»
Topic: Look at this picture of Tony Steward
Replies: 36   Last Post: Apr 17, 2013 3:23 PM by: Bryanttiger®
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 36  

Look at this picture of Tony Steward

[3]
Posted: Apr 15, 2013 1:04 PM
 

Not sure if most people looked through the album, but he looks like a beast 2 years into S&C.

http://www.tigernet.com/view/photo.do?album=5863484117223095345&photo=5863485508874793090


Be sure to bring this up next time someone starts a

[1]
Posted: Apr 15, 2013 1:07 PM
 

"Fire Batson!" post

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

"IDIOT POSTER OF THE MONTH SO FAR...GWP-- You have won IPM Award for your failure to completely comprehend a clear post & then choose to attack someone who points out your ignorance. While you are not yet in the same No Class Catagory as deRoberts, ClemTiger117 & Tigerdug23, you are getting closer to the Sewer Dwellers." - coachmac


All the anti Batson posts disappeared after the Peach Bowl

[2]
Posted: Apr 15, 2013 1:16 PM
 

Our Tigers were in so much better shape than LSU's. You could see that in the pre-game activities - much less body fat on most of Clemson players. The nutritionist needs to be credited also, as in the pre-game steak eating contest, LSU eat almost twice as many! Too much steak can make you sluggish!

military_donation.jpg

Nah they didn't stop. In 2012 FSU outphysicaled us, and so

[2]
Posted: Apr 15, 2013 1:31 PM
 

did uSC (again). When we stop seeing a couple/few losses every year to teams who are able to bully us, then the Batson stuff isn't going to go away.

The LSU game was awesome. We certainly wore them down, and that was good to see, but one game doesn't mean the yearly physical losses are gone for good.


Re: Nah they didn't stop. In 2012 FSU outphysicaled us, and so

[3]
Posted: Apr 15, 2013 1:36 PM
 

FSU didn't out-physical Clemson. The Clemson defense just wasn't playing well enough at that point in the season to keep them from outscoring the Tigers.

As far as SC, Clowney pretty much single-handedly won that one for them.


Agree completely, plus our game plan on offense seemed to


Posted: Apr 15, 2013 2:21 PM
 

be pretty vanilla against USuCk when compared to our game plan when we played FSU.


Message was edited by: GWPTiger®


2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

"IDIOT POSTER OF THE MONTH SO FAR...GWP-- You have won IPM Award for your failure to completely comprehend a clear post & then choose to attack someone who points out your ignorance. While you are not yet in the same No Class Catagory as deRoberts, ClemTiger117 & Tigerdug23, you are getting closer to the Sewer Dwellers." - coachmac


Sammy threw a TD pass, how is that vanilla?***


Posted: Apr 15, 2013 2:23 PM
 




He means the gameplan against SC was vanilla

[1]
Posted: Apr 15, 2013 2:25 PM
 

If we did half the things we did against SC then we win that game. You can't do simple drop back passes against one of the best DEs in the country if oyu refuse to double him with a TE.


Ohhh

[1]
Posted: Apr 15, 2013 2:27 PM
 

I read it as our offensive game plan against FSU was vanilla compared to FSU's offensive game plan against us, not that our offensive game plan.

Now I'm on the same page.


Consider it edited and corrected for clarity


Posted: Apr 15, 2013 2:46 PM
 

:)

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

"IDIOT POSTER OF THE MONTH SO FAR...GWP-- You have won IPM Award for your failure to completely comprehend a clear post & then choose to attack someone who points out your ignorance. While you are not yet in the same No Class Catagory as deRoberts, ClemTiger117 & Tigerdug23, you are getting closer to the Sewer Dwellers." - coachmac


Thanks


Posted: Apr 15, 2013 2:47 PM
 

sorry for being "that guy"


Re: Agree completely, plus our game plan on offense seemed to


Posted: Apr 17, 2013 3:23 PM
 

Game plan goes out the window when you don't have the ball in second half

military_donation.jpg

Completely disagree.


Posted: Apr 15, 2013 6:16 PM
 

Go check FSU rushing stats and watch the game film again. They consistently pushed us backwards when it mattered most. I mean they REALLY beat the snooze out of us up front. It's amazing how someone would not be able to see that with their own eyes.

The reason uSC won the game was because they pressured us up front, and it wasn't just Clowney. Granted it wasn't as bad as it's been the 3 years prior to the last game, but again, watch the film. They out-muscled just as has been the case the last 4 years.

Speaking of previous years, have you watched our football team the last 15 years> Most every time we lose it's because the other team is able to exert their physical will on us.

I honestly don't understand how someone can profess to a football person and not see it with their own eyes. Size and tone differences, and the results of those differences It can be seen on the field, plain as day.


Bullied us?? LOL!!***

[1]
Posted: Apr 15, 2013 2:28 PM
 



badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Oh, sorry, They beat the #### out of us...


Posted: Apr 15, 2013 6:16 PM
 

That better?


For months, much was made in the media about FlaSt FINALLY


Posted: Apr 15, 2013 6:36 PM
 

getting enough "depth" via some good recruiting classes back to back to win the ACC.

and I remember thinking that our guys were visibly slowing as well as giving ground during the last few minutes of the game....which we'd been "in" at the outset

I think a lot of Clemson fans took a little heart as the season wore on because there WAS some improvement in the defensive line and LB's ---not overwhelming by any means

2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: Oh, sorry, They beat the #### out of us...

[1]
Posted: Apr 16, 2013 7:14 AM
 

you are a moron if you think sc physically beat us...go back and really watch it....Im not saying batsons old ways were good cause they weren't but we didn't lose to sc because we weren't physical


First of all, they did physically beat us. We lost because

[1]
Posted: Apr 16, 2013 6:59 PM
 

they were able to consistently win the LOS and maintain possessions.

I watched the game several times over. It's always the same. I am far from a moron. I played football at the collegiate level, and I perfectly understand what I'm seeing on the field.

uSC had 6 sacks and many other TFLs, and consistently got pressure on Boyd. They and held us FAR below our average amount of plays and yardage. Because the won the LOS.

They held the ball for nearly 20 more minutes, they ran 27 more plays, had 8 more first downs, and finished well above their average offensive output. Because they won the LOS.

The LOS is where physical battles are most prevalent.

It wasn't flukey and it wasn't their skill players.
They won the game because they were more physical - just as they've been doing for 4 years running. I'm not sure what game you watched, but I'd be interested in hearing your theory as to why we lost.

Overall, this is not a new issue. You can argue uSC until the cows come home, but the bottom line is the same. Batson remains on the hotseat until we can win the physical games, which we have typically lost over the last 15 years. LSU does NOT erase all of that.


Re: First of all, they did physically beat us. We lost because

[1]
Posted: Apr 16, 2013 9:02 PM
 

i am not defending batson but i think the game was won on the 4th and 19 that thompson picked up with about 6 minutes to go. we hold imo we score and win. also our offense looked like we were not prepared for their aggresive man coverage. we ran the ball well but seemed to just give up on the run and try to prove we could throw. sorry for comments but i just watched it again.


So those ton of relevant numbers I posted are meaningless?

[4]
Posted: Apr 17, 2013 1:56 PM
 

By the way, aggressive man = physical.
Pressure up front, sacks, TFLs = physical.
27 first downs and keeping the ball twice as long = physical.
Far more than their avg offense = physical.
Far less than our avg offense = physical.
4th and 19 = unable to get off blocks = physical.

uSC beat us because they were more physical. Same as the last 4 years. Similar issue going back 15 years. What's the common denominator?

Again, we can argue uSC all day and we can endlessly point to the LSU game, but in any case the whole body of evidence far outweighs them.

We MUST improve in our physical game, or we will not become an elite team. I have hope, but the jury is out.


Re: Be sure to bring this up next time someone starts a


Posted: Apr 15, 2013 2:31 PM
 

LOL, what a stupid post. TS already looked like that before he got onto campus. The "fire batson" posts will go away when dabo fields a team that can actually beat the coots. As long as they are able to push us around and manhandle us at the lines, then it's pretty obvious batson isn't getting the job done. Although i'm convinced most of the posters on tigernet actually like losing to the coots, judging by the way they defend batson at all costs.


Interesting theory. So what do you think Batson should do

[1]
Posted: Apr 15, 2013 2:47 PM
 

that he does not currently do? What do you think is missing from the S&C program?

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

"IDIOT POSTER OF THE MONTH SO FAR...GWP-- You have won IPM Award for your failure to completely comprehend a clear post & then choose to attack someone who points out your ignorance. While you are not yet in the same No Class Catagory as deRoberts, ClemTiger117 & Tigerdug23, you are getting closer to the Sewer Dwellers." - coachmac


I know for a fact some new techniques utilizing man-on-man


Posted: Apr 15, 2013 6:20 PM
 

drills as opposed to man-on-steel drills are being implemented as we speak.

You don't really learn too much about gametime want-to, desire, and aggression by fighting with steel.

It's a start.


Before...***


Posted: Apr 16, 2013 9:36 PM
 





military_donation.jpg

After...***


Posted: Apr 16, 2013 9:36 PM
 





military_donation.jpg

He already looked like that in high school

[6]
Posted: Apr 15, 2013 1:08 PM
 

img


Re: He already looked like that in high school


Posted: Apr 15, 2013 1:22 PM
 

You beat me to it... he looked like a beast before coming to Clemson.


Exactly!***


Posted: Apr 15, 2013 1:58 PM
 



badge-donor-05yr.jpg

He has lost muscle since going to Clemson's S&C program. He


Posted: Apr 15, 2013 10:35 PM
 

will soon look like he did when he was a HS sophomore. Geeze. We are doomed.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

Ha, the camera adds ten pounds....***


Posted: Apr 16, 2013 9:13 PM
 




Re: Look at this picture of Tony Steward


Posted: Apr 15, 2013 1:24 PM
 

Speaking of Steward, I thought he played pretty well Saturday. He seemed to be pretty aggressive. Looking forward to him having lots of PT.


Obviously it's photoshopped


Posted: Apr 15, 2013 1:50 PM
 

It looks like someone used Clowney's physique.


I thought Tony was #14...***


Posted: Apr 15, 2013 1:48 PM
 



2019 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-revdodd.jpg


Been #7 as long as I can remember


Posted: Apr 15, 2013 1:57 PM
 

Martin Jenkins is #14 on the defense.


Re: I thought Tony was #14...***

[1]
Posted: Apr 15, 2013 2:29 PM
 

Don't believe they know "Smoke"


That's why we respect football players more than any other


Posted: Apr 15, 2013 2:00 PM
 

sport. Think about that running at you full speed if you're a RB or QB or even on the OL. You willingly put yourself in line for that abuse every time you play the game for the good of your team.

2019 student level member

Clowney isnt that bulky.


Posted: Apr 16, 2013 12:44 AM
 

He's taller and leaner


Replies: 36  
[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
4667 people have read this post