Topic: We lost to USuCk. We lost because we coughed up the ball 6
Replies: 62   Last Post: Dec 3, 2013 12:58 PM by: Balwiles
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 62  

We lost to USuCk. We lost because we coughed up the ball 6

Posted: Dec 1, 2013 10:59 PM

times. That's a fact. Hold onto the ball and we win that game by 10+.

We didn't lose for these reasons:

- They're in the SEC. That's retarded. You know who else is in the SEC? UGAy, LSU, and Auburn. We're 4-0 against them the last three years. You don't think we could also win 10 games playing UT, UF, UK, Arky, Miss St, UGAy, and Vandy and then whatever 2 cupcakes we schedule?

- We don't get enough recruits from SC. Also retarded. We consistently get as many top SC players as they do. We also get a lot of blue chippers from out of state. So do they. That's how well both the programs are doing right now. Our players from SC want to win. Our players from GA want to win. Our players from FL want to win. That didn't affect the outcome of the last 5 games. They got Clowney and Lattimore. They were always going to get Clowney and Lattimore. That didn't change the outcome of the last 5 games.

- Dabo will never beat Spurrier. Also retarded, not the least because he did beat him already.

- Dabo/Tajh/Clemson chokes in big games. Was LSU a big game? Was UGAy a big game? Was the ACC Champ vs. #5 VT a big game? No one wins all of their big games. Ask Nick Saban if you always win the big ones. A great program wins more big ones than it loses. We're not there yet, but we're sure as #### closer than we were 5 years ago.

There are plenty of legitimate complaints and reasons we got beat. These are neither so quit talking about them.

Anyone saying we did is an idiot and/or a Coot. There are always a lot of each on here after this.

2019 white level member

Very true.... but their also pretty good

Posted: Dec 1, 2013 11:01 PM

and Shaw is a gamer

"I've been working since I was 15 continually until now. I worked 40 hours a week at 15, when it wasn't even legal for 15 year olds to work that many hours."


Posted: Dec 2, 2013 1:09 AM

Re: "they're"***

Posted: Dec 2, 2013 5:28 AM


They R***

Posted: Dec 2, 2013 5:55 AM

Turnover doesn't equal points

Posted: Dec 1, 2013 11:02 PM

Clemson still allowed Carolina to put together 5 scoring drives

So you're saying those turnovers made no difference?

Posted: Dec 1, 2013 11:03 PM

Can't wait to hear this...

Re: So you're saying those turnovers made no difference?

Posted: Dec 1, 2013 11:50 PM

> Can't wait to hear this...

No, I'm saying turnovers are an integral part of football and the better team typically makes fewer than the other other team or wins despite them.

us turning it over obviously means no points for us on that drive.

Posted: Dec 1, 2013 11:04 PM

the turn over at the 30 when it was 24-17 and we were driving was killer. then forcing a punt and turning it right back over, that was the game no doubt. The stupid trick play leading to the INT on the first drive? damn. We lost that game because of the turnovers.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Photobucket is holding my sig pic hostage. Screw them.


Posted: Dec 2, 2013 8:15 AM

This whole, "we are so much better than them EXCEPT for six (count'em six) turnovers" is so lame it hurts to read. What if you said, "We are a better team than them except they held the ball for 2/3 of the game. If we switch that we win by 10."

Fellow Tigers, turnovers are an intregal part of the game, just like running and passing, blocking and punting. Some coaches say ball security is one way to judge a well coached team. Nuff said.

It is lame to say that give the coots 6 turnovers and

Posted: Dec 2, 2013 10:13 PM

the Tigers 0 turnovers and it wouldn't have impacted the game? Unbelievable.


Re: us turning it over obviously means no points for us on that drive.

Posted: Dec 2, 2013 9:08 AM

Do you not think the defense caused both fumbles. Williams had to come half the width of the field to make that catch---must a great defensive play. . Boyd's interceptions are irrelevant. The game was over by then

Are you really that ignorant, or just a plain ol' dumbazz?***

Posted: Dec 1, 2013 11:08 PM

I'm guessing you weren't the best math student in school***

Posted: Dec 1, 2013 11:13 PM

He was a Magna ### Laude math major at USuCk***

Posted: Dec 1, 2013 11:15 PM

2019 white level member

Re: He was a Magna ### Laude math major at USuCk***

Posted: Dec 2, 2013 7:04 AM

Which means he just showed up for class? Or did he? ;)

2019 student level member

He signed up for classes***

Posted: Dec 2, 2013 8:46 AM

2019 white level member

Re: Turnover doesn't equal points

Posted: Dec 3, 2013 6:19 AM

Some the other teams did too, it come with the territory. Keep playing, stay on course, and you will reach your destination. "Keeping swing the bat and you'll eventually be successful"

I agree 100%, we get uncomfortable when we make too many

Posted: Dec 1, 2013 11:02 PM

mistakes. Also, USuCk had the right idea to drain that clock and keep our offense off the field. It was excruciating at times watching them pick up first down after first down. It was almost like Venables told them to make them earn the yardage and not give up the big plays, as evidenced by the constant mugging our DBs gave their WRs that broke free. Hopefully, Alexander and company can change the style of play in the secondary...


Posted: Dec 2, 2013 7:43 AM

Really BV you did not know or adjust to this play after the 100th time they ran it...REALLY!!!
We stop the SEC leading rusher per game COLD and let a QB run 5 yards BEFORE he is touched!!!
And Chad should be shot for running a trick play WHEN we were driving it down their throats!!!
Coaching lost this game!!!

Dabo should have told these two to get back in the game and make adjustments!!!

Glad to see a rational post for once.

Posted: Dec 1, 2013 11:07 PM

It's so funny seeing all this over analysis on here. Seriously, it's pretty simple. You can't give the ball away 6 times. Even 2 is too many when the other team has none. You just won't win many games like that. I do think the SCAR staff coached a better game (QB runs a killer yet again). Coots aren't a pushover anymore with Spurrier at the helm. They will continue to be an above average team as long as he is there. When you play teams that good you just cannot give the ball away that many times and your players have to simply make the plays. The last 2 games SCAR has simply made the plays when it matters most and/or not turned the ball over. It's fixable but Dabo and Co. need to do a better job schematically as well.

Exactly. As much as everyone wants to give Dabo a hard

Posted: Dec 1, 2013 11:09 PM

time for constantly bringing up 6 turnovers, it is true...that is a sure fire way to lose a game. I'm not defending Dabo or saying he is our long term solution. I'm personally gonna give him another year before I pass any kind of judgement. He's been building this program...time to see what goodies he has been stocking up on.


Posted: Dec 1, 2013 11:23 PM

Will some fans ever be happy unless we win every single game? Seems like after every loss there are some who want to fire coaches. But let's be real, it's rare for teams to go undefeated. And there are a hundred some-odd teams who would kill for a season and program like ours. That's not to say I accept 2 losses especially when we give one away to the chickens, but darn, why do we have to continually hear the "fire him now!" and "I'll give him one more year (of top 10-15?) before we fire him" crowd?

I know many were not happy with the Dabo hire, so

Posted: Dec 1, 2013 11:34 PM

unfortunately for him, he's is always going to be seen as the interim coach that took over the program. Many do fail to see that he HAS actually built a legit program, it's just that we can't seem to fix the same problems we've been experiencing the previous few years. You have to ask yourself, why is that? Just to use this as an example, someone obviously didn't coach Bryant well enough to teach him to refrain from giving your punt returning a hug while he's trying to field the ball. I'm not in the group that is calling for Dabo's head...but changes will have to be made if this issues do not resolve.

It is only natural for us to expect 'the next step' in our program. I'm happy we have gotten ten wins but it is time to beat the teams that are generally considered our toughest opponents. There is no arguing that we don't have the talent...we are loaded. That only leaves coaching and development to be the issue. If we drop below ten wins next year, it is almost guaranteed some changes will be made....maybe even some major ones...

Our two losses this year.........

Posted: Dec 1, 2013 11:43 PM

1. Spotting a vastly superior (talent-wise) FSU team 17 points then getting steamrolled by that talent.

2. Turning the ball over 6 times to USuC, including two completely lost possessions directly leading to short fields and 14 points.

How are these losses the same problems we've been experiencing?

I don't think they outcoached us at all. Fact is, we don't

Posted: Dec 1, 2013 11:18 PM

have a linebacker with enough speed to catch Shaw. And yeah, that includes Stephone Anthony. But Shaw's running is only a fraction of why we lost and doesn't indicate that USuC was better coached. We held them to their lowest yardage total of the season and a paltry 2.8 yds per carry. That's solid coaching. The DL did their job, but once Shaw broke contain our LBs were ineffective. That's not superior coaching by them.

Gaining 352 yards was better than 6 other teams did against them. If it wasn't for 6 turnovers, including two completely lost possessions on punt turnovers, then that number would have been significantly higher and we could have easily won the game. Again, that's not superior coaching on their side. Overall, I'd say our coaching was better, sans 6 turnovers.

Interesting take, appreciate your thoughts.

Posted: Dec 1, 2013 11:30 PM

I disagree specifically with regards to the defensive philosophy late in the game. Admittedly I have not gone back and studied the game but from what I remember the QB was getting through the interior gaps over and over again. I am no football coach but certainly there has to be a formation (or even a coaching instruction) that would necessitate the middle of the defense to be held to stop all those counters or delayed runs to the interior. I understand our secondary is suspect but at some point I'd rather take my chances there then witness another conversion via QB scramble. Like you said, it was clear none of the LBs could stay with Shaw. I say put a CB or S (someone faster) to spy instead of an LB and take your chances w/ the run game and/or leaving a WR one on one.

We really, really need a player like Telvin Smith (FSU) who can play a hybrid CB/LB type of position when facing an offense like SCAR with a significant QB running threat.

they had 140 yards rushing on 50 carries, total. shaw had

Posted: Dec 2, 2013 7:26 AM

94 of those yards on 22 carries. their rb's combined for 46 yards on 28 carries. tell me again how they were gashing our interior line.


I was only talking about the QB draw/counter plays specific***

Posted: Dec 2, 2013 10:08 PM

Re: I don't think they outcoached us at all. Fact is, we don't

Posted: Dec 3, 2013 6:11 AM

Turnovers were due to a lack of fundamentals, and that is coaching. Simple as that - don't be stupid.

Re: We lost to USuCk. We lost because we coughed up the ball 6

Posted: Dec 1, 2013 11:09 PM

Carolina improves more during the 3 month season more than Clemson does. Even in a down SEC, they play a tough opponent at least 2 or 3 times per month, whereas the Tigers maybe have one per month. Dabo, Chad and Tajh don't perform to the best of their ability against Carolina, yet they do against LSU and UGA. I'd say that Spurrier's team has something to do with that.

We gave the game to your team, cock.

Posted: Dec 1, 2013 11:25 PM

And there's NO WAY your team played a "tough opponent at least 2 or 3 times per month". You're delusional on top of being a bona fide nutcase.

Re: We gave the game to your team, cock.

Posted: Dec 3, 2013 12:01 AM

Damn, You're running your ignorant mouth again. Go change your diaper you fool.

Honestly motor

Posted: Dec 1, 2013 11:14 PM

You're right. And spurrier just has the knack for sticking in that dagger at the right time in these games

Re: Honestly motor

Posted: Dec 1, 2013 11:53 PM

Spurrier-"We have an excellent coaching staff here, and it's pretty neat to go 10-2 with this team that was one time called the youngest team in America," Spurrier said after Saturday night's 31-17 victory over Clemson in the Palmetto Bowl. "They've really achieved and I'm really proud of this team. I was thinking back to all the teams I've had, these guys may have achieved the most for (being) such a young bunch of guys that haven't played all that much and don't have that much experience. They've really played well this year. Give them credit."

Except for quarterback Connor Shaw and offensive guard Ronald Patrick, USC returns every player on the offensive side of the ball in 2014. The top four running backs (Mike Davis, Brandon Wilds, Shon Carson, David Williams) return, as well as every single wide receiver - most prominently Bruce Ellington, Damiere Byrd, Shaq Roland, Pharoh Cooper and Nick Jones - and tight ends Busta Anderson and Jerell Adams.


Re: Honestly motor

Posted: Dec 2, 2013 12:02 AM

That's all well and good, but Thompson ain't got the wheels or desire that Shaw has. They had 140 yards of rushing, 94 coming from Shaw. The next highest was Davis with 22 yards on 15 carries.

USuC had something to do with the turnovers***

Posted: Dec 2, 2013 12:06 AM

J. Marc Edwards
Cary, NC

on humphries 2nd fumble, the ball was coming out prior to

Posted: Dec 2, 2013 7:28 AM

any contact. how can you attribute that to usuc for forcing it ?


Re: on humphries 2nd fumble, the ball was coming out prior to

Posted: Dec 2, 2013 8:26 AM

Are we watching the same game?

Re: on humphries 2nd fumble, the ball was coming out prior to

Posted: Dec 2, 2013 8:42 AM

basically the turnovers didn't allow you to get back in the game not win the game.

1st one was the coaching you do not drive the field and then run a trick play. Also we coached our players to expect that play. So we made that happen because of your dumb coaches

2nd didnt cost you anything

3rd one was a forced fumble by our team that was a good defensive play. This one hurt you the most

4th one didnt allow you to answer our score and not get you back in the game

5th one game over

6th one game already over

So yeah not really we made the plays your team didnt it comes down to coaching

after watching your vid, i'll recant my statement. lewis did

Posted: Dec 3, 2013 6:28 AM

hit the ball,right as humphries was putting the ball in the outside arm ( which is what he is supposed to do .) not sure if that can be labeled as " forcing" the turn-over as much as it is just the way things were going in that game. 99.999% of the time, the same exact hit is a split second before or after the repositioning and it's not a fumble.


Good teams don't Turn over the Ball 6 times. We have had

Posted: Dec 2, 2013 6:20 AM

the Turnover "Virus" as Dabo put it for more game than the Coot Game

good teams don't turn the ball over 6x in big games either

Posted: Dec 2, 2013 8:18 AM

or 4x in another big game this year....we had the stage twice this year and choked.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

What people are missing in all of this "turnover excuse"

Posted: Dec 2, 2013 8:49 AM

is that when we had the ball, we sputtered like we were running on 2 cylinders - just like last year.

When SCar had the ball, Conner Shaw ran it down our throats - just like last year.

So if "fumbling" makes you feel better, go right ahead, but that is not why we lost.

It only took 2 turnovers to lose

Posted: Dec 2, 2013 9:00 AM

After #3 we increased our risk and this caused the other 3

2019 student level member

Re: We lost to USuCk. We lost because we coughed up the ball 6

Posted: Dec 2, 2013 9:12 AM

You know what, we're sounding like the Coots sounded 5 years ago. Great!!!


Posted: Dec 2, 2013 9:15 AM

That's what I'm interested in, why did we turn the ball over 6 times. Because if you start asking why, you eventually get to a point where Dabo does not want to go.

Re: Why?

Posted: Dec 2, 2013 9:20 AM

you lost because 5outh Carolina is the better team

Re: Why?

Posted: Dec 2, 2013 9:37 AM

you lost because 5outh Carolina is the better COACHED team

Fixed your post.

Re: Why?

Posted: Dec 2, 2013 10:02 AM

I don't understand what coaching has to do with turnovers? Are you saying that Dabo, et al, didn't preach no turnovers this year because his press conference sure did. Is the coach supposed to teach a team how to not turn the ball over? How? I played for 10 years and my coaches always told me to protect the football but sometimes you make mistakes or the other team makes a good play. The players are coached not to turn the ball over but they are 18-22 yo kids who make mistakes. Heck Tom Brady and Peyton Manning throw interceptions too.

Dabo and company have done the only thing I can really ask of our coach...made Clemson football relevant. We have been in the top 10 all season long. I dislike SC as much as anyone (my Dad went to USC and I grew up in Columbia so I hear about this all year when we lose) but lets face it this isn't the SC that we dominated for so many years. This is a perennial top 10 football team just like we are. I was proud of the way the defense played. They got NO running game from a very good backfield with the exception of Shaw.

People need to get off of the fire our coaches band wagon. Why? Because Dabo is not a X's and O's coach? Will Muschamp is, Bo Pellini is. I could name tons of coaches who have that kind of experience that I wouldn't want coaching at Clemson. Once again, Dabo has made our program relevant. Would I have liked to go the NC game this year? Sure but only two fan bases get to do that every year. We are not going to do that this year...

As far as "good teams" not turning the ball over 6 times, I was at the game in 1981 when Georgia (the defending NC) did just that. Guess they should have fired the coach for not teaching them better....couldn't have anything to do with our defense.


Re: Why?

Posted: Dec 2, 2013 10:06 AM

no we are the BETTER team period. for 5 years we hear the same crap when you are beating the cupcakes. You run a flashy offense that enables you to put up big numbers against teams that do not have the athletes. But since we have the athletes to match your flashy offense. WE ARE THE BETTER team.

Re: We lost to USuCk. We lost because we coughed up the ball 6

Posted: Dec 2, 2013 10:16 AM

Not here to fan the flames. A few observations:

1. Clemson stopped our run game cold, Shaw not withstanding. Was really surprised by that. I thought we would run the ball effectively- we didn't. Clemson has definitely closed the gap defensively in the middle of the defense. It was clearly evident against Georgia also.

2. We limited Chad's offensive like we always do. For whatever reason, your O simply doesn't hit on all eight against us. Perhaps it's our overall speed on defense, I don't know. But you never move the ball on us like you do everyone else. The numbers don't lie.

3. The turnovers certainly hurt ya'll, there is no denying that. If they didn't occur, you well may have won the game. But, WE were the reason for most of them. It has to be considered.

4. Spurrier found a way to adjust to what Venables took away- (the run), and won the game doing something ya'll weren't prepared for. It wasn't pretty, but it worked. That's what he does.

5. We are pretty even talent wise, but our schedule DOES make us more battle tested by the end of the season than yours does. Like it or not, it is a fact. Our edge is largely due to the fact that we play better competition overall than you do throughout the course of the season.

6. Shaw is a better QB than Boyd. Maybe not on paper or at the next level, but in our rivalry- he just is. Mentally tougher.

7. Spurrier owns Dabo, just like Tommy owned Lou. Doesn't mean we will win every year- (and you guys are due), but it is what it is.

8. You have a very good football team/program- and I expect our rivalry to be more evenly matched than it used to be, especially after Spurrier leaves. For us that is a big step up from previous history, and more healthy for the rivalry as a whole.

See you next year.

It's embarrasing....

Posted: Dec 2, 2013 10:23 AM

when a #### comes on here and shows up 80% of the people on here from a class standpoint.

I agree with your assessment. Hard to argue.

See you next year (Damn that hurts to say).


Re: We lost to USuCk. We lost because we coughed up the ball 6

Posted: Dec 2, 2013 10:23 PM

I never really worried about us stopping the run. Venables has done a great job here. Prior to the game, I worried about our secondary, our inability to protect Tajh for any length of time, and our ability to stop the quarterback from scrambling like last year.

This is what really bothers me about our offense in this game. We have NFL caliber receivers. Tajh is deadly accurate if he isn't pressured.

I will never understand why Morris didn't drill our offense in short, timed passes: slant routes, wheel routes, in the flat, in the corners, etc. He should have had a stop watch and drilled our guys for two weeks (The Citadel? Please.) so that their execution was automatic muscle memory.

That would have taken the SCar defensive line out of the equation. The ball would be down field before they could get to Tajh. Combined with our running game, we would have scored a lot more points and kept Shaw out off the field.

In watching the game, I never saw any strategic plan that Morris may have developed. We played SCar just like we played Wake and Syracuse. I have yet to figure out why.

#5 and #6 ... YES!!!***

Posted: Dec 3, 2013 4:59 AM

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: We lost to USuCk. We lost because we coughed up the ball 6

Posted: Dec 3, 2013 7:03 AM

I will agree with 90% of that, with the exception of the offense sputtering. We moved the ball at will, when we had it with the exceptions of a couple 3 and outs. The time of possession vs our total yardage stats show that.

2 scoring drives that ended in turnovers killed us, and basically netted y'all 14 points that should have been on our side of the scoreboard instead. Overall the effects of the turnovers amounted to 21 points, take that away and the game paints a much different picture.

In the end, we had no answer for Shaw, could not hang on to the ball (story of our season, although I thought we had moved beyond this) and a stupid trick play for no reason early in the game sealed it for me that it was going to be another one of "those" games...

2019 student level member

How about this?

Posted: Dec 2, 2013 11:43 PM

We had momentum...score tied 17-17 and they were 3 and long deep on their end. We let Shaw run for like 13 yards...again, and they are now 4th and 1...again deep on their side. We had momentum on our side so Spurier decides to go for in on fourth. And we jump offsides.
So....what pisses me off more than the fumbles is letting Shaw run untouched on 3 and very long deep on their end.

Then as we all know they go on down and score.


Re: How about this?

Posted: Dec 3, 2013 6:09 AM

Just like last year. This is Charlie Brown and Lucy football. It is like we are incapable of learning or possibly too stubborn.

Turnovers are a symptom of a problem.

Posted: Dec 3, 2013 6:07 AM

Clemson has averaged 3 turnovers a year more than USC. The problem is mental. I want a tough QB to feed off of a tough HC. You have to expect to win this game and not hope. That is the difference in this series right now. Loosing to USC is unacceptable and when I saw Boyd on the side line in the 3rd qtr I saw wondering eyes and fear.

Re: Turnovers are a symptom of a problem.

Posted: Dec 3, 2013 6:09 AM

Any way you cut it, it goes back to coaching, or lack thereof.

I agree CDef...

Posted: Dec 3, 2013 6:14 AM

Its just as much fundamental prep as mental prep and maybe more so.


Posted: Dec 3, 2013 12:44 PM

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Re: We lost to USuCk. We lost because we coughed up the ball 6

Posted: Dec 3, 2013 12:58 PM

Turning over the ball six times was obviously huge but five of the six were them making plays. We didn't take care of the ball and that falls on both the players and coaching...Speculating on what would have happened if we had held onto the ball is an exercise of futility as every possession b/t the two teams would have taken on a different complexion...I like what coach Venables said best following the loss. He owned it and our defense played very well overall considering the had to be on the field so much.

Replies: 62  


FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: I have 8 tickets together on the home side in the upper deck for the 2019 Season. They are located i...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
4567 people have read this post