Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

2024 College Football Thread


KingKucci
 Share

Recommended Posts

My halftime thoughts…

nearly impossible to run good O vs a tough Texas D without a functional RB to insert.  You end up with no run game and the on the other end lose a body in pass protection because you can’t ask a random WR to pass pro.   Given that handicap vs that D, Cade is playing okay. 

Clemson got screwed on that pick 6.  21-14 alters the momentum and feel of that game.  Head in front and blew up his front shoulder.  Whoever is the fav isn’t getting that called on them. 

all that said, Clemson lost the ability to tackle and play basic run D weeks ago.   Really miss Venables in these games.   They got the bodies to be way better on D than they are.  It’s the D coach.  Time for change at DC next year.  The calls for that will be loud.  A reminder to SC fans that use that Clemson game they barely won because Sellers broke 198 tackles…..as they boast about how good they would do in the playoffs….Clemson just sucks at tackling.  

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, CRA said:My halftime thoughts…

nearly impossible to run good O vs a tough Texas D without a functional RB to insert.  You end up with no run game and the on the other end lose a body in pass protection because you can’t ask a random WR to pass pro.   Given that handicap vs that D, Cade is playing okay. 

Clemson got screwed on that pick 6.  21-14 alters the momentum and feel of that game.  Head in front and blew up his front shoulder.  Whoever is the fav isn’t getting that called on them. 

all that said, Clemson lost the ability to tackle and play basic run D weeks ago.   Really miss Venables in these games.   They got the bodies to be way better on D than they are.  It’s the D coach.  Time for change at DC next year.  The calls for that will be loud.  A reminder to SC fans that use that Clemson game they barely won because Sellers broke 198 tackles…..as they boast about how good they would do in the playoffs….Clemson just sucks at tackling.  

  

Agree and I am pulling for Clemson here but Texas might have the most talented team in college.  Texas defense is damn near unfair

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

I hope CRA is all and well. I tried to warn him what was coming.

Bro, told you all year Clemson was likely the best ACC team (they were) yet not built to run with the top of college football.  They won the ACC.   

me picking them to win today is just being a fan.  Otherwise, why watch if no belief/hope in these moments.  I’ve long said what Clemson was and wasn’t 

We literally are playing a WR at RB tonight lol because of how banged up the backfield is…yet Cade got 2 TDs.  Texas allowed 4 all year.  That’s not bad.  Clemson ain’t got the D this year. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bama Panther said:

Your issue must be with the 12-team format then. As I mentioned, there have been many prior seasons with 3-loss teams in the top 12. If we are going to have a 12-team (or God forbid, 16-team) format going forward, three losses is not a disqualifier. 

The real question we all should be asking is this: should there really be 12 teams in the playoffs? We know that there are at least 2, but I’d venture to guess about 6, teams that truly have no chance at winning this thing and should not be in a conversation about a “National Champion.”

Of course. As originally stated, there is a push to make this akin to the basketball tournament, which it cannot and will not ever be.

I would rather see the old way that everyone thought was unfair, and have bowls and votes after everything was over, than sit through these games that are there to sell me soda, cars and medicines. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Not one single pick that is asking me why we drafted a guy in the first place. It was a guy we needed and/or a guy that had certain traits making them stand out. Best of all, I feel everyone we drafted are capable of stepping onto the field this year and have a meaningful role (even Kuwatch on special teams). Obviously, nothing is guaranteed but I'm not seeing any huge flags on guys because they're risky projects or massive overreaches.
    • Here is how Morgan is strategic-He re-signs Scott because he was not going S in round 1--he had the chance, and he did not.  He saw the top of the draft at T and knew none of them would be ready to start day 1, so he signs a veteran to a one-year deal, giving his tackle selection a chance to learn and prepare for what might be LT or RT.  Those two moves suggested, perhaps ironically because they contradict each other, what he was going to do, based on the talent pool.  He never brought in a Robinson replacement at DE/NT, and then moves up to draft one.   I almost wonder if the intent was to draft DT/DE all along at some point, maybe with a trade back, but then Freeling dropped to them.   Of course, we felt that they were looking WR, and wonder if the plan was to draft a WR in round 2 if you traded back in round 1.  However, when Freeling was there, the trade back fell apart.  Then we traded up for Hunter.  We could stick with XL and hope Metchie steps up, so we sat still in round three and took Brazell II, a 1000 yard speedster and perfect Z WR.  What a break. At that time, CB and Center were our biggest needs, and with several possible centers on the board and a good fit for our defense at CB, we grabbed Will Lee III.  Lee and Thornton have people in front of them, but I think Morgan knew we needed a guy who can play the outside and press--and probably step in as Jackson's replacement in 2027.    After making trades to get back into the fifth round, where we grabbed one of the best centers in the draft.  This is significant because we signed Fortner to a one-year deal; maybe Morgan saw what some of us saw--the center position is strong in this draft--on day 3, and day 3 players need a year, in most cases.  Moments later, a safety they had been talking to whose skill set matched what we are looking for in a FS.  As stated, Scott was signed,  but the fact that the Panthers were talking to Wheatley and not Theiemann means that they might have known they were not going FS early, but would need a developmental FS later--which explains why we signed Scott.  So if you pay attention to the one-year, vet deals, you can tell where we planned to sign later-round, developmental players.  What positions did we draft early that did not have 1-year veterans signed in front of them:  DL (Hunter) and WR (I don't count Metchie because I count starting-level players). I would not be surprised to learn later that the plan was DT and WR in rounds 1 and 2--then Freeling fell.  Notice that Freeling--from Mt Pleasant SC, did not come in for a visit.  Most of the other OT candidates had short arms or were certain to be gone. I don't think Freeling was in their plans.  I think a trade back and Hunter and maybe Boston was the vision.  I am guessing that CB was also high on their list.   So in this draft, we got 
    • This is one area I think that is not getting enough exposure in the midst of all the optimism. I like Chuba a great deal from a personal standpoint but he has largely proven nothing on a consistent basis yet. He's had the one season of production but before that most people pegged us as moving on. And last year injuries or not he just did not have that juice. The rest of the guys are completely unproven. I don't see anyone among the group having a game or a handful of games worth of high level production the way Rico Dowdle did last year. And yeah he dropped off and yeah he got an attitude about our incompetent handling of the touches which was honestly justified on his part and he moved on but he did legitimately save our season. That's what it is going to take to seize control of the NFC South. We all know that we will not be passing all over defenses. It is what it is. So who amongst this RB group is capable of doing that? And if we are struggling to run the ball AND pass are we going to revert to making excuses for our coach and QB again? That is definitely getting old.
×
×
  • Create New...