This is worst case scenario for GT's chances vs Clemson

[bke1984]

So here's the deal though...Clemson's offense had the ball with a little over 6 minutes left in the game and couldn't score to win....THEN, Syracuse was able to burn the last 6 minutes to end the game....yeah, against that amazing Clemson defense.

They're beatable for sure...

The more important thing it showed me is that maybe Syracuse is good enough to beat Miami...that would be HUGE if we could score a W today.

 

[bke1984]

I like Optimism, it’s not always realistic but it’s a good approach and one I need to work on for sure. Realistically I think we have a legit shot to beat UM tomorrow but I will be pretty surprised if it happens . In fact I will be estatic if it does, so I’m with ya- we can do it .

Clemson on the other hand.....Isn’t CPJ the one that always says good teams don’t lose two games in a row ? Well Clemson is a good team and we’re next and they will be pissed off looking to get back in CFP race

Maybe they're not as good as everyone thinks...

 

[MWBATL]

Maybe they're not as good as everyone thinks...

This. I don't know if Syracuse this year (wth losses to Middle Tennessee and a 3 point win over Pitt) is better than Pitt last year, but I certainly felt like the Pitt game last year was a fluke and that Clemson still played well in that game even in losing....while Clemson played terribly in this game on both sides of the ball, and lost the line of scrimmage in the 4th quarter when it mattered most. If I were a Clemson fan (and I like them) I would be seriously worried. This issue has nothing to do with Clemsoning...it speaks to much bigger problems.

Moreover, their play calling was inexplicable to me late in the game on offense. They twice got into Syracuse territory by running the ball or throwing very short passes which their receivers could turn into 8 yard gains. Then they inexplicably tried drop back passes, and their untested QB took sacks which put them behind the chains. And that fake punt on 4th down.....wha??? *That* part was Clemsoning.

 

[AE 87]

This. I don't know if Syracuse this year (wth losses to Middle Tennessee and a 3 point win over Pitt) is better than Pitt last year, but I certainly felt like the Pitt game last year was a fluke and that Clemson still played well in that game even in losing....while Clemson played terribly in this game on both sides of the ball, and lost the line of scrimmage in the 4th quarter when it mattered most. If I were a Clemson fan (and I like them) I would be seriously worried. This issue has nothing to do with Clemsoning...it speaks to much bigger problems.

Moreover, their play calling was inexplicable to me late in the game on offense. They twice got into Syracuse territory by running the ball or throwing very short passes which their receivers could turn into 8 yard gains. Then they inexplicably tried drop back passes, and their untested QB took sacks which put them behind the chains. And that fake punt on 4th down.....wha??? *That* part was Clemsoning.

There's one game every year where the coordinators let Dabo coach.

 

[CuseJacket]

So here's the deal though...Clemson's offense had the ball with a little over 6 minutes left in the game and couldn't score to win....THEN, Syracuse was able to burn the last 6 minutes to end the game....yeah, against that amazing Clemson defense.

They're beatable for sure...

The more important thing it showed me is that maybe Syracuse is good enough to beat Miami...that would be HUGE if we could score a W today.

This is my take as well.

Not sure how many watched the full 60 minutes. A few things:

• Syracuse lost the turnover battle and won. Think about this for a second.
• Looking closer at the turnover battle, Clemson turned the ball over ZERO times. Pause again.
• Surely then, the game must have been won with fluke plays or trick plays, one might want to conclude. The flukiest play? Clemson getting 7 points off of a scoop-and-score.
• Then Syracuse must have benefited from field position or sloppy play? Sloppy play at times, yes. Both teams had 100+ penalty yards. Clemson surely had their boneheaded plays with late hits. Total yards of offense? Syracuse 440, Clemson 317.
• Well then it's because Clemson QB Bryant was hurt? Syracuse put him on the ground 10-15 times in the first half. He was removed from the game not because of a bum ankle, but because he was getting lit up. The Tigers OL could not protect.

I am by no means suggesting Syracuse is the better team on the whole, but they were better yesterday. This was more impressive than Syracuse's win vs. VT last year where the "randomness" of turnovers, etc. clearly favored Syracuse. Clemson was exposed.

And I have some hope that Syracuse, with one more day of rest, can help us next week @ Miami as well. I don't expect it, but there is now data to prove it can happen. And fwiw, Syracuse HC Dino Babers has said from the get-go of his hiring that it would be midway thru season 2 that his offense would start clicking. Yesterday's game was exactly the first game of the second half of Syracuse's 2nd season with Babers.

 

[bke1984]

Dabo is not that great a coach man...he's an incredible recruiter and he's hired great assistants...which I guess is what a coach is supposed to do. That being said, I think they'll take a step back once Venables leaves to be a head coach...unless that dude decides to go the Bud Foster route and stay there for freakin' ever

 

[CuseJacket]

This. I don't know if Syracuse this year (wth losses to Middle Tennessee and a 3 point win over Pitt) is better than Pitt last year, but I certainly felt like the Pitt game last year was a fluke and that Clemson still played well in that game even in losing....while Clemson played terribly in this game on both sides of the ball, and lost the line of scrimmage in the 4th quarter when it mattered most. If I were a Clemson fan (and I like them) I would be seriously worried. This issue has nothing to do with Clemsoning...it speaks to much bigger problems.

Moreover, their play calling was inexplicable to me late in the game on offense. They twice got into Syracuse territory by running the ball or throwing very short passes which their receivers could turn into 8 yard gains. Then they inexplicably tried drop back passes, and their untested QB took sacks which put them behind the chains. And that fake punt on 4th down.....wha??? *That* part was Clemsoning.

Pittsburgh last year > Syracuse this year, imo. This year's Syracuse hardly looked better than this year's Pittsburgh just last week. But, the Orange yesterday looked much better than prior games, save for a decent showing @ NC State.

My opinion would change if somehow this is the miraculous true turning point in the Syracuse program, as I mentioned in my last post. Then we'd see Syracuse go down to Miami next week and look like they belong on the field. Still, I expect Miami should be favored by 12-15+.

 

[tech_wreck47]

This is your "reality" and "speaking truth"

GT vs UT prediction

Pitt Prediction Thread

North Carolina Game Predictions



I recommend the George Constanza solution.

I hope he picks us to lose the rest of the season. I see a good pattern.

 

[jeffgt14]

Sorry but I just don't believe Clemson is all of a sudden that much worse than last year. It was definitely a Clemsoning (my phone actually auto suggests this word now).

This is a defense that you have seen for 3 years succeed by hitting people and then falling down immediately. A defense that can get up on a 3rd and 1 and prevent you from getting a first down. All this even against the best competition in the country. All of a sudden we see them, against a bad to mediocre team, getting bulldozed over for an extra 2-3 yards every run. Give up numerous 3rd and long conversions especially in crunchtime. Give up a huge TD run to a QB by taking terrible angles and running towards him like they just ate a ton of biscuits and gravy at the Shoney's buffet. Give up a TD on a fly route where a slow WR torched the DB.

Offensively was just lackadaisical play calling as if you just thought you were going to out athlete the other team like some SEC squad. Missed multiple FG's under 40 yards...

CLEMSONING

 

[jeffgt14]

These Friday night games are terrible in the long scheme of things too. Seems like every year it results in a bunch of upsets. When are they gonna schedule Bama-Arkansas for a Friday night?

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I like your enthusiasm young grasshopper but every time we grow a pair and think we got something we get neutered and sent home without our boys attached ( most recent example 2015: we were being picked to make it to playoffs by some ESPN talking heads)

GT has never been able to remotely handle the favorite role- we crap the bed every time . We thrive as underdogs and surprising teams, never being on the top of the mountain . In 1990 we were doubted all season long even against a sub par Nebraska team. GT’s only Shot vs Clemson was as a sleeper, now they are going to unleash hades on us. Mark my words we lose by 21+ in DV

Clemson can play well and we can win so long as we play well too.

Your take on Tech strikes me a little like a battered woman syndrome. #1..it's just a game. #2...living scared all the time ain't really living, it's just surviving. Man up.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

I know I'm going to get pooped on for saying this and deservedly so.... but, For two weeks now Clemson is going to hear about how bad they played vs Syracuse during their bye week and they are going to come out ready to unleash a can of whoop arse on the Jackets.

Clemson did this numerous times last year, they would play like crap, win by one score, and then come out the next game against a ranked opponent and just mud stomp them in the ground.

I was really hoping for Clemson to blow out Syracuse and have everyone telling them how good they are for two weeks and come into our game overly confident. But now they're going to be pissed and I guarantee you they will come out sharp as a razor vs us to prove a point, worst case scenario IMHO.

Your message is that Clemson is now going to play harder/better than they would have had they not been beaten. I disagree. I think we would have gotten their best effort whenever the game was played. I think Clemson was playing as hard as they could play last night. There is a reason that the elite coaches make $300,000 PER GAME to coach. You say this loss will get Clemson's attention. It will get every team's attention that is paying attention, and that would be most teams. Tech, Miami, UGA, Notre Dame, etc, already knew that you can win every time you take the field, and you can lose every time you take the field if you don't take care of business.

 

[CuseJacket]

Sorry but I just don't believe Clemson is all of a sudden that much worse than last year. It was definitely a Clemsoning (my phone actually auto suggests this word now).

This is a defense that you have seen for 3 years succeed by hitting people and then falling down immediately. A defense that can get up on a 3rd and 1 and prevent you from getting a first down. All this even against the best competition in the country. All of a sudden we see them, against a bad to mediocre team, getting bulldozed over for an extra 2-3 yards every run. Give up numerous 3rd and long conversions especially in crunchtime. Give up a huge TD run to a QB by taking terrible angles and running towards him like they just ate a ton of biscuits and gravy at the Shoney's buffet. Give up a TD on a fly route where a slow WR torched the DB.

Offensively was just lackadaisical play calling as if you just thought you were going to out athlete the other team like some SEC squad. Missed multiple FG's under 40 yards...

CLEMSONING

Their kicker didn't just start missing FGs. He is now 2 for 6 on the year. Was 2 for 4. Their good kicker got injured earlier in the year.

I agree that Clemson's D did not have the same aggression I'm used to seeing. Outside of long-held beliefs and observations, why is it that Syracuse's pace and quick-hitting plays weren't the reason they could not get to Dungy? Did you notice how many times Clemson couldn't get a play call in because Syracuse was snapping the ball before the D got lined up? Did you notice Syracuse running speed option from under center on 3rd and 1 multiple times before Clemson got set? (FYI that's not a normal play call for Syracuse, but interesting...).

The idea that the failed fake punt was "Clemsoning" is a decent take by some but... Syracuse bled the clock for the next 6 minutes to win. Clemson never got the ball back.

Syracuse isn't the better team. They were yesterday. Personally, I'm used to "Clemsoning" being a couple brain farts in crucial situations and potentially blowing a win they had in hand. Yesterday they got beat for 60 minutes. I sure hope if we beat Clemson for 60 minutes, where Clemson never holds a lead and we are undermatched on an individual talent basis, that we won't call it Clemsoning.

 

[jeffgt14]

Their kicker didn't just start missing FGs. He is now 2 for 6 on the year. Was 2 for 4. Their good kicker got injured earlier in the year.

I agree that Clemson's D did not have the same aggression I'm used to seeing. Outside of long-held beliefs and observations, why is it that Syracuse's pace and quick-hitting plays weren't the reason they could not get to Dungy? Did you notice how many times Clemson couldn't get a play call in because Syracuse was snapping the ball before the D got lined up? Did you notice Syracuse running speed option from under center on 3rd and 1 multiple times before Clemson got set? (FYI that's not a normal play call for Syracuse, but interesting...).

The idea that the failed fake punt was "Clemsoning" is a decent take by some but... Syracuse bled the clock for the next 6 minutes to win. Clemson never got the ball back.

Syracuse isn't the better team. They were yesterday. Personally, I'm used to "Clemsoning" being a couple brain farts in crucial situations and potentially blowing a win they had in hand. Yesterday they got beat for 60 minutes. I sure hope if we beat Clemson for 60 minutes, where Clemson never holds a lead and we are undermatched on an individual talent basis, that we won't call it Clemsoning.

I'm not trying to discredit anything Syracuse did because they certainly brought their A game but at the same time Clemson brought their F game. My concern was more about the terrible tackling. This is a team that stopped Bama RB's in their tracks yet get bowled over by every Syracuse player out there. I don't think I would couple a GT win over Clemson as Clemsoning as we usually give Clemson a good run for their money every year. Syracuse does not.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

I will give the OP this: I bet every coach of a favorite team today mentions Clemson in their pre-game pep talks.

 

[knoxjacket]

I love seeing Clemson lose, but the downside is the ACC is now in real danger of missing out on the playoffs and the millions of dollars associated with it.

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

I love seeing Clemson lose, but the downside is the ACC is now in real danger of missing out on the playoffs and the millions of dollars associated with it.

I dont think that is how it works.

 

[CuseJacket]

I'm not trying to discredit anything Syracuse did because they certainly brought their A game but at the same time Clemson brought their F game. My concern was more about the terrible tackling. This is a team that stopped Bama RB's in their tracks yet get bowled over by every Syracuse player out there. I don't think I would couple a GT win over Clemson as Clemsoning as we usually give Clemson a good run for their money every year. Syracuse does not.

I'm not saying you're wrong on Syracuse's A game vs. Clemson's F game. But Clemson lost for 60 minutes, coaching and playing.

Not sure I agree with the thought process on the last sentence. For what it's worth, last 2 years.
2015

• Clemson 43, GT 24
• Clemson 37, Syracuse 27

2016

• Clemson 26, GT 7 (they had more pts than we had yds in the 1st half, which I'm sure most remember)
• Clemson 54, Syracuse 0

Syracuse played with LSU and NC State this year. They're not terrible, just below average and inconsistent. I don't think Clemson is the same team this year compared to last.

 

[InsideLB]

Dabo is not that great a coach man...he's an incredible recruiter and he's hired great assistants...which I guess is what a coach is supposed to do. That being said, I think they'll take a step back once Venables leaves to be a head coach...unless that dude decides to go the Bud Foster route and stay there for freakin' ever

Dabo is a freakin terrific HEAD coach. They were supposed to take a step back when Chad Morris left. Instead they got better with two unknown co-OC's. Who's to say they dont just perpetuate Venables success when he leaves?

X's and O's Dabo's not some mastermind or anything. A Head coach doesnt have to be. He just needs to be a good leader who gets the most out of his followers. As you point out he recruits well and has made good hires. But he also holds the vision for the team and he has been wildly successful creating a culture of success that the players buy into. His way of planning, coordinating, and executing the administrative functions of a HC have won a MNC and transformed CU into a reload/top 5 type program.

We can be critical all we want but over the years he as piled up W's and won championships where other HC's failed. Seems to have CPJ's respect as they have hung out some during the offseason.

All this said I hope we completely destroy them. It doesnt set up well after an upset loss and two weeks off for them, but if we limit mistakes and play to our capabilities IMO we can beat anyone.

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

I agree Dabo is doing a good job. "They did not go undefeated again this year so he must be a clown again" I would love to have that "bad" record at tech with an under performing coach.