May 24, 2013

Success in short yard situations

September 26, 2012 by 4 Comments

Back in August I suggested short yardage situations were like kryptonite to the Superman Persona of Chad Morris as an offensive coordinator.

Not only was the first year under Morris average at best in short yardage (65.4% success on 3rd and 1 and 60.0% success on 4th and 1), but it was also predictable – 36 runs in 36 plays – something that is atypical of Morris.

So, while some zeroed in on the gadget plays and Sammy Watkins lining up in the backfield, throwing passes (plural) and handing off, I paid attention to something remarkable that happened in the second quarter – Morris called a pass on third and 1. Sure, it was a screen pass to a sure handed Sammy Watkins, but it was a pass and it worked.

Technically, the streak was broken earlier when Spencer Benton faked a backwards flip of the ball to Chandler Catanzaro from the holder position before tossing the ball forward to Darrell Smith for a first down. In the official stats this is counted as a pass. On fourth down. It, too was successful.


2012 Short Yardage –

But the true measure of improvement is not passes vs. runs, but success vs. failure. In 2012 Clemson has found nothing but success on 3rd and 4th and 1 standing at a perfect 10 for 10 through 4 games, including 3 for 3 on third and 1s against a vaunted Florida State defense.

Filed Under: Clemson Football Tagged With: , , ,

Looking Back – Game 4

September 23, 2012 by 2 Comments

Notes compiled while watching Florida State run roughshod over Clemson for the last quarter and a half Saturday night.

  • At several points Clemson defensive players looked like rag dolls thrown around the field.
  • I suggested prior to last year that Clemson fans needed to get ready for a paradigm shift on defense.  Even I had no idea what was about to happen.
  • The defense gave up 667 yards and 8.9 yards per play to Florida State.
  • Chad Morris had a great game plan for about 2 and a half quarters, but it looked like Florida State took over physically at that point.
  • To say the Seminole receivers were wide open the entire night is an understatement.
  • Clemson missed a huge opportunity – the Seminoles had penalties, turnovers, missed field goals, Clemson got a generous spot on a 4th down and Florida State still won.
  • Next Saturday is going to be a challenge for the Tigers mentally.
Filed Under: Clemson Football Tagged With:

Keep an eye on…

September 21, 2012 by Leave a Comment
Andre Ellington

Andre Ellington

Andre Ellington or, more generally, the Clemson running game.

Yesterday I suggested that Ellington needed to approach 150 yards for the Tigers to be successful in Tallahassee on Saturday.  Maybe it’s not Ellington specifically, but the Tigers as a whole that need to reach that number.

Here are three quick facts:

  • In the Morris era Clemson is 9-1 when rushing for 150 yards or more.
  • In 3 of 4 Clemson losses in the Morris era Clemson has rushed for less than 100 yards.
  • In the Morris era Clemson is 0-3 in true road games when rushing for less than 100 yards.

Translation:  It’s not earth shattering news that Clemson needs to run the ball on Saturday.  Whether that’s Ellington (and Howard/McDowell) with a few selected runs from Boyd, or Sammy Watkins on the jet sweep is an open question.  But just remember, despite having Tajh Boyd’s arm, Nuk Hopkins and Sammy Watkins, the Clemson offense is designed to be an offense with a power running game and that needs to be on display in Tallahassee.

History indicates a one-dimensional Clemson loses.

Filed Under: Clemson Football Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Analyzing Tajh Boyd by area of field and distance of passes

September 7, 2012 by Leave a Comment

It’s no surprise that Clemson ran a lot of short routes and used the backs in protection against Auburn last Saturday and the numbers below suggest that is just what occurred.

Consider:

  • 22 of 34 (65%) of Boyd’s throws were behind or within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage.
  • 27 of 34 (79%) were 10 yards or less.
  • The running backs were targeted 0 times, suggesting they were doing other things, like blocking.


 Boyd by Area v4 –

Other interesting notes:

  • Boyd favored the left side of the field with 53% of his passes headed that way.
  • On the other hand, both Boyd’s touchdown and interception were on throws to the right.
  • Only 5 of Boyd’s passes were in the middle of the field and only 2 of those were completed, one for an explosive play to Brandon Ford.
  • Even with a different DC than last year, Chad Morris uses his tight end a ton (Dewayne Allen was targeted 9 times in 2011) against Auburn as Ford was targeted 2 times to the left, 4 in the middle and 3 to the right.

As an aside, watching the plays repeatedly and using the clicker to go back and forth over and over can be tedious, but really helps me get a better feel for what actually happened on each play.

Filed Under: Clemson Football Tagged With: , , ,

Looking Back – Game 1

September 2, 2012 by 2 Comments
Brandon Ford
  • Wednesday we gave you the six most important stats in college football. Clemson had better numbers in 5 of the 6 on Saturday.
  • I  picked Brandon Ford as the Clemson player to “Keep and Eye On”.  Ford had 5 catches for 51 yards and 2 official dropped passes while being targeted 9 times in 35 attempts in the game.  Four of Ford’s 5 receptions went for first downs and 1 was an explosive play of 22 yards. 
  • Clemson had 12 drives in the game and only 1 three and out.
  • The trend continues – but this time with success.  The Tigers faced 2 third and 1′s and 1 fourth and 1, ran Ellington all three times and were successful on all three plays.  Under Morris Clemson now has run on 3rd and 4th and 1 39 consecutive times.
  • Andre Ellington was a man.
  • Tig Willard was all over the field with 8 tackles, 1.5 tackles for loss, a sack and a fumble recovery.
  • Josh Watson was another player who seemed to be in the middle of every play.  Watson finished with 5 tackles and a forced fumble.
  • We’ve talked endlessly about the way the NCAA counts red zone stats and this game was a perfect example.  The official stats show Auburn scored all three times they entered the red zone.  They did – they were all field goals.
  • The much maligned Clemson defense held Auburn to 4 of 13 on third down conversions.  Some of that was due to Frazier’s inconsistency, but still very encouraging.
  • Speaking of the defense, I’m not sure I’ve seen receivers as open as Auburn’s were on several occasions.  Worrisome.
  • Anyone else think this is the Chad Morris’s final season at Clemson? 
Filed Under: Clemson Football Tagged With: , , , ,

Starting in Plus Territory – Surprising Numbers for the Prolific Morris Offense

August 27, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Fifteen times Clemson started drives in opponent’s territory and came up with 0 points in 2011. No touchdown. No field goal. Nothing. 15 times. Once per game on average. That’s a lot. 

It’s one of the biggest differences between Clemson and their opponents last year. When taking over in plus territory opponents scored touchdowns 61% of the time and field goals 17% of the time, meaning opponents scored in some fashion 78% of the time in this situation.

Chad Morris (greenvilleonline.com)

 Contrast that with Clemson, which scored touchdowns 37% of the time and kicked field goals 20% of the time for a total of 57% scoring.

On some level it’s hard to fathom Chad Morris’ offense not being successful in these situations. The first question is why. Does the play calling change? Is Morris more conservative? Is it a problem with the offensive line?

I don’t know the answers to those questions.

What I do know is that these numbers need to improve in 2012 for Clemson to be successful.

Compare the ratios below between Clemson and its 2011 opponents. Clemson’s TD rate improved only 10% when starting in the opponent’s territory. When the opponent started in Clemson’s territory the touchdown rate almost tripled.

PPP –

The other angle on this is how important it is to not give up the ball in your own territory, be it by turnover or getting pinned and punting. However, opponents only started 18 drives in Clemson territory, so the numbers suggest two things:

    • The Clemson offense needs to improve the rate of scoring when they take over in plus territory. 
    • The Clemson defense needs to do a better job of stopping these drives, as they averaged giving up 4.78 points per drive when the opponent began in plus territory vs. 1.70 drives per game when the drive began in minus territory.

This will be an interesting trend to watch over the course of the 2012 season, to see if there is any difference in the Morris offense from year 1 to year 2, and to see the difference between Kevin Steele’s defense and Brent Venables defense.

Filed Under: Clemson Football Tagged With: ,

Chad Morris’ Kryptonite – Short Yardage

August 14, 2012 by 5 Comments

I feel a little guilty hammering this point home yet again. After all, when you consider the alternatives (Rob Spence, for example) complaining about Chad Morris is kinda like dating the most beautiful girl in school and complaining that she has big feet.

But news of the offense’s problems in short yardage during Saturday’s scrimmage continues to cause major angst among the Tiger faithful.  It’s a part of the offense that seems to transcend personnel, offensive coordinators and even head coaches.

Chad Morris (greenvilleonline.com)

Morris is innovative, brilliant and visionary in many ways.  However, about halfway through last season I noticed that the normally risk-friendly Morris becomes ultra conservative on 3rd (and 4th) and 1.  As in 100%.  No matter the position on the field, quarter, score or time on the clock.  As the season progressed, I became more and more fascinated.  The guy who calls for bombs from deep in his own territory called running plays 100% of the time on 3rd and 4th and 1.  36 straight times.

What’s the old saying about the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and expecting different results. There comes a time you need to put the “Smash Mouth Spread” coach speak aside and call a play that has a chance of success.

I get running the ball in a short yardage situation. One would think, on average, a team would have a higher success rate doing so and with less chance of a disaster. Apparently not with Clemson. Not with Clemson’s offensive line.

Down and Distance Total Plays Runs Passes Success
3rd and 1

26

26

0

65.4%
4th and 1

10

10

0

60.0%
Total

36

36

0

63.9%

 

When you’re successful only 65% of the time on 3rd and 1 and 60% on 4th and 1, I think it’s time to try something else, at least occasionally.  A quick pass to Watkins.  An occasional shot downfield to Martavis Bryant.  A crossing pattern to Jaron Brown.  Hell, even a bubble screen to Adam Humphries.  I believe all of these would have a better chance of being successful than a predictable run up the middle.

I’m not suggesting Clemson abandon the running game on third and fourth and short yardage.  I’m suggesting that diversifying the play calls will stop 8 or 9 in the box and lead to more success in short yardage situations.

Filed Under: Clemson Football Tagged With: , , ,

Clemson by down and distance

July 18, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Here’s a look at pass/run mix for Clemson in 2011 by down and distance. It should be noted that in this analysis sacks were counted as running plays (as they are in the official statistics).

The area that sticks out to me, and one I pointed out as the 2011 season unfolded, is that 23 times the Tigers faced 3rd and 1 and 23 times they ran the ball. On the 9 occasions the Tigers faced 4th and 1 running plays were called each time.

If the Tigers were a successful short yardage team perhaps 32 plays and 32 runs wouldn’t be considered glaring, but Clemson was far from a good short yardage team on the ground.

A good measuring stick for success on third and fourth and short is 75% success. The Tigers failed on both downs, being successful 60.9% of the time on 3rd and one and 66.7% of the time on 4th and 1. Combined, the Tigers were successful on 62.5% of these plays, well below the standard.


Clemson By Down _ Distance –

The psychology of this play calling is intriguing. Gunslinger Chad Morris becomes 100% conservative, no matter the field position, clock or game situation on 3rd and 4th and short.

One could also posit that running the ball 65% of the time on 2nd and 1, as the Tigers did, is also conservative. Second and 1 is often considered a “free” down or a good time to take a “shot” downfield something Morris is known to call. The assumption being that a high percentage of the time even if a pass falls incomplete a team will convert on 3rd and 1. However given the Tigers relative lack of success in 3rd and 4th and 1 I can understand taking two downs, if necessary, to achieve a first down.

That being said, the Tigers were only successful 66.7% (10 for 15) of the time on 2nd and 1 when running the ball and another interesting note is that 3 of the 5 times Clemson faced a 2nd and 1 and failed, the Tigers ended up without a first down and the drive ended shortly thereafter.

Filed Under: Clemson Football Tagged With: , ,

The other side of the Morris offense: Big losses and the effect on the defense

January 7, 2012 by Leave a Comment
Chad Morris (greenvilleonline.com)

Not much was funny about the Orange Bowl on Wednesday evening if you are a Clemson fan, but I do find it “funny” (as in funny in a weird way) that a great many of Clemson fans are shocked about a) the big losses and b) the effect on the defense.

Chad Morris (greenvilleonline.com)

When I studied the Malzahn/Morris offense last summer and wrote about it here and here, several things became clear to me.  When the offense works, it’s a thing of beauty and Clemson can beat anyone.  When it doesn’t work – the losses will be big because this offense can leave the defense hanging.  I actually said the days of the close losses for Clemson was over.

Building on that, we told you that 2011 was going to require Tiger fans to think about defense differently.  I called for a defensive paradigm shift.  True enough, I didn’t quite think the shift would go as far as it did in the Orange Bowl, but…I knew it was coming.

Can the defense improve?  Absolutely.  As a matter of fact I would argue that pre-Georgia Tech the defense wasn’t that bad, but quick strikes and more possessions by the Clemson offense led to more possessions by the opponents offense and more points.  Even in the Georgia Tech game the Tigers fumbled the ball away at their own 9.  Against N.C. State they repeatedly gave the ball to N.C. State in Clemson territory.  Those things are going to happen with this offense from time to time.  It’s why Texas Tech gave up points by the boat load when Leach was there.  It’s why Auburn gave up points in bunches in 2011.  It’s why Tulsa won ”shootouts” with Morris as the offensive coordinator.

In an upcoming post we’ll put this theory to the test and attempt to quantify the real differences between the 2010 and 2011 Clemson defenses in per possession terms.

In a perfect world the defense would be just as good as the offense, but that’s not going to happen with this style of offense.  Even when playing their best the defense will be out there for too many plays, for too long, on too many possessions to be the Clemson defense of old.

So pick your poison Clemson fans.  The Morris offense or a “Vic Koenning-like” defense.

Filed Under: Clemson Football Tagged With: ,

Podcast Episode 16: Morris Offense = Big Losses

November 21, 2011 by Leave a Comment

We told you back in the summer though no one believed us when the Tigers jumped out to an 8-0 start, but the Malzahn/Morris offense leads to big wins and big losses.  Gone are the days of the nail biters under Tommy Bowden (for the most part).  Clemson will win or lose by relatively large margins with this offense (and this defense).  Find out why by downloading the Seldom Used Reserve Podcast.

 

You can download Episode 16 directly here and find our Podcast Archive here. Please direct questions, comments or show suggestions to seldomusedreserve@gmail.com.

 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Filed Under: Clemson Football Tagged With: , ,
«Older Posts
Newer Posts»