Clemson Postgame

[alagold]

I missed that one… I thought Purdue had been left for dead also… weird Big Ten day. Wonder if the weirdness continues tonight?!?

You want weird? How about Ok st going into CFU as favorites and get beat 3-45 ! hmmm

 

[stinger78]

It did seem like we abandoned the run early. We were gashing them on our first few drives. Then false starts killed us. Then the drops.

Defense played well but eventually caved. And then the wheels really started to fall off. I really wanted this one over Clemson. I hate to say I turned the game off after what felt like the 7th pick that King threw.

Hopefully we can get to a bowl over the fruit next weekend

It was a mistake-filled game on our part. Don’t know why. Penalties are not forced errors. We made way too many early and stymied our chances. By then CU had found a rhythm and the rest was history. Our only real shot was jumping on them early and holding on. We gave that away through penalties.

 

[GoldZ]

WR screens in this offense is akin to BBack dives in CPJ's offense. It's a type of constraint that helps the offense set up reads on the defense, and sets up other plays. We think it's repetitive, but the players and staff use it for other purposes besides the play itself.

It's repetitively too expensive and ineffective and dumb to keep doing it over and over with little payback. Motion and other forms of screens can accomplish the same intent, but more effectively.

 

[GoldZ]

Tired of seeing that thing. Most of the time goes nowhere.

This!

 

[leatherneckjacket]

It was a mistake-filled game on our part. Don’t know why. Penalties are not forced errors. We made way too many early and stymied our chances. By then CU had found a rhythm and the rest was history. Our only real shot was jumping on them early and holding on. We gave that away through penalties.

We gave it away with dropped passes and poor execution on offense.The penalties hurt, but not as bad as our other mistakes.

 

[alagold]

The fake punt....it was nice to see Clemson show that level of desperation early on. I think that showed the amount respect they had for our offense.

Another way to look at it was-- the little respect they had for our DEF.--Knowing that they could eventually move the ball continuously (3rd/4th downs) to score even if the fake punt didn't work and we scored an "easy" one then.

 

[alagold]

Our linebackers come up and disappear in the middle of the line and are not there to make plays. The middle of the field is wide open so many times it drives me crazy. I watch other teams and other games where their linebackers do not run up and get washed by the ol/dl scrum rather they hang back then make a play on the qb or rb. Very frustrating!!

yep, good LB play this yr would have made a huge difference esp since the DL was lacking.

 

[Blue&Gold1034]

It's repetitively too expensive and ineffective and dumb to keep doing it over and over with little payback. Motion and other forms of screens can accomplish the same intent, but more effectively.

How quickly people forget that the WR screens were what got Tech back into the game against UNC. Both of Rutherfords TDs were on screen plays.

 

[g0lftime]

Especially when we block them like we did yesterday. Do our WR get credit for tackles when the DB shoves them into the intended receiver?

That was an ugly play.

 

[bobongo]

How quickly people forget that the WR screens were what got Tech back into the game against UNC. Both of Rutherfords TDs were on screen plays.

You're right. Works better against slower, weaker defenses. Of course, so does everything else. UNC is a sieve. Against quick defenses like Clemson though, it rarely does. You don't go around defenses like that, you have better success going at/through them, but then we had 4 ints doing that, so...

 

[billga99]

Clemson is a 6 and 4 football team that can easily finish 6 and 6. If you want to declare them a great team, I guess you can but as O'Leary used to say, you are what your record says you are.

Go Jackets

Would guess they are at least going 7 and 5. UNC has no defense and Clemson has enough defense to hold UNC down some. But playing at South Carolina is a definite crap shoot. Regardless at best a slightly above average team this year.

 

[cpf2001]

Another way to look at it was-- the little respect they had for our DEF.--Knowing that they could eventually move the ball continuously (3rd/4th downs) to score even if the fake punt didn't work and we scored an "easy" one then.

If you don’t have respect for the opponent you don’t resort to trickery early, the possession just isn’t that important since you know you’ll get the ball back and you know they won’t stop you later.

It took them until halftime to consistently find success on offense - and once they did, and saw our offense hadn’t put it together, they were a lot more willing to punt again.

 

[slugboy]

Would guess they are at least going 7 and 5. UNC has no defense and Clemson has enough defense to hold UNC down some. But playing at South Carolina is a definite crap shoot. Regardless at best a slightly above average team this year.

South Carolina is 4 and 6, and plays Kentucky and Clemson the next two weeks. Shane Beamer might get fired this year.

If I were betting on a team to beat Clemson, UNC looks like a better bet than South Carolina.

 

[Yaller Jacket]

I have a hard time believing Clemson has lost 4 games. I don't expect them to lose any more this year. I had thought that being competitive with UNC, Miami, and Ole Miss we might be competitive with Clemson. We were not. We were completely outclassed in speed and athleticism. And as 78 said several screens back, great schemes will usually not prevail over better speed and athleticism. We're gonna have to recruit and hit the portal to reach Clemson level.

 

[cpf2001]

Schemes won't always beat speed, but a lot of times speed is mental and coaching vs purely physical. Make a decision a split second too slow and you're physically in a hole and chasing. Practice, practice, practice; getting the reps to make it more automatic is that much more important if you don't have a pure physical edge.

GT/Miami in 2004 looked like the Jackets wouldn't be able to touch them for years - dramatically outgained in a blowout, couldn't get anything going, and even the day's biggest play for GT featured a runner dragged down short of the endzone after a 50+ yard run. But in 2005 and 2006 GT was toe-to-toe with them in total yards and executed well enough on both sides of the ball to beat them two years straight. Year over year team speed improvement, or just executing better so you don't have to be able to constantly chase them down?

Yeah, you'll still get be playing catchup against the team with the athleticism advantage *and* good execution, but practice, consistency, and honing those decisions will go a long way against the TAMUs or Miami's of the world who usually don't have those things down right despite the speed.

 

[Bogey]

I may be wrong be it showed me Clemson trusted their defense to stop us.

I agree. At the time I thought it was a stupid call and so out of character for Dabo. But now looking back at it, I think it was a message to his defense that he believed 100% in their ability to shut our offense down.

 

[Grey ghost]

I hope there are lessons to be learned in what didn't work against Clemson's defense that can translate to Georgia.

This team isn't at the point where they can win a game against a team that talented that came to play without their A game for four quarters *and* likely a good number of breaks.

Good point but Im more concerned about those lessons being transferred to 'Cuse, then UGA

 

[slugboy]

I agree. At the time I thought it was a stupid call and so out of character for Dabo. But now looking back at it, I think it was a message to his defense that he believed 100% in their ability to shut our offense down.

I think that’s overanalyzing it. First, his defense didn’t stop us after that fake punt—we scored 7, and had our only lead of the game. Second, if you think the defense is going to hold, then you punt. You fake a punt because you think it will work.

 

[stinger78]

You're right. Works better against slower, weaker defenses. Of course, so does everything else. UNC is a sieve. Against quick defenses like Clemson though, it rarely does. You don't go around defenses like that, you have better success going at/through them, but then we had 4 ints doing that, so...

There's a reason Clemson is a top 5 ranked D... they're really good. We saw that Saturday. We had the chance to jump on them quickly but blew it early on with dropped passes and silly penalties. That was really the only chance we had - to jump out early and force them to play catch up ball out of their rhythm. We blew that and then their D shut us down while their O plodded to victory.

 

[Bogey]

I think that’s overanalyzing it. First, his defense didn’t stop us after that fake punt—we scored 7, and had our only lead of the game. Second, if you think the defense is going to hold, then you punt. You fake a punt because you think it will work.

Well, my initial thought was correct if you think that. To fake a punt that deep in your territory with the score tied that early in the game with the amount of yardage they needed is down right stupid.