I was at gathering (outside for those concerned, which I'm assuming is no one) Saturday and had to watch the Clemson game on my phone while the Bama game was being shown on by the hosts of our gathering.
I think Elliot is relying too much on TL's arm strength. Seems like the typical WR routes we run rely on the WR making a move and getting open. A lot of these end up being medium to long routes on the edges that end up being 50/50 balls. This I believe is due to TL's arm. Go back and look at the LSU game and we took a lot of 50/50 shots and it wasn't very successful. This year we don't have Higgins/Ross that are very good on those types of routes.
Now look at Bama, they have great WRs and are always running free. Jones' strength seems to be the deep ball. Sarkisian has a great game plan. Lots of crossing routes and variations that work to get WRs open as opposed to our depend on the receiver to win the route and or 50/50 ball. (Of course, credit to our OCs in the 2017 championship game with the rub route that got Renfrow open)
Would be interesting to see our offense if we incorporated more of these type of routes into our scheme.
Re: Rogers ..Spector ..And Renfrow Says Hold On ---
Dec 7, 2020, 11:54 AM
Rogers is not tall and long but he is fast and does good on a 50/50. Spector is supposedly faster than Renfrow and bigger...but I haven't really seen him get a 50/50 that much. Renfrow and Spector get their 50/50 in 10 yard or 15 yard routes.
I would like to see more speed and length on the offense like I have always envisioned. I think that will open up a valid running game...as we do have talent in our running back stable.
I've watched Bama's routes and they just seem to get open based on speed. You let those guys run 8 to 12 yards free on their routes...and they are catching the ball and gone for huge chunks or scoring. I hope Clemson can find a better way to have our guys run free ...it will open up other weapons that we have and need to use in these next important games.
Waddle, ruggs, and Smith in terms of speed though.
Renfrow had that short area quickness but he was far from a burner. Spector got a free release on a route down the field Saturday and the VT DB in coverage had no problem at all staying step for step with him and making a play on the ball. Rodgers has decent speed but one of his biggest attributes is his strength and ability to shed tacklers. I would guess he runs in the 4.5s at the combine.
Ruggs ran 4.27 at the combine last year and Waddle supposedly runs about the same. Smith isn't that fast (probably upper 4.4s or 4.5 range), but has excellent quickness and he's as good of a route runner as you will find in CFB.
Bama also destroys teams with RPO slants. They run those to perfection and this year they've added more RPO sluggos to victimize defenders that jump the slants. That's a helluva place to be as a defender when you have to be wary of a Najee Harris run, quick slant, or sluggo deep shot all on the same play and you have a maybe a couple seconds to make a decision.
I do think that injuries have really affected us depth-wise...
Dec 7, 2020, 11:44 AM
In years past....part of our advantage at WR was running a ton of guys out there and staying fresh....and getting open after wearing down opposition. With Ross, Ladson, Ngata out for most of the year....it puts strain on the depth....not to mention the chemistry with TL. We need a few more bodies out there throughout the game. Throw in the Covid interruptions for TL and everything else...and the passing game rhythm gets thrown off a bit. Which might support your point of simpler, quicker designs. I do think that we ran the ball well at VT...and that was intentional. That will help going forward with the passing game. If this team wins the next game and any that follow....it will be by guts, a somewhat healthy D, and TL playing well.
Sarkesian is a much better OC than Elliot. Bama obviously has a lot of playmakers, but how efficient their offense is is staggering. It isn’t rare to see Clemson stall on offense and punt 3 or 4 times in a row, but bama drops 50 on everyone and sometimes even before half time
Alabama is scoring 49.2 per game. Clemson is averaging 46. Both are giving up 18.3. Even with all our injuries, Covid, ineffective run blocking, and Bowman opting out, the Tide is scoring 3.2 more points per game than the Tigers. No doubt in my mind we would be averaging 50 or more with fewer people out.
It's a little more nuanced than that. Elliot is an excellent recruiter. That's a huge part of coordinating (arguably the biggest) and few are better at it. You can put up a ton of yards and points if you have far more talent than everyone else. Clemson often has more 5 Stars its roster than other teams have bluechips. Elliot helps ensure that, so in that way, he's one of the best coordinators and I'd argue better than Sarkesian.
But he's terrible at playcalling. Clemson's offense at its core is all about misdirection through screens and draws. There's very little vertical passing game outside of 50/50 balls. I've long thought that was crazy considering the talent Clemson's had on offense. Alabama doesn't do that kind of playcalling. They don't need to rely on misdirection but just use their talent to overwhelm opponents. Elliot's also not nearly as good at adjusting to his own talent and what the opponent is doing as Venables. He's going to run his playbook, even if it's not successful. In that way, I'd say Elliot is in the bottom half.
So I think Clemson really would do better with co-coordinators, with Elliot heading recruiting and bringing in someone who can scheme better. But I don't dread a team stealing Elliot (VT fans want him a lot) like I do a team coming along that can sway Venables.
My pet peeve about receivers and pass routes is something
Dec 7, 2020, 12:09 PM
that was epidemic under Tommy Bowden.
Typical throwing situation, third down and 8 yards to go. The receiver would run a route 7 yards deep, and be tackled one yard or less short of the line to gain. It happened over, and over again. Result, punt the ball away, instead of having a continuing drive, just for want of a poorly run, one yard short route.