Clemson Postgame

[MWBATL]

I did not get to watch much of the game, but it sure seemed to me we abandoned the run too quickly. It seemed effective early. Maybe they adjusted and shut it down, hence all the passing. But passing wasn't working...wet ball, wet field, good D, intense pass rush...pick your reason. But the run worked early.

We'd better run and rest our D against Syracuse. The D wears down and then we look bad.

 

[Root4GT]

I did not get to watch much of the game, but it sure seemed to me we abandoned the run too quickly. It seemed effective early. Maybe they adjusted and shut it down, hence all the passing. But passing wasn't working...wet ball, wet field, good D, intense pass rush...pick your reason. But the run worked early.

We'd better run and rest our D against Syracuse. The D wears down and then we look bad.

The runs got stuffed fairly quickly after Haynes first couple of good runs. It looked promising until it didn’t.

 

[CEB]

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.

I said it at the time and I still believe it… I think the punter has the option to go if he sees something open up. That’s what happened.
We had ALL ELEVEN men in retreat when he tucked it. Fortunately our front four kept eyes in the backfield to make sure he actually kicked it. They recovered perfectly.
Watch the way the “wall” of three Clem blockers reacts (hint…they don’t). If it were a called fake, I think they hold for a count then go out aggressive instead of staying flat foot protecting the punter position. I’m saying this was 100% punter decision. No brilliant scheming on Dabo’s part (or his staff).

 

[bobongo]

I said it at the time and I still believe it… I think the punter has the option to go if he sees something open up. That’s what happened.
We had ALL ELEVEN men in retreat when he tucked it. Fortunately our front four kept eyes in the backfield to make sure he actually kicked it. They recovered perfectly.
Watch the way the “wall” of three Clem blockers reacts (hint…they don’t). If it were a called fake, I think they hold for a count then go out aggressive instead of staying flat foot protecting the punter position. I’m saying this was 100% punter decision. No brilliant scheming on Dabo’s part (or his staff).

Whether the idea for the fake came from the bench or was hatched in the punter's brain, it looked to me like he was looking to run for it from the start.
He never feigned much of a motion to kick and thus gave himself away from the get-go. Not a good job of acting, it seemed to me.

 

[BuzzStone]

I waited a couple days to just think about what I saw satruday.

From my seats you could see a clear differerence in speeds of these team. King looked like he was in slow motion all game long and we kept calling designed QB runs. I don't understand that.

Our run game was working well and we threw the ball way to much. We should have stuck with the run game and the run game only until they stopped it.

And on 3rd and 4th and short we lined up 5-10 yards off the LOS almost every time.

These are some very easy things to fix and its all on the OC and DC.

I voted before the game that we lose by 14+ but we could have made this game competeive.

 

[Techster]

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.

Unfortunately, when I saw Clemson offense start to click a bit against Notre Dame, I started worrying. The offense seems to be finding itself, and their defense is elite. I was hoping the Clemson offense would stub its toe again Saturday, but they improved upon what they did against Notre Dame. They are getting closer to what they hired Garrett Riley for.

Dabo, for some reason after CPJ left, finds joy in puttng his foot on our neck. I think it's because of recruiting. Under CPJ, he knew GT wasn't going to get the players Clemson was getting. CPJ's offense self eliminated certain recruits. Now that we run an Air Raid hybrid, similar to what Garrett Riley runs, Clemson and GT will have a LOT of recruiting battles.

At the end of the day, Clemson has elite players on their roster. I think we're a good team, but we had very small margin for error. King threw 4 picks, and Clemson seemingly did what they wanted on offense after the first few drives, and then went for it on 4th down. We turned climbing up hill into climbing up a mountain.

 

[Sarrick]

The runs got stuffed fairly quickly after Haynes first couple of good runs. It looked promising until it didn’t.

I thought I saw several holes, but we made wrong reads, like when King kept it and got dropped quickly, it felt like the RB had a lot more room and vice versa. Felt like that happened consistently.

 

[Jim Prather]

Those are hard to see in real time. Often, if you get the right angle, it turns out that the defensive end is playing the rb so the keep is correct. Another player simply blows past one of the interior linemen to make a play.

 

[CEB]

Whether the idea for the fake came from the bench or was hatched in the punter's brain, it looked to me like he was looking to run for it from the start.
He never feigned much of a motion to kick and thus gave himself away from the get-go. Not a good job of acting, it seemed to me.

Who knows… BUT If we had played well and won, we would all know. It would’ve been the first question Dabo got asked from everyone on Saturday evening if that play got Tech rolling toward a W.

 

[Lotta Booze]

There were a couple of runs that King had where it looked like he could've picked up a couple yards just going straight ahead but he tried to cut behind one of the defenders pursuing him in hopes of breaking a much bigger run but the Clemson defenders' pursuit was too quick and disciplined and put him down for a loss. Against a less "elite" D he would've broken those for big gains, but you have the play the D in front of you.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

I waited a couple days to just think about what I saw satruday.

From my seats you could see a clear differerence in speeds of these team. King looked like he was in slow motion all game long and we kept calling designed QB runs. I don't understand that.

Our run game was working well and we threw the ball way to much. We should have stuck with the run game and the run game only until they stopped it.

And on 3rd and 4th and short we lined up 5-10 yards off the LOS almost every time.

These are some very easy things to fix and its all on the OC and DC.

I voted before the game that we lose by 14+ but we could have made this game competeive.

We ran the ball six plays out of our next 11 eleven plays during the three drives after our touchdown. At that point we were down 21-7, and we had 1 passing yard. King throws to Malik on a quick 10 yard curl, but Malik does not come back to the ball and it gets picked. We did not touch the ball again until the third quarter and our first play is an option run that losses one yard. We are behind down and distance and need to score, so we pass. A bad pass, then a drop and we punt again. We get the ball back and we are down 28-7. When exactly did we abandon the run?

 

[BuzzStone]

We ran the ball six plays out of our next 11 eleven plays during the three drives after our touchdown. At that point we were down 21-7, and we had 1 passing yard. King throws to Malik on a quick 10 yard curl, but Malik does not come back to the ball and it gets picked. We did not touch the ball again until the third quarter and our first play is an option run that losses one yard. We are behind down and distance and need to score, so we pass. A bad pass, then a drop and we punt again. We get the ball back and we are down 28-7. When exactly did we abandon the run?

On almost every drive in the first half.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

On almost every drive in the first half.

That is demonstrably not true.

 

[BuzzStone]

That is demonstrably not true.

First drive- 13 yard run, pass pass punt
Second drive- 9 yard run, 1 yard run, King run/sack, King neg run, pass, punt
Third drive- run, sack, run, run TD
4th drive- pass, sack, pass, punt
5th drive- 40 yard run, run, pass, King run, punt
6th drive - run, run, run 1st down, Int

I could keep going but the passes and QB runs are what killed the offense.

 

[GTRX7]

Whether the idea for the fake came from the bench or was hatched in the punter's brain, it looked to me like he was looking to run for it from the start.
He never feigned much of a motion to kick and thus gave himself away from the get-go. Not a good job of acting, it seemed to me.

I haven't gone back to watch it again today, but at the time my thought after watching the play and the highlights is exactly what CEB said. It looked to me like the punter was given the option by the coaches to look to see if the fake was on and tuck and run if it was. I think the punter made a risky decision and Tech's defense responded extremely well.

Clemson was "risky" that whole first half. They kept going for it on fourth down over and over . . . and kept picking it up. That, combined with the drops, killed us by halftime. I say risky in quotes because, besides the fake punt, I think each of the 4th down plays was correct according to the analytics. More coaches should be aggressive like that more often.

 

[roadkill]

First drive- 13 yard run, pass pass punt
Second drive- 9 yard run, 1 yard run, King run/sack, King neg run, pass, punt
Third drive- run, sack, run, run TD
4th drive- pass, sack, pass, punt
5th drive- 40 yard run, run, pass, King run, punt
6th drive - run, run, run 1st down, Int

I could keep going but the passes and QB runs are what killed the offense.

On almost every drive in the first half.

I'm struggling to connect the facts you presented to your conclusion that "we abandoned the run on almost every drive." I'll give you the fourth drive, but every other drive had at least one, and most multiple, runs.

Now, if you wanted to state that our passing game killed drives (due to drops/incompletions/interceptions), that's a different argument. However, if we abandoned our passing game then we would have become one-dimensional and would have had zero chance of catching up in scoring.

 

[BuzzStone]

I'm struggling to connect the facts you presented to your conclusion that "we abandoned the run on almost every drive." I'll give you the fourth drive, but every other drive had at least one, and most multiple, runs.

Now, if you wanted to state that our passing game killed drives (due to drops/incompletions/interceptions), that's a different argument. However, if we abandoned our passing game then we would have become one-dimensional and would have had zero chance of catching up in scoring.

Maybe I wasn't clear. We should have ran the ball until it didn't work, and not with king. The data shows our run game was tourching them. the QB runs and passes killed all momentumn

 

[CEB]

I haven't gone back to watch it again today, but at the time my thought after watching the play and the highlights is exactly what CEB said. It looked to me like the punter was given the option by the coaches to look to see if the fake was on and tuck and run if it was. I think the punter made a risky decision and Tech's defense responded extremely well.

Clemson was "risky" that whole first half. They kept going for it on fourth down over and over . . . and kept picking it up. That, combined with the drops, killed us by halftime. I say risky in quotes because, besides the fake punt, I think each of the 4th down plays was correct according to the analytics. More coaches should be aggressive like that more often.

Obviously I agree.

I also think you’re right regarding the other 4th down situations… they were all pretty obvious calls. Without looking back, I think only their first 4th down call was particularly aggressive. It was long, but right in “no man’s land” so it really still made sense. The rest were “no brainers” even though the announcers tried to make a big deal out of each of them.
The bigger issue is that we kept letting them get to “4th and makable.”

 

[slugboy]

Maybe I wasn't clear. We should have ran the ball until it didn't work, and not with king. The data shows our run game was tourching them. the QB runs and passes killed all momentumn

Joe Hamilton said during the game that Singleton’s drop was scary enough for Clemson to keep two safeties deep, at least for the first half. I think he’s probably right.

Now, for not being able to pick up two yards in two chances ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . Our passing game was ineffective to the point of being counterproductive. But, if you believe in your QB and your receivers, OCs will keep trying the passing game, even if it’s just to open up the run

 

[leatherneckjacket]

First drive- 13 yard run, pass pass punt
Second drive- 9 yard run, 1 yard run, King run/sack, King neg run, pass, punt
Third drive- run, sack, run, run TD
4th drive- pass, sack, pass, punt
5th drive- 40 yard run, run, pass, King run, punt
6th drive - run, run, run 1st down, Int

I could keep going but the passes and QB runs are what killed the offense.

Um, those sequences prove my point more than yours. There are only two drives where you can claim we "abandoned the run." The first drive where Singleton dropped a sure TD pass on 3rd and short and the three and out after the the touchdown where we were behind down and distance after the first down incompletion.

Passing on 3rd and long is not "abandoning the run". Running on 3rd and long is abandoning the ability to win. Regardless, we ran on 60% our plays in the first half.

But, hey, never let facts get in the way of a good rant.