FB -- Clemson Game Thread - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: FB -- Clemson Game Thread (/thread-25150.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: FB -- Clemson Game Thread (/thread-25150.html)
RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - scorecard - 09-28-2024
On the Lamson fumble, where is the ball supposed to be spotted? Was it from where the fumble occurred or where the ball is recovered by Irvin? Either way, it sure looked like the ball was past the 35 yard line for either criteria. The ref starts out running at about the 35.5 yard line and then suddenly veers and puts the ball at the 34.5 yard line. On the replay from behind, it sure seemed like Irvin falls on the ball on the other side of the 35. I think we got hosed on that call.
RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - Giants - 09-28-2024
(09-28-2024, 11:25 PM)scorecard Wrote: On the Lamson fumble, where is the ball supposed to be spotted? Was it from where the fumble occurred or where the ball is recovered by Irvin? Either way, it sure looked like the ball was past the 35 yard line for either criteria. The ref starts out running at about the 35.5 yard line and then suddenly veers and puts the ball at the 34.5 yard line. On the replay from behind, it sure seemed like Irvin falls on the ball on the other side of the 35. I think we got hosed on that call.
My understanding of the rule is the ball is placed at the spot of the fumble. If the ball is recovered by the O and the spot results in a first down, the O retains possession. In this case, the spot did not result in a first down, therefore, even though the O recovered the fumble, the ball is turned over.
You can thank Dave Casper for this situation. It was the “Holy Roller” play that provided the impetus to create the rule in the NFL and, subsequently, at the college level.
RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - lex24 - 09-29-2024
(09-28-2024, 11:46 PM)Giants Wrote:(09-28-2024, 11:25 PM)scorecard Wrote: On the Lamson fumble, where is the ball supposed to be spotted? Was it from where the fumble occurred or where the ball is recovered by Irvin? Either way, it sure looked like the ball was past the 35 yard line for either criteria. The ref starts out running at about the 35.5 yard line and then suddenly veers and puts the ball at the 34.5 yard line. On the replay from behind, it sure seemed like Irvin falls on the ball on the other side of the 35. I think we got hosed on that call.
My understanding of the rule is the ball is placed at the spot of the fumble. If the ball is recovered by the O and the spot results in a first down, the O retains possession. In this case, the spot did not result in a first down, therefore, even though the O recovered the fumble, the ball is turned over.
You can thank Dave Casper for this situation. It was the “Holy Roller” play that provided the impetus to create the rule in the NFL and, subsequently, at the college level.
The Casper rule is that no one other than the fumbler can advance the ball. But if the fumble goes backwards and a player recovers, that becomes the spot.(I also think the rule only applies in last 2 minutes, although it may have been extended to include 4th downs).
Lamson fumbled and the ball went back a bit. The spot then, I think, should be where it was recovered.
RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - MV72018 - 09-29-2024
I can’t find TT’s post-game presser. Anyone have a link? Nothing on GoStanford.com. There’s a version on a Clemson site, but it’s inaudible. Thanks in advance.
RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - Goose - 09-29-2024
(09-28-2024, 09:43 PM)MV72018 Wrote: To bring Lamson in on 4th and short is to tell the D what the play will be.IMO this isn't at all the case. It is similar to running the wildcat with a running back or what we did with Isaiah Sanders. In most cases, Lamson is going to read the blocking and chose where he is going to run. The defense doesn't know exactly where he is going because even he doesn't know exactly where he is going :-). There is a designated "point of attack" (which can be anywhere along the LOS) but Lamson is free to go wherever he sees a crease that will get the first down. This offense is oriented towards fourth and less than two yards. We are saying "You (think you) know what we are going to call but you won't be able to stop it". It mostly works. It is not a play that will get you five yards unless you do throw the ball. Lamson is a QB and can throw the ball. He has done it, so the defense really can't totally "sell out" to stop the run.
Ideally you would prefer to run this play with your "regular" QB, but if you have someone who is a much better short yardage runner it makes sense to use them instead. I think that is the case with Lamson. It was also with Sanders. The fact both could throw a bit was an added bonus.
RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - Toroso - 09-29-2024
(09-28-2024, 11:46 PM)Giants Wrote:(09-28-2024, 11:25 PM)scorecard Wrote: On the Lamson fumble, where is the ball supposed to be spotted? Was it from where the fumble occurred or where the ball is recovered by Irvin? Either way, it sure looked like the ball was past the 35 yard line for either criteria. The ref starts out running at about the 35.5 yard line and then suddenly veers and puts the ball at the 34.5 yard line. On the replay from behind, it sure seemed like Irvin falls on the ball on the other side of the 35. I think we got hosed on that call.
My understanding of the rule is the ball is placed at the spot of the fumble. If the ball is recovered by the O and the spot results in a first down, the O retains possession. In this case, the spot did not result in a first down, therefore, even though the O recovered the fumble, the ball is turned over.
You can thank Dave Casper for this situation. It was the “Holy Roller” play that provided the impetus to create the rule in the NFL and, subsequently, at the college level.
I'm not clear on this rule. In the Kentucky-Ole Miss game, the Kentucky player fumbles around the 2-yard line, but it is caught mid-air by another Kentucky player around the 2 and he steps and falls forward for the TD. What is the difference?
RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - MV72018 - 09-29-2024
(09-29-2024, 09:41 AM)Goose Wrote:(09-28-2024, 09:43 PM)MV72018 Wrote: To bring Lamson in on 4th and short is to tell the D what the play will be.IMO this isn't at all the case. It is similar to running the wildcat with a running back or what we did with Isaiah Sanders. In most cases, Lamson is going to read the blocking and chose where he is going to run. The defense doesn't know exactly where he is going because even he doesn't know exactly where he is going :-). There is a designated "point of attack" (which can be anywhere along the LOS) but Lamson is free to go wherever he sees a crease that will get the first down. This offense is oriented towards fourth and less than two yards. We are saying "You (think you) know what we are going to call but you won't be able to stop it". It mostly works. It is not a play that will get you five yards unless you do throw the ball. Lamson is a QB and can throw the ball. He has done it, so the defense really can't totally "sell out" to stop the run.
Ideally you would prefer to run this play with your "regular" QB, but if you have someone who is a much better short yardage runner it makes sense to use them instead. I think that is the case with Lamson. It was also with Sanders. The fact both could throw a bit was an added bonus.
I respectfully and strongly disagree. I can think of only one Lamson pass from the cat formation and 9 times of 10 if not 19 times out of 20 he plows just to the left or right of center, in other words up the middle. I can’t remember a single instance of him going around the left or right end. Hence the D knows with a very high degree of probability what the play will be.
RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - Goose - 09-29-2024
(09-29-2024, 10:25 AM)Toroso Wrote: I'm not clear on this rule. In the Kentucky-Ole Miss game, the Kentucky player fumbles around the 2-yard line, but it is caught mid-air by another Kentucky player around the 2 and he steps and falls forward for the TD. What is the difference?In the Kentucky-Ole Miss game it was first down, not fourth down. The college rule is that on downs first through third anybody on either team can advance a fumble. On fourth down the rules are different. The rule is:
"When on fourth down, before a change of team possession, a Team A fumble is caught or recovered in advance of the fumble by a Team A player other than the fumbler, the ball is dead and returned to the spot of the fumble. If the fumble is recovered behind the spot of the fumble by a Team A player other than the Team A fumbler, the ball is dead at that spot."
This rule is necessary because if you fail to reach the line to gain before being tackled it would in almost all cases make sense to just "fumble" the ball forward when you are hit. You may get lucky and a teammate recovers for a first down. If the defense recovers they are (most probably) in no better position than they would be for a turnover on downs (and quite possibly a worse one). This rule prevents doing it.
RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - Toroso - 09-29-2024
(09-29-2024, 11:10 AM)Goose Wrote:(09-29-2024, 10:25 AM)Toroso Wrote: I'm not clear on this rule. In the Kentucky-Ole Miss game, the Kentucky player fumbles around the 2-yard line, but it is caught mid-air by another Kentucky player around the 2 and he steps and falls forward for the TD. What is the difference?In the Kentucky-Ole Miss game it was first down, not fourth down. The college rule is that on downs first through third anybody on either team can advance a fumble. On fourth down the rules are different. The rule is:
"When on fourth down, before a change of team possession, a Team A fumble is caught or recovered in advance of the fumble by a Team A player other than the fumbler, the ball is dead and returned to the spot of the fumble. If the fumble is recovered behind the spot of the fumble by a Team A player other than the Team A fumbler, the ball is dead at that spot."
Thanks for the clarification!
This rule is necessary because if you fail to reach the line to gain before being tackled it would in almost all cases make sense to just "fumble" the ball forward when you are hit. You may get lucky and a teammate recovers for a first down. If the defense recovers they are (most probably) in no better position than they would be for a turnover on downs (and quite possibly a worse one). This rule prevents doing it.
Thanks for the clarification!
RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - fullmetal - 09-29-2024
Klubnik and his offensive coordinators really picked on Manley and Morris (who I assume was Green's replacement). I hope that's fuel for practice the rest of the season.
Agreed that it's puzzling how Brown apparently didn't earn the QB1 job or the QB2 job in fall camp this season. Really? He was that bad? Worse than this? Who's the QB coach here anyway? (As posted elsewhere, I think our choice of QB coach is...interesting. Go read his bio. He didn't play in college, and his father was a college coach.)
I have no doubt that Lamson will not look great for a little bit as he hasn't had as many practice reps with the ones. But we need him to be good -- the run game, Ayomanor, the defense, and special teams need him to be good -- right now.
Can we install a power run offense? (If not, you need to convince me why not.) Would love to see the OL blowing open holes for Ford and Davis Jr.
RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - Mick - 09-30-2024
If you're referring to Osborne, Taylor lists himself as the QB coach and Osborne as the assistant QB coach. Might have something to do with Osborne's recruiting abilities and Stanford's desperate need to recruit top flight quarterbacks...we don't have a game-ready top flight quarterback on the roster.
https://gostanford.com/sports/football/roster
https://gostanford.com/sports/football/roster/season/2024/staff/tyler-osborne
RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - SamuelMcF - 09-30-2024
(09-29-2024, 09:41 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Agreed that it's puzzling how Brown apparently didn't earn the QB1 job or the QB2 job in fall camp this season. Really? He was that bad? Worse than this? Who's the QB coach here anyway? (As posted elsewhere, I think our choice of QB coach is...interesting. Go read his bio. He didn't play in college, and his father was a college coach.)
Troy Taylor is the QB coach.
Brown is QB2, as shown by him - not Lamson - coming in for 4Q against Cal Poly.
RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - fullmetal - 09-30-2024
Then Coach Taylor has too much on his plate. He needs to hire an effective QB coach (autonomous, senior level) and devote his time to being a head coach (CEO/GM) and being the offensive coordinator. Those positions are critical and should not be compromised.
RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - jacket3ree - 09-30-2024
(09-30-2024, 12:20 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Then Coach Taylor has too much on his plate. He needs to hire an effective QB coach (autonomous, senior level) and devote his time to being a head coach (CEO/GM) and being the offensive coordinator. Those positions are critical and should not be compromised.
Edited to say what I've been thinking. Taylor often seems to call a goofy game. Washington last year; plenty of others. They could have hung with Clemson longer if he wasn't doing stupid **** like going for it on 4th and 5 rather than pull within two scores in the third quarter. WTF? The opening 4th and 1 from their own 29 was also WTF for normal teams, but even I thought they were headed to 42-14 at that point (yes, on the very first drive; apparently I'm clairvoyant) so why not? I spoke with my son, who played and coached college football, mostly on championship teams, but he was part of a two-win high school team once and knows dysfunction when he sees it. Here's why not. According to Midvalier (that's my son), Taylor is telling his team he doesn't think they are capable of playing normal football and straight up beating teams.
As to the QB situation, here's his text verbatim: "The team is playing way too well for [Daniels] to suck this bad." He also really likes Ford, thinks "head coach needs to take a pair of scissors to Daniel's shirt," and "going for it on every 4th down is a big red flag; this isn't Sac State anymore."
Harbaugh's magic for all the weird bow to no program schtick was he talked about being a tough ass team that brook no argument the minute he took over. He basically spoke a top flight program it into existence.
It's not Taylor's fault he has two terrible P4 QBs (I finally looked at recruiting profiles - yikes) and a freshman who probably won't see the field any time soon due to injury, but that nagging feeling about this guy keeps getting louder.
Hopefully he can install some sort of power or RPO run game before 12:30 on Saturday, because without that, they're toast. Bust out the triple; whatever, do something. Start that GA Landrew Auck. Something.
RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - Goose - 09-30-2024
(09-30-2024, 08:08 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: Here's why not. According to Midvalier (that's my son), Taylor is telling his team he doesn't think they are capable of playing normal football and straight up beating teams.Exactly so! Worse still, the calls actually make it harder to beat your opponent either "straight up" or with trick plays. Players aren't stupid. They may already doubt their ability to win but they really oppose things that make it even harder.
Quote:Hopefully he can install some sort of power or RPO run game before 12:30 on Saturday, because without that, they're toast. Bust out the triple; whatever, do something. Start that GA Landrew Auck. Something.No coach can overhaul his entire offense in a week. A "power" game with an OL that only recently has been able to run block at all isn't likely to work. RPOs only work if the "Pass" part is at least somewhat possible. The coach needs to take the plays in the existing offense that Lamson can execute and design around them. That may mean running even more than we normally would, but changing everything just isn't in the cards.
RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - BostonCard - 10-01-2024
(09-30-2024, 08:08 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: Edited to say what I've been thinking. Taylor often seems to call a goofy game. Washington last year; plenty of others. They could have hung with Clemson longer if he wasn't doing stupid **** like going for it on 4th and 5 rather than pull within two scores in the third quarter. WTF? The opening 4th and 1 from their own 29 was also WTF for normal teams, but even I thought they were headed to 42-14 at that point (yes, on the very first drive; apparently I'm clairvoyant) so why not?
I agree, but at that point, the score was 20-7 so it was already a two-score (13 point) game. A field goal would have made it a 10-point game (and thus left it as a two-possession game), while a TD would have made it a one-possession game. I think it would have made sense to go for it on 4th and 1 or 2, but 4th and 5 is a heavy lift, and there was enough time left in the game that we were going to have more than two possessions going forward, so it was not imperative to bring it down to a one-possession game.
I was ok with going for it early on 4th and 1, for the reason you stated; when you are the inferior team, a high-risk, high-reward strategy makes sense. Losing 42-14 is no different from losing 28-24 in the standings.
BC
RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - Jamesy - 10-01-2024
(10-01-2024, 10:53 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(09-30-2024, 08:08 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: Edited to say what I've been thinking. Taylor often seems to call a goofy game. Washington last year; plenty of others. They could have hung with Clemson longer if he wasn't doing stupid **** like going for it on 4th and 5 rather than pull within two scores in the third quarter. WTF? The opening 4th and 1 from their own 29 was also WTF for normal teams, but even I thought they were headed to 42-14 at that point (yes, on the very first drive; apparently I'm clairvoyant) so why not?
I agree, but at that point, the score was 20-7 so it was already a two-score (13 point) game. A field goal would have made it a 10-point game (and thus left it as a two-possession game), while a TD would have made it a one-possession game. I think it would have made sense to go for it on 4th and 1 or 2, but 4th and 5 is a heavy lift, and there was enough time left in the game that we were going to have more than two possessions going forward, so it was not imperative to bring it down to a one-possession game.
I was ok with going for it early on 4th and 1, for the reason you stated; when you are the inferior team, a high-risk, high-reward strategy makes sense. Losing 42-14 is no different from losing 28-24 in the standings.
BC
IIRC, it was 3rd and 3 or so. My guess is that Taylor was already planning to go for it on 4th down, which is why he ran the roll out pass play to Lamson. One of the worst case scenarios happened with a sack and rather than revisiting the decision to go for it on 4th, Taylor rolled with the play he was already planning to run on 4th and short.
RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - Goose - 10-01-2024
(10-01-2024, 10:53 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I was ok with going for it early on 4th and 1, for the reason you stated; when you are the inferior team, a high-risk, high-reward strategy makes sense. Losing 42-14 is no different from losing 28-24 in the standings.IMO 4th and 1 has a "high enough" probability of success that it is at least reasonable to attempt it. However, I don't agree that a "high-risk, high reward" strategy necessarily "makes sense" when you are the "inferior" team, at least as it is cast by going for it on fourth and one. If the the inferior team can keep the score close, like 28-24, the superior team is one mistake (on offense or defense) away from losing the game. Going in the direction of 42-14 allows plenty of mistakes by the superior team with still no chance of victory by Stanford. College teams as a genre make mistakes frequently, even the "superior" ones.
BC
If you want to look at it as a "high-risk, high-reward" strategy, betting on Clemson to screw up once may be a better strategy that betting Stanford can make a particular fourth and one when there are plenty of plays yet to unfold. Stanford's can put pressure on Clemson and "facilitate" them screwing up by playing consistently "well". Making it on fourth and one arguably will do that. However, failure moves inexorably toward the 42-14 direction in a way that is not reversible. Maybe better to punt and hope for a better opportunity to apply pressure where the consequences of failure aren't as bad. Pick your spots and don't force yourself into "all or nothing at all" if you don't have to.
Realistically, if Stanford is the "inferior" team Stanford will not "beat" the superior team if both teams play "to chalk". Stanford had to rely on Clemson at least partially beating themselves. The "Greatest Upset Ever" was certainly an example of that. You need to give the "superior" team as much opportunity as possible to make a mistake. Giving them a short field does the opposite.
RE: FB -- Clemson Game Thread - fullmetal - 10-02-2024
Ugh, and Clemson definitely had four "short field" TD drives: 1 play 34 yds, 3 plays 34 yds, 4 plays 35 yds, 2 plays 43 yds. Those are what I think of as broken play TDs from that game.
Other Clemson possessions:
Three-and-outs: 3
Four-and-outs: 1
FG - 5 plays, 77 yds
FG - 12 plays, 58 yds
INT - 6 plays, 57 yds
TD - 8 plays, 54 yds
I'm not saying that Clemson wouldn't have scored if those short drive TDs were replaced by drives with "normal" starting field positions, but of the eight other Clemson possessions, the defense stoned Clemson for half of them, took the ball away once, and forced two field goals.
Having said that, it's the defense's job to not give up explosive, broken play touchdowns, so...the defense does have critical vulnerabilities. Mental mistakes or miscues from the DC or defensive captain...let's work on that. But they played hard, so I'm looking forward to the same tenacity against VT.
Oh, the original point. If you're going to be giving up that many busted play touchdowns, take the points. Of the three turnovers on downs, the two on our side of the field resulted in broken play TDs. One turnover on downs happened at the CLEM10, and the defense forced a three-and-out. The numbers should tell you that if you fail to convert a 4th down on your side of the field, it is disproportionally likely that the opponent will score a TD with an aggressive playcall and make your overall goal that much harder.