Was Clemson's defense more impressive than Oklahoma's defense?

[mmmtodd]

i just happen to think if bob stoops and staff coaches the talent on that clemson d we're lucky to get a field goal.

 

26 pts against a d playing for their lives and out of their minds the whole game --or--

28 pts against a d with seemingly unlimited offensive support, obviously throttled back with the 2 and 3 deep playing a ton of snaps.

 

clemsons d is good. the players themselves showed more heart and effort than OU, but thats relative to the game situation. theyre going to be amazing if they can get the right coaching in place with all the freakish young talent they showed new years day, although they are losing a big chunk of their secondary, no? but this year, oklahoma is the pick.

[newenglandhusker]

26 pts against a d playing for their lives and out of their minds the whole game --or--

28 pts against a d with seemingly unlimited offensive support, obviously throttled back with the 2 and 3 deep playing a ton of snaps.

Clemson's D rankings were much better than what you would need to call that game "playing out of their minds." I think you're selling them short.

[MCAT800]

No question Clemsons D is better than OU, Veneables coached our not. The Tigers had penetration and pressure on Ganz all day, and their secondary was basically shut down.

[mmmtodd]

26 pts against a d playing for their lives and out of their minds the whole game --or--

28 pts against a d with seemingly unlimited offensive support, obviously throttled back with the 2 and 3 deep playing a ton of snaps.

Clemson's D rankings were much better than what you would need to call that game "playing out of their minds." I think you're selling them short.

 

 

10 more points than their def. scoring avg

70 more total yards

 

this is basically meeting us in the middle of our season averages in the those categories on offense.

im not selling them short at all. they play in a conference that wants to hang its hat on its defensive play, when its offenses are mediocre at best. look at what our defense was able to do against a formidable acc offense. the acc is the epitome of mediocrity. sure, 10 teams to bowl, but their conference champ? VT. they gave each other noogies all year. im trying to give them props here by saying they played with their hair on fire. they lost their head coach. their defensive coordinator. and the d was the only thing that kept them in that game. but ultimately, not exactly all that was advertised. i think the talents there, but the coaching, not even close. Bo probably went to bed dreaming of the talent in the secondary they had and what he wouldve done with it, but joey and the offensive coords adapted. their d never did.

[Scarlet Overkill]

Clemson D was the best we faced all year, IMO. I didn't see anyone else we faced stuff us for so many no gains or negative yards. If they did, I might have blocked it out.

 

The way Clemson Defense was playing had KState fans licking their chops because the DC is now on their payroll. Some of the realistic fans realize they don't have a fraction of the talent Clemson does on D, though, but it is making them more hopeful.

[husker98]

I thought they were. Oklahoma just had some ridiculous plays to start the game. Both were fairly good defenses that slowed down a good offense.

 

yea i agree OU's defense was good, but it had holes at key positions that where caused mainly by injuries, Clemsons was a faster defense then OU that was really let down by it's offenses inability to hold onto the ball and move it, thus they where out there the alot.

[bhamHusker]

Why are we comparing anyone to OU's defense? By the numbers, our defense is better than Oklahoma's...

 

http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/natlRank.jsp?year...ef&site=org

 

Clemson's defense is probably the best we've faced this year. Statistically, VT is better, but I don't think they were at the time we played them. We did about as well as I expected us to against Clemson's defense, maybe even a little better.

[junior4949]

Eh, I thought Ganz was just off and then we have our starting RB with some sort of knee infection. We played well offensively in spurts, but we never got in sync. I think that had more to do with the month or so layoff than it did with Clemson's D.

[JTrain]

That's a tough question to answer. Both defenses played very well against us. The Oklahoma game is tough to judge, because it was 35-0 before you could blink, so they didn't have to play too aggressively for the final three quarters. They made us look like a high school team in the first quarter, so for that alone I would have trouble picking against them.

 

As good as Clemson's defense is, I felt like we killed ourselves offensively, especially in the first half. Our playcalling just wasn't very good. I was at the game and kept wondering when Wats was going to test them deep, since they were playing without much safety help the majority of the time. We didn't even try it until the 3rd quarter, when it resulted in two touchdowns.

 

So I would give the nod to OU's defense by a slight margin. Now, if you asked the same question but substituted "fans" for "defense" it would be Clemson's hands down.

[clone]

I think we did move the ball better against OU after Q1 than we did against Clemson, but mainly because the OU game was totally out of reach. So yeah, Clemson's D played us tougher, only because OU didn't have to.

62 point kinks! You don't have to shut folks out when you score 62-28!

 

 

definitely makes a difference.