They say a team is a reflection of its head coach. I don't know if that statement is more true with any other program in the country than it is at Clemson. Dabo has always been very sensitive to any criticism, any negative thought. He lives his life as an underdog, and this team plays that way. They play with an edge, with a chip on their shoulder. I think that's why we've done so well against unranked teams, because even when we are clearly not the underdog, Dabo manages to convince the team that we are, and they play with that mentality.
Dabo's fingerprints are all over this team. After the game Alexander mentioned that the team doesn't get worried when bad plays happen - that's Dabo and the positive mindset he's laid out for this team. Ben Boulware says he's pissed about being disrespected - that's Dabo. The team plays with emotion, with high energy, a "don't give up" mentality, a "we can do anything" mentality. Dabo has managed to get the team and the fans to buy into the idea that A) to be the underdog is anathema, it's the ultimate sign of disrespect and B) Clemson is ALWAYS the underdog.
When you go back and you watch this program in 2009 or 2010 or even 2011, it was a team that didn't play with great discipline all the time. They played sloppy, they had bad penalties, turnovers, didn't tackle well. IMO, this was a time period where that was reflective of Dabo. As Dabo over the years has himself become more disciplined and more poised as a head coach, so has his team. And the realization that I came to during this game on Saturday was, Clemson is just, overall, a better coached football team than Notre Dame.
Clemson didn't turn the ball over 4 times, Clemson didn't commit multiple procedural penalties, Clemson was better prepared for the environment, for the weather, for the moment. Clemson was more disciplined and more prepared and that's ultimately why Clemson won the game.
This is Dabo's program, and what we see on the field is very reflective of who Dabo is and what Dabo's vision is for the program. This is a testament to his ability to communicate, his ability to get players to buy in, his ability to get people to buy in during the recruiting process. Dabo's tenure at Clemson wasn't always a thing of beauty, and we had to watch him learn on the job, but there's not many more questions left to be answered about his performance and ability as a head coach.
Saturday's win wasn't perfect, and it certainly isn't a sign that this team is going to go undefeated or make the playoff or anything else. But it is a sign that this program has arrived nationally. It's not going to be long before we are officially not the underdogs anymore. But Dabo won't have you believe that, and as long as that keeps working then that's fine by me.
As for the game itself, it really was two very even teams playing against each other Saturday night. You really see that in the 2nd and 3rd quarters where the game was pretty well settled down after our big start and before their big finish. The weather in the game makes it difficult to take away too much, as it obviously affected the performance and plan for both teams.
Offensively, the OL played well. It's clear to see the difference on the tape between Notre Dame's defensive front and Louisville's. We weren't able to get the same kind of push or create the same type of gaps. But we were able to create just enough to create some good running lanes at times.
I would say that Hyatt was definitely very improved this week. Looked more comfortable, looked like he was mentally more settled in. Did a really good job in sealing off the edge on off tackle runs.
I also thought MacLain played very well, really played with a lot of physicality. He and the other interior OL had a nice assignment in blocking #91 for ND. Really athletic guy but was held in check most of the night. If you watch on our opening drive, with 13 mins to go in the first quarter, you'll see an example of how good #91 is but that was really the only play he made all night.
MacLain, by what I saw, was also the only member of our OL to have any success in blocking their #9 who was their all world LB. MacLain sealed him up nicely a couple of times but other than that he was pretty much untouched all night long.
Leggett looked a little better, not whiffing as much. Again, I think he's a much better, more physical blocker when he's down on the line rather than trying to block in the open field. You can see him get a nice block on Watson's TD run in the 3rd quarter. Watch Gallman and MacLain get great kick out blocks there as well.
I noticed we were trying to do an awful lot of set up with our screen game. We actually didn't do a lot of blocking with our wide outs on Saturday, instead on run plays we would have them go into a screen action and that would hold the DBs where they were as they had to play the screen. My guess is we were watching for ND to break down in discipline and then attack.
We also tried a few fake screens where we wanted to set up something vertical. We also at one point faked a bubble screen to Scott and then threw a tunnel screen underneath to McCloud, which I thought was a nice little play design, but Notre Dame was all over it.
The truth on Saturday was that Notre Dame's defense was pretty damn good too. They played pretty disciplined throughout and didn't bite on a lot of the stuff that we threw at them. We did manage to get a few one on one opportunities and took some shots that all came up empty. We were running the ball well but we really weren't gashing them with consistency. Even on the drive where Gallman was running well and we wound up throwing the pic, if you go back, We had had a couple negative plays there. They switched up the look they were giving us and caught us for a big loss on 2nd down. On 3rd down we threw long to Renfrow who looked like he had his guy beat but was interfered with. So I didn't have a big problem with the long throw on the next play that got intercepted, Notre Dame defensively had adjusted and was giving us one on one opportunities. That's why you run the ball - to set those plays up.
I did feel like there was a lack of creativity on the playcalling late in the game. Particularly on our possession after we intercepted the ball. Really felt like we could have been more aggressive there to at least get the first down. They were really squatting on the run at that point and I've got to believe that there was opportunity for us to get someone open.
My biggest complaint about the offense is this - by my count we went empty backfield 7 times. On 6 of those plays, it was a QB run. So it got to be pretty predictable there. I understand that they were giving us numbers when we went empty, but we've got to take a look at what other opportunities there might be. You can watch their linebackers on 3rd and 2 before our missed field goal. When they saw empty, they aren't even respecting the idea of anything happening behind them, they know what's coming.
I don't understand why we keep burning timeouts. We took 2 time outs in the 2nd half before a 4th down special teams play. After the Scott dropped touchdown pass we took a timeout and then pooch kicked it out of FG formation, then before the long FG try in the 4th we took another timeout. I don't really understand why this keeps happening. Saw the same thing in Louisville. Those timeouts would have been nice to have late in the game if we needed to get out a bad defensive look etc.
I'm also not sure about the short kickoff after we hit the field goal. It looked designed but may not have been. I suppose they didn't want to give them an opportunity at a return but instead wound up giving them really solid field position. Not sure what the thinking was there.
I think we really need to just keep feeding Scott. Scott really can't touch the ball enough at this point. We've got to find someone else though. Peake has been a no show this season. Renfrow really has been the other guy to this point and production wise we need to elevate him. We've got to give our younger guys a chance as well. But Peake needs to step up or step back.
So after re-watching the game, the big takeaway I took was that Notre Dame's defense played pretty well, they didn't really bite on a lot of the stuff we were trying to get them on. The conditions certainly affected our offense as well, as we had a couple of drops also. I thought Watson did a good job of just managing the game, he had the one under throw that got intercepted but wasn't making bad decisions, threw the ball away when he needed to. I think it's best to reserve judgement on our offense, especially our passing game, for a time when we have better conditions to throw the ball in.
Defensively, I mean what really needs to be said? Awesome performance for 3 quarters. I thought Venebles had a great plan coming in. Just run blitz after run blitz after run blitz. I felt like his entire plan was designed around stopping the run and confusing their quarterback.
One thing that I thought was impressive was the way Lawson played the QB read options. He essentially slow played them. You see this sometimes against the triple option where instead of assigning one man to the QB and one man to the back, a defense will assign one player to play both, where he will come in and kind of settle in the middle and wait or "slow play" and force the QB to either turn upfield or pitch it and then the player can go after the ball. If it's done properly it allows the defense to have one more player free rather than tied up in assignment and also forces the QB's hand in making a decision. This is essentially what Lawson did. He showed that he was squeezing down while also managing to stay wide enough to make a play on the QB. This confused Kizer and you see him multiple times just not sure what to do with the ball and Lawson just tackles him for a loss. You can see an example of this with about 7:10 to go in the 1st quarter.
People keep asking where Pagano is, and the answer is he must be in Indiana because he owns a home in the Notre Dame backfield (rimshot please). He's definitely still out there and he's definitely still a major contributor on our defensive front. Not as athletic as Wilkins, but I think is stronger and more physical than Wilkins. You saw Wilkins more late in the game because he's the better pass rusher.
Speaking of Wilkins, the guy is a freakish athlete. Just so agile and quick. You can see him on multiple plays running down Deshone Kizer. Good example at about 5:32 to go in the third. I have to think that if we needed him at DE he would be athletic enough to make that move.
The inside player that impressed me the most though was Carlos Watkins. This guy is just a world beater inside, a "war daddy" as Brad Scott would say. On Notre Dame's 2nd touchdown, they ran the same play that they ran on the 2 point attempt at the end of the game. On the touchdown, Wilkins was on the playside and got blocked. On the two point attempt, Watkins was on the playside and didn't get blocked. He also prevented their OL from climbing to the 2nd level. That was the difference.
On Alexander, he was one on one with Fuller most of the night, but did play him with a cushion. I think they probably had some opportunities to get the ball underneath to Fuller and certainly he was getting some separation on comback routes. But Alexander's recovery is so good that the throws would have had to have been near perfect to get them in there. And again, the plan was to confuse Kizer, so you see a lot of situations where he's got open guys and he's just not able to find them because he doesn't even know what coverage he's looking at. We heard during fall camp about Venebles using a lot of new more exotic looks, and I think he pulled them all out on Saturday night.
In the 4th quarter obviously they ate us up with underneath crossing/rub routes. We've got to figure out how to get that fixed. The main issue wasn't that the underneath routes were open but rather that we let them run for so much after the catch. That's what allowed them to get back in the game so quickly. I know of a guy down in Columbia who absolutely loves crossing routes, the good news is though he doesn't have a quarterback that can throw them.
So it was basically a game where Clemson controlled everything for 3 quarters and then made plays when we had to to hold on in the 4th. But you can really see why this was a tough game for those who pay close attention to both teams to pick. Very even teams. That's why I felt the difference was Clemson's preparedness and discipline in the elements. You can't really say "well notre dame would have won if it wasn't raining because they fumbled the wet ball" because Clemson played in the rain with the wet ball and didn't fumble it once. Clemson was more prepared, they executed better, and they won.
We've got to keep improving on kickoffs, where again we saw a guy just squeezing down too early which caused him to lose leverage on the football and lose contain on the returner. We've got to get our passing game going at some point, and I think we will now that defenses are going to have to start respecting our run game more. And on defense, we've got to find us a pass rusher. Lawson is good, but we are really missing that Vic Beasley type guy, that one guy who can just get after the QB consistently.
For those that couldn't make it to the game, I really hate it for you. Yeah the weather sucked, but it was a great atmosphere, and it was great to be there for a win that people will still be talking about a decade from now.
I'll close with this story in honor of Georgia Tech. This was a story shared at one of the high school coaching clinics that Clemson held a few years back, where one of the high school coaches was a former Clemson player who played under Frank Howard. He told us that one year they traveled to Atlanta, they were at Tech and they were in the locker room before the game. The locker room was right next to band section and was also situated where fans actually would walk by the locker room entrance. So the entire pregame they're having to listen to the GT band, and they're getting taunted by Tech fans yelling by the locker room. So it comes time for Coach Howard to give his pregame talk, and the players are gathered up and they wait, and they wait, and they wait. Finally Howard comes out, takes a cup, goes into the restroom and urinates in it. He walks to the locker room door and opens it and throws the cup out of the locker room. He turns to the team and says "Piss on Tech!" and then led them onto the field.
So Go Tigers! Piss on Tech!
Dabo's fingerprints are all over this team. After the game Alexander mentioned that the team doesn't get worried when bad plays happen - that's Dabo and the positive mindset he's laid out for this team. Ben Boulware says he's pissed about being disrespected - that's Dabo. The team plays with emotion, with high energy, a "don't give up" mentality, a "we can do anything" mentality. Dabo has managed to get the team and the fans to buy into the idea that A) to be the underdog is anathema, it's the ultimate sign of disrespect and B) Clemson is ALWAYS the underdog.
When you go back and you watch this program in 2009 or 2010 or even 2011, it was a team that didn't play with great discipline all the time. They played sloppy, they had bad penalties, turnovers, didn't tackle well. IMO, this was a time period where that was reflective of Dabo. As Dabo over the years has himself become more disciplined and more poised as a head coach, so has his team. And the realization that I came to during this game on Saturday was, Clemson is just, overall, a better coached football team than Notre Dame.
Clemson didn't turn the ball over 4 times, Clemson didn't commit multiple procedural penalties, Clemson was better prepared for the environment, for the weather, for the moment. Clemson was more disciplined and more prepared and that's ultimately why Clemson won the game.
This is Dabo's program, and what we see on the field is very reflective of who Dabo is and what Dabo's vision is for the program. This is a testament to his ability to communicate, his ability to get players to buy in, his ability to get people to buy in during the recruiting process. Dabo's tenure at Clemson wasn't always a thing of beauty, and we had to watch him learn on the job, but there's not many more questions left to be answered about his performance and ability as a head coach.
Saturday's win wasn't perfect, and it certainly isn't a sign that this team is going to go undefeated or make the playoff or anything else. But it is a sign that this program has arrived nationally. It's not going to be long before we are officially not the underdogs anymore. But Dabo won't have you believe that, and as long as that keeps working then that's fine by me.
As for the game itself, it really was two very even teams playing against each other Saturday night. You really see that in the 2nd and 3rd quarters where the game was pretty well settled down after our big start and before their big finish. The weather in the game makes it difficult to take away too much, as it obviously affected the performance and plan for both teams.
Offensively, the OL played well. It's clear to see the difference on the tape between Notre Dame's defensive front and Louisville's. We weren't able to get the same kind of push or create the same type of gaps. But we were able to create just enough to create some good running lanes at times.
I would say that Hyatt was definitely very improved this week. Looked more comfortable, looked like he was mentally more settled in. Did a really good job in sealing off the edge on off tackle runs.
I also thought MacLain played very well, really played with a lot of physicality. He and the other interior OL had a nice assignment in blocking #91 for ND. Really athletic guy but was held in check most of the night. If you watch on our opening drive, with 13 mins to go in the first quarter, you'll see an example of how good #91 is but that was really the only play he made all night.
MacLain, by what I saw, was also the only member of our OL to have any success in blocking their #9 who was their all world LB. MacLain sealed him up nicely a couple of times but other than that he was pretty much untouched all night long.
Leggett looked a little better, not whiffing as much. Again, I think he's a much better, more physical blocker when he's down on the line rather than trying to block in the open field. You can see him get a nice block on Watson's TD run in the 3rd quarter. Watch Gallman and MacLain get great kick out blocks there as well.
I noticed we were trying to do an awful lot of set up with our screen game. We actually didn't do a lot of blocking with our wide outs on Saturday, instead on run plays we would have them go into a screen action and that would hold the DBs where they were as they had to play the screen. My guess is we were watching for ND to break down in discipline and then attack.
We also tried a few fake screens where we wanted to set up something vertical. We also at one point faked a bubble screen to Scott and then threw a tunnel screen underneath to McCloud, which I thought was a nice little play design, but Notre Dame was all over it.
The truth on Saturday was that Notre Dame's defense was pretty damn good too. They played pretty disciplined throughout and didn't bite on a lot of the stuff that we threw at them. We did manage to get a few one on one opportunities and took some shots that all came up empty. We were running the ball well but we really weren't gashing them with consistency. Even on the drive where Gallman was running well and we wound up throwing the pic, if you go back, We had had a couple negative plays there. They switched up the look they were giving us and caught us for a big loss on 2nd down. On 3rd down we threw long to Renfrow who looked like he had his guy beat but was interfered with. So I didn't have a big problem with the long throw on the next play that got intercepted, Notre Dame defensively had adjusted and was giving us one on one opportunities. That's why you run the ball - to set those plays up.
I did feel like there was a lack of creativity on the playcalling late in the game. Particularly on our possession after we intercepted the ball. Really felt like we could have been more aggressive there to at least get the first down. They were really squatting on the run at that point and I've got to believe that there was opportunity for us to get someone open.
My biggest complaint about the offense is this - by my count we went empty backfield 7 times. On 6 of those plays, it was a QB run. So it got to be pretty predictable there. I understand that they were giving us numbers when we went empty, but we've got to take a look at what other opportunities there might be. You can watch their linebackers on 3rd and 2 before our missed field goal. When they saw empty, they aren't even respecting the idea of anything happening behind them, they know what's coming.
I don't understand why we keep burning timeouts. We took 2 time outs in the 2nd half before a 4th down special teams play. After the Scott dropped touchdown pass we took a timeout and then pooch kicked it out of FG formation, then before the long FG try in the 4th we took another timeout. I don't really understand why this keeps happening. Saw the same thing in Louisville. Those timeouts would have been nice to have late in the game if we needed to get out a bad defensive look etc.
I'm also not sure about the short kickoff after we hit the field goal. It looked designed but may not have been. I suppose they didn't want to give them an opportunity at a return but instead wound up giving them really solid field position. Not sure what the thinking was there.
I think we really need to just keep feeding Scott. Scott really can't touch the ball enough at this point. We've got to find someone else though. Peake has been a no show this season. Renfrow really has been the other guy to this point and production wise we need to elevate him. We've got to give our younger guys a chance as well. But Peake needs to step up or step back.
So after re-watching the game, the big takeaway I took was that Notre Dame's defense played pretty well, they didn't really bite on a lot of the stuff we were trying to get them on. The conditions certainly affected our offense as well, as we had a couple of drops also. I thought Watson did a good job of just managing the game, he had the one under throw that got intercepted but wasn't making bad decisions, threw the ball away when he needed to. I think it's best to reserve judgement on our offense, especially our passing game, for a time when we have better conditions to throw the ball in.
Defensively, I mean what really needs to be said? Awesome performance for 3 quarters. I thought Venebles had a great plan coming in. Just run blitz after run blitz after run blitz. I felt like his entire plan was designed around stopping the run and confusing their quarterback.
One thing that I thought was impressive was the way Lawson played the QB read options. He essentially slow played them. You see this sometimes against the triple option where instead of assigning one man to the QB and one man to the back, a defense will assign one player to play both, where he will come in and kind of settle in the middle and wait or "slow play" and force the QB to either turn upfield or pitch it and then the player can go after the ball. If it's done properly it allows the defense to have one more player free rather than tied up in assignment and also forces the QB's hand in making a decision. This is essentially what Lawson did. He showed that he was squeezing down while also managing to stay wide enough to make a play on the QB. This confused Kizer and you see him multiple times just not sure what to do with the ball and Lawson just tackles him for a loss. You can see an example of this with about 7:10 to go in the 1st quarter.
People keep asking where Pagano is, and the answer is he must be in Indiana because he owns a home in the Notre Dame backfield (rimshot please). He's definitely still out there and he's definitely still a major contributor on our defensive front. Not as athletic as Wilkins, but I think is stronger and more physical than Wilkins. You saw Wilkins more late in the game because he's the better pass rusher.
Speaking of Wilkins, the guy is a freakish athlete. Just so agile and quick. You can see him on multiple plays running down Deshone Kizer. Good example at about 5:32 to go in the third. I have to think that if we needed him at DE he would be athletic enough to make that move.
The inside player that impressed me the most though was Carlos Watkins. This guy is just a world beater inside, a "war daddy" as Brad Scott would say. On Notre Dame's 2nd touchdown, they ran the same play that they ran on the 2 point attempt at the end of the game. On the touchdown, Wilkins was on the playside and got blocked. On the two point attempt, Watkins was on the playside and didn't get blocked. He also prevented their OL from climbing to the 2nd level. That was the difference.
On Alexander, he was one on one with Fuller most of the night, but did play him with a cushion. I think they probably had some opportunities to get the ball underneath to Fuller and certainly he was getting some separation on comback routes. But Alexander's recovery is so good that the throws would have had to have been near perfect to get them in there. And again, the plan was to confuse Kizer, so you see a lot of situations where he's got open guys and he's just not able to find them because he doesn't even know what coverage he's looking at. We heard during fall camp about Venebles using a lot of new more exotic looks, and I think he pulled them all out on Saturday night.
In the 4th quarter obviously they ate us up with underneath crossing/rub routes. We've got to figure out how to get that fixed. The main issue wasn't that the underneath routes were open but rather that we let them run for so much after the catch. That's what allowed them to get back in the game so quickly. I know of a guy down in Columbia who absolutely loves crossing routes, the good news is though he doesn't have a quarterback that can throw them.
So it was basically a game where Clemson controlled everything for 3 quarters and then made plays when we had to to hold on in the 4th. But you can really see why this was a tough game for those who pay close attention to both teams to pick. Very even teams. That's why I felt the difference was Clemson's preparedness and discipline in the elements. You can't really say "well notre dame would have won if it wasn't raining because they fumbled the wet ball" because Clemson played in the rain with the wet ball and didn't fumble it once. Clemson was more prepared, they executed better, and they won.
We've got to keep improving on kickoffs, where again we saw a guy just squeezing down too early which caused him to lose leverage on the football and lose contain on the returner. We've got to get our passing game going at some point, and I think we will now that defenses are going to have to start respecting our run game more. And on defense, we've got to find us a pass rusher. Lawson is good, but we are really missing that Vic Beasley type guy, that one guy who can just get after the QB consistently.
For those that couldn't make it to the game, I really hate it for you. Yeah the weather sucked, but it was a great atmosphere, and it was great to be there for a win that people will still be talking about a decade from now.
I'll close with this story in honor of Georgia Tech. This was a story shared at one of the high school coaching clinics that Clemson held a few years back, where one of the high school coaches was a former Clemson player who played under Frank Howard. He told us that one year they traveled to Atlanta, they were at Tech and they were in the locker room before the game. The locker room was right next to band section and was also situated where fans actually would walk by the locker room entrance. So the entire pregame they're having to listen to the GT band, and they're getting taunted by Tech fans yelling by the locker room. So it comes time for Coach Howard to give his pregame talk, and the players are gathered up and they wait, and they wait, and they wait. Finally Howard comes out, takes a cup, goes into the restroom and urinates in it. He walks to the locker room door and opens it and throws the cup out of the locker room. He turns to the team and says "Piss on Tech!" and then led them onto the field.
So Go Tigers! Piss on Tech!
