Sunday, September 20, 2009

How to ruin the best OLine in the ACC part 2

As you will see the offensive line was not the only problem yesterday, but the breakdowns up front and the failure of our coordinator to react all come back to confusion and execution on the offensive line. These shots are all from Shinskie's second and thankfully final series.

1st and 10

-- At this point Clemson has no respect for our passing game and has put 8 in the box. We will see this all year until we prove we can exploit it.

-- We run a trap with the three interior guys moving. Ricky Sapp -- the guy Doc Walker circled is unaccounted for. In theory the play is going away from him. The hope is he will be too late or someone will rub him and keep him from the play. This is tougher to do when there are 8 in the box and the Tigers were smelling blood.

-- Here is where it starts to breakdown. Cleary (77) is ready to clear a hole. The right side is okay. Claiborne is a little behind but has a position on his man. Tennant and Castonzo are doubling the DE and letting Sapp run free. Is that the design? I don't know. I would hope Tennant would occupy his man and Castonzo would jump out on Sapp. Why aren't they reading and adjusting?

-- At this point Sapp is through. Claiborne has lost his man and the right side is losing.
-- Harris is toast.


2nd and 13

-- Clemson is loading the box again. We have two TEs which should offer extra protection if needed.

-- Clemson drops one of their 8 back. This takes away some of the big play.

-- Good straight forward pass blocking. It can be done! Now the problem is Shinskie. He never looks off Anderson.

-- This pass is completed. It is positive. Put enough of these together and you actually have an offense. But no, we used many more slow to develop plays.

3rd and 10

-- This is the final play of Shinskie's day. It had a breakdown in protection and in QB play. It is an obvious passing down and Clemson has 7 in the box.

-- The right side of the line is fine. The first mistake though is Cleary looks to his right and starts to get out of position to the uncoming defenders. To make it worse, Clemson is overloading and sending three guys at the gap between Cleary and Castonzo. Ugh.
-- Hope is not lost. Castonzo makes a strong move to fill the hole. Clearly recovers to get the trailing guy. Our receivers start to get open. The ball needs to start coming out.
-- Harris makes a huge block to give Shinskie that much more time. (BTW, our running backs have been great pass blockers under Sirmans.) Yet the ball is not out!!! Look, guys were open.
-- We had a breakdown. We had a two seperate saves from two of our best (Harris and Castonzo) yet Shinskie takes the sack. As I said, multiple problems but it started with protection.

6 comments:

CT said...

This is exactly what I said would happen when you have a QB who cannot throw the ball effectively.

Put 8 guys in the box.

Several on here told me I was being pessimistic...and that's nicely put.

The OLine confusion is certainly disconcerting, and you can't run or throw without one doing their jobs, but the other guys don't have to come up with the Unified Theory to stop a team that has two "really good" sophomore RBs (as I've been reminded over and over).

When you can't throw the ball!

Unknown said...

BC offense yesterday was the worst I've ever seen at BC. Confusion and tentativeness comes down to coaching. I've read the offensive coordinator is 69 years old and is a friend of Spaz's who is in his mid-sixties. They might be nice guys but they sure can't coach.

Listening to Spaz come in for the start of the second half, he sounded depressed. His comments after the game were far from uplifting. What's all the talk about an ongoing project? Someone tell Spaz they are 1/4th through the season.

And I don't think the defense was that good because this is a mediocre Clemson team. Let's not suffer like Duke has with a coach who hires his friends. I really hope I am wrong but this could be a dismal season.

Greg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Greg said...

I have read several people talk about how the D wasn't that good, and I just don't get it. They gave up 6 field goals, several of which were due to Clemson having the ball deep in our territory! What more do people want? I mean, I guess they could have scored enough points to win the game as well. That would have been nice.

But seriously, given all we lost and the hole the offense put them in, I think the D played outstanding.

PHL BC Eagles said...

I was tasting my shoelaces (foot in mouth) when I saw the "speed" of Spiller on that punt return. Speed does kill when there is open space. But, they did not have a rushing touchdown during an offensive drive. Hats off to the "D".

Folks, how about that Clemson place kicker? 52 yard FG in the pouring rain! O-M-G! Would it have been a different outcome if he was not as efficient? No, we still would have loss.

Atl, I have to also complement you on the analysis. Just fantastic. Geez, those gaps in the "O" line were atrocious.

Oh well, game watching will become more interesting just looking to see if the staff addresses the deficiencies.

conlonc said...

CT: Safe assumption that your comment is at least partly aimed at me. It's comforting to know that you still don't understand what I was saying. Definitley pat yourself on the back, though.