Random reflections one night after the game:
- Overall, it looked like there were two games. One game before DJ Uiagalelei pitches the ball to Shipley to escape the sack and a different game after. Clemson got energized and we lost energy after that.
- You could also split the tale of two games when Charlie Thomas went out for Targeting.
- Clemson has a QB controversy, and they should have one. I don’t think DJ Uiagalelei realizes how bad that 4th quarter drive looked for him. Klubnik looks much better. Dabo screwed up starting Uiagalelei.
- Our starting OL is mostly sophomores and redshirt freshmen. There were a lot of plays that they looked good against Clemson, but Clemson rarely had to bring a 5th rusher. It's a line that can get better, but the DL-OL matchup was Clemson's biggest advantage of the night.
- If the OL looks good by the time we play Ole Miss, then the season could go well. The story of our season is probably how quickly an inexperienced line can grow into a good line. It needs to be fast. We need to fix a lot of problems against Western Carolina.
- I wonder what the game might have been like as the fifth game of the season instead of the first. We didn't return a lot of production from last year, and Clemson did. We're coming together as a team a lot more than Clemson is.
- The only reason why I don't think a matchup later in the season against Clemson would go better is that I expect them to have a different QB by mid-season.
- The first play was gutsy--our OL against their DL on a deep post route. Our OL was still jittery against a hyped DL and missed an important block. We didn't throw deep much after that play.
- Having Western Carolina next is huge. First, we have to win. Second, we need to fix our game #1 problems. If we're going to have a good season, Western Carolina is the place to do that.
- I think Charlie Thomas might have to sit out the first half of Western Carolina--I need to check the targeting rules.
- We couldn't afford mistakes, and the two blocked punts were massive mistakes. The speed of our punting game had to be clear in practice. It takes forever to get our punts off.
- I wasn't sure the end-of-the-first half run-the-clock decision had been reported correctly. It was--we had a chance to get the ball back with 45 seconds at the end of the first, and Collins played scared. His explanation was that Clemson might go for the 4th down conversion. It wasn't the call of a coach going for the jugular.
- DL looked much better until we got into the 4th quarter. After that, I saw the Clemson OL getting under our shoulder pads. There was also a difference between our first string DL and our second string DL. Clemson moved the ball much better against our second string DL.
- The LB play was a lot better this year compared to last. So was the DB play.
- Dabo ran the score up. That's on us to stop him. It's been said that he doesn't like Collins and is rubbing it in. I've heard almost no other head coaches like him, and that he doesn't have many friends in the media either. Unless we play really tough, we'll face other coaches rubbing Collins' nose in it and getting bad-mouthed by the announcers while they do it.
- This is clearly a good enough team to go bowling and have a good record against a reasonable schedule. We don't have a reasonable schedule. A lot of our toss-up games are on the road. Our out-of-conference schedule of UCF, Ole Miss, and UGA sucks.
- Can we beat Pitt and UNC and a lot of the middle of our schedule? VT looks beatable, but a lot changes after the first game. We look better, but are we "better enough" to get six wins?
- Six wins is still going to take a couple of upsets. Six wins is believable.
- Collins's game-management is dangerous (to us) in a close game.
- Our FG kicker looks like a good kicker. Our kickoff unit looks good.
- Our kickoff and punt return teams might be good. We fair caught everything, and we should have.
- A 41-10 score isn't a good result for us. Some of it is "garbage time" scores, but the more important thing is that we only scored 10. Yes, Clemson has a great defense, but a solid offense puts up more than 10 points against them.
One more thing. Aside from the "run the clock down" decision at the end of the first half, most of us felt like we were in the game down 14-3 at the end of the first, and especially after we forced Clemson 3-and-out to start the second. Looking back, not getting at least 9 or 10 points in the first half put us behind the 8-ball.
The tale of the quarters:
Q1: Defensive standoff. Our offense couldn't move the ball. Lost opportunities. We were happy with the result, but this was a quarter we needed to be good on offense for the upset. Way too many 3-and-outs. We needed points in this quarter. More importantly, we didn't stay ahead of the chains--our offensive efficiency wasn't good. 0-0.
Q2: We made offensive adjustments. Clemson blocked a punt and got a contended TD on a 5 yard drive. The blocked punt was huge--it may have changed the entire game. Clemson is much better playing from ahead. The second TD Clemson needed all four downs on 4th and goal. We missed a FG and got a FG, but we needed better offensive efficiency. Mistakes meant we had to settle for FGs instead of TDs. The score looked OK, but we didn't capitalize on our drives. 14-3.
Q3: We hold Clemson 3-and-out and score a TD. They come back and get a FG. Then, we go 3-and-out--that was a dagger. Clemson scores a TD. Then we start going 3-and-out a lot. We need clutch plays and we don't make them. As bad as the second blocked punt was, going 3-and-out killed us in the 3Q. We end the 3rd down 24-10, and we're in trouble because the offense is offline.
Q4: Our sins catch up to us. We can't move the ball. Blocked punt puts us down 34-10 and the wheels come off.
If we score more than 20, Clemson doesn't score 41. Our inefficiency on offense let Clemson get too many opportunities and their defense too much rest. Their offense wasn't that good against our defense--we gave them too many chances.
Jeff Schultz has a good point here (shorter version of what I said with "offensive efficiency"):
