Give credit to the defense

Given the uber-yardage performances by James Davis and CJ Spiller, don’t overlook the Clemson defensive unit’s effort on Saturday night.  Statistically, their performance was what we have basically seen all year.

Georgia Tech managed 88 yards on the ground, or just 48% of their pre-Clemson average.

In the air, the Jackets picked up 117 yards, which is just 68% of their pre-Clemson average.

Altogether, that was a 205 yard performance from a team that had been picking up 354 yards per game.

That means that Clemson is now, on average (with national rankings in parenthesis), giving up 72 rush yards (7), 158.4 pass yards (17), 230.4 total yards (4), and 12.5 points per game (7).  And you can even argue that a decent amount of the points shouldn’t be laid on the hands of the defense.

At this point, the biggest offensive output by the opposition was Boston College who put up 322 yards en route to their double-overtime victory.  That included just 290 yards and 24 points in regulation however, but that still sets the high water mark against our defense this year.

But that didn’t happen with GT.  In adherence with what seems to be the rule, the defense showed up.  Tech’s usual weapons were completely silenced.  By the end of the game, the Jackets looked completely wrecked.  Reggie Ball wasn’t able to connect with Calvin Johnson.  And Reggie himself was able to net just 8 yards on the ground.   The lifelines had been severed.  Perhaps I’m sympathetic because of my engineering background, but the damage against Tech seemed so thoroughly demoralizing that I actually feel sorry for them.  If we can repeat that this Thursday against Virginia Tech, however, I will have no sympathy.

RSS feed | Trackback URI

Comments »

No comments yet.

Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.