I wondered the same thing about Watkins when I looked at the spread on the UofSC vs Clemson game. UofSC brings up the bottom of the rankings in the SEC in punting so I started thinking about Clemson's special teams play. Off the top of my head— I recall they've only returned about a third of the punts they've actually received. It was under 70 punts received on the year and I recall fair catches or touchbacks 43-45 times...something along those lines. I've only watched them twice, so I can only assume what the numbers tell me. It seems they lack a physical presence to keep the gunners out of their lanes so opponents punts are well covered. Some times stats can be deceiving. Based on what I recall reading Clemson was somewhere around 100th in the NCAA on punt returns. LSU, if I recall correctly, was in the top 15 for punt return yards allowed. I know you were top 20 when we played. One team in the top 20, other team in the bottom 20? That's a stat you can count on in my opinion.
Do u know whether they've tried different players to cover the opponent's gunners? Or is their coaching staff a little stubborn and/or loyal to a fault? As a Louisiana football fan, I've been "privy" to the dangers of stubborness and loyalty to a fault(see LSU QBs 2009-2011 and Saints' DBs 2006-present). I'd like to know the size, strength and speed of the players covering the gunner(s). In other words, is it tactical disadvantages or talent evaluation deficiencies? Hopefully your analysis is correct and Clemson is unable to take advantage of a possible drop-off in performance of the LSU punter. It's nice to see opinion backed by research and facts instead of conjecture and bias. Despite what ESPN force feeds, numbers CAN lie, as well as be interpreted in far different ways. Your evidence seems to point to LSU being able to "overcome" a relatively inexperienced punter. I worry about the things that numbers can not exactly explain like: motivation, a bounce of the ball, turf monsters....you know, the whole "any given Sunday(Monday)" theory.
I detect a dislike or perhaps distain for ESPN 's recent coverage of all things LSU. I wonder? Is it coincedence that Jessie Palmer (UF Alum) + Reece Davis (ALA Alum) who are color commentators (or were until recently) that just possibly the two of them may just "may" have used this format to dirty LSU's earned credibility? Possibly they were paid? ESPN was paid? $$$ ?
Another loser caught smoking pot? Will these guys never learn? No matter how rich, powerful, talented, or famous you are, smoking pot makes you a big LOSER! Why do they insist on doing it?
Clemson is #17 in the NCAA in holding opponent punters to a 38.94 average (on 65 punts...or 5.4 punts per game)
Maybe so LaSalle but right now, IT IS the rule. Unfortunately we're not at liberty to decide which rules/laws we have to follow, or not. Oh, that must make him a jock.
Don't even get me started on Reece Davis. I am of the opinion that it should be all or at least mostly former players, coaches and/or staff/personel that should be "analysts". Who, besides a Notre Dame fan, wants to hear slobberin' granny Lou sit up there and blow ND for 3 hours every Saturday? He's not even objective...and if Reece Davis thinks he's foolin' me(and hopefully all other Tiger fans) into thinking he's objective when it comes to Bama, then he's a bigger idiot than he is a fake "journalist"! Seriously, what kind of credibility does Skip Base-less have? What? He watches sports, and then writes down his subjective, strickly opinion based over-reactions and senile exaggerations. Sorry ya'll. Rant/. I apologize for getting off topic....I don't agree that weed SHOULD be handled the way it does in light of the way alcohol is handled=socially accepted. However, Wint's actions are signs of immaturity and misplaced priorities, IMO. When you have such a unique opportunity to play sports, maybe professionally in his case one day, and are looked up to by kids and so many super passionate fans who do so much to support you and your team and spend their hard earned money to support you, I would think it would mean more to you, for your fans, your family and friends, and your future to be able to choose your career and your passion over getting high. Besides, he'll probably have most of his life, and lots of money, to do that when he retires at the ripe old age of what?, 40-45years old?... tops? Dudes gotta be smarter and more responsible than that. I am disappointed in him. He definitely needs to re-examine his priorities, and I'm sure he will. I would hope...
I think that was mostly in reference to those pics/videos of him loaded w/his crew at that bar he was allegedly "sponsoring". Those were fairly "thugish" images, I must say. Regarding stupid rules, whether you like it or not, MJ is illegal. Screening for it, and other illegal substances, are a mandate across all sports and not unique to LSU football. Not sure why you continue to argue about it's stupidity or legality. It is what it is. For adolescents, whether you want to admit it or not, it is a gateway drug. Because of the tendencies of this age group alone, it should remain illegal, in my opinion, and in the opinion of most adolescent (= age group 12-17) experts. I will post some references from the American Academy of Pediatrics for you in the other thread Tirk created regarding drug considerations and experimentation. You have made good arguments for its safety, and why it should be legal, and for personal reasons you would like it legalized, but it is not legal, thus there are rules in place that the athletes, and other students, need to follow. Its that simple.
This is one of those stats that makes no sense to me. How exactly is an opposing team (in this case the punt returning team) supposed to "hold opponents punting" to a specific distance? Opponent punting ranks the distance, on average, a team gets on each punt against them. The only thing that could have a bearing on this statistic—that's under the direct control of the punt return team—are blocked or hurried punts. Clemson has had two kicks they've blocked this year. I know one of them was a FG attempt vs Georgia Tech. The other may have been a punt. Even still, "holding opponents punters to a 38.94 average...?" Please explain to me how this makes their punt return team any better than being ranked 100 out of 120 teams in punt returns. This is not even mentioning 105 teams are within four yards of each other.
"Turf monsters." I like that. It's certainly a new one, but clever. No, I can't answer that question as to if they've changed personnel on the punting team—specifically to the gunners position. I didn't see a beat writer last night covering Clemson. I may this evening and if I do I'll ask his opinion. The one thing that crosses my mind is there may be a mind set on their coaching staff that they'd rather take the fair catch and put the offense on the field so they haven't/don't put a strong emphasis on the return game. In some ways I can see that thought process and on the other hand I can't say I understand that thought process. Why not change the field if you can?
