09-28-2024, 07:19 PM
FB -- Clemson Game Thread
![[Image: mqdefault.jpg]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/smKW3tRs6fE/mqdefault.jpg)
09-28-2024, 07:26 PM
The ultimate TV insult: getting kicked to another channel so the next game can start…
09-28-2024, 07:28 PM
What a display if QB ineptitude by Daniels. I blame Taylor for nt seeing that Brown is a much better WB than Daniels even now. When Brown is healthy it is obvious that he should start.
09-28-2024, 07:30 PM
I think I picked Clemson 45-17 so I’m getting close, at least on the Clemson side.
Quote:
09-28-2024, 07:33 PM
Following only on ESPN app the gamecast
On paper seems like Lamson made some good few passes and some good RB runs leading to the score.
On paper seems like Lamson made some good few passes and some good RB runs leading to the score.
![[Image: db2a61a1-f475-4705-8b38-9a77795b0b02_text.gif]](https://y.yarn.co/db2a61a1-f475-4705-8b38-9a77795b0b02_text.gif)
09-28-2024, 07:39 PM
(09-28-2024, 07:34 PM)ADPinWDC Wrote:(09-28-2024, 07:26 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: The ultimate TV insult: getting kicked to another channel so the next game can start…
I am watching the final embers on ESPN.com via ESPN3 with a verification of Cable provider.
I had CLEM 38, STAN 13 in the prediction pool. Sad about that.
![[Image: 200w.gif?cid=6c09b952oc0zkj6hvv1k1q6xy6h...w.gif&ct=g]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/7nSreyAy771zwRiX7p/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952oc0zkj6hvv1k1q6xy6hniss8fxdfk4npjapbyttt&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g)
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
(09-28-2024, 07:34 PM)ADPinWDC Wrote:(09-28-2024, 07:26 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: The ultimate TV insult: getting kicked to another channel so the next game can start…
I am watching the final embers on ESPN.com via ESPN3 with a verification of Cable provider.
I had CLEM 38, STAN 13 in the prediction pool. Sad about that.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
(09-28-2024, 07:28 PM)MV72018 Wrote: What a display if QB ineptitude by Daniels. I blame Taylor for nt seeing that Brown is a much better WB than Daniels even now. When Brown is healthy it is obvious that he should start.
Daniels QBR is a dismal 35.9. 9 for 19, 70 yards, 1 TD and 3 INTs
Klubnik posted a 100.3 QBR.
(09-28-2024, 07:28 PM)MV72018 Wrote: What a display if QB ineptitude by Daniels. I blame Taylor for nt seeing that Brown is a much better WB than Daniels even now. When Brown is healthy it is obvious that he should start.
Daniels QBR is a dismal 35.9. 9 for 19, 70 yards, 1 TD and 3 INTs
Klubnik posted a 100.3 QBR.
09-28-2024, 07:42 PM
(09-28-2024, 07:39 PM)ADPinWDC Wrote:(09-28-2024, 07:28 PM)MV72018 Wrote: What a display if QB ineptitude by Daniels. I blame Taylor for nt seeing that Brown is a much better WB than Daniels even now. When Brown is healthy it is obvious that he should start.
Daniels QBR is a dismal 35.9. 9 for 19, 70 yards, 1 TD and 3 INTs
Klubnik posted a 100.3 QBR.
I feel bad for him. He had a lot of friends and family at the game.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
(09-28-2024, 07:39 PM)ADPinWDC Wrote:(09-28-2024, 07:28 PM)MV72018 Wrote: What a display if QB ineptitude by Daniels. I blame Taylor for nt seeing that Brown is a much better WB than Daniels even now. When Brown is healthy it is obvious that he should start.
Daniels QBR is a dismal 35.9. 9 for 19, 70 yards, 1 TD and 3 INTs
Klubnik posted a 100.3 QBR.
I feel bad for him. He had a lot of friends and family at the game.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
I did like that we were able to run the ball. That's a very positive revelation for the future.
I liked Mosley. He and Elic will be a dangerous duo.
Our rushing D is surprisingly effective for the most part.
Our passing D is still a work in progress, but I liked that we've been able to put some pressure on the QB about half the time.
We need better QB play to be able to compete with the top half of conference teams.
Don't think the score is indicative of what I saw on the field, and, at least, we were competitive for nearly 3 quarters.
I liked Mosley. He and Elic will be a dangerous duo.
Our rushing D is surprisingly effective for the most part.
Our passing D is still a work in progress, but I liked that we've been able to put some pressure on the QB about half the time.
We need better QB play to be able to compete with the top half of conference teams.
Don't think the score is indicative of what I saw on the field, and, at least, we were competitive for nearly 3 quarters.
I did like that we were able to run the ball. That's a very positive revelation for the future.
I liked Mosley. He and Elic will be a dangerous duo.
Our rushing D is surprisingly effective for the most part.
Our passing D is still a work in progress, but I liked that we've been able to put some pressure on the QB about half the time.
We need better QB play to be able to compete with the top half of conference teams.
Don't think the score is indicative of what I saw on the field, and, at least, we were competitive for nearly 3 quarters.
I liked Mosley. He and Elic will be a dangerous duo.
Our rushing D is surprisingly effective for the most part.
Our passing D is still a work in progress, but I liked that we've been able to put some pressure on the QB about half the time.
We need better QB play to be able to compete with the top half of conference teams.
Don't think the score is indicative of what I saw on the field, and, at least, we were competitive for nearly 3 quarters.
09-28-2024, 08:12 PM
we need as many healthy quarterbacks as we can get for Virginia Tech.
Cal delenda est
09-28-2024, 08:19 PM
Injuries suck.
I feel bad for Daniels, who probably was way more amped up to play given that family/friends were in attendance. He played probably his worst game as a starter and got injured to boot. Sports can be very, very humbling. Hopefully, he'll make a speedy and full recovery.
Big picture, the game was more competitive for over a half than many would have predicted, and I am most heartened that Stanford running backs actually looked good for the first time in a long time. Much credit goes to the offensive line and also TT.
But you also saw TT's eccentric coaching decisions as well as playcalls that, for me at least, were just head scratchers. Why for for it on fourth down on the very first drive? I think the majority of us fans simply would have kicked a field goal in the third quarter to cut the deficit to 10. Very, very few coaches would have made the decisions TT made tonight.
I feel bad for Daniels, who probably was way more amped up to play given that family/friends were in attendance. He played probably his worst game as a starter and got injured to boot. Sports can be very, very humbling. Hopefully, he'll make a speedy and full recovery.
Big picture, the game was more competitive for over a half than many would have predicted, and I am most heartened that Stanford running backs actually looked good for the first time in a long time. Much credit goes to the offensive line and also TT.
But you also saw TT's eccentric coaching decisions as well as playcalls that, for me at least, were just head scratchers. Why for for it on fourth down on the very first drive? I think the majority of us fans simply would have kicked a field goal in the third quarter to cut the deficit to 10. Very, very few coaches would have made the decisions TT made tonight.
Injuries suck.
I feel bad for Daniels, who probably was way more amped up to play given that family/friends were in attendance. He played probably his worst game as a starter and got injured to boot. Sports can be very, very humbling. Hopefully, he'll make a speedy and full recovery.
Big picture, the game was more competitive for over a half than many would have predicted, and I am most heartened that Stanford running backs actually looked good for the first time in a long time. Much credit goes to the offensive line and also TT.
But you also saw TT's eccentric coaching decisions as well as playcalls that, for me at least, were just head scratchers. Why for for it on fourth down on the very first drive? I think the majority of us fans simply would have kicked a field goal in the third quarter to cut the deficit to 10. Very, very few coaches would have made the decisions TT made tonight.
I feel bad for Daniels, who probably was way more amped up to play given that family/friends were in attendance. He played probably his worst game as a starter and got injured to boot. Sports can be very, very humbling. Hopefully, he'll make a speedy and full recovery.
Big picture, the game was more competitive for over a half than many would have predicted, and I am most heartened that Stanford running backs actually looked good for the first time in a long time. Much credit goes to the offensive line and also TT.
But you also saw TT's eccentric coaching decisions as well as playcalls that, for me at least, were just head scratchers. Why for for it on fourth down on the very first drive? I think the majority of us fans simply would have kicked a field goal in the third quarter to cut the deficit to 10. Very, very few coaches would have made the decisions TT made tonight.
09-28-2024, 08:28 PM
I didn't mind the first 4th down attempt. We should be able to get 1 yard, and playing conservative at Clemson was not going to win us the game.
The first down was there, but the ball protection was a little defective.
I also liked going for it on 4th at their 5. However, I didn't like the play (sweep by Mosley).
The first down was there, but the ball protection was a little defective.
I also liked going for it on 4th at their 5. However, I didn't like the play (sweep by Mosley).
I didn't mind the first 4th down attempt. We should be able to get 1 yard, and playing conservative at Clemson was not going to win us the game.
The first down was there, but the ball protection was a little defective.
I also liked going for it on 4th at their 5. However, I didn't like the play (sweep by Mosley).
The first down was there, but the ball protection was a little defective.
I also liked going for it on 4th at their 5. However, I didn't like the play (sweep by Mosley).
09-28-2024, 09:25 PM
(09-28-2024, 08:28 PM)PVTree Wrote: I didn't mind the first 4th down attempt. We should be able to get 1 yard, and playing conservative at Clemson was not going to win us the game.I agree that going for the fourth and one is very defensible. Lamson has shown that he can read the blocking and get a yard pretty reliably. As you say, the problem was ball security.
The first down was there, but the ball protection was a little defective.
Quote:I also liked going for it on 4th at their 5. However, I didn't like the play (sweep by Mosley).I don't like it at all, for the converse of the reasons the first one made sense. We haven't shown that we can make five yards any time we want to. We haven't shown anything close to that. Not liking the play call IMO is caused by the fact that there aren't any "sure thing" play calls on fourth and five , or anything even close :-). No matter what is called it is relatively low probability of success and very easy not to like. The game situation was also important. We needed to "right the ship". We had made a lot of yards but scored zero points. A field goal would have broken the ice and reinforced the idea that we could win by calming down and just playing our game. No need for big risks.
There are times such risks are unavoidable. There are other times they are a defensible choice because the coach believes he has a play that will work with high probability or the coach wants to "get the team going". We didn't need that. We needed to methodically dig ourselves out of the hole we were in. Going for it on fourth and five sent exactly the opposite message, that we needed something extraordinary to win the game.
(09-28-2024, 08:28 PM)PVTree Wrote: I didn't mind the first 4th down attempt. We should be able to get 1 yard, and playing conservative at Clemson was not going to win us the game.I agree that going for the fourth and one is very defensible. Lamson has shown that he can read the blocking and get a yard pretty reliably. As you say, the problem was ball security.
The first down was there, but the ball protection was a little defective.
Quote:I also liked going for it on 4th at their 5. However, I didn't like the play (sweep by Mosley).I don't like it at all, for the converse of the reasons the first one made sense. We haven't shown that we can make five yards any time we want to. We haven't shown anything close to that. Not liking the play call IMO is caused by the fact that there aren't any "sure thing" play calls on fourth and five , or anything even close :-). No matter what is called it is relatively low probability of success and very easy not to like. The game situation was also important. We needed to "right the ship". We had made a lot of yards but scored zero points. A field goal would have broken the ice and reinforced the idea that we could win by calming down and just playing our game. No need for big risks.
There are times such risks are unavoidable. There are other times they are a defensible choice because the coach believes he has a play that will work with high probability or the coach wants to "get the team going". We didn't need that. We needed to methodically dig ourselves out of the hole we were in. Going for it on fourth and five sent exactly the opposite message, that we needed something extraordinary to win the game.
As a Stanford alum, it really irks me to see us make so many stupid mistakes throughout the game. Three INTs by Daniels (he had Ayom going to the side on the first INT, he shouldn't have thrown up the ball for grabs on the second, and he threw the third INT to the defender); seems to me that Daniels has VERY POOR JUDGMENT and doesn't know how to throw a touch pass over a defender. Why hasn't he learned by now that it's often better to throw a ball away than to try to fit it into a tiny window? TT that's on you too! Also, who was our #32 on D? Good Lord! He looked lost on the three TDs the guys he was defending against scored. I won't go into detail about TT's bizarre playcalling on 4th down. To bring Lamson in on 4th and short is to tell the D what the play will be. Come on! Three good aspects of the evening: our run D was pretty good most of the time, our O running game woke up for the first time, and Moseley was outstanding. He can separate perhaps better than any receiver we have, including Ayom.
As a Stanford alum, it really irks me to see us make so many stupid mistakes throughout the game. Three INTs by Daniels (he had Ayom going to the side on the first INT, he shouldn't have thrown up the ball for grabs on the second, and he threw the third INT to the defender); seems to me that Daniels has VERY POOR JUDGMENT and doesn't know how to throw a touch pass over a defender. Why hasn't he learned by now that it's often better to throw a ball away than to try to fit it into a tiny window? TT that's on you too! Also, who was our #32 on D? Good Lord! He looked lost on the three TDs the guys he was defending against scored. I won't go into detail about TT's bizarre playcalling on 4th down. To bring Lamson in on 4th and short is to tell the D what the play will be. Come on! Three good aspects of the evening: our run D was pretty good most of the time, our O running game woke up for the first time, and Moseley was outstanding. He can separate perhaps better than any receiver we have, including Ayom.
09-28-2024, 10:01 PM
Well, I feel bad for Daniels and also for Manley. It must be tough to give your all and have it blow up in your face in front of 80,000 (or whatever) screaming fans and a national TV audience. And I'm pretty sure jet lag took over in the second half after the initial adrenaline rush wore off.
Having said that, we squandered way too many chances when we actually had a chance in this one, and unfortunately that falls on our QB. We can second-guess TT's playcalling all we want, but at the end of the day it's about execution, and Daniels' passing, especially when he's under some pressure, is just not that good.
Props to the D who stuffed the run early and often. Our young DL are coming along fine.
Having said that, we squandered way too many chances when we actually had a chance in this one, and unfortunately that falls on our QB. We can second-guess TT's playcalling all we want, but at the end of the day it's about execution, and Daniels' passing, especially when he's under some pressure, is just not that good.
Props to the D who stuffed the run early and often. Our young DL are coming along fine.
Well, I feel bad for Daniels and also for Manley. It must be tough to give your all and have it blow up in your face in front of 80,000 (or whatever) screaming fans and a national TV audience. And I'm pretty sure jet lag took over in the second half after the initial adrenaline rush wore off.
Having said that, we squandered way too many chances when we actually had a chance in this one, and unfortunately that falls on our QB. We can second-guess TT's playcalling all we want, but at the end of the day it's about execution, and Daniels' passing, especially when he's under some pressure, is just not that good.
Props to the D who stuffed the run early and often. Our young DL are coming along fine.
Having said that, we squandered way too many chances when we actually had a chance in this one, and unfortunately that falls on our QB. We can second-guess TT's playcalling all we want, but at the end of the day it's about execution, and Daniels' passing, especially when he's under some pressure, is just not that good.
Props to the D who stuffed the run early and often. Our young DL are coming along fine.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »