I spent too much time on this b/c of ot's post. Recruiting rankings based on 247 compared to the seasons' final AP poll - and none of this considers transfers and early draftees.
Avg Recruiting Class Rank (2013-2016): 14 2016 AP Poll Final Rankings: 1
Avg Recruiting Class Rank (2014-2017): 11 2016 AP Poll Final Rankings: 4
Avg Recruiting Class Rank (2015-2018): 9 2016 AP Poll Final Rankings: 1
Avg Recruiting Class Rank (2016-2019): 11 2016 AP Poll Final Rankings: 2
Avg Recruiting Class Rank (2017-2020): 7 2016 AP Poll Final Rankings: 3
You can see here how we only went up 3 spots when TE took over as head OC. Prior to that we went up 9, 8, 7, and 13 spots.
Tough to go up many spots if your avg recruiting rank is 7
Sep 21, 2021, 2:43 PM
Elliott has also only been the sole OC for 1 year. Obviously, this second year isn't promising, but the first year was pretty good, and the offense was good before that when he was supposedly the main play caller.
Generally speaking, though, this is a good illustration of how Clemson was "doing more with less" until this year (be careful saying this on TI, though, because a few of the A-holes over there really don't want to hear it). They've still got to figure something out with this team, though, because you can't have this much talent and be that inept.
If there's a shortcoming in Swinney's machine, it has been recruiting and developing blue-chip offensive linemen, although the Tigers' recruiting at the position has recently improved.
According to data from ESPN Stats & Information, only five Tigers offensive linemen have been selected in the NFL draft since 2009, including three in the past two drafts. In comparison, 13 schools have had more than 10 offensive linemen drafted during that span.
As you say, OL recruiting has gotten better lately. On the other hand, if you're mainly a Clemson fan, what matters more is how the OL plays as college players rather than where they go in the draft. For instance, Hyatt was really good in college, but didn't get drafted. I think we've had a couple of other guys who were similar. And the OL performed really well from 2017-2019. But it would obviously be nice to have elite recruiting at OL in order to avoid these downward dips like we had last year and into this year.
but he has to be slightly disappointed going mid-second round and being the 9th or 10th OL to come off the board - wasn't he the #1 among OT prospects coming out of high school?
For whatever reason, we haven't recruited it very well and more importantly we certainty haven't developed it well. I think we've been to mask it pretty well by having great skill positions and two first round QBs with incredible pocket presence - but why Caldwell has had this job for a decade now is beyond me
If you go back and look at some of our games against the better DLs we've played the past 5-6 years there is a lot of really bad running performances from our RBs. Our OL is just never able to consistently push back better DLs and we rely on QB runs or explosive plays from the RB where they bust plays big.
First two natty appearances against Bama were a miracle we got so much offense considered Gallman got absolutely nowhere on the ground, we did nothing against Bama the third time the Kelly Bryant year, ETN did nothing against Ohio State on that game we squeaked out thanks to T-Law and did little the next year when we were blown out (granted we had to abandon the run early).
Would love to see some advanced analytics on our run blocking against the opponent level, average yards per carry before contact from our RB...imagine it's pretty low, especially between the tackles
Basically, it's an advanced stat that shows how much of the yardage the line was responsible for. Suffice it to say that an OL that's top 5 in that stat is providing some room to run.
Generally speaking, every team loads up on stats against the bad teams they play. That's why the bad teams' stats are bad. But I also don't think it's correct to only look at rushing stats in playoff games. Clemson plays several teams that are among the best in rushing defense every year, and frequently does pretty well against them. You're right that it would be interesting to see a stat that would show the difference between the average yards a defense gave up and what Clemson got against them, or if there were a stat that could show how many standard deviations a good offense should be above a team's average yardage given up. But the reason I included line yards along with yards per rush, rushing per game, sacks per game, and sack rate is that those stats encompass the measurable things that an OL does. I think stuff like SP+ and FEI are supposed to show some of that:
Offense Line Yards Rk Std. Downs Line Yards Rk Pass. Downs Line Yards
(there are more line stats you can see here)
Line Yards per Carry: For 2018, we are experimenting with a new definition for college line yardage based on film study and generalization. Instead of the ALY figure FO used for the NFL, this one is tighter: the line gets credit for rushing yardage between 0-3 yards (instead of 0-4) and 50% credit for yards 4-8 (instead of 5-10). Anything over 8 yards is quantified as a highlight opportunity, and credit goes to the runner. As with the pro definition, lost yardage still counts for 125%. (Garbage time is filtered out for all line yardage averages.)
That's why it's odd to me when people would say that the only reason for our success on offense was talent. Very few teams have had the sustained success Clemson has had on both sides of the ball. What's happening now is calling into question whether changes need to be made, though. But it's still early.
I kinda wonder how helpful it would be to bring in a big name offensive analyst. Not sure who's out there now, but it's worked for Bama.
50
