Cole Stoudt was the SR QB starter to begin the year.
Clemson had won 4 games in a row with him at QB since Watson was injured.
As CPJ always says the Defense schemed, practiced, and prepared for the "Clemson Offense" and not simply for "player X at QB."
Watson led CU to a 3 and out, a FG on a short field (only needed 51 yards for TD), then starting again at midfield moved the offense 36 yards and injured himself getting tangled on his own legs.
Watson's so-called backup comes in and Golden from fantastic film study and defensive scheming (and instincts/timing) gets the pick six.
I am not buying it that Watson going down was the deciding factor or even worth considering all that much of a factor. It is too speculative. The fact that Watson could gain ground on QB draws early is no guarantee that he was going to "Logan Thomas" the Tech defense for 4 quarters.
Tech's defense came prepared to handle CU's offense and they simply did so.
watson going down is a way too convenient way for the media and clemson fans to write off that performance. The reality is the truth is in the middle. Clemson was moving the ball fine against GT with watson. This is true. The turning point was literally a play after he came out...or 2 plays after. This is true. They were about to at least get 3.
If watson is in the game, the reality is there isn't probably TWO pick 6's. That is just the reality. The reality is also who knows what else happens. The bottom line is if watson stayed in there is no doubt this game comes down to the wire. No doubt. It would have been closer.
By the same token Paul Johnson saw watson go out and called his offense accordingly. He saw the D dominate. So he called a relatively conservative, basic as hell playset. Just to take time, play field position get a score or 2 and the game was over in the 3rd.
If watson stayed in, I guarantee paul shows plays and calls plays no one has seen. To get that offense going. We may even do hurryup. At this point paul would know we are in a dog fight.
But it never came to that.
So its a tail of two sides. One is sure clemson would have been way more competitive. But GT would have called the game different too. Bottom line, is the truth is somewhere in between. We may win, it may be close, but its not all watson. Its a large component, but by god Stoudt started a ton of games and won a bunch, and played well in a bunch and we made him look like a middle schooler....again, way to easy to write it off on watson.
