So here we are at the first turn of the race, and we have seen that problems that we predicted in the preseason have developed into what we thought.

Everyone knew we would have issues at WR. Everyone knew we’d start a new QB, and that he would have teething problems, and a week before the season started, when Parker was announced starter, I predicted he would have some games where he looked like a freshman. Everyone also suspected the OL would be average at best; not one person told me that they believed it would be a strength this year. Many of us, including myself, did not expect Napier would turn this offense into a 50ppg juggernaut.

And what do we have after 4 games? A QB who looked like a freshman in 2 games, WRs that have not stepped up, an offense that cannot execute at times, and an OL that has been average.

I fail to see why any realistic Clemson fan would be surprised given what has happened around here the last few years….oops, 20 years.

But given that, there are things, that if improved soon, would really bring Clemson fans “All In.”

1. WRs must catch the football. Its quite simple. There have been several key drops by all of our receivers this season that have killed drives. TCU’s WRs caught passes that were high or wide, yet Clemson’s cannot. Terrance Ashe cannot catch any throw on a slant or post route, that much is clear. Palmer has had drops, Allen has had drops, Dye, Jones, etc. etc.

2. WRs must learn to get open and run better routes. Making a cut on a hitch-n-go or a square-in is not rocket science. We do not run crisp, clean routes. Against man coverage the route continues at full-speed, against zone the WR stops in open grass, and our guys cannot grasp this. When in man coverage, we are not physical enough to force our way open. I’d rather see an offensive PI call and the ball be brought back than no one even try to get open by chucking a Cornerback.

3. Parker must improve his accuracy, and his mechanics. With our WR’s drops, its clearly a two-fold problem. Parker throws high to the sidelines quite a bit, as well as wide. Many times he throws behind his receiver. He must improve his touch on short-to-intermediate throws. In addition, he has a tendency in pressure situations to throw across his body and does not set his feet to throw.

4. The offensive gameplan must create opportunities for the TE and WRs. On what was our best offensive drive of the season against TCU, Clemson used the TE to chip the DE and then run out into the flats on flare/wheel routes. Mike Palmer, D. Allen, and R. Taylor all caught short passes on the first drive.

However, where a TE is most handy is in taking on LB’s in coverage over the middle. They are bigger and can muscle the ‘backers out of their way in their route, and then take the hit from both safeties that will come their way. Clemson does not attack the middle of the field with the TE. Every team on the schedule will play Cover 2 defense at times, and the weak spot in a true Cover 2 is the middle of the field, at about 15 yards depth. How many of Palmer’s catches have been in this area? We saw it work to Allen vs. GT and it nearly worked against TCU this week, so more plays MUST attack the seam.

Nearly every defensive scheme has a ‘no-cover zone’ from 1-5 yards off the line of scrimmage. If your TE can make a play, then attacking the flats with them like we do makes sense, but Allen and Palmer are neither fast nor elusive enough to do this, so I see no reason to expect big gains by continuously attacking the area when the middle of the field is open.

Additionally, plays must be designed to get our younger WRs involved. Nearly every play I see involves Parker locking onto Jacoby Ford and never looking off. That tells me that a) plays are designed with Ford as the primary progression, and b) that Parker has little confidence in their abilities. How can you expect Brown, Jones or Clear to step up, when so few plays are designed to go to them? (Ashe does have designed plays, but he drops them or doesnt get separation.)

We have 3 WRs at 6′4″ or better, who can play. Just throw a fade or corner route and let them go get it. Who on our schedule has tall enough CBs to cover them? Tell Parker to look their way first and wait for the play to develop before immediately going to Jacoby.

A better way to use CJ and Jacoby would be to stretch the field vertically. ENOUGH of the short crossing routes and flanker screens. BOTH can outrun anyone the defense uses to cover. If the OL can protect for a 7-step drop play, then run one/both of them on a post/fly route to pull those safeties deep. Even if they end up double-covered, the TE will be sitting open in the seam underneath. With CJ as arguably the more elusive one, run Jacoby deep and use CJ on the screens or underneath routes, and have Ellington in the backfield.

5. The blocking must continue to improve. There is nothing I enjoy more about offensive football than well-executed blocking. I give credit to our line for stepping up against TCU’s pass rush. Parker was not sacked once and even Lambert played ok. But in the redzone, scoring TDs is about TOUGHNESS up front and controlling the LOS. We still do not do that. On 3rd or 4th and short, we do not handle teams that stack up the box. They get penetration and blow up the play. All of our linemen are at fault. The OL play has improved overall this season, with certain exceptions by one player or two during a particular game, but if the interior line (which is supposed to be a strength) cannot blow people off the ball, you don’t get first downs in short-yardage situations.

A secondary complaint is the WR blocking. If you want to run perimeter options and sweeps, not only do OLmen need to get around the corner, but WRs have to block people. Ours do not, and seem to take plays off when it comes to blocking. With 3 big receivers, we should be able to execute a crack block, and we still haven’t learned how.

6. The playcalling must change, specifically the run/pass calls. In addition to attacking seams instead of the flat, we call some plays without reason or thought. On the first drive this week, we mixed up formations considerably, yet afterwards we fell into a pattern of I-formation and 1-back zone running and shotgun-passing. We threw 37 times in the rain this week, and 12 times in the 3rd quarter with a lead. Although I’ve discussed in the blog that only a handful of plays in the game were bonehead calls, we cannot throw the ball that much with a lead in a rainstorm.

The reason Clemson cannot convert on 3rd down is because we leave ourselves 3rd & 5+ because of poor calls on 1st and 2nd down. I did not see in this game, despite CJ’s 100+ yards, any situation in the 2nd half where we ran on 1st and 2nd down. We led the whole 3rd quarter, and it only takes 3 plays of 3.3x to get a 1st down.

If a defense gives up the run, you always take it with a lead.

In the redzone, we run too many perimeter rushing plays, given that our WRs can’t block. If we have success inside, then RUN AT THEM and establish that control of the LOS. Perimeter flanker screens should also go by the wayside.

7. LB play must improve. I realize this may surprise some people, but against GT our Backers got blocked out of plays quite easily. The Midline play that Nesbitt burned us on so many times has the Offensive Guards proceeding to the 2nd level and barely blocking the DTs. Maye got himself blocked out many times by poor technique. Conner failed to take the Wingback on the long GT touchdown. Scotty Cooper hasn’t ever been mentioned. Alexander has but only because he seems to blitz so often.

Every team has had success with QB keepers and zone reads like this, because their Guards proceed to the 2nd level and block them out. If the DT can get to the play, great, and you can’t tell him to “slow down” except in specific defensive adjustments, but we’re getting beat by QBs because the LBs are no where to be seen.

If a few of these are fixed this season, Clemson could go a long way. If not, better get used to the idea of 7-5 again.

I’ve read a lot about the TCU Horny Toads, or what is their mascot again, – oh, the horned frogs, not toads. I’ve read about how good TCU is this year and how good Coach Gary Patterson is and his absurd record at TCU. I understand that  because of the missteps of some of the other members of the MWC, TCU has a chance to bust the BCS.

But still, and I know it’s shallow, I can’t get past the mascot. That little thing can shoot blood from its eyeballs. What does that tell you about TCU?

Probably nothing. But it will seem like much of the fan bases of both teams will be blinded today, as the game is not on TV. TCU supposedly bailed out the Tigers with today’s game, but they have got to be frustrated with this game against a solid BCS school that will not be televised, regionally, or otherwise, but instead relegated to an online presence that cannot be accessed on more than one cable provider.

Those lucky fans who are in attendance today will read about the 1959 Clemson team that defeated TCU in the inaugural Bluebonnet Bowl and hopefully see a win today as well.

That wasn’t the last time a Clemson team faced a TCU team, but one of the more significant meetings. It was just last year that the Clemson Tigers Basketball team played against the Horned Frogs in the first annual Charleston Classic Basketball tournament. The Tigers defeated TCU behind the strong play of senior KC Rivers.

Today, it will be up to likewise initialled senior CJ Spiller to lead the Tigers to victory.

Go Tigers!

Three games in, Clemson is about what most folks expected: Very good on D, shaky on O, and potent on special teams.

Their kicker (Richard Jackson) has been a huge surprise. He’s 11-of-13 and has nailed attempts of 53 and 52 yards. Both would’ve been good from 65.

Left tackle Chris Hairston suffered a sprained MCL in last week’s 25-7 win over Boston College, and that’s a huge concern with TCU DE Jerry Hughes coming to town this Saturday. Hairston didn’t practice much this week and will be a game-time decision tomorrow.

C.J. Spiller continues to be nagged by an injured toe. Dabo Swinney says he doesn’t think it’s something that’ll linger throughout the season. Spiller at 80 percent is still better than most backs, but you can tell he’s not able to cut as well because of the toe.

This game will tell us a lot about this team. I know we said that going into the Georgia Tech game, but I think we’ll learn more about this bunch from this game.

Original Retro Brand is giving away one college tee (winner’s choice) per day for the next 30 days. September 19th, 2009 – October 18th, 2009.

All you have to do is leave a comment on this blog. NO PURCHASE NECESSARY!

How to enter: Each comment you leave on this blog equals one entry into the contest. These must be genuine comments. By “genuine comment” I mean it must add something to the conversation taking place. For example, a comment that simply says “cool” or “please enter me” will not help you win an awesome shirt from Original Retro Brand. Your fate is in your own hands. The more you comment, the better chance you have at winning. So if you really want a shirt, comment a lot! At the end of each week, 7 winners will be chosen at random from relevant comments left on all Raycom Sports’ blogs. These winners will be contacted by Raycom Sports to let them know how to claim their prize (ie. get their address, team, and shirt size). Please note: All shirts will be shipped within 7 days of the end of the promotion (October 18th).

About Original Retro Brand (www.originalretrobrand.com)…These are the shirts ACC fans (and all other college sports fans) were born to wear. They are the logos you remember in a cool, fitted, fashion-forward tee. Be the envy of all your friends, neighbors, and co-workers. By the way, you don’t have to wait until the contest is over. Buy a shirt today! We don’t just love them because they are our sponsor. We love them because they are AWESOME!

Two games into Swinney’s inaugural campaign, we are beginning to see what Coach Swinney has been talking about since January.  There have been some positives and negatives in this short period of time, and I think that it is fair to begin to assess the initial sentiments surrounding the CU football program under the watch of a new regime.

There are quite a few positives to come from the first few games.  I will refer mostly to the Ga Tech game, as Tech is a much better football team than MTSU and gave Clemson a better look, athlete to athlete. 

First and foremost, this team appears to be quite a bit tougher, both physically and mentally.  Physical toughness was evident last Thursday in the second half.  Georgia Tech’s defensive front looked fatigued at the end of the game.  Clemson was able to successfully run the football, and run the ball between the tackles.  This fact in and of itself is a monumental accomplishment from the year prior.  Along the same lines, I am really excited about the development of R. Taylor and his ability to contribute to this offense thus far (if you need further proof of Taylor’s physical play, watch the long wheel route Spiller scored on last week…RT laid the blitzing linebacker out).  The same toughness is seen on defense.  The Clemson defensive front has played outstanding the first few weeks, neutralizing the Yellow Jackets potent flex offense for most of the football game.  McDaniel has been a crucial force in the secondary.  His play has been phenomenal.  This defense could be one of the better Clemson defenses that we have seen in years.

While physical toughness is more easily assessed, this team has shown signs of increased mental toughness.  Once again, with really only the GT game to assess, Clemson fought back from some difficult circumstances.  After digging a huge hole early on, the Tigers clawed their way back, overcame more adversities out of their control (officiating) and had a very good chance to win the football game.  This shows a lot of heart and character.  This will to win and never give up attitude is something we haven’t seen in quite a while.  The overall positive attitude throughout the game and into the post game presser showed a team and group of coaches that seemed to believe it had what it took to win.

Second, this is a very exciting football team.  Clemson has two players (Spiller and Ford) who have the ability to make a huge play anytime either touches the football.  The Tigers have made quite a few big plays so far this year.  Such explosiveness keeps this team within striking distance under any circumstances. 

Third is Kyle Parker’s maturity as a Freshman.  We all knew he had an arm, but I really did not expect to see the poise I have seen thus far out of this young man.  His decision making has been pretty good and throws positive (for the most part).  It appeared that after he settled down last week (basically after the first period), Parker was ready to be this team’s leader.

This team still has not won a good one yet, and there are many reasons for this.  To open, the coaching staff takes full responsibility for the botched quick kick last week.  This play has its place, but after a timeout while the defense is in a “safe return” is no time to try something like this.  Instead of getting all cute and trying to get your place kicker to nail the coffin-corner, why not simply take a delay of game and run your regular punt unit out?  This team is prepared to punt the ball and make necessary tackles.  Arguably, this coaching decision and poor on-field execution cost Clemson the football game.

The improved offensive line is still not at a championship level.  This is evident by the RT position becoming revolving door for the big guys.  This unit is also not very deep.  I am not sure how far this team could go if the injury bug rears its head at some point this year.

Sloppy technique has really caused the most complaints from me this year.  Missed tackles and dropped passes have littered the early year.  There were a few drives GT had that were particularly troubling.  In such instances, the Tigers did not wrap up the ball carrier, resulting in extra (unnecessary) yards for the opposition.  I am all for creating turnovers, but the first man in must wrap up…the cavalry can follow the initial tackler and try to strip the football.  The Ashe drop for an interception against GT and the numerous drops in the season opener (J Ford included) cause worry amongst the receivers.  This is a group still has a long way to go, and I will be eager  to see if Brandon Clear, Jaron Brown, or Terrance Ashe will be able to step in and be a credible target for Kyle Parker.

The inexperience at the head coaching position is always a concern.  Until Swinney wins a few big games, you have to wonder how he will respond to big games and high pressure decisions.  While I think this staff is composed of many veterans who can help Swinney through tough situations, you just never know until it is time to perform (the reverse pass against GT last year and the quick kick against GT this year were not necessary).  Swinney and Napier are a fairly young duo, with neither having too much experience at his current job.

Based on the first two games, there are a few things that I will be watching over the duration of the year.  How will the Tigers get over a tough loss?  When adversity strikes again this season (whether in the form of injury, poor officiating, etc…), how will this team come back?  Football, like life, deals a tough hand some times.  I will be interested to see how hard the Tigers fight back when things get tough.  If this team is as resilient as it was against GT, there should be nothing to worry about.

How physical will this football team be up front at the end of the season, and will the Tigers have 5 offensive linemen that come out each week and bring the war to the opponent?  One of Swinney’s major goals over the off-season was to bring a more physical brand of football to Pickens County.  So far, this team hits a lot harder and is much more intense than previous years.  It will be interesting to see if they can maintain this attitude and style of play for four quarters every week for the next two months.  It will also be interesting to see how well Lambert and Landon Walker respond to what looks like a season-long competition for the RT spot. 

Is Kyle Parker really this far ahead of the curve?  One thing that is evident about Kyle Parker since his arrival on campus is his maturity and ability to perform immediately.  KP has been a force on the CU baseball team for two seasons, including a Freshman campaign during what should have been his senior year of high school.  Parker has made excellent decisions so far.  After the first quarter against GT, he settled down and really played fantastic.  I will be looking to see how the season wears on him and how he comes back from adversity over the next ten games.  Freshman QB’s that contribute this much this early are rare, and I think everyone is excited to see how KP evolves with some experience under his belt.

Coaching decisions are things that will be constantly analyzed and criticized over the course of a season.  Swinney and company’s ability to adequately prepare for and manage a game will become evident as the year progresses.  In game adjustments will show the staff’s comfort with personnel and schemes.  I think these guys did a good job throughout the GT game of making constant adjustments, with Clemson improving in all areas as the contest progressed.  Further proof was the neutralization of #91 in the second half (move Hairston to RT and provide support with a TE/back constantly chipping).  Mid-game adjustments are new to Clemson football, and so far they have gained most everyone’s praise.

The final aspect is the kicking game.  Richard Jackson has one heck of a leg and has been pretty accurate so far.  The ability to get three any time you are inside your opponent’s 35 yardline really helps win games and gives everyone more confidence.  Other aspects of CU’s special teams play (other than the botched quick kick) have looked really good.  Kick and punt coverage has been good and everyone knows that either CJ or Jacoby  can go the distance as a return man.  With Clemson’s defense poised to have a great year (note, there is not much on defense that I am wondering about), can Clemson eliminate poor special teams decisions and avoid giving up the big plays that have haunted the Tigers in previous years?  Last week, special teams was the deciding factor against the Tigers.  Let’s see how the rest of the ‘09 campaign plays out.

Frank Spaziani has been the defensive coordinator at BC for about a decade now, and was in the CFL immediately before that, and prior experience was under George Welsh at UVA. In 2008, the Eagles ranked in the top 10 in the nation in seven defensive categories, including interceptions (first, 26); turnovers gained (second, 36); total defense (fifth, 268.14 ypg.); red zone defense (sixth, 72%); first downs allowed (sixth, 14.71 pg.); rushing defense (seventh, 91.2 ypg.), and pass efficiency defense (98.81). In addition, junior linebacker Mark Herzlich was named ACC Defensive Player of the Year, but he’s out battling bone cancer.

Now you can certainly believe that BC has been good the last few years because of Matt Ryan and had made a great decision to hire Coach Jagz in the first place, but you have to admit they were very consistent, if not flashy, under Tom O’Brien before that, and alot of it is because they play good fundamentally.

For the most part, Spaziani is a read-and-react type of guy, and the 3-5-3 Defend is one of his gimmick defenses that you’ll see a lot of in definite passing situations. Now he’s the head coach at BC, and while I don’t expect them to go to the ACCCG again soon, they will probably still be a tough opponent for years to come. This article makes use of one of his published articles on the 3-5-3 defense, which is suited as a base package against teams with a lot of underneath patterns, with 5-step drop protections (like Clemson). Its also a good package to run in the Red Zone.

With the emergence of complex passing games in college football, defensive schemes have had to adjust to keep pace. It used to be that you would either play back and react, or that you’d apply pressure. But nowadays, the packages must have enough variety to meet all contingencies. They have to have been installed and practiced in the game week, or you’ll lose against a good opponent. A pressure package is essential, but the variety is the real key to success. You don’t want your defense to look the same to the offense as what they practiced that week, so you always try to hide coverages and blitz packages.

The biggest liability of the 3-5-3 is obviously the pass rush, and vertical stretch (which Clemson DOESN’T do enough of), so BC expects the 8-man coverage itself to be the timing breaker, and the DL can get a coverage sack. BC uses LARGE DTs, and they aren’t expected to be very fast, just disciplined (this is also why they’ll handle GT’s FB Dive well). The two Tackles and the NG are in containment rush, both trying to go around the OT’s and force the pocket to collapse around the QB to get the sack. The NG himself must be a walrus who can take a double-team, and is the man responsible for screens and draw plays.

The basic package appears as a variation on the 33 Stack set with an extra OLB/Nickelback playing, with the SS being the 5th guy in the underneath zone. BC’s base is still a 4-3. WILL and SS take the flats underneath, with the two interior LBs playing hook/curl zone and the SAM taking a slot/TE (curl) zone up the seam (note that it could also appear as a shifted 4-3, with the Sam playing in a 3pt stance). The two CBs and the FS are playing the usual 3-deep zone coverage. In the figure above, W, S, and B are LB’s (Will/Sam/Bandit), and the SS’s are called “Dogs” on the callside, “Rover” on the weakside. One of them will most likely be an OLB or backup Safety/Nickel. Its just terminology.

The basics of the 3-5-3
Simple adjustments
When field position doesn’t give help to protect against deep stretch plays, the first adjustment Spaziani makes is to swing out his WLB and SS to match up across from the two WRs. In this “out” adjustment, they are told to bump the wideouts and throw off the timing so that they can’t get past the 3-deep or into the seam before the pass rush can do something.

A second adjustment is simply to switch SAM and SS’s responsibilities, with SAM taking the flat (and possibly lining up across from the WR) and the SS running back into the slot zone. Why does that help at all? Well first it helps control the seam better by giving another look to the QB (remember they attack the seam against a 3-deep), and second the SS is a better pass defender than SAM or the Strongside End.

So the 3-5-3 allows BC to defend 5 underneath zones, and helps cover an additional spot on the wide side of the field. However, pass offenses don’t quite work that way and if you chart plays you’ll see they tend to work from the TE over. This forces other adjustments unless the offenses are designed to attack that area with the extra defender underneath.

The next adjustment you’ll often see them make is an Umbrella-look, which might appear as a 2/4-deep to the QB in presnap reads. The weakside CB will roll over, standing opposite the FS in a 2-deep style coverage, but with the Strongside CB coming up a little, and the SS matched across from a WR, it could also fool the QB into thinking all 4 will drop back deep. Spaziani will call for rolling coverages after the snap to trick the offense into a presnap adjustment from this look, disguising the true coverage.

A simple strongside roll will drop that SS, umbrella-CB (taking the deep middle), and FS into 3-deep, with the other players taking the underneath zones. The other CB can either play soft or bump & cover the flat zone underneath.

On the hash, it would be better to roll weak, saturating the zones that the offense will try to attack and disrupting the patterns. You want to bump with the SS and not allow them to attack the seams through the slot, and that means the Split-end will be forced to read 2 or 3-deep and adjust. The major weakness is the front-side out, and you can really nail BC with that play if they are rolling weak.

Note that with only 3 guys definitely coming at the QB, you have alot of flexibility in the fronts you show with this defense, and you can technically blitz from anywhere and not really be losing anything. In this figure you see the OLB/Dog stunting, then he comes on the blitz, and that is easily changed to the other Dog or a LB.

A standard 3-deep from a 4-3 set would be no different in coverage than a 3-5-3 blitzing one of the underneath backers. If you ever blitz out of it, then from that point onwards the offense doesnt know where the blitz could come from. Its solid against the run because its a Gap-8 (33 Stack) scheme, so all the guys have particular gap responsibilities to control.

In the base defense the nose will have one “A” gap and the MLB will have the other “A” gap, depending on the blocking scheme.

The outside linebackers will have the “B” gap to their side. The tackles will have the “C” gap to their side. The SS’s will be responsible for the “D” gap to their side. Versus the run, the front eight play their gap responsibilities. Versus the veer, MLB and F/S play Dive, QB, to Pitch.

Of course there are no ends to the adjustments made to the fronts based on personnel and plays the offense is good at, but this is intended just as an introduction and primer to one of BC’s better defenses. They don’t play the 3-5-3 often, but you will see it against Clemson in definite passing situations.

In 2005, Clemson took Miami to three overtimes before falling 36-30.

The atmosphere at Death Valley was electric. Even in defeat, the Tigers were praised for their fight and resolve against the No. 13 Hurricanes.

Clemson stood at 2-1, and fans felt good about things.

The next week, Boston College and an unknown backup quarterback — some guy named Matt Ryan — left Clemson with a 16-13 overtime victory that stuck a pin in the Tigers’ balloon of hope.

Does this sound familiar?

The vibes are similar as Clemson reflects on last week’s 30-27 loss at Georgia Tech. Fans are excited about a defense that held the Yellow Jackets’ offense to a mere touchdown. They’re excited about an offense that hit for big plays as the Tigers battled back from a 24-0 deficit to take a 27-24 lead before falling in the end.

They’re excited about the resolve instilled in this team by Dabo Swinney, who’s in his first full year as coach. They think the amazing comeback said something about the resilience and character of this bunch.

And Boston College comes to town Saturday with fans thinking their Tigers should win big.

I’m not yet sold on the notion that last week’s about-face represented some transformative, defining moment for this program. But if the Tigers walk into Death Valley and wipe the Eagles off the field, I’ll be more inclined to believe it.

It’s easy and common for fans to trash the previous coach, and a common line of thinking lately has been: “A Tommy Bowden-coached team would’ve never been able to come back from a 24-point deficit at Georgia Tech.”

I don’t necessarily disagree with that, because Bowden did seem to have a deer-in-headlights look that trickled down to his teams after a big gut punch. Last year’s opener against Alabama, a 34-10 smacking that wasn’t nearly as close as that score indicates, comes to mind.

But it would be unfairly revisionist to say Bowden’s teams never showed fight.

The Tigers did, after all, make a habit of late-season revivals after all was thought to have been lost — including Bowden’s job. They closed with a flourish in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2007 … and who knows what would’ve happened had Bowden stuck around the final six games of 2008.

The Tigers were resilient in 2007 at home against Virginia Tech after the Hokies took led 31-5 late in the first half. The Tigers battled back and were inches away from making it an eight-point game late before Virginia Tech pulled away.

Then there was that Miami game in 2005. The Tigers were coming off a last-second win over Texas A&M and a come-from-behind win at Maryland before they pushed the Hurricanes to the ragged edge.

Rob Spence and Vic Koenning were in their first seasons as Clemson’s offensive and defensive coordinator, respectively, and there was a feeling that the program had been infused with a new mettle and determination.

That feeling didn’t last long. The Tigers’ offense struggled in the loss to Boston College. Next up was a demoralizing 31-27 defeat at Wake Forest.

Over the last four years, Clemson has been known mostly for underachievement. It’s been 17 seasons and counting since the Tigers last won an ACC title, and they haven’t won the Atlantic Division in the ACC championship game’s four-year run.

The fans are hoping all that changes this year, and the Tigers’ division looks wide open. It’s completely realistic for the 39-year-old Swinney to do in his first year what Bowden couldn’t for a decade at Clemson: Bring home a championship.

The next four games – Boston College, TCU, at Maryland, Wake Forest – could go a long way toward determining whether Swinney is indeed a departure from the roller-coaster ride that took place for much of Bowden’s 9½-year tenure.

If the Tigers are 5-1 after that stretch, I’ll be willing to say last week’s turnaround at Georgia Tech was indeed the start of something special.

Until then…