Disappoint.

ElCidBUZZingFAN said:
I agree. We shouldn't be running Johnson's offense anymore. To those not already on that train, last night should have made that even more clear to you.
Click to expand...

We weren't running flexbone. Is any offense that doesn't pass 30 times suddenly PJ's offense? Read option, zone read, etc. out of the shotgun are commonplace all over college football, and right now our personnel is more equipped for that than the "NFL-based" offense CGC mentioned in his opening presser. The quarterbacks and linemen we're going after in recruiting should be a good indication that that's not the plan long-term.
 
ScionOfSouthland said:
Pat opened up the playbook with Graham so there is definitely some other plays he can draw up. Until we rotate out the leftover talent from the Johnson era I think you are likely going to see a good bit of option. Johnson ran a well oiled offense but it was an offense with a singular purpose and it’s parts don’t work well in other offenses.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. And while the passing game did look better with Graham in (combined with a slight drop-off in talent with Clemson's backups), the lack of pass protection should also help clue people into why we're not dropping back to pass a ton right now.
 
I am disappoint we made so many BIG mental mistakes, but otherwise this outcome is about what was to be expected. I've only seen a few lowlights on the news. Really disappointing stuff: punt return muff, interception on goal line, giving up long runs to Etienne. Lucas Johnson must not be the answer. Its Graham or nothing it appears. Oliver could run some short yardage stuff from under center, but otherwise he's not the QB answer either apparently.
 
We will see next week what changes CDP makes for a less dominant opponent. I can understand the challenge of coming up with a strategy for Clemson, and trying to run on them with TO at QB was probably as good an idea as any. We might have had a better chance of success if the QB was under center, instead of the shotgun, running from 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage, but then our fans' heads would have exploded because they were promised a pro style look.
 
Guys, even Johnson's offense took 3-4 games to really start clicking. While disappointed in the overall play, I saw reasons to be encouraged. This was a tough team to start out with a new coach.
 
I was concerned about playing Oliver so much and Johnson so little. This morning, I think I know the reason. We were not going to win this game barring multiple miracles. We did not want to lose our best QB options for the season in this game. This is especially true for Johnson coming off of a major injury. Therefore, Oliver took most of the snaps against Clemson's first string D and Johnson saw minimal action. If Oliver plays this much against USF, I will be disappointed.
 
BrentwoodJacket said:
I was concerned about playing Oliver so much and Johnson so little. This morning, I think I know the reason. We were not going to win this game barring multiple miracles. We did not want to lose our best QB options for the season in this game. This is especially true for Johnson coming off of a major injury. Therefore, Oliver took most of the snaps against Clemson's first string D and Johnson saw minimal action. If Oliver plays this much against USF, I will be disappointed.
Click to expand...
lol
You’re in denial. Johnson isn’t the best QB.
 
Not sneaking it on 3rd and 4th down with a foot or so to go with Oliver at QB was ridiculous play calling period. I’m not completely off the Oliver wagon. He’s got to have more pocket presence, and I think he will as the competition changes. If he makes a few easy passes, we were showing signs of moving the ball.
 
BeeStorm said:
Do we have the personnel to score from the one yard line? I will hang up and listen...
Click to expand...
Going to answer this even if it is sarcasm.
Yes, we have these ‘terrible’ olinemen from last year that blocked in an offense that was efficient for short yardage situations.
 
Game wasn't close, but the score could have been closer. No muffed punt and get rid of the stupid fumble we had inside their 30, plus either Swilling scores on the INT or the offense punches it in. Final score then is 38-21 and appears much more respectable. On the flip side, if it had been 14-7 or 21-7 at the half, Clemson would have kept their foot on the accelerator...

Defense will be okay, special teams was so-so (although it's not their fault that we called for a punt on the 36 yard line), offense is, predictably, a nightmare.
 
ScionOfSouthland said:
Pat opened up the playbook with Graham so there is definitely some other plays he can draw up. Until we rotate out the leftover talent from the Johnson era I think you are likely going to see a good bit of option. Johnson ran a well oiled offense but it was an offense with a singular purpose and it’s parts don’t work well in other offenses.
Click to expand...
I'm just not sure that I agree with that. Talented players are talented players. Very few CPJ recruits actually ran the option in high school. We just recruited the best athletes we could get into GT and taught them option football. Talent is fine at the skill positions, but we do have a lack of talent at OL. I don't think it's a system issue as much as it is pure lack of depth and talent, that was really hurt by the departure of our best OL in the offseason.

I think we will look dramatically different when we play against teams of similar talent (i.e. everybody else in the ACC).
 
The OL actually wasn't as bad as I thought it would look last night. I'm only disappointed that Lucas didn't get more time and we didn't have more passes to TE and slot.

I'm also disappointed in Special Teams. Muffed punt, letting punts hit the ground, poor KO returns on the ones that were returnable.

But yes, Clemson is very good. We'll know more next weekend.
 
BeeStorm said:
49 - 21 against confirmed National Championship team > 52 - 14 against potential National Championship team

gave up less points. scored more points.

so I am going to say better last year.

hope that answers your question.
Click to expand...
Yep, very true. Glad you pointed this out because I had forgotten that last year was the first year for the Paul Johnson offense and Paul was coaching an inherited roster of recruiting classes that ranked in the high 40's to low 50's in the country. Now that I remember that, it makes me realize it really is an apple-to-apple comparison.
 
Diseqc said:
lol
You’re in denial. Johnson isn’t the best QB.
Click to expand...

I did not say Johnson was the best QB. I was just trying to explain why Graham and Johnson did not play as much and why Johnson's time was so limited. Based on what I have seen, Graham should be the starter with Johnson as the backup. Oliver should be used primarily as a RB/WR. I would like to see Johnson get some snaps over the next two games.
 
daBuzz said:
Yep, very true. Glad you pointed this out because I had forgotten that last year was the first year for the Paul Johnson offense and Paul was coaching an inherited roster of recruiting classes that ranked in the high 40's to low 50's in the country. Now that I remember that, it makes me realize it really is an apple-to-apple comparison.
Click to expand...

some coaches may have looked at the roster and implemented new schemes but keeping older situational ones that their personnel is built for.. then over time, they phase out the old as their personnel changes.. those coaches probably win more games in their first year.. but apparently not scoring from the 1 yard line in the shotgun formation is more attractive than scoring with a non NFL scheme..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top