Syracuse Football: Breaking Down Offensive Play-Calling vs. Clemson

You guys sure you want to see this? Last warning... because you're not going to like what's below. Obviously, Clemson's defense was about as good as you'll find this season, but a few tweaks here and there and some better execution, and maybe there's a much different outcome for Syracuse. Alas, it wasn't meant to be. And when you glance at the results of play-calling below, it at least gives a few glimpses as to why. So read at your own risk. Or for your own edification. Either/or. Because the fears we had after game one of this new offensive era (could a very simplified playbook truly hold up over time?) are coming true.

First Quarter

Play-Call Breakdown: 13 passes, 10 runs

There's a real lack of protection for Long from the get-go. We can chalk it up to Clemson's pass-rush being incredibly good, sure. But if you know that going in (and we do), you keep an extra blocker back there. Early on, Long also seemed to take entirely too much time to release the football, though, even when that blitz was obviously coming. Only on drive four did we really start to see a rhythm get going. I'd have loved to see what could've happened on that 1st and 10 deep ball, too from the Clemson 28 -- if only Long hadn't been hit as he threw. It was single coverage and had it gotten there with a bit more zip, perhaps SU grabs an early TD and changes this game.

***

Second Quarter

Play-Call Breakdown: 9 runs, 7 passes

I might as well spoil the surprise here: the Clemson 23 was the furthest Syracuse would advance the football (and this instance was greatly aided by a Tigers turnover). So all of those concerns over SU's ability to move the ball in the red zone were entirely unnecessary because the Orange never got there. Beyond that, though, we did get to see a nice dose of Prince-Tyson Gulley (and only Gulley -- more on that later) and a bad quarter of ball security by Long (three fumbles, though somehow none lost). As you'll also notice, any time Broyld touches the football, good things seem to happen, as the defense is a bit more keyed-in on Steve Ishmael than they are on him.

***

Third Quarter

Play-Call Breakdown: 7 passes, 6 runs

Five possessions in one quarter is a new season high, though those 13 total plays should give you a pretty firm hint that there was no good reason for it at all. The second quarter's lack of ball security continued past halftime, resulting in two turnovers for SU (one fumble, one INT) and a grand total of 17 yards (just three if you remove the one 14-yard run on drive 13). Despite his very strong showing last week, Devante McFarlane is given his lone pity carry here (a decent gain) and then never seen again. Adonis Ameen-Moore is also handed his most extended action of the contest, with three touches on drive 13 -- including a horrendous decision by A.J. Long on that 3rd and 8. It wasn't getting close to the first down marker to begin with, but blanketed by two defenders, that toss never should have happened at all.

***

Play-Call Breakdown: 9 passes, 3 runs

Hey, 15 drives? That's a new season-hi... oh. That's a bummer. SU had two chances early in the fourth to keep themselves on pace with Clemson. And yet, they couldn't do it. Maybe it was the emphasis on the pass (I don't by that this late, but we'll get to it). Maybe it was a batch of play-calls that looked McDonald-esque in Clemson territory on drive 15. Or maybe the Tigers' defense was simply too good. Whatever you point the finger at, it never came together for Syracuse late in the game, which (again) is incredibly disheartening.

***

• Overall play-calling breakdown: 36 called passes vs. 28 called runs (that's four straight weeks of passes and runs being equal or more in favor of the pass, which defies all logic)
  
• First half play-calling: 20 passes vs. 19 runs (16:9 in second half)
• First downs: 10 total (6 running, 4 passing; 2:1 split in second half)
  
• First down play selection: 14 called passes, 11 called runs (8:19 last week)
  
• First down play selection on subsequent sets of downs: 6 called passes, 4 called runs (5:12 last week)
  
• First down plays for five or more yards: 7
  
• Second down play selection: 13 called runs, 7 called passes (11:9 last week)
  
• Third down play selection: 13 called passes, 3 called runs (15:4 last week)
  
• Third down conversion: 3-for-16 (2 runs, 1 pass)
  
• 15 of Syracuse's 64 play calls (23 percent) took place in Wake Forest territory (just six in the second half); last week, that number was 31 percent (second straight week of decline).
  
• Screens were seemingly at a premium, though as some in the comment section pointed out during the game, it appears the jet sweep (and failed ones at that) may have replaced bubble screens in this offense.
  
• Play-action was barely, if at all utilized, as Long went through quick, one-look reads in order to get the ball out in short order. I'm curious if a better use of play-fakes could have bought him some time or open targets by drawing in the defense a bit.
  
• Syracuse had eight big plays (ones that gained 10 or more yards) -- totaling 106 of Syracuse's ghastly 170 yards on offense. The other 56  plays gained a disgusting 1.1 yards per, which was an even steeper drop from last week's already-bad 2.1. Overall yards per play were 2.66 (vs. 5.29 last week), which again, is a big joke. SU also had 14 plays for loss (including offensive penalties, which were WAY down this week). That's embarrassing.

A lot to digest here despite some very minimal returns for the Syracuse offense. Four consecutive weeks of a pass-centric offense makes little to no sense for a Syracuse team with five very capable running backs and a mobile quarterbacks. Speaking of, the breakdown of carries for this week made entirely no sense, with Gulley receiving 18, while the other 10 were sparingly parsed out to Ameen-Moore, Phillips and Long. George Morris II and McFarlane were ghosts this week, and to be honest, AAM and Erv really didn't get much to do either. I don't really understand this approach, especially given the success this team has exhibited when utilizing all five (six with QB) backs in the past.

As mentioned, Long was relying on single-reads all night, which works in theory but didn't always result in the best decisions. With Ishmael blanketed, and Jarrod West and Ashton Broyld taking a second to get open, he wasn't really utilizing his receivers all that well. When you're insisting on throwing the ball this much (please no, Tim Lester -- I know this was expected, but still...), you have to use everyone effectively. Speaking of: why welcome back Brisly Estime only to relegate him to return duty? He could've really helped out this passing game more, and now could be out with an injury yet again.

Penalties were lower than normal (just five for 30 yards, and the most damage was done on special teams), but that's really all you can give the offensive line. Despite knowing the blitz was coming, this group failed to really protect Long much and this offense paid the price. Again, though, if this is a known result of facing Clemson, WHY NOT RUN THE DAMN BALL?!?! Play-calling also seemed to load up on one side or the other at various points, which also baffled.

But what do you think, though? This was pretty ugly, right? Share some thoughts below so we can hopefully never revisit this sort of (lack of) execution again.