»
Topic: TNET: Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina
Replies: 49   Last Post: Nov 27, 2018 9:57 AM by: TigersAndCubs®
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 49  

TNET: Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina


Posted: Nov 26, 2018 7:01 AM
 

 
Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina

Clemson improved to 12-0 with a season-best performance on offense and a season-worst effort on defense. Taking a closer look at the Tigers going into this week's ACC Championship. Full Story »



Re: TNET: Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina

emoji_events [16]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 7:19 AM
 

F stands for failure. Two goal line stands cancel out a couple busted plays in my mind. I’d give the defense a C since we won by 21 points and could easily have won by 35 with just a couple better-executed offensive plays.

2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

WL


Re: TNET: Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina

emoji_events [14]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 7:41 AM
 

David, not like you since the game. First, it was the anonymous comment about the game and now a grade F? F means complete failure and I do not consider the game a failure along with many others on Tiger Net. Maybe a C- but keeping them out of the endzone twice within the 5 yard line does not deserve a grade of F. I do not believe there was an anonymous comment by a fan. I believe it was made up in order to write the story. Hope whatever was wrong last week clears up and you have a better one this week.


That's a strong accusation to make.***

[3]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 7:45 AM
 



2020 student level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg2008_ncaa_champ.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-clemsonpoker489.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

Re: TNET: Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina

[1]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 8:03 AM
 

I agree with you on the "feels like a loss" comment, but David graded the Offense in this article (A+)... the F grade on Defense came from B Rink, and was undeserved.

2020 orange level member

Re: TNET: Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina

emoji_events [6]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 9:10 AM
 

Completely agree with you. Dabo was talking to DH who asked the question about the felt like a loss. Im sure someone said it, but what’s the point of asking that kind of question to Dabo, who just navigated us to an undefeated regular season. I was at the game, the secondary makes me nervous for the next few games, but nothing about it felt like a loss. That’s stupidity. Grading our Defense to an F, gees, take a little more responsibility to what you’ve created here and how many people wait for the next article to be posted. Complete disrespect to that unit and what they’ve accomplished and at points and times, has put this team on their back and carried it.


Re: TNET: Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina


Posted: Nov 26, 2018 10:00 AM
 

While I certainly agree that our Defense has been pretty stellar all year, until Saturday night, our secondary was pretty porous in the usuc game. IMO, it has been less than stellar many times this year, but our overall defense has been very good in spite of it. We were exposed over the middle many times Saturday against a pretty mediocre opponent. It seemed like there was much confusion getting the defensive signals in time to be effective. Hoping we get this fixed, or an Alabama or ugay will feast, if they ultimately are our opponent.

2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Yeah I'd go C-. They also had an INT and 3 sacks.***

[3]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 7:46 AM
 



2020 student level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg2008_ncaa_champ.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-clemsonpoker489.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

Re: TNET: Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina

[4]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 7:55 AM
 

Definitely a C or C- st the worst. If the defense had played worthy of an F we would have lost the game. They did more good than bad. The only F I would give is the reporting

2020 orange level member

I really think the "F" grade for the defense is too harsh...

emoji_events [11]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 7:20 AM
 

The two goal line stands, in my opinion, should elevate this mark to a "D."

2020 orange level member

Also, the 2 PI's NOT elevate it up to at least a D Plus!***


Posted: Nov 26, 2018 7:55 AM
 



military_donation.jpg

Re: Also, the 2 PI's NOT elevate it up to at least a D Plus!***


Posted: Nov 26, 2018 2:18 PM
 

D+ it is


I'm glad you pointed that out

[2]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 9:10 AM
 

Those two stops were the difference between a 21 point win and a 7 point win. Which means it would've been tied up until the last touchdown.

2020 student level member

Re: I'm glad you pointed that out

[1]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 10:02 AM
 

Don't disagree with you, but except for two huge drops by us, we score at least two more TD's. It works both ways. That said, we need to fix the secondary.

2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: I'm glad you pointed that out

[1]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 11:30 AM
 

I agree with that; however, I think it was a mismatch scheme-wise on Saturday. Their coordinator is in his first year and held a lot back for the game and it showed. They may have overplayed their hand, but of course, we won't know if that is the case until next year.

2020 student level member

Re: I'm glad you pointed that out


Posted: Nov 27, 2018 12:06 AM
 

Thank you for a voice of reason. 505 yards by Bruce AN is not a grade of C.


Re: I'm glad you pointed that out


Posted: Nov 27, 2018 12:11 AM
 

Thank you for a voice of reason. 505 yards by Bentley is not a grade of C.


Re: I'm glad you pointed that out


Posted: Nov 27, 2018 9:00 AM
 

We couldn’t cover the slot receiver on the seam post route. The defender on Debo was in soft coverage and still Debo ran right by him, over and over again. He’s good. Wonder if Bama saw that?

Still struggle to cover tight ends. Wonder if Bama saw that in 2016 - 2018?

Simmons doesn’t turn his head and never knows when the ball is coming. Duke QB hit him in the head twice.

Muse is a still a step slow.

Turner is a gamer but still a walk on.

Not having Tre Lamar hurt. He gets a deeper drop than the other linebackers, plus he is taller. Hard to throw over him.

We should be able to get pressure with 4 and play cover two in 3rd and long. That should cut down on deep balls.

Get the D signals in faster. D Staff wasn’t ready for the ninja formation. Resulted in delayed calls.

All fixable if Venables is willing to adapt.


Re: TNET: Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina

[3]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 8:06 AM
 

Your grading skills needs work. I saw 7 stops by the D! I int, 2 goal line stands. When both teams are running HUNH, there will be a!ot of points. No points in 3rd Q by SC put allowed our O to put the game out of reach.


Re: TNET: Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina

[2]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 8:56 AM
 

I think a F is harsh considering the 3 sacks, 2 goal line stops and Davis’ interception. Yes they struggled more than we’re used to, but they still performed when we needed them. They will bust their butts to obliterate Pitt in the ACC Championship. Then look forward to stuffing Ian Book and company! Go Tigers!


F?- please

[2]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 9:10 AM
 

try again B Rink


Re: F?- please


Posted: Nov 26, 2018 9:33 AM
 

For what it’s worth, it’s a grade averaged from the TigerNet staff and then we rotate on who writes about it.

2020 editor level member


Re: F?- please

[2]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 9:52 AM
 

So the average of the staff's grades of our D resulted in an F grade? That's the average? That's a sad commentary on the staff.

2020 orange level member

Re: F?- please

[1]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 10:34 AM
 

Then you folks are suffering from a terminal case of CranioSpinal rectal inversion and need immediate help.

I have been a proud and happy member of Tigernet since 1995 and now, I am wondering wth has gone wrong with this site. You have prospered greatly, but seem like you have lost sight of what you are doing and why. So very foolish to take a leak on Clemson and we fans.

Maybe it is time to shake up the staff and regain your appreciation and focus.

military_donation.jpg

Re: F?- please


Posted: Nov 26, 2018 4:53 PM
 

def not an F.... I would go with C, as a unit they were not that bad, some individual breakdowns (Tanner Muse x2 = 14 points comes to mind). Bentley and Samuel had their respective games of the year... like Monde did in Sept. Lots of great learning points to get corrected.

military_donation.jpg

Re: TNET: Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina

[3]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 9:07 AM
 

I do not bet on games, never have. But I think we need to add in the perspective of the gambler, where with the spread, a “win” can be a “loss.” That probably accounts for some of the criticism out there. Too bad! This WIN has some offensive numbers which are truly astounding.

2020 orange level membermilitary_donation.jpg

Re: TNET: Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina

[1]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 9:17 AM
 

You nailed it. IMO, money on games drives a lot of the angry narratives.

2020 orange level member

Re: TNET: Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina


Posted: Nov 26, 2018 2:16 PM
 

face reality, the defensive numbers were staggering as well. The offensive was simply unstoppable. christ, take a little criticism and move on. At least Swinny took my advice and put Trevor as starter, dont know where we would be if he didnt listen to me


Re: TNET: Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina

[1]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 9:09 AM
 

In a pregame write up in the Post & Courier it stated that in the last 4 games SC was scoring at will.
We know Bentley has been hot of late,with their fast pace. So for the defense to get a rating of F is wrong. We did have some busted plays, but we stuffed the run, had 2 great goal line stances. Maybe a grade of a C is more appropriate.


Re: TNET: Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina

[2]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 9:16 AM
 

Two goal line stands, no run game, an interception, stops on downs, decent kick off returns, sacks all count. I’ll take our defense and DC all day. I think you must have been watching the garnet defense when you graded with an F. Didn’t notice any of their defensive players scoring either.

2020 orange level member

Re: TNET: Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina

[4]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 9:37 AM
 

okay...this has gotten a little crazy...

I get that we didn't have our best day on defense- but an F is absurd. Can't we all agree that an F is the performance we saw in the 2012 Orange Bowl against WVU? And if that's what an F is...this was not even close to that. Maybe a C, C-, but they absolutely get a passing grade. It was like an assignment that was late and had a number of errors- but it wasn't a failure.

Secondly, an A+ for the offense? really? I mean, they played well, but we put up video game numbers against Wake(A), FSU (A-), Louisville(A), and NC State (A-)...and THIS is the A+?

So let's forget about Lville, FSU, and Wake for a moment- because part of their problem was that they had all but abandoned ship by the 2nd qtr in those games.

But how is putting up 56 on a 6-5 SC team (rally 49 plus a garbage time TD) any better than putting up 49 on GT, or 41 on NC State? I'd take both of those teams over SC straight up. Please do not honor the chickens by giving the ONLY A+ against them. Its implies that their defense is among the best we've played all year.

they gave up 41 to UGA, 44 to Ole Miss, 37 to Vandy and Missou, and 35 to FL in an implosion. They aren't near good enough to hold us to less than 56. So what we produced was an A...but they're not worth honoring with an A+.

Absurd grading...


Re: TNET: Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina

[1]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 9:40 AM
 

Sorry guys, but I agree with the F. The two goal-line stands were awesome, but they would not have been down there if we did not give up so many big plays. If they score on both of those, it's a different ball game. Obviously, our rushing defense is very strong, but we were not getting pressure with our front four, which exposed our DB's all night.

I think it's good that this happened. It shows we have a glaring deficiency that can be fixed. I'd rather it happen now then later.


Re: TNET: Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina


Posted: Nov 26, 2018 2:17 PM
 

D+


When You Have Had Time to Think About It...

[2]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 9:57 AM
 

I will admit after watching the game and then talking with my "brought up watching football with dad, football crazy" daughter after the game, I told her that "it felt like a loss" even though we won by 21 points.

But after processing through my emotions over the weekend, I think that what what you can say is that we easily could have scored 70 in this game. Two plays come to mind - the Lyn-J Dixon fumble. We were driving for a score on that drive and most likely would have scored on that play or one or two plays after it. The second play is that pass interference call that wasn't! That's another seven there. How different would we have felt Saturday night if the final score was 70-35 instead of 56-35?

We would be having a whole different conversation. Game would have been out of reach earlier. All those are "ifs" of course. If he had not fumbled...if there had been no pass interference call. But one play just securing the ball a split second sooner and the other, the refs not making an extremely (SEC) conference friendly call. The "if" is not quite that big of stretch. Easily could have ended as a 70-35 score.

Sure, our defense laid an egg compared to normal performance, but give credit to the Carolina offensive coordinator for a top-notch game plan. They even telegraphed in press interviews during the week that they were going to run tempo on us (because we have trouble with it, it seems)and our defensive coaching staff did not hear any of that apparently. Wake up call for our defensive players and defensive coaches.


Coot defense was F, maybe ours was C-***

[2]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 9:57 AM
 



2020 white level member


Re: TNET: Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina

[1]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 9:59 AM
 

Disagree with the F. The coots would need to hang 54 on us... (or at least 49) to earn the F.

Folks would look to the yardage/stats and claim we did not do a *passing* job, but also consider that the coots were down 2-3 touchdowns and then you are behind like that, you sling the ball. They knew they could not defend us so they tried to turn it into a Big12 game... and IF it was a Big12 game with *only* 35 points given up, that would be an A- for them.

Sure, I would have liked a shutout but I will take a win. C-/D+ would be my grade. We made many good D plays along with the bad.


Re: TNET: Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina

[1]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 10:17 AM
 

We won didn't we? By 21 points at that.

We have 2 frigging goal line stands inside out dadgum 5 yard line, and you give THAT defense an 'F'? Just dayum!!

With a b.s. "review", you guys crap all over your credibility and integrity.

military_donation.jpg

Re: TNET: Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina


Posted: Nov 26, 2018 10:55 AM
 

You guys sure are "Defensive" this morning.


Re: TNET: Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina


Posted: Nov 26, 2018 11:41 AM
 

not worried about 'grading' - my concern is the lack of push by our D line. Basically Bentley had all night to look for open receivers. Tua will rip us to pieces if we face Bama!


No defense that completely shuts down the run grades an “F”!

[1]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 12:05 PM
 

If you cannot run, you cannot win ... true 99% of the time.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

Not an F. A D+ maybe. But certainly not an F.

[1]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 12:08 PM
 

Especially for the whole D.


Re: TNET: Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina


Posted: Nov 26, 2018 12:08 PM
 

I give the Defense a D. Giving up 35 points and 500 yards is not average.


Offense was an A, Defense was much closer to C than F


Posted: Nov 26, 2018 12:50 PM
 

It was the pass coverage that was bad. I think it was a bad scheme to not blitz, rush 3 and drop everyone into zone that got picked apart.

I blame Venables for not making a change It was ok to try this scheme in the first half, but after getting torched, there was no adjustment and they kept doing the same thing.

Very similar to when we couldnt stop the shovel pass by Pitt. No adjustment to stop it.


Re: Offense was an A, Defense was much closer to C than F

[1]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 1:19 PM
 

But there were plays where Clemson blitzed and also got burned. Just too much time for Bentley to throw and the coverage was poor. Got to believe this will be different come Saturday evening. Panthers beware.


Sorry 600 yards given up isn't a C performance***


Posted: Nov 26, 2018 2:06 PM
 



2020 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: TNET: Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina


Posted: Nov 26, 2018 1:57 PM
 

might need a third look. or if you are a paid member, you can go back and edit your post. your welcome for the suggestion.


Message was edited by: baker5801®


2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: TNET: Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina

[1]
Posted: Nov 26, 2018 4:44 PM
 

I don't think I'm the only one that has re-watched this game against the coots. Personally I have watched a couple of times, and I have saw TL grow up these past few games, but he was amazing in this game against the coots, and he went through his progression to find open receivers as well as he has done all season, he ain't a true freshmen anymore for sure. and not once did I notice him looking down certain receivers as he has done in the pass and his arm strength has helped him to get away with that. Great game by TL with only a couple of mistakes that all QB'S make, and that is at times holding onto the ball a second or two too long.

The defense is another ball of wax, and what I saw multiple times was our defenders in the secondary at times were to focused on what little Jakey was doing for to long and allowing receivers to just trot right by them without even seeing them. But bc we put so much pressure on QB'S, little Jakey was mostly taking the snap and throwing the ball as soon as he set his feet, he would very quickly throw the to a spot on the field to where they had a receiver going to, and bc they were lining up with 3 & 4 receivers on the same side of the field, it left a space between the hash marks for what ever receiver that could get free and go to where Jakey was going to be throwing the ball to. They had a good plan that worked more than it failed. Go watch in Slow Mo and you can see it happening, most of it was underneath stuff, and most of the time the receiver had space to make yards after the catch. They took advantage of our D-line strength and just made simple little quick plays....

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg


Re: TNET: Second Look: Grading Clemson versus South Carolina


Posted: Nov 26, 2018 6:52 PM
 

Stop it stop stop stop! You can’t say those things.


F would be a total failure and we would have lost. Geez!!!


Posted: Nov 27, 2018 7:29 AM
 

With that said, it was painful to watch that side of the ball. D-Below average would be fair.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

I think F is a little harsh, but i don't think i could give


Posted: Nov 27, 2018 9:57 AM
 

the defense a higher grade than a D.

Offense - A+
Defense - D
Special Teams - C-

The offense was fantastic and did whatever it wanted. There were a few glitches like the dropped pass / slight under throw to Ross that would've been a TD before halftime, and the Lyn-J fumble late, but for the most part the offense played a perfect game.

Defense... woof. They get a D rather than an F because of the 2 goal line stands and the INT. Excluding the drive at the end of the 1st half where they just took a knee, SC had 12 drives. 7 of those 12 drives went for at least 70 yards. We forced 1 INT and 1 3-and-out on the night. The other 3 drives were 6 plays 15 yards punt, 6 plays 25 yards punt, and 2 plays 55 yards end of game. They allowed something like 8 plays of 20+ yards including a 67 yard TD, a 75 yard TD, a 32 yard TD, and another pass for 44. SC averaged 8 yards per play on the night and 10.2! yards per pass attempt. It was a bad night any way you slice it.

Special teams were slightly below average. Kickoff coverage was good, but Spiers averaged just 37 yards per punt again, Huegel missed an easy FG at a point in the game where 3 points was still very relevant, and we did nothing of note in our own return game.

2020 white level member

Replies: 49  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: The Citadel
FOR SALE: Two (2) in Section Q, Row LL. Lower level 25ish yard line. $120 for both. Tickets transferred via...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
5025 people have read this post