Clemson Postgame

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,658
That is interesting. This man KNOWS how to capture the moment so to speak. I do not know that I have ever seen a coach do something like that. Extraordinary actually given the circumstances.
I think Jersey number of last guy off field was 90. Chris Martin sure apprecited the hug.
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,658
Well that's a poor comparison with all due respect. I hope we're successful with the NCAA offense but I believe we'll have to recruit better. I believe in getting behind our coach and let him do his job including the staff we have now. Personally I believe if you're short personnel doing something nobody else does gives you a better chance.
Wouldn't u agree "Being short of personnel" is unacceptable and if included in a plan it must be addressed. A. If addreesed there is the possibility of great success. B. If not addressed as others use technology to adjust, gradual decline is likely over the long term.
 

Boomergump

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,281
Another thing to like is that we made it rather difficult for Clemson to throw the ball. Lawrence barely completed 50% of his throws. There was one big play where we got beat for a TD on the deep post, but besides that I don't remember any sustained success by Lawrence through the air. It also looked to me that we got into the backfield a little more than recent seasons and had a couple tackles behind the sticks. Run outs are not good, but we still need to play up in our opponents grill if we are going to be any good, so they are going to happen once in a while (hopefully less than last night).

IMHO it is way to early to start making sweeping conclusions (about the whole season) as a result of this game. No single position looks settled and there is a lot of water to go under the bridge. It was our first exposure to a game with this group. All we have had is hype before Thursday. Now we have film AND the comfort of knowing that our kids have a lot of heart. There is enough talent out there to be really competitive against the vast majority of our schedule. We have a coachable group. They will improve.
 

jayparr

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,441
Location
newnan
Another thing to like is that we made it rather difficult for Clemson to throw the ball. Lawrence barely completed 50% of his throws. There was one big play where we got beat for a TD on the deep post, but besides that I don't remember any sustained success by Lawrence through the air. It also looked to me that we got into the backfield a little more than recent seasons and had a couple tackles behind the sticks. Run outs are not good, but we still need to play up in our opponents grill if we are going to be any good, so they are going to happen once in a while (hopefully less than last night).

IMHO it is way to early to start making sweeping conclusions (about the whole season) as a result of this game. No single position looks settled and there is a lot of water to go under the bridge. It was our first exposure to a game with this group. All we have had is hype before Thursday. Now we have film AND the comfort of knowing that our kids have a lot of heart. There is enough talent out there to be really competitive against the vast majority of our schedule. We have a coachable group. They will improve.
Great to hear from you! I hope to get a lot more from you, because you are the best analyst!
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
Cued this one up at a play to watch the holding by the offensive line. You can see the handfuls of jersey some of them have on our DL. Not sure how you combat that sort of stuff that the Refs never seem to see.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
18,235
Calm down everyone.

First:
Clemson may just have one of the most talented teams in the last decade. They have THREE future 1st round WRs. The top QB prospect since Andrew Luck and Peyton Manning...and neither of those guys would have been the #1 overall pick after their TRUE freshmen year. On top of that, they had first round picks at many other spots. #11 on defense for Clemson just might be one of the most talented defensive players I've seen on the college football level. That guy can cover in space, run down guys half his size, and he can play in the box. He just might be the perfect spread defender for this day and age. He goes against the notion that "all men are created equal". He pretty much destroyed Patenaude's zone read game plan by himself by making open field plays 75% of defenders would not have. Oh, and they have 5 stars littered everywhere else.

Second:
Clemson has played in their offensive and defensive systems for almost half a decade now. This was our first game under a new coach with new schemes on both sides. This had the hallmark of things could go south quickly if we didn't have our sh!t together...and we did not. We hurt ourselves multiple times. IMO, we gave them 14-21 EASY points they shouldn't have gotten.

Third:
As talented as Clemson's passing attack was, we kept them in relative check. This bodes well against teams that don't have a once in a generation QB and 3 future 1st round picks at WR...which ZERO teams in college football have. Tre Swilling...you need to go thank CGC and the defensive coaches. They are making you into a legit high round draft pick. Way to step up on the big stage young man.

We got through our first game, and now have two extra days to correct our mistakes and improve. Rumble on, Yellow Jackets. We played the worst team we could have asked for on our schedule given the circumstances, and there was a LOT of positives to come out of it despite the end result. It will get better.
 

WreckinGT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,159
Another thing to like is that we made it rather difficult for Clemson to throw the ball. Lawrence barely completed 50% of his throws. There was one big play where we got beat for a TD on the deep post, but besides that I don't remember any sustained success by Lawrence through the air. It also looked to me that we got into the backfield a little more than recent seasons and had a couple tackles behind the sticks. Run outs are not good, but we still need to play up in our opponents grill if we are going to be any good, so they are going to happen once in a while (hopefully less than last night).

IMHO it is way to early to start making sweeping conclusions (about the whole season) as a result of this game. No single position looks settled and there is a lot of water to go under the bridge. It was our first exposure to a game with this group. All we have had is hype before Thursday. Now we have film AND the comfort of knowing that our kids have a lot of heart. There is enough talent out there to be really competitive against the vast majority of our schedule. We have a coachable group. They will improve.
If we are being honest, Lawrence wasn't exactly at the top of his game last night in general. He was missing some easy throws and making some poor decisions.
 

PBR549

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
837
Wouldn't u agree "Being short of personnel" is unacceptable and if included in a plan it must be addressed. A. If addreesed there is the possibility of great success. B. If not addressed as others use technology to adjust, gradual decline is likely over the long term.
I agree it's unacceptable but there's been people planning to change it ever since I've been watching (73).
 

YJMD

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,622
Everyone go look up the height/weight and class of Clemson's 2 deep on OL. We did great in a lot of ways. Biggest challenge was not having contain when pocket collapses, but damned is it hard to choose to keep someone home against that line. Would it have been better to have no pass rush?
 

alagold

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,732
Location
Huntsville,Al
I know (with others) that this is a big rebuild.The DL was as weak as thought-400+ on ground is not going to beat many teams and maybe any..
We have some talent but the QB situation is just as confusing as before.
Now the REAL coaching job starts.We knew this game would be a BOMB.How we come back will be huge.
 

Kennethshannon20

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
321
My opinion is we had miscommunication on our offensive game plan. Idk if that was poor play calling by PNode or poor presnap reads by T. Oliver. All I know is T. Oliver decided he wasn't passing or handing, he looked like Taquons disciple. Even Mason said after the game Oliver has to get comfortable and throw more like they do in practice. That leads me to believe Oliver made bad calls. But it OS PNodes job to coach Oliver in between possessions on this type of thing. So, PNode needs to step it up as well as Oliver or put Graham in.

On D, we had a lot of good flashes and I am excited to see them later against lesser opponents than Clemson.

Last note, why didn't we see Cottrell more? Did I miss something or did he only get 1 touch? Surprising to me....
 

danny daniel

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,613
My experience and perspective on offense coaching against other teams with equal or less talent:
You go into the game with plan A (your basic stuff), Plan B (open it up more with passes, reverses, outside runs), and Plan C (trick stuff, fake kicks, razzle-dazzle). Plan A works well early on and you get the advantage. As the D starts to catch on you hit them with some Plan B and your advantage increases. Later you put them away with a Plan C play or two.

My experience and perspective on offense coaching against a team with say 3 players on D better than any of your players and several players as good as your best player:
You go into the game with Plan A. Your success is spotty and you cannot sustain drives. You try Plan B and it gets worse (at this point there is no consideration for Plan C). The result is continually losing field position and eventually your own (good) D gives up easy scores. You play hard and run the clock and hope for no injuries, hug your players and look forward to another day.

My experience and perspective on offense coaching against another team with at least 6 players far better than your best player and about a half dozen players as good as your best player:
I never coached against this Clemson team but I can see a 38 point beating easily regardless of my game plan. You are in a world of hurt when you cannot match up in talent and your only hope is to plan and play your best and hope to get a heap of help from the other team.
 

Technut1990

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
960
My opinion is we had miscommunication on our offensive game plan. Idk if that was poor play calling by PNode or poor presnap reads by T. Oliver. All I know is T. Oliver decided he wasn't passing or handing, he looked like Taquons disciple. Even Mason said after the game Oliver has to get comfortable and throw more like they do in practice. That leads me to believe Oliver made bad calls. But it OS PNodes job to coach Oliver in between possessions on this type of thing. So, PNode needs to step it up as well as Oliver or put Graham in.

On D, we had a lot of good flashes and I am excited to see them later against lesser opponents than Clemson.

Last note, why didn't we see Cottrell more? Did I miss something or did he only get 1 touch? Surprising to me....

and that's the key. If TO decided to hold the ball that means he wasn't seeing the field and it makes me wonder why he wasn't replaced because it would mean he wasn't executing the game plan. Since he wasn't replaced until late 2nd, that tells me that he was doing as instructed and running first, before looking for the pass.

And BTW replacing him if he was making bad reads would not have caused an issue since it was pretty well known we were going to play all 3 anyway
 
Top