mogrits on 
AParker on 
Willy Mac on It’s no secret that Clemson has both ends of the talent spectrum operating within the offensive scheme that Billy Napier has concocted to run every Saturday. As the season rolls on and criticism grows louder, Dabo Swinney and Napier are going to have to figure out a way to win quickly. With a defense that’s building a reputation for brick-walling offenses around the league it might be best to let them win the games and take a ground approach to offensive game planning. In essence, the coaches could take the team in a very vanilla direction in terms of the offensive game planning.
Time and time again the option attack offense has shown that, if run properly, it is nearly unstoppable (I know Tom: “Option, Option, Paul Johnson, Option, Pau-” …We get it already.) It’s especially good for teams that might not be able to block too well or match up physically with other teams. The problems with running a full blown Wing-T option is that it takes too long to implement, it’s one dimensional, and it won’t attract the players we need to create some noise on a large scale. However, a quick pitch option run out of any kind of power formation could potentially change the face of Clemson’s sour offense in dramatic fashion. The biggest plus about this approach is that it could be injected immediately in many of Clemson’s current sets creating many spread and I-formation option attacks that could be run with very little practice.
With this approach, going with a vanilla offense no longer has to be so… well… vanilla. It put’s greater emphasis on execution and holds everyone responsible as opposed to one player who didn’t do their assignment. In fact, the quick option paired with a staunch defense was the foundation that the glory days of Clemson football was built upon. Another huge plus to installing a quick option attack is that it could potentially take more pressure off of our stagnant passing attack and receivers by getting more defenders in the box to stop the run. Perhaps this could be the help the Tiger receivers needed. Their inability to get separation from the defensive coverage has been just one of a handful of glaring weaknesses they’ve shown throughout this season.
It also doesn’t necessarily mean that the passing game has to be cut out of the picture completely in this proposed offense. With Kyle Parker’s passer efficiency ratings falling and with the youth on the team starting to make itself apparent it might be one of the better choices to move forward for this team. An offense like this could also mature some very green receivers in a hurry and force them to concentrate on more than just catching the football. There are just as many cons as there are pros in adding a speed option. Quarterbacks can be injured very easily in an option attack offense. Some players might not buy into it as they were promised something different when they committed to Clemson.The idea could completely backfire and be abandoned after just a series or two.
The talent that the Tigers possess in terms of team speed and the “it” factor beg to differ against the cons. The situation at hand is practically begging for at least a minute sprinkling of running and pitching behind a blocking fullback or tight end. One thing an option attack can do is bring a team together and test their worth as a unit. It could answer several rumors about team unity and cohesion that the Tigers have been facing this year in more ways than just developing catchy phrases and gimmick slogan t-shirts.
1Navy Chief
on Oct 15, 2009 at 5:45 pm:
I’ve often thought for Clemson to get back to where we want it to be this is the key element missing. I also thought with Dabo trying to bring back tradition he might look at the option offense. Even a spread option would be fun to see and lets face it, anything would be better than what we’ve seen. You can run it with less talented players and its tough hard nose football. I am so sick of seeing gimmicky offenses.
2flaact
on Oct 15, 2009 at 5:50 pm:
“It put’s greater emphasis on execution and holds everyone responsible”
Wait, why do we want to do this?
Maybe if Spiller would dart right after the play action fake to him, he could be a pitch target (or decoy) during Parker’s inevitable sideline scramble / incomplete pass. That was we could have an option look without really changing anything…
I agree we need to run more option plays. But IMO we need to be able to rush for an automatic 1 yard gain before working on that …
3Lloyd Christmas
on Oct 15, 2009 at 7:09 pm:
Sorry Willy Mac, I completely disagree with this. Maybe one day this can be Clemson football….but as @2 said…we need to be able to get some yards running the ball straight up the middle first. Our execution is awful right now, the last thing we need is 10 fumbles in a game.
4madmaccorleone
on Oct 15, 2009 at 7:55 pm:
Couldn’t agree more. We need a more fundamental approach without all the extras that aren’t working and haven’t been working for quite awhile. I-formation, throw some option in…anything to get the ground game going, which would open up the passing attack. Radical changes need to be made for us to have a chance at winning some damn games this year.
5CUVince
on Oct 15, 2009 at 8:35 pm:
No amount of tweaking the offense can save us. The culture has to be changed. You can’t do that by promoting the leftovers of a retarded soft ass good moral christian coaching staff with no coaching ability.
6IM A MAN IM FORTY
on Oct 15, 2009 at 9:29 pm:
Full back, my boy. The key to a good triple O is the fake to the fullback. If you rely on the “play makers” every play – it does get a tad predictable. Even if you have a zillion gadgets moving on the field, defenses only need to key on spiller & ford.
Chad Diel – 0 carries in 2009?
Manbearpig – 9 carries for 22 yds (2 touches/game)?
Only 16 catches (3/game) for a WR not named Ford?
I agree with Willie Mac on this one – we are dead in the water on offense. With a clumsy receiver corp and “bullet” parker under center, an true or modified option attack may work (or at least chew up clock and give the defense/special teams a chance to win the game). Plus, Paker gets hurt, I believe Korn or Boyd could handle mop-up.
And my favorite old school play, “Rodney fakes to the full back, begins rolling out with the TB, and takes 3 steps back off the roll and nails the post pattern to the WR. A simple “system” creates tendencies that the oponent keys off – then you can respond/exploit and create real opportunity for the play makers.
Give the ball to the FULL BACK !
7AndrewTheTerrible
on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:53 pm:
agree with 6
Rendrick Taylor is a beast and is underutilized. Not that Chad Diehl is bad (he’s actually quite good as a blocking FB) but I think Rendrick should get more PT. He’s worked hard and gained a lot of strength since his freshman year. He’ll knock some fuckers around and he can be a receiving threat in the flat as well.
I’m not necessarily advocating the triple-option as a primary scheme, but I agree that a standard option would work well with the types of skill players we have.
8joe
on Oct 15, 2009 at 11:30 pm:
@2,3 We would probably get an automatic 1 yard gain if we had any fundamental running plays. All we have are gimmick running plays which require not only 100% execution on our players, but also require the opposing team to be tricked, or fooled. This is never going to work well enough the entire season for us to get anywhere.
I think Willy Mac has something here. I do disagree about the wing T statements but who cares. We need to switch it up and stop this gimmick bull crap.
9Willy Mac
on Oct 16, 2009 at 12:53 am:
I said no Wing T. It sucks. Where’d you get that from?
10edbo
on Oct 16, 2009 at 1:20 am:
I don’t want to be a buzz kill, but you just can’t dial up the veer option. Clemson doesn’t have a quarterback that can run the option. I was an option quarterback in high school, and and we spent all summer working on footwork/reads before we started practice in the fall. Rodney Williams came from Irmo, he was raised playing the veer. Thats not something you can implement overnight. Korn, Parker, Boyd, or the dude that thinks he knows what the hell is going on is going to fuck that shit up.
It’s not as easy as it looks peoples. And it fucking hurts, because a DE is gonna kill the QB every other play. Thats what kills the passing game. Your QB has just had his ass kicked, and he’s likely to throw a shitty pass. This offense is something you have to live and breath by. It’s definately not a quick fix.
11edbo
on Oct 16, 2009 at 1:39 am:
@1- All offenses are “Gimmicky” until defenses figure them out. Then it’s just plain old offense.
12Joe
on Oct 16, 2009 at 7:25 am:
@9 3rd sentance, second paragraph, those are the statements I dissagree with, but like I said that doesnt matter. There are various forms of the option which we could utilize with our current talent.
@11 Not true at all. Look at Bama’s offense
13Daniel
on Oct 16, 2009 at 7:57 am:
It would be nice to see us occassionally run an option every now and again, but it is not easy to implement. The problem with an option, especially if it is hastily added to the offense, is it can be very turnover prone. If Parker/Korn, whoever, wasn’t very confident in their pitch and the backs were not in good pitch relationship we could really shoot ourselves in the foot. I think this is something we should implement in the future, especially given the mobility of our qb’s, but it would be tough to implement against any of our conference opponenets; maybe we could give it a shot a couple of times against Coastal but ACC teams would not be a good litmus test.
Agree with the above posters about Rendrick needing more opportunities. I would love to see us in the shotgun with Spiller in the slot, Ellington in the backfield and Rendrick as a slot/TE/H-back. At least we get Spiller and Ellington on the field together and Rendrick can be a match up problem for LBs, too.
14AParker
on Oct 16, 2009 at 8:22 am:
Bring in the A-11. This way both Korn and Parker are on the field, and we can finally get rid of those pesky linemen which are always screwing up the play
15Willy Mac
on Oct 16, 2009 at 8:28 am:
@ 2 – People sink and swim and you find out fast. The TEAM has to play TOGETHER as a UNIT as opposed to just a few superstars running around the field. I’m not saying we have assholes on our team, but we’ve definitely been missing cohesion and Bowden fucked that up for us.
@10 – Yes you can. It’s just takes having common sense and a good grasp of football, which I’m assuming these guys have if they’re playing on at that level. We did it in high school and it worked like magic. Our season would tank early and we’d save it by dumbing down and throwing a few option pitches in from the offset I. And horseshit we don’t have players. I’m guessing right now they’re willing to try anything. Korn or Boyd could definitely handle it if Parker got too prissy about his MLB future. Also, I hate to tell you this but there are 11 people with pads on the field so there should be 11 people wanting to hit on that field. Contact is something Danny’s quaterbacks didn’t mind so much because they realized they were playing FOOTBALL.
16IM A MAN IM FORTY
on Oct 16, 2009 at 8:42 am:
Good dialouge. Yes, it’s true, I don’t know shit about football – just an avid fan.
The last football team I played on was call the “jaws” in Charleston in the late 70′s. We had bad-ass black uniforms that looked like something from “the longest yard”. I was so small, the knee pads were at my ankles.
I like the thought of lining Spiller up as a WR in more sets as opposed to drawing a pass for him out of the backfield. Another thought is to have Rendrick shirtless under center with his hair on fire throwing passes of human feces………
God, I hope Billy N isn’t reading this board………
17Joe
on Oct 16, 2009 at 8:42 am:
Thats something the Clemson offense has been lacking for some time. When is the last time anyone saw a huge crack back block from one of our WRs? Nobody on the offense is just looking for someone to level. Highly physical offenses wear down the D like no other.
Seriously though, if you are scared of getting hit, why are you playing football?
18Riggs
on Oct 16, 2009 at 9:15 am:
I’m not at all excited about our game this weekend. I hope I’m just being a panty waist doom and gloom guy. Right now, I feel like our season is already over and we’re in for about 5 years of hell – 5 years of rebuilding – 5 years of 8-4/9-3 – repeat.
19Daniel
on Oct 16, 2009 at 6:45 pm:
@ 18: Honestly, if we go into 5 “years of hell” and Clemson’s “hell” is 8-4, 9-3 I can’t WAIT to see heaven. I know no one likes the 8-4, 7-6, 9-3, etc. that we have been accustomed to but if that’s where we bottom out I’ll take it. As mediocre as we’ve been and as close as we’ve been to meaningful wins I’d much rather do that than endure 3-9 or 4-8 seasons of absolute losing.
20Riggs
on Oct 16, 2009 at 7:44 pm:
@19 No, no, no
5 years of hell = losing seasons and 6-6, 7-5, 5-7, 4-8, 3-9 (you know, Tommy West)
5 years of rebuiding = 6-6, 7-5, 7-5, 6-6, 7-5
Then we get back to where we were with Bowden before he checked out. (Personally, I think he quit long before he was fired.)
21Daniel
on Oct 16, 2009 at 8:48 pm:
Gotcha…and yeah, good point, I think that’s a great way to put it. He did quit long before he was fired.
22Willy Mac
on Oct 16, 2009 at 10:22 pm:
Jesus, seriously. We have kept it very close in every game we’ve lost. Its not the end of the world chicken little.
23edbo
on Oct 17, 2009 at 2:07 am:
@15- If you’re talking about a dive/read option AKA, the same shit TCU hit us with, yeah, that could be added into the playbook easy. When I saw the picture of Rodney Williams, I assumed that you were talking about running the veer option. That would be suicide. i’ve read the post again, and I’ve got a better understanding of where you’re coming from, and I agree.
24Willy Mac
on Oct 17, 2009 at 9:53 am:
@23 – Fuckin disagreee with me… the FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?!? I’m never wrong! EVER…. E-V-….A…R
25edbo
on Oct 17, 2009 at 1:52 pm:
I will keep my motherfucking mouth shut about the option.
26Tom
on Oct 18, 2009 at 10:53 am:
I disagree with the original post but agree with @23.
A little option is like a little karate… you know just enough to get your ass kicked.
However running the read option like TCU does would be a great addition to our offense. Only we’d have to make sure the handoff was a lot closer to the LOS, instead of 5 yards back like we do it now. We run the dive and the QB keeper just like the read option, only there’s no decision making in the play, it’s predetermined. If we turned that play into a read we would have a powerful running play in it.
I didn’t like the option we ran on the goal line vs Wake. It was just not a good call. it worked, yes, but it still wasn’t a good call.