-----
MIDWEEK CLEMSON FOOTBALL INSIDER
By: Larry Williams & Paul Strelow
We need to talk.
You've got questions, we've got answers or opinions.
In this popular feature, Tigerillustrated.com digs into team-related topics broached by our subscribers.
Off we go ...
deshaunwatson4: Are E.J. Williams and Joe Ngata good in practice? Are they ever open? Is anyone ever running open on offense in practice? I just don't see what our coaches were doing all offseason if we still aren't able to scheme all these four- and five-star receivers open.
LARRY: Over the past few weeks there were plenty of signs -- which we conveyed -- that this offense wasn't exactly lighting it up in the passing game during practice.
Clemson coaches are shown here in the booth Monday night in Atlanta's Mercedes-Benz Stadium. (Ken Ruinard - USA Today Sports)
You could argue it goes back to the spring, when so many guys were out overall on offense that it was hard to build cohesion and confidence. That of course extended into camp, when the injuries continued to pile up as Beaux Collins, E.J. Williams and Troy Stellato joined Adam Randall on the injury list.
I think it's fair to question the schematic wrinkles that don't seem to be producing many guys running free. But I also think getting receivers open is in part dependent on establishing a running game, which this offense surprisingly did not do in Atlanta.
I would point out that three of Collins' catches featured him running free. The touchdown was a really nice job of him being alert and running a scramble route to open space in the back of the end zone. The other two featured him finding wide-open patches of grass on the opposite hash and DJ Uiagalelei finding him with accurate throws. That's the way it's supposed to work.
From my perspective, the most glaring thing involving the passing game was three dropped balls. And you could argue a fourth came on that ball at the goal line that Davis Allen probably should've laid out for.
A major, major part of this offense at its best in recent years has been the opposite-hash, corner-route passing game. When you can place the ball perfectly over the outside shoulder of the receiver from a long way off, it's quite a weapon.
I'm honestly surprised more folks weren't excited by Uiagalelei perfectly placing several of these throws Monday night. Allen caught one to extend a drive. Collins dropped two of them, including one in the end zone. Those were gorgeous throws, the type Deshaun Watson used to make to Mike Williams and Trevor Lawrence to Tee Higgins.
Williams had another drop of an underneath throw right in his hands.
It should be pointed out that Uiagalelei did narrowly miss Williams in the end zone (it should have been slightly more outside). Another end-zone toss to Ngata probably could've been better, though that incompletion was more from good defense than the throw in my view.
Could more be done to scheme open these receivers? Yes, and that'll certainly be something we'll follow closely moving forward.
But coming out of that game, the lack of a running game and the drops strike me as the bigger factors that held back the passing game over those 60 minutes.
One more thing: I think Antonio Williams is going to be an important catalyst in producing more receivers running free. If you have a real playmaker in the slot, defenses have to honor that and make decisions on where to allocate their numbers. Williams is not a finished product, but he's a real playmaker.
lowmanfan: Why do we never run intermediate crossing routes and always rely on 50/50 jump balls or fade routes to the sideline, often times when we only need 5 or 6 yards to gain a first down?
PAUL: Piggybacking on Larry's point, I likewise think it's a fair criticism on the offense both structurally as well as philosophically that there's so much reliance on said routes.
Once upon a time, Clemson had the so-called "frisbee-catching dogs" who would win the contested battles and go make those plays. Have those, and I'm all for pushing my chips in on those routes. Because once the Tigers burned opponents with them, teams backed off and gave Clemson the short outs at will, and those essentially became part of the run game.
But Clemson doesn't have a receiver who's deemed a threat to beat you over the top. And so why not take away all inside leverage and force the Tigers to go over, knowing the odds are reduced they have the receiver speed and/or the pinpoint accuracy to connect.
The slant and post routes used to be staples within the offense, especially from the "9" position. How often do we see Clemson connect on it anymore? That's rhetorical.
Do they trust the "9" to have the quickness, fight and physicality to get inside and make the grab? Do they trust the quarterback to execute the timing while checking if the SAM linebacker is sliding into the passing lane?
My hypothesis has been that under the mathematical Tony Elliott, risk-aversion factored into increasingly fewer between-the-hashes throws as time went on. There was some justification to it based on several costly miscues through the years.
Then we might argue that the defining UGA pick-6 in last year's opener culminated in extreme simplification of the passing options they'd consider. Again, to a degree, understandable out of absence of trust as well as desirable personnel.
Clemson four-star true freshman receiver Antonio Williams is expected to pick up additional snaps in the coming weeks. (Getty)
I think if you watched closely, there were some crossing routes invoked against Georgia Tech.
They take time to develop, and maybe the quarterback didn't have the necessary time. Or the pass-catchers take too much time.
But I'd strongly contend it's reasonable to suggest there are times Uiagalelei has been reluctant to pull the trigger, holding the ball too long because either he has some doubt about the security of the throw ... or maybe he isn't as comfortable making the anticipatory throw.
That's a piece to this puzzle, in my opinion, although certainly not the only one. The route dynamic of which you speak goes back several quarterbacks.
All in all, it's something that's gone on for years.
Opponents habitually attack Clemson's defense by hitting receivers and tight ends in front of the linebackers in their zone drops.
Uiagalelei threaded the needle and hit the in-cutting tight end on the move Monday night for a nice 12-yard gain.
That, to me, was confidence we hadn't seen from play-calling or the quarterback in more than a year. So maybe we see more such routes as confidence in and from those two grows.
clemsontiger02: Are the new post-snap decisions/responsibilities causing the quarterback and receivers to play slower? Looks like a lot of thinking going on.
LARRY: Great question.
In recent weeks we highlighted the possible drawback to shifting to more post-snap options and responsibilities on the shoulders of the quarterback and the receivers.
It sounds great in theory, and over the long term. But here in the moment you have a quarterback and receiving corps who are in the rudimentary stages of building confidence and rhythm. And that process certainly wasn't helped by the aforementioned attrition at receiver during not just camp but the spring as well.
Add in a faster pace pre-snap, and now roll them out for their first 60 minutes of real football after just two scrimmages, and you can see how there might be some indecision and processing going on that makes the execution look slower than it should.
As we have said recently, this year's schedule sets up well for the offense to incrementally build the confidence and rhythm that will ideally produce freer and faster execution.
By the time this offense trots out at Wake Forest in a few weeks, the post-snap operation should be faster. It'll be a good early-term examination to see where this work in progress stands.
cedceb: What changes on the two-deep do you anticipate for the offensive and defensive side of the ball ?
PAUL: I believe the phrase is coined overreaction Monday, and it best applies after a football team's opening game.
We make snap judgments off the sample size of one game, discarding anything that the coaches might have observed for the duration of August camp, summer workouts and spring ball.
One good or bad game doesn't make the player, nor a position group or team.
All of which is to say, after a 41-10 debut victory against a conference opponent, Clemson coaches would only make a change if it appeared an issue of effort, not performance.
Players are where they are on the depth chart through a much larger body of work.
So I don't anticipate, per se, changes.
I don't think they expected Blake Miller to be as fazed by a few miscues as occurred in that environment. No one did based on his camp showings. But Miller is in the spot because it was quite clear through the preseason he was one of the five best linemen.
If I'm Clemson, I'm absolutely committed to that direction. I saw enough good things from Miller to keep advancing that forward, and the Furman plus Louisiana Tech games should enable that.
Antonio Williams stays where he is on the depth chart. But you involve him a little sooner now that his feet are wet, and his role steadily increases.
There are positions -- field corner for example, where Fred Davis and Nate Wiggins reside -- where who gets the first snap might fluctuate, but they'll still have the same roles regardless.
WinstonW101: Is Drew Swinney more lethal than Will?
PAUL: OK, maybe one starting depth chart change.
I kid, I kid.
As expected, four-star true freshman right tackle Blake Miller (#78) will again get the starting nod this weekend when Clemson hosts Furman. (Ken Ruinard - USA Today Sports)
They only threw to Will on quick screens and sweeps, right? So maybe Drew working the seam does illustrate the expansion of the schematic blueprint and Clemson's willingness to utilize inside the hashes.
Will was a tough little player. He still gets my nod, even if only one of his 35 career catches went for longer than 11 yards.
But the middle child tends to carry some edginess to him, having lived in the favorite firstborn's shadow. So you might be on to something.
J.Greenbeans: Please help us understand the poor performance by the offensive line. Was Georgia Tech's defensive line better than expected? Was it the Tech defensive game plan? Did our offensive line underperform? Is this type of offensive line play what can be expected this season? I understand that Miller is a true freshman, but I'm starting to think that was a lot of preseason sunshine pumping about our offensive line being one of the best we've had in a long time.
LARRY: I've seen it said by subscribers -- not by you -- that Tigerillustrated.com spent August over-inflating the expectations for this offensive line.
An important point here: We aren't pulling notions like that out of thin air. It's largely conveying the sentiment from inside the football building. And it's absolutely true that the coaching staff believed -- still believes -- this offensive line is going to be really good.
I was surprised by the struggles of the line. I think it's natural for Blake Miller to have wide eyes and lose his technique in the glare of his first college snaps as a starting right tackle.
The more jarring thing to me was seeing the interior line get pushed around some. To me it was less a numbers thing (Tech loading the box) and more of too many instances of Tech's interior guys winning 1-on-1 matchups.
It should be noted that Tech has some pretty good defensive linemen. But to me, not good enough for Clemson to be unable to establish a consistent running game.
I think it's too early to judge this line, or to say they're not going to meet the lofty expectations the coaches have for them.
But I'll say: Watching them Monday night, it was hard to believe they pushed around Clemson's defensive front a few weeks ago in the first stadium scrimmage.
CLEARANCE SALE TODAY on officially-licensed CLEMSON gear at The Tiger Fan Shop HERE!
MIDWEEK CLEMSON FOOTBALL INSIDER
By: Larry Williams & Paul Strelow
We need to talk.
You've got questions, we've got answers or opinions.
In this popular feature, Tigerillustrated.com digs into team-related topics broached by our subscribers.
Off we go ...
deshaunwatson4: Are E.J. Williams and Joe Ngata good in practice? Are they ever open? Is anyone ever running open on offense in practice? I just don't see what our coaches were doing all offseason if we still aren't able to scheme all these four- and five-star receivers open.
LARRY: Over the past few weeks there were plenty of signs -- which we conveyed -- that this offense wasn't exactly lighting it up in the passing game during practice.
Clemson coaches are shown here in the booth Monday night in Atlanta's Mercedes-Benz Stadium. (Ken Ruinard - USA Today Sports)
You could argue it goes back to the spring, when so many guys were out overall on offense that it was hard to build cohesion and confidence. That of course extended into camp, when the injuries continued to pile up as Beaux Collins, E.J. Williams and Troy Stellato joined Adam Randall on the injury list.
I think it's fair to question the schematic wrinkles that don't seem to be producing many guys running free. But I also think getting receivers open is in part dependent on establishing a running game, which this offense surprisingly did not do in Atlanta.
I would point out that three of Collins' catches featured him running free. The touchdown was a really nice job of him being alert and running a scramble route to open space in the back of the end zone. The other two featured him finding wide-open patches of grass on the opposite hash and DJ Uiagalelei finding him with accurate throws. That's the way it's supposed to work.
From my perspective, the most glaring thing involving the passing game was three dropped balls. And you could argue a fourth came on that ball at the goal line that Davis Allen probably should've laid out for.
A major, major part of this offense at its best in recent years has been the opposite-hash, corner-route passing game. When you can place the ball perfectly over the outside shoulder of the receiver from a long way off, it's quite a weapon.
I'm honestly surprised more folks weren't excited by Uiagalelei perfectly placing several of these throws Monday night. Allen caught one to extend a drive. Collins dropped two of them, including one in the end zone. Those were gorgeous throws, the type Deshaun Watson used to make to Mike Williams and Trevor Lawrence to Tee Higgins.
Williams had another drop of an underneath throw right in his hands.
It should be pointed out that Uiagalelei did narrowly miss Williams in the end zone (it should have been slightly more outside). Another end-zone toss to Ngata probably could've been better, though that incompletion was more from good defense than the throw in my view.
Could more be done to scheme open these receivers? Yes, and that'll certainly be something we'll follow closely moving forward.
But coming out of that game, the lack of a running game and the drops strike me as the bigger factors that held back the passing game over those 60 minutes.
One more thing: I think Antonio Williams is going to be an important catalyst in producing more receivers running free. If you have a real playmaker in the slot, defenses have to honor that and make decisions on where to allocate their numbers. Williams is not a finished product, but he's a real playmaker.
lowmanfan: Why do we never run intermediate crossing routes and always rely on 50/50 jump balls or fade routes to the sideline, often times when we only need 5 or 6 yards to gain a first down?
PAUL: Piggybacking on Larry's point, I likewise think it's a fair criticism on the offense both structurally as well as philosophically that there's so much reliance on said routes.
Once upon a time, Clemson had the so-called "frisbee-catching dogs" who would win the contested battles and go make those plays. Have those, and I'm all for pushing my chips in on those routes. Because once the Tigers burned opponents with them, teams backed off and gave Clemson the short outs at will, and those essentially became part of the run game.
But Clemson doesn't have a receiver who's deemed a threat to beat you over the top. And so why not take away all inside leverage and force the Tigers to go over, knowing the odds are reduced they have the receiver speed and/or the pinpoint accuracy to connect.
The slant and post routes used to be staples within the offense, especially from the "9" position. How often do we see Clemson connect on it anymore? That's rhetorical.
Do they trust the "9" to have the quickness, fight and physicality to get inside and make the grab? Do they trust the quarterback to execute the timing while checking if the SAM linebacker is sliding into the passing lane?
My hypothesis has been that under the mathematical Tony Elliott, risk-aversion factored into increasingly fewer between-the-hashes throws as time went on. There was some justification to it based on several costly miscues through the years.
Then we might argue that the defining UGA pick-6 in last year's opener culminated in extreme simplification of the passing options they'd consider. Again, to a degree, understandable out of absence of trust as well as desirable personnel.
Clemson four-star true freshman receiver Antonio Williams is expected to pick up additional snaps in the coming weeks. (Getty)
I think if you watched closely, there were some crossing routes invoked against Georgia Tech.
They take time to develop, and maybe the quarterback didn't have the necessary time. Or the pass-catchers take too much time.
But I'd strongly contend it's reasonable to suggest there are times Uiagalelei has been reluctant to pull the trigger, holding the ball too long because either he has some doubt about the security of the throw ... or maybe he isn't as comfortable making the anticipatory throw.
That's a piece to this puzzle, in my opinion, although certainly not the only one. The route dynamic of which you speak goes back several quarterbacks.
All in all, it's something that's gone on for years.
Opponents habitually attack Clemson's defense by hitting receivers and tight ends in front of the linebackers in their zone drops.
Uiagalelei threaded the needle and hit the in-cutting tight end on the move Monday night for a nice 12-yard gain.
That, to me, was confidence we hadn't seen from play-calling or the quarterback in more than a year. So maybe we see more such routes as confidence in and from those two grows.
clemsontiger02: Are the new post-snap decisions/responsibilities causing the quarterback and receivers to play slower? Looks like a lot of thinking going on.
LARRY: Great question.
In recent weeks we highlighted the possible drawback to shifting to more post-snap options and responsibilities on the shoulders of the quarterback and the receivers.
It sounds great in theory, and over the long term. But here in the moment you have a quarterback and receiving corps who are in the rudimentary stages of building confidence and rhythm. And that process certainly wasn't helped by the aforementioned attrition at receiver during not just camp but the spring as well.
Add in a faster pace pre-snap, and now roll them out for their first 60 minutes of real football after just two scrimmages, and you can see how there might be some indecision and processing going on that makes the execution look slower than it should.
As we have said recently, this year's schedule sets up well for the offense to incrementally build the confidence and rhythm that will ideally produce freer and faster execution.
By the time this offense trots out at Wake Forest in a few weeks, the post-snap operation should be faster. It'll be a good early-term examination to see where this work in progress stands.
cedceb: What changes on the two-deep do you anticipate for the offensive and defensive side of the ball ?
PAUL: I believe the phrase is coined overreaction Monday, and it best applies after a football team's opening game.
We make snap judgments off the sample size of one game, discarding anything that the coaches might have observed for the duration of August camp, summer workouts and spring ball.
One good or bad game doesn't make the player, nor a position group or team.
All of which is to say, after a 41-10 debut victory against a conference opponent, Clemson coaches would only make a change if it appeared an issue of effort, not performance.
Players are where they are on the depth chart through a much larger body of work.
So I don't anticipate, per se, changes.
I don't think they expected Blake Miller to be as fazed by a few miscues as occurred in that environment. No one did based on his camp showings. But Miller is in the spot because it was quite clear through the preseason he was one of the five best linemen.
If I'm Clemson, I'm absolutely committed to that direction. I saw enough good things from Miller to keep advancing that forward, and the Furman plus Louisiana Tech games should enable that.
Antonio Williams stays where he is on the depth chart. But you involve him a little sooner now that his feet are wet, and his role steadily increases.
There are positions -- field corner for example, where Fred Davis and Nate Wiggins reside -- where who gets the first snap might fluctuate, but they'll still have the same roles regardless.
WinstonW101: Is Drew Swinney more lethal than Will?
PAUL: OK, maybe one starting depth chart change.
I kid, I kid.
As expected, four-star true freshman right tackle Blake Miller (#78) will again get the starting nod this weekend when Clemson hosts Furman. (Ken Ruinard - USA Today Sports)
They only threw to Will on quick screens and sweeps, right? So maybe Drew working the seam does illustrate the expansion of the schematic blueprint and Clemson's willingness to utilize inside the hashes.
Will was a tough little player. He still gets my nod, even if only one of his 35 career catches went for longer than 11 yards.
But the middle child tends to carry some edginess to him, having lived in the favorite firstborn's shadow. So you might be on to something.
J.Greenbeans: Please help us understand the poor performance by the offensive line. Was Georgia Tech's defensive line better than expected? Was it the Tech defensive game plan? Did our offensive line underperform? Is this type of offensive line play what can be expected this season? I understand that Miller is a true freshman, but I'm starting to think that was a lot of preseason sunshine pumping about our offensive line being one of the best we've had in a long time.
LARRY: I've seen it said by subscribers -- not by you -- that Tigerillustrated.com spent August over-inflating the expectations for this offensive line.
An important point here: We aren't pulling notions like that out of thin air. It's largely conveying the sentiment from inside the football building. And it's absolutely true that the coaching staff believed -- still believes -- this offensive line is going to be really good.
I was surprised by the struggles of the line. I think it's natural for Blake Miller to have wide eyes and lose his technique in the glare of his first college snaps as a starting right tackle.
The more jarring thing to me was seeing the interior line get pushed around some. To me it was less a numbers thing (Tech loading the box) and more of too many instances of Tech's interior guys winning 1-on-1 matchups.
It should be noted that Tech has some pretty good defensive linemen. But to me, not good enough for Clemson to be unable to establish a consistent running game.
I think it's too early to judge this line, or to say they're not going to meet the lofty expectations the coaches have for them.
But I'll say: Watching them Monday night, it was hard to believe they pushed around Clemson's defensive front a few weeks ago in the first stadium scrimmage.
CLEARANCE SALE TODAY on officially-licensed CLEMSON gear at The Tiger Fan Shop HERE!
