I Don't Have the Stomach For Patience

So Dabo has called for patience from the fans. This is the same guy who was demanding excellence and was going to change the culture--teach us how to get over the hump and win???

No sir, I will not have any patience. The defense is certainly not the problem. Special Teams is directly related to quality of coaching more than any other facet of the game and has less to do with talent (plus we have more scholarship special teamers than almost any other team in the country). The offense was recruited with Billy Napier as recruiting coordinator and Dabo as the main recruiter. One of the main reasons why Dabo was hired was to maintain the continuity and judging by the recruiting rankings--this was the year!! Please don't try to insult me by saying you don't have the players or the talent.

There is plenty of both, you have just mismanaged it. You aren't rebuilding--you are screwing up what was previously built. If you don't have the talent now that must mean you were a bad position coach beforehand and for some reason I am supposed to reward that with patience. I am supposed to somehow feel pity for you?? And please don't say Bowden or Spence had too iron clad a hand and you couldn't get the recruits you wanted.

We should have easily beaten FSU. I am sick of the Spence stalls in the red zone and being a .500 team. Just think if we hadn't played those two powderpuffs at the beginning of the year...

If Dabo can't get us to the ACC Championship game (notice I said we don't even have to win it, just be there) then he should be gone. If we lose to South Carolina three times in a row then he should be gone. Remember Dabo this is that word 'competition' at the highest level so quit your whining and quacking like a duck. If you can't deliver then get out of the way because Clemson deserves better.

At least we beat Wofford (I am relying on Basketball, thats how bad things have gotten), go Brownell...

Virginia Recap--Division Champs!

It's about time. I think this season proves one ridiculous over-generalization that sounds good when introducing a blogpost: take away Tommy Bowden's extreme tendency to err on the side of caution with something slightly more adventurous and we have ourselves a division champion. But it's important to remember that Tommy Bowden played an enormous role as the architect of this team, and to overlook him wouldn't be all that's right and fair. And since I'm in such great spirits, here it is: congratulations to you too, Tommy. May you find peace with the millions we bought out your contract with and thank you, thank you, for choosing to step aside while CJ Spiller still had a year of eligibility left.

To be clear, not tryin' to shortchange Swinney, Napier, Steele, and everyone else here--they did a fantastic job. The next two years will give us a better idea of the direction the program will take as Swinney starts to shape it according to his ideal...but for now we can rejoice that Swinney was able to do more with essentially the same talent as his predecessor, and that's great news that could lead to many happy days ahead for the team and its fans. And guys, I would really appreciate it if you can remove the 18-year weight I've been carrying around in two weeks by beating GT.

Now, the game...not the prettiest sight in the world, I'm glad we had things locked up or I would have been way too emotionally invested for a game against 3-7 Virginia. This is the second straight game we can attribute the ease of victory to to the offense. It wasn't perfect, the already much-maligned fourth down call and more glaringly the inability to put together a clock-killing drive in the fourth quarter stand out as negatives. I'm thinking the plan was to try and give Spiller as many yards as he could gather in the fourth quarter, but Virginia's defense isn't going to give up too many yards to our O-line when they know the run is coming. I'm not even sure this was even a good idea to begin with, Spiller is progressively getting less and less mobile each week. But I nitpick. When Kyle Parker hits his first 12 (?) passes, things are clicking and we're probably on our way to putting plenty of points on the board.

I have to sympathize with the defense quite a bit, Al Groh and Gregg Brandon threw the entire playbook at them in the first half (after the first drive). I'm not sure why Virginia slowed down in the second half, although they might simply have run out of unorthodox plays to run. What this game shows is that our defense is still most vulnerable to a strong running game between the tackles, the "trick" plays Virginia ran were all set up by strong running (part of that was the wildcat--as an aside, good to get a dose of it now 'cause we could be seeing it in a not-to-distant bowl game). A lot of this was enabled partly by overpursuit by Clemson LBs (again), not to mention some stupid penalties. Maye always seems to find a way to redeem himself, though, that helmet on the football-forcing-fumble was a thing of beauty.

That's enough. Its time to bask--we captured the Atlantic Division! And next week we extend our win streak to 7 games by throttling our "rival" downstate.

Taking Dabo Swinney's Temperature as We Enter this Fine Bye Week

Let me preface this by saying I'm not advocating for Dabo Swinney's removal. Its too early to start that kind of talk. Why? For starters, the offense still has time to get better, and even make substantial improvements in-season. DrB and Ryan Bartow's revelations about the Swinney overriding Napier 1-2 times a series suggests there's room for improvement by simply avoiding unnecessary confusion. (By the way, I think I speak for ClemBen when I say that if this pans out, we'll be more than happy to shift the majority of the blame to whoever is most responsible for the baffling playcalling.) A lot of the other issues with this offense are also fixable, but will likely require the offseason and at least some personnel changes.

Moreover, it's too early because in the name of program stability most coaches gets a decent amount of time to turn things around as long as they aren't finishing 2-10 or 3-9. This is probably particularly true with an inexperienced guy like Dabo Swinney, after all, we knew there would be growing pains when he was hired. I generally think stability is overrated--as soon as you realize your coach is an anchor, its best to cut ties as soon as possible and get the rebuilding process started. The real problem comes when trying to ascertain when the coach has officially become the proverbial "anchor" on the program. That's something I'll try and look into over the bye weekend, but for now I think that while he weirdly has the "inexperienced" label actually working in his favor at this point, there are two points that work against Swinney in determining how long he will last at Clemson.

First, contract. While the man's not being paid peanuts (~$800,000 in guaranteed money), he's not as expensive to cut ties with as other coaches would be around the country. I'm sure this was part of Phillips' plan from the outset--if things blow up in the program's face we can just cut ties without breaking the bank.

Second, and probably more importantly, one of the most widely-cited reasons for retaining Swinney as head coach was his ability to keep the recruiting pipeline going, arguably the brightest spot of the Bowden years. But as the program continues to struggle, the strength of recruiting classes will inevitably dive and Swinney will end up losing possibly his best selling point.

There are still quite a few things in Swinney's favor at this point. And ultimately what will play the biggest role in deciding the length of his tenure is the number of wins versus the number of losses. But the two reasons I mentioned can only make it easier for Phillips (or whoever) to pull the trigger when the time comes.

"Buying into the System"

I mentioned last Saturday featured one of the least-prepared broadcasting duos I have ever heard. I know its hard to fill that much air time and if it was me lord knows I'd be spouting off all sorts of non-sensical things within a few minutes. From what I could tell though, they had essentially prepared two anecdotes to discuss on air (which they returned to again and again): 1) Ralph Friedgen's new diet and 2) Dabo Swinney's abilities as a motivator. As little an effort to prepare for a game that this represents, what they mentioned about Swinney is unintentionally revealing about the state of Clemson football.

Essentially the anecdote went something like this: one of the announcers was talking recently to Swinney and he said the most important thing the Clemson staff had tried to emphasize with the players was "getting them to buy into the system." Now, I understand that this is pretty standard fare for a head coach. You don't want to talk specifics because if you say, "we really need to improve on the offensive line", and things don't get better...well, you might as well draft and proofread the blogposts and opinion columns and call-in radio diatribes yourself.

But this kind of talk really irritates me for two reasons. First, this is classic Bowden-esque mediaspeak the Clemson fanbase has come to despise. The comment is designed to insulate yourself from becoming the scapegoat by placing the blame for failure squarely on those lazy and selfish and attention-craving players out on the field (who "just don't play the game the way its supposed to be played"). In the end all Swinney has to say if the season falls apart is that if the players had just embraced his system, the results would have been different.

The second reason is personally more stomach-churning. Why, exactly, should any player on the offense feel compelled to "buy into the system"? What reason has the staff given them? Its become painfully clear that there is no defined offensive system. The fans are just coming to this realization, but the players have been talking to the coaches since Spring. What if they have been just as confused all along as we are now? How can you expect someone to buy into something if they have no idea what it is? If this was Jim Grobe at Wake Forest and we had a track record of a few years of incremental improvement, then yes, you can and should ask players to buy into your system. But this offensive staff is made up of a lot of the same people that were involved in the trainwrecks of the Bowden years. I'm sure the players want to believe, but these are intelligent kids. I'm sure they can see out on the field that Clemson has an overall advantage in athletic ability relative to other teams. Yet despite this, they find themselves in close games against teams they should crush, and end up inexplicably losing games to boot. What conclusions about the coaching would you end up drawing if you were in the same situation?

Swinney is still inexperienced at this head-coaching thing, and worse, his primary mentor is the guy the fanbase drove out of town. Hopefully these kind of comments are unintentional and harmless. Maybe he was only saying this to the team in the pre-season. But if he's still saying it now, this deep into a season of absolute offensive futility, he's risking a complete disconnection with the players. There's no way the players can be expected to buy into this system now, unless Swinney expects them to take it on faith. But this ain't a church, and Swinney ain't a preacher.

My completely unsolicited advice: take responsibility for the situation, and take it quickly. In the future, give honest assessments of what needs to be improved, and admit when the improvement hasn't happened. That's the kind of straight-talking that's appreciated in regions around Clemson, and it's also the kind that's been sorely lacking in the last decade.

Putting Down the Orange-Tinted Glasses (this year, anyway)

Around this time of year I've always managed to convince myself, no matter the circumstances surrounding the team, that this is the year Clemson once again captures the national title. Not just the ACC title or a BCS birth, but the national title. I've been pondering over the last couple of weeks why this year is different.

I think its the combination of several factors creating a perfect storm-type of situation. First, while Clemson football has always been my first rooting interest in any sport at any level of competition, Clemson basketball is a close second. The success of the basketball team and the promise of the season ahead has definitely occupied some of the time I would normally spend gauging the football teams chances.

Second, the uncertainty of having Swinney at the head. I haven't commented on this much before but when he was hired, I wouldn't say I was upset but I wasn't particularly excited, either. My reasoning: I wasn't sure the Clemson AD could/would have made a better hire in Swinney's stead, and I was attracted to the argument that he represented a smooth transition for our scouting, arguably the best part of the Bowden years (feels good to say "the Bowden years", doesn't it?). But then he hired Billy Napier as the offensive coordinator, which absolutely shocked me--our offense is currently led by two guys with little experience ever leading one. Experience is generally overrated, but you know whats not overrated in an offensive coach? Having previously implemented an offensive scheme of your own design. Now, every step Swinney has made since then has been reassuring, including turning a potentially mediocre recruiting class into an average one, the emphasis on aggressiveness, and most recently the revelation that the offensive playbook has been pared down significantly. But still, I can't shake the feeling that we have a head coach that got his job by selling himself on unquantifiable coaching tropes like "natural leader", "knows how to connect with players", "knows how to rally the troops", "inspires by example", etc. etc. While his predecessor certainly seemed to lack these qualities, I still maintain that the better perceived team play after Bowden's departure had more to do with a healthy and more synergistic offensive line than Swinney's magical hold on the team and, in fact, if Bowden stays on the results probably wouldn't have been that different. (As an aside, let me be clear that I'm glad Bowden is finally gone. What a whiner.)

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, while the overall talent on the field isn't appreciably worse than last year, it certainly isn't better. I don't see a fix to the major problems that have plagued us most of the last few years--linebackers that are athletic and can hit but can't tackle (I don't care how bad TCU's defense is, if Clemson hasn't improved its tackling they'll run up 30 points on our defense--Mountain West teams know how to get into the second level) and the offensive line is a question mark (maybe not as much as last year, I'll grant you). Add to this a starting redshirt freshman at QB and the baffling problems our talented defensive line had last year getting upfield, I see us as a 6-8 win team on talent.

All of that being said, there's reason for hope: parity in the Atlantic division. Win a couple of close games over the right teams and we could be in the ACC title game with a 5-3 or even 4-4 conference record.

One last point--while I haven't managed to convince myself this is "the year", that doesn't mean I'm not ready to watch some football. GO TIGERS!!

Clemben's Top Five Skarelina Videos: #1

Well here it is, le coup d'etat--this is by far my favorite Clemson/Skarelina video off all-time. Its very topical with Bowden trying to angle for a new job or salvage his legacy?? Clemson fans are the best, I almost cried when I heard this one, especially when the person recording it starts laughing too. And while Coot fans will mock this man for calling in and crying on live TV, calling it overly emotional, not important enough to cry over--I cant but admire this man's awesome fandom. If you havent shed a tear over Clemson football--are you really that much of a fan?

I guess the question isnt why is this man crying over Clemson football, but why arent you? So please take this moment to laugh and cry for Clemson...

Why We Lose...

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.