- Messages
- 12,285
- Location
- Marietta, GA
Class!
Clemson Postgame
- Thread starter CuseJacket
- Start date
- Messages
- 11,726
To level-set: 52-14 isn’t good defense or offense. We played hard, but this isn’t the moral victory that you get out of a 31-21 game.
I wasn’t expecting much out of our special teams. They should be improving, but the place to see a great punt return isn’t against Clemson. Their recruiting depth is really going to show on special teams with players who would get time on offense or defense elsewhere. Having 11 fast players who can tackle is going to help their coverage teams look really good. The team that has 9 or 10 solid players on special teams is where we’ll shine; where we can exploit a weak link.
It seems like a contradiction to say the defense looked better but still gave up 52 points. Pass coverage looked much better to me. We should have gotten at least one more interception. Tackling looked better. Clemson doesn’t really have a weak link on a given play; we do. We made mistakes, made bad reads, and just got pancaked in a couple of places. When 8 guys play well on a defensive play, you get a 90 yard touchdown because it’s the three guys who didn’t who mattered on that play. (There were a lot of mistakes on the 90-yard touchdown play, and a few players who just got beat).
We didn’t get penetration from the DL. I didn’t expect much last night. It still wasn’t up to what I hoped for, even if Clemson has a stout OL.
We have at least one player on defense—Swilling—that opposing coordinators have to plan for. Maybe Thomas and a couple of other players can be that extra difference maker on defense. We probably have a few players the opposing OC looks at and says “I can exploit that guy”, and we need to fix that.
Being a threat to hit a player hard enough to cause a fumble, or get a couple of picks, is progress.
For the offense, I’m confused. I have some guesses.
A lot of Oliver’s passes were off target. Often, they were to the wrong receiver. I did see receivers getting open, but the passes weren’t to those receivers. Lucas Johnson was more accurate, but also seemed to make the wrong reads. TO’s QBR at the end of the game was 9.3. LJ’s was 4.3. Graham (against backups) was a 48.5–not great, but not nearly as low as the other two. Even if you say the pass pro wasn’t good, the QB play wasn’t good even considering the protection.
I thought this game called for quick plays and a quick release from the QB. In the first half, we looked like we were thinking too much and running the plays too slow.
The play calling seemed vanilla. I’m not sure if it’s Patenaude, or if it’s a case of “here’s the part of the playbook we can pull off right now”. In a long-shot game, I expect more of the plays out of the back of the playbook that never get touched.
That game isn’t going to be OK in retrospect. There’s a lot for the players and coaches to pick apart in film review. If they don’t use this game to get much better and fix things, then Clemson beat us twice in one season.
What I’m looking for this season is steady improvement from game to game. I’m not saying we’ll beat USF, but I want us to play a ton better than last night.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I wasn’t expecting much out of our special teams. They should be improving, but the place to see a great punt return isn’t against Clemson. Their recruiting depth is really going to show on special teams with players who would get time on offense or defense elsewhere. Having 11 fast players who can tackle is going to help their coverage teams look really good. The team that has 9 or 10 solid players on special teams is where we’ll shine; where we can exploit a weak link.
It seems like a contradiction to say the defense looked better but still gave up 52 points. Pass coverage looked much better to me. We should have gotten at least one more interception. Tackling looked better. Clemson doesn’t really have a weak link on a given play; we do. We made mistakes, made bad reads, and just got pancaked in a couple of places. When 8 guys play well on a defensive play, you get a 90 yard touchdown because it’s the three guys who didn’t who mattered on that play. (There were a lot of mistakes on the 90-yard touchdown play, and a few players who just got beat).
We didn’t get penetration from the DL. I didn’t expect much last night. It still wasn’t up to what I hoped for, even if Clemson has a stout OL.
We have at least one player on defense—Swilling—that opposing coordinators have to plan for. Maybe Thomas and a couple of other players can be that extra difference maker on defense. We probably have a few players the opposing OC looks at and says “I can exploit that guy”, and we need to fix that.
Being a threat to hit a player hard enough to cause a fumble, or get a couple of picks, is progress.
For the offense, I’m confused. I have some guesses.
A lot of Oliver’s passes were off target. Often, they were to the wrong receiver. I did see receivers getting open, but the passes weren’t to those receivers. Lucas Johnson was more accurate, but also seemed to make the wrong reads. TO’s QBR at the end of the game was 9.3. LJ’s was 4.3. Graham (against backups) was a 48.5–not great, but not nearly as low as the other two. Even if you say the pass pro wasn’t good, the QB play wasn’t good even considering the protection.
I thought this game called for quick plays and a quick release from the QB. In the first half, we looked like we were thinking too much and running the plays too slow.
The play calling seemed vanilla. I’m not sure if it’s Patenaude, or if it’s a case of “here’s the part of the playbook we can pull off right now”. In a long-shot game, I expect more of the plays out of the back of the playbook that never get touched.
That game isn’t going to be OK in retrospect. There’s a lot for the players and coaches to pick apart in film review. If they don’t use this game to get much better and fix things, then Clemson beat us twice in one season.
What I’m looking for this season is steady improvement from game to game. I’m not saying we’ll beat USF, but I want us to play a ton better than last night.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
- Messages
- 3,284
There was a lot of stuff to like if you are able to look past some of the glaring mistakes. Clemson is going to make plays on you, even if you play well. There was some unforced errors on our part that really made things easy for them. Much of that is correctable. JT won't drop every punt. We won't screw up the MESH like that for the whole season either. Even when we didn't fumble it, many were mistimed and sloppy. Their first big run out on 1st and 20 was an assignment bust on the right side of the DL where the DT slanted inside at the same time the DE stunted inside. Can't leave an entire side of the field open like that. They are good. We were generous.
I liked the aggressive posture on defense and tight press coverage. Even though we didn't sustain drives, we did some decent things on offense at times. The biggest takeaway is that we played really hard throughout. I am proud of the kids for that. Depth challenges became evident as the game wore on.
I liked the aggressive posture on defense and tight press coverage. Even though we didn't sustain drives, we did some decent things on offense at times. The biggest takeaway is that we played really hard throughout. I am proud of the kids for that. Depth challenges became evident as the game wore on.
knoxjacket
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 855
My observations:
Defense:
1) Tackling was improved but has a ways to go. We actually made some solo open field tackles. We haven't done that consistently in years. Given that tackling is usually bad week 1 I find this very impressive. I would attribute this to the new S&C program.
2) DL is still a problem. They should some flashes early, but we have zero depth. Clemson has probably the 2nd best OL we will face all year so subsequent games will be telling as to whether we've improved here.
3) LB were absent and totally out-athleted. We HAVE to upgrade in athleticism here. Way too slow. I know Lawrence is a freak but we could not get a hat on him when he ran.
4) DB - outside of Swilling I was unimpressed. There is a reason CGC is trying to flip this part of the roster. Not enough quickness. Even guys with top end spend like Juanyeh just don't have the acceleration.
Offense:
1) Mason is an absolute stud. The effort he put out there was phenomenal. He looked like he belonged on that field.
2) Brown is our best WR and the only one that can get separation. There is a reason CGC is trying to sign 4 WR this year. Need to flip this part of the roster too.
3) OL - I know Clemson is young but that it still probably the best DL we will face until UGA. I thought they did OK at run blocking and about what I expected in pass blocking. I would expect them to improve.
4) QB - Oliver is what he is. An athletic freak who is as tough as nails but not a passing QB. Johnson was scared to death. Graham did OK against scrubs. This will be a problem all year.
5) We basically ran the Tobias/TaQuon version of CPJ's offense out of the gun and got the TaQuon/Tobias offense vs Clemson results.
Defense:
1) Tackling was improved but has a ways to go. We actually made some solo open field tackles. We haven't done that consistently in years. Given that tackling is usually bad week 1 I find this very impressive. I would attribute this to the new S&C program.
2) DL is still a problem. They should some flashes early, but we have zero depth. Clemson has probably the 2nd best OL we will face all year so subsequent games will be telling as to whether we've improved here.
3) LB were absent and totally out-athleted. We HAVE to upgrade in athleticism here. Way too slow. I know Lawrence is a freak but we could not get a hat on him when he ran.
4) DB - outside of Swilling I was unimpressed. There is a reason CGC is trying to flip this part of the roster. Not enough quickness. Even guys with top end spend like Juanyeh just don't have the acceleration.
Offense:
1) Mason is an absolute stud. The effort he put out there was phenomenal. He looked like he belonged on that field.
2) Brown is our best WR and the only one that can get separation. There is a reason CGC is trying to sign 4 WR this year. Need to flip this part of the roster too.
3) OL - I know Clemson is young but that it still probably the best DL we will face until UGA. I thought they did OK at run blocking and about what I expected in pass blocking. I would expect them to improve.
4) QB - Oliver is what he is. An athletic freak who is as tough as nails but not a passing QB. Johnson was scared to death. Graham did OK against scrubs. This will be a problem all year.
5) We basically ran the Tobias/TaQuon version of CPJ's offense out of the gun and got the TaQuon/Tobias offense vs Clemson results.
LawTalkin Jacket
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 354
It appears to me that Coach threw T. Oliver to the wolves, knowing that Oliver won't be our starter this season. it makes sense not to put Lucas or Graham out there for their first start against Clemson, but still sucks for Oliver. Looks like Graham will start and I cant disagree with not starting him against Clemson, he would have been eaten alive and maybe ruined for the season. It means coach kind of conceded we lose this one, and no one wants to admit that, but probably was reasonable given the Juggernaut that is Clemson right now. Graham looks to be the best of the bunch to me.
FredJacket
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 6,290
- Location
- Fredericksburg, Virginia
Animal is correct.... & the ref did key his mic & explained it as such.
I kinda liked what I saw when, as you suggest, you adjust for mistakes and the clear talent/depth discrepancy. This team molly-whopped Bama a couple months ago. We could've won the game but so many things would've had to go our way that it became too long a shot to truthfully expect.
It is what it was. And I used 'molly-whopped' in a sentence so there's that.
@LawTalkin Jacket is right imho. I thought all night that they were throwing Oliver to the wolves. No sense destroying anyone else's confidence by having their first career start be against that squad.
On the flip side though, maybe it could've been a good learning opportunity for them?
Not sure why folks are so high on Graham, by the way. He looks like he would've been an excellent 3-O QB which is the most complimentary way to say what I'm thinking.
dmurdock
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 300
- Location
- North Port, FL
Two things that I feared would annoy/frustrate me this year were confirmed last night.
- Sending out the punt team on 4th and short from the opponent's 43 yard line
- Running the ball out of the shotgun in short yardage situations
gtstinger776
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 565
The downfall of every good HC is their unwillingness to fire bad Coordinators / Assistant Coaches. If CGC is to succeed, he needs competent offensive game planning.
Never mind whether we accomplished what we set out to do - there was just a lack of strategy / game plan: running right end to 8 guys in the box in 3-4 wide sets. That’s stupid football.
I had my suspicions about CDP before the game, and they were largely confirmed. I hope I’m wrong, and we turn things around.
Never mind whether we accomplished what we set out to do - there was just a lack of strategy / game plan: running right end to 8 guys in the box in 3-4 wide sets. That’s stupid football.
I had my suspicions about CDP before the game, and they were largely confirmed. I hope I’m wrong, and we turn things around.
danny daniel
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,619
Add running out of the gun on short yardage as a big negative and you have a good list
knoxjacket
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 855
That didn't seem to be a negative for Clemson. It seemed to work out just fine.
JorgeJonas
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,147
I am ambivalent about the result, which was predictable and predicted. The offense was bad, which any reasonable person expected. The defensive line was terrible, which has been customary. My bigger issue is the playcalling coming out of timeouts and the carelessness with the ball. Losing is fine, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a college player to field a punt properly, or to have the mesh worked out.
AlabamaBuzz
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 4,051
- Location
- Hartselle, AL (originally Rome, GA)
He really is. He is very fleet of foot for a big guy, and he is also hard to tackle behind the line of scrimmage because of his size/strength. Maybe a replacement for Ryan and the Falcons one day?
year_of_the_swarm
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 360
I have a feeling he is going to end up in Miami.
Jacketsfan99
Georgia Tech Fan
- Messages
- 39
Ball security can’t be stressed to an ‘inordinate’ degree !
Heisman's Ghost
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 4,945
- Location
- Albany Georgia
I honestly think that UGA could beat Clemson but...everything would have to go their way. Alabama could also if they got the breaks. I don't think that Clemson based on what I saw last night is quite as good on defense but Howard and those receivers along with a pretty good line can cover up a lot. They are deep and talented at every position to be sure. No one in the ACC is going to be able to hang with them for more than a half.
Dottie1145
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,217
If they pass up on Tua or Herbert this year.
bos
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,054
Went back and re-watched the game. I'm impressed by the effort and how good athletes on this team are. Mental error is what made the game a blow out. Clemson did a much better job getting the guys going the wrong way. The offensive line looked like they didn't know who to block at times and defense was fooled too many times by RPO and other plays.
Charlie Thomas and Jordan-Swilling made a play each, but the LBers as a unit were a huge disappointment. David Curry in particular did not have a good game. He is a great vocal leader, but not good at making reads.
Charlie Thomas and Jordan-Swilling made a play each, but the LBers as a unit were a huge disappointment. David Curry in particular did not have a good game. He is a great vocal leader, but not good at making reads.
PBR549
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 837
I didn't want to be in this situation again but here we are. Again, consistency of staff is our best chance to be successful IMO. I said that with Gailey, Johnson and now Collins.
I'm not a fan of doing the same thing on offense as everyone else in the country scheme wise but at this point we've made our beds. We need to let these coaches coach and recruit.
The Wishbone gave us a chance with inferior players. The NCAA offense does not. Therefore, we must recruit better than we ever have in order to reach consistency. Is that possible? We'll see.
We have no choice at this point but to give it a chance!
Apparently alot of money people wanted change so here we are. You better put that money into recruiting and changing the curriculum if you want to compete with Clemson and Georgia. I would love to see us competitive but our best chance is consistency of staff and a scheme on offense that is unique. Defense and special teams are about athletes.
I'm not a fan of doing the same thing on offense as everyone else in the country scheme wise but at this point we've made our beds. We need to let these coaches coach and recruit.
The Wishbone gave us a chance with inferior players. The NCAA offense does not. Therefore, we must recruit better than we ever have in order to reach consistency. Is that possible? We'll see.
We have no choice at this point but to give it a chance!
Apparently alot of money people wanted change so here we are. You better put that money into recruiting and changing the curriculum if you want to compete with Clemson and Georgia. I would love to see us competitive but our best chance is consistency of staff and a scheme on offense that is unique. Defense and special teams are about athletes.