Started By
Message
re: Spin off: Your two choices for head coach are Freeze and Swinney
Posted on 5/8/16 at 10:47 pm to JuiceTerry
Posted on 5/8/16 at 10:47 pm to JuiceTerry
Swinney
0
Posted on 5/8/16 at 11:12 pm to Tillman
quote:
i don' think tat a kicking team should be so close to the receiving team that one of the players on the kicking team can catch the kicked ball as it is still moving forward. I think the ball should have to at least hit the ground once.
If i could set rules I would probably say you have to kick it at least 20 yards to be a legit kick. onside kick recovery is the cheapest play in all of sports.
yes i'm bitter about this . lol
you'd be saying the exact same thing tho.
I think you fail to understand the difference between being bitter that your team got owned and being bitter that the rules -- which apply equally to both teams -- were adhered to. Most people don't think that the rulebook should be changed just because their team was out-coached. And, yes, Dabo and whoever your ST coach is were out-coached there. Bama saw your weakness (which was obviously an attempt to improve your return chances by loading up one side of the field) and took advantage of it. Had the situation been reversed, y'all would have fricked it up because Bama didn't leave gaping holes in coverage with their return team.
ETA: For the counterexample, the time y'all tried that with USC. They had that part of the field covered, called a fair catch, and your players flagrantly disregarded it. The ball went to the Cocks because, well, the Cocks and the refs understood the rules better than Dabo and his kick team.
This post was edited on 5/8/16 at 11:15 pm
Posted on 5/8/16 at 11:29 pm to randomways
i unerstand it is within the rules and bama saw clem's poor formation on tape.
doesn't mean onside kick isn't cheap way to get ball back or that it is fair to the receiving team for the kicking team to be so close for the recovery. it is a silly aspect to football and in my view of all sports.
i think in general football games are better if they are decided by the players on offense and defense. I can live with missed FG kicks and punt blocks and punt return TDs but onside kick recoveries are cheap.
clem fans will always be able to say Clemson wins if they don't get that onside kick recovery. clem was the better team on offense and i believe would have won the game if not for the recovery then score right after. it was a pyschological blow. i'm happy to admit bama proved they are better on special teams, and probably not another team in country who could have executed a kick to themselves in the 4th quarter of a title game with a failed attempt being field position for a potent offense.
doesn't mean onside kick isn't cheap way to get ball back or that it is fair to the receiving team for the kicking team to be so close for the recovery. it is a silly aspect to football and in my view of all sports.
i think in general football games are better if they are decided by the players on offense and defense. I can live with missed FG kicks and punt blocks and punt return TDs but onside kick recoveries are cheap.
clem fans will always be able to say Clemson wins if they don't get that onside kick recovery. clem was the better team on offense and i believe would have won the game if not for the recovery then score right after. it was a pyschological blow. i'm happy to admit bama proved they are better on special teams, and probably not another team in country who could have executed a kick to themselves in the 4th quarter of a title game with a failed attempt being field position for a potent offense.
This post was edited on 5/8/16 at 11:33 pm
Posted on 5/8/16 at 11:37 pm to Tillman
Also meant to say that the irony is Saban's inspiration for trying something lke that was probably Dabo's decision for our punter to throw the pass in Clem's previous game with Okla, although that happened much earlier in the game and was a higher probability play. I think gambling like that is uncharacteristic of Saban but he obivously did not have confidence in his defense.
I will maintain if you look at the two teams ono a season basis, Clemson had the better season, did not lose at home to a good but not great team like Ole Miss , and had to beat a top offensive team in our conference game in UNC, while Bama got Florida.
I will maintain if you look at the two teams ono a season basis, Clemson had the better season, did not lose at home to a good but not great team like Ole Miss , and had to beat a top offensive team in our conference game in UNC, while Bama got Florida.
This post was edited on 5/8/16 at 11:41 pm
Posted on 5/8/16 at 11:40 pm to Tillman
quote:
.
doesn't mean onside kick isn't cheap way to get ball back or that it is fair to the receiving team for the kicking team to be so close for the recovery. it is a silly aspect to football and in my view of all sports.
How is it cheap? It has a low chance of success, failure results in a short field for the receiving team, and it's easily coverable if you don't try to stack a side in order to gain an advantage on the return. To say nothing of the fact that the particular version used in the title game was extremely dangerous because all the receiving team has to do is be in the right spot and wave a hand in the air to prevent the kicking team from doing anything more than praying that the catcher can't hold on to a soft-lobbed football. The risks are more than commensurate to the potential rewards. You might as well say that a forward pass is cheap because it doesn't give the linemen much chance to prevent forward progress. It's a strategic move, and one that hurts far more often than it helps. There's a reason it's still part of a game, and an even bigger reason why teams don't just go for the on-side every single kick-off. If it were cheap, we'd never see a regular kick again.
The fact that the receiving team is so close is actually an advantage -- they are that much closer to the goal line when they recover.
This post was edited on 5/8/16 at 11:43 pm
Posted on 5/8/16 at 11:43 pm to JuiceTerry
Freeze taking a 2-10 team to what it is now, is incredible. Seriously.
Posted on 5/8/16 at 11:43 pm to randomways
ok i'm not going to continue to debate this. you are going to argue for SEC team. I get that.
It is cheap b/c the kicking team is right on top of the receiving team, 10 yards is nothing. if the kicking team can catch the same ball thaat they kicked, they are too close because the ball cannot have traveled far. As I said, I think it is similar to a self pass in basketball which isn't legal. they ha the advantage of knowing the trajectory of the ball that the clemson players could not know.
the play is a desparaton play. you are hoping for a fortunate break. it is not the smart play with that much time left. i do not beleve any NFL coach would have done that.
but we will always knw that our team was able to force Saban into a desparate call because he did not think his defense could hold Clem at that point. Some consider Saban the best coach of all time and Clemson forced him into a low probablity of success decision.
It is cheap b/c the kicking team is right on top of the receiving team, 10 yards is nothing. if the kicking team can catch the same ball thaat they kicked, they are too close because the ball cannot have traveled far. As I said, I think it is similar to a self pass in basketball which isn't legal. they ha the advantage of knowing the trajectory of the ball that the clemson players could not know.
the play is a desparaton play. you are hoping for a fortunate break. it is not the smart play with that much time left. i do not beleve any NFL coach would have done that.
but we will always knw that our team was able to force Saban into a desparate call because he did not think his defense could hold Clem at that point. Some consider Saban the best coach of all time and Clemson forced him into a low probablity of success decision.
This post was edited on 5/8/16 at 11:53 pm
Posted on 5/8/16 at 11:53 pm to Tillman
Who is better at executing gods plan
Posted on 5/8/16 at 11:53 pm to Tillman
quote:
ok i'm not going to continue to debate this. you are going to argue for SEC team. I get that.
It is cheap b/c the kicking team is right on top of the receiving team, 10 yards is nothing. if the kicking team can catch the same ball thaat they kicked, they are too close because the ball cannot have traveled far.
the play is a desparaton play. you are hoping for a fortunate break. it is not the smart play with that much time left. i do not beleve any NFL coach would have done that.
The frick? I'm explaining exactly what the arguments are. Just because you can't refute my explanations, that doesn't mean I'm jut arguing "for the SEC team." I even pointed out that it was a great coaching decision, and you agreed. Now you're calling it a fortunate break. If you're not smart enough to maintain the debate, at least be honest enough to admit that's your reason. Don't try to blame it on bias.
Your explanation still doesn't refute my point. What is inherently "cheap" about a high-risk play that provides an significant advantage to the other team if it fails (as it does approximately 80% of the time.)
Let me guess...you'd want to remove the FG because it allows a team to score without physically entering the end zone? I imagine y'all have lost on a FG on occasion, so, being the biased Clemson fan that you are, the FG is totally fricking cheap. Right? Next, we can discuss that dastardly 3 pointer in basketball that allows teams to catch up in fewer shots....
Posted on 5/9/16 at 12:09 am to Tillman
quote:
Also meant to say that the irony is Saban's inspiration for trying something lke that was probably Dabo's decision for our punter to throw the pass in Clem's previous game with Okla, although that happened much earlier in the game and was a higher probability play. I think gambling like that is uncharacteristic of Saban but he obivously did not have confidence in his defense.
I will maintain if you look at the two teams ono a season basis, Clemson had the better season, did not lose at home to a good but not great team like Ole Miss , and had to beat a top offensive team in our conference game in UNC, while Bama got Florida.
Wait...you're saying the inspiration for the on-sides kick was a play that 1) in no way resembled the on-side kick; and 2) is one of the most common trick plays out there? I mean, Les Miles -- a coach Saban has seen a lot more of than Dabo -- loves the play. You...you really don't know much about football, do you?
And you can maintain Clemson was better. They lost...to the team that you think they were better than. That's just how it goes. Yours is a futile and pointless campaign, but maintain away. It just gets hilarious, though, when you think that beating UNC is somehow a significant mark of prestige. Wow, you beat the Iowa of the ACC, who lost to SEC doormat South Carolina. (And, yes, I do know about UNC football. I did my grad work at UNC, so I follow them.)
Posted on 5/9/16 at 12:34 am to randomways
Don't try and argue with them because you'll lose your mind trying to reason.
They always seem to forget they cheated UNC out of the ball when they got their onside too. Plus they barely beat us. Yes, us. 3-9 pathetic team with walk on starters everywhere
They always seem to forget they cheated UNC out of the ball when they got their onside too. Plus they barely beat us. Yes, us. 3-9 pathetic team with walk on starters everywhere
Posted on 5/9/16 at 1:20 am to CockyTime
quote:
Don't try and argue with them because you'll lose your mind trying to reason.
They always seem to forget they cheated UNC out of the ball when they got their onside too. Plus they barely beat us. Yes, us. 3-9 pathetic team with walk on starters everywhere
I'm starting to see that. Being the sort of person who hopes for the best, I thought maybe that Lannister character and his SlowEasyConference cootie-brother merely represented the dregs. But it appears there's a lower place the fanbase can go, so I'm not optimistic that there will be many good ones.
I'm not sure how I feel about harping on those games, though. It seems to be needlessly cruel to point out to them that they barely beat a team whose head coach quit halfway through the season. I mean, they seem to a bit slow but I assume they're still capable of feeling pain and will respond negatively to hurtful stimuli like "facts" and "truth" and the like.
Posted on 5/9/16 at 1:36 am to Tillman
I now regret ever making this thread thanks to reading your posts. Gimme the frickin Beaver, now. Much more savvy coach.
Posted on 5/9/16 at 2:24 am to randomways
you are a Vanderbilt fan talking trash about UNC. Clemson also beat ND, FSU and other teams, what was Alabama's best regular season win? plus they lost at home to a 4 loss team.
i think the onside kick is a dumb aspect of football. I've always thought this and both the UNC and Alabama games with Clemson reinforce my belief that it is dumb.
unc was down 8 with not much time left and they could not stop our offense so the probablity they wn the game in overtime was almost 0. it also looked like a uNC player could have been called for targeting, and their formation was also illegal, they had a guy too close to the sideline. i think they are supposed to be 9 yards from the sideline, who the hell knows why, this is another reason onside kick is so stupid.
sc didn't almost beat CLem, you scored a TD with 1 sec left which did you no good. you were playing for scoreboard, not to win the game. the qb should have been doing hail mary into end zone on every throw that possesion, to get a quick score and then pray for fumble luck on onside kick.
florida was terrible last year on offense, your team almost beat them at Florida. not sure how you can mock UNC when it did have talent on offense. unc would have been in top 4 of SEC last year at minimum b/c of the QB struggles in the league.
i think the onside kick is a dumb aspect of football. I've always thought this and both the UNC and Alabama games with Clemson reinforce my belief that it is dumb.
unc was down 8 with not much time left and they could not stop our offense so the probablity they wn the game in overtime was almost 0. it also looked like a uNC player could have been called for targeting, and their formation was also illegal, they had a guy too close to the sideline. i think they are supposed to be 9 yards from the sideline, who the hell knows why, this is another reason onside kick is so stupid.
sc didn't almost beat CLem, you scored a TD with 1 sec left which did you no good. you were playing for scoreboard, not to win the game. the qb should have been doing hail mary into end zone on every throw that possesion, to get a quick score and then pray for fumble luck on onside kick.
florida was terrible last year on offense, your team almost beat them at Florida. not sure how you can mock UNC when it did have talent on offense. unc would have been in top 4 of SEC last year at minimum b/c of the QB struggles in the league.
This post was edited on 5/9/16 at 2:44 am
Posted on 5/9/16 at 2:52 am to Tillman
I saw this comment on a NFL fan forum abut onside kick:
Why don’t they get rid of the onside kick? This is one of the nfl’s stupidest rules. Why does the receiving team HAVE to field it when they kick it 10-15 yards but when they kick it to the 10 yard line the rules are different?
the answer is the kicking team can recover any kickoff over 10 yards, which i did not know because i have never seen a recovery on a regular kickoff. to me it makes no sense to have different rules for kickoff and punts.
i would not be upset if the game got rid of kickoffs all together, just spot the ball on opposing team 20 yard line. kickoffs are the plays with the greatest frequency of injury which is why NFL thought about eliminating them.
Why don’t they get rid of the onside kick? This is one of the nfl’s stupidest rules. Why does the receiving team HAVE to field it when they kick it 10-15 yards but when they kick it to the 10 yard line the rules are different?
the answer is the kicking team can recover any kickoff over 10 yards, which i did not know because i have never seen a recovery on a regular kickoff. to me it makes no sense to have different rules for kickoff and punts.
i would not be upset if the game got rid of kickoffs all together, just spot the ball on opposing team 20 yard line. kickoffs are the plays with the greatest frequency of injury which is why NFL thought about eliminating them.
This post was edited on 5/9/16 at 3:18 am
Posted on 5/9/16 at 3:36 am to Tillman
melt day 119
Posted on 5/9/16 at 3:39 am to Piscinin
nah i'm ok with 14-1, and would have won the title in pre-BCS era as only undeafeted. back then you only needed to win 12.
to me, much of the special teams stuff is too rugby like silliness. rather it be decided on offesne and defense.
all the national title game established is clemson really sucks on special teams formations and Bama is good on special teams. if i was bama, and had been bragging about 'pistol whipping' Clemson all season, i wouldn't want to have to brag about winning due to kickoff recovery,e tc.
ths year Clemson's team reminds me of Sant Antonia Spurs a few years ago when they lost to Miami in game 7 but everybody thought they were the better team. the silver lining is San Antonio beat the hell out of miami the next season. maybe CU beats the hell out of Bama this season? :) we should be even better on our offense with our top WR back from injury and our fastest WR back from suspension.
a team that beat the hell out of a undefeated or 1 loss Saban team in the title game would be celebrated on a national level. it would be like good overcoming evil.
to me, much of the special teams stuff is too rugby like silliness. rather it be decided on offesne and defense.
all the national title game established is clemson really sucks on special teams formations and Bama is good on special teams. if i was bama, and had been bragging about 'pistol whipping' Clemson all season, i wouldn't want to have to brag about winning due to kickoff recovery,e tc.
ths year Clemson's team reminds me of Sant Antonia Spurs a few years ago when they lost to Miami in game 7 but everybody thought they were the better team. the silver lining is San Antonio beat the hell out of miami the next season. maybe CU beats the hell out of Bama this season? :) we should be even better on our offense with our top WR back from injury and our fastest WR back from suspension.
a team that beat the hell out of a undefeated or 1 loss Saban team in the title game would be celebrated on a national level. it would be like good overcoming evil.
This post was edited on 5/9/16 at 4:08 am
Posted on 5/9/16 at 6:50 am to Tillman
It is cheap b/c the kicking team is right on top of the receiving team, 10 yards is nothing. if the kicking team can catch the same ball thaat they kicked, they are too close because the ball cannot have traveled far
So, is the punting team too close? I see fair catches all the time where the coverage team is standing right next to the returner on the fair catch. Your whining is embarrassing to other Climpson fans.
So, is the punting team too close? I see fair catches all the time where the coverage team is standing right next to the returner on the fair catch. Your whining is embarrassing to other Climpson fans.
Posted on 5/9/16 at 7:41 am to Tillman
quote:
all the national title game established is clemson really sucks on special teams formations and Bama is good on special teams. if i was bama, and had been bragging about 'pistol whipping' Clemson all season, i wouldn't want to have to brag about winning due to kickoff recovery,e tc.
LOL wut
Posted on 5/9/16 at 7:50 am to SummerOfGeorge
That has to be a troll account. Just look at the name (Tillman was a former SC governor who supported lynching black people and for some reason Clemson's main building on their campus is named after him).
This post was edited on 5/9/16 at 7:55 am
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News