Our LBs aren’t very good outside of Byrd. Not worried about those injuries. Let the younger guys play at LB.

(09-15-2018 02:06 PM)Oldyeller Wrote:  

(09-15-2018 01:54 PM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

(09-15-2018 01:51 PM)Oldyeller Wrote:  Play calling is horrid. I’m nervous about Debesse for the first time. Honestly this has been a joke!

Have to remember this is a team that is still rebuilding itself offensively. I imagine Debess utilized the plays he felt we were ready to use against this elite D line.

80 rushing yards...

That was a legitimate DLine. Our OLine wasnt ready to take on that caliber of player. No matter the option look, Debesse knew that we had to establish the dive to be able to do anything else. We obviously could not, which was problem 1. There were a bunch of other problems, but it all boiled down to their front 7 were way better than our offense...and it wasn’t like one of those a little bit better things. It was a clear gap in abilities. Problem 2 was that Clemson’s offense was constantly adjusting. I like our defense. It’s pretty stiff. Kudos to their O-Coordinator and analysts though. Once they found that there was a clear gap midfield, they exploited it over and over and over. I’m glad that it took more than a quarter to find it, but Sloan will probably need to find ways to keep that from happening in the future. Any team could find that hole. Our defense is good! Offensively the only thing to me that was baffling was that we didn’t try the 5 to 10 yard throws until late in the game...and then we stopped doing it. We had to continue to try to establish the dive. I loved seeing CJ Wright come in. It meant that we were at least trying new things. That was a lot of beef to bring in to attempt to get the yardage that we needed in the dive, which also showed how dominant their front 7 were. I also think that the flexbone pitch pass was tried for the first time right there in game.

We threw the ball to Kennedy one time and he didn't have a single touch. We never used the rocket toss play or the QB draw. We never went back to the tight end pass over the middle after we almost got a big gain on it. I'd suspect play-calling, but it was fine in the first two games.

I have a suspicion the goal was to run as much clock as possible and GTFO.

(09-16-2018 08:08 AM)EagleNationRising Wrote:  

(09-15-2018 02:06 PM)Oldyeller Wrote:  

(09-15-2018 01:54 PM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

(09-15-2018 01:51 PM)Oldyeller Wrote:  Play calling is horrid. I’m nervous about Debesse for the first time. Honestly this has been a joke!

Have to remember this is a team that is still rebuilding itself offensively. I imagine Debess utilized the plays he felt we were ready to use against this elite D line.

80 rushing yards...

That was a legitimate DLine. Our OLine wasnt ready to take on that caliber of player. No matter the option look, Debesse knew that we had to establish the dive to be able to do anything else. We obviously could not, which was problem 1. There were a bunch of other problems, but it all boiled down to their front 7 were way better than our offense...and it wasn’t like one of those a little bit better things. It was a clear gap in abilities. Problem 2 was that Clemson’s offense was constantly adjusting. I like our defense. It’s pretty stiff. Kudos to their O-Coordinator and analysts though. Once they found that there was a clear gap midfield, they exploited it over and over and over. I’m glad that it took more than a quarter to find it, but Sloan will probably need to find ways to keep that from happening in the future. Any team could find that hole. Our defense is good! Offensively the only thing to me that was baffling was that we didn’t try the 5 to 10 yard throws until late in the game...and then we stopped doing it. We had to continue to try to establish the dive. I loved seeing CJ Wright come in. It meant that we were at least trying new things. That was a lot of beef to bring in to attempt to get the yardage that we needed in the dive, which also showed how dominant their front 7 were. I also think that the flexbone pitch pass was tried for the first time right there in game.

They split the zones between our safeties and the area where MLB would have responsibilities. Notice their success there started when we had waterboys in at MLB.

It is what it is. I still think the defense did a great job. Clemson did rack up some yards but they had a hard time getting on the scoreboard which is what really counts. If our offense had been able to get some momentum we would have at least made it a good bit more interesting.

After reviewing the film today... there is an example where a Clemson lineman covered the dive AND made the tackle on the pitch man. We will never see anything like that in the SBC. Insane athleticism.

Here's my quick-cut of the Clemson game. Every play in under 40 minutes.

AP voters weren't impressed with Clemson and moved them to #3. Computers weren't impressed with GS and moved them down some. At least we got paid.

I'm late to the party but was very pleased with the defense. The offense is difficult to judge against Clemson's defense. All things considered, I thought our O-line played very hard too.

I get if you just look at the score you think just another blowout of a Sun Belt team from a top P5 but this game could not be further away from our AU beat down. We basically gifted them a score going for it on 4th and 22 and usually most teams just run out the clock but Dabo kept throwing and their backups were playing with their hair on fire trying to get that last score. We also kept throwing instead of just running out the clock on our last drive. Last two scores were not indicative of how 99% of the game went while AU could have scored five more times last year if they wanted. We punt on 4th and 22 the game is probably ends 24-7.

Not having your starting safety and nose guard due to suspension showed up on the field on several plays with missed downfiel tackles and how much push they got on some plays right up the middle.

Having to use your third string LB due to injury and Byrd suspended for the first half for targeting also showed. Byrd played well once he got in the game.

The Clemson front four are real and so is everyone else on their D. So the O did what they could. Having said that some of our O linemen still were completley lost and or a major work in progress. All others did ok but hard to judge against that D. QB was off on downfield throws for the most part I dont think throwing downfield is going to happen much more.

The worst thing that happened for GS and maybe the best thing for Clemson moving forward is Bryant going out of the game that freshman QB is as accurate, confident and good as any QB I have seen play football. We did much better when both were coming in and out of the game. Having Bryant go out let Lawrence get into a rhythm.

Defense gets an A++ they were on the field almost the whole game and playing down to the third string. Only criticism is a few missed tackles and we have a glaring weakness with passes over the middle every team we have played has had huge plays going over the middle right behind the LB's. When you are playing second and third string guys against Clemson can't ask for much more.

Special teams B+ had a few let downs but still overall good. Have to factor in the level of talent on the other side.

Offense C- mainly from the O line not being where they need to be and our downfield throwing being way off. I mainly talking about just flat out missing blocks and assignments not trying to block an NFL defensive line.

Bottom line I feel great about GS after this game moving forward unlike after AU where I knew we would be lucky to win three games last year. Not saying we win but if we play this game at the end of the year without missing three to four of our defensive starters most of the game I think it would be at least a legit possibility.

It is weird to say but I have never felt better about the direction of this team after a 38-7 loss. Work in progress but it is progress and not regression.

(09-16-2018 04:06 AM)eagleskins Wrote:  Our LBs aren’t very good outside of Byrd. Not worried about those injuries. Let the younger guys play at LB.

I think they are good but some of the back ups showed they are good as well.

(09-16-2018 08:46 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  AP voters weren't impressed with Clemson and moved them to #3. Computers weren't impressed with GS and moved them down some. At least we got paid.

I'm quite confused as to why Alabama is being elevated so high at the moment. They scored 63 on a team that Southern Illinois nearly put 50 on. They beat a Louisville team that was nearly beat by WKU who lost to Maine. Then they beat Arkansas State, who actually appears to have been their most difficult opponent to date.

Clemson did nothing to lost their number 2 ranking. The year they won the National Championship they beat App 41-10. Southern's defense is likely better than Apps was that season and they were still able to put up 38. I'm suspecting that the voters see Middle Tennessee as a more formidable opponent than Georgia Southern.

(09-17-2018 03:15 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  

(09-16-2018 08:46 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  AP voters weren't impressed with Clemson and moved them to #3. Computers weren't impressed with GS and moved them down some. At least we got paid.

I'm quite confused as to why Alabama is being elevated so high at the moment. They scored 63 on a team that Southern Illinois nearly put 50 on. They beat a Louisville team that was nearly beat by WKU who lost to Maine. Then they beat Arkansas State, who actually appears to have been their most difficult opponent to date.

Clemson did nothing to lost their number 2 ranking. The year they won the National Championship they beat App 41-10. Southern's defense is likely better than Apps was that season and they were still able to put up 38. I'm suspecting that the voters see Middle Tennessee as a more formidable opponent than Georgia Southern.

Clemson put up 38 by scoring 2 more TDs at the 6:06 and 2:03 marks in the 4th quarter. This game was 24-7 (though never in doubt) over halfway through the 4th.

UGA was up 42-7 at halftime against MTSU.

(09-17-2018 03:19 PM)Klak Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 03:15 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  

(09-16-2018 08:46 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  AP voters weren't impressed with Clemson and moved them to #3. Computers weren't impressed with GS and moved them down some. At least we got paid.

I'm quite confused as to why Alabama is being elevated so high at the moment. They scored 63 on a team that Southern Illinois nearly put 50 on. They beat a Louisville team that was nearly beat by WKU who lost to Maine. Then they beat Arkansas State, who actually appears to have been their most difficult opponent to date.

Clemson did nothing to lost their number 2 ranking. The year they won the National Championship they beat App 41-10. Southern's defense is likely better than Apps was that season and they were still able to put up 38. I'm suspecting that the voters see Middle Tennessee as a more formidable opponent than Georgia Southern.

Clemson put up 38 by scoring 2 more TDs at the 6:06 and 2:03 marks in the 4th quarter. This game was 24-7 (though never in doubt) over halfway through the 4th.

UGA was up 42-7 at halftime against MTSU.

But who do you believe is the better team, Clemson or UGA? Games are won in the tranches and Clemson and Alabama are the two defenses with top of the line defensive line play.

Southern on defense is far underrated and their handicap the past two seasons now has been the offense. The handicap against P5 teams since after their initial year running the shotgun option base has been the lack of creativity against BFS teams.

No offense, but you only had 30 yds at half and around 120 total, while Clemson was north of 500 yds, you did a good job in not giving up 40 in the first half, but the game was essentially over went Clemson was up 14-0. The players definitely get an A+ for effort and not giving up, but not sure if you had just 3 or 4 more defensive players and that if you played Clemson at the end of the season the results would be any different.

(09-17-2018 05:18 PM)moehler Wrote:  No offense, but you only had 30 yds at half and around 120 total, while Clemson was north of 500 yds, you did a good job in not giving up 40 in the first half, but the game was essentially over went Clemson was up 14-0. The players definitely get an A+ for effort and not giving up, but not sure if you had just 3 or 4 more defensive players and that if you played Clemson at the end of the season the results would be any different.

And?

When you guys played in them in 2015 it was 38-0 early in the third quarter, and we were down 24-7 more than half way through the 4th. Their starters were in the game until the last several minutes of the game.

You also didn't play against a defensive line full of guys who are likely going to be NFL starters next fall.

I don't think anyone's saying we could've won with a healthy defensive unit, but you can't just dismiss us not having our starting nose guard, our top safety, and missing our three top linebackers for most of the game.

Okay, so instead of getting beat 38-7 you only get beat 35-7, got it

The plus side is that we will never face a team with near that talent on either side of the ball, and they were able to expose some weaknesses of our oline, mainly lack of communication. It will provide some good game film for us to look at going into the BYE and the stAte game next week.

Our secondary is one of the best in the conference, and we have a pretty solid LB core.

Not worried about our offense one bit. We are on OC number 4 in 4 years. Also, with how over matched we were in the trenches, I don't doubt too much that we kept the play calling pretty vanilla on purpose. Get in, get out, get healthy for conference play.

There is a big difference between the top 3 teams in the country (AL, UGA, Clemson), and the 10th ranked team.

Time to move on and get ready for conference play.

We got blown out by WVU a couple years ago, and went on to win the Godaddy bowl.
App got smoked by clemson too, and went on to finish 10-2.

(09-17-2018 03:37 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 03:19 PM)Klak Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 03:15 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  

(09-16-2018 08:46 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  AP voters weren't impressed with Clemson and moved them to #3. Computers weren't impressed with GS and moved them down some. At least we got paid.

I'm quite confused as to why Alabama is being elevated so high at the moment. They scored 63 on a team that Southern Illinois nearly put 50 on. They beat a Louisville team that was nearly beat by WKU who lost to Maine. Then they beat Arkansas State, who actually appears to have been their most difficult opponent to date.

Clemson did nothing to lost their number 2 ranking. The year they won the National Championship they beat App 41-10. Southern's defense is likely better than Apps was that season and they were still able to put up 38. I'm suspecting that the voters see Middle Tennessee as a more formidable opponent than Georgia Southern.

Clemson put up 38 by scoring 2 more TDs at the 6:06 and 2:03 marks in the 4th quarter. This game was 24-7 (though never in doubt) over halfway through the 4th.

UGA was up 42-7 at halftime against MTSU.

But who do you believe is the better team, Clemson or UGA? Games are won in the tranches and Clemson and Alabama are the two defenses with top of the line defensive line play.

Southern on defense is far underrated and their handicap the past two seasons now has been the offense. The handicap against P5 teams since after their initial year running the shotgun option base has been the lack of creativity against BFS teams.

As of the start of the game uga was probably better but once that freshman QB got into a rhythm and Bryant completely out of the game coin flip.

(09-17-2018 05:18 PM)moehler Wrote:  No offense, but you only had 30 yds at half and around 120 total, while Clemson was north of 500 yds, you did a good job in not giving up 40 in the first half, but the game was essentially over went Clemson was up 14-0. The players definitely get an A+ for effort and not giving up, but not sure if you had just 3 or 4 more defensive players and that if you played Clemson at the end of the season the results would be any different.

Yes because playing third string is the same as first string and a sophomore QB is not going to get any better with 99% of another season under his belt. Nor will an OC be able to insert more of his offense and sort out who is doing best in his system. You act like we were 10-2 not 2-10 last year and have upperclassmen starting at every position and did not just get a new staff lol. I am sure we still likely lose but I am also pretty sure this team will be a lot better at the end of the year and playing any team without 40% of your defensive starters on the field just about every play has some effect. Clemson is at peak now we are not close and I doubt we have 50% of the OC's playbook or the starting lineup completely figured out yet. It is obvious you did not watch the game though.