»
Topic: TNET: Second look: Grading Clemson versus Pittsburgh
Replies: 23   Last Post: Dec 3, 2018 8:07 PM by: Teletiger73
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 23  

TNET: Second look: Grading Clemson versus Pittsburgh


Posted: Dec 3, 2018 8:01 AM
 

 
Second look: Grading Clemson versus Pittsburgh

Clemson clinched a Playoff bid with another dominating effort in the ACC Championship Game versus Pittsburgh. Taking a look at the Tiger defense's bounceback effort and more. Full Story »



Re: TNET: Second look: Grading Clemson versus Pittsburgh

[1]
Posted: Dec 3, 2018 8:41 AM
 

Overall there were a "few" issues but the final score tells it all. I can't wait until everything gels and everyone is on the same page on both sides of the ball to finish this season and start the next.

Weather may have played a role in execution but play calling still leaves a lot to be desired. The flea flicker was a thing of beauty though. I cheered tremendously at that and thought to myself "FINALLY... a play the opposing defense wouldn't suspect".

GO TIGERS!! Beat Sorte Lame!!


Re: TNET: Second look: Grading Clemson versus Pittsburgh

[3]
Posted: Dec 3, 2018 8:58 AM
 

I wonder if the reason the other punters always look like All Americans is we never pressure them. We bring two guys from the edge that hold their position but the middle rush stops two yards in and tries to hold up the middle wall from covering. If we rushed hard enough up the middle with three guys to push the protectors back into the launch zone these punters might actually get uncomfortable.

2019 purple level member

Re: TNET: Second look: Grading Clemson versus Pittsburgh

[2]
Posted: Dec 3, 2018 9:07 AM
 

And Pitt was putting pressure on our punter all evening.


Re: TNET: Second look: Grading Clemson versus Pittsburgh

[2]
Posted: Dec 3, 2018 9:21 AM
 

This is the reason every punter we face looks like an All American.


Agree, I would like to see their punter be rushed!***

[1]
Posted: Dec 3, 2018 9:46 AM
 



military_donation.jpg

A thousand times YES. Are they afraid of a RTK penalty?


Posted: Dec 3, 2018 10:09 AM
 

roughing the kicker occurs so rarely. The penalty is pretty costly but the risk is so low it doesn't seem like NOT attempting to block makes any sense. Anyone scouting our punt protection knows they won't be hassled - so they can take their sweet time getting a nice angle and air time.

It seems like there are situations where you don't want to risk the penalty, such as when they've crossed the 50 or when you need points in the 4th quarter. Otherwise, I don't see the point in NEVER bringing pressure on the punter.


Re: TNET: Second look: Grading Clemson versus Pittsburgh


Posted: Dec 3, 2018 11:35 AM
 

I say that every game. I don't get it.


Re: TNET: Second look: Grading Clemson versus Pittsburgh

[2]
Posted: Dec 3, 2018 9:24 AM
 

Spiers was well, no other way to sugarcoat it: Awful. Take away the long punt and I think he averaged around 25 yards.

2019 white level member

Oct. 10, 2019: "Power 5 is just an elitist title to keep other programs down." - Watkins Hopkins or is it Watkins and Hopkins?


And even the long punt was ineffective, into the end zone


Posted: Dec 3, 2018 9:47 AM
 

out to the 25, making the punt really 38 yds.

military_donation.jpg

Re: And even the long punt was ineffective, into the end zone


Posted: Dec 3, 2018 10:28 AM
 

Punt touchbacks come out to the 20, not the 25.


Re: TNET: Second look: Grading Clemson versus Pittsburgh


Posted: Dec 3, 2018 10:39 AM
 

Our punting has been abysmal all year (actually, longer than just this year), IMO.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

My take

[1]
Posted: Dec 3, 2018 9:28 AM
 

Looked to me like the team and coaches had no concerns about Pitt actually challenging them and as such were essentially just going through the motions to win the game and stay healthy.


Spiers remains woefully inconsistent, how about trying

[1]
Posted: Dec 3, 2018 9:43 AM
 

another punter, I bet Hunter would be consistent at least.

military_donation.jpg

Re: Spiers remains woefully inconsistent, how about trying


Posted: Dec 3, 2018 10:40 AM
 

Spiers has been consistent. He has been poor almost all the time.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: Spiers remains woefully inconsistent, how about trying


Posted: Dec 3, 2018 8:07 PM
 

I am so tired of hearing Munson say, "That's a punt of 37 yards". I hope it is not the thing that hurts us if we get to play Bama. You need all areas operating at a high level to have a chance. GO Tigers.


Re: Spiers remains woefully inconsistent, how about trying


Posted: Dec 3, 2018 10:42 AM
 

Dabo recruited Potter. He should be able to recruit a punter.


Tthe Tigers had several


Posted: Dec 3, 2018 11:00 AM
 

Passes dropped in this game that are big catches most of the time. Perhaps the wet ball was the reason but we easily survived the bad conditions and played very well. The field really got bad in the second half. I’m surprised that either team could run the ball. Tackling was also not as good as we have seen in other games but that also may be a result of the wet conditions. Our punter is a mystery to me and has been all year. In warm ups he often hits the ball well but when it really counts he doesn’t get it done! Is it to late to fix that? I’d hate to see us blow a game over something that should be basic. Field position is BIG in every game and it’s only going to be BIGGER in the next two. Go Tigers


Re: Spiers remains woefully inconsistent, how about trying


Posted: Dec 3, 2018 11:01 AM
 

He did recruit a punter. 2019 Aidan Swanson. Top 5 positional recruit.


Punting is our Achilles heel


Posted: Dec 3, 2018 10:53 AM
 

what happened to the rugby style kicks he was doing a few games back? At least that gets a better trajectory down the field.


Re: Punting is our Achilles heel


Posted: Dec 3, 2018 11:02 AM
 

The rugby kick was the 15 yarder Saturday. Hit our guy in the back of the head.


You lost some credibility with that Special Teams B rating

[1]
Posted: Dec 3, 2018 12:41 PM
 

Maybe you've been listening too closely to Dabo's "we don't need a kicking coach" banter. Our stats and results say otherwise. that performance was slightly worse than our average special teams grade. I'd say they earned about a c to c-

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

..:: ru4god2 ::..


Re: TNET: Second look: Grading Clemson versus Pittsburgh


Posted: Dec 3, 2018 12:58 PM
 

It's funny how you can omit the 63 yard punt from the average but not the 15 yard punt that happened to hit one of our players in the back. I guess it is Spiers' fault that a ball that is supposed to be low to the ground to get roll happened to hit somebody.

It was a sloppy mess of a game. This point was proved by our passing numbers. Yet the punter gets held to a higher standard because he is usually not very good. Does that make sense?


Re: TNET: Second look: Grading Clemson versus Pittsburgh


Posted: Dec 3, 2018 7:55 PM
 

FWIW, if you also omit the 15 yard punt, he averaged 34.6
If you omit only the 15 yard punt, he averaged 39.3
If you include only the 63 yard punt, he averaged 63. Finally found something that looks good.

Pitt's punter averaged 42.4 on 9 punts, which was slightly above his yearly avg, so it doesn't look like weather played a part, especially considering Spiers had his longest punt of the year.


Replies: 23  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Wake Forest
FOR SALE: ******************************************** NORTH STANDS, Section UR, Row A, Even Seats (At Portal ...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
2285 people have read this post