»
Topic: Dabo, Elliot, and Scott need to wake up . . .
Replies: 66   Last Post: Nov 14, 2016 7:12 AM by: tigernation2000
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 66  

Dabo, Elliot, and Scott need to wake up . . .

emoji_events [71]
Posted: Nov 12, 2016 8:56 PM
 

Look, lots of things happened. There is no intent here to "pin" the loss on any one single thing in isolation, as if it were the *only* "reason" for the loss. Every game result is by definition a result of the totality of the circumstances. That said, there is a bad habit Dabo and the OC's have engaged in for a while. The particular manifestations vary to some degree, but in a nutshell it comes down to a lack of strategic smarts in critical game decisions - usually concerning red zone playcalls and/or clock management.

Today it reared it's head when we had the ball down there in easy field goal range, with about 5:17 left, and a field goal would have given us a two score lead. Instead of keeping the ball on the ground, we throw it. I'm not blaming the coaches for the interception per se, but that is always a risk, and it's always relatively forseeable, especially when the damage to efforts to wrap up the game would be so high. It's an easy enough call - keep it on the ground, and if we get a TD, the that's icing on the cake. If not, then we run another 1:30 to 2:00 off the clock, get the two score lead, and protect that TWO score lead with about two and a half to three minutes left. At that juncture in the game, there is ZERO reason to do anything else. None whatsoever.

Now, this is not just post-loss irritation. We do this type of thing A LOT. Dang near every game. We typically get away with it, but we do it consistently. The details vary, but the tendency to take unnecessary risks without regard to the game situation is the abiding problem of this staff, and has been for some time. Mark my words, this will become even more of a problem when Watson isn't there to phenom our way out of everything next year. Dabo and his staff need to spend the offseason beefing up on their risk-reward analysis and the quality of logic that goes into it. All I can figure is that they are a bit too blindly enamored with the habitual aggressiveness of the offensive style, and in some situations, can't adjust to the facts on the ground.

And for you sunshine pumpers out there, this is not a fire Dabo, or "Dabo sucks" post. He's unique. He's special. We are where we are b/c of him. Amen to all of that. This is just constructive criticism. The strategic thinking at critical junctures is sorely lacking. Sorely. They need a rethink on that front, and have for a while.


Re: Dabo, Elliot, and Scott need to wake up . . .

[1]
Posted: Nov 12, 2016 8:58 PM
 

Great post...Spot on......


100% agree.*


Posted: Nov 12, 2016 9:01 PM
 

nm


Well said. Seems like they are playing x-box

[3]
Posted: Nov 12, 2016 9:03 PM
 

Strategy there would have one the game. When Watson is gone we will see what we really have in regards to coordinators. I like the guys but look at the game plans that NC State and Pitt came in with and it seems we just try to out talent people.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Well said. Seems like they are playing x-box


Posted: Nov 12, 2016 9:13 PM
 

Spot on... The game plans have been suspect at times this year. It seems we only have one or two run plays which is a major issue. The thought process seems to be keep it simple and out talent other teams. The game planning options with this years talent level should be an OC's wet dream. The wrinkles should be endless IMO but i'm just some random guy on a message bored so...


Re: Well said. Seems like they are playing x-box

[1]
Posted: Nov 13, 2016 9:18 PM
 

I'm not liking our offensive coordinator either! We definitely got out coached last night. OC don't seem to have much strategy plays when we need something different! And Flush it is not the correct answer from Dabo! Coaches & players should figure out what breakdowns they had last night & a way to correct this, so it won't happen again.


Don't forget going for it on 4th down with about............

emoji_events [10]
Posted: Nov 12, 2016 9:10 PM
 

a minute to go when you had just been stuffed on 3rd down and giving Pitt the ball on about the 40 yard line. Not a wise move considering our defense did not show up for this game. Should have punted it deep and made them drive the length of the field with under a minute to play. I have questioned our play calling ever since we didn't kick the late field goal against Auburn. Many times this year I've just had to shake my head at some of the stupid play calls we made.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

Absolutely . . .


Posted: Nov 12, 2016 9:23 PM
 

There are plenty of good examples. I just picked out the one I thought was the most glaring and definitive.


How can anyone forget the epic argument over the


Posted: Nov 12, 2016 9:44 PM
 

field goal at Auburn?

2020 student level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

There's something in these hills.


Yeah. I thought Dabo's argument about that call


Posted: Nov 12, 2016 9:49 PM
 

was blindingly dumb, but, it was not without SOME logic. It was a horrible judgment call, but a judgment call of a type judgment call nonetheless. This one was clear cut stupid.


or thrown it, better chance today of getting a 1st down***


Posted: Nov 13, 2016 12:02 AM
 



2020 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Don't forget going for it on 4th down with about............


Posted: Nov 13, 2016 12:08 AM
 

Why didn't we run up the middle or off tackle down on the 3 yd line after Gallmann picked up 4 yds. Also on 3rd down late in the game. We also threw to many east/west passes instead of north/south. Poor play calling and never any long passes in 4th qtr. why?
With the poor officiating and turnovers we still should have put the game away. We had the ball in Pitt territory several times in the 4th qtr and just called terrible plays. What a shame!


Re: Don't forget going for it on 4th down with about............


Posted: Nov 13, 2016 1:56 AM
 

Time to be cute.


Re: Don't forget going for it on 4th down with about............


Posted: Nov 13, 2016 1:36 AM
 

Not to mention the play that was called on that 4th down play was absolutely ludicrous! Toss the ball back several yards just to get one? That play seldom works on 1st & 10. But to use it on 4th and 1?


Re: Don't forget going for it on 4th down with about............


Posted: Nov 13, 2016 2:40 AM
 

+1

2020 orange level member2016_pickem_champ.jpg

Agree


Posted: Nov 12, 2016 9:11 PM
 

*


Re: Dabo, Elliot, and Scott need to wake up . . .

[1]
Posted: Nov 12, 2016 9:14 PM
 

Amen. Could not have said it better. Our coaches are very good recruiters but they need to evaluate their in game decisions. DW for all of his turnovers may be masking Elliott's play calling. That was was a terrible 3rd down call tonight. Oh and 4th as well. Laughable!

The 4th down decision was reckless to say the least. You simply give a team that has moved the ball on you all night the ball on the 40 with - minute left. If your up by more than 3 I get it. But not in that situation. Then you let Elliott call the play he did???? Nope this loss is on Dabo.

The decision not to kick the FG against AU also was a decision that could of cost us. Dabo has to become a better game day coach. This team is playing way too many close games. The only reason this is not the Bowden years is because Dabo has recruited much better. Game day coaching has not gotten better as evidenced by all the close calls to much inferior teams.

military_donation.jpg

Agree...point STUPID A Z Z play calling in redzone..***


Posted: Nov 12, 2016 9:15 PM
 




Spot on.

emoji_events [5]
Posted: Nov 12, 2016 9:18 PM
 

Also, I still don't understand a running back sweep with the jumbo package.


Re: Dabo, Elliot, and Scott need to wake up . . .


Posted: Nov 12, 2016 9:27 PM
 

Problem would be fixed if the Tigers stop playing down to their competition.


Well, that may be the case, BUT . . .


Posted: Nov 12, 2016 9:37 PM
 

there we were, having played the way we played, whether it was down to the competition or not, and we had the opportunity to make a strategic decision using our brain, have an 11 point lead with maybe about 3 minutes left, and we didn't do it. So, whether we're playing down to our competition in athletic/skill terms or not, Dabo and Elliot had a decision to make in the moment, and they made THE MOST BLINDINGLY stupid and wrong decision possible under the circumstances.

So, even having played down to Pitt (and I dunno if we did or not), the loss was still entirely avoidable. EVEN with the bad calls, too. Dabo and Elliot (and Scott) could have used their brains and avoided it, but they didn't.


Re: Well, that may be the case, BUT . . .


Posted: Nov 12, 2016 9:42 PM
 

Everybody is entitled to their opinions, but why not just write Dabo your concerns. He will be happy to listen.

Go Tigers!


I might do that . . . but remember . . .


Posted: Nov 12, 2016 9:47 PM
 

this IS a message board. Where does "everybody's entitled to their opinions," come into it? Yeah, and that's what everyone is doing on here, yeah?


Re: Well, that may be the case, BUT . . .

[1]
Posted: Nov 12, 2016 10:40 PM
 

Pitt isn't far from being a one loss team. They definitely out coached us and we played right in to their hands.

The way I see it our coaches and the refs were too much for our talent to overcome.

My mind is blown by this one. Pick in the end zone, play calls, blown/phantom calls.

Usc grad was head ref?

Still scratching my head.


I think I'll stick with the coaches who are 23-2.

[2]
Posted: Nov 12, 2016 9:37 PM
 

EVERYBODY has the solution AFTER the game.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

FALSE . . . .

emoji_events [6]
Posted: Nov 12, 2016 9:44 PM
 

This is not an after-the-fact assessment. I was sitting there complaining about it before it happened - that I thought we should keep it on the ground just in case. I texted my friend moments before that I was worried about a pick that ruins the FG opportunity. Not b/c I'm a prophet and knew it was gonna happen, but b/c I have basic foresight, realized the risk, and realized the damage it would do to our ability to put the game away.

Now, even if you don't believe me that I was eyeing that possibility before hand, you don't have to. An extremely basic logical analysis here makes the point undeniable for anyone watching the game. The comment about the 23-2 record is simply a complete avoidance of that analysis. But guess what, the analysis doesn't depend on Dabo's credentials vs. mine. That's not he basis of the criticism I offered, is it? If I said that Dabo made the wrong call because. . . "BELIEVE ME, I KNOW, AND HE DOESN'T," then maybe your 23-2 comment would be relevant. But given the criticism I did make, it's an entirely irrelevant comment.

And, if you're looking to case this as sour grapes from a fan who's "not a fan" of the overall job Dabo and company have done, then you didn't keep in mind my concluding remarks in that post about how this was just criticism, and not an all-purpose throwing them under the bus. So yeah, I'll stick with the 23-2 coaches too in terms of support, respect, and appreciation, but not in terms of withholding any and all criticism, especially when it's unavoidably true.


We did keep it on the ground for our two most crucial offensive plays.

[3]
Posted: Nov 12, 2016 10:01 PM
 

All we needed was one yard, and we didn't get it either time. We should have passed in those situations. Pitt couldn't stop our passing game. But no, our coaches are #### bent on having a running game even though our O-line isn't that great. That's a major reason why we lost today.

2020 white level member

Brad Brownell: all-time winningest coach in Clemson men's basketball history, and only coach to beat North Carolina in Chapel Hill.


But it wasn't on the ground when the pick got thrown . . .


Posted: Nov 12, 2016 10:04 PM
 

and it easily could have been, and should have been. That turned out to be more critical - precisely b/c the risk bit us in the butt.


amen***


Posted: Nov 13, 2016 12:03 AM
 



2020 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

A couple things were obviously during the game. 24-1


Posted: Nov 12, 2016 9:47 PM
 

Would be nicer. I think the original poster was dead on. Everybody loves Dabo. We just blew it today. He probably knows it down deep though. Dabo is a positive guy and isn't going to talk about the negatives. Sure he knows when he blows it.

2020 white level member

I sort of disagree . . .

[2]
Posted: Nov 12, 2016 9:55 PM
 

I mean, does Dabo know as a general matter that we blew it, that the better team lost? Yeah, I think he probably does - but that's a more general realization. But I don't think that he knows specifically that he blew that call, not just that he'd rather have it back in retrospect, but that it was a categorically bad decision. Dabo has been like this on strategic decisions at critical junctures ever since he took the head job. And he never seems to learn. Again, he's been a great boon and blessing to this program, I'm not tossing him under the bus, but he's always been downright terrible on this, and his positive disposition, while it seems to have almost limitless positives, - I wonder if it can sometimes cause him not to be critical enough of something like this. When bad things like this crop up, and he's questioned about it (win or lose), he seems to respond by focusing on other things ("well, if we just didn't drop that pass or jump offsides, etc). But it's not an either/or situation. Just b/c there are other things we could have shored up doesn't mean that things like this also weren't among those problems.

He consistently and repeatedly deflects from things like this, and until he and Elliot/Scott become more honest about the wrongheadedness of such purposeless aggressiveness against all the strategic odds, then it'll continue to follow us around.


We will never know I guess. You could be correct.*****


Posted: Nov 12, 2016 10:04 PM
 



2020 white level member

Not exactly. The proof will be in the pudding . . .


Posted: Nov 12, 2016 10:17 PM
 

I certainly don't claim to be able to read his mind or anything. This is just my observation from afar of his thought process. But I will say that him and the staff continuing to make these decisions the same way, will be an indication that he/they don't see this as a problem. I hope I'm wrong and they do. But so far they continue to justify and brush off such concerns - at least in public discussions/pressers.


Well if we lose a game where we throw it in that situation..


Posted: Nov 12, 2016 10:19 PM
 

again,I will be sold he just doesn't know.

2020 white level member

Well . . .


Posted: Nov 12, 2016 10:26 PM
 

bad/risky choices don't always backfire. I've seen the staff make similarly horrible decisions and the situation went well anyway (made the TD, made the first down, etc), OR, the situation would turn out bad but we'd win the game in spite of it.


Re: Well . . .


Posted: Nov 12, 2016 10:38 PM
 

Mrmatt. I agree with all of your points. IMO our game day coaching has put us in position to lose more than it has not. We have lived on the edge with far superior talent in most cases and the talent of players have over come it. If we pulled that off due to a missed FG, you know says we won in spite of coaching.

Some of the decisions over the past 2 years are questionable. Law of averages will happen when making the risky decision. It may catch up over the next couple of seasons.

military_donation.jpg

Easily one of the dumbest comments ever


Posted: Nov 12, 2016 10:46 PM
 

..posted on this site,

"coaching has put us in position to lose more than it has not."

You have to be some kind of an idiot to say that.


You're being downright idiotic.


Posted: Nov 12, 2016 10:44 PM
 

Our success is the result of recruiting the right players AND calling good plays on both sides of the ball. One loss doesn't suddenly mean any of those nonsensical things you're trying to bring to the surface and above the overwhelming and historical quality body of work.


You're confused . . .


Posted: Nov 13, 2016 9:45 PM
 

You're refuting a point I'm not making. I'm not suggesting that bad decisions "overwhelm" or negate the overall historical quality of work. IN FACT, I made some qualifying comments at the end of my first post to make it clear that I was not doing that. Nevertheless, an overall great evaluation does not make anyone above mistakes or above criticism for them.

Now, once we get past the false idea that this is an all-or-nothing discussion where we have to choose between either throwing the staff under the bus like a bunch of bums or otherwise pretend like their mistakes don't exist - once we get past that false assumption, we can discuss this thing on the merits.

Now you called the criticisms nonsensical, but they are logically indisputable based on the situation involved, and you said nothing to address any of that.


Good solid & well-thought out posts that show All of You..


Posted: Nov 13, 2016 9:58 PM
 

Love your TiGERS who are having more trouble in winning games outright than is acceptable..

Whether due to bad coaching, corrupt officials, bad player decisions or poor play.

GoTiGER Team..keep ROCKing!

2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

To All CLEMSON TiGERS..Sending you Bright Light from the Carolina Coast and hoping you get to witness a huge Orange sunset tonight. Go Tigers!


It's a little late for that now.

[2]
Posted: Nov 12, 2016 9:47 PM
 

They should have woken up after a third game that came down to the last play.

When you always play not to lose in the last few minutes, you're always eventually going to lose.

You can bring your guts, but you can't bring your own luck. Eventually its going to run out.

We couldn't run all night, but apparently it makes sense to try to run out the clock running than win with passing (which they couldn't stop all night--unless we stopped it ourselves.)


Yes, it does make sense . . .

[2]
Posted: Nov 12, 2016 10:02 PM
 

You can't make a "conservative vs. aggressive" analysis in the abstract. You have to look at the particular situation in question. I'm not suggesting that we hunker down and bash it between the tackles all game long as opposed to passing. I'm talking about that specific situation. We had the ball deep in the redzone with a chance to get an 11 point with 2.5, 3, or maybe 3.5 min left tops. Throwing passes incurs the risk of interceptions, why do it in that situation? There's no reason. The point at that juncture is not be aggressive for aggressiveness sake, pass for passing's sake, or even to score a TD. The point is to secure the game through a combination of getting a two score lead and eating clock. That is most easily and certainly done by (1) minimizing the chance of a turnover (i.e. don't pass since it's not necessary); (2) getting the FG and thus the two score lead (was going to be an easy FG - nothing is certain but he probability here is high; and (3) eating clock (we could have eaten 1-2.5 minutes there, even if we got zero gain every time.

Now, you can oversimplify it by just suggesting that we do better at passing that running - but that's just a one-dimensional analysis that doesn't consider the particulars of the situation.


Re: Dabo, Elliot, and Scott need to wake up . . .


Posted: Nov 12, 2016 10:25 PM
 

Good points. I could not figure out why we were not running the clock all the way down before snapping on the last drive. When the drive began we were snapping with a bunch of time on the play clock. Those seconds were precious at the end. Clock management is an area that could use some work.

Go Tigers


Re: Dabo, Elliot, and Scott need to wake up . . .


Posted: Nov 12, 2016 11:07 PM
 

I hear ya but it's easy to look back and dissect a game knowing the outcome... woulda coulda shoulda type thing.


That's not what's going on here. . .


Posted: Nov 13, 2016 10:00 PM
 

It's easy to watch that kind of thing and see the risks before it happens. I of course did not KNOW that Watson was going to throw a pick, but I was explicitly aware of the risk and was telling folks we should keep it on the ground to be safe. And the voila, there it was - down the crapper.

This particular criticism is not a matter of seeing stuff more clearly in hindsight. This was plainly detectable before and as it was going down. We do this all the time. Sometimes the risk does not backfire, but the decision is clearly bad and even when it does not backfire, it's a lingering concern that it will at some point backfire - finally it did.

Apparently Dabo doesn't see it ahead of time - OR WORSE, he thinks the risk is somehow justified.


Re: Dabo, Elliot, and Scott need to wake up . . .

[1]
Posted: Nov 12, 2016 11:51 PM
 

Amen brother. Preach on mrmatt. These are great athletes we are recruiting but they are still college kids and if the coaches keep putting them in position where they have to make great plays to bail out poor coaching decisions, they are doing the very athletes they recruit an embarrassing disservice. Players deserve play calling/scheme that gives them the best chance to succeed. At some point, the greatest 5 star athletes won't make the super man play to secure the win. The other WR knows where the first down marker is. The refs throw a stupid flag on a 3rd down stop. And the other kicker doesn't miss. And we lose. We've seen this type of game a few times this season and our coaches shouldn't keep relying on talent, guts or "finding a way to win". I've said it all year - if we play up to our potential - we will beat any team in the country. We are the only team that can beat Clemson. And unfort we did today with weak LB play, horribly timed/placed INTs and p!$$ poor coaching decisions. Hopefully this loss helps our coaching staff and players learn and grow from the loss. Still a lot of football to be played. Go Tigers.


THIS***


Posted: Nov 12, 2016 11:55 PM
 



J. Marc Edwards
Cary, NC


Good post -- but if Clemson had gained that ONE yard,


Posted: Nov 13, 2016 12:15 AM
 

your post would not have been written. Clemson lost, so did Michigan and Washington. How did Georgia beat Auburn? It's college football folks. Let's move on. We'll still be in the top 4.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

Hmmmm . . . .

[1]
Posted: Nov 13, 2016 9:57 PM
 

I have written posts on here like that before, even when we won, but the typical response is to put the proverbial hand up and complain that some folks are unhappy even when we win.

I may have written it anyway - I have from time to time. I wrote such things after Dabo decided not to kick the FG at Auburn, and yet that was a win. So, no I may have written it anyway. But even if I had not, the criticism still would have been true.

And how about this. If we'd run the ball and kicked that FG, the 4th down you're talking about wouldn't have mattered.


No one can deny that we have failed to put teams away


Posted: Nov 13, 2016 12:16 AM
 

- and we fail on a consistent basis

even as we build respectable leads.

Notre Dame, UNCheat, Louisville - twice, NCSU, Auburn, USuCk, et al ad nauseum.

In all of these games we had either a big lead or serious "game control"

yet we came down to a play at the end of the game

where we were vulnerable to lose.

It is time for Dabo to start coaching to win by a lot...

for Tony E to start calling plays to win by a lot...

and for DW to start playing like he's always behind by 2 TD's.

This is one bad habit this group has gotten into....


Re: Dabo, Elliot, and Scott need to wake up . . .

[1]
Posted: Nov 13, 2016 12:17 AM
 

Most years Alabama loses one game. It is usually to a half assed team who they should have blown out. It happens in football. It is not the end of the world. We lost a game. It happens. Ohio State layed an Egg. Michigan did, Washington did, we did. It happens. Life goes on.


Re: Dabo, Elliot, and Scott need to wake up . . .

[2]
Posted: Nov 13, 2016 1:22 AM
 

I agree 100 percent that we have been beating teams on talent and generally timely blitzes called by BV. BV had his worst game as our DC but he is not responsible for the loss.

The officials sucked and we probably would have put the game away in the first down on the bs PI calls but you have to play through the bs calls and we still had plenty of opportunities to win.

This may not be a popular opinion but I feel like Chad Morris did a much better job with formations and causing confusion just like Pitt did to our defense today. We have the most talent at QB, WR, and RB in the nation IMO, Our OL is our week spot but they do pass protect Watson well enough. The run blocking is another story.

However, I don't feel like we are doing flanker sweeps, shovel passes, using a bunch of formations to setup plays and stretch the defense out more and keep them guessing. I feel like just a little bit of creativity could go a long way in opening up the run game.

I hope I am wrong but I do feel Chad Morris is a better offense mind and honestly the goal of the offense should be to stretch the field and then opening up the run game. If you can run the ball and stop the run, you are going to win almost every game.

DW4 is the best talent at QB we have ever had but something is not right this year. I don't know if it is because we made it to the big game last year and came probably recovering an onside kick from going 15-0 but last year no team ever had the ball with a chance to win on their last possession.

Now with that said, I hope I am wrong and Elliot is a great OC and ends up making great decisions for the rest of the season.

I will be at the Wake Game and expect the team come out with intensity and play lights out. We should have lost to NC State so maybe things evened themselves out. The team has to know how lucky we are that Michigan and Washington lost also. Heck, I think 6 of the top 10 lost counting overrated A&M, Auburn, and I thought one other Top 10 team lost outside of us, Washington, and Michigan.

I think Alabama is weaker than last year. There defense cannot freely substitute and have the backup be as good as the starter. The mobile QB may be an advantage but Alabama has never really had any pressure put on them.

Also, I do think the ratings are political and it would not surprise me if they put Louisville in the playoffs even without winning the ACC and not playing an ACC championship game because they would love to see what Jackson can do against Bama.

Just my 2 cents. Also, I have to give Pitt credit even though I hate that finesse offense but we didn't stop it.

Dean

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Dabo, Elliot, and Scott need to wake up . . .


Posted: Nov 13, 2016 1:53 AM
 

YEP!


Nailed


Posted: Nov 13, 2016 2:38 AM
 

You do not give up on the low risk/high reward opportunity to get points

2005_ncaa_champ.jpg

I've been wrong two times, but this isn't one of them.


Re: Dabo, Elliot, and Scott need to wake up . . .


Posted: Nov 13, 2016 2:49 AM
 

I agree. I love all our coaches. Wouldn't have won near as much as with any other group. However, we do have a tendency to mess up clock mgmt and awareness of certain situations n diff type games... especially when and when not to diversify our play calling. Lack creativity. This may b one of the times I've seen by get scheme wrong.

2020 orange level member2016_pickem_champ.jpg

Re: Dabo, Elliot, and Scott need to wake up . . .

[1]
Posted: Nov 13, 2016 2:57 AM
 

Some of the clock management late in games has been awful at times. We finally spread it out and toss it all over the field record breaking day for Watson and Williams. OC'S called it conservative for the first 4-6 with only flashes of sweeps and misdirection and screens and tempo. And we as fan call them out me being one. I liked getting Scott in space with the ball that's his skill set and the same for Ray Ray. Williams is the best receiver we have let him run whatever but no more screens for him. Cain is a deep post, 9 route deep comeback, fade guy nothing over the short middle gator arm come out then. So I liked spreading out the D need to mix in some more up the gut runs to try to take advantage of the space. The boot leg with Watson was a good call imo said it before and will keep saying it but I wouldn't argued with a run play either. Watson knew or shoud have known to protect the points. I see your point on limiting the risk with a run play if we have a freshman qb 1st year starter but Watson is a Hiesman finalists qb with a proven track record. The past 2 weeks with using Leggett has been nice to see since he is that Joker player that Gruden likes to call um. Yes we could have punted and gave them a longer field to work with or we could have just picked up 1 freaking yard man c'mon. Just like Saban said about the onside kick we had to do something to get the ball back we hadn't been able to stop them, but in are case we win. Scott can do better with especially some of the timing of the play calls and he often goes back to a certian play 3-4-5 times a game and we get burned with a pick. Feaster should most def get like 5-8 a game mans got like 4.34- 40 in football speed. Play calling can be better but the same thing was said about Chad too. With the talent on this team at WR,TE,RB,AND QB we don't need to run in gimmick plays just some more toss runs or I formation runs and mix it up a little better. But most importantly get the playmakers the ball where they can use there skill set. I think we have been doing that a little bit better of that lately. The thing that this team is missing is the beast mode you can't stop me attitude combined with 60 min till the ref blows the whistle I'm coming after you all game long physicality.


I don't see why Watson's proven track record matters much .


Posted: Nov 13, 2016 10:10 PM
 

First of all, Watson has thrown a lot of picks this year, and going back to last year has always had a lot of close calls in the red zone trying to thread the needle. So his record isn't exactly one that would give you comfort if the game is on the line and a turnover could kill our chances of locking it up. Even the best of QB's could easily make a bad decision. The law of averages in running the ball vs. passing, even with a good QB, leans much more to running in terms of avoiding the turnover.

And furthermore, we didn't "need" a TD. A FG would have practically ended the game. Give it to Gallman two or three times. MAYBE we get a decent push and scrap out a first down through those three plays. Or maybe not. Maybe we get a net 3 yards, or a net zero yards. Or a net loss of 2 or so. Even still, at that point, we would have taken 2, maybe 2.5 minutes off the clock. There would be something like 3 minutes or so on the clock. (OR if Pitt had taken a TO, then maybe 3:30 or 3:45 or so left. Either way, we then get an 11 point lead with under 4 minutes remaining. Even if Watson is as good as Tom Brady, the TD at that stage is simply not worth the risk of an interception.


Re: Dabo, Elliot, and Scott need to wake up . . .

[1]
Posted: Nov 13, 2016 8:38 AM
 

Sir, I agree with you 100% Love the staff, but the easy decisions (such as running the ball prior to the interception and probable field goal, run clock, etc) are "no-brainers"! Then, when we had to get a first down on 3rd and 1, we run both times, after Pitt had proven through-out the game that we couldn't run on them! Ironically, I had a bad feeling on the way to the game and am not totally surprised that I left with a worse feeling! However, we will see very soon if we rise to the challenge or let this game cost us even more! Go Tigers!!!


agree 100%... we can't just wave a magic wand every time

[1]
Posted: Nov 13, 2016 9:29 AM
 

and expect Watson to somehow pull off yet another miracle, thus overcoming a game full of mistakes and questionable play calls that defy conventional football wisdom. You let enough of these teams hang around and keep the score close, and eventually you're gonna lose one. It's just mathematically impossible that you'll keep hitting the flush on the river...

I walked into Ruby Tuesday's last night wearing my CU sweatshirt and the bartender asked - Dude, what happened today? I thought about it for about 20 seconds and said - We finally ran out of luck. He just looked at me and nodded in agreement.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

I'm just trying to keep Anna Lee company.


I only agree in part

[2]
Posted: Nov 13, 2016 4:29 PM
 

While I agree with your sentiment that if only we run it we minimize the risk of an interception, but if that's the only consideration in the play call then you might as well just take a knee or go ahead and kick the field goal. There is a risk of a fumble on every single play, too, but I doubt you would suggest we just not try to score. We showed all night long we could not run effectively, and that we COULD throw effectively. I don't have an issue with the call - the only coaching failure in that situation was to expect your leader and heisman trophy candidate quarterback who'd just set the ACC record in passing yards in a game to understand the situation better. You take the sure pass or throw it away. That is something you have to coach and drill into the player's heads regarding situations like this.

Sure, running the ball is less risky but it isn't without risk. I also don't think there is much risk of an interception if Deshaun has his head on straight and thinks he is superman.


There's a difference between types of risks . . .


Posted: Nov 13, 2016 9:52 PM
 

It's true that any and every offensive play TECHNICALLY has some risk. Sure, but naturally, running the ball as a general matter has a lot lower risk of turnover. The fact that there is theoretically a risk on every play does not put them anywhere on par. And your statement about Watson is tantamount to saying that Watson throwing isn't a risk if he makes a good decision and doesn't throw a pick. Well, yeah, who disagrees with that. But that's taking the risk out of the equation before the fact and then evaluating it as "risk free" or "low risk" AFTER taking that risk out of consideration? The "if" is the key thing there. Watson has a good many picks this year (and plenty of other thread-the-needle close calls), and several at critical junctures down there in the red zone. Could Gallman fumble it? Possible, but it's nowhere near as likely. And the reason we don't take a knee and kick immediately is to run more time off the clock. If we run three plays, we can get it down to 3 minutes or so.


Re: Dabo, Elliot, and Scott need to wake up . . .


Posted: Nov 13, 2016 4:33 PM
 

But what happened to win a is a win? I totally agree with you.


Re: Dabo, Elliot, and Scott need to wake up . . .


Posted: Nov 13, 2016 4:55 PM
 

I love how people love to jump all over the offensive staff, but Venables' squad just gave up 43 points.

2020 student level member

Brad Brownell: more losses than any other coach in school history.


You're missing the point . . . .


Posted: Nov 13, 2016 9:55 PM
 

Even with the bad D performance, the chance to lock up the game there was as simple as a wise decision not to throw. It was that simple. Whatever we might say of Brent and Company's performance yesterday, we were still in a position to lock that thing up with 2 or three up the gut rushes and a FG. Not doing it, regardless of the D, is (ahem) indefensible.

I don't disagree that the D was like hot butter last night, but the complexities of that are not as easily decipherable or doable. Deciding to keep the ball out of the air and minimizing the chance of losing the two score lead opportunity, is so simple it blows the mind anyone would pass it up.


Agree. I've been thinking all year that this dual OC

[1]
Posted: Nov 13, 2016 9:08 PM
 

Deal doesn't seem to be working. And not b/c it's a dual setup, b/c Elliot and Scott seem to be working fine together, but b/c I don't think they're innovative enough. Or able to make enough adjustments on the fly. Or sometimes refuse to change philosophy when it just isn't working that day ('we feel we should first get the run established to set up the pass'). I know there will be some who'd say "well those two guys as OCs have only lost 2 games", but look at what's happening...teams are game planning better and better for us as these 2 seasons have progressed and we've been winning some of those close ones just b/c we have so much talent compared to some of those guys. Yeah I love those guys, they're true Clemson guys, and I'm happy about the strides we've made the last few years to get here, but I'm not sure if we'll get beyond here and take the final step get to the very pinnacle until they get sharper and more creative or Dabo finds someone who is.


Sorry, but you're wrong


Posted: Nov 14, 2016 3:16 AM
 

Watson audibled to a pass on over 30 called run plays per head coach.

You wanna blame someone? Blame the QB. Can't say I blame dw4 for calling passes since we couldn't run the ball an inch. Honestly the person we should be blaming, and I've been saying this for years now, is Caldwell.


Re: Dabo, Elliot, and Scott need to wake up . . .


Posted: Nov 14, 2016 7:12 AM
 

The best part of this is the term "sunshine pumpers"! Never heard that one. I like it.


Replies: 66  
[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
8407 people have read this post