- This topic has 47 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The thing that killed us on the FG attempt right before giving the ball back to Clemson to get the two big pass plays was the play coming out of the timeout on 3rd down. Instead of gaining some yards to make it close on the 4th down play we lost like 6 or 7 yards and were really forced into the field goal try.
I actually commented to guys in the stands that Maples must be really bad if he hasn’t been given a look yet…
48 seconds left in half. Man coverage on outside receiver. Believe that failure was the game! Don’t understand this decision, would love to have heard explanation.
Respectfully, that game was pretty much over from the second Clemson threw over the top the very first time. The game was never really in doubt. Clemson could score any time they wanted. There was such a massive personnel difference in their QB/Receivers to our DBs, that it was only a matter of how much Clemson was going to score.
If you want to point to the sequence where the game turned, it wasn’t the defensive calls in those 48 seconds. Heck, the coverage on the TD was actually pretty good.
The turning point was the offensive possession before it. When you have the ball where we did, you have to think about the clock strategy. If you are going to kick, then that has to happen with almost no time on the clock. Conversely, if you’ve got a kicker who has struggled and who already had a PAT blocked, you should be calling the plays with 4 downs in mind. If someone wants to point to where we lost it, it was leading into missed FG attempt. IT was not what happened once Clemson got the ball back.
Sadly, this isn’t the first time this staff has botched clock management. TOB was surprisingly bad at it as well. It’s amazing really when you think about what these guys get paid.
I agree with the original post that the onsides kicks were the right thing. The only way to win that game was to generate extra possessions. Given we don’t force them on defense, we had to do them with special teams. The return for TD as great as it was didn’t generate an extra possession. We had to do that with onsides kicks or punt blocks. We were really close to a key punt block as well.
I won’t go as far as to say that because we tried onsides kicks that it means that the staff will ultimately be successful. I’ve seen way too many questionable things the last 2.5 years to jump to that conclusion. It does show that they understood the mismatch and were playing to win. That was better than quitting, which I saw far too much in the TOB tenure.
^
How do know that the pass was not a busted play?In fact, boys, I’m willing to put a C note up that says it was. Hell…It was obvious.
Dog or someone more technically knowledgeable than I am, riddle me this. Why do people always complain about man coverage on the edge if the corner gets beaten over the top? I totally get it if a LB is trying to guard a WR in the slot or a RB out of the backfield and gets beaten, but a CB paired up with a WR?
From this uninformed poster’s opinion, it seems like regardless of man or zone, the corner eventually has to engage with the receiver on the edge, particularly if they’re going on a fly/streak or corner route. The only difference is seemingly whether that CB starts closer to the WR or with a 10 yard cushion. I tend to like them playing closer because you can at least legally jam and potentially throw the timing off. In soft zone, you are back peddling and likely have to swing the hips right about the time the WR is making the move to go to the post, curl, go in or out, or hit the jets to go for the corner. Seemingly that soft zone leaves an over matched defender in a more helpless position if he’s not got safety help as he’s trying to read, react and turn.
Are they really complaining just about no double team or help coverage from the safety (i.e. no cover 2 or 3)? They call out man coverage, but the symptom is no double?
What am I missing?
So where is the development?
?
Aside from Jacoby who may have regressed (I stl think he’s injured) and some on the D, I see it everywhere.
The clock management was about right from my perspective. The intent was to save enough time for a continued TD drive.
From my view on the sidelines, behind the bench, I’m almost positive they went into third down with the intention of going for it on 4th, but would evaluate after the play.
The lost yardage on the busted play dump off to the outlet Dayes foiled that plan. Clemson made a great play.
As a coach, you don’t scheme so conservatively to expect that result. It happens.
My take, anyway.
Rye, I think it’s frustration, and the lack of being use to watching the whole field in-game.
Personally, I never watch the ball. Foose explained the Man in question after my take did not survive the filters 🙂
The only thing left out of Foose’s take was the fact Clemson had timeouts available. Hence, they could work the middle, hence, ya keep the safeties in the hash.
Rye,
Maybe over simplifying, but unless you’re talking shutdown corners, a zone gives the CB safety help.
This allows the CB to play up tight because he has help behind him for anything over the top.
But Clemson was in a 4 receiver set (maybe even 5, can’t remember), with routes going to the deep middle to occupy the safeties. This can limit the protection, the hot routes, or the dump of options, but Clemson’s OL was playing very well.
Anyway, this is what I was referring to earlier with my reference to Clemson scheming to purposely get specific matchups. They were scheming to get one on one coverage on the outside. Given the specific athletes and experience levels, this was a matchup that favored Clemson.
It was clear as day from my seat 15 rows up. There was really nothing the coaches
could do except rely on the kids to execute.Sometimes it’s not complicated, it comes down to player vs player. You just gotta let the boys go and play.
And there’s CD, adding detail I left out as to the routes occupying the safeties in the middle of the field.
At the end of the day, the only question that remains about DD – and it will ultimately decide where the DD era ends up in wolfpack lore – is his team’s ability to beat the teams they have a reasonable shot at winning. Like the 3 coaches before him, he has shown he can beat the teams he has better talent than (perhaps better than amato), he has shown that he can give the the elite in the conference a great game at home (though at this point not as good as his predecessors) …the only question that remains – and it killed the other 3 coaches – is how does the team do when facing a team with similar talent.
4 of next 5 games are “winnable” in the traditional sense. The 2 “winnable” games that we went winless in have put us in an awkward position – and it doesn’t help that the school 25 miles to the west is having a banner year.
It all starts Saturday – we take that one – I think we are a forces to be reckoned with.
Foose and CD: Thanks! You kind of reinforced the point I was driving at. It doesn’t matter if you are playing “man” or “zone.” At a certain point the CB has to engage the WR and one of the two will make a better play. The offensive player is also aided by the understanding of where the ball should be thrown, and in this case by the accuracy of the QB. The CB is at a disadvantage here and in the case of Clemson, there is the physical mismatch on top of that.
Again, I think people expect zone is producing safety help, but zones can be flooded or the safeties forced to cover other options. It seems that Clemson either had the right play designs or the QB made the right reads to hit the proper match up. I’m not sure what people expect that the coaches should really do there.
At a certain point, this is only fixed with a talent influx. I’ve felt that way about our defense for a while. Special teams under this staff has looked very good (well, mi us the obvious FG issues this year). We don’t commit a lot of penalties. Reall, there’s a lot to like about the coaching.
Some of the offensive issues to me have been seemingly more schematic. Yeah, we could use a talent influx there as well and that would cure a lot, but some of the offensive approaches have left me scratching my head. Clemson wasn’t one of them though. Outside of maybe one or two series, this to me was the best game Canada has called all season.
The turning point was the offensive possession before it. When you have the ball where we did, you have to think about the clock strategy. If you are going to kick, then that has to happen with almost no time on the clock. Conversely, if you’ve got a kicker who has struggled and who already had a PAT blocked, you should be calling the plays with 4 downs in mind. If someone wants to point to where we lost it, it was leading into missed FG attempt. IT was not what happened once Clemson got the ball back.
Sadly, this isn’t the first time this staff has botched clock management. TOB was surprisingly bad at it as well. It’s amazing really when you think about what these guys get paid.
I agree with the original post that the onsides kicks were the right thing. The only way to win that game was to generate extra possessions. Given we don’t force them on defense, we had to do them with special teams. The return for TD as great as it was didn’t generate an extra possession. We had to do that with onsides kicks or punt blocks. We were really close to a key punt block as well.
I won’t go as far as to say that because we tried onsides kicks that it means that the staff will ultimately be successful. I’ve seen way too many questionable things the last 2.5 years to jump to that conclusion. It does show that they understood the mismatch and were playing to win. That was better than quitting, which I saw far too much in the TOB tenure.
Agree 100%.
I hope people don’t underestimate the impact of losing our number one and number two running backs, both from a running and a pass protection perspective. A few games that I thought would be easily winnable will be somewhat more difficult now.
It’s understood that the CB’s and safeties are going to get a lot of one-on-one match ups in today’s game given the spread looks. In Doeren’s first season, and last year, it looked to me like the defensive staff made a concerted effort to bring more pressure out of the 4-2-5. In TOB’s next to last season, a similar decision was made. He went away from it in his final season. We were thin but he moved Johnson to the corner, and we were cooked. We were the most successful defensively in those stretches where we brought the kitchen sink.
Pressure defense is risky but in my mind, that philosophy yields dividends for a couple of reasons. On the recruiting trail, it’s what young athletes slated to play defense want to hear. If I’m a LB, I want to come after the QB. If I’m a DB, I want a mix of coverages but I want to know I’ll get the chance to line up and get in the face of a receiver, and bring a little heat off the edge or up the gut. Just like on the offensive end, there are more of these guys available than D-lineman who can generate pressure up the middle or off the edge.
Top notch QB’s like Watson eat up soft zones at the college level. It’s a slow death. Pick your poison.
I like the player development thus far but I’m not sold on scheme for the above reasons. I doubt he’s trying to hide personnel deficiencies. I think its philosophy.
Whiteshoes: If I read this correctly, you’re saying you’re not seeing consistent application of pressure? If so, then I’d tend to agree. I’d personally like to see more pressure.
There does need to be some variation though. Many fairly pointed out that Tenuta had one approach — blitz. Eventually if you know blitzes are coming in every time in certain situations, then its easy to scheme around.
I think my biggest issue with the defense consistently under DD is just the lack of turnovers. We were bend/don’t break under TOB but did force turnovers. We’re more fundamentally sound play in and play out under DD I feel, and we tackle better. We don’t seem to force many turnovers though.
Are you serious? 12 min left in the 4th quarter. State is down by less than two touchdowns. That’s pretty much even with Clemson. You have faith in your defense. Previous game he goes for a block punt with nobody back. Look what happened. Dave’s got to go, too many coaching mistakes. You never go into any game thinking you’re going to lose. Why would you describe it that way BJ? We have an awesome punt returner. He sent the wrong message to his defense by kicking two onside kicks. He’s gotta go
Skunk did write State has an awesome return man. Well, Hynes is good but on a short path to awesome.
But I’ll count it, so he got something right.
So where is the development?
?
Aside from Jacoby who may have regressed (I stl think he’s injured) and some on the D, I see it everywhere.
No development in the secondary, linebackers, and wide receivers. JMHO.
^ Fair enough, opinions vary.
I see improvement in H Jones, Burris (Clemson, with all their talent completed one pass on him for less than 10 yds), and the soph Stevens. Though admittedly, Stevens had a bad game Saturday, magnified, I think, by the injury to Tocho and fatigue. I’m wondering what’s up with Troy, Jr.
LBs – not much, but my originals comment was referring to that position. I did like what I saw Sat from the freshman Nicholson. Think he’ll be a gamer. But disappointed in this group, especially given the flashes shown last year and the steep learning curve on the front end. This group may have regressed.
Hynes, Ramos, and Trowell have shown some improvement. But hard to judge here, as Brissett, in my judgment, hasn’t been right all year. The drops have certainly disappeared though.
I’m not saying I’m blown away by the magnitude, but I see it. But I also expected more, much more from some players.
DD will evaluate after the season. He’s proven he’s not slow to the trigger if he thinks it’s warranted, case in point being the quick change a WR coach.
McKeever sighting, anyone? With that height and athleticism, the growing depth on the DL, and his lack of use and production levels, maybe its time to consider moving him back to WR?
But I’ll count it, so he got something right.
Very charitable determination on your part.
^Rye, I’m really not blitz happy although it may sound that way. I don’t think the scheme and packages and disguises and personnel complement one another. I also honestly don’t know what the staff is trying to do. They say the goal is to stop the run and win the turnover battle but that’s just coach speak. Who doesn’t want to do that? We’re running a 4-2-5. That requires a lot of pieces if you’re gonna play soft on the outside and a lot of zone. It think it requires a little more creativity in the blitz packages as well.
Say what you want about the Amato years, and there was certainly plenty to criticize, but we had speed on that side of the ball along with size. To me, it’s glaring we’re just not there on that side, and I honestly expected more speed. I think with Amato’s approach, the aggression, it’s easier to attract athleticism and speed.
Whiteshoes: I think the issue on defense is what you call out in the second paragraph — the talent level. I can’t imagine that the Archer/Tenuta combo left us stocked with a lot of great defensive players. Really, the only position we had quality depth with was the DL.
I just look at this and see mismatches everywhere in the back 7. To me it doesn’t really matter what the scheme is. We’re going to have to recruit our way out of it.
Now, maybe things also aren’t disguised well as you mention. That’s one of the downsides of watching games on TV. They only follow the ball, so it’s much harder to see those types of things than if you are there in person.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
