2018 Graveyard Thread

[LazerBeak]

Originally Posted by Ace Dilcock

Clemson is paying more attention to the O Line - finally - but they aren't there yet. They have started three straight O Tackles over the last two years because they didn't have any other O Tackles, two as true Freshmen. Quality O Lines don't have to do that. And Guillermo, their best O Lineman, is gone.

D Line is good but they have had good D Linemen in the past. Jarrett, Beasley, Dodd. They had two 5* at LB pre-Watson, Steward and Anthony, 5* Mackenzie Alexander also. In fact, their DTs are two of the best they have, DEs are not quite as good, and they have had better DBs and LBs in recent years than they have now.

Sorry, elite recruiting at WR and QB. The rest of the way, they have recruited well, but they have been doing that for a while. And not at an elite level.

I didn't get a chance to reply to this yesterday. but at the risk of getting caught up in another endless loop with Ace I will anyway

Anthony & Steward were both 5*s BUT were both plagued with injuries and only got the play as starters 2 yrs (Tony Steward 1, I believe). Yet still Anthony was a 1st rounder AND if i'm not mistaken they had the #1 D that year- 2104
Jarrett, Dobbs and Beasley were developed at their position. None were highly recruited and Beasley started out playing several other positions before settling at DE.

Again as I said before Clemmie has done a lot with less and developing talent. I see no reason that they can't do at least the same level with more.

I think saying "not quite as good" and those things are a bit premature since the season hasn't even started

[Ace Dilcock]

Originally Posted by LazerBeak

I didn't get a chance to reply to this yesterday. but at the risk of getting caught up in another endless loop with Ace I will anyway

Anthony & Steward were both 5*s BUT were both plagued with injuries and only got the play as starters 2 yrs (Tony Steward 1, I believe). Yet still Anthony was a 1st rounder AND if i'm not mistaken they had the #1 D that year- 2104
Jarrett, Dobbs and Beasley were developed at their position. None were highly recruited and Beasley started out playing several other positions before settling at DE.

Again as I said before Clemmie has done a lot with less and developing talent. I see no reason that they can't do at least the same level with more.

I think saying "not quite as good" and those things are a bit premature since the season hasn't even started

I don't want the long loop either, but...

You skipped over the O Line observation but I understand that - it was 100% factual, not much to say there.

Then you go on to say that your 5* LBs did not exactly work out as planned despite their talent. And that lower rated D Linemen turned into great players. Which is basically a "stars don't matter" post from a guy that is arguing that Clemson has elite talent now because of a smattering of 5* players. I am confused.....

If I am reading correctly, you are also using a "something special in them thar hills" argument that Clemson is really good at player development, taking average D Linemen and turning them into great players. I personally believe that there could be other factors involved - like good evaluations. Like maybe you found 4* or 5* players that were rated as 3* players - so you had really good players back then. So your talent is not that much better now than it was before.

But if D Line development really is wonderful, didn't Clemson lose both of their D Line coaches? And replace them with a single unproven guy? Ouchie!

[Ace Dilcock]

Originally Posted by LazerBeak

I didn't get a chance to reply to this yesterday. but at the risk of getting caught up in another endless loop with Ace I will anyway

Anthony & Steward were both 5*s BUT were both plagued with injuries and only got the play as starters 2 yrs (Tony Steward 1, I believe). Yet still Anthony was a 1st rounder AND if i'm not mistaken they had the #1 D that year- 2104
Jarrett, Dobbs and Beasley were developed at their position. None were highly recruited and Beasley started out playing several other positions before settling at DE.

Again as I said before Clemmie has done a lot with less and developing talent. I see no reason that they can't do at least the same level with more.

I think saying "not quite as good" and those things are a bit premature since the season hasn't even started

I don't want the long loop either, but...

You skipped over the O Line observation but I understand that - it was 100% factual, not much to say there.

Then you go on to say that your 5* LBs did not exactly work out as planned despite their talent. And that lower rated D Linemen turned into great players. Which is basically a "stars don't matter" post from a guy that is arguing that Clemson has elite talent now because of a smattering of 5* players. I am confused.....

If I am reading correctly, you are also using a "something special in them thar hills" argument that Clemson is really good at player development, taking average D Linemen and turning them into great players. I personally believe that there could be other factors involved - like good evaluations. Like maybe you found 4* or 5* players that were rated as 3* players - so you had really good players back then. So your talent is not that much better now than it was before.

But if D Line development really is wonderful, didn't Clemson lose both of their D Line coaches? And replace them with a single unproven guy? Ouchie!

[Cockypantherfan]

How and why is this bickering back and forth still going on?

Just let it go...

[Ace Dilcock]

Originally Posted by jch81

Guillermo is not our best lineman. Mitch Hyatt is. Didn't give up a sack last year

There is more to being a good offensive lineman than sacks allowed. Guillermo had more knock down blocks and graded out higher than Hyatt. He was also a first-team all-ACC by the coaches and Hyatt was Second team. Guillermo was also the leader of the offensive line and called the signals.

Maybe Henry can do something newsworthy so we can start talking about him again.

[LazerBeak]

Originally Posted by Ace Dilcock

I don't want the long loop either, but...

You skipped over the O Line observation but I understand that - it was 100% factual, not much to say there.

Then you go on to say that your 5* LBs did not exactly work out as planned despite their talent. And that lower rated D Linemen turned into great players. Which is basically a "stars don't matter" post from a guy that is arguing that Clemson has elite talent now because of a smattering of 5* players. I am confused.....

If I am reading correctly, you are also using a "something special in them thar hills" argument that Clemson is really good at player development, taking average D Linemen and turning them into great players. I personally believe that there could be other factors involved - like good evaluations. Like maybe you found 4* or 5* players that were rated as 3* players - so you had really good players back then. So your talent is not that much better now than it was before.

But if D Line development really is wonderful, didn't Clemson lose both of their D Line coaches? And replace them with a single unproven guy? Ouchie!

this is why I hate replying to an Ace comment. Let me say you you a great job of putting words in people mouth then arguing against those words vs what people actually write.

1st off I never said Clemson is Elite or any of that. See a few posts back, I said they are recruiting very well .., and the def of elite has many meanings. In my opinion Clemson is not elite, coz that definition is reserved to having many rings and is not a title you get forever. you are elite while you are elite... take miami for example or Texas, or Socal
I didnt address the OL thing coz I stand by what I said. They have addressed the OL with better OL guys and coaching them up. They are better for it

I do think Clemson has recruited with the beat of teams recently and again they will actually be able to feild a majority 5* front seven. maybe those guys will work out, maybe yhey wont. my crystal ball is not as clear as yours seems to be

bottom line is Im fine with going down the rabbit hole with you on things I said, but I cant defend the things you make up in your head. from now own you should read the post you replying to 3 times aloud so that you know what you are about to reply to

[TaySC]

Originally Posted by Ace Dilcock

There is more to being a good offensive lineman than sacks allowed. Guillermo had more knock down blocks and graded out higher than Hyatt. He was also a first-team all-ACC by the coaches and Hyatt was Second team. Guillermo was also the leader of the offensive line and called the signals.

Maybe Henry can do something newsworthy so we can start talking about him again.

So now you know more about Clemson than our resident Clemson fan does?

You really never cease to amaze me....

[Ace Dilcock]

Originally Posted by TaySC

So now you know more about Clemson than our resident Clemson fan does?

You really never cease to amaze me....

Google is a wonderful thing.

Back on KJ Henry...this is why you never know with recruiting. A few months back, I thought XT was heading our way and Henry was a very long shot.

Henry may well be a silent to Clemson, but our chances of landing him are much better with every passing day. He seems to be concerned about PT and going to the best spot - and he can be the man here. I hope for good news.

[xXSirSpurXx]

Didn't expect to, but did not make his top 5 (Bama, Clemson, LSU, OSU, UNC)

[nin_usc_freak92]

Originally Posted by Ace Dilcock

Wow - Gamecock posters trashed his Dad on the internet for years, and now we are surprised that we are not at the top of his list?

His dad was a UNC guy before coming here and he has been re-hired. Kinda shocking that he would want to go there, huh? Just like Venables Jr. is committed to Clemson (and soon to switch to KSU) and Jake Bentley committed to South Carolina (although I am concerned about how he and his Dad are getting along).

[Ironfan]

CB this morning from Demetric Warren

[Y Formation]

South Carolina plans to sign two quarterbacks for the 2018 class. It’s clear Dakereon Joyner of Fort Dorchester is No. 1 on the board, but after that it’s a little fuzzier as the Gamecocks have offered 14 others at the position.

Not all of them are under consideration, but one is expecting to hear from quarterbacks coach Kurt Roper soon.

http://247sports.com/Player/Tyler-Shough-46039404

Tyler Shough of Chandler, Ariz., received his first Power Five offer from the Gamecocks and he visited Columbia earlier this month. Since then he’s added offers from Michigan, Alabama, Washington State and Missouri.
“Coach Roper is coming out May 2 to watch me throw and say hi,” Shough said. “They are still in consideration for sure. I am interested. He has talked with me several times and with my head coach. And he’s also talked with former (Gamecock) player Mike Hold, whom I know.”

Shough (6-5, 185) said Hold is the best friend of his head coach, and he’s talked to him a couple of times. He does not have any future visits planned and has not determined favorites.

“I don’t have a top one right now,” he said. “I’m still evaluating.”

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/sports/colle...#storylink=cpy

[Ironfan]

Helps that MIlton is trending UM

[Jim Lahey]

http://cockytalk.com/showthread.php?t=230794

[Y Formation]

My bad, but his thread didn't come up when I did a search...

Anyway, I like these tall qb's we keep going after.

[xXSirSpurXx]

Originally Posted by Ironfan

CB this morning from Demetric Warren

Definitely a positive sign, considering he isn't a biased analyst

[PalmettoCockZ71]

Made his top 10

[Ironfan]

Visiting LSU this weekend

[Ironfan]

Abdul-Malik McClain
San Juan Capistrano, CA (J Serra Catholic)
Weak-Side Defensive End
Ht 6-3 Wt 225
40 Yard Dash: 4.47
Shuttle: 4.26
Squat(LBS): 500
http://247sports.com/Player/Abdul-Ma...Clain-46039252
http://www.hudl.com/profile/5267967/abdul-malik-mcclain

new DL offer yesterday

[Ironfan]

Ronnie Perkins
Saint Louis, MO (Lutheran North)
Weak-Side Defensive End
Ht 6-4 Wt 250
Vertical: 30.5
Bench: 265
Squat(LBS): 385
http://247sports.com/Player/Ronnie-Perkins-88703
http://www.hudl.com/profile/4138984/ronnie-perkins

New offer.