How worried should Clemson fans be about the program following the blowout, 51-10 loss to LSU?
Fox Sports’ lead college football analyst, Joel Klatt, weighed in on that while discussing LSU’s rout of Clemson in Lane Kiffin’s head coaching debut for the Bayou Bengals last Saturday in Baton Rouge.
On The Joel Klatt Show, Klatt stated that Clemson “looked like almost a dead program” in the LSU game.
While Dabo Swinney previously built a powerhouse at Clemson, Klatt noted the product on the field Saturday night was “not even close” to competing at the top end of college football.
Klatt contrasted the trajectories of the two programs, using the matchup to illustrate a major gap in how Swinney/Clemson and Kiffin/LSU approach the sport today.
“This was the clearest picture of a team and a coach that fully embraces the ever-evolving nature of college football — and not only embraces it, but is actively pushing hard against the boundaries in every direction — and that’s LSU,” Klatt said.
“And then you have a program that is actively pushing to not be anywhere near the boundaries. Now, yes, Clemson brought in some transfers, and they’re slowly trying to evolve with the times. But you can see that Clemson, I hate to say this, but they looked like almost a dead program on Saturday night. And that’s tough to say, because Dabo Swinney built a juggernaut at Clemson. But that was not — that was not a team that was close to competing at the top end of college football. Not even close.”
Beyond the philosophical differences, Klatt highlighted one of the glaring on-field issues from the blowout — Clemson’s quarterback disadvantage and the fact inexperienced QB Christopher Vizzina looked like a “deer in headlights” on the road against a supremely talented roster.
Klatt emphasized that LSU having an experienced quarterback in Sam Leavitt is the “great equalizer.”
“The thing that separated these teams, and the thing that separated LSU in the first half was Sam Leavitt,” Klatt said. “And it wasn’t his ability to throw the ball, although he did make a couple of really nice throws in the first half. It was his ability to run. Sam Leavitt’s legs were the difference in this game early. … Clemson didn’t have that. They had an inexperienced guy that goes out there — Vizzina goes out there, and he’s a deer in headlights. He doesn’t have the experience. He’s facing a talented roster on the road, and that doesn’t work in college football. …
“The most important thing that you can have is a quarterback. But you’ve got to have an experienced quarterback, because at least he’s seen it. He’s felt it. He understands what different coverages look like. He understands what a simulated pressure looks like. He understands when a safety adjusts post-snap, and he can read that and he can process that information, because he’s done it before. And then the really good ones, they can evaluate when you as a defense are doing something well and taking away their primary or their intended target, and they can elevate their team above that. … Leavitt was the great equalizer.”
On the defensive side of the ball, Clemson allowed 644 yards of total offense and 38 first downs in the game overall, but Klatt believes things weren’t quite as dire for Clemson defensively in the first half before the game got out of hand.
“A lot of people are going to write off Clemson, and I know that I just did to a certain extent,” he said. “It wasn’t quite as bad defensively in the first half as you would imagine from Clemson. They were hanging in there, at times. Obviously the pick-six killed them. … Their defense was taking some stuff away from LSU. They were playing fast. They were playing physical.”