|
I'm happy to see PFF grades for the OL
storage
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
|
Replies: 23
| visibility 1221
|
Orange Elite [5424]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
I'm happy to see PFF grades for the OL
1
Oct 2, 2023, 2:15 PM
|
|
I thought the pass blocking was good
But I’m having a hard time reconciling the run blocking performance with our running performance. Save for the mafah run, it was a slow night.
Maybe some of you OL guru can explain that to me.
Were our RB’s not finding the holes?
Were our TE’s not blocking ?
Was the blocking scheme poor?
|
|
|
|
 |
Asst Coach [874]
TigerPulse: 93%
23
|
Re: I'm happy to see PFF grades for the OL
Oct 2, 2023, 2:25 PM
|
|
I've wondered the same thing. I think it may be a little of all 3, i refuse to believe Shipley can only get 1 yard on every other hand off. I think the running play schemes need a slight change refreshing. it is odd though, i get the same exact feeling under riley as i did with Streeter when Clemson is 1 or 2 yards away (no confidence)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4513]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
Re: I'm happy to see PFF grades for the OL
Oct 2, 2023, 3:10 PM
|
|
Thats bc the OL is still not grinding out a modernized S&C program.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [920]
TigerPulse: 100%
24
|
Re: I'm happy to see PFF grades for the OL
1
Oct 2, 2023, 2:26 PM
|
|
I'm no guru but it was pretty clear that 'Cuse sold out to stop the run, forcing Cade to beat them through the air
However, it was still a lackluster performance, from a run blocking standpoint, especially given their lack of size along the DL
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5424]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: I'm happy to see PFF grades for the OL
Oct 2, 2023, 2:40 PM
|
|
Yeah, when I rewatched the game I saw Putnam getting trucked almost every run. He was getting pushed back up into the play on almost every run.
Maybe it's just a case of the other guys getting the job done, a poor play at center and a bunch of run blitzes.
Poor play at center can mess a lot of stuff up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [805]
TigerPulse: 100%
23
|
Re: I'm happy to see PFF grades for the OL
2
Oct 2, 2023, 2:31 PM
|
|
O-line has been and continues to be a problem. Other schools take 4* O-linemen and have them starting from day 1. Clemson has O-linemen in the program for years that never develop. Does not help that Walker Parks has been lost for the year.
Even with our championship teams, the O-line would not have been listed as a strength of the team. We had a few highly rated guys, but for the most part we had a lot of 3* guys that played a few years together. Eric Mac Lain was recruited as a TE out of high school and he grew into a O-lineman. In my opinion Robbie Caldwell did more with less, and our offensive scheme was good enough to mask the problems.
We seem to recruit more 4* guys these days that are very slow developing and I attribute that to coaching. I am just not sure Thomas Austin is the guy for this role.
To answer your question, we continue to have an average at best O-line but we are missing the Gallman/ Etienne type running backs. Shipley is good, but not to their level. Neither Shipley or Mafah are truly homerun threats anytime they touch the ball.
Going into the season the offense was supposed to be run first, but it is more pass oriented. Thank goodness Tyler Brown and Stellato have emerged to help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5424]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: I'm happy to see PFF grades for the OL
Oct 2, 2023, 2:47 PM
|
|
Yeah.
I actually think the OL has played well this year. Much better than the last 1-2 years.
It's interesting because I think pass blocking was the real area we needed to improve and that's been pretty darn good. A few misses here and there but you can't block everyone.
Honestly I feel like the TE, WR, & RB (from time to time) blocking is where we've been bad.
It's also funny, I thought this was the OL’s worst game so far (specifically due to run blocking) - guess that shows what I know!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4513]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
Re: I'm happy to see PFF grades for the OL
Oct 2, 2023, 4:26 PM
[ in reply to Re: I'm happy to see PFF grades for the OL ] |
|
I have the totally opposite perspective. Caldwell did less with more he had guys like Hyatt, Jackson Carmen, and plethora of 4 star and 5 star talent early in his time at Clemson. Towards the end of Caldwells time recruiting at OL dipped. He needed to retire 2 years earlier.
I think Austin is doing more with less and he gets very little help from this S&C staff. Gotta be strong and explosive on the OL an area Clemson has never been good at in the past 18 years or so. Technique can only overcome so much especially if the guy across from you is using good technique but stronger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [7093]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: I'm happy to see PFF grades for the OL
Oct 2, 2023, 2:45 PM
|
|
OL remains a work in progress, but the Orange ran a lot of run blitz. This took away some running lanes but, if a pass was called, Cade was mobile enough to scramble outside the pocket and throw it away, or make a play down field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6559]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
|
Re: I'm happy to see PFF grades for the OL
Oct 2, 2023, 2:48 PM
|
|
Yes
Yes
Yes
Our running backs make very few cuts to open spaces. They are big and "straight-ahead" fast. The RB's who can cut are sitting on the bench.
TE's leave a lot on the table when it comes to blocking. Not good.
Schemes are better for the stretch plays and big runs have come on stretch plays thus far. Everything else is the same as last year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5424]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: I'm happy to see PFF grades for the OL
Oct 2, 2023, 3:08 PM
|
|
I will say pulling the backside gaurd and tackle was a think of beauty
That's an NFL level play. You can't run that with just any O-lineman
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7947]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 15878
Joined: 2001
|
The OL isnt going to get dinked because Syracuse
Oct 2, 2023, 2:53 PM
|
|
sends 1 or 2 more guys than what we have on the line. They were still doing their job - you have 3 options. 1) pass the ball to counter this 2)Deploy a FB/HB as lead blocker to clear the blitzer- old school football 3) have a running back that can consistently run over a guy 1v1 in the hole. That’s about it. You have to pay attn to what the other team is taking away, it matters and that doesn’t matter who the opponent is. We should be passing more until Defenses are mutually respecting our run/pass game. Make the young inexperienced QB beat you - most widely deployed strategy at any level - HS to Pros - by DCs
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5424]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: The OL isnt going to get dinked because Syracuse
Oct 2, 2023, 3:16 PM
|
|
Yeah, they were definitely run blitzing
But they didn't bring it every down. I thought they mixed it up pretty good.
I just felt there were a number of plays where it was 5 on 5 or 6 on 5 at worst where we just got blown up. Putnam seemed like he was living 2 yards in the backfield every running play
And that type of push makes the run blitzes all the more effective
Maybe I'm crazy, but I thought cuse came with the wrong d game plan. The way they were controlling the interior line, I think dropping an extra guy back in coverage could have saved them a few big plays we got over the top.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [31589]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 18166
Joined: 2008
|
Re: I'm happy to see PFF grades for the OL
Oct 2, 2023, 3:00 PM
|
|
Mayes had a pretty bad game in run blocking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [23484]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 24235
Joined: 2003
|
The lack of deep threat puts extra pressure on run blocking.
Oct 2, 2023, 3:20 PM
|
|
I still don't believe OL has as big of a problem this year compared to at least 5 other things.
If our passing game can consistently threaten people deep then you will magically notice better run blocking.
It just doesn't look bad to me. The holistic result of the play call/design, formation, etc. has looked suspect at times.... but I don't think OL coaching or recruiting is bad. It's not elite either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5424]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: The lack of deep threat puts extra pressure on run blocking.
Oct 2, 2023, 3:23 PM
|
|
I completely agree with you. I think the OL is one of our strengths this year despite the narrative I see on tigernet
I was just surprised with pff ranking this week because felt it wasn't their best showing this season (especially run blocking)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2630]
TigerPulse: 99%
33
|
Our lineman are losing the battles
Oct 2, 2023, 3:22 PM
|
|
Simple
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5424]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: Our lineman are losing the battles
Oct 2, 2023, 3:59 PM
|
|
I don't agree with that across the board
I thought Mayes (pass blocking) and Putnam (run blocking) were having some issues
But I thought the other guys were winning their battles pretty consistently
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4282]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
Re: I'm happy to see PFF grades for the OL
Oct 2, 2023, 3:26 PM
|
|
To me, it is the scheme.
No full back.
Small tight ends, generally not on end of line.
We don’t have “heavy” group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [805]
TigerPulse: 100%
23
|
Re: I'm happy to see PFF grades for the OL
Oct 2, 2023, 4:29 PM
|
|
Ok, there are few on here that are of the opinion that there is no issues with recruiting or coaching.
Take a look at the depth charts for 2023 Clemson and 2022 UGA. 2022 UGA played primarily Jones 5*, McClendon 4*, Van Pran 4*, Ratledge 5*, and Truss 3*. 2 redshirt sophomores and 3 redshirt juniors. We can all agree that it was a really good offensive line.
In 2023 Clemson has used a combination of Leigh 5*, Sadler 4*, Tate 4*, Putnam 4*, Parks 4*, Miller 4*, Mayes 4*, and Miller 4*. Not too shabby according to recruiting rankings. 1 less 5* but no 3* players according to Rivals.
Clemson has 2 seniors starting, 3 redshirt juniors who are not playing much despite having 4 years in the program, and 2 redshirt sophomores with 3 years in the program that have not played much either.
So is the problem recruiting where the recruiting services are missing on all of the these guys, or is it coaching where these guys that have been in the program for YEARS and have not been developed?
Totally understand Syracuse loaded the box. But we all saw 1st and Goal from the 1 yard line TWICE against Duke, and several other occasions this season where the O-line has been stoned, or experienced linemen whiffed on their blocks.
Not saying the O-line has been bad overall, but not good enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5424]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: I'm happy to see PFF grades for the OL
Oct 2, 2023, 4:47 PM
[ in reply to Re: I'm happy to see PFF grades for the OL ] |
|
I think that you are right.
If we know we are going to get run blitzed, we need to be able to line up and get a yard
Briningstool ain't getting it done
I'm wondering if getting a 2nd string OL or a DL in there to lead block in a jumbo package would help in these short yard situations
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Spirit [9495]
TigerPulse: 100%
44
Posts: 13130
Joined: 2000
|
i enjoy the critique of the OL play from the crowd that
2
Oct 2, 2023, 4:47 PM
|
|
watches the QB on the snap and follows the RB after the hand-off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [28652]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 15985
Joined: 2015
|
Re: I'm happy to see PFF grades for the OL
2
Oct 2, 2023, 5:02 PM
|
|
I thought the pass blocking was good
But I’m having a hard time reconciling the run blocking performance with our running performance. Save for the mafah run, it was a slow night.
Maybe some of you OL guru can explain that to me.
Were our RB’s not finding the holes?
Were our TE’s not blocking ?
Was the blocking scheme poor?
SYRACUSE WAS SCHEMING TO STOP THE RUN!!!!
This has been discussed plenty of times...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5424]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: I'm happy to see PFF grades for the OL
Oct 3, 2023, 4:44 PM
|
|
So I’ll take your response to mean that you are not an OL guru…
I’ve seen plenty of teams line up in the power I and run the ball against a run blitz.
I would have appreciated a thoughtful response like: “Clemson doesn’t use a fullback or a blocking TE in short yardage situations”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 23
| visibility 1221
|
|
|
|
50
