In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online now 623 Record: 7224 (2/22/2012)
The place to talk about the Texas Longhorns
The place for off topic discussion on Hookem
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
While UNC didn't win the game, their uptempo offense left the Cock's D sucking wind. . . badly.
took Crowley completely out of his game.
Not to mention the rest of USC's D.
Think Major is onto something.
You sir are a wordsmith! Good on ya!
You sir are a Clown-ey
This post was edited by Aaron Hernandez 8 months ago
Nothing says POWER quite like getting 10 points and less than 300 yards in 79 offensive plays.
Tee hee hee tee hee hee......He said the cocks were sucking.
This post was edited by horns4ever22 8 months ago
Completely missed my point
UNC (unranked) was seriously outmatched up against a Top 10 team with supposedly an excellent D.
If you saw the game, you would have seen SC's D sucking wind.
The point is that they ran 79 plays, USC's D couldn't get off the field.
i have a hard time putting this as a data pt. South Carolina was sucking win on the first drive of the 2nd half. That seems like a conditioning issue, not a tempo issue.
I buy that, we might be seeing a USC team guilty of reading their press clippings.
Tempo would exploit that then wouldn't it?
And you missed reality.
A 12 point underdog lost by 17. Maybe some guys on defense got a little tired, but they were hardly less effective.
A defense that holds opponents to 3.7 yards a play, 10 points, and only 3 drives with more than one first down is a defense that is kicking ass.
Agreed. It was 95 degrees and humid at kickoff.
To limit a team to 293 yards and 10 points in 79 plays is quite impressive to me.
That's a great point.
extending drives with illegal substitution penalties because players could not drag themselves off the field is often the sign of very effective D's.
If you thought USC's D "kicked ass" last night, I'm not sure you watched the game. Had they been facing a team with any offensive talent, they likely get run out of the stadium
Which does make the "reality" comment humorous.
Oh well, maybe the point is just over your head, who knows. Who cares?
I think it bodes well for our offense this year and was an example of what you are trying to accomplish with uptempo.
This post was edited by IDMAS 8 months ago
There you go being the grammar/name spelling police... What's the point? You knew who he was talking about.
I don't give a rat's ass about UNC or USC and I could care less what who's offense or defense did to whom.
USC defense was the definition of "kick ass" and yes I watched the game.
4 INT's, 1 FR, 7 sacks and of the 231 yards given up 60 of them were with less than :40 on the clock with 3rd stringers and walk ons on the field. The defense dominated that game for USC.
They made it into USC territory 4 times and two of those dirves started in USC territory.
If that isn't good defense I don't what is.
I'm not sure you did watch the game, if you are crediting USC's defense with 4 INT's.
Why comment? No one asked you. Read and move along.
Football is back. Be happy.
thanks for sharing.
You still don't get it either. There were times the SC defense looked tired. Clowney spent more time on the bench breathing hard than he did in the UNC backfield. Neither of those things mean the strategy was successful.
UNC is not a team without offensive talent. It returns 6 starters on offense, including the QB who was top 25 in efficiency last year, two WR and a TE who pulled in 14 tds last year while averaging 14 yards a catch and include the top two from last year in total yards receiving. It also returned two backs who averaged 5.5 yards per carry and were the second and third leading rushers last year. Your position that UNC doesn't have offensive talent is simply false.
Does SC have a world class defense? Maybe. It was pretty good by most metrics last year, but it only returns 5 starters. An average game for SC last year had it allowing 68 plays, 316 yards, 2 touchdowns and 18 points. So you think UNC running 11 more plays and getting 23 fewer yards, one less touchdown and 8 fewer points proves anything about the uptempo offense?
SC was guilty of two substitution infractions on defense. The first didn't yield a first down and was followed by a sack and punt. The second didn't yield a first down and it resulted in a turnover on downs. Those things prove the uptempo offense had SC in danger? When it was the first game of the year, which tend to have substitution issues?
Look, I don't disregard the theory that an uptempo offense can put pressure on a defense and can be used to enhance the offense's chances. I really don't. I just think you're being silly in trying to use a game in which the uptempo offense didn't do shit most of the night as some kind of proof for the theory. Clowney may have been panting, but all UNC did while running more plays was get less out of them.
What I get from your argument here is that you watched the game wanting to believe the uptempo offense will do great things and you refuse to see the reality that it didn't do much last night, and the only way for you to resolve that conflict is for you to assume UNC's offense is utter crap and USC's defense is dominant. I don't think either assumption is necessarily valid at this point.
Of course I knew who he was talking about. It was my knowledge of who he was talking about and the knowledge that the name was incorrect that paved the way for my witty retort.
Wasn't a grammar or spelling error either as he spelled the name correctly. It was just the wrong name. So get that right, you jack wagon
That is just funny.
At times???? Like the entire 2nd half.
Dude, I get it, you like being the smart azz. Taking the best player in America off the field sucking wind is more than UNC could have hoped for. Thanks, you made my point for me.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports