remaining wins....

[jgtengineer]

So Clemson had 20 possessions and scored on 11 of them. Kind of how I figured it could go. Why would we try to run a hurry up offense. It is not like we were going to wear Clemson's three deep defense down. Maybe CPJ had it right when limiting possessions. Key haters in 3....2....1

Basically. Going Fast also negates turnovers. If a game is limited to 11 possessions and you steal 3 with turnovers, it means a lot more in keeping things manageable than when there are 20 possessions.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Rewatching the Clemson game, quite a few times our DB could not really have been in a much better defensive position than they were. The ball was just thrown on the money, on the outside or inside shoulder (depending on the defenders position), and not much you could do. That won’t happen very often with any other team.

 

[Lotta Booze]

So Clemson had 20 possessions and scored on 11 of them. Kind of how I figured it could go. Why would we try to run a hurry up offense. It is not like we were going to wear Clemson's three deep defense down. Maybe CPJ had it right when limiting possessions. Key haters in 3....2....1

Maybe my memory of the game is clouded by beer and wanting to push it out of mind but I don't remember us running a whole lot of hurry up. Am I mistaken? We are throwing more so that has reduced how much time gets chewed up when we throw back to back incompletes but I don't think this idea that we were running "hurry up offense" holds up.

Clemson had touchdown drives that lasted 1:39, 0:18, 0:27, and 0:31 in the first half.

That's 28 points for them that took less than 3 minutes off of the clock. Hell, 21 points that took less than a minute.

GT's inability to sustain drives was a big factor in the number of possessions. So were the turnovers, hard to bleed the clock when your drive ends after 7 seconds because of a bad snap or 0:37 seconds due to an interception. But probably more than anything was the fact that Clemson hardly had to sustain long drives to score.

 

[4shotB]

So Clemson had 20 possessions and scored on 11 of them. Kind of how I figured it could go. Why would we try to run a hurry up offense. It is not like we were going to wear Clemson's three deep defense down. Maybe CPJ had it right when limiting possessions. Key haters in 3....2....1

we have been beaten like a rented mule the last 5 or 6 times against them. It's not pretty, no matter who is on the sideline unfortunately.

 

[gtstinger776]

I don’t think there is a single game left on the schedule that we have zero chance of winning. ND is definitely better than us, but they haven’t necessarily blown out some of the mediocre / bad acc teams they’ve played (Duke, UL).

The rest of the schedule is a great opportunity for our young players and coaches to prove that we are in the top half of the conference and will be near the top in 1-2 years. If we go 3-3 or better the rest of the way, nobody will care about the blowout Clemson or SU loss

 

[Deleted member 2897]

we have been beaten like a rented mule the last 5 or 6 times against them. It's not pretty, no matter who is on the sideline unfortunately.

I want to know why rented mules are beaten so often. What did they do to deserve such behavior? And why are red headed step children hated so much? So many questions...

 

[Pointer]

Rewatching the Clemson game, quite a few times our DB could not really have been in a much better defensive position than they were. The ball was just thrown on the money, on the outside or inside shoulder (depending on the defenders position), and not much you could do. That won’t happen very often with any other team.

Your deserve an award for rewatching that game, not to mention multiple times lol

 

[Lee]

So Clemson had 20 possessions and scored on 11 of them. Kind of how I figured it could go. Why would we try to run a hurry up offense. It is not like we were going to wear Clemson's three deep defense down. Maybe CPJ had it right when limiting possessions. Key haters in 3....2....1

You focus on limiting possessions when you have a chance to win. We did not have a chance. Whether the staff wants to admit it or not, they knew that too.

Running our offense against the best defense (arguably) in the country gives us opportunities to see where we stand and what we need to do to get better. It also gives us a glimpse into how Venables will defend us potentially next year when we are better.

Now it can be argued once the score was so lopsided we could’ve eaten more clock, but again all you’re doing at that point is focusing on not losing too bad which is dumb in my opinion.

Why not let your young guys run the offense. Clemson’s 2nd team d is better than our first team so it’s still good work for them.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Per Rivals, a 5.8 or higher is a 4-star. 5.7s are sometimes 4-stars over at 247, they are right on the edge. I went back and looked - in the last 4 classes combined, Clemson took 13 guys total who were 5.6 or lower. And 2 of them are Venables LOL. Their 4-string on paper are higher rated than nearly all of our first string. They have around 72 guys rated 5.7 or higher.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Clemson had touchdown drives that lasted 1:39, 0:18, 0:27, and 0:31 in the first half.

That's 28 points for them that took less than 3 minutes off of the clock. Hell, 21 points that took less than a minute.

Ummm........

 

[Lotta Booze]

Ummm........

Whoops. Ahem... less than 80 seconds

 

[Pointer]

Whoops. Ahem... less than 80 seconds

I always said calculus was easy, but simple math always tripped me up.

 

[forensicbuzz]

The 21 points in the last 3 minutes of the 1st half is what turned this into such a lopsided blow-out. I think if Clemson went into the lockerroom 35-7, it would have ended in the 50's like everyone seems to be okay with. Personally, I couldn't care less if it were 50, 70, or 90. Their job is to score, ours it to stop them. We need to play better to compete with the likes of them. We're not there yet. I hope to be.

We'll get them next year!!!