So I have been taking tests and in my spare time trying to avoid the studying I have been thinking about why Clemson couldnt get over the proverbial hump in the past three years. We have been one win and often one point away from being in the ACC Championship game but WHY??
If we can solve this question then Dabo can fix it and we can start winning right? Obviously that is stupidly optimistic but I want to try and figure it out nonetheless. So what are the normal surface level reasons for Clemson consistently coming up short? Probably the most widely used excuse is that we played soft, lacked talent at key areas--QB, O-Line, not an attitude of winning, didnt have the facilities to compete, no leadership on the team or with coach, Spence sucked, no killer instinct, Tommy just didnt have it in him. Seems like a good list--I'm probably missing a lot though...
The idea I had centers around the team philosophy. Where does that come from? Well I think it can come from a lot of different sources but for Clemson it came from the Off. Coordinator and Def. Coordinator. When Tommy hired Spence and Koenning he basically gave them free reign of their spheres and was pretty hands off in his approach. Sure he added some slogans--Finish the Job pt. 1, 2, and 3 but really didnt shape the teams philosophical approach to the game. I dont know if this is 100% true but I dont think the players on those teams were 'soft' players--rather the off and def strategies made them that way.
Clemson lost because they played not to lose on Offense and Defense. Thats it. Coach VK's defense plays 90% zone, had basically 5 db's and tried to prevent teams from scoring, bend dont break approach. We didnt blitz, didnt even get to the qb much, not looking to explicitly force turnovers but we gave you 3-4 yds a play and hoped to stop you on third down. Play the percentages and with your team speed on defense you let them score some but you keep them from bombing balls over your head or beating you by a large margin. For the most part the defense excelled and always put up good team stats yr in and yr out. However, this is a defense that is playing not to lose.
On offense Spence was trying to play a ball control style offense with zone blocking up front and a passing attack built around efficiency. You may not get a whole lot out of every throw but you complete all your passes, get good match-ups and gain 3-4 yds a possesion. This led to the infamous bubble screen and the james davis run into the backs of his o-lineman (I guess the field was supposed to be spread enough that the lineman could create the holes for rb's but never fully understood what the scheme was doing) Sound familiar? Although Spence's scheme was a disaster and would have accomplished even less without the all world talent of cj spiller(really how many points did the offense by itself generate minus cj?) Anyway, this offense was also playing not to lose--you methodically march down the field, and you score enough to win--you dont throw much downfield (although Harper and Procter didnt help the cause), you dont turn it over and you put enough points on the board not to lose.
I think the combination of these two philosophies made the team appear soft--we couldnt stop the run, we gave up yards, the O-line couldnt get down and dirty in a goal-line stance, we couldnt pound it in or get that first down. Maybe this wasnt the players and had more to do with the coaching styles. If you have 5 db's its hard to stop big rbs in the ACC--you miss tackles and without first round defensive line talent you dont get to the qb. Perhaps the two philosophies didnt mix well for one team and the shift Steele's slightly more agressive defense is what we need--more sacks, more pressure and more turnovers. Although we will have to live with getting burned every once in awhile--I like this better for the ACC which is more focused on the run than finesse passing attacks. This year the ACC has average QB talent and below average WR's, especially FSU so having a beefy LB corp will help this yr's defense. Its hard to say how the Off will turn out, but I wouldnt be opposed to more ball control and less gadget plays--relying on our playmakers talent is where I hope we are headed--some grind it out but also some finesse that takes adv of our skill level at certain positions.
Anyway, its just a theory but I think one main reason we lost was bc of coordinators didnt mix. Hopefully Dabo's slogan making dept can bringing the change we need.
No comments:
Post a Comment