave him to Auburn. They tried that already...and failed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13038]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22360
Joined: 4/24/04
|
On a neutral site we would still be better provided
Aug 30, 2016, 2:07 PM
|
|
we got mediocre QB play (which is basically what Auburn has gotten from this bunch). Playing on the road in Jordan Hare... they might have the edge.
We are better across the board on offense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 23
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
