Dr. Saturday - NCAAF

As always: The ACC is dead. Long live the ACC!

Georgia Tech 30, Clemson 27. I'm sure I'm not alone here, but as entertaining and draining as it was, any coherent narrative of this game eludes me. Georgia Tech's overall night looks pretty sensational on paper -- 30 points, 420 total yards on almost seven yards per snap -- but the reality is that the last three quarters were fairly grim: After racing out to a commanding 21-0 lead in the first frame, Tech scored nine points the rest of the night. Consider also that two of those early touchdowns were on smart/opportunistic yet fairly fluky plays (a "surprise" pooch punt returned for a touchdown and a fake field goal that caught the Tigers napping) that you only get a couple times in a season, and the offense almost seems disappointing. The Jacket O only put the ball in the end zone once, on a one-shot, 82-yard run on their first carry of the game.

Once they woke up, the Tigers seemed like the better team, and the Clemson defense in particular deserves a tremendous amount of credit for the stunning 27-0 run for the lead: After letting Anthony Allen race free down the sideline on that opening pitch, the Tigers effectively held Tech to a field goal attempt (the fake that went for a touchdown to Demaryius Thomas) followed by six straight punts and an interception. For the most part, Tech QB Josh Nesbitt was worse as a passer than Reggie Ball ever was; at one point early in the fourth quarter, Nesbitt had completed more passes to Clemson (two) than to his own receivers (one) and had a negative efficiency rating. While the Tigers scored on each of their first four drives of the second half -- which I defy you to imagine happening under similar circumstances under Tommy Bowden -- Tech struggled to sustain anything, even to keep its head above water.

So at the risk of sounding vague and weaselly, I really think the Jackets' most admirable quality was old-fashioned opportunism: They were aggressive in all phases early and earned their big plays by taking a couple smart risks on special teams that left the Tigers looking dazed and flat-footed; and after being trounced in all phases for a full quarter-and-a-half and often looking like they were too cramped or exhausted to move, they responded to losing the lead with back-to-back field goals to tie and then win -- their first sustained drives since early in the second quarter. On the heels of a nightmarish night passing, Nesbitt actually completed a long pass on each of those marches; in between, the defense forced Clemson to punt for the first time since the second quarter to set up the game-winning kick. Again, I don't know how to define a team that wins with a blitzkrieg out of the gate and a slog down the stretch, while nearly coming apart at the seams in-between, except to say that is has really great timing. We'll see how long that lasts.

digg delicious
more

12 Comments

Post a Comment
  1. Paul
    1. Posted by Paul Fri Sep 11, 2009 1:23 am EDT

    Report Abuse

    Tech had the cooler-looking uniforms.
  2. Brian M
    2. Posted by Brian M Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:21 am EDT

    Report Abuse

    Yeah, I have no idea what happened in that game. Any sort of stats fail to represent the reality of the game, since averages, by design, fall apart when they're defined entirely by extremes. Both teams looked absolutely horrible, except when they looked amazing. And even when they were horrible, there were one or two guys on each side of each team really shooting with both barrels. What a bizarre game.
  3. plwarre
    3. Posted by plwarre Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:54 am EDT

    Report Abuse

    "since averages, by design, fall apart when they're defined entirely by extremes."
    wha? So when I say some team won 70% of their games, that doesn't mean anything to you? (since winning=1 and losing=0 are extremes)
  4. PurdueMatt
    4. Posted by PurdueMatt Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:59 am EDT

    Report Abuse

    Matt,
    Jesse Palmer kept calling Tech's offense the "spread option." Isn't that incorrect? I thought it was the flexbone or the triple option. The spread option is when you have 4 receivers out wide and run the option with the QB and RB, right? How can an ESPN analyst make such a glaring mistake?
  5. Matt
    5. Posted by Matt Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:34 am EDT

    Report Abuse

    Despite the teams seemingly only playing one half each, I've got to hand it to those kids. They were clearly totally gassed in the 4th quarter, but kept giving it their all - just to win. This is why I love college football.
    I do think the outcome of the game would have been different if that iffy holding call weren't made on Parker's long pass late in the 4th.
  6. Matt
    6. Posted by Matt Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:34 am EDT

    Report Abuse

    Despite the teams seemingly only playing one half each, I've got to hand it to those kids. They were clearly totally gassed in the 4th quarter, but kept giving it their all - just to win. This is why I love college football.
    I do think the outcome of the game would have been different if that iffy holding call weren't made on Parker's long pass late in the 4th.
  7. Matt H
    7. Posted by Matt H Fri Sep 11, 2009 10:13 am EDT

    Report Abuse

    Re: the spread option, Matt, this is an ongoing debate here an elsewhere. I don't buy the flexbone as a spread option because it's principles are basically the same as the old triple option wishbone offenses of the 60s and 70s and it typically keeps three runners (not including the quarterback) "in the box." But Paul Johnson likes to refer to it as a spread for some reason and many people -- esp. Tech fans -- will argue vehemently on his behalf. This makes no sense at all to me, but that's how it is.
    So I guess Palmer wasn't wrong to say "spread," since you can't be wrong about a term that's ceased to have any precise meaning.
  8. Jeff K
    8. Posted by Jeff K Fri Sep 11, 2009 10:41 am EDT

    Report Abuse

    "Spread" is like "Diversity"--no one really knows what it means, but you have to claim you have some or people will get very angry.
  9. gtne91
    9. Posted by gtne91 Fri Sep 11, 2009 11:38 am EDT

    Report Abuse

    Spread has a specific meaning:
    wide line splits
    no tight ends
    4 wideouts
    GT's slots arent as wide at Texas Techs, but they are still wideouts.
    Johnson's rationale, I think, comes from the derivation of the offense. When he became OC at Ga Southern, he inherited a Run and Shoot team and added option runs to it. At Air Force, they "broke the bone" and shifted the running backs up into the slots. Since Johnson started with a spread offense and just called different plays out of it, he considers it an "option based spread". The formations are similar to Leach's. The fact that it looks like the AF flexbone is just coincidence.
    I think it is also why there is confusion every time Johnson mentions implementing the run and shoot. To him, all of GT's pass plays are run and shoot plays. No matter how ineffective.
  10. servo1013
    10. Posted by servo1013 Fri Sep 11, 2009 12:55 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    I don't know, Matt. I think this game at the very least taught us that Dabo Swinney is a viable option at coach for Clemson in the long term. Bobby Williams he is not. Clemson never gave up despite going down a quick 21, and got the ball to the playmakers, as is so often prescribed by analysts. You didn't see that tenacity happen very often, esp. in last year's game against Alabama under Tommy Bowden.
    Isn't it possible he rallies this team down the stretch? They're probably favored in the next four games, Miami and Florida State are tossups, and their offense is too good not to beat Spurrier's South Carolina team. That could mean a possible reunion game against GT in the ACC Conference Championship. I'm guessing that'll be a lot more watchable than last year's game.
  11. James P
    11. Posted by James P Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:40 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    I think you're right Matt. That's why I love these ACC games. FSU vs Miami, GT vs Clemson. Nailbiters that come down to the last minute of play, and yet all these teams might lose to Wake freakin' Forest. Maybe they will, and maybe they won't, but if last year taught us anything is that one game means very little in the ACC negative zone.
  12. jay.thompson98
    12. Posted by jay.thompson98 Mon Sep 14, 2009 4:59 am EDT

    Report Abuse

    How original, another canned negative article about the ACC. There is parity in the league, therefore upsets happen. Simple as that. If you really look at the SEC, a very small handful of teams are for real.
    Why don't you breakdown Miss State and Kentucky, those stellar SEC programs. Does Vandy have SEC speed too??? How'd they get beat by Duke last year then....Do you not remember how bad Auburn and Tennessee STUNK last year. They stunk worse than their trailor trash fans. Vols looked awful on saturday, couldn't even watch it was so horrible.
    Oh by the way, South Carolina is terrible. Notice that NC State held them to 7 points while that SEC speed defense at Georgia couldn't stop their mascot? UGA is heading down -- lost to the same team that got beat by Houston @ home??? Florida is legit but, will UF ever play a real opponent? Ole Miss in the top 10 is the greatest farce in college football today. Bama and LSU -- legit as well -- and no one wants to watch them on TV. That LSU Vandy game really lit up ESPNU....I think Bama's game was radio only.
    I'd rather watch the ACC my friend. Trailor trash SEC just aint as exciting as it used to be --

Dr. Saturday

Add to My Yahoo! RSS

Matt Hinton

Dr. Saturday is a college football blog edited by Matt Hinton. Email him tips and feedback.

Related Photo Gallery

Y! Sports Blogs

Dr. Saturday Recent Readers