re: Let's talk Auburn-Clemson

quote:

---

quote:
Kentucky , USCe and Vandy are more physical on Defense than 90% of the ACC.


Clemson, Florida State, Wake Forest, NC State, Boston College, Virginia Tech and Miami were all more physical up front and all around than those 3 teams. Without a doubt, at all.

That's half the ACC.

---

That is why all those Ds gave up 30 points or more during most of their games.

But you forgot to memtion LSU, , UGA, AU, UA and UF. Then you have TN, which had some athletes that allowed them to play physical.

quote:

---

quote: The SECs Offenses have to be physical because most of the QBs suck. You do not have to be very good to have a physical effect on a team weeks after playing them. Except they weren't. Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, South Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri were not physical on offense. They just weren't. Half of them didn't even attempt to be physical on offense and the others (UGA, Arkansas, South Carolina, MSU) weren't good enough to do it.

---

They might not have been very good, but they tried to play a physical game with their RBs. That has an effect on a team when you play 8-10 teams just like it. The ACC games were mainly like watching a 7 on 7 tournament.

Having no QB makes a power running game a very viable option. just sayin.

Clemson wins a close one and AU will claim a moral victory.

Well as an LSU fan and a SEC fan, I want Auburn to win and if they are as good as their homers brag they are, they should since Clemson is clearly way overrated because they lost too many players off of last seasons team.

Furthermore, I want Auburn undefeated when they enter LSU Tiger Stadium later on in the season so that their inevitable defeat by LSU will make a larger impact on the college football world.

quote:

---

Watson wasn't Mike Vick. That's not what made him dangerous...it was the combination of being a very good passer, being extremely mobile, having great pocket awareness, and having the ability to scramble around while keeping his eyes downfield. Kelly Bryant is a 3* guy that is a better pure runner than Watson but from what I understand, couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat. That makes him almost nothing like Watson. In fact, Stidham has way more in common with Watson than Bryant.

You never know how things are really going to go...but some things are clear enough to be assumed...like for instance, AU's D game plan will involve forcing Bryant to beat them with his arm....something that nearly no one believes can happen at this point. Whereas AU is pretty confident that we can soften the run D with the threat of a pass. IF Clemson is really solid on D, in spite of losing 7 on D...their best DB, DL and LB, and can handle both the threat of the pass and a stout running game without having to shift resources to do so, they'll probably win. If they can stack the box and their DB's handle their man coverage...Clemson will probably win. Those are big IF's though

---

There is no question that Kelly Bryant is an unknown in the passing game. He does have the advantage of having a lot of experience learning in a system that he should know really well.

Here's the other thing..Kelly Bryant has a corps of some of the best receivers in the Nation. Deion Cain and Hunter Refrow will really make a difference in how successful Kelly Bryant will be. As much as Tajh Boyd is loved at Clemson, having great recievers like Sammy Watkins, DeAndre Hopkins and Dwayne Allen (All NFL Starters) made him look a little better than what he was has it showed when he could make it in the NFL.

My point is that Kelly Bryant has good support and won't be expected to carry the team on his shoulders.

quote:

---

My point is that Kelly Bryant has good support and won't be expected to carry the team on his shoulders.

---

Fair enough...but isn't it fair to say that D Watson's resources were just as if not more plentiful? And isn't it also fair to say that it's highly unlikely that Clemson would have sniffed the playoff without him? I mean, he certainly isn't the only reason and didn't carry Clemson on his shoulders EVERY game...but he did in several games. Not trying to take away credit from Clemson last year..so what if he was a critical component to Clemson's success...I mean, he was on the team. I'm just saying that the fact that he is no longer creates a void that has to be filled with either another QB (no) or other skill groups really stepping up beyond last season IF Clemson intends to compete for the natty again.

quote:

---

Clemson will lose 3 games this year, but IMO, one won't be to Auburn. FSU, NC STATE and possibly VT. I see a tight game, but I don't believe we are as depleted as some think. I will be a very fun game to watch though as I expect Auburn to come out blazing.

---

Like I've said before, If you held a gun to my head and made me pick, I'd go with Clemson given the home game. I think Clemson is very good and if they get a decent answer at QB, will compete for it all again...and I'd be surprised under those circumstances if they lost 3 games...but if they did, I'd expect FSU to be one of them. Yes...should be a fun game to watch.

Week 2 can't get here soon enough. Hope all you Clemson fans will be in the Game Thread that day

quote:

---

A really really crappy Clemson team took Cam Newton's Auburn team to OT, at Auburn. Anything can happen. We're planning on playing four QBs just to shake things up.

---

Sure I guess anything could happen. Though you might wanna reconsider playing 4 QB's.

quote:

---

Kelly Bryant who is a better runner than D. Watson. Don't forget Clemson (aside from Cole Stoudt who only started over a freshman/injured D. Watson) has had very productive play from all of their QBs since Dabo has been coach. The coaches know how to get the WRs the ball. Coming out of camp the RB position looks good too.

---

Remind me who these QBs were? Was it T Boyd, who was the Army All American game MVP and Watson? K Bryant wasnt anywhere near as highly thought of as those two guys were as a national recruit coming out of HS or in terms of throwing the ball. Bryant is not and has never been highly touted in terms of a throwing/passing QB. Dabo being the HC won't change that. If Dabo were truly that smart, he would have started Watson game 1 against UGa in 2014. Clemson may have lost that one game, but they wouldn't have lost another. Combine Watson with the number 1 ranked defense that year, Clemson would have been a playoff team all three year Watson was there if Dabo and staff hadn't put Cole Stoudt ahead of Watson and Chad Kelly coming out of that spring. Cole had no business being ahead of either. Either Chad Kelly or Watson would have taken that 2014 team to the playoff. Dabo is about to make the same mistake with Bryant.

And the statement of Bryant being a better runner is vague. Sure, Bryant is more of a threat to bust one every now and then for big chunk yardage, but Watson was better at running the zone read. And Watson was a much better threat passing and could tuck and run when nothing there. Bryant is completely one dimensional. With him being limited threat passing, teams will focus on taking away his run.

And I don't know if the RB position looks that great when your top 3 have been average backs at clemson to date and the true freshman from Jennings is being touted as the best on campus.

With Bryant as QB, clemson drops at least 2 of those first 5 games. With KB, clemson is 3-4 loss team.