Player behavior during the official interception review...

[CuyahogaCuse]

3 or 4 posts said the same thing because you were the one talking about it being running up the score. Reread your own post. Getting an early lead isn't the same as running up the score.

Apparently, after an explanation you still don't get it ... despite the fact that I explicitly noted that I was making a connection between running up the score, as discussed in this thread, and using an onside kick early in an effort to pad an early lead.

I'm not sure I saw discussion of the early onside kick anywhere else, and I thought it was relevant. Bottom line - Clemson wanted no part of the 49K in the Dome seats or the 85 on the home sideline to believe we ever were in the game. You do that by getting an early lead on the road and pouring it on. I've got no issue with it. Just thought it interesting and worthy of comment and debate.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1

 

[sufandu]

Why all the talk about running up the score at halftime? What about running up the score by inside kicking after the first TD with 14+ to go in the first quarter?

Clemson would have recovered too if the ball didn't go out of bounds. Dabo and the Tigers were hell bent on jumping on us early and keeping the crowd out of that game. Too bad our secondary complied so easily.

Reading comprehension much? Not directed at you specifically, since 3 or 4 posts essentially say the same thing.

In a thread that is debating "running up the score," I chimed in about an onside kick at 7-0 as part of an overall strategy to get out to a big lead (read between the lines: run up the score) and take the crowd out of the game. I don't have a problem with it either.

Of course it's not "running up the score at 7-0. But does it even enter your minds that Clemson might have been concerned about Syracuse staying in the game? We had scored 50+ for two straight weeks and had our biggest crowd in a decade. Hindsight is wonderful, but even at 7-0, I don't think they could have dreamed about how'd easily they would score.

I think Clemson wanted no part of a close game in the Dome. And as others have said, they did all they could to make sure it didn't happen.

No, I get it. I really do. When you do a poor job communicating a thought, you blame the people that couldn't understand you rather than simply say, "I said this, but meant this."

I agree with you that it was an early strategy to get an early lead and keep the crowd out of it, I never questioned that. However, getting an early lead is not the same as running up the score, and you said it was (it's right there in your original post). Running up the score is expanding a lead when a game is no longer in doubt, and that's not what they were doing (you acknowledged this in your most recent reply). Look at both of your posts. In one you said it was running up the score, in the other you said it wasn't. Rather than contradicting yourself and blaming others for not understanding you, you could simply say, "That's not what I meant, let me explain myself." Don't come back with a sarcastic attitude, after someone (multiple people) points out an error with something you said.

 

[CuyahogaCuse]

No, I get it. I really do. When you do a poor job communicating a thought, you blame the people that couldn't understand you rather than simply say, "I said this, but meant this."

I agree with you that it was an early strategy to get an early lead and keep the crowd out of it, I never questioned that. However, getting an early lead is not the same as running up the score, and you said it was (it's right there in your original post). Running up the score is expanding a lead when a game is no longer in doubt, and that's not what they were doing (you acknowledged this in your most recent reply). Look at both of your posts. In one you said it was running up the score, in the other you said it wasn't. Rather than contradicting yourself and blaming others for not understanding you, you could simply say, "That's not what I meant, let me explain myself." Don't come back with a sarcastic attitude, after someone (multiple people) points out an error with something you said.

Fair enough. You win the internet argument game.

I referenced running up the score - shockingly - in a thread about running up the score ... to try to introduce a related thought about a topic (early onside kick) that had yet to see any real discussion.

Perhaps it would have been different if I used the phrase "intent of running up the score?" Who knows and at his point, and who really cares? My poorly communicated take apparently was that Clemson intended to score as many points as possible as early as possible and as often as possible (i.e.: 14 mins to go in Q1 and 30 seconds to go before the half) with the consistent and intentional purpose of burying Syracuse and taking the big crowd out of the game. In other words, the decision to eschew a field goal before the half in lieu of a 4th down touchdown try was fully consistent with the earlier failed onside kick strategy.

Apologies for the snarky comeback, but I didn't think it was a huge leap from one thought to the next ... especially on an Internet board. Apparently, I was wrong.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1