Clemson prediction.

tech_wreck47

tech_wreck47

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,670
AlabamaBuzz said:
If Watson stays healthy all night, I am afraid I have to prognosticate:

Clem's Son 41-21

I want to be wrong like nobody's business, but I don't think our D is better than it was 2 years ago, and he was killing us on the first drive before he got hurt. And, he is a much better player now than then. He single-handedly almost beat the crimson red devil last year. Again, hope I am wrong.....
Click to expand...
He got hurt with like 3 minutes left in the first, and they had already had a drive before he got hurt after we fumbled, they had a short field and we held them to a field goal.
 
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,030
For the record, in 2014:
1) CU went 3 and out in their first drive.
2) They ran 11 plays to go 41 yards and be held with a FG in drive 2.
3) Then there was the fateful 3rd drive which ended with the "leaping interception; he's going to go all the way ... touchdown!"

So, to be clear, they were scoring at the incredible pace of 1.5 pts/drive while Watson was QB. If they had averaged that against power 5 teams in 2014, they would've had the #63 ranked offense in the country. By contrast, if our D had averaged allowing 1.5 ppd vs pwr 5 teams for the whole season, it would've been the #6 D in the country. The idea that he was "killing us" stretches the truth a bit.

Again, this year, CU's offense is barely above 2 pts/drive versus power 5 opponents. It may be that they'll flip the switch tonight, but we haven't see it against any competition yet. Not saying that it won't happen. Saying that it's hard to claim that it WILL happen.

Also, for what it's worth, we only punted once in 2014. We scored 1 TD, kicked 3 FG's, missed 1 FG, and fumbled twice. So, we scored right at 2ppd. Clemson's D was #1 that year in allowing Pwr5 teams on average 1.31 ppd. I think our offense is better at this point this year than ours was at that point that year. I think that their D is a little worse. We'll see.
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
Right about now Venables is said to be very unhappy but from the sideline camera he almost always is, and after losing five in a row at Bobby Dodd there has to be some nerves at Clemson, particularly with Louisville staring at them 10 days later. I see in the Charleston paper they finally acknowledged they practiced against the offense in the spring and again in the fall.But saying "Keep your eye on the ball at all times" and keeping your eye on the ball are distinctly different. If Tech made it that easy for them anybody could do it. I am trying to build my own case that last year's embarrassing showing has Tech juiced. But Watson is a legitimate Heisman guy with some great receivers against Tech's young secondary and so far unestablished D line. I am afraid he is going to slice us up and get his Heisman campaign back in business. I want to be wrong, badly wrong, but Clemson, 35-14.
 
ATL1

ATL1

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,377
Clemson's Dline is huge and their linebackers have speed to the edge. They will shut down the running game, unless GT can effectively pass.

If Tech can pass that will open up everything.

I mind is telling me one thing my gut another.

CU 35 GT 42
 
Squints

Squints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,255
I'm going with 42-28 Clemson. I hope I'm wrong but I still have no faith in our defense.

I also have no faith in any of my predictions.
 

Rock

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
615
AE 87 said:
No worries. When I read, "Brain," I did not infer that you meant "feelings" or "guts" but rather that you meant something thought out.

For example, here's what thinking it out might look like:
CU had 11 or 12 drives versus Auburn and 15 versus Troy, so they scored just under 2 pts/drive and 2pts/drive in those two games. Now, obviously that's under-performing where their offense probably is this year. Last year, they averaged 2.84 pts/drive against power 5 opponents. I don't think it's unrealistic to think that they're probably around 2.5 ppd vs pwr5 at this point (still just a guestimate without considering opposition)

We had 8 drives versus BC and 12 drives versus Vanderbilt for just over 2 pts/drive and 3.0 pts/drive.

So, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that our game versus CU will be 11 or 12 drives, say 12 (there were 13 last year). With this in mind, then, to say that CU will score 49 against us is to say that they will average over 4 pts/drive. Last year, their offense scored 3.15 pts/drive against us. Our offense scored, 17 against them, 1.31 ppd. If we score 14 in a 12 drive game, then that would be 1.17 ppd.

In other words, assuming a 12 drive game, your "Brain" prediction has us performing worse against CU this year than we did last year on both offense and defense. If the game you had in mind had more than drives making our defense better against their O, it would make our O worse against their D.

I simply see no rational basis for that prediction. I don't think you have to wear gold-colored glasses to conclude we are playing better on offense, and probably also on defense, this year, even recognizing that Vandy and BC aren't great offenses. They were both really solid defenses last year. When you consider we pulled our starting offense after the 9th drive, we actually scored over 4pts/drive for the first 9 drives. I think we have a solid rational basis for believing our O is much improved over last year.

So, maybe you need to take off your red-colored glasses rather than accusing others of wearing gold-colored glasses.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, you were saying??
 
tech_wreck47

tech_wreck47

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,670
OL and defense needs to improve majorly!

I'm not to worried about the rest of the season though because no other team we play imo has the talent Clemson has especially on the D line.
 
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,030
Rock said:
You wrote 8 paragraphs on how I would be wrong.
But yet, I am right so far.
Click to expand...

No, I wrote paragraphs on what I expected from a "Brain" response, i.e. a rational argument. You offered none.

The only thing that you're proving is that when Tech is getting out-played on both sides of the ball, rather than being pissed, you choose to say, "I told you so before the game is even over."

You are not a Tech fan. It's just that simple.
 

Rock

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
615
AE 87 said:
No, I wrote paragraphs on what I expected from a "Brain" response, i.e. a rational argument. You offered none.

The only thing that you're proving is that when Tech is getting out-played on both sides of the ball, rather than being pissed, you choose to say, "I told you so before the game is even over."

You are not a Tech fan. It's just that simple.
Click to expand...

Lol ok man.
 
Top