Replies: 45
| visibility 1
|
Webmaster [∞]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11175
Joined: 11/30/95
|
Clemson Football Quarterly Report: Reason For Optimism?
Sep 30, 2009, 11:38 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12092]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9869
Joined: 10/29/00
|
Optimism is not allowed in this Dojo***
Sep 30, 2009, 11:39 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7020]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15680
Joined: 10/10/02
|
The chicken little's in here won't have it.***
Sep 30, 2009, 11:40 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7831]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 20489
Joined: 10/9/04
|
Well the sky was falling on Saturday atleast in the 3rd/4thQ***
Sep 30, 2009, 1:47 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7020]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15680
Joined: 10/10/02
|
True.
Sep 30, 2009, 5:34 PM
|
|
Luckily I was in front of a large screen with a projector from the laptop due to your GREAT advice.
Thanks. lol
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3276]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6503
Joined: 1/13/04
|
shouldnt the quarterly report come out every 3 games?***
Sep 30, 2009, 11:51 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18133]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22431
Joined: 9/1/99
|
Where I come from, 12/4 still = 3***
Sep 30, 2009, 12:36 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15730]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17364
Joined: 2/1/99
|
14/4 = 3.5. Rounded up to 4. :) ******
Sep 30, 2009, 2:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [43989]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32916
Joined: 2/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso [621]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 1777
Joined: 1/18/06
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6768]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 12493
Joined: 2/13/05
|
Parker didn't turn the ball over because TCU
Sep 30, 2009, 12:19 PM
|
|
DB's dropped 2 balls. One that might have been a pick 6.
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [149]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 354
Joined: 10/27/03
|
One point of disagreement......
Sep 30, 2009, 12:34 PM
|
|
Rhymer says: "He (KP) has played cool and calm, something you need from a quarterback."
Although I think that this statement is very true of KP's performance in the second half of the GT game, I did not think that this was true of the TCU game at all. He seemed a little rattled to me which affected some of his throws and the receivers' ability to catch them.
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: One point of disagreement......
Sep 30, 2009, 5:35 PM
|
|
PUT WADE IN!
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1298]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2324
Joined: 2/26/02
|
Re: One point of disagreement......
Oct 1, 2009, 9:34 AM
[ in reply to One point of disagreement...... ] |
|
Parker seems to play QB like James Davis ran. Takes a while to get a rythem and build up a head of steam Anyone else think so
|
|
|
|
|
null [10]
TigerPulse: null%
Posts: 1
Joined: 10/22/08
|
Re: Clemson Football Quarterly Report: Reason For Optimism?
Sep 30, 2009, 12:37 PM
|
|
Clemson only play 12 games, so how can this be a Quarterly report? Also Jacoby Ford is on pace to have 60 receptions, over 800 yards and 6 touchdowns.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7980]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22420
Joined: 2/27/02
|
you're right its a third report
Sep 30, 2009, 12:39 PM
|
|
way to go math wizard...
but if Clemson plays in the ACCCG then it is indeed a quarterly report
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1110]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1549
Joined: 9/16/99
|
We're playing 14 games this year, so it's close to quarterly***
Sep 30, 2009, 12:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [182]
TigerPulse: 50%
Posts: 422
Joined: 12/8/03
|
Re: you were too easy on Parker!***
Sep 30, 2009, 2:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4741]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5232
Joined: 1/29/99
|
Quarterbacks play differently in real life than on the Xbox.
Sep 30, 2009, 2:28 PM
|
|
Some of y'all still haven't figured that out.
For a guy with four starts and less than a year of coaching, Parker has been more than fine. Not great, but solid and more than fine. That's about the best you can hope for with someone of his limited experience.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1726]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 3423
Joined: 2/7/07
|
It's a report card. It shouldn't be weighted by age caveats***
Sep 30, 2009, 3:37 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4741]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5232
Joined: 1/29/99
|
So performance expectations shouldn't be adjusted based
Sep 30, 2009, 3:42 PM
|
|
on the experience of the players?
I think it's fair to include Parker's inexperience in his assessment, just as it would be fair to be critical of upperclassmen underperforming relative to their experience.
IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1726]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 3423
Joined: 2/7/07
|
None of the other categories were weighted by experience.***
Sep 30, 2009, 5:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4741]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5232
Joined: 1/29/99
|
None of the other categories have a true freshman
Sep 30, 2009, 5:57 PM
|
|
playing just about every single snap.
Except for maybe Goodman, who is a beast.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying Parker gets a "pass" because he's a freshman. I'm saying that I would evaluate the performance of a freshman at any position differently than I would a senior. For a freshman with four starts, Parker looks slightly ahead of where I expected him to be. If he were a senior - or even playing this way at the END of the season - then he'd be behind where I expected him to be.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1726]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 3423
Joined: 2/7/07
|
RS freshman actually. But not weighted for seniors either.
Sep 30, 2009, 6:26 PM
|
|
I agree with Rhymer's and your assessment. But I can also see why TigerDunes commented that Rhymer was too easy on Parker. For example, Rhymer calling Parker's (47%) accuracy "average" was probably generous. Admittedly, Parker has been impacted by some drops, but he's also benefited by some heroic catches on poor throws. He has rarely put the ball on the money.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4741]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5232
Joined: 1/29/99
|
Sorry - and you are obviously correct that Parker is RS Fres
Sep 30, 2009, 7:17 PM
|
|
I honestly forget that sometimes and view him more like a true freshman since Swinney has admitted in articles recently that Parker was treated as 4th string under Bowden last year and didn't receive *any* one on one coaching from Spence or the offensive staff until bowl prep.
But he is indeed (obviously) a RS Freshman. My apologies.
I agree with you that accuracy has been Parker's weakest area. I'm just encouraged by other things he's done that our last two QB's (Proctor and Harper) weren't as good at - throwing the ball away to avoid a sack, tucking and running, generally not trying to force a ball into a bad area, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1726]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 3423
Joined: 2/7/07
|
Agree 100%.***
Oct 1, 2009, 12:26 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1726]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 3423
Joined: 2/7/07
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1298]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2324
Joined: 2/26/02
|
Re: Should we lower expectations for rookies, Dabo & Napier too?***
Oct 1, 2009, 9:37 AM
|
|
They are meeting exectation which was low to start with
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7831]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 20489
Joined: 10/9/04
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1726]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 3423
Joined: 2/7/07
|
Rhymer doesn't ride Parker. His review is quite favorable.
Sep 30, 2009, 5:43 PM
|
|
Read what Rhymer wrote about Parker. It's pretty darned positive.
"Kyle Parker has been up and down through the first four games.... He’s playing like a redshirt freshman who has a ton of potential. His experience as the year goes along should improve his play. "
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4741]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5232
Joined: 1/29/99
|
I think it's accurate.
Sep 30, 2009, 5:53 PM
|
|
Parker is playing about like I expected for a redshirt freshman who didn't receive any coaching until bowl game preparations less than a year ago. He's made far fewer mental mistakes than some other recent QB's; I appreciate his ability to stand in the pocket but also to throw the ball away rather than take a sack.
His accuracy needs to improve but I would think that's easier to cotntinue to coach up than things like avoiding sacks, tucking and running, etc.
I guess you and I have different levels of expectation for Parker and that's fine. I expected him to be shakier than he has been. I also expected him to get better as the season progresses, and this is still my expectation. We'll see if this happens or not.
Said differently, I'm fine with the way Parker is playing right now after only four starts and less than a year of really being in the system. But if he's still playing this way in November, I'll be very disappointed that he didn't progress more over the course of the season.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1726]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 3423
Joined: 2/7/07
|
Me too.***
Oct 1, 2009, 12:15 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1298]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2324
Joined: 2/26/02
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1726]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 3423
Joined: 2/7/07
|
Hard to point to play calling as the reason for losses? Ha!
Sep 30, 2009, 5:26 PM
|
|
Clemson was 7-for-20 on 3rd & 4th down conversions against TCU, and 7-21 against GT. Much of that was attributable to poor play calling, as is the poor red zone production, and lack of offensive TDs.
Example 1: 4th-and-1 at the TCU 36 with 4 minutes left in the 2nd quarter, and Napier calls a QB sneak behind our O-line against TCU's stout run-defense with 11 in the box and fails to gain an inch. BAD, BAD play call that cost Clemson between 3-7 points and perhaps the game.
Example 2: 3rd-and-7 at the Clemson 20 with 1 minute left in the 3rd quarter, and Napier runs Spiller between the tackles even though Spiller only had 1 run all game between the tackles that went for 7 yards. Spiller had several 7+ yard runs off tackle, so why not run Spiller off tackle where you've had success rather than up the middle where you haven't? Bad play call. As a result, TCU got the ball at midfield and scored the game winning TD.
Go back, watch the games, and look closely at the play calling (and for example, the lack of game planning for GT's future NFL DE Morgan). It's not just bad luck or poor execution that has caused our offense to be impotent-- game planning and play calling has contributed greatly.
|
|
|
|
|
Rookie [13]
TigerPulse: 37%
Posts: 57
Joined: 10/15/07
|
Re: Hard to point to play calling as the reason for losses? Ha!
Sep 30, 2009, 9:11 PM
|
|
Once again Razz you're spot on. Napier's play calling is predictable just like Spence was. No creativity.
I'd like to see him move Spiller around more to create mismatches with linebackers and safteys. Maybe use Ellington or Harper more in the backfield. And do the same with Jacoby. I think in the second half against TCU they did a good job of taking Ford away which really hurt our passing game. Sometimes it seems like Napier is just calling plays at random.
Parker is doing well. I like his mobility but he needs to get more accurate and more consistent. He had a very good first half against TCU but very poor (weather impacted) second half.
In the end though, I don't really care about Parker's number or Spiller's numbers. I care about the W's and whether or not we make it to Tampa.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4249]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2926
Joined: 12/2/03
|
Re: Hard to point to play calling as the reason for losses?
Sep 30, 2009, 11:11 PM
|
|
I would like to see some toss sweeps to spiller and some pitches to him instead of just hand offs. I'd like to see him wide open when he hits the line. IMHO, he would gain more rushing yards that way.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1726]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 3423
Joined: 2/7/07
|
That's not just your opinion. Rewatch the game. Worked well.***
Oct 1, 2009, 12:18 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15501]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 21400
Joined: 9/24/07
|
Re: Hard to point to play calling as the reason for losses? Ha!
Sep 30, 2009, 11:40 PM
[ in reply to Hard to point to play calling as the reason for losses? Ha! ] |
|
I agree. Our OL can't seem to open a meaningful crack, much less a hole for them to run through. The pass blocking has been decent, but for us to try to run up the middle in those situations is foolish. Also to run CJ to the short side of the field takes away his speed in space advantage. Give him room, and nobody will catch him. Let's play to our strengths or away from our weaknesses. When we show we can get positive yards up the middle, then we can try that, but right now we have no good history of being able to get it done.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2775]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1694
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Hard to point to play calling as the reason for losses? Ha!
Oct 1, 2009, 6:47 AM
[ in reply to Hard to point to play calling as the reason for losses? Ha! ] |
|
A QB sneak on less than a yard is NOT a bad play call. It's the wide runs that usually leave fans scratching their heads when they fail. Sometimes plays are not executed well but it was not a bad call.
3rd and 7-I think that was a delayed hand off ie draw. Their LB's were split wide and had been all day. I would argue for a TE slant or the slot receiver over the middle. Pouring down rain-not necessarily a bad call. He could have easily broken that play for big yardage as their secondary bailed long much of the day.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1726]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 3423
Joined: 2/7/07
|
Tebow sneak behind somebody else's O-line might have worked.
Oct 1, 2009, 11:40 AM
|
|
But you've got to play with the personnel that you have, not the personnel that you wish you had. A Kyle Parker sneak behind our O-line was not smart, IMHO. Through 4 games, our O-line just hasn't been pushing the opponent off the line in those bunch 'em up 3rd-and-short situations. They are capable of doing some decent run blocking when they spread out a bit more, but not when there's 11 in the box, and everybody in the stadium knows where the run is going.
I don't think future 1st round NFL RB Spiller failed to gain a yard on an off-tackle (not sweep) run all day. Personnel and percentages.
3rd & 7 was a delay hand-off (didn't quite look like a draw) up the middle. LB's were a bit wide and collapsed on CJ quickly. Since only 1 play all day went between the tackles for 7 (exactly), that just seems like a low percentage call, IMHO.
And those are just two examples, and I'm sure that there was rationale for each and every play-call. But the bottom line is that our offensive production all year has been far below that of our player-talent. I doubt that our playbook is smaller than that of other teams. I'm certain that our play-calling and game-planning has been weaker than that of top tier OCs.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1298]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2324
Joined: 2/26/02
|
Re: Clemson Football Quarterly Report: Reason For Optimism?
Sep 30, 2009, 9:24 PM
|
|
Scott I agree that the team is where we should have expected it to be. I saw TCU as a toss up preseason and but for a tipped reception, a missed field goal, or a takeway from Maxwell we would have won. The rest of the season I hope Napier got the message - take the points. You are right on the WRs are not in the game receiveing OR blocking. I hear Dabo spent some personal time there but they are not in the game. You are also right on that we have strong change at the division. We will struggle against Fridge because we almost always do but win, we pressure Skinner into mistakes and beat Wake and we beat FSU on a home field advantage and growth of the players and better execution. We are on target not to repeat a 4-4 ACC record and to be in the hunt for a respectable bowl. Parker is coming along and will continue to grow. Where I see the biggest issue is offensive coordinator and execution by younger players. Napier has to pull a rabbitt out of the hat to maintain confidence of the players and the fans. He is a game away from being a sacraficial lamb IMO. Basics blocking on the offensive line, blocking by the and WRs and better hands by receivers. Stop trying to make CJ a wide receiver for the deep ball threat. As the year goes on the going will get harder and harder for Spiller as they key on him more and more unless we create more threats and diversity in the offensive production. We have to see Ellington become the threat that he is, Harper has to show bigger and we have to call Harper and Taylors number more. Get the ball in space to Spiller and Ford more often. I think it's an OC issue and we are going to need to kick a lot of field goals Yes this team can win the divison and get to the Conf Championship and with some breaks win it.
Message was edited by: CUTIGERTIM®
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2760]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1578
Joined: 5/11/04
|
Re: Clemson Football Quarterly Report: Reason For Optimism?
Sep 30, 2009, 10:30 PM
|
|
Overall a reasonable assessment; i would suggest that napier consider two TE's with taylor/diehl and spiller/elllington in the backfield more; our WR (except ford of course) are Div II players so why try to beat good teams with marginal players. play action passing becomes more effective, eight in the box allows ford more space, parker doesn't have to win the game for us (he is horribly inaccurate to date); puts our best players on the field. with our defense, less some secondary lapses, and special teams, we could use both power and speed in a way most ACC teams don't. DE have to play better assignment football and stop try to break sack records. LB have to get off blocks quicker.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1298]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2324
Joined: 2/26/02
|
Re: Clemson Football Quarterly Report: Reason For Optimism?
Oct 1, 2009, 9:46 AM
|
|
watch grand valley and wish our WRs are equal to Division II. They have to step up. XDye needs to clear his head and work harder and execute. He was a critical cog to being successful this year adn has failed us
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Cub [12]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5
Joined: 10/13/08
|
Re: Clemson Football Quarterly Report: Reason For Optimism?
Oct 1, 2009, 12:36 PM
|
|
This article is not realistic. Was it wrote by Dabo's dad? The only person on the coaching staff that is doing their job is Kevin Steele!! And I will give Dabo credit because he hired him but Napier leavs ALOT to be desired! It was never more obvious than when we played GT. Their is sooo much talent on the team, I dont know how someone could blame ANYONE else for the losses. I was also disappointed to hear Dabo tell them it was ok that they loss to GT & TCU because "It was close." "A COMBINED TOTAL OF 7 PTS." ITS NOT OK!!! They should have won both games by 21 in my opinion. You wouldnt hear Bill Cowher or Danny Ford say something like that!! Come on, they need a coach, not a buddy! You dont hold their hand and tell them it's ok, you demand results and expected nothing less. I know it sounds like i dont like Dabo. That is not true. I think he is a good man and will be a good coach. He has ALOT of good ideas and practices and i am pulling for him. I apologize for thr rant, it's just that i love the Tigers and want to see them get back to playing for championships. It seems every year we feel like, this is the year. All of the pcs are in place and then BAMM, IT FALLS APART. I dont believe the players are confident that they can win or playi on the same level as a Florida or Texas.... and THEY CAN!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
null [10]
TigerPulse: null%
Posts: 7
Joined: 10/10/08
|
Re: Clemson Football Quarterly Report: Reason For Optimism?
Oct 1, 2009, 10:06 PM
|
|
You are absolutely right. It is not ok to lose. Lose by 1...lose by a 100. Different coach; same approach. Clemson plays "ok to lose" football. They have been coached it is ok not to win.
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Cub [12]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5
Joined: 10/13/08
|
Re: Clemson Football Quarterly Report: Reason For Optimism?
Oct 2, 2009, 8:46 AM
|
|
Your absolutely right Scott! Thats perfect, diffrent coach, same approach.
|
|
|
|
Replies: 45
| visibility 1
|
|
|