Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
This is arguably one our least talented but best Defense
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 32
| visibility 2,937

This is arguably one our least talented but best Defense


Oct 13, 2016, 8:24 AM

The season has yet to totally play out, but I feel this group will be potentially in the discussion with that 2014 group as one of our best Defenses of the last 20yrs. However, on paper it's not an overly talented group IMO.

To clarify, when I say least talented, it doesn't include unproven Freshman getting minimal snaps. I'm comparing our 2-deep to all the the experienced talent we've had playing defense for us in the past 4 or 5 years (of course all our current guys have talent).

Now this year's group has the most talent set of DTs arguably in school history (I'm putting Wilkins with that group). They are the exception. At DE we've been solid, but Bryant/Ferrell/Yeargin/Register are not Beasley/Crawford/Lawson/Barnes/Dodd. At LB Boulware/Joseph/Williams have been solid, but talent-wise they aren't Anthony/Steward/Goodson level talents. This year's secondary has played better than last years, but again from just a talent standpoint, Carter/Johnson/Smith aren't in the same area code as Alexander/Green/Kearse.

It just proves that you don't have to have the most talented guys to be the best if the guys you have play sound, discipline, and hungry.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I'll take 'on the field' over 'on paper' anytime and forever***


Oct 13, 2016, 8:32 AM



2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Imma not blast you for this post


Oct 13, 2016, 8:33 AM

Imma leave dat to some others.

Imma have to say, though, there ain't no lack of talent on this D. Goodson, especially, is not a good comparison. 5th year guy before he had his breakthrough. Similar with Dodd. 4th year guy.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up




The definition of awesome!


There's nothing blast worthy in the post. Just compliments***


Oct 13, 2016, 8:37 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: There's nothing blast worthy in the post. Just compliments***


Oct 13, 2016, 8:42 AM

Welllllllllllll, brace yourself. If you get TDed, it wasn't me.

This D has plenty of talent though.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up




The definition of awesome!


Given a choice, and I've never been given a choice,


Oct 13, 2016, 9:13 AM [ in reply to Imma not blast you for this post ]

I'll take building skill over talent in this league. Seldom is natural ability, what we call talent, overcome at the professional level. Skill development always consistently wins at all other levels.

Clemson is now competitive with schools who get top talent and develop skills. Success breeds success. Being able to develop skill at the highest level brings some of the most talented kids to Clemson.

I am in full agreement with your opinion on our talent level. If they were lacking very much talent or natural ability they would not be able to compete with players on teams such as Ohio State, LSU, Bama, FSU, AU or other top programs.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

This is arguably one our most talented but best Defense***


Oct 13, 2016, 8:35 AM



military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Least talented in the 2 deep??


Oct 13, 2016, 8:37 AM

You might want to go back and look at the star rating on all those guys....keeping in mind people like Beasley, Dodd, etc were only 3 star guys when recruited. Right now, we are full of mainly 4 and 5 star guys....with a few 3 stars sprinkled in there.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Talent aint about stars. Its measurables and athleticism***


Oct 13, 2016, 8:39 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I think you are confusing talent....


Oct 13, 2016, 8:41 AM

with hype and star ratings. These MEN this year are playing great and we have a really good depth chart (most positions) when you consider key injuries thus far. To me, this year's group is as talented, based upon on the field success, as any I can remember.

Go Tigers!

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Least talented??? I cannot agree


Oct 13, 2016, 8:50 AM

I think it's funny you throw Carter in there against alexander when you should be throwing carter in against the 2014 version of tank and I'll tank tank now vs mac

Goodson never played so you can't list him and the NB/Sam was Blanks vs DOD and I'll take DOD on that one.

Boulware vs Steward.. I'll take Boulware all day

DE in 2014 was like DT in 2015 so you are correct there. 2014 was a far better unit.

Saftey..Green was not the starter in 2014, it was Robert Smith and I think Van is at least comparable. Kearse vs Jadar... Have you seen Jadar play? He nearly took that job from Kearse every year. There is an advantage for Kearse in that he had more length but no a great advantage.

All that said, my point is that we have just as much overall talent now as we did then and I expected this unit to be great and they are

GO TIGERS!!!

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Don't confuse "better" or "playing better" with talent


Oct 13, 2016, 9:02 AM

You can have talent and it not show up on the field on game day. We have 3 LBs that play significant snaps for us under 6ft tall that a run 4.7 or slower. All 3 guys are "talented", but they aren't as talented as guys 6'2-6'3 running a 4.5 like Anthony and Steward even if the results are just as good. You could argue Boulware is better than Anthony or Steward as a college football player, but he isn't more talented. JD Davis is Boulware's back up. Boulware has always been a good player and he was Anthony and Steward's back up. Big difference.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

And Lamar is the back up at 6'4" and 245 and runs a 4.5


Oct 13, 2016, 9:08 AM

we still have plenty of talent in the 2 deep.

Fields runs a 4.3
Mullen runs a 4.4 at 6'2"

Farrell isn't as good as Shaq yet but he's 6'5" 260 and just as fast

I know the difference

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Lamar doesn't run a 4.5 & I didn't include unproven Frosh***


Oct 13, 2016, 9:09 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

He does and if we are talking talent why not include him?***


Oct 13, 2016, 9:14 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

No he doesn't. See link


Oct 13, 2016, 9:22 AM

http://www.tigernet.com/clemson-football/recruiting/player/Tre-Lamar-2151

I believe his best time is actually 4.75 though.

I mentioned in the opening post that I was talking about experienced talent that seeing a lot of time on the field and that I was excluding all Frosh because no Frosh is currently seeing extensive playing time on defense.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Least talented??? I cannot agree


Oct 13, 2016, 1:22 PM [ in reply to Least talented??? I cannot agree ]

I think it's funny you throw Carter in there against alexander when you should be throwing carter in against the 2014 version of tank and I'll tank tank now vs mac


NO, just NO. The only thing Tank has on Mac is height. THE ONLY THING.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: This is arguably one our least talented but best Defense


Oct 13, 2016, 8:53 AM

Paper is for Esecpn. Same as the eye test, fpi, quality losses,etc. Nothing compared to on the field. Paper is for before the season starts, should be burned when the season starts. Like FSU is " more talented at every spot on the field except qb", js.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: This is arguably one our least talented but best Defense


Oct 13, 2016, 8:53 AM

So we tackles good ?

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

DB23


people need to tap the breaks some here....


Oct 13, 2016, 8:55 AM

neverland is not a good place for fans th go in their heads.

if some dufus Louisville WR hadn't left his brain on the sidelines before putting on his helmet

before their last drive, everybody would likely be singing a different tune

about UL's last drive.

that said,

we had a better D than UL did, for sure....

just don't think we need to besmirch likely the best D ever at Clemson (save only 1990, maybe).

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I said this D is as talented not as good. They aren't the


Oct 13, 2016, 8:58 AM

same thing.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

What makes you think Edmonds doesn't make the tackle


Oct 13, 2016, 9:05 AM [ in reply to people need to tap the breaks some here.... ]

no matter where Quick thought he was/wasn't? I'm sick of hearing this excuse for Louavull. He caught it and Marcus knocked him out of bounds. If he had turned it inside, Marcus still makes the tackle.

Nuff said about it. We BEAT 'em. We'd BEAT 'em again even if Dabo called time out, walked Quick to the 2 yard line and said, "Here's where you need to get to, just so your whiney ### coach can't claim y'all really won the dadgum game. Now let's go!"

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up




The definition of awesome!


Dang, I'm not making an excuse, only saying that the first


Oct 13, 2016, 9:24 AM

issue was that that UL WR is an idiot.

Maybe Edmonds makes the tackle, maybe he doesn't, no one knows -

what we do know is that the UL player let his team down by not knowing

where he needed to go - everyone else did that's for sure

regardless where the marker was.

Don;t presume what we don't know -

we only know the UL player is a right blooming numbskull.

that having been said, again my statement was only

that had they scored, everyone would be talking a lot differently

about this D - same as last year's D though if Notre Dame had scored late.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Dude. You're saying Louavull would have won except


Oct 13, 2016, 9:39 AM

for a lack of effort by Quick due to his thinking he had picked up the first down. I'm calling bull pellets! Edmond was in position to make the tackle and DID. I don't care if Quick was ###### bent on the end zone and gave every ounce of effort he could muster, Edmonds STILL makes the tackle because he was in position to do it. Quit arguing Louavull should have won. It's complete BS.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up




The definition of awesome!


everyone would "likely" be sing a different tune....


Oct 13, 2016, 11:55 AM

I didn't say "would".

Neither of us know which way it would have gone. So put your trust in Edmonds -

doesn't bother me.

I read the play as Edmonds being in good position, ready to make the tackle,

and it would be 50/50 whether the guy made the marker or not.

Don't know why that bothers you.

Tell you what: give me Mike Williams with the same catch to win the Natty this year right now,

and I'll take it. I believe Williams would make that play no matter who was in position....

but then again, JMHO.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Like I said, I'm fed up with people


Oct 13, 2016, 1:39 PM

making the case that Louavull would or should have beaten us if only Quick had known where the line to gain was. And yes you did say if not for a mental error we would have lost. That's complete bull pellets. Marcus made the play. I don't care what excuse Quick/Petrino made. They lost because we beat them. Period.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up




The definition of awesome!


Re: people need to tap the breaks some here....


Oct 13, 2016, 12:19 PM [ in reply to people need to tap the breaks some here.... ]

...and if Leggett hadn't oddly fumbled at the goal line...think Clemson doesn't score there? That swings both ways, man. All are "what ifs"....fact IS Edmonds made the play, what if also says he might have made it going the other way.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Uhm, I believe you ment to say least experienced.


Oct 13, 2016, 9:09 AM

We have more talent @ DT and LB than ever before.

Two 5* DTs, deep, deep at DT, deeper than ever deep.

At one time we had 2 5* lbs and now have 1 but also have a bevy of 4*s.

DE is loaded with 4*s

We have only had 1 5* CB, ever.

And, have never had a 5* safety.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Uhm, I believe you ment to say least experienced.


Oct 13, 2016, 9:12 AM

> We have more talent @ DT and LB than ever before.
>
> At one time we had 2 5* lbs and now have 1 but also
> have a bevy of 4*s.
>
> DE is loaded with 4*s
>
> We have only had 1 5* CB, ever.
>
> And, have never had a 5* safety.


spot on. OP lost me at we.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Positive intentioned post


Oct 13, 2016, 9:27 AM

just misguided. Lemme just say this: Dodd was not a talented guy so much as he stayed in the system, kept developing, then found the perfect niche opposite Lawson, then blossomed for one season. Good example of a less talented guy who developed and stayed the course, postage stamp style "Stick to one thing till you get there."

Kearse couldn't keep head screwed on straight second half of season and had the NFL on his mind, and played way below level. So in that sense you're right, it's how you use your existing talent that really matters. Right now, seems our guys are maxing out their ability, and let's hope it stays that way the rest of the way.

I"m seeing much less blown coverages and wide open receivers like I saw last year.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Just becasue it's not as good as 2014 doesn't mean


Oct 13, 2016, 10:47 AM

its not talented. There are 3 starters and another DT seeing significant playing time that are NFL locks. There are 2 - 4 others on the 2 deep that are potential NFL picks. We've just become spoiled by the last two draft classes but this defense has a significant amount of talent.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: This is arguably one our least talented but best Defense


Oct 13, 2016, 1:25 PM

DE: Crawford < Wilkins - I believe based on pure athleticism Wilkins is far ahead of crawford. And if you want to use Bryant then that still is true. Crawford was not all that athletic.

Beasley = Ferrell – Beasley 6-3 235lbs has the speed, Ferrell is 6’5” 255lbs and can fly. He’s not as fast but based on the more complete DE I think Ferrell actually has the edge. Beasley was great against the pass but struggled against the run. He still has trouble in the NFL on run D. Also Beasley only played at around 230 most of his college career.

DT: Watkins = DJ Reader Both are about equally talented. Jash Watson and Deshaun Williams are not that talented. Just played with a lot of heart

Lawrence > Jarrett – Love me some Jarrett but based on talent Lawrence is way WAY more talented.

LB: Anthony > Boulware – I’ll give you that. Love me some Boulware but I’d take Anthony

Blanks = D. O’daniel - They are equal based on athletic ability.

Steward > Joseph – I’ll admit Steward is way more talented.

S: V. Smith = Robert Smith – About same Height and speed.

Kearse > Johnson – Kearse definitely more talented just not as smart

CB: Tankersley > Peters – Its close but to me Tankersley is the more talented cover corner

Fields = Alexander based on pure athleticism Fields is about the same height and is just as fast if not faster than Alexander. Obviously Id choose alexander but this is based on talent.


So after all that I have to disagree with you. To me It is about dead equal. And if you want to go into the two and three deep then you have to include freshman.

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

extremely talented just really young at DB***


Oct 13, 2016, 2:22 PM



badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 32
| visibility 2,937
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic