|
Replies: 32
| visibility 1
|
CU Guru [1404]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 1919
Joined: 4/19/05
|
Special teams: It was not the reason we lost.
Jan 21, 2016, 1:43 PM
|
|
Special Teams did not lose the National Championship game nor did it cost us any games during the season.
Blown coverages and missed assignments (especially late in games) are the two areas that need focus and improvement from the players and perhaps coaches. At least three games were closer than they needed to be because of those two areas: ND, NC State, UNC. You could include Bama too because take two blown coverages away and that is 14 points not gifted to the Tide. Game over. Let them have their pooch kick. Clemson wins by 9 or more.
Blown coverages and missed assignments finally cost Clemson a game and it was in the National Championship game.
Special teams issue areas for Clemson = leg strength and don't get duped/fooled on fake punts and onsides kicks.
Critical issues for Clemson = stop the wide open opportunities for TEs and WRs to sneak out and go deep.
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [4483]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5995
Joined: 8/11/08
|
Re: Special teams: It was not the reason we lost.
Jan 21, 2016, 1:46 PM
|
|
Agree. Blown coverages were the biggest disappointment of the season. It had been happening all year, but until we played an elite opponent it didn't matter. Gotta cut down on those big "gimmie" plays. ST needs some work too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14090]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 25448
Joined: 7/28/05
|
we were 4-1 this season against top ten teams...
Jan 21, 2016, 1:59 PM
|
|
We had already played 4 elite teams before Bama. Bama is good on special teams, we were terrible. That was the difference in the game. Gave up 14 points off of special teams blunders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94314]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95557
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Losing a leader out of our backfield is probably the issue.***
Jan 21, 2016, 1:47 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1404]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 1919
Joined: 4/19/05
|
Re: Losing a leader out of our backfield is probably the issue.***
Jan 21, 2016, 4:52 PM
|
|
Or at least over 50%/of the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7010]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9249
Joined: 7/11/03
|
Agreed. Defensive lapses on the back end is real concern....
Jan 21, 2016, 1:50 PM
|
|
NC State, ND, Syr, and UNC, games were all closer than necessary as we didn't slam the door shut and then Bama finally got us because of it. SC was only closer than expected due to turnovers and conservative play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30979]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34592
Joined: 6/22/03
|
I have to agree considering Clemson did not lose
Jan 21, 2016, 1:54 PM
|
|
Any game during the regular season.
Special team play definetly hurt Clemson at times in the nc game, along with other things. The least talked about its Watson's int..
My concern is the cold weather outside. Geeville tiger no like the cold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1404]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 1919
Joined: 4/19/05
|
Re: I have to agree considering Clemson did not lose
Jan 21, 2016, 4:52 PM
|
|
Great points and agree brrrrrr cold no good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [663]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 282
Joined: 7/20/99
|
Re: Special teams: It was not the reason we lost.
Jan 21, 2016, 1:54 PM
|
|
agree 100%.
And seems like it was always the 4th quarter that we got burned (pun intended) by this problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [33]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 29
Joined: 3/18/14
|
Re: Special teams: It was not the reason we lost.
Jan 21, 2016, 1:54 PM
|
|
Thank you. We lost because we let our guard down on 5 plays give or take. Take away any one of those plays and we could have won.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14090]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 25448
Joined: 7/28/05
|
uh, yes it was Bama scored 14 points off of our special teams mistakes***
Jan 21, 2016, 1:55 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1404]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 1919
Joined: 4/19/05
|
Re: uh, yes it was Bama scored 14 points off of our special teams mistakes***
Jan 21, 2016, 4:55 PM
|
|
Nope. 7 pts from kickoff return.
The Onsides Kick was no TD.
The blown coverage on plays after it was the score.
We gifted 21pts on blown coverages vs 7 pts on kick off return for TD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19352]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 22266
Joined: 4/25/04
|
Re: Special teams: It was not the reason we lost.
Jan 21, 2016, 1:56 PM
|
|
It wasnt the SOLE reason we lost but it sure as hell didnt help us win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8867]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5339
Joined: 11/17/14
|
Re: Special teams: It was not the reason we lost.
Jan 21, 2016, 2:00 PM
|
|
I actually agree with you on this one
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1404]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 1919
Joined: 4/19/05
|
Re: Special teams: It was not the reason we lost.
Jan 21, 2016, 4:55 PM
|
|
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15863]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 28958
Joined: 9/18/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15230]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 18252
Joined: 6/10/09
|
^^Agreed^^ Special Teams were off the charts bad relative
Jan 21, 2016, 3:08 PM
|
|
to other programs in college football.
We were just good enough to overcome that against most teams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15863]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 28958
Joined: 9/18/01
|
eggzachery caddie - can't overcome that mistake against
Jan 21, 2016, 3:40 PM
|
|
solid team like bama
we beat em on O & D and both lines of scrimmage basically
spcl teams cost a huge price in that game
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1404]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 1919
Joined: 4/19/05
|
Re: don't let the facts get in the way ......
Jan 21, 2016, 4:57 PM
[ in reply to don't let the facts get in the way ...... ] |
|
Facts...
How many pts occurr D directly from special teams? 7
How many points from blown coverages? 14? 17? 21?
Help for ST does not equal why we lost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1813]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2419
Joined: 9/24/07
|
Doesn't have to be mutually exclusive
Jan 21, 2016, 2:12 PM
|
|
The loss can be blamed almost squarely on special teams ineptitude along with poor secondary coverage breakdowns. They don't have to be exclusively responsible. The special teams gaffes you could see coming--the blown coverages were a bit more alarming to me. I figured we were just sleep walking in some of the previous games. I think Mac being out hurt--the safeties looked lost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1404]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 1919
Joined: 4/19/05
|
Re: Doesn't have to be mutually exclusive
Jan 21, 2016, 5:00 PM
|
|
Ok cannot be mutually exclusive. So why all the screaming BC special teams lost us the game?
We had blown coverages occur all season long even when Mac was on field.
How many kick off or punt return TDs did we give up all year?
How many blown coverage huge play scores did we give up all year?
I stand by my original post. Fix blown coverages and defensive miscues by young players... We win via more blow outs and win NC by 14+.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18930]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14889
Joined: 12/11/04
|
There were many mistakes to go around. However, the onside
Jan 21, 2016, 2:22 PM
|
|
kick was the main game changing blow in my opinion. Rather than blame special teams, we should credit Alabama for essentially executing a perfect play. Gutsy call by Saban. I believe had the onside kick failed, Clemson would have likely won the game.
Just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14090]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 25448
Joined: 7/28/05
|
wasn't much of a gutsy call, all he had to is look at how bad...
Jan 21, 2016, 3:31 PM
|
|
our alignment was, and make the call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1404]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 1919
Joined: 4/19/05
|
Re: There were many mistakes to go around. However, the onside
Jan 21, 2016, 5:03 PM
[ in reply to There were many mistakes to go around. However, the onside ] |
|
Agree and personally that is the main hing that I would do address and on ST.
Tendencies showed out and Saban took advantage.
But players made mistakes.
Of course a ki ker with stronger let to always kick it deep eliminates TDs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3788]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 9880
Joined: 11/2/08
|
Lol***
Jan 21, 2016, 2:22 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27289]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16069
Joined: 10/13/08
|
Well, let's do the math. Special teams cost us the following
Jan 21, 2016, 3:14 PM
|
|
Tipped/blocked FG: 3 points
Kickoff return: 7 points
Onside kick: 7 points
So that's seventeen points by my count. We lost by 5.
We also ranked almost DEAD LAST in special team efficiency last year--something like 122 out of 128 D1 teams. So to even suggest that we don't have a problem there is like planting your head in the sand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3788]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 9880
Joined: 11/21/06
|
That's without factoring in our returns
Jan 21, 2016, 3:28 PM
|
|
if our average field position is 5-10 yards better after Bama kickoffs and punts, how many more points does the offense score?
Also, Alabama's very first touchdown drive started with excellent field position thanks to a 36 yard punt and a 12 yard return.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27289]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16069
Joined: 10/13/08
|
Re: That's without factoring in our returns
Jan 21, 2016, 3:31 PM
|
|
Yeah, very good point.
We definitely had some field position issues in the first half.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1404]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 1919
Joined: 4/19/05
|
Re: That's without factoring in our returns
Jan 21, 2016, 5:13 PM
[ in reply to That's without factoring in our returns ] |
|
Field position is always a consideration. But looking back despite field position... Bama did not move the ball consistently vs Clemson defense. They got scores BC of busted and missed assignmengs.
Last one considering. Bad field position deep in their territory 3rd and long. Missed assignments and TE goes how far?
I stand by my original post. ST did not know we the game. Missed assignments/own coverages did. We beat ourselves more than Bama won
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1404]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 1919
Joined: 4/19/05
|
Re: Well, let's do the math. Special teams cost us the following
Jan 21, 2016, 5:06 PM
[ in reply to Well, let's do the math. Special teams cost us the following ] |
|
Onside kick did not cost us 7. They did not score bc of the kick. They scored BC TE went untouched on blown coverage for a score after they got the ball.
I stand by my original post.
Will give you tipped fg.
10 pts
But we gifted how many points via blown coverages. 14, 17, 21 or 24? Bama did not consistently poundnor drive the ball vs Clemson. They got chunk after chunk plays due to mistakes and miscues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1404]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 1919
Joined: 4/19/05
|
Re: Well, let's do the math. Special teams cost us the following
Jan 21, 2016, 5:09 PM
[ in reply to Well, let's do the math. Special teams cost us the following ] |
|
Let's focus on reading comprehension..
Never said we do not have problem.
Said it is not reason we lost.
Stop bringing more drama and stop exaggerating the issues. Egads tey to tne down your estrogen. Like highschool girls overreacting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10871]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12937
Joined: 4/18/12
|
It wasn't all special teams, true...
Jan 21, 2016, 5:50 PM
|
|
But they certainly didn't help. Where are we ranked nationally in ST?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3732]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 4859
Joined: 11/4/03
|
I would add that I think BV takes chances on defense...
Jan 21, 2016, 5:57 PM
|
|
...we were always complaining that Steele was not aggressive enough. BV dials up blitzes all of time, including corners and safeties. When you play this style of aggressive defense, you had better have a high octane offense that can put points on the board, which Clemson has.
However, BV has got to find a way to temper this blown coverage situation, while not compromising his aggressive style.
I'm pretty convinced that Saban and Kiffin spent at least as much time figuring out BV's tendencies as they did on exploiting Clemson's kickoff coverage tendencies for that pooch kick. They used BV's aggressiveness against him. Granted, BV's aggressiveness was backed up at corner with Alexander, and Mac going down was more of a killer than perhaps everyone gives credit to. Adrian Baker was DIRECTLY responsible for missing that 3rd down tackle in the backfield.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 32
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
