CockyTalk

Welcome to Cockytalk!

Thank you for visiting our forum. As a guest, you have limited access to view some discussion and articles. By joining our free community, you will be able to view all discussions and articles, post your own topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos, participate in Pick'Em contests and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today!!

If you have any problems registering or logging in, please contact our Admins. Thanks!

Go Back   CockyTalk > Gamecocks Sports > The Cock Pit

Today's Top 10
Posters (by posts)Threads (by views)Newest Posts Gamecock Headlines 
Three and Out
Spur's Addiction
Captain9Dragons
Cockfather
kingofnerf
Legalman72
Blitzkrieg
Cockhornleghorn
Copperhead
TucockShakur
Georgia coach Kirby (826)
Bye Week Visits / HS (678)
2018 WBB - Victaria (348)
***2017 World Series (193)
This Song is Pure Ro (191)
***2017 World Series Thre
Waiver being sought for T
2018 WBB - Victaria Saxto
Discussion: 2019 Recruiti
Bye Week Visits / HS game
2018 - Channing Tindall
2018 MBB - Jericole Helle
POSSIBLY The Greatest Coa
Deebo's return?
LA Clippers: Sin in the L


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-18-2017, 08:39 AM   #101
BillyHixx
Banned
 
BillyHixx's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Greenville
Posts: 63
CockyCash: 500
BillyHixx has feathers coming inBillyHixx has feathers coming in
Default Re: ESPN has South Carolina as Football Power Index #32

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFC 5 1981 View Post
I don't think anyone is saying Clemson's OL is the Hogs from the 80s Redskins. There was more than a few times Clemson didn't get a 3rd and one (or 4th and one) in the ground. Yes there is room for improvement, but they were good enough to help win the NC.

As for 2017, I expect a fall off but not into the Marianas Trench. And by the way the Cain and whoever else at WR comment is funny.
Good post. Sums up my thoughts on the Clemson OL nicely.

I expect clemson to win 9-10 games next season (pre-bowl), including a win over SC. But who knows... usually when Ace predicts Clemson's demise they end up in the playoffs.

I don't see SC anywhere near the #32 team going into next year.
BillyHixx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2017, 12:47 PM   #102
Ace Dilcock
2nd Team All-American
 
Ace Dilcock's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mt. Pleasant
Posts: 8,798
CockyCash: 1748
Ace Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot material
Default Re: ESPN has South Carolina as Football Power Index #32

Quote:
Originally Posted by LazerBeak View Post
like so many of these discussions, you seem to be lost in the details of what is actually happening. you seem to be thinking that "guys were coming from the outside...." In some cases they were, but you should really watch that game to have a clue what you are talking about. Most of the pressure came right up the middle. Boulware and Joseph (LB's) lived in the backfield, as did DT's. I assure you they were not racing to the outside, nor were clemmie leaving Wr's uncovered to bring pressure from CB. Nor did they leave the middle of the field wide open and put all the rushers on the outside

As someone else posted in another post of just the 1Q, Clemmie only brought more than 4 a few times. So if they are bringing four- lets say 2 Lb a DE and a DT, I dont understand how our guys can't block that...again LBs are coming thru the A & B gap, DT thru opposing B gap, and DE C gap or off tackle. What you are saying is that they can't possibly know which ones are coming? or who to block? whaaaaat?

I really hope no other teams decide to rush 4 this next season coz our guys can't possibly (you know do what all other good Olines do) figure out how to pick up "blitzes", if they are announced beforehand.

Most posters on here understand that our Oline was not good, except you...who cant seem to understand what they actually do. Our line just got beat a lot. A big dose of reality for you is Our Oline was beat several times when clemmie just rushed 3.
I feel like I have accomplished something with your admission "that our Oline was not good", which is what I have been saying forever. Glad you finally see the light. South Carolina's O Line was much better than yours - when have you ever seen us so desperate for bodies that we started true Freshmen on the O Line two years in a row?

But I am confused. You guys are saying that Boulware brought pressure up the middle and then get into a discussion of gaps. One of your other brethren was saying that you only rushed four just about every play. If Boulware is rushing up the middle, that is adding a rusher that the O Line cannot account for - the QB has to realize that and take advantage of his vacated position, and the RB has to pick him up with the block.

Again, you guys seem obsessed with proving my point with every post - the pressure brought by Boulware on the QB was not the result of a failure by the O Line to block, but by the skill position guys - QB and RB - to not pick up on the additional rusher and make the proper adjustments. When you have a veteran O Line - which we did - and the most inexperienced group of skill guys in the country - and we had that too - the failures to pick up blitzes and additional rushers is usually going to be on the inexperienced guys. Common sense, dude.

Sorry, we had a pretty good Offensive Line last year, and better than yours. We should be improved this year. Yours will be better as well if you can find a replacement for Guerrero. That is the nice thing about playing true Freshmen before they are ready - they eventually become three and four year starters with a lot of experience. But it can be painful getting them there.
Ace Dilcock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2017, 01:04 PM   #103
Ironfan
1st Team All-SEC
 
Ironfan's Avatar
 


Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,266
CockyCash: 600
Ironfan is USC mascot materialIronfan is USC mascot materialIronfan is USC mascot materialIronfan is USC mascot materialIronfan is USC mascot materialIronfan is USC mascot materialIronfan is USC mascot materialIronfan is USC mascot materialIronfan is USC mascot materialIronfan is USC mascot materialIronfan is USC mascot material
Default Re: ESPN has South Carolina as Football Power Index #32

Defensively we will compete, The Oline and special teams is gonna make or break our season
Ironfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2017, 01:22 PM   #104
TAFC 5 1981
2nd Team All-SEC
 
TAFC 5 1981's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Mt. Pleasant, SC
Posts: 2,873
CockyCash: 500
TAFC 5 1981 is USC mascot materialTAFC 5 1981 is USC mascot materialTAFC 5 1981 is USC mascot materialTAFC 5 1981 is USC mascot materialTAFC 5 1981 is USC mascot materialTAFC 5 1981 is USC mascot materialTAFC 5 1981 is USC mascot materialTAFC 5 1981 is USC mascot materialTAFC 5 1981 is USC mascot materialTAFC 5 1981 is USC mascot materialTAFC 5 1981 is USC mascot material
Default Re: ESPN has South Carolina as Football Power Index #32

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace Dilcock View Post
I feel like I have accomplished something with your admission "that our Oline was not good", which is what I have been saying forever. Glad you finally see the light. South Carolina's O Line was much better than yours - when have you ever seen us so desperate for bodies that we started true Freshmen on the O Line two years in a row?

But I am confused. You guys are saying that Boulware brought pressure up the middle and then get into a discussion of gaps. One of your other brethren was saying that you only rushed four just about every play. If Boulware is rushing up the middle, that is adding a rusher that the O Line cannot account for - the QB has to realize that and take advantage of his vacated position, and the RB has to pick him up with the block.

Again, you guys seem obsessed with proving my point with every post - the pressure brought by Boulware on the QB was not the result of a failure by the O Line to block, but by the skill position guys - QB and RB - to not pick up on the additional rusher and make the proper adjustments. When you have a veteran O Line - which we did - and the most inexperienced group of skill guys in the country - and we had that too - the failures to pick up blitzes and additional rushers is usually going to be on the inexperienced guys. Common sense, dude.

Sorry, we had a pretty good Offensive Line last year, and better than yours. We should be improved this year. Yours will be better as well if you can find a replacement for Guerrero. That is the nice thing about playing true Freshmen before they are ready - they eventually become three and four year starters with a lot of experience. But it can be painful getting them there.
After that score I could not make a comment like that. You could not run the ball until the scout team was in.
__________________
If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?
TAFC 5 1981 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2017, 03:01 PM   #105
Ace Dilcock
2nd Team All-American
 
Ace Dilcock's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mt. Pleasant
Posts: 8,798
CockyCash: 1748
Ace Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot material
Default Re: ESPN has South Carolina as Football Power Index #32

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFC 5 1981 View Post
After that score I could not make a comment like that. You could not run the ball until the scout team was in.
Pretty simple. You had a very good offense despite an average O Line. We had a pretty bad offense despite a good offensive line. The difference is the skill positions and schemes - you had a deep veteran group, and a scheme that allowed you to succeed without great blocking. Quick releases, big time playmakers that can make plays in space, a running QB that could scramble and avoid pressure. We had an offense that relied more on downfield passing, a stationary QB, and we had the youngest skill guys in the country.

You had a good game plan. Bring lots of pressure from lots of angles and stack the box. Perfect plan against a young group of skill players. It does not matter how good the O Line is when the box is stacked - you can't run.

On the "Cain and whoever else at WR" comment - I was not saying that you do not have lots of talent at WR. Actually the reverse - you have too much at WR and QB, if that makes sense. A big portion of your high class rankings comes from those two positions. You have 2 5* besides Cain and lots of 4*at WR. Cain and Renfrow (who was not even a 3*) are two starters - which means that out of your other two 5* and a passel of 4*, only one will start. That leaves a huge group of players sitting on the bench.

Outside of QB and WR, your recruiting is far from "elite". And even though you have recruited a lot more talent there - per the recruiting services - we have what appears to be the best QB, WR (Deebo), along with RB and TE. As other WRs step up - like Edwards last year and our 3 4* this year - there is no talent gap at those positions any more. And we now have an experience edge.

Oh - and a better O Line. LOL
Ace Dilcock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2017, 04:08 PM   #106
Ace Dilcock
2nd Team All-American
 
Ace Dilcock's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mt. Pleasant
Posts: 8,798
CockyCash: 1748
Ace Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot material
Default Re: ESPN has South Carolina as Football Power Index #32

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFC 5 1981 View Post
After that score I could not make a comment like that. You could not run the ball until the scout team was in.
Pretty simple. You had a very good offense despite an average O Line. We had a pretty bad offense despite a good offensive line. The difference is the skill positions and schemes - you had a deep veteran group, and a scheme that allowed you to succeed without great blocking. Quick releases, big time playmakers that can make plays in space, a running QB that could scramble and avoid pressure. We had an offense that relied more on downfield passing, a stationary QB, and we had the youngest skill guys in the country.

You had a good game plan. Bring lots of pressure from lots of angles and stack the box. Perfect plan against a young group of skill. It does not matter how good the O Line is when the box is stacked - you can't run.

On the "Cain and whoever else at WR" comment - I was not saying that you do not have lots of talent at WR. Actually the reverse - you have too much at WR and QB., if that makes sense. A big portion of your high class rankings comes from those two positions. You have 2 5* besides Cain and lots of 4*at WR. Cain and Renfrow (who was not even a 3*) are two starters - which means that out of your other two 5* and a passel of 4*, only one will start. That leaves a huge group of players sitting on the bench.

Outside of QB and WR, your recruiting is far from "elite". And even though you have recruited a lot more talent there - per the recruiting services - we have what appears to be the best QB, WR (Deebo), along with RB and TE. As other WR step up - like Edwards last year and our 3 4* this year - there is no talent gap any more. And we now have an experience edge.

Oh - and a better O Line. LOL
Ace Dilcock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2017, 03:41 PM   #107
gotrice?
1st Team All-American
 
gotrice?'s Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Charleston/Columbia
Posts: 12,725
CockyCash: 200
gotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot material
Send a message via AIM to gotrice?
Default Re: ESPN has South Carolina as Football Power Index #32

Ace you may not want to listen to/read excerpts from Muschamp's presser today.
gotrice? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2017, 05:03 PM   #108
Ace Dilcock
2nd Team All-American
 
Ace Dilcock's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mt. Pleasant
Posts: 8,798
CockyCash: 1748
Ace Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot material
Default Re: ESPN has South Carolina as Football Power Index #32

Quote:
Originally Posted by gotrice? View Post
Ace you may not want to listen to/read excerpts from Muschamp's presser today.
I don't have a problem with Boom calling out the O Line - they should have been better. Injuries played a role in that, possibly some personnel issues as well (which is why Bailey is getting shifted).

He also talked about the D Line being soft - he wants to win the line of scrimmage and that is his way of getting the point across.
Ace Dilcock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2017, 07:18 PM   #109
gotrice?
1st Team All-American
 
gotrice?'s Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Charleston/Columbia
Posts: 12,725
CockyCash: 200
gotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot material
Send a message via AIM to gotrice?
Default Re: ESPN has South Carolina as Football Power Index #32

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace Dilcock View Post
I don't have a problem with Boom calling out the O Line - they should have been better. Injuries played a role in that, possibly some personnel issues as well (which is why Bailey is getting shifted).

He also talked about the D Line being soft - he wants to win the line of scrimmage and that is his way of getting the point across.
You said our offense was bad in-spite of a good OL performance last year, it's been what you've been preaching. The OL wasn't good last year, no question injuries played a role in that but the players who got injured hadn't gotten much PT prior to this past year and got hurt before they could show what they had. So basically the OL is a question mark coming into this year, even according to Muschamp, despite what you've been stating.
gotrice? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 08:39 AM   #110
Ace Dilcock
2nd Team All-American
 
Ace Dilcock's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mt. Pleasant
Posts: 8,798
CockyCash: 1748
Ace Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot material
Default Re: ESPN has South Carolina as Football Power Index #32

Quote:
Originally Posted by gotrice? View Post
You said our offense was bad in-spite of a good OL performance last year, it's been what you've been preaching. The OL wasn't good last year, no question injuries played a role in that but the players who got injured hadn't gotten much PT prior to this past year and got hurt before they could show what they had. So basically the OL is a question mark coming into this year, even according to Muschamp, despite what you've been stating.
Knott was a 2 year starter who battled through two injuries - the first to his wrist that kept him out of the weight room in the preseason, then an ankle injury that slowed him down during the season. Helms had proven to be a good OL at Wake Forest before battling through a knee problem. Camper and Stanley were both talented players that performed well in reserve roles. Camper basically beat out 4* Christian Pellage and relegated him to Guard as a Freshman, while Stanley was a 4*/top OL in the state that looked good as a back-up in 2015 - a lot of people thought he should have started ahead of Matulis or Sport. Saying that we would not have been a hell of a lot better on the O Line if those guys were healthy is closer to a fact than a supposition.

The O was bad early because we had a dearth of skill position talent, and the talent that we had was banged up and not playing. When we got Bentley in the line-up and Deebo/Rico got healthy, the Offense suddenly looked better. If the O Line sucked, that would not have happened. The O Line did get better over the course of the year - the injuries finally stopped, and we got some continuity - but they were always pretty solid.

With some tweaks and healthy players coming back, they can be really good in 2017.
Ace Dilcock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 12:42 PM   #111
gotrice?
1st Team All-American
 
gotrice?'s Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Charleston/Columbia
Posts: 12,725
CockyCash: 200
gotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot material
Send a message via AIM to gotrice?
Default Re: ESPN has South Carolina as Football Power Index #32

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace Dilcock View Post
Knott was a 2 year starter who battled through two injuries - the first to his wrist that kept him out of the weight room in the preseason, then an ankle injury that slowed him down during the season. Helms had proven to be a good OL at Wake Forest before battling through a knee problem. Camper and Stanley were both talented players that performed well in reserve roles. Camper basically beat out 4* Christian Pellage and relegated him to Guard as a Freshman, while Stanley was a 4*/top OL in the state that looked good as a back-up in 2015 - a lot of people thought he should have started ahead of Matulis or Sport. Saying that we would not have been a hell of a lot better on the O Line if those guys were healthy is closer to a fact than a supposition.

The O was bad early because we had a dearth of skill position talent, and the talent that we had was banged up and not playing. When we got Bentley in the line-up and Deebo/Rico got healthy, the Offense suddenly looked better. If the O Line sucked, that would not have happened. The O Line did get better over the course of the year - the injuries finally stopped, and we got some continuity - but they were always pretty solid.

With some tweaks and healthy players coming back, they can be really good in 2017.
The offense looked better because we finally had good QB play, something we lacked the 1st half of the season. You can have good offense against bad defenses without a good OL, you can't have good offense against good defenses without a good OL. That was quite literally what happened in the 2nd half of the season, against bad defenses we saw good offensive production and against good/elite defenses we were stifled.

I've never argued this OL didn't have the potential to be good in the 2017 season, I've said they're a question mark heading into 2017. An example would be I have high hopes for Stanley to be really good when he actually gets to play extensively, but I've never seen him play even a full quarter of a real game so he is a question mark and I don't give a crap what his star rating was. I've never seen Knott play with the necessary level of strength to be a good center who doesn't get manhandled at the POA but this is his first healthy off-season for him to work with Dillman, he could definitely come out this year much stronger than ever but he is going to have to show me that on the field first. LT is a known question mark. Can Bailey make the transition to RT? Stop looking at star rankings for your justification on players being good, we've had plenty of 4* busts and 2-3* NFLers. There are plenty of questions for the OL in 2017, hence me calling them a question mark. Just because they're a question mark doesn't mean they don't have high upside next season. I can't understand why you just can't admit the OL is a question mark coming into 2017.
gotrice? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 01:14 PM   #112
Ace Dilcock
2nd Team All-American
 
Ace Dilcock's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mt. Pleasant
Posts: 8,798
CockyCash: 1748
Ace Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot material
Default Re: ESPN has South Carolina as Football Power Index #32

Quote:
Originally Posted by gotrice? View Post
The offense looked better because we finally had good QB play, something we lacked the 1st half of the season. You can have good offense against bad defenses without a good OL, you can't have good offense against good defenses without a good OL. That was quite literally what happened in the 2nd half of the season, against bad defenses we saw good offensive production and against good/elite defenses we were stifled.

I've never argued this OL didn't have the potential to be good in the 2017 season, I've said they're a question mark heading into 2017. An example would be I have high hopes for Stanley to be really good when he actually gets to play extensively, but I've never seen him play even a full quarter of a real game so he is a question mark and I don't give a crap what his star rating was. I've never seen Knott play with the necessary level of strength to be a good center who doesn't get manhandled at the POA but this is his first healthy off-season for him to work with Dillman, he could definitely come out this year much stronger than ever but he is going to have to show me that on the field first. LT is a known question mark. Can Bailey make the transition to RT? Stop looking at star rankings for your justification on players being good, we've had plenty of 4* busts and 2-3* NFLers. There are plenty of questions for the OL in 2017, hence me calling them a question mark. Just because they're a question mark doesn't mean they don't have high upside next season. I can't understand why you just can't admit the OL is a question mark coming into 2017.
Left Tackle is a question mark. There are answers everywhere else.

You can consider RT a question with Bailey moving over. But he is moving because the staff thinks that Malik Young might be the answer at LT. And Camper has starting experience at RT also.

I personally believe you can have a good offense without a good offensive line. In fact, I can give you an example here in our own state. Clemson gets the ball out quickly to players in space and they make the plays. The QB seldom gets pressured due to the quick throws and when he does, he can usually avoid the pressure. But Clemson had a good offense in 2016 without being able to run the ball effectively.

We need a good offensive line to be successful because we are more of a traditional dropback passing attack, with the QB going through progressions and not being a scrambler.
Ace Dilcock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 02:49 PM   #113
gotrice?
1st Team All-American
 
gotrice?'s Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Charleston/Columbia
Posts: 12,725
CockyCash: 200
gotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot material
Send a message via AIM to gotrice?
Default Re: ESPN has South Carolina as Football Power Index #32

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace Dilcock View Post
Left Tackle is a question mark. There are answers everywhere else.

You can consider RT a question with Bailey moving over. But he is moving because the staff thinks that Malik Young might be the answer at LT. And Camper has starting experience at RT also.

I personally believe you can have a good offense without a good offensive line. In fact, I can give you an example here in our own state. Clemson gets the ball out quickly to players in space and they make the plays. The QB seldom gets pressured due to the quick throws and when he does, he can usually avoid the pressure. But Clemson had a good offense in 2016 without being able to run the ball effectively.

We need a good offensive line to be successful because we are more of a traditional dropback passing attack, with the QB going through progressions and not being a scrambler.
Malik Young has to be at LT for Spring Practice, it's a numbers thing. He is there because him and Hutcherson are the only two that are even physically capable of playing that spot. If Dennis Daley was an EE Malik Young may still be on the right side of the line. It's the equivalent of saying "wow we have talented walk-ons at LB because multiple made the 2-Deep at the end of spring practice." Yes they made the 2 deep, because much needed reinforcements haven't arrived yet. The problem is where are your proven answers? Donnell Stanley has 1-2 drives of PT in his career. Alan Knott has never been physically strong enough in his career and could become that for his senior season but it's a show me thing at this point. Cory Helms got beat like he stole something last year. Really looking forward to the prospect of DJ Park getting extensive PT inside but again we'll see. We don't have proven guys like you seem to think we do. We have 1 proven high level OL returning and the rest need to make strides or prove themselves on the field entirely.

As for good offense without a good offensive line, you can have it against bad defenses but when you run into strong defenses you'll crumble. You keep referencing Clemson, they at least had an average OL to go along with the best college QB in the history of the state of South Carolina. The defensive fronts in the SEC are too good to be able to compensate for a bad OL and expect to compete for the SEC East. At absolute minimum our OL has to be average next year to be able to hope to compete for a trip to ATL and to be average they have to raise their game over what they were last year because what we fielded was well below average average.
gotrice? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 03:36 PM   #114
Ace Dilcock
2nd Team All-American
 
Ace Dilcock's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mt. Pleasant
Posts: 8,798
CockyCash: 1748
Ace Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot material
Default Re: ESPN has South Carolina as Football Power Index #32

Quote:
Originally Posted by gotrice? View Post
Malik Young has to be at LT for Spring Practice, it's a numbers thing. He is there because him and Hutcherson are the only two that are even physically capable of playing that spot. If Dennis Daley was an EE Malik Young may still be on the right side of the line. It's the equivalent of saying "wow we have talented walk-ons at LB because multiple made the 2-Deep at the end of spring practice." Yes they made the 2 deep, because much needed reinforcements haven't arrived yet. The problem is where are your proven answers? Donnell Stanley has 1-2 drives of PT in his career. Alan Knott has never been physically strong enough in his career and could become that for his senior season but it's a show me thing at this point. Cory Helms got beat like he stole something last year. Really looking forward to the prospect of DJ Park getting extensive PT inside but again we'll see. We don't have proven guys like you seem to think we do. We have 1 proven high level OL returning and the rest need to make strides or prove themselves on the field entirely.

As for good offense without a good offensive line, you can have it against bad defenses but when you run into strong defenses you'll crumble. You keep referencing Clemson, they at least had an average OL to go along with the best college QB in the history of the state of South Carolina. The defensive fronts in the SEC are too good to be able to compensate for a bad OL and expect to compete for the SEC East. At absolute minimum our OL has to be average next year to be able to hope to compete for a trip to ATL and to be average they have to raise their game over what they were last year because what we fielded was well below average average.
Mitch Hyatt started Year One at Clemson because they only had one returning tackle. One. Fruhmorgen was the top back-up as a Freshman for the same reason, and moved into the starting line-up as a true Sophomore because they only had Hyatt returning. When Fruhmorgen quit, Pollard moved into the starting spot as a true Freshman - there was no one else.

But we have "question marks" even tough we have veteran guys pretty much across the board. LT is a ?, sure, but we have potential answers. What about the Clemson situation - is that a ? or a !!! LOL
Ace Dilcock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 04:07 PM   #115
gotrice?
1st Team All-American
 
gotrice?'s Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Charleston/Columbia
Posts: 12,725
CockyCash: 200
gotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot materialgotrice? is USC mascot material
Send a message via AIM to gotrice?
Default Re: ESPN has South Carolina as Football Power Index #32

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace Dilcock View Post
Mitch Hyatt started Year One at Clemson because they only had one returning tackle. One. Fruhmorgen was the top back-up as a Freshman for the same reason, and moved into the starting line-up as a true Sophomore because they only had Hyatt returning. When Fruhmorgen quit, Pollard moved into the starting spot as a true Freshman - there was no one else.

But we have "question marks" even tough we have veteran guys pretty much across the board. LT is a ?, sure, but we have potential answers. What about the Clemson situation - is that a ? or a !!! LOL
Yes it is. Ace do you not understand the term question mark? That's the thing about a question mark, it can be answered in either a positive or negative way. It means you may have high hopes on a player(s) but you don't know how things are going to turn out until they step on the field in a live game. Wide receiver was a question mark coming into last year, it turned out pretty damn well. I'd much rather have a question mark on the OL than the grade most would have given to the safety position coming into last year which would have been "you're screwed." There are a number of players on the OL that have potential but they have to step on the field, stay healthy, and prove it. Two sayings on potential that hold true which is why you can't use it to justify why a position is good to go because there are some guys with potential. First, put potential in one hand and shit in the other and tell me which fills up first. Second, too many coaches and GMs have been fired due to players with "potential."
gotrice? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 04:17 PM   #116
Nureye
White helmets rule
 
Nureye's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Columbia
Posts: 3,091
CockyCash: 415
Nureye is USC mascot materialNureye is USC mascot materialNureye is USC mascot materialNureye is USC mascot materialNureye is USC mascot materialNureye is USC mascot materialNureye is USC mascot materialNureye is USC mascot materialNureye is USC mascot materialNureye is USC mascot materialNureye is USC mascot material
Default Re: ESPN has South Carolina as Football Power Index #32

This thread is bizarre.
__________________
I'm only here for the reputation points.
Nureye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 04:30 PM   #117
Dizzy01
2nd Team All-SEC
 
Dizzy01's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 3,297
CockyCash: 200
Dizzy01 is USC mascot materialDizzy01 is USC mascot materialDizzy01 is USC mascot materialDizzy01 is USC mascot materialDizzy01 is USC mascot materialDizzy01 is USC mascot materialDizzy01 is USC mascot materialDizzy01 is USC mascot materialDizzy01 is USC mascot materialDizzy01 is USC mascot materialDizzy01 is USC mascot material
Default Re: ESPN has South Carolina as Football Power Index #32

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nureye View Post
This thread is bizarre.
To make it better when I first glanced at Mitch Hyatt I thought it said Missy Hyatt and I was wondering what she was doing with CFB.
Dizzy01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Provided by SLB Development