»
Topic: So, question for the coot lurkers
Replies: 128   Last Post: Mar 1, 2014 12:58 PM by: noletime
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 128  

So, question for the coot lurkers

[15]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 1:01 PM
 

As of right now you have the fastest quarterback, the fastest wide receiver and the #1 defensive player at this nfl combine. Yet you simultaneously argue that Spurrier does more with less than other coaches. You've had this group of guys for three years and don't even have a division title to show for it (SEC East was 2010).


The faster you run the faster you can get out

[11]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 1:03 PM
 

of that shathole university and town.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg


Re: The faster you run the faster you can get out


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 1:24 PM
 

Says the guy who lives in Bodymoore, Murderland. Second biggest dump in the US next to Detroit.


Meanwhile, in the streets of Cootlumbia

[4]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 1:46 PM
 




Re: The faster you run the faster you can get out

[1]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 3:38 PM
 

"bodymoore murderland"...

What are you 12?

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

null


I've been impressed with B. Ellington, just glad he's gone

[2]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 1:04 PM
 

He's a legit WR that doesn't have the height, but has everything else.

I seriously don't think the lamecocks can maintain their success. You don't keep that kind of success going when you've got guys like that going pro.


I imagine you're being objective?


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 2:12 PM
 

No bias at all involved in that prediction going forward?

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Whether it's objective (based on factually losing some of


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 2:17 PM
 

the best players you've ever had) or subjective, it sure beats stating the same error over and over again and calling it objective.

You're a riot, Chris.

Reality. Try it out sometime.


To my best ability. If I'm wrong, prove me otherwise and I


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 2:34 PM
 

may change my tune. That's the point of debating. Debating isn't stating the same thing over, and over, and over, with a few statements like "you're in your own reality" for an occasional twist.

I think Shaw was a very underrated dual threat QB, kinda similar to Clemson's Dantzler. He brought another dimension to your offense that has saved you time and time again. So yes, with him gone as well as a few other of your playmakers, I'd imagine like most logical fans would, you'll take a step back. Tell me where I'm being unfair in my assessment.


Shaw did so much that will be hard yo duplicate. Not saying


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 7:05 PM
 

It can't happen but he will be very hard to replace in many ways. He was the ultimate chain mover. If he needed 2 yds he could get them by finding the gap in the d and then getting down. He was very accurate on his passes and rarely made bad decisions. He did all of this under the scrutiny of one of the most demanding coaches as far as qbs go. That is where spurrier has had his challenges in getting a qb to, replace his to his style. Shaw so,far has been the only one who could hold up to it and thrive . This will be the biggest thing they have to deal with . This Is so easy to see and my gamecock friends are much more concerned with replacing their qb than I am with us doing the same and it has nothing to do with talent. It takes a rare combination of talent and thick skin to be the manin obs's system. Shaw was so far ahead of Mitchell, Garcia, and anyone else they have thrown out there and he was asked to do a lot mite than the average fan realizes.


none...no coot logic here***


Posted: Feb 24, 2014 2:46 PM
 



2019 student level member

Re: So, question for the coot lurkers

[1]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 1:04 PM
 

Just because shaw ran a 4.5 and boyd ran a 4.7 doesnt mean they have more and we have less. Boyds a way better qb than shaw.


Re: So, question for the coot lurkers


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 1:13 PM
 

I don't disagree. I was more pointing out that to hear the coots tell it, Spurrier spins gold from straw while Dabo ruins 4 star athletes. But this combine shows he has some pretty darn good raw athletes that he's done a pretty nice job of selling short.


Re: So, question for the coot lurkers

[1]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 10:31 PM
 

Excepting the times Tajh plays Carolina, of course.


Tell 'em coot***


Posted: Feb 24, 2014 1:34 PM
 




Motor Mouth dodging the subject as usual***

[1]
Posted: Feb 24, 2014 2:45 PM
 



2019 student level member

Re: Motor Mouth dodging the subject as usual***

[1]
Posted: Feb 24, 2014 4:46 PM
 

Nah, just responding to a previous unqualified statement while contributing a sorely needed grain of truth and reality to the discussion at hand. Have a great day!


Re: So, question for the coot lurkers

[3]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 1:05 PM
 

They have 5-0 to show for it. I wouldn't go there.


and a championship of bowl teams trophy. impressive!***

[2]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 1:06 PM
 



2019 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg


Re: So, question for the coot lurkers


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 1:10 PM
 

I think it actually highlights entirely that this is all the old ball sack cares about anymore. They clearly have more talent on display than any of their sec east peers but he pretty phones it in all year long against everyone but Clemson and Georgia.


Re: Re: So, question for the coot lurkers


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 3:36 PM
 

Tell 'em COOTER!!!


and just how impressive is that??? according to coot logic***


Posted: Feb 24, 2014 2:48 PM
 



2019 student level member

Lol


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 1:11 PM
 

Are you making some type of argument based on 40 times?


Re: Lol


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 1:18 PM
 

So you don't think they (40 times) matter and believe that Shaw and Ellington are marginal athletes that Spurrier has milked for their peak productivity? And since you know that 40 times and all these other metrics don't matter I'm sure the NFL would appreciate you letting them know. They could save a lot of money if they knew they could just ask Classof08 who to draft.


I'd don't think 40 times is the best way to rate players


Posted: Feb 25, 2014 7:11 AM
 

ability

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


So because Shaw and Ellington

[3]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 1:31 PM
 

are fast, SC should have achieved more? That's great logic, my man.

I think you forget that Shaw was not recruited highly and Ellington was on campus for basketball.

Is this your best argument against Spurrier? Did these 40 times entirely change your perspective of Shaw and Ellington? I think you're being deliberately obtuse.


I think the man is saying you have some

[8]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 1:33 PM
 

underrated athletes. But if you think otherwise then by all means, throw your players under the bus ala Slurrier style.


Re: So because Shaw and Ellington

[1]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 10:35 PM
 

What did you call me, Dufresne? Obtuse? Thirty days in the hole!


Tell 'em coot***


Posted: Feb 24, 2014 1:34 PM
 




I'm really not sure how


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 1:43 PM
 

that somehow is an argument for or against a coach.


Re: I'm really not sure how


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 1:47 PM
 

It is funny that facebook is making claims that because they are faster they are better, but when the argument is made as what the op is making, all of a sudden it does not matter.

You can not have it both ways, but yet I have seen you post on here for years and it is obvious that you are not a very smart man.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Nevermind, Ellington not in official top ten. He sucks again***

[1]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 1:55 PM
 




Why would 40 times


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 1:55 PM
 

indicate whom is the better player?

If you really have an issue with my posts, you're just a homer. I don't derive my self-worth from college football, so if you consider my posts far from objective, I really question your judgement. Therefore, I really don't care about your opinion on my intelligence.


WHO ARE YOU TALKING TO? LEARN TO USE A MESSAGE BOARD!***


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 2:00 PM
 




I've never seen a poster claim his opinions are objective


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 2:03 PM
 

so much as you have. My mind continues to be blown.

Here, this may help:

https://www.google.com/#q=definition+of+opinion


We get outrecruited by half the SEC and Clemson


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 2:14 PM
 

Even without a division crown, we are doing pretty dang good considering where you would expect us to finish based on recruiting rankings.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


It's your best 4 years of all time. You have one of the

[3]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 2:19 PM
 

winningest coaches in college football history.

You've had some excellent talent, regardless of what any non-scientific ranking may say.

Yet no SEC crowns. No major bowls.


Honestly, this just shows how impressive our run is


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 2:25 PM
 

We were the fourth best team in the country, but our league is so competitive we couldn't win the division, much less the conference or go to a BCS bowl.

Pretty amazing when you think about it.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


You played in the SEC Least and didn't play a single quality

[2]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 2:37 PM
 

team from the SEC West. This has been the case the past few years. SCU has had golden opportunities, over the past 3 seasons, to get to the SEC title game and/or a BCS game. Yet SCU has squandered those opportunities away with losses to UT this season, an anemic offensive team in Auburn in 2011, and losing to UF in 2012 even though UF didn't even have 200 yards of total offense.

Stop with the excuses. SCU has had an easy conference schedule over the past 4 years, and an easy OOC schedule too. SCU has just failed to take it to the next level, plain and simple. Biased polls don't change the fact that SCU has failed to take the next step.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Definitely an easy out of conference schedule.***


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 4:59 PM
 




By competitive do you mean your conference is near the same

[1]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 2:42 PM
 

level of talent/strength or that your conference is so much better than the others? B/c I believe two of your best teams lost in bowl season.

See, this is what I'm saying. You're definitely looking at this from the most sunniest perspective a gamecock fan can.


I'm saying the SEC had the 4th best team in the country


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 2:53 PM
 

and that team couldn't even compete for its conference title.


To me that's pretty impressive.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Re: I'm saying the SEC had the 4th best team in the country

[1]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 3:03 PM
 

But strangely that 4th best team in the country, loaded with all this NFL talent, and a Hall of Fame head coach couldn't beat the 60th best team in the country (Tennessee per Sagarin rankings) with a division championship on the line. This is supposedly your principle goal of the season. But that loss did make it easier for you to draw an offsides in a crucial fourth and short against Clemson so I guess we know what really matters.


Only one team went undefeated last season


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 3:17 PM
 

sometimes the better team doesn't win the game.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Re: Only one team went undefeated last season

[3]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 4:15 PM
 

This is an objective fact, Here are a few more for you. Of the top 10 teams in the final AP poll only 3 had a loss to an unranked team.: South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Oregon. Oklahoma lost to archival Texas who finished the season ranked 33rd by Sagarin. Oregon lost to Arizona who finished the season ranked 24th by Sagarin, South Carolina lost to Tennessee who finished the season ranked 60th. So yes, only one team was undefeated. Conversely, only one team managed to sh*t the bed against a team ranked lower than 33rd - a distinction South Caroljna crushed by a whopping 27 places. So feel free to console yourself that only one team went undefeated.

And since you told me sometimes the better team doesn't win I'll take that as a humble concession that Clemson is in fact the better team. Thank you.


Frankly, I hope Clemson is the better team every year


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 4:54 PM
 

If it means we beat you and finish higher ranked in the polls.

I can live with being the inferior team in this scenario.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


You are living with it. If CU or Scar gave Furman 6 TO's


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 5:05 PM
 

where we gave them to you (and yes, a couple you all did force) they'd probably beat us by more than 2 scores. I don't think many people that know the game would argue that. I honestly believe we were the better team this year, but just killed ourselves. The previous 4 years I concede you were the better.

2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


Re: You are living with it. If CU or Scar gave Furman 6 TO's


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 5:11 PM
 

Shouldn't the team that was clearly better actually lead at some point in the game? Or not "give up" so many turnovers? Those look like things inferior teams do. If Carolina won on a last second field goal off a turnover or something like that it would be easy to concede the better team may not have won. In this case, Carolina lead or tied for the entire game and played at home where they are rarely defeated these days. The better team won again.


So you probably should of lost to UCF? Thought so...


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 5:17 PM
 

then yall could kiss the precious 4th ranking goodbye.


Re: So you probably should of lost to UCF? Thought so...


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 5:27 PM
 

UCF??? South Carolina was up 28-10 in that game and ucf scored garbage time points to make it look closer than the game actually ever was in the 2nd half. Besides, they turned out out to be a pretty good team, you can't argue that. You're telling me that had Carolina lost another game they wouldn't have been #4 in the nation? That's really bold...


Yeah, after shutting you out in the first half.

[1]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 5:34 PM
 

And no, there is nothing bold about it. No way you stay at four with 3 losses...

1)FSU (14-0)
2)Auburn (12-2)
3)Mich State (13-1)
4)USuCk (11-2)
5)Mizzou (12-2)
6)Oklahoma (11-2)
7)Bama (11-2)
8)Clemson (11-2)
9)Oregon (11-2)
10)UCF (11-2)


Re: Yeah, after shutting you out in the first half.


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 5:43 PM
 

Congrats to UCF! Like I said, they turned out to be a good team. Finished in the top 10. Luckily they changed the rules in that game alone to allow the Gamecocks another half to try to win after being shut out in the 1st. That's sarcasm btw...Guess I should have made the sarcasm about the "bold" comment more obvious too. Obviously South Carolina would have been ranked lower had they lost another game...


Yes, probably out of the top 10 with losses to UT and UGA

[2]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 5:49 PM
 

What would USuCk cheer about then? Beating Clemson again? I'd imagine Slurrier has to work wonders making a sales pitch to recruits...



My sarcasm meter isn't broken...you just suck at it.


Fortunately we don't have to play the what if game***


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 5:53 PM
 



badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


You're right...won't have to wonder how USuCk fans will


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 5:55 PM
 

react when they aren't ranked fourth....they'll plummet faster than Clowney's land speed record. Most objective, unbiased statement of the day folks lol.


We will always be ranked fourth in the country


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 5:58 PM
 

The polls won't be changing for the 2013 season.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Whatever helps you and your university sleep at night...***


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 5:59 PM
 




Re: We will always be ranked fourth in the country


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 6:36 PM
 

The day before the day after tomorrow! Take that price, cut it in half, then double it....I won't pay a penny more! I'm confused by your use of, "always". By definition, doesn't always.......nevermind, I'm not going to do this. Heads will explode!

2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


Re: Yes, probably out of the top 10 with losses to UT and UGA


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 6:01 PM
 

Nice pic...I can't argue with you that they would have dropped outside the top 10 had they lost another game. Not sure what point you are trying to make. If Clemson had lost another game they wouldn't have been ranked in the top 15! Doesn't mean anything because neither team lost another game, and both finished in the top 10. Clemson had their opportunity to take care of business, end the streak, and knock the Gamecocks well out of the top 10. They didn't get it done in 2013 and next year the same opportunity will present itself for both teams. May the best team win again,and it will be as proven on the field no matter which team wins.


Re: Yes, probably out of the top 10 with losses to UT and UGA

[1]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 10:56 PM
 

They are only "pathetic" if you happen to be a very angry, irrational Clemson fan (lots of those, oh yes!). Otherwise, the entire football loving nation knows, and accepts the logical evidence, that South Carolina is now the better football program in this state.


I have no respect for a coot hiding behind a tiger handle...


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 11:01 PM
 

That screams troll....once a troll, always a troll.


Re: I have no respect for a coot hiding behind a tiger handle...


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 11:31 PM
 

Have you actually taken the time to read carefully my 'tiger handle', huh? By the way, what is your definition of a troll?


Tell 'em coot***

[1]
Posted: Feb 24, 2014 1:33 PM
 




Tell 'em coot

[2]
Posted: Feb 24, 2014 1:37 PM
 

65-41-4 says otherwise. 24 more and you are even. 24.


Honestly,


Posted: Feb 24, 2014 2:02 PM
 

I will probably die with Clemson still holding the all time series.

But even if we win 50% of the games going forward it's much better than my childhood.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Re: Tell 'em coot


Posted: Feb 24, 2014 4:50 PM
 

Tell 'em, nightshade! Hey man, just joking!


Re: Tell 'em coot

[1]
Posted: Feb 24, 2014 4:54 PM
 

Well, if Dabo stays at Clemson till 2037, anything is possible! Isn't that what he said in August? Anything is possible here!


Correction...10) UCF (12-1)***


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 5:43 PM
 




Garbage touchdowns late? You didn't score 1 point

[2]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 5:43 PM
 

till the 3rd quarter. You scored 14 points in the 3rd 4th quarters. I doubt Spurrier was comfortable being up by 4 whole points going into the 4th quarter, considering his O had only put up 7 points with less than 5 minutes (+or- a minute?) to go in the 3rd.

2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


Re: Garbage touchdowns late? You didn't score 1 point


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 5:52 PM
 

I don't think the 3rd quarter is defined as late in the game. I do however consider the second half of the 4th to be. That's when UCF scored 15 straight points. So I stand by my statement that they scored late garbage time points, when the Gamecock d was playing mostly prevent, that made the game look closer than it actually was after South Carolina took a 28-10 lead in the 4th.


Oh no...coots can use the idea of a prevent D to excuse


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 5:58 PM
 

close scores but Clemson can't against UGA and OSU? You coots put a smile on my face lol.

Before either one of you coots respond to this, know that that remark isn't entirely aimed at you...just the random coots who like to bring up close scores and what not. It's great seeing different coot posters try and rationalize things only to contradict each other...


Re: Oh no...coots can use the idea of a prevent D to excuse

[1]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 6:17 PM
 

Everyone that watched the UGA game knew clemson won easily at the end, and the 3 pt spread was misleading due to a pretty meaningless late td by uga.
However, the OSU game was extremely close throughout and after Boyd's pick they had a chance to go down and win the game outright. Don't think the pt spread was misleading there at all.


And Millers int put an end to that chance to go down


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 6:49 PM
 

and win that game outright. Actually the play (and the call by CBV) of our LB dropping into coverage directly in his throwing lane may've had something to do with it as well.

2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


Re: And Millers int put an end to that chance to go down


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 7:23 PM
 

but why is it that clemson lb's and coaches get credit for making a play and getting the int to win the game yet south carolina's lb's don't when they picked off boyd twice in a row to seal it?


I said y'all did cause a couple of the turnovers.


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 7:46 PM
 

However, we coughed up some very unusual ones vs you. 6 TO's doesn't happen very often. I'm not trying to take anything away from you, y'all won the game, but not many teams wouldn't beat us by at least 14 if if we gave it to them 6 (or 4 times if I give you credit for 2 of them without any excuses). I'm simply stating that IMO, if you turned it over to us 6 times, we beat you by far more than 2 scores as would many teams

2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


Not to mention the hens had 0 turnovers against us...


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 8:11 PM
 

That's a pretty big turnover margin... We'd have less of an argument if USuCk had say 3-4 turnovers in that game, but they didn't. You can't expect to win with that many turnovers. Very poor effort on some of our guys in key situations.


Re: I said y'all did cause a couple of the turnovers.


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 9:08 PM
 

Ok now I see what you are getting at. I understand your argument is that if we were clearly that much better than clemson we would have scored more off turnovers and made the score better reflect the turnover difference. I would say that the last 2 turnovers were essentially meaningless. I mean we were up by 14, there was limited time on the clock and boyd was just throwing it up there and hoping someone would make a play as the likelihood of coming from 14 down that fast is next to none. We weren't trying to score from that point on. We ran the ball straight into the D to run out the clock. No it's not vintage Spurrier anymore where he would keep passing to pile it on. He knew the game was secure and continued to milk the clock, like we have the last 5 years in general. If we had kept trying to score, I would just hear how classless we were for trying to run up the score and that we scored meaningless points at the end once clemson had given up


Credit shouldn't be given to a D when Boyd, against Morris's


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 8:09 PM
 

wishes, throws the ball instead of running. You could see the disgust in Morris's face after that interception. At that point, Boyd was playing for the D. That was a bone headed decision by Boyd and a gift to the D.


Re: You are living with it. If CU or Scar gave Furman 6 TO's


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 5:21 PM
 

You won off of turnover's (plural). Is Furman better than either one of us? No. Could they go an entire game against us without a turnover? Absolutely. Still doesn't make them a better team simply because they didn't have a turnover. First drive of the game, we easily march 70+ yards and make a bad call which results in a turnover. Morris is wanted by most programs in the country, but made a bad call. Had absolutely nothing to do with being outplayed by you guys...we were running it straight down your throat. Not an opinion, fact.

2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


Re: You are living with it. If CU or Scar gave Furman 6 TO's


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 5:32 PM
 

So using your logic are you willing to admit that Ohio State was better than Clemson? They were driving the ball at will most of the game. They were even about to take complete control of the game when a costly turnover allowed Clemson to come back, take the lead, and hold on to win at the end. They also had 4 turnovers. Clearly the better team lost that game too right? I think you and I would both agree Clemson caused those turnovers, scored those points, and won the game on that day because they were better as proven on the field.


OSU had 4 turnovers, Clemson had 2

[3]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 5:40 PM
 

Clemson had 6 turnovers against you, USuCk had 0. There's a little something called turnover margin...familiarize yourself with it.


Re: You are living with it. If CU or Scar gave Furman 6 TO's

[1]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 6:00 PM
 

The score was 40-35. We were both scoring at will. I figured whoever had the ball last would win. Shuey was lucky, as well as well coached to be in the right place at the right time to get his int after Crawford batted the ball. Venables made a great call by dropping our LB into coverage for the final int. Like I said, y'all made some plays that created turnovers, but TO's are hard to overcome for anyone. I just think if y'all were the better team, you should've beaten us by far more than 2 scores. As for Ohio State, I thought the game showed we were pretty evenly matched. Also, 16 penalties, some good calls and some terrible, (ie. 15 yarder on Beasley after his first sack to keep the drive alive on what would've been a 4th and a mile) can make up for a couple turnovers. JMO

2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


Re: You are living with it. If CU or Scar gave Furman 6 TO's


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 6:05 PM
 

Completely agree with everything you said. I thought going in that Clemson would win, as did a lot of people(not on espn). I thought Clemson was the better team overall. Clemson could have won by multiple scores but the late pick by Boyd actually gave OSU a chance to win the game when they had no business doing so.


Re: You are living with it. If CU or Scar gave Furman 6 TO's


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 5:57 PM
 

The being the better team part was just using Classof09's words against him. Curiously though no of the chicken responders have addressed the primary point that you are the only top 10 team with a "bad" loss. A real "bad" loss. When Spurrier came to Carolina he talked about deemphasizing the Clemson game. You could compare it to his stated indifference to Florida State to whom he had a losing record. But after losing to Dabo in 2008 he has made it his primary goal. This is reflected not just in the outcome but in constant attention to the game throughout the season and offseason. But now you are finally good enough to be competitive in the SEC and you somehow take your eye of the prize because well, Clemson!

Fact is, I wouldn't trade any of those losses in the last 5 years if it would cost us the 2011 ACC championship. That was, in complete honesty, more fun and more exciting than any of the numerous Carolina beat downs I've been at. Now it is time for Dabo to start his own streak and I fully expect him to have a winning record against you over this 8 year contract. And now, since your program is no longer a dumpster fire, we might actually get somewhere beating you. Unlike the 60 odd times it was just a meaningless formality.


Re: You are living with it. If CU or Scar gave Furman 6 TO's


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 6:10 PM
 

I don't think there is a single "coot" out there that will try to argue UT was an acceptable loss.(everyone has crazy fans) They were absolutely terrible this year and had no business being within 2 scores of South Carolina. That is the definition of a bad loss. However, the fact that South Carolina rose to #4 in the nation had more to do with the quality teams they did beat. UCF and Mizzou on the road are huge wins as well as Clemson at home. Wisconsin, although not as good as the last few years(multiple rose bowls) is still a quality win over a ranked opponent. So yes, the Ut loss was terrible but 3 wins over top 10 teams is something else that only 1 team in the top 10 had, and that one team is South Carolina.


Re: You are living with it. If CU or Scar gave Furman 6 TO's


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 6:26 PM
 

I don't really disagree with any of that, but going all the way back to my OP, where does that leave you going forward. I don't think you are suddenly gonna start sucking but it would be hard to argue that your recruiting over the last three years isn't a notch down from the preceding three years. You know the margin of error in the SEC is thin. And whether anyone within Carolina circles is willing to admit it, Spurrier is not getting any younger and it's taking him a heck of a lot longer to achieve his goal of an SEC championship than he ever expected. The players leaving this year, Clowney aside, would have been seen as a step down from the Ingrams, Gilmores, Jefreys et al of the last few years. But there they are holding their own at the combine. If the team in 2011, 2012, or 2013 want good enough for Spurrier and his staff to manufacture a championship, even a division one, where is the bolt of lightning going to come from? I think you are officially on the backside of Spurrier's trajectory but time will tell.


Re: You are living with it... (long)


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 7:21 PM
 

All valid points. First, to say that our recruiting is worse than in the past is only opinion. We finished with the highest avg per star ever in our history this year and was among one of the highest in the country. No we didn't have a flashy 5 star guy to headline the class, or 30+ recruits but our depth and quality of depth is excellent. 2015 is starting off excellent and we are in with most of our top prospects. Our coaching staff has proven to be excellent at evaluating and developing talent. We will never recruit top 10 classes every year like bama, uga, florida, but somehow we are currently able to complete with, and beat teams of that caliber regularly. We have put many players in the nfl recently, with many of them making instant impacts, which is very appealing to recruits going forward. Our facilities, despite what many on here say, are constantly getting better and better. (I know majority of fans don't actually go to our game every year so they just believe everything they read online about it being terrible) Spurrier is getting older, but he already leaves most recruiting to his assistants anyway and play calling is no longer just him either. Even if he retires from coaching in 4 or 5 years he isn't going anywhere. He personally added to his contract that he become a special advisor to the AD and will continue to influence many football related activities similar to what Ray Tanner still does with baseball. Not sure how we are on the backside, or trending down, when we have finished 8, 7, and 4 respectively over the last 3 years. Seems to me that's trending up. We do lose some key pieces, like CB's, De's, and a QB. We recruited heavily in the CB position and we will be very young and vulnerable there. We are a little thin at DE but have rotated many players in during the 2013 season and some big time recruits come in for depth. QB my be our biggest loss but we have a somewhat proven guy back there in Thompson(more so than Stoudt IMO.) He has had some close calls, and shaw bailed him out once, but DT has never lost a game. Also, like clemson, we have 2 highly ranked 4* qb recruits that we hope pan out, but have no idea how good they are that will challenge for time. Even if DT isn't as good as shaw, we have many rb's that are proven to be very good. So all in all, our O should be as good if not better considering the return of the O line, rb's, both te's, and only losing 1 receiver. The D, which has been the strong point of our team the last few years will be good up front again but not as good as the last 2-3 years. The lb's were excellent the 2nd half of the year and look to be even better after putting on some weight. The safeties return but like I said the CB's will be a weak point unless some of our recruits step up. That's being realistic. I don't think that just because we have 4 4* cb's that they will come in, start and be good enough in year 1 but we have to hope 1-2 are. We have been very close the last 3 years to getting back to the secc and there is no reason to think any team in the east will be clearly better than us in 2014. The 2 biggest threats are uga and mizzou, and we get both at home where we are extremely hard to beat right now. Can't win the sec unless you win the division first so that's the first goal. Second is to win the games we are favored in. That has cost us each of the last 3 years, where we win the tough games but lose to one team we shouldn't. That's enough about my team as I know this is a clemson board. I do enjoy reading and posting when fans can talk football and not get into a pissing contest.

I will turn the question back to you. This was one of clemsons best teams in recent history yet they were embarrassed by fsu, and lost to South Carolina(the 2 best teams on their schedule at years end). Beating OSU was big as it was in the bcs. Going forward, it appears fsu is only going to put more distance between them and clemson as they can recruit top 5 classes every year and clemson realistically can't compete with the talent in florida. You have to play at fsu, at uga, a couple tough games like unc and of course finish with the gamecocks. How does the future look as far as winning the division again, the conference, or getting into a playoff.?


Re: Re: You are living with it... (long)


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 7:27 PM
 

How's your division chances looking...I say abysmal as usual !!!


I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying I like our


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 7:37 PM
 

chances of doing any of those better than I like your chances. They say the first one is the toughest, and you don't have any conference titles (winning the SEC East isn't a conference title). You don't recruit as well as us, much less Bama, Auburn, LSU, Fla, Georgia,...which are all in your conference and 2 in your division. So, I pose the question. Would you rather try to close the gap on 5 teams or 1? There's a better chance of us winning 1 tough conference game than you winning at least 2 and possibly up to 4 or 5 depending on your schedule. Even Tenn is out recruiting you guys again. Add another to your list.

2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


Re: I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying I like our


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 8:55 PM
 

We finished higher than all but one of those teams...so the gap isn't there you speak of. You also seem to put more stock into a recruiting ranking more than actual on the field results and end of the year rankings. Again, what good does it do for clemson to "out-recruit" us every year if we keep winning on the field? Just shows recruiting only means something if the players can work together and if the coaches can get them to perform as good as their stars would indicate. Besides Clowney and Alshon, the best players against clemson the last few years have been shaw, ellington, sanders, miles, thompson, and so on. All players that you would not consider recruits as good as yours yet they have better on the field results and especially head to head. Clemson and FSU, for example is a different story. Uga, lsu, ut, bama, uf, have always recruited better than us but we are beating most of those teams on a regular basis. That just doesn't add up does it if recruiting is the end all be all? FSU out-recruits clemson by a mile according to the sites, but they also outplay clemson by a mile on the field. FSU is winning titles and has much more money, resources, history, recruiting hot beds, etc. That's tough for any team in the country to compete with. Plus, you have to play them on the road next year where clemson has not done well. Meanwhile, we get uga, mizzou, ut at home next year where those teams haven't beaten us in half a decade at least and not many players on any team in the country can say they have won on the road. SO as far as next year, I would much rather be in our position than yours. Basically your season could be over week 4 at 1-2(or it could set you up for a dream season). That has to be tough to swallow considering the toughest games are on the road. To answer your quetsion yes it is harder to have to beat 5 teams compared to 1, but that's just life in our conference. we chose that and have to deal with it. The financial benefits greatly outweigh the negatives and the gap financially will only continue to grow between us and clemson for the forseeable future.


The difference comes when you compare you're D line to


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 9:49 PM
 

ours for the past several years. We can compare skill guys all day, but there's no question yall have had the better D-line for the past several years with the possible exception of this past year. 6 turnovers from offense and special teams and no turnovers on your part is a recipe for disaster...I can't blame that on the D-line. Our secondary has been horrendous with marginal improvement last season. I expect this season to be better with our 5 star Alexander getting some playing time and some of the 8 DBs we recruited the previous year.

Next year will be the year Clemson's D really gains traction. I have no doubt our D-line will be one of the best yall will encounter.


Shane Morgan used to argue you were better in 2009


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 5:22 PM
 

That year would be more believable than 2013.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


That's cool......but I'm not Shane Morgan.


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 5:27 PM
 

More believable to who? I don't believe that to be true.

2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


Re: That's cool......but I'm not Shane Morgan.


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 5:33 PM
 

Well in 2009 you finished ranked higher so there is an argument to be made.

There really is nothing to base your argument on in 2013.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Other than an Orange Bowl....a loss to the NATIONAL champs,


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 6:28 PM
 

and the only other loss to your beloved #4 team in the nation doesn't mean we played any tough teams. Nor does a win over a healthy #3 Georgia and over #5 Ohio State wouldn't give credence as a logical basis for my argument. I don't know, maybe those are facts that don't make any sense to take into consideration. I mean we only played 4 of the top 5 teams in the nation. How many top 5 teams did you play again? Better yet, how many wins do you have over top 5 teams? We're in the lowly ACC. There's no way we played more quality opponents than you! But you were the #4 team in the nation....yea, that makes sense. Then again......I'm no Shane Morgan.


Message was edited by: TigerGrant8®


2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


I never once said anything about 2009, Chris, but now that


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 8:24 PM
 

you mention it a little research shows we were in the top 25 while you were somewhere in the 40's. You then lost to a 7-5 UCONN team in the pizza bowl and proceeded to finish the season 7-6.

There is simply no question Clemson was the better team in 2009. In all our loss to you in 2009 was almost as bad as your UT loss this year. They better than you Chris?

You should be ashamed to refer to your glory years as "5 years", but then again, your only tangible glory during the 5 years has been beating Clemson.

It's hilarious, considering your coach said the day he was hired, "We don't care about Clemson, we only care about SEC Championships".

9 years later... Nada. Zilch. Zero.


The polls are biased, your team got the number 4 ranking...

[1]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 3:13 PM
 

by default. SCU is definitely not better than OU or Bama.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Fortunately, your opinion is trumped by


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 3:17 PM
 

an objective fact.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


SCU has been finishing in the top 20 in recruiting over the

[1]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 2:30 PM
 

past 3 to 4 years. So, while Clemson is out recruiting the coots, it's not by a wide margin. If you're in the top 20 in recruiting year in and year out, you should have a good team. Another false argument from GEDof09. The reason SCU has improved so much is because they are recruiting better. Now at certain positions SCU is very average, which prevents them from taking the next step, but overall SCU has quality talent.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: SCU has been finishing in the top 20 in recruiting over the


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 2:37 PM
 

are they average or do they have good talent?


I think you're twisting his words...reread his post.***

[1]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 2:50 PM
 




The east sux and according to you coots so does Clemson so


Posted: Feb 24, 2014 2:50 PM
 

just what have you accomplished???

2019 student level member

I doubt the guy with an 100% pulse

[1]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 2:19 PM
 

is the authority on objectivity.

If you don't think the logic used by the OP is extremely poor, then you are just disengenuous and biased. It looks even worse now that Ellington has a slower 40 than Clemson players.


I don't care what's being said in this thread...you've shown


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 2:29 PM
 

you're consistently biased and that is all I need to know. You've confused opinion and objective countless times. For example, stating something "isn't fair" is not objective, again, that is an opinion. Once you learn the difference, you'll be better off. My pulse is hardly an indication of any homerism. I provide constructive criticism without mindlessly bashing or calling for someone's head every time we lose a game.


LOL

[1]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 2:36 PM
 

Are you making some type of argument based on pulse?

(see what i did there?). And if I had to guess why I have a 100% pulse it's because dirtpeckers don't pay therefore can't down vote me. When I disagree with a fellow Tiger, which is frequently, we keep it respectful and no need for TDs.


Please take this discussion off a fan board and go to objectiveboard.com***

[1]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 3:13 PM
 



2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Photobucket is holding my sig pic hostage. Screw them.


Would you please start that board so I can troll it?***


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 4:20 PM
 




Tall_Tiger


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 2:41 PM
 

You can state something is unfair and be still be objective.

Also, I'm about 100% sure that I've only claimed objectivity on here twice, so you're assertion that I have confused opinion and objectivity countless times is not only unfounded but subjective on your part.


Sure you can, I can say your views are unfair and also say

[1]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 2:45 PM
 

I'm being objective. Right?


*your


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 2:42 PM
 

nm


Re: So, question for the coot lurkers

[2]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 3:39 PM
 

seriously mods look in this thread for plenty of names that need to be taken to pasture. Instead you would rather ban paying members.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

null


Tigernet


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 6:16 PM
 

ohhh how tigernet loves the Coot posts and subjects.










ugh
#21


Just going to interject a few things and leave


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 6:32 PM
 

1) there were a few plays that could be basically counted as TOs that weren't in the Orange Bowl. Beasley's "throat slash" and a few others that are just as effective as a TO.

2) South Carolina's quality wins are questionable gifts. If they had done something with them maybe they could have proved this years team to me. (for the record I don't think this year's CU team was a world beater either)

Mizzou built themselves up on joke wins over the injured UGA and a still ranked UF. Then weren't able to play their starting QB vs SCAR. Botched field goals and the Connor Shaw fakie = me not convinced of a quality win.

UCF might have been good. But the catch of the year being needed to beat Temple again gives me pause.

Then there is no doubt Clemson crapped the bed this year. This was the first year in the streak I wanted a CFA bowl rematch.

And then mediocre Wisconsin was tearing you a new one (with the exception of the ankleception) until you KO'ed their starting QB.


I respect both our programs to some degree. Enjoy your season. It was a good one. But don't come anywhere near a Clemson fan looking for a pat on the back.


Re: So, question for the coot lurkers


Posted: Feb 23, 2014 8:22 PM
 

Yeah, but we got 5 in a row over you.


Meanwhile in Slurrier's office

[2]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 8:30 PM
 

Wonder how recruits feel when that's all you have to show for yourselves...




Pictures say so much more than words...


Re: Meanwhile in Slurrier's office

[1]
Posted: Feb 23, 2014 8:32 PM
 

LOL....now that's funny!!!


hey 18, just how big a deal is that to you??***


Posted: Feb 24, 2014 2:50 PM
 



2019 student level member

If he was getting married soon it'd be on the wedding cake..***


Posted: Feb 24, 2014 3:01 PM
 




"The entire country knows


Posted: Feb 24, 2014 5:20 PM
 

Who the dominant program in the state is" in which I take it your referring to USuC.
Most college football fans don't know or care about our little rivalry. I am a pretty big CF fan and I can't tell you the last 10 year series on USC-UCLA, Oregon- Oregon State, Arizona-Ar state.
But I do remember USC winning the national championship, Oregon the Rose, Louisville the Sugar.
You get the point? The entire nation remembers Clemson beating Ohio State but the could care less about our rivalry.
I'm not saying it doesn't matter. It matters greatly to us. But not the country.

2019 white level member

Re: "The entire country knows

[1]
Posted: Feb 24, 2014 6:37 PM
 

I'm sure most of the country could care less about who wins Tiger-Gamecock football games (although Dabo and Spurrier are doing a great job of publicizing it each year through their WWF fake feud), but as each team has gotten better in this decade, it is more nationally prominent than ever before. Because of increased media coverage, most knowledgeable fans across the nation realize that SC now holds the upper hand.


Most knowledgeable fans know we beat Ohio State in the OB


Posted: Feb 24, 2014 10:05 PM
 

Not sure they'd even know who you played....


Re: Most knowledgeable fans know we beat Ohio State in the OB


Posted: Feb 24, 2014 10:58 PM
 

You're talking bowls, so I'll play along. Clemson won the OB, SC won the Capital One. The Tigers played in a more prestigious bowl, no doubt. However, SC is ranked higher nationally in the final rankings, so a whole lot of folks out there know who has the better program at this time. I'm talking about who has had the upper hand in recent years, and most everyone in the entire nation knows that SC is now the dominant football program in this state. Tiger fans who are honest with themselves may not like it, but they will admit to it.


Re: Most knowledgeable fans know we beat Ohio State in the OB


Posted: Feb 25, 2014 12:13 AM
 

How do you think most outside observers remember the FSU/Florida State series during Spurrier's years? In my experience most people don't recall that Bowden dominated that series and I really doubt anyone remembers their respective rankings in any particular year - except of course the one time Florida managed to beat FSU for a National Championship - somehow everyone remembers that one.


Re: Most knowledgeable fans know we beat Ohio State in the OB


Posted: Feb 25, 2014 1:50 AM
 

I think most SC and Clemson fans choose to have very selective memories about certain aspects of the rivalry, accentuating the positives for their respective teams, and totally suppressing the negatives. I get it, and I do understand. Here is a perfect example. For thirty plus years some Tiger fans have been bragging about the great Herschel Walker and the great George Rogers never even sniffing the end zone against Clemson. That fact is a source of continuing pride for those fans. Now what if I gently suggest to you that the greatest of all Tiger receivers, playing with arguably the greatest Tiger QB of all time, never even sniffed the end zone against SC, and had far worse statistical games against his main rival than did Rogers or Walker in their three years against the Tigers. It depends upon a person's perspective, doesn't it? Now please understand that I am a Sammy Watkins fan, and think that he is an incredibly talented and gifted athlete. He will certainly be picked in the top five of the NFL draft, and hopefully will get to play in a lot of Pro Bowls and Super Bowls. I just hope that he gets picked by a team where he can showcase his skills early and often, that being a team with a good QB, RB, and Oline.


Spurrier was 5-8-1 against Bowden

[1]
Posted: Feb 25, 2014 7:05 AM
 

Dabo is 1-5. Hardly a fair comparison in level of domination.

Secondly, are we really trying to argue that casual fan perception is more valuable that reality?

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Re: Spurrier was 5-8-1 against Bowden


Posted: Feb 25, 2014 1:20 PM
 

He was 4-8-1 in regular season games. Dabo won't get the chance because Spurrier won't coach that long but I strongly suspect Dabo will go 5-3 or better over the next 8 years and that would be an almost identical record. And since when is fan perception not reality in college football? There has never been a playoff. There has never been a legitimate championship. Our squabbling and bickering about who's best long predate these internet arguments. There are two facts at play in regards to FSU/Florida. One, in the regular season Bobby Bowden beat Steve Spurrier at a 2-1 clip. The one time that they played with a "National Championship" on the line - Steve Spurrier won the game. Which is more valuable? Who would trade with whom? Is Spurrier's legacy affected by his only national title coming in the form of a controversial rematch against a team that was by every objective measure superior to him over the course of his career? Of course not. And a 1-5 record against South Carolina for Dabo will be equally meaningless if his 2nd win places us into a national champion playoff.


Obviously a national championship is the ultimate trump card


Posted: Feb 25, 2014 2:10 PM
 

If Dabo leads you to a national championship it is irrelevant if he's 1-9.

Everyone would trade 9 losses to their rival for a national championship.

It's akin to our baseball rivalry. I think Clemson has a 60+ advantage over us head to head. However, we have 2 National Championships and 4 runners up. Clearly our baseball program eclipses yours.

The issue here is you guys are trying to argue an orange bowl win trumps our 5 in a row and our fourth place. That's just sour grapes.

If Dabo wins you a national championship, this gamecock won't have anything to say because Clearly Dabo would have bettered us.

I just think that's a big if. Neither of our programs are good enough to win a title at the moment.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


....Sorry guys


Posted: Mar 1, 2014 10:21 AM
 

Just read over a few of my arguments and realized i might actually be legally retarded....

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Re: So, question for the coot lurkers

[1]
Posted: Mar 1, 2014 12:58 PM
 

This is an incredible thread. A very fun read.

If Clemson wins the State Championship game this year, Clemson may have 2 opportunities to make the playoff:

One as the undefeated ACC Champ, or another...

as possibly the best 1 loss team, with that loss being to a 13-0 FSU.


Replies: 128  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Charlotte
FOR SALE: 2-4 tickets together in the lower deck north or south stands in sections: P(4)(50yd line), D(4), or ...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
9212 people have read this post