- Messages
- 5,127
ACC Discussion 2020
- Thread starter CuseJacket
- Start date
- Messages
- 10,037
- Location
- Oriental, NC
I wonder if tOSU played some games with their signals last night. One thing for certain, Clemson never covered the tight ends.
If there are two RBs better than Trey Sermon and Najee Harris I have not seen them. Both those guys are hard to tackle.
Last, there needs to be something done about the targeting rules. While the call in the uga game was legit, the ejection of Skalsky was bogus.
If there are two RBs better than Trey Sermon and Najee Harris I have not seen them. Both those guys are hard to tackle.
Last, there needs to be something done about the targeting rules. While the call in the uga game was legit, the ejection of Skalsky was bogus.
wvGT11
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,345
Well that was sure an embarrassment for Clemson last night. I was already expecting osu to come out stronger, since well 6 games would mean a healthier team. Clemson sure went in to the game expecting osu to be a non factor and they were wrong. Justin Fields playing injured and throwing bombs was fun to watch though
stech81
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 8,957
- Location
- Woodstock Georgia
I thought Fields had a better touch on his deep passes than Lawrence. That was the first time this year I watched Fields but if he has passed that well all year I would take him over Lawrence in the draft.
- Messages
- 5,127
I don't think Clemson overlooked them. In fact, I get now why Dabo campaigned so hard to keep them out. After watching this game and LSU last year, I get the sense that Clemson (outside of TL and ETN) seems on a level athletic-wise of a ND or similar. Just a notch (but noticeable) below teams like OSU or Bama. I think both of those games revealed that. LSU and OSU looked bigger, faster and stronger. Of course, TL and ETN can cover a lot of blemishes. I think OSU was better at every position last night (maybe a draw at QB and RB). I do think they have a pair of FR DT's that are going to be dominant as they mature.
yeti92
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 3,181
Etienne is overhyped imo, he got shut down last night, and several times this season. Put him on a less talented team and he wouldn't get half the attention he does from the media.
CTJacket
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 532
Northeast Stinger
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 11,129
By “bogus” you mean the rule should be changed, right? Skalsky did not do it on purpose and Fields twisting at the wrong time in a bang-bang play caused the helmet strike. But, the call was correct according to the rules. If the rule is a deterrence to serious injury then unfortunate ejections from a game are the inevitable trade off.
Northeast Stinger
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 11,129
I feel that way about the quarterback sometimes too. Would he elevate Tech if we had him? Sure. But would be a late round draft pick at best and no one would talk Heisman. But give him top notch receivers and good offensive line he is one of the best.
- Messages
- 5,127
I agree he had a bad game last night but that was due in part to OSU. I think we should defer to the opinion of NFL experts. He is thought of generally as one of the top 2 backs in the draft (Bama's Harris is the other guy) and most likely go in the first round. NLT mid 2nd round. So, he IS an elite back as determined by guys whose livelihood is judging and evaluating talent..
I agree that the average fan might not know his name if he was at Northwestern or Mississippi State. How many guys are standouts in the NFL that we never heard of in college?
Conversely, I think Gibbs would put up ETN number's if he played behind their OL and alongside TL. I maybe wrong here but I do think Gibbs can be his equal in terms of talent if not production. Production is dependent to a degree on your teammates and the system you are in. But ultimately I will defer to the judgement of the NFL guys on this topic when Gibbs time is up here. I may look foolish in retrospect.
- Messages
- 5,127
My comments about ETN stand here too. If you want to know how good a guy is (and remove personal bias) listen to what the NFL guys say.
yeti92
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 3,181
I think Gibbs will be better at that point in his career.
gt69hjcollins
Georgia Tech Fan
- Messages
- 92
Skalsky dropped his head. That is not only unsafe for the guy getting hit, it is unsafe for the guy doing the hitting. I think it is a rule that must be maintained and coached.
forensicbuzz
21st Century Throwback Dad
- Messages
- 9,029
- Location
- North Shore, Chicago
There's a reason spearing is a penalty. It should not be part of "targeting." Besides, one of the targeting criteria is "launching," which Skalsky obviously did not do. His arms were out to make a shoulder tackle and Fields twisted into the line of his head. Skalsky should have been flagged for spearing because he lowered his head (and risked a serious spinal injury), but not for targeting.
- Messages
- 10,074
- Location
- Williamsburg Virginia
I agree that the spearing / targeting was the correct call since Skalsky dropped his head and used his helmet as a weapon. Probably unintentional as I don't think Skalsky intended to get thrown out of the game but the commentators were talking about previous times he had been disqualified for targeting.
I like the rule and when I played in HS spearing was completely legal and taught. And there were lots more neck injuries along with concussions. It comes down to how violent a person wants the game to be; but it's not touch football. The rules that don't get enforced which bother me a lot more are allowing OL holding and WR push offs. That is part of the reason that offenses have surged ahead of D's lately. Not allowing spearing only increases the O's advantage.
FredJacket
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 6,289
- Location
- Fredericksburg, Virginia
Some quality commentary on subject of targeting here....
---------------
Dear Faux Pelini,
How do you prevent targeting calls on good football plays? — Sean P.
Well Sean,
College football fans have many differences, but one thing unites us: the targeting rule. We despise everything about it — the way it’s written, the way referees enforce it, the sad and heavy-handed ejections that result from it. Even its goofy name has brought shame and dishonor to a convenient and reasonably priced department store.
We do love our rules in college football, though. When in doubt, we make a rule. Taking a recruit to dinner? There are rules for that. Bringing your parents to your bowl game? More rules. Planning a touchdown celebration? Better check the rules first.
College football rules generally fall into two categories: administrative rules that govern complex issues outside the game (recruiting, player eligibility, Art Briles) and the rules of the games themselves. The administrative people and football people mostly keep to their own separate NCAA committees, except when the occasional large and unwieldy problem emerges. When that happens the two groups of rule makers join forces to protect revenues, promote player safety and protect revenues.
A recent example of this occurred when the science people demonstrated that brain trauma had become a major problem in football, one that could threaten the sport’s existence if it wasn’t addressed. All of the rule makers came together with one goal in mind: to invent a rule that would prevent college football helmets from colliding during games.
Now, it is of course impossible to prevent helmet collisions in a sport where the players are encouraged to block and tackle each other, but impossibility has never discouraged NCAA rule makers. So subcommittees were formed, white papers were written, meetings were held and ultimately a new penalty called “targeting” was unleashed upon our world.
The new rule called for a grand scene to unfold whenever helmet ramming occurred, like something out of the Roman Colosseum (but with fewer lions and better wifi). A flag would be thrown, targeting would be alleged and the game would be halted for several minutes so that the offending player could think about what he had done. Meanwhile, the crowd would withdraw into a nervous hush as a middle-aged man analyzed video replays to determine the fate of the accused.
If the referee was sufficiently convinced that helmet-to-helmet contact had indeed occurred, he would solemnly announce that the player had been disqualified. Not ejected, not kicked out — disqualified. The penalty was to be so serious that the perpetrator’s qualifications to participate in the game (and perhaps society) would be revoked.
The rule makers no doubt believed that their invention was necessary and just. After all, if a player doesn’t want to be kicked out, well, maybe he should have thought of that before he decided to ram into someone’s helmet, right?
But there was a problem with the Targeting rulemaking process: It was an attempt to convert a policy born in a boardroom into a rule enforced on a football field. The rule makers imagined a simple world of good and evil inhabited by a maniacal headhunter and a helpless victim. Of course their punishment was going to be severe.
After targeting was rolled out and began to be called in the games, it didn’t take long for us to realize that this new penalty was broken. Although it was designed to prevent intentional headhunting, the majority of targeting calls seemed to involve accidents. But the rule craves ejections, and so on fall Saturdays we must repeatedly endure targeting calls where the punishment just doesn’t fit the crime.
Ironically, a rule designed to prevent violence has resulted in smashed coffee tables in living rooms across America.
How do we fix the targeting rule, Sean? I don’t know. I don’t fix the rules around here, I just criticize them. Maybe the second targeting foul of the season is the one that gets a player disqualified. Perhaps we could give referees some discretion to allow for accidental contact. Or maybe a player can avoid disqualification by delivering his victim a heartfelt apology and a hug. Almost any change would be good at this point.
But through all of this, remember that the targeting rule does have a worthy purpose. Minimizing head injuries will be necessary to preserve our sport and help parents continue to feel comfortable sending their kids to football practice.
Sean, next time you want to crush your coffee table remember that if our sport is going to survive for decades to come, we will need a targeting rule. Just a different one.
---------------
Dear Faux Pelini,
How do you prevent targeting calls on good football plays? — Sean P.
Well Sean,
College football fans have many differences, but one thing unites us: the targeting rule. We despise everything about it — the way it’s written, the way referees enforce it, the sad and heavy-handed ejections that result from it. Even its goofy name has brought shame and dishonor to a convenient and reasonably priced department store.
We do love our rules in college football, though. When in doubt, we make a rule. Taking a recruit to dinner? There are rules for that. Bringing your parents to your bowl game? More rules. Planning a touchdown celebration? Better check the rules first.
College football rules generally fall into two categories: administrative rules that govern complex issues outside the game (recruiting, player eligibility, Art Briles) and the rules of the games themselves. The administrative people and football people mostly keep to their own separate NCAA committees, except when the occasional large and unwieldy problem emerges. When that happens the two groups of rule makers join forces to protect revenues, promote player safety and protect revenues.
A recent example of this occurred when the science people demonstrated that brain trauma had become a major problem in football, one that could threaten the sport’s existence if it wasn’t addressed. All of the rule makers came together with one goal in mind: to invent a rule that would prevent college football helmets from colliding during games.
Now, it is of course impossible to prevent helmet collisions in a sport where the players are encouraged to block and tackle each other, but impossibility has never discouraged NCAA rule makers. So subcommittees were formed, white papers were written, meetings were held and ultimately a new penalty called “targeting” was unleashed upon our world.
The new rule called for a grand scene to unfold whenever helmet ramming occurred, like something out of the Roman Colosseum (but with fewer lions and better wifi). A flag would be thrown, targeting would be alleged and the game would be halted for several minutes so that the offending player could think about what he had done. Meanwhile, the crowd would withdraw into a nervous hush as a middle-aged man analyzed video replays to determine the fate of the accused.
If the referee was sufficiently convinced that helmet-to-helmet contact had indeed occurred, he would solemnly announce that the player had been disqualified. Not ejected, not kicked out — disqualified. The penalty was to be so serious that the perpetrator’s qualifications to participate in the game (and perhaps society) would be revoked.
The rule makers no doubt believed that their invention was necessary and just. After all, if a player doesn’t want to be kicked out, well, maybe he should have thought of that before he decided to ram into someone’s helmet, right?
But there was a problem with the Targeting rulemaking process: It was an attempt to convert a policy born in a boardroom into a rule enforced on a football field. The rule makers imagined a simple world of good and evil inhabited by a maniacal headhunter and a helpless victim. Of course their punishment was going to be severe.
After targeting was rolled out and began to be called in the games, it didn’t take long for us to realize that this new penalty was broken. Although it was designed to prevent intentional headhunting, the majority of targeting calls seemed to involve accidents. But the rule craves ejections, and so on fall Saturdays we must repeatedly endure targeting calls where the punishment just doesn’t fit the crime.
Ironically, a rule designed to prevent violence has resulted in smashed coffee tables in living rooms across America.
How do we fix the targeting rule, Sean? I don’t know. I don’t fix the rules around here, I just criticize them. Maybe the second targeting foul of the season is the one that gets a player disqualified. Perhaps we could give referees some discretion to allow for accidental contact. Or maybe a player can avoid disqualification by delivering his victim a heartfelt apology and a hug. Almost any change would be good at this point.
But through all of this, remember that the targeting rule does have a worthy purpose. Minimizing head injuries will be necessary to preserve our sport and help parents continue to feel comfortable sending their kids to football practice.
Sean, next time you want to crush your coffee table remember that if our sport is going to survive for decades to come, we will need a targeting rule. Just a different one.
Northeast Stinger
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 11,129
Was it just me or did it look like OSU held on almost every play? Don’t get me wrong, OSU was the better team but I saw at least 3 OSU touchdowns where an OSU player had a fist full of jersey.
I have given up trying to understand the rules for offensive holding because the ref interpretations seem to border on esoteric. One constant seems to be that top level teams get away with it more than the also ran teams.
- Messages
- 11,724
I was thinking “did Sarkesian get a new job?”, and oh boy did he