Find out how TCI graded Clemson’s performance, broken down by position groups, in its 49-10 win over Wofford on Saturday…
Quarterbacks: B
Deshaun Watson is normally very good, and the Wofford game was no exception. There weren’t any plays that necessarily included that “wow” factor fans have become accustomed to seeing, but he completed almost every pass he threw and led all five of his drives into the end zone. Nick Schuessler was fine as a thrower and showcased some sneaky athleticism at times, but he also displayed horrible ball security on a second quarter fumble. On balance, his day was decent, but that one play was totally inexcusable. Kelly Bryant made an appearance to finish off a touchdown drive, but he didn’t see many snaps overall in his debut.
Running Backs: A
Clemson’s strength is its depth at tailback. Against the Terriers, that depth was put on display in impressive fashion. Five running backs combined for 220 yards on 37 carries, which averages out to just shy of six yards per carry. Wayne Gallman had 14 of those runs, while Zac Brooks and C.J. Fuller had seven apiece. Clearly Gallman and C.J. Davidson are still ahead on the depth chart (Davidson had 25 yards on 5 rushes), but the rest of the bunch performed well enough to justify at least a sliver of the workload moving forward.
Wide Receivers/Tight Ends: B
Perhaps in an effort to keep things as simple as possible, the screen game was highlighted even more than usual by the Clemson brain trust against Wofford. This meant a big day for Artavis Scott and Ray Ray McCloud. The small and shifty duo combined to catch 14 balls for 155 yards and a score. Ten additional receivers were utilized in the passing game, with none accumulating more than three grabs. Only one went to a tight end (Jordan Leggett) but the situational blocking provided by Garrett Williams and Cannon Smith provided a blueprint for short-yardage situations.
Offensive Line: B
It’s hard to give a grade any higher than this because, well, it’s Wofford. However, Clemson only had two negative yardage plays all game long, and both were passes. This means the offensive line routinely moved the line of scrimmage, which was nice to see. There didn’t appear to be glaring issues with any of the multitude of combinations that came onto the field. Starting left guard Ryan Norton sustained a minor injury, but other than that, the unit came out unscathed.
Defensive Line: A
It wasn’t just the tackles and the pressure and the frustration caused that made Clemson’s defensive front stand out. It was the number of guys who made those plays all game long. It didn’t matter who came into the game. Clemson’s front four made life miserable for the running backs in Wofford’s triple option attack. It’s too difficult to try calling names, so blanket statements will have to do.
Linebackers: A
If you were in the stadium, you didn’t hear their names called very much. They didn’t make a bunch of standout plays. However, consider this fact: Wofford only rushed for ten or more yards on four plays, and two of them came on the final drive of the game. If a linebacking corps isn’t on its game, an offense like the one the Terriers employ can thrive. The fact that they didn’t speaks volumes about the work the linebackers did throughout the game.
Secondary: B
Much like the linebackers, there weren’t attention-grabbing plays that drew the throngs in attendance to the defensive backfield. Simply, this grade is about the consistency with which they played. Once again, it didn’t matter who was playing at cornerback or safety. Wofford had a hard time throwing the ball all game long, and players like Jayron Kearse were able to set the edge defensively from start to finish. It was a good start for the unit Dabo Swinney calls the best on the team.
Special Teams: D+
The primary area of concern is at kicker, and no kicks were missed. That was a good thing. The rest of the special teams work was largely disappointing. Andy Teasdall only averaged 33.8 yards on his four punts, and several muffed punts by multiple players created some consternation on the sideline and in the stands. Granted, Wofford’s style of rugby punting presented some unique challenges, but the returners needed to adjust, and they didn’t.
Coaching: A+
If there were a way to go above this grade, it would be well-deserved. Clemson was extremely well prepared to play Wofford, and that’s not easy to do. It’s also foolish to think every moment of Clemson’s offseason was spent thinking about and scheming toward this one particular opponent. On offense, the plan was simple, highlighting the edge the Tigers enjoyed in speed and skill. It wasn’t fancy, but it was efficient, and the staff should be praised for keeping it simple and getting results.