247: Five Sleeping Giants Who Could Have a Clemson-like Awakening

[Undone]

People can pi$$ and moan all they want about the past 15 or so years, but to me we've had some pretty good season with some very exciting players to watch. Clemson had two pretty special players with one being on the offense and the other the defense. We've had one or the other at times, but it has been quite a while since we had both. A couple of top 15 recruiting classes every five years which sure help the odds.

We really were probably fairly close to winning back-to-back conference titles in '09 & '10. Bo would definitely be here today if it had played out that way.

On a tangent to the earlier comments we've been replying to, Bo just really didn't do much with either line in his last few seasons. And that just really hurt us these past two seasons.

The more I reflect on this last season, the less I blame Armstrong for anything, really. He was running for his life on an embarrassingly high ratio of offensive snaps. Let's say Lee had actually been eligible this year and is able to read the field and throw daggers on the numbers - How much would it have mattered? He would have been running for his life/throwing balls away anyway.

 

[BoNeyard]

I sure like to see us included in this conversation. But we are in a totally different situation than the other four. We might have a better combination of support (e.g., sellouts and fan loyalty) and facilities than any of the other four. Might. We definitely have a tougher time recruiting than another of the other four. That said, it's time to wake up the Big Red sleeping giant. GBR!

UCLA has been mentioned in every "Sleeping Giant" article that has ever been written. It's not necessarily a good thing to be on this list.

 

[Undone]

He did kill drives, but he was also getting pressured way more than he should have been.

What Tommy couldn't do with his arm and what he could do with his legs probably net each other out over the course of his career. That's the nature of most dual threat quarterbacks not named Mariotta, Vick, Griffin III, etc.

Our offensive line was a much bigger problem down the stretch. And bigger still, our defensive front seven.

 

[RedSavage]

He did kill drives, but he was also getting pressured way more than he should have been.

What Tommy couldn't do with his arm and what he could do with his legs probably net each other out over the course of his career. That's the nature of most dual threat quarterbacks not named Mariotta, Vick, Griffin III, etc.

Our offensive line was a much bigger problem down the stretch. And bigger still, our defensive front seven.

I definitely agree with this. Tommy was not nearly as much at fault this year. Our O-line was horrendous and the defensive front seven weren't much better. However, games like at Miami and Iowa 2015 come to mind, to name a couple.

 

[TonyStalloni]

Since 2011 Clemsons QBs have completed 68% of their passes compared to Nebraskas 57%. They also had over 70 more TDs but only 3 more INTs (I believe it was with over 700 more attempts). If Nebraska QBs completed 10% more of their passes and cutback on the INTs we would have won more games IMO

Better QB play = more wins

Which is the main reason I think we might actually see a better team next year. For all the times Tommy saved us, there's probably just as many examples, if not more, where he killed drives, momentum and ultimately lost us the game bc he couldn't make a pass that should be relatively easy for most QBs to make. Whether Tanner Lee or POB is the real deal or not, I can not understate how excited I am to see someone able to actually pass the ball with some touch and (hopefully) accuracy.

This is an excellent point, and it is also the reason Clemson beat Bama. Clemson had 99 snaps compared to the low 60's for Bama. If a QB and offense can sustain drives, they're in a good position to win. One of the reasons our defense over the years has been bad is because they're just out on the field too many snaps. Martinez was good for killing drives as well. Even the great Bama defense broke after being on the field for 99 snaps.

One thing to add to a QB who can sustain drives. Instead of going 3 and out from our 25 yd line, a QB who can drive across the 50 yard line or more can at least allow us to try a FG or punt the ball inside the opposing teams 10 yd line. That gives our D a head start and forces the other team to drive the whole field. We have had great kicking and punting specialists at Nebraska.

 

[NUance]

Clemson recruiting rankings from 2010 to 2016: 28 10 15 15 17 9 11

Looks like they broke that string of teams having a top 5 class before winning the Natty

That's a FACT!

 

[ADS]

Since 2011 Clemsons QBs have completed 68% of their passes compared to Nebraskas 57%. They also had over 70 more TDs but only 3 more INTs (I believe it was with over 700 more attempts). If Nebraska QBs completed 10% more of their passes and cutback on the INTs we would have won more games IMO

Better QB play = more wins

 

[junior4949]

Since 2011 Clemsons QBs have completed 68% of their passes compared to Nebraskas 57%. They also had over 70 more TDs but only 3 more INTs (I believe it was with over 700 more attempts). If Nebraska QBs completed 10% more of their passes and cutback on the INTs we would have won more games IMO

Better QB play = more wins

Which is the main reason I think we might actually see a better team next year. For all the times Tommy saved us, there's probably just as many examples, if not more, where he killed drives, momentum and ultimately lost us the game bc he couldn't make a pass that should be relatively easy for most QBs to make. Whether Tanner Lee or POB is the real deal or not, I can not understate how excited I am to see someone able to actually pass the ball with some touch and (hopefully) accuracy.

This is an excellent point, and it is also the reason Clemson beat Bama. Clemson had 99 snaps compared to the low 60's for Bama. If a QB and offense can sustain drives, they're in a good position to win. One of the reasons our defense over the years has been bad is because they're just out on the field too many snaps. Martinez was good for killing drives as well. Even the great Bama defense broke after being on the field for 99 snaps.

One thing to add to a QB who can sustain drives. Instead of going 3 and out from our 25 yd line, a QB who can drive across the 50 yard line or more can at least allow us to try a FG or punt the ball inside the opposing teams 10 yd line. That gives our D a head start and forces the other team to drive the whole field. We have had great kicking and punting specialists at Nebraska.

It's also about time of possession. Clemson held the ball for over ten minutes longer of the game than Bama did. Bama probably has the best defensive players in the country. Even they buckled from being out there so long. I don't think Clemson did anything magical in the second half. They just wore Bama out much like we did to Miami back in the 94' bowl. This is still what makes the 09' defense so good. They took this kind of abuse week in and week out never buckling.

 

[2ndNnine]

 

[Red Five]

Clemson recruiting rankings from 2010 to 2016: 28 10 15 15 17 9 11

Looks like they broke that string of teams having a top 5 class before winning the Natty

IIRC, the stat is every champ has top 10 class within 4 seasons of winning the title since like 2001.

According to this, Oklahoma in 2000 was the last team to win a NC without a top 5 recruiting class the previous 4 seasons. (Not sure what recruiting service is used)

Spoiler

2000 Oklahoma (#13 in 2000, and #25 in both 1997 and 1998 Rivals) *OU is the only program without a top ten class to win the title in Rivals history. But it did have 3 top 25 classes

2001 Miami (#2 in 2001, #9 in 2000, #8 in 1999)

2002 Ohio State (#7 in 2002, #4 in 2000, #2 in 1999)

2003 LSU/USC (LSU #1 class in 2003, #4 in 2001 USC #3 in 2003, #14 in 2000, #21 in 2001)

2004 USC (#3 class in 2003, #1 class in 2004)

2005 Texas (#1 class in 2002, #15 class in 2003 with only 18 recruits, which averaged the highest star rating in country, #18 class in 2004 -- only signed 15 players.) If Texas had signed 20 players in either of these classes, they would have ranked in the top five. The #1 class in 2002 was simply too large, with over 30 players).

2006 Florida (#2 in 2003, #10 in 2004, #2 in 2006)

2007 LSU (#1 in 2003, #1 in 2004, #7 in 2006, #4 in 2007)

2008 Florida (#2 in 2006, #1 in 2007, #3 in 2008)

2009 Alabama (#10 in 2007, #1 in 2008, #1 in 2009)

2010 Auburn (#10 in 2006, #7 in 2007, #4 in 2010) Auburn was #20 in 2008 and #19 in 2009

2011 Alabama (#1 in 2008, #1 in 2009, #5 in 2010, #1 in 2011)

2012 Alabama (#1 in 2009, #5 in 2010, #1 in 2011, #1 in 2012)

2013 Florida State (#7 in 2009, #10 in 2010, #2 in 2011, #6 in 2012, #10 in 2013)

2014 Ohio State (#11 in 2011, #4 in 2012, #2 in 2013, #3 in 2014)

2015 Alabama (#1 in 2012, #1 in 2013, #1 in 2014, #1 in 2015)

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

[No message]

 

[zoogs]

I don't know how you can call the Huskers a 'sleeping' giant, in seriousness. On what hotbed of talent is Nebraska sitting? More like a traditional power that will take a lot of work as well as serious strokes of fortune to crawl back to its former glory.

When I think of 'sleeping giant', I think some program like TCU once was that is ripe for the opportunity, not via history/pedigree but as a result of having a lot of external factors going for them by default.

 

[RunMickeyRun02]

I think tabbing any team from the SEC is kind of a cop-out. Sometimes I think they just have a meeting and decide who is gonna make a run this year. "Auburn it's your turn". So I think Georgia, Texas A&M will get their turn. No Notre Dame, Tennessee or Texas, does that mean they are back? Not sleeping giants? Dead giants?

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I'm seeing only Alabama & Ohio State as having sustained excellence, and Alabama is less than a decade removed from mediocrity.

That would be two awake giants, and pretty much everyone else a sleeping giant. A team like Baylor can wake up for a couple years, then quietly go back to sleep. UCLA has every asset we supposedly lack, but always gets caught napping when greatness calls. I predict Clemson will get a little drowsy next year without its game-changing quarterback.

Coaches can definitely infuse a culture, but the inspirational words Dabo Swinney fed his team are the same motivational catch phrases used by every coach in every team sport, not to mention the director of every corporate sales force. They always sound profound when you're winning, but it's the same message you give teams that fail to measure up.

Basically it's more fun to win, and winning begats winning. But it's really hard to sustain. Nebraska's 40 year run isn't likely to be repeated.

 

[Husker Psycho]

Clemson recruiting rankings from 2010 to 2016: 28 10 15 15 17 9 11

Looks like they broke that string of teams having a top 5 class before winning the Natty

IIRC, the stat is every champ has top 10 class within 4 seasons of winning the title since like 2001.

According to this, Oklahoma in 2000 was the last team to win a NC without a top 5 recruiting class the previous 4 seasons. (Not sure what recruiting service is used)

Spoiler

2000 Oklahoma (#13 in 2000, and #25 in both 1997 and 1998 Rivals) *OU is the only program without a top ten class to win the title in Rivals history. But it did have 3 top 25 classes

2001 Miami (#2 in 2001, #9 in 2000, #8 in 1999)

2002 Ohio State (#7 in 2002, #4 in 2000, #2 in 1999)

2003 LSU/USC (LSU #1 class in 2003, #4 in 2001 USC #3 in 2003, #14 in 2000, #21 in 2001)

2004 USC (#3 class in 2003, #1 class in 2004)

2005 Texas (#1 class in 2002, #15 class in 2003 with only 18 recruits, which averaged the highest star rating in country, #18 class in 2004 -- only signed 15 players.) If Texas had signed 20 players in either of these classes, they would have ranked in the top five. The #1 class in 2002 was simply too large, with over 30 players).

2006 Florida (#2 in 2003, #10 in 2004, #2 in 2006)

2007 LSU (#1 in 2003, #1 in 2004, #7 in 2006, #4 in 2007)

2008 Florida (#2 in 2006, #1 in 2007, #3 in 2008)

2009 Alabama (#10 in 2007, #1 in 2008, #1 in 2009)

2010 Auburn (#10 in 2006, #7 in 2007, #4 in 2010) Auburn was #20 in 2008 and #19 in 2009

2011 Alabama (#1 in 2008, #1 in 2009, #5 in 2010, #1 in 2011)

2012 Alabama (#1 in 2009, #5 in 2010, #1 in 2011, #1 in 2012)

2013 Florida State (#7 in 2009, #10 in 2010, #2 in 2011, #6 in 2012, #10 in 2013)

2014 Ohio State (#11 in 2011, #4 in 2012, #2 in 2013, #3 in 2014)

2015 Alabama (#1 in 2012, #1 in 2013, #1 in 2014, #1 in 2015)

Great Quotes from that article (link) :

"How much do recruiting rankings matter? They're everything."

"Nearly half of all five stars will be drafted. Around one percent of all two stars will be drafted."

"...recruiting is essentially a game of probability. the more top players you get into your program the more chances you have to develop elite first round talent."