GT is a 25.5 point dog to Clemson 2020

[boger2337]

I must say I was surprised by this number. I am unsure of when this line originally opened. If it was pre-lockdown then I would assume it opened up as a larger number.

Last year we were a 36 point dog to Clemson at Clemson.

Some may argue the 3 points Vegas gives to a home team. I think in the past decade that has slowly phased out. Take a team like Boise state. They are 14-30 their last 44 home games against the spread.
Given that information, I'm certainly shocked to see us improve by 10.5 points this year even if it as home.

Give me 25.5 points from 2010-2017 I'd take that immediately as we covered that every year and we always kept it around 3 scores. Past 2 years have been... rather rough.

Do I think we are better this year? Yes.
Do I think we beat some teams as an underdog this year? Yes.
Do I think we cover 25.5 against an angry Clemson team that got flat out beat in the national title game? No.

We should improve upon our 38 point loss from last year.
Hopefully I am completely wrong. Which I am often, but I would say we lose by 28-31. (Somewhere in the middle from last years and this years spread). The worst thing is if Clemson covers last years 36 points at Bobby Dodd. You will start to really here some moaning and groaning from the GT fan base.


What are your thoughts? If you had to pick a side, who would you take? Gold colored glasses off!

 

[Gtbowhunter90]

I think they are gonna beat us easily but the defense will be better. Does Clem cover? Oh yea.

 

[LibertyTurns]

@boger2337 If we’re using the Clemson game as a barometer, it’s probably going to be highly dissatisfying.

I prefer to use the 9 games we should be able to be competitive in plus the 1 gimme. If we lose the gimme game, there’s going to be an extremely loud contingent not happy at all.

We should be able to win 3 of 9 of the possible wins. Zero would be alarming, 1 maddening, 2 very disappointing, 3 will get a shoulder shrug, 4 would bring a smile and great for how bright is the future, 5 would have GT buzzing, 6+ well coach can pretty much write his own ticket for 3-4 more years.

 

[boger2337]

@boger2337 If we’re using the Clemson game as a barometer, it’s probably going to be highly dissatisfying.

I prefer to use the 9 games we should be able to be competitive in plus the 1 gimme. If we lose the gimme game, there’s going to be an extremely loud contingent not happy at all.

We should be able to win 3 of 9 of the possible wins. Zero would be alarming, 1 maddening, 2 very disappointing, 3 will get a shoulder shrug, 4 would bring a smile and great for how bright is the future, 5 would have GT buzzing, 6+ well coach can pretty much write his own ticket for 3-4 more years.

The Clemson game is definitely not the barometer. It's just saying I'm surprised by Vegas and their view of the program. Seems like they have higher expectations from this GT game.

Personally I believe if we don't win 5+ games this year then we may never get to the high end potential this new coaching regime could of been.
3-4 wins this year and we may not see another top 25 class again for a long time. It will be hard to sell kids on "juice" and "hype" with terrible results.

If somehow we win 7 games this year I think we finish with a top 25 class for class of 21 and possibly on track for a top 15 class in 2022 come late spring 2021.

 

[g0lftime]

I just want to see some sustained drives on offense. Last year we were horrible. Too many 3 and outs that led to poor field position and a worn out defense.

 

[jacketup]

If we had all of spring practice and all of fall practice for our reconstituted OL to gel, 25.5 or better would be realistic. If that had happened, our OL this first game would be a lot--a lot-better than last year's first game. But while this year's edition will be better, with potentially 4 pro caliber players, I'm not sure they will get the practice time they need to play as a unit.

Still, we will be better than the first game last year. More talent and experience on D, and at least more talent on the OL. 13 points better? Not out of the question.

Clemson lost 4 starters on the OL. Only 1 LB starter returns and only 1 DB starter returns. They have talent, but the lack of practice time with so many new starters suggests this team won't be as good in September as last year's team was in September.

 

[boger2337]

If we had all of spring practice and all of fall practice for our reconstituted OL to gel, 25.5 or better would be realistic. If that had happened, our OL this first game would be a lot--a lot-better than last year's first game. But while this year's edition will be better, with potentially 4 pro caliber players, I'm not sure they will get the practice time they need to play as a unit.

Still, we will be better than the first game last year. More talent and experience on D, and at least more talent on the OL. 13 points better? Not out of the question.

Clemson lost 4 starters on the OL. Only 1 LB starter returns and only 1 DB starter returns. They have talent, but the lack of practice time with so many new starters suggests this team won't be as good in September as last year's team was in September.

I'd be willing to take the under at anything around 60 and under. Maybe even 55.

 

[Jmonty71]

I must say I was surprised by this number. I am unsure of when this line originally opened. If it was pre-lockdown then I would assume it opened up as a larger number.

Last year we were a 36 point dog to Clemson at Clemson.

Some may argue the 3 points Vegas gives to a home team. I think in the past decade that has slowly phased out. Take a team like Boise state. They are 14-30 their last 44 home games against the spread.
Given that information, I'm certainly shocked to see us improve by 10.5 points this year even if it as home.

Give me 25.5 points from 2010-2017 I'd take that immediately as we covered that every year and we always kept it around 3 scores. Past 2 years have been... rather rough.

Do I think we are better this year? Yes.
Do I think we beat some teams as an underdog this year? Yes.
Do I think we cover 25.5 against an angry Clemson team that got flat out beat in the national title game? No.

We should improve upon our 38 point loss from last year.
Hopefully I am completely wrong. Which I am often, but I would say we lose by 28-31. (Somewhere in the middle from last years and this years spread). The worst thing is if Clemson covers last years 36 points at Bobby Dodd. You will start to really here some moaning and groaning from the GT fan base.


What are your thoughts? If you had to pick a side, who would you take? Gold colored glasses off!

I would take better odds that the game doesn't happen.

 

[stinger 1957]

FR WR can play quicker than most other positions it seems to me, not quick enough for Clemson though. I think both sides of the ball will be much better this year than most expect. I'm guessing we make 6 regular season wins and a bowl game. I'm expecting a full season to be played. Like many I'm encouraged about our OL play because of the 2 GTs. Do we get a gt TE?

 

[stinger 1957]

If we had all of spring practice and all of fall practice for our reconstituted OL to gel, 25.5 or better would be realistic. If that had happened, our OL this first game would be a lot--a lot-better than last year's first game. But while this year's edition will be better, with potentially 4 pro caliber players, I'm not sure they will get the practice time they need to play as a unit.

Still, we will be better than the first game last year. More talent and experience on D, and at least more talent on the OL. 13 points better? Not out of the question.

Clemson lost 4 starters on the OL. Only 1 LB starter returns and only 1 DB starter returns. They have talent, but the lack of practice time with so many new starters suggests this team won't be as good in September as last year's team was in September.

Billy D, is that you?