The CardBoard
FB -- Clemson Game Thread - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: FB -- Clemson Game Thread (/thread-25150.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - martyup - 09-28-2024

(09-28-2024, 06:11 PM)Goose Wrote:  It must be said that when we played Syracuse, the worst run defense in the ACC was Syracuse. The second worst was Clemson. I am sure TT recognized that and planned to run the ball a lot, both at Syracuse and now at Clemson. The really "good thing" is that the OL and backs are making it work. We are actually taking what should be there. That said, it is a big leap to expect this run offense will work as well against the "better" defenses in the ACC and that there are four more wins out there. However, their might be, which is much better than where we were last year.

So why aren't we running more (not counting QB scrambles)?

RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - d4cohn - 09-28-2024

That is a fantastic run from Daniels.

RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - martyup - 09-28-2024

I think cutting the lead to 10 would have been a better call there.

RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - d4cohn - 09-28-2024

Why are we going for 4th and 5? Just kick the FG and cut the margin to 10. The offensive performance today can be best summed up as wasteful (of opportunities).

RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - SkiBum80 - 09-28-2024

Lamson making Daniels look like Lamar Jackson

RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - TonyLima - 09-28-2024

(09-28-2024, 06:13 PM)martyup Wrote:  
(09-28-2024, 06:11 PM)Goose Wrote:  It must be said that when we played Syracuse, the worst run defense in the ACC was Syracuse. The second worst was Clemson. I am sure TT recognized that and planned to run the ball a lot, both at Syracuse and now at Clemson. The really "good thing" is that the OL and backs are making it work. We are actually taking what should be there. That said, it is a big leap to expect this run offense will work as well against the "better" defenses in the ACC and that there are four more wins out there. However, their might be, which is much better than where we were last year.

So why aren't we running more (not counting QB scrambles)?

Another question: why not take the 3’s?  Stanford has now given up at least 6 points. I understand playing to win, but longest journey, single step, etc.

76lsjumb - 76lsjumb - 09-28-2024

Troy Taylor’s play calling in clutch situations is worse than David Shaw’s. Getting really tired of “I don’t mind being aggressive, but the play that was called was a problem…”

RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - TonyLima - 09-28-2024

(09-28-2024, 06:21 PM)d4cohn Wrote:  Why are we going for 4th and 5? Just kick the FG and cut the margin to 10. The offensive performance today can be best summed up as wasteful (of opportunities).

See my post above. Great minds apparently work in tandem.

RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - Goose - 09-28-2024

(09-28-2024, 06:21 PM)martyup Wrote:  I think cutting the lead to 10 would have been a better call there.
(09-28-2024, 06:21 PM)d4cohn Wrote:  Why are we going for 4th and 5? Just kick the FG and cut the margin to 10. The offensive performance today can be best summed up as wasteful (of opportunities).
Agree. There may be "data" that says the expected value of going for it is higher than kicking the field goal. Even if there is, IMO it was a mistake. 5 yards is just plain too far.

RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - d4cohn - 09-28-2024

That's a fumble.

RE: 76lsjumb - TonyLima - 09-28-2024

(09-28-2024, 06:24 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:  Troy Taylor’s play calling in clutch situations is worse than David Shaw’s. Getting really tired of “I don’t mind being aggressive, but the play that was called was a problem…”

Disagree. But Taylor is not having a good game.

RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - martyup - 09-28-2024

Fast food commercials followed by Ozempic commercials.  The human race is getting dumber.

RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - old spanish trail - 09-28-2024

(09-28-2024, 06:26 PM)d4cohn Wrote:  That's a fumble.

Agree/ Hadn't started forward motion. either way, good play by Bailey.

RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - martyup - 09-28-2024

(09-28-2024, 06:29 PM)old spanish trail Wrote:  
(09-28-2024, 06:26 PM)d4cohn Wrote:  That's a fumble.

Agree/ Hadn't started forward motion. either way, good play by Bailey.

And Bailey was being held when he forced the fumble.

RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - SkiBum80 - 09-28-2024

Home town refs
We need a pick 6

RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - lex24 - 09-28-2024

They have no passing game.  It’s too bad.  Cause otherwise they are playing very well.

RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - old spanish trail - 09-28-2024

Refs called PI on Manley for same play on no call for Eliic

RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - TonyLima - 09-28-2024

SkiBum80 dateline='[url=tel:1727573525' Wrote:  1727573525[/url]']
Home town refs
We need a pick 6

Defender mugs Ayomanor, barely looks back, no call.

RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - lex24 - 09-28-2024

That’s dumb
TonyLima dateline='[url=tel:1727573848' Wrote:  1727573848[/url]']
SkiBum80 dateline='[url=tel:1727573525' Wrote:  1727573525[/url]']
Home town refs
We need a pick 6

Defender mugs Ayomanor, barely looks back, no call.

Stanford had one at goal line in first Q.  At least they are consistent

RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - martyup - 09-28-2024

[Image: icegif-1700.gif]