Sunday morning thoughts - Clemson - 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: Sunday morning thoughts - Clemson (/thread-25151.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: Sunday morning thoughts - Clemson (/thread-25151.html)
Sunday morning thoughts - Clemson - msqueri - 09-29-2024
1. We are who we thought we were: a try-hard, resilient team that is competing despite talent deficiencies in many areas, showing encouraging but still somewhat tentative signs of progress, and being a competent quarterback away from mediocre. This game encapsulated all of that. I would have loved if any number of things could have gone differently to make it a potentially thrilling competitive effort on the road in the wake of a hurricane against one of the conference's best teams. There are no shortage of contenders of pivotal what-could-have-beens - Lamson not fumbling, Bailey's near shoestring tackle and/or Green's catastrophic non-contact injury going differently to force a Clemson opening series field goal, pass interference/holding being called when Ayomanor was harassed on the end zone interception, the initial call on Bailey's pass breakup standing as a sack and forced fumble, to say nothing of QB1's abysmal decision-making and throwing execution or Taylor's debatable fourth down aggressiveness. But close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear war, plus all teams in all games have some things that break their way and some that don't. The truth is that this game was fairly representative of our 2024 team. Still, I think we played better than the final score indicates. [For what it's worth, using Sagarin numbers heading into this weekend, the TCU margin was befitting the #97 team, Cal Poly was befitting #63, Syracuse was befitting #32, and Clemson was befitting #113.....while I don't think last night built on our impressively linear progress, I do think the final score does not do justice to our competitiveness.]
2. The 26 point margin of loss compares to other Death Valley results of Appalachian State losing by 44 and NC State losing by 24. Our negative 1.56 net yards per play compares to positive 3.83 for Georgia (at a neutral site), negative 4.56 for Appalachian State, and negative 1.49 for NC State. Allowing Clemson to get 2.36 net points per non-garbage drive made the #11 net points per drive team look like the #10 net points per drive team. In other words, even with Daniels' terribly costly decision-making we played Clemson extremely straight up compared to their norm this season and basically equivalent to NC State, which in computer models is considered a slightly better team than us. Based on the Appalachian State and NC State results, it seems like a pretty fair result. Nonetheless, Taylor's fourth down decisions made the score wider than it could have been.
3. Reasonable minds can differ, I think, on whether Taylor made the right calls but it is so striking how incredibly aggressive he is being. I appreciate that Taylor views his fourth down aggressiveness as playing to win the game - and I can only hope it is being internalized/embraced as such by the players and contributing to a competitive culture - but I'm not sure his level of aggressiveness actually increases our chances. He is coaching like the head of a program with nothing to lose, which may be fair enough given the crater we've been in the last half decade, but I am not sure we actually are so bad to just throw all caution to the wind. Taylor coaches like he's assuming we need to be desperate on fourth downs, yet we are top 90 in the country in both offense and defense according to SP+; if that held, it would be the first time Stanford has been that balanced since 2019. I think it might be better from a short-term win optimization standpoint if Taylor started coaching like the subpar team we are rather than the hopeless team he inherited. He and April have done well to give us a puncher's chance and we arguably squander that with things like going for it from our own 34 on the fourth play of the game and going for it on 4th and 5 from the 10 when our lack of red zone competence (113th in both red zone scoring percentage and red zone touchdown percentage) makes that a very low percentage play and three points would have meant a lot in terms of momentum to make the game 20-10 deep in the third quarter in a game in which we had weathered a lot of adversity against a national power on the road. [No beef whatsoever on the last fourth down attempt even though it was from our own 34, as a first down was the only thing that could have prevented the game from entering garbage time at that stage. What I take exception to is having QB1 do the sneak rather than our dedicated, pretty good at it short yardage QB. I think Taylor may have gotten Daniels hurt and we also would have had a better chance converting if Lamson took that snap.] All that said, if the theory of the case is that this fourth down abandon inculcates a winning mentality (playing to win rather than to keep it close) that very well could pay longer-term dividends that justify it. Totally in the realm of the plausible/debatable I think.
4. If my morning after thoughts posts tallied up a winner between our offense and defense each week, this season it would be 3-0 for the defense in the FBS contests. We gave up 3.00 points per non-garbage drive, which is better than Clemson's average of 3.93, making the #9 points per drive offense look like the #28 points per drive offense, and that understates how impressively the defense did since the non-garbage touchdowns were all on drives starting in tremendous field position (our 34, Clemson 46, our 43, our 34). While we gave up our highest yards per play yet this season, that kind of thing will happen when you play a great offense. We actually held Clemson under their season average in yards per play and did better than their non-Georgia opponents did by well over a yard per play compared to NC State and over three yards per play compared to Appalachian State. The biggest story is the run defense. We really might be on to something there. 150 yards on 5 yards per carry is a nice performance against the #11 yards per carry rushing offense in the country. This was a massively tougher assignment than our previous three games and we passed the test, in fact having a whopping 3.15 fewer yards per carry allowed than NC State. Now, NC State has a bad run defense but to me the bottom line is that we have held every single opponent this season under their average in yards per carry and were three yards away against TCU for the same being true on total rushing yards. This really might be a very good run defense.
5. Perhaps a spicy take, but I think some people are being way too harsh about Stanford's pass defense in this game, including the much-maligned Manley. We held Clemson slightly below their season averages in passer rating, yards per attempt, and total yards and massively below the average in completion percentage. Klubnik is #4 in the nation in Total QBR, truly one of the best players in the country, and we made life about exactly as hard on him as did NC State, which has a thoroughly mediocre pass defense. I will happily take a mediocre performance by the Stanford pass defense at this point given the limitations of everybody but Wright. This was a pretty good result for a pass defense that has to put guys like Leigber and Morris out there and hope for the best. At this stage of the season, our three FBS games have been against three of the four best passer rating teams we play this season. I would expect Louisville and SMU to be challenges for our pass defense but we have a number of games left that are much easier sledding in this phase. The contrast may seem immediate next week when we go up against the #103 passer rating team in the nation in Virginia Tech.
6. The offense was much less encouraging. We score 0.64 points per non-garbage drive, much worse than Clemson's average allowed of 1.97, making the #56 points per drive defense look like the #3 points per drive defense. While we got yards, that overstates our effectiveness relative to opponent since Clemson does not have a very good defense (we are #98 in yards per play defense this season and they are #99). The harsh reality is that we had fewer yards per play than anybody they've played this season, even Appalachian State. The main culprit is obvious. Our passing sucked, the worst game for us statistically in every respect even though Clemson has a slightly worse pass defense than TCU and Syracuse. Clemson dominated Daniels and the passing game similar to how they did against App State, also a bad passing team. We were a lot better running the ball - including very notably Daniels himself - and that's the silver lining on this side of the ball. We were right around 5.4 yards per carry for the second game in a row, which feels like major progress, but optimism needs to be tempered somewhat by recognition of the defenses we have been playing. Syracuse stinks at run defense and Clemson is even worse statistically (#120, third worst Power Four run defense), though garbage time has significantly distorted their stats. All in all I call yesterday a triumph of the Stanford run game - hard not to with the yards total we had, the most Cardinal rushing yards since 2018 and the fifth most rushing yards Clemson has given up in the last 8+ seasons - but one that is nonetheless less impressive than it seemed to the naked eye. Clemson has some issues in run defense.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Clemson - msqueri - 09-29-2024
7. We have to talk about QB1. Taylor - assiduous about compliment sandwiches and touting silver linings for players he knows are doing their best with inherent limitations - has had one word stand out above all in the word cloud of his comments on Daniels in the last 2-3 interviews (most notably the Tuesday press conference and last night's post-game press conference): rough. That's the word Taylor keeps coming back to. He says it wrapped around truthful praise about Daniels in the run game and compassionate tacit acknowledgment that nobody is more down on Daniels than Daniels but yeah, he keeps calling Daniels' play "rough." Coach has eyes. Daniels was #82 of 107 QBs nationally in Total QBR this week (for those who think that's too high in light of the three terribly costly interceptions, Total QBR rightly credits Daniels' excellent running last night, which they deem the 14th best in the country this week, not something the metrics always credit him with as adding value, as he is 75th on the season). On the season, Daniels is #116 of 129 in Total QBR, literally the worst non-Northwestern QB in Power Four football. He has been so bad that his Total QBR went up after last night. It's only recognizing reality to view the extent to which Daniels is holding this team back as one of the biggest storylines of the season. It's really a killer. Daniels continues to play at as low a level as we've ever seen at Stanford. This really should not happen at Stanford. The question is what to do about it and it seems like 2024 has not been the season for decision space. First, Elijah Brown went down and is going to miss a big chunk of a season that probably should have seen him starting by now. Then Daniels got hurt last night, which may make Taylor's decision for him for next week and potentially for some weeks to come. I am pretty dispirited that Taylor evidently feels Jackson is such a zero as to never mention him or play him during garbage time or deviate from Lamson time in which we are plainly loath to throw. But it is what it is. We are probably entering a stretch of Lamson time. For what it's worth, I'm not despondent about it. Daniels being so bad gets us close to it couldn't be worse territory (though there is no such thing as it could always be worse, perhaps personified/challenged by Jack West). Moreover, I am ok with giving Lamson some practice time as QB1 to broaden the parts of the offense we drill him on/entrust him with. He has been visibly limited in what we've allowed him to do this season, but he's been successful with two bona fide touchdown throws. Maybe Lamson can be better than Daniels. I'm not predicting that (I am predicting we will continue to have among the worst QB play in the nation) but I'm ok seeing what Lamson could do, just as I would be ok seeing what Jackson could do (in an alternate reality in which Taylor didn't want to hurtle the young QB into the sun). And of course Brown's recovery will be of keen interest to all fans in the coming weeks.
8. How about Micah Ford! That was an awesome coming out party. Clemson's run defense is flawed, as I have said, but that was a big performance. I was pretty shocked (stat of the week/month warning) to see that Ford is Stanford's first freshman running back with over 100 yards rushing since Kenneth Tolon in 2001. Whoa. This was our first 100 yard rushing game by any running back since Filkins got exactly 100 against Washington State over two years ago and the most for any running back since Jones back-to-back great games against Washington and Oregon State in 2021. This was really a quite notable performance for any back and especially a freshman in September of his first year running behind one of the worst run blocking lines in America. Considering that PFF puts our run blocking for the season at #126, one can only imagine what Ford could do with a competent line. I have liked what I have seen from Davis at times this season but we appear to have RB1 locked up. Elsewhere at the skill positions, I see some sparks at wide receiver and a toxic wasteland at tight end (bummed to have been so right about that). Despite a touchdown and some first downs I thought it was not a good game for Ayomanor and I am starting to raise my eyebrows at our hardest worker/best player's body language. While a lot of it may be frustration directed at himself, it's not great vibes for an offense trying to slowly build confidence and winning attitudes. Nice to see Mosley get his feet wet and contribute meaningfully, even if the touchdown was garbage time. [Moving the chains (first down) leaderboard: Ford (5), Daniels (4), Ayomanor (3, also drew a pass interference), Lamson (2), Mosley (2), Cisse, Irvin] In terms of the offensive line, PFF thought our run blocking was extraordinarily poor (making Ford's performance even more impressive) and the pass blocking elite (a surprise to me as four sacks allowed is pretty bad against a defense that had that many in the three previous games combined), perhaps a reflection of QB onus on some sacks. The biggest individual OL story I see on PFF is House getting better each week. He's yet to grade well in a game but he's taking steps. Maikkula seemed to supplant Leyrer, which makes sense given Leyrer's struggles, but Maikkula isn't playing well either. We generally seem more disciplined than one might fear with over-matched linemen. As a team (so the defensive pass interference penalties contribute), yesterday was the most penalty yards we've given up but in a very normal range and on the season we are 27th in fewest penalties.
9. Wright made himself some money last night. He is such an all-around DB who adds so much in tackling in space. Lucky to have him. The secondary would be very rough otherwise, and if Leigber and Morris are better than the alternatives (which I have no reason to doubt) I fear what a post-Wright secondary looks like. Hopefully that's not for another few years. This game may have had our most players contribute multiple positive box score plays that we've had yet this season (Wright, Edwards, Sinclair, Rose, Bailey, Bernadel, Aybar, Manley, Leigber, Galvan), though several of them did much more negative than positive. What most jumped out to me, despite Sinclair's Jekyll and Hyde game, was that I think the inside linebackers is the best and deepest group I can remember us having at that position in a while. It is so great to get Galvan to make his debut and add a spark with a sack that got the defense off the field (the only sack we had but Clemson does not give up many sacks against anybody) as well as another tackle to force another punt. Bernadel was quieter but contributed meaningfully in run defense. Even with the room being deeper than before, Rose made a tackle for loss in the second quarter (quite interesting he was rotating in so early in the game even in a game Galvan made his debut) and then was a maniac in garbage time, one of the more dominating stretches we've seen from a defender in a while, though of course it was garbage time. I am feeling pretty good about ILB this season and significantly increasing my optimism for next year's Galvan/Rose era. On the edge, Bailey is the most talented guy by far and makes his impact known consistently (and would have had a brobdingnagian game if the sack/forced fumble wasn't reversed to a pass breakup), but his usage has decreased literally every game this season. Couldn't believe my eyes to see only 16 snaps for him yesterday. Don't know what's up with that but it's troubling. Aybar, Tafiti, and Cooper give us nothing compared to Bailey.
10. Not the best game for the special teams though a lot of it was Taylor's decisions and Daniels' ineptitude taking plays off of Kenney's foot. Flintoft had net punts of 56 to the 5 (!), 41 to the 39, 39 to the 46 (12 yard return), 48 to the 7, 18 to our own 35 (blocked punt), and 41 to the 24, a very solid day overall but I am sure any day you get one blocked is a terrible day. The way it was shown on tv I couldn't really see what happened. It was nice for us to get our own block, and Aristotle Taylor is now tied for the national lead in blocks and the first Card since Thomas Booker to have multiple in a season. Dubre was excellent in kick coverage (two good tackles) and Butler was very good (a good one and a decent one). Bachmeier had an ugly stat line (to go with his weekly ugly receiving line) of a zero yard return and a negative one yard return, plus he just makes me nervous back there. I get the sense we are going to muff a punt back to the other team at some point.
11. Game balls: Ford, Wright, Dubre, D'Onofrio
12. We have seen enough fight and competence this season that I am genuinely looking forward to the Virginia Tech game. Doubt around Daniels' status and lack of any sense we have an answer at QB regardless of Daniels' status casts a bit of a pall over it, but I think the team we have seen this season has a decent chance of winning. Considering that we never beat legitimate opponents in the C-House, this could be an important moment in the Taylor era and what he is trying to build. We've now strung together some games in which Stanford is, at times, actually entertaining and it would be great to have that continue Saturday, hopefully in a winning effort. It feels pretty big in terms of determining what we get out of this season.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Clemson - Goose - 09-29-2024
(09-29-2024, 12:36 PM)msqueri Wrote: <snip>As usual, I think you mostly nailed it. I really liked the way you handled TTs fourth down decisions. There is an argument in favor of all of them. IMO the argument is very weak in some particular cases. I reject the logic that doing something that has a very low probability of success (i.e. stupid) can create a greater desire to "play to win" and create a better "culture". Doing something stupid never helps you win. If it did, throwing interceptions into the teeth of the defense would be equally defensible :-). At some point the players will ask themselves "Is the coach all there?".
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Clemson - SkiBum80 - 09-29-2024
Appreciate the detailed analysis
One thing I’m not sure is if taking a QB sack factors towards the OLine scoring more poorly in their PFF pass protection grade?
If so I think that might sometimes be unfair to our guys.
From an eye test, if our OLine gives our QB long pass protect time, like 4+ seconds, then the QB takes a sack rather than having thrown a completed pass or thrown away if every receiver truly covered, then that’s on QB not OLine.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Clemson - SamuelMcF - 09-29-2024
(09-29-2024, 02:58 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote: Appreciate the detailed analysis
One thing I’m not sure is if taking a QB sack factors towards the OLine scoring more poorly in their PFF pass protection grade?
If so I think that might sometimes be unfair to our guys.
From an eye test, if our OLine gives our QB long pass protect time, like 4+ seconds, then the QB takes a sack rather than having thrown a completed pass or thrown away if every receiver truly covered, then that’s on QB not OLine.
"n terms of the offensive line, PFF thought our run blocking was extraordinarily poor (making Ford's performance even more impressive) and the pass blocking elite [...] perhaps a reflection of QB onus on some sacks."
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Clemson - msqueri - 09-29-2024
SkiBum80 dateline='[url=tel:1727647098' Wrote: 1727647098[/url]']
Appreciate the detailed analysis
One thing I’m not sure is if taking a QB sack factors towards the OLine scoring more poorly in their PFF pass protection grade?
If so I think that might sometimes be unfair to our guys.
From an eye test, if our OLine gives our QB long pass protect time, like 4+ seconds, then the QB takes a sack rather than having thrown a completed pass or thrown away if every receiver truly covered, then that’s on QB not OLine.
PFF accounts for this and I alluded to exactly that in my post. PFF loved (at least on initial grading) our pass blocking yet we gave up four sacks against a team that doesn’t generally sack much. Obviously PFF blamed other factors (e.g., Daniels and Lamson) more than the OL pass blocking.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Clemson - SamuelMcF - 09-29-2024
Let the record show that PFF does count "sacks allowed" for each OL. They counted ZERO sacks allowed by the OL, implying all 4 were not primarily their fault.
(For comparison, 3 of TCU's 5 sacks were counted as allowed by the OL, and a fourth by Micah Ford.)
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Clemson - bl82 - 09-29-2024
(09-29-2024, 03:23 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: Let the record show that PFF does count "sacks allowed" for each OL. They counted ZERO sacks allowed by the OL, implying all 4 were not primarily their fault.
(For comparison, 3 of TCU's 5 sacks were counted as allowed by the OL, and a fourth by Micah Ford.)
Interesting. Do we have any idea if they fault the QB on this, if these were "coverage sacks" or if they don't hold the OL accountable if the defense sends a big blitz package, etc.?
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Clemson - murky - 09-29-2024
Does PFF watch each player on each play and make a judgement, or is it based on stat outcomes?
How could our line be graded as poor run blocking for that game in which the running result was excellent? How did Ford do in PFF?
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Clemson - BostonCard - 09-29-2024
(09-29-2024, 04:20 PM)murky Wrote: Does PFF watch each player on each play and make a judgement, or is it based on stat outcomes?
Yes
https://www.pff.com/grades
Quote:The PFF grading system evaluates every player on every play during a football game. We believe that #EveryPlayCounts and that attention to detail provides insights and data that cannot be found anywhere else. The grading system was founded on the principle of grading “production” rather than traits or measurables, but perhaps a better way to describe it is a player’s “contribution to production” on a given play.
Did the quarterback make a great throw, but it was dropped? The quarterback contributed to positive production and will receive a positive grade for that effort, even though the receiver let him down, earning a negative grade along the way.
There is still some subjectivity involved, and sometimes it is not clear whose “fault” a given negative play is, without knowing what was called, but in general the system is better than one based solely on outcomes.
BC
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Clemson - SamuelMcF - 09-29-2024
(09-29-2024, 04:20 PM)murky Wrote: How could our line be graded as poor run blocking for that game in which the running result was excellent? How did Ford do in PFF?
Ford was the highest-graded player on offense.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Clemson - needle - 09-29-2024
I agree with others that msqueri's writing about the fourth down calls rings very true.
The extenuating circumstances surrounding this game make it unwise, imo, to view Saturday's performances as any kind of indicator of what we'll see from this team (or Clemson) in the future.
With Daniels out, I don't believe Stanford has a realistic chance against VaTech, a team that has a run-first mentality (top 20ish in rushing attempts and top 40ish nationally in rushing yards), a very mobile QB, and a defense that's (probably) better than Clemson's. Brace yourselves for a really ugly game Saturday.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Clemson - qwerty49 - 09-29-2024
Interesting observation, Matt, re #13’s body language. I’ve noticed he conveys an attitude I can’t quite decipher. It’s almost as if he doesn’t care about anything other than running his route. When the ball goes to someone else he doesn’t seem to be interested in downfield blocking. Of course I’m limited by TV angles but the body language seems strange.
Who is QB4? Jackson? Mirer?
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Clemson - fullmetal - 09-29-2024
QB1 - AD, QB2 - JL, QB3 - EB, QB4 - MJ, QB5 - CM until shown otherwise. Interesting that our QB coach (who also coaches the WRs) did not play football in college but instead was an undergraduate assistant coach (but his dad was a college football coach). I have been hoping that the QB position coach would have elevated the level of QB play over the last couple of years, but with QB1 seemingly regressing from last season, I now have questions.
Agreed with all of msqueri's analysis, although I think the continued aversion from WR screens or tunnel screens or RB swing passes is puzzling to me. But maybe our WR foot speed doesn't scare defenses, and the secondaries are lined up in press coverage.
Running a long-developing reverse (double reverse?) on 4th and 5 seemed foolish to me.
I was pleased with Ford's running and yet surprised that Clemson didn't have LBs spying or containing the edges. I wonder if they were keying in on QB runs up the middle. We certainly spent a lot of snaps making Clemson aware of our QB running between the tackles.
What hurts to me is that three of Clemson's TDs were broken play touchdowns (aided by offensive turnovers, short field!), and one was a short field TD set up by the blocked punt. The majority of Clemson's points were aided by Stanford! Credit to the defense for making Clemson work hard when Clemson had to drive the length of the field. (Broken play might not be accurate, but here let's just say that a 30+ yd TD play means the defense wasn't in a place to tackle.) Clean up the miscues or schematic issues...clean up the bad play gifting opposing offenses with short fields...and this defense has a chance to stop drives or even score.
Lamson needs to develop good chemistry with Ayomanor immediately. I am surprised at the number of passes that seem to be thrown to non-Biletnikoff preseason watch list nominees, especially when the passer seems to pick one receiver each play. It's as if we're not going to give our best player a chance to put the game on his back. (Colorado anyone?)
With Georgia Tech moving away from the triple option, maybe it's time Stanford picked up that mantle in the ACC. Ga Tech made it work with Calvin Johnson back in the day, and maybe Stanford can do the same with Ayomanor.