October 1, 2005
Bowden back on the hotseat as Clemson loses to Wake
Clemson lost 31-27 at Wake Forest today and while there were lapses in execution that could have made a difference, most Clemson fans are seeing the problem as coaching. Jim Grobe has Tommy Bowden's number since he arrived in Winston-Salem. Every game has been close except for the blowout win at Wake in 2003 that very nearly ended Bowden's tenure in Tigertown (he was saved when Clemson bounced back with wins over FSU, S. Carolina and then Tennessee that year.)
Clemson started out with an interception on the first possession of the game and Wake scored quickly to go up 7-0. The Tigers responded with a touchdown of their own to knot the game at 7. Wake proceeded to score 14 unanswered points off another interception and a blocked punt to go up 21-7. Clemson rallied to tie the game at 21 by halftime.
The Tigers jumped ahead 27-21 on two Jad Dean field goals in the 3rd Quarter and the Deacons got back to within three with a Swank field goal early in the 4th quarter. Clemson had Wake pinned on their own 10 late in the 4th but a pass interference penalty gave the Deacs a chance to play 3rd Down over. Clemson picked it off and set up shop on the Wake 30 with a chance to put the game away. 2 short runs and an incomplete pass later the Tigers were lining up for an apparent 44 yard field goal attempt. Cole Chason, the holder, pitched the ball to kicker Jad Dean on the fake that was stopped for a loss. Wake took over and drove the ball down Clemson's throat for a touchdown to go ahead 31-27. Clemson started on their own 20 and moved the ball down deep into Wake territory but the game ended after a completed pass down to the 3 with the Tigers trying desperately to get a time out called before the game ended.
All of Clemson's games have been decided in the 4th quarter or in overtime this season. The vast majority of games in the past 2 seasons fall into the same category. The Tigers get a week off to try to put things back together next week but then they get N.C. State in Raleigh on a Thursday night. Thursday night games have not been kind to Clemson and N.C. State has defeated Clemson both times the schools played recently on that night of the week.
A lot of grumbling was going on last week after the loss to B.C. and most of it centered on the offensive playcalling being "too conservative." Much of that criticism came from people who have previously attacked Bowden's offenses in the past for throwing too much or being too gimmicky. My concern all season this year hasn't been on offense but on defense. Clemson just gives up too many yards on what should be average gains. While many expected Mike O'Cain to be fired last year, the firing of John Lovett at the same time confused some observers. The learning curve of installing a new defense and a new offense at the same time is always a tough one. Losing to Miami and B.C. two weeks in a row in overtime is tough but not a huge surprise. Most rational fans expected to be 2-2 after B.C. Losing to Wake is never acceptable, however. Ken Hatfield and Tommy West both were fired the same year they lost to the Deacons. The Wake fans chanted Fire Bowden after the 2003 game thinking they had gotten another Clemson coach fired but the amazing finish at the end of the season short-circuited any personnel moves. Rumors of contacts with Steve Spurrier and other coaches the week before the win over FSU that year abounded.
I don't think Tommy Bowden will be fired after this season regardless of what happens the rest of the year. Even if the rest of the season goes horribly, the buyout is simply too big - especially with the ongoing construction. I do think Bowden has managed to further infuriate the portion of the fanbase that has always disliked him with the two overtime losses. With the loss this week at Wake, he has also managed to start to tick off the fans who weren't already inclined to dislike him. He is on the hotseat again officially simply because of the amount of pressure he is under now after yet another slow start to a season. It remains to be seen whether the reaction will be the same as in past years.
Update: Other reactions
I’m speechless at this point. The missed assignments on defense are mind-boggling. Three Wake Forest touchdowns were to three wide open receivers. That is unacceptable.The offense looked impressive for much of the game as the Tigers racked up 454 yards of total offense, but 77 of that came on the last drive. I’ll take that performance on most gamedays. The two interceptions thrown by Whitehurst should never have happened (bad luck on tipped balls that should have been caught), but luckily on one resulted in Wake points.
The fake field goal call will go down as one of the dumbest play calls in Bowden’s career as far as I’m concerned. I watched that play in shock–hoping I wasn’t really seeing what I thought I was seeing.
But once again the Woulda Shoulda Coulda’s don’t win the game. So now the Tigers travel home, egos bruised, Seniors disappointed at their inability to win at Wake through their career and looking forward to a week off. A week off that I am sure everyone in the Tiger family can appreciate for the lack of another down to the wire less than a TD Tiger Football game.And for you optimists: Look at what happened the last time we lost to Wake in an embarrasing defeat. Peach Bowl anyone?
I’m having a difficult time deciding how to feel about this game. Obviously, I’m heartbroken, but when I felt I could blame the play calling last week, I’m not sure which direction to turn this week. Obviously the big plays killed us, but we also got screwed over on the first interception, and we wouldn’t have had to come back. It seems like our offense looks much better with a sense of urgency. Whitehurst looks great when he knows he has to throw the ball, but it seems like when we don’t feel like we have to get a touchdown, we don’t worry about it. In the first half, when we needed touchdowns, we got them, but in the second half, with the game tied, we settled for a pair of field goals when touchdowns might have put the game away. Against Miami, we looked great when we were down by 10 at the end of the game. Against A&M and Maryland, we looked great when we were down late in the game. But against BC and Wake, when the game was close, we didn’t feel the need to score touchdowns, and it came back to bite us. It just seems that our offense is entirely too conservative when we don’t need to come back and we don’t need to score touchdowns. Why can’t we march down the field like we did in the first half against Wake all the time? I’m sure there must be an explanation, but it just seems like we should be able to do that more often. They were saying our red zone percentage has been perfect, is it just that we haven’t been able to get into the red zone? Or is it that we’re too busy settling for field goals? We could beat Wake Forest in a shootout. We NEED to beat BC when the defense holds them to 10 in the entire game. Miami is understandable, their defense is incredible, but even then we had chances to win. There must be something missing. There needs to be some sort of piece that we have to put together and figure out how to pull these games out.
Comments:
posted on October 2, 2005 12:45 PM — link — abuse?Jeff Quinton said:
I can't believe there are people defending the fake. Bowden's reasoning for it was to try to win the game - if Clemson didn't score a TD then they would've still lost the game using his logic. He even said the holder could've tried to change the play if it looked like Wake had it figured out.
Consistently bad execution at some point becomes a coaching issue. It's a question right now of whether it's all related to learning new schemes or just bad coaching.
posted on October 3, 2005 5:03 PM — 209.177.250.116 — link — abuse?
Jeff, you made the buyout argument last year, but shouldn't it include one less salary year now? That should make it a bit more possible, right?
Actually, the schedule's fairly kind from here on out. Four of the remaining six teams have losing records at this point.
Jeff said:
posted on October 3, 2005 5:09 PM — 70.150.177.5 — link — abuse?
The buyout coupled with the ongoing construction is what I said this time though - not just the buyout. It's still pretty hefty anyway since the extension and buyout provisions were inked between 2003 and 2005. It's way too early in the season to make a decision about firing any coach unless you're a Florida fan the past few years.
Regan said:
posted on October 3, 2005 7:37 PM — 64.12.116.139 — link — abuse?
Come on Tiger fans, be fans and back the team...yeah it was a bad call, but I for one am going to support the the Tigers instead of handing out torches and pitchforks to get rid of Bowden. The guy owns wins against Florida State, Tennessee, and Miami. Tell me how many post-Ford era coaches can even come close to claiming that.
Bill said:
posted on October 3, 2005 9:09 PM — 24.88.70.247 — link — abuse?
Stupid play calling lost Miami, BC and Wake. I've been a supporter of Tommy butI think maybe it's time to just admit maybe he's not the guy to get us to the next level.
He always got to me when he talks about I won the game...he did it after the A&M game. He hasn't won shit the team won FSU, UT, and Carolina.
joe said:
posted on October 4, 2005 7:31 AM — 64.12.116.139 — link — abuse?
""Come on Tiger fans, be fans and back the team""
Just because it's time for Tommy to go doesn't mean we are not backing the team. I don't know about people, but im tired of loosing to Duke, and Wake Forest. Tommy Bowden is the man that keeps leading Clemson to 6 and 5 seasons' Is that good enough for you? If so trade in your Tiger Pride for Chicken! That may be good enough for South Carolina Fans but if you were around in the 80's you would know that 6 and 5 doesn't cut it. Its one thing to loose to a Mimai or a BC everybody is expected to loose a game or two like that. But to loose to Wake Forest and Duke. Thats just not acceptable! So don't sit here and tell me to back Tommy Bowden. We've backed him for 6 years now and we are still loosing to Wake Forest. Its time to fire Bowden and Go Tigers, My blood runs orange, but tommy's gotta go!
posted on October 4, 2005 10:26 AM — link — abuse?
Bowden is just the second coach to go 1-2 against Wake in any three year period. The other whom you mentioned, Hatfield, was fired after setting the bar.
Regan said:
posted on October 4, 2005 1:23 PM — 205.188.116.199 — link — abuse?
I thought it had been established that the ACC was a lot better than it had been 20 years ago.
Clemson is 5-1 vs. Duke under Tommy Bowden and 5-2 against Wake Forest. I'm not going to panic just yet.
Under Danny Ford, Clemson was 8-4 in 1979, 6-5 in 1980, 7-4 in 1984, 6-6 in 1985. All was not perfect during the glory years; I'm just trying to keep some perspective -
During the past few years, Clemson has shown flashes of greatness, lacking only consistency. From what I've seen, the elements are all there. It's more likely to happen with Tommy at the helm than having to wait around 5-10+ years for another coach to put it together (maybe).
And if it didn't work, we could just wait another 5-10 years. Bowden has beaten huge teams already. I still think he can get the job done.
Tommy Must Go said:
posted on October 5, 2005 10:18 AM — 64.12.116.139 — link — abuse?
bowden is the best thing that happened to Clemson they should be happy they have such a steller coach
you have got to be kidding me...loosing to Duke and Wake Forest is the best thing as happened to clemson? if your saying that Bowden is the best thing to happen to CU then your saying loosing is ok...im sorry your not remembered by the big ones you win..you are rememebed by the small ones that you loose! Thats a fact...BOWDEN MUST GO!MikeinCary said:
posted on October 7, 2005 6:14 PM — 166.50.202.101 — link — abuse?
"bowden is the best thing that happened to Clemson they should be happy they have such a steller coach"?
He may be the best thing that ever happened to Wake Forest, but he is no the hest thing that ever happened to Clemson.
But, we are now paying for the mistake of extending him after the "rally". Lets fave it, that "rally" consisted of a win over a clearly down Fla State program, Duke, and USC. Hardly a run for the roses.Now, we're stuck with the mediocre opportunist.
Regan said:
posted on October 8, 2005 3:09 PM — 64.12.116.139 — link — abuse?
MikeinCary:
>>But, we are now paying for the mistake of extending him after the "rally". Lets fave it, that "rally" consisted of a win over a clearly down Fla State program, Duke, and USC. Hardly a run for the roses.FSU was not having a down year, unless you are suggesting that it was a down year because they lost to Clemson. FSU was #3 and only lost to Clemson and Miami(x2) that year. The win over South Carolina was a 63-17 blowout. And don't forget the win over #6 Tennessee (they must have been having a bad year too I guess...)
paul said:
posted on October 10, 2005 3:46 PM — 66.179.164.84 — link — abuse?
i don't believe clemson fans will accept 6 or 7 win seasons and bowl trips to atlanta or shreveport - too proud, expectations high for the money invested in the program. watch out, there are a lot of once proud football programs that are now just a coaching carousels. good luck, tiger fans.
Jack said:
posted on October 29, 2005 9:29 PM — 66.169.26.217 — link — abuse?
Coaching, Coaching, Coaching. Losing the ones that should be won is all about coaching. I'm sure Tommy is a good guy, but Clemson will never be a football power as long as he is the Clemson coach because he can't win the little ones.
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
rob said:
posted on October 2, 2005 8:36 AM — 72.40.5.140 — link — abuse?Thanks for the recap. I missed the game on tv, radio, and internet.
Unbelievable.
All I can hope for is a rally like 2 years ago.