Questions, questions

posted by LW, Monday, December 07, 2009

Two questions have consumed my football-related thoughts over the last 24 hours:

For much of yesterday morning and afternoon, it was:

Should I put C.J. Spiller's name at the top of my Heisman vote later today?

I have my answer to that one (more on that later, probably tomorrow).

Have yet to resolve the second question:

Should this season be considered a success?

That's a tough one. And given that we're less than 48 hours removed from the gut punch in Tampa, it's hard to look at this season in a rosy light.

I'm still trying to process my thoughts, and hopefully I'll have my answer when it comes time to sit down and write a column on that topic later today.

But I can say this: Anyone who dismissed the importance of the game at South Carolina, either before or after the 34-17 debacle, just didn't know what they were talking about. And that's underscored by how the season is now being viewed (with quite a bit of disappointment).

Was the ACC title game more important than a game against a team the Tigers are accustomed to whipping? No doubt. Clemson hadn't won the ACC in 18 years, but they'd beaten the Gamecocks like a drum more often than not.

The problem with this theory of prioritization is that it presumes victory in the game that matters more.

If the Tigers would've beaten Georgia Tech on Saturday, how many people would be gnashing their teeth about the loss to the Gamecocks? Not many.

But they didn't win Saturday, and thus the ambush in Columbia becomes a much bigger deal.

What if the Tigers had beaten the Gamecocks and lost the ACC title game? I'd submit you could make a much better case for this being a successful season.

Heck, what if the Tigers had simply lost a close one in Columbia?

I understand Clemson can't stomach losing to the Gamecocks, period. But the manner in which they fell, coupled with again coming up short against Georgia Tech, significantly contributes to the negative vibes that are currently being experienced.

Bart Wright says the Tigers made progress even though they didn't bring home rings.

Clemson was disappointed to learn it's being shipped to a virtual home game for Kentucky, and no doubt that's a difficult assignment.

But there's more to gain in this one as opposed to, say, a game against Wisconsin in Orlando.

Beat the Badgers in the Champs Sports Bowl, and ... blah.

Beat an SEC team in Lexington South, and you can recoup some of what you've lost in the last two games.

Emphasis on "some."

Gene Sapakoff writes about Clemson's defensive free-fall.

We've known for some time that the Tigers' linebackers have been a weakness. But I have to say I didn't anticipate them being exposed to this degree.

For a few days last week, I felt fairly good about Clemson being in position to win this game. I thought they had a pretty good chance at gashing Georgia Tech's defense with the run.

But after watching a replay of the Georgia-Georgia Tech game on Thursday night, I had a revelation:

How is Clemson going to stop Georgia Tech?

Georgia did a great job of limiting the Yellow Jackets' triple option, and a big part of it was whipping Georgia Tech up front.

But the biggest part of it, at least in my mind, was great linebacker play. Middle linebacker Rennie Curran was all over the place. The guys up front took care of the inside runs, and Curran and Co. helped limit the outside runs by using excellent speed and instincts to swarm the option pitches and sweeps.



Clemson did not possess similar speed and instincts at the linebacker position, at least not recently.

Those limitations were on full display against Virginia and South Carolina. And it was the same story in Tampa.

In this story by Travis Sawchik, Dabo Swinney also implied that the Tigers have issues at at least one other position.

"A couple of guys are not playing well at all," Swinney said. "It became a perimeter game and we didn't get off blocks outside, we didn't play cut blocks well. We didn't create any turnovers … on the first play (Crezdon Butler) was supposed to go to the pitch man and blow it up, instead (Butler) went on the quarterback." Butler also gave up a 70-yard gain on third-and-10 when matched up with Demaryius Thomas.

Mark Bradley of the AJC was in Tampa and sums it up with the following passage:

There was orange in the stands and orange across the line, but now there’s only Orange, with an upper-case “O,” in Georgia Tech’s future. The team with the high school offense is going where only the big boys of college football go. Going to the Orange Bowl. Going as champion of a BCS conference. Going because it was simply too darn stubborn to stop.

It takes nerve to play the way Tech does. The Jackets never get stopped, but they never stop anybody. This marked the second consecutive Tech game to go puntless. The last one was a loss, a bitter one, to Georgia. But such is the beauty of Tech that it keeps chugging. The Jackets always figure they’ll score the next time they get the ball, and usually they do.

And also this:

The splendid C.J. Spiller had kept the Tigers afloat, and here he went again, flying down the left sideline to trigger the go-ahead touchdown. On the night he would rush for 233 yards and score four touchdowns, but finally the Jackets found Spiller’s weakness: He doesn’t play defense.

John Clay of the Lexington Herald-Leader writes about UKMC:

The University of Kentucky at Music City.

Chris Low of ESPN.com says Rich Brooks deserves consideration for SEC coach of the year.

We interrupt this program with breaking news:

Clemson's basketball team dusted South Carolina once again yesterday.


LW

Click here for the "Eye On The Tigers" blog archive.

Link to this entry - Discuss this entry - Return to Blog Home

---