/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/47845223/usa-today-8977902.0.jpg)
Clemson 45, North Carolina 37
Confused? Visit the Advanced Stats glossary here.
Basics | Clemson | North Carolina | Nat'l Avg |
---|---|---|---|
Total Plays | 98 | 67 | |
Close Rate (non-garbage time) | 97.0% | ||
Avg Starting FP | 28.4 | 38.1 | 29.8 |
Possessions | 16 | 15 | |
Scoring Opportunities* |
9 | 8 | |
Points Per Opportunity | 5.00 | 4.75 | 4.73 |
Leverage Rate** | 69.4% | 58.1% | 68.2% |
Close S&P*** | 0.628 | 0.573 | 0.586 |
* A scoring opportunity occurs when an offense gets a first down inside the opponent's 40 (or scores from outside the 40). ** Leverage Rate = Standard Downs / (Standard Downs + Passing Downs) *** When using IsoPPP, the S&P formula is (0.8*Success Rate) + (0.2*IsoPPP) |
|||
EqPts (what's this?) | Clemson | North Carolina | |
Total | 56.7 | 39.0 | |
Rushing | 28.2 | 15.0 | |
Passing | 28.5 | 24.0 | |
Success Rate (what's this?) | Clemson | North Carolina | Nat'l Avg |
All (close) | 49.0% | 35.5% | 41.6% |
Rushing (close) | 46.4% | 46.4% | 42.6% |
Passing (close) | 52.4% | 26.5% | 40.6% |
Standard Downs | 54.4% | 36.1% | 46.9% |
Passing Downs | 36.7% | 34.6% | 30.4% |
IsoPPP (what's this?) | Clemson | North Carolina | Nat'l Avg |
All (close) | 1.18 | 1.45 | 1.26 |
Rushing (close) | 1.08 | 1.11 | 1.07 |
Passing (close) | 1.29 | 1.93 | 1.48 |
Standard Downs | 1.09 | 1.29 | 1.11 |
Passing Downs | 1.47 | 1.67 | 1.77 |
Line Stats | Clemson | North Carolina | Nat'l Avg |
Line Yards/Carry (what's this?) | 3.38 | 2.97 | 2.88 |
Std. Downs Sack Rt. | 0.0% | 6.3% | 4.9% |
Pass. Downs Sack Rt. | 0.0% | 5.6% | 7.5% |
Turnovers | Clemson | North Carolina |
---|---|---|
Turnovers | 1 | 2 |
Turnover Points (what's this?) | 4.3 | 8.2 |
Turnover Margin | Clemson +1 | |
Exp. TO Margin | Clemson +0.22 | |
TO Luck (Margin vs. Exp. Margin) | Clemson +0.78 | |
TO Points Margin | Clemson +3.8 points | |
Situational | Clemson | North Carolina |
Q1 S&P | 0.578 | 0.640 |
Q2 S&P | 0.594 | 0.299 |
Q3 S&P | 0.782 | 0.608 |
Q4 S&P | 0.569 | 0.756 |
1st Down S&P | 0.584 | 0.613 |
2nd Down S&P | 0.623 | 0.612 |
3rd Down S&P | 0.670 | 0.556 |
Projected Scoring Margin: Clemson by 21.5 | ||
Actual Scoring Margin: Clemson by 8 |
Usually when there's this big a difference between the projected and actual scoring margins, it means that either something funky happened on special teams (because this box score doesn't really account for that) or there was a large disparity in terms of finishing drives. That wasn't significantly the case here, but North Carolina did manage a healthy field position advantage, in part because of more effective punting (net punting average: UNC 41, Clemson 34).
The Clemson defense was put into tough positions, with UNC starting drives, on average, within a first down of field. But the Heels threw an interception at the Clemson 16 and lost a fumble at the 46. That flipped the advantage to the Tigers.
Clemson's run effectiveness was encouraging -- returns had diminished of late -- and the Tigers' pass defense was magnificent, holding UNC to a 27 percent success rate. But field position and some big plays kept the Heels close enough that the horrific offsides call on the late UNC onside kick might have actually made a difference.
Formations/Basics
North Carolina | Clemson | |||
Backs-Wide | % of Plays | Yds/Play | % of Plays | Yds/Play |
0 backs, 5 wide | 4.0% | 3.0 | ||
1 back, 2 wide | 1.4% | 46.0 | 9.9% | 4.8 |
1 back, 3 wide | 46.5% | 3.2 | 34.7% | 6.8 |
1 back, 4 wide | 36.6% | 7.0 | 47.5% | 6.3 |
2 backs, 3 wide | 12.7% | 5.1 | 3.0% | 2.3 |
3 backs, 0 wide | 1.4% | 1.0 | 1.0% | -1.0 |
3 backs, 2 wide | 1.4% | 1.0 |
No Huddle? | % of Plays | Yds/Play |
North Carolina | 75.0% | 4.9 |
Clemson | 62.7% | 5.5 |
North Carolina | Clemson | |||
Hash | % of Plays | Yds/Play | % of Plays | Yds/Play |
Left | 25.0% | 4.7 | 42.2% | 5.4 |
Middle | 27.8% | 2.3 | 19.6% | 7.0 |
Right | 47.2% | 7.4 | 38.2% | 6.1 |
The base formations worked better for Clemson than UNC, and for one reason or another, the Tigers held a significant advantage when the ball was lined up in the middle of the field. I'll let someone else figure that one out.
Passing
North Carolina | Clemson | |||||
Passing | Comp Rt | Yds/Pass | Passing | Comp Rt | Yds/Pass | |
Behind Line | 0-6, 0 yards | 0.0% | 0.0 | 5-9, 32 yards | 55.6% | 3.6 |
0 to 4 | 3-7, 50 yards | 42.9% | 7.1 | 9-9, 89 yards | 100.0% | 9.9 |
5 to 9 | 4-6, 54 yards | 66.7% | 9.0 | 8-10, 62 yards | 80.0% | 6.2 |
10 to 19 | 1-8, 21 yards | 12.5% | 2.6 | 2-6, 29 yards | 33.3% | 4.8 |
20 to 29 | 4-5, 115 yards | 80.0% | 23.0 | 0-1, 0 yards | 0.0% | 0.0 |
30-plus | 0-3, 0 yards | 0.0% | 0.0 | 2-7, 77 yards | 28.6% | 11.0 |
North Carolina | Clemson | |
% Blitz: | 43.2% | 26.2% |
Avg. Rushers | 4.5 | 4.2 |
Passing (no blitz) | 8-21, 129 yards, 0 sacks, 6.1 yds. per att. | 21-31, 244 yards, 0 sacks, 7.9 yds. per att. |
Passing (blitz) | 4-14, 111 yards, 2 sacks, 6.9 yds. per att. | 5-11, 45 yards, 0 sacks, 4.1 yds. per att. |
Reason for INC/INT | North Carolina | Clemson |
QB Fault | 18 | 7 |
Good Defense | 3 | 5 |
WR Fault | 2 | 4 |
North Carolina never sacked Deshaun Watson, but the biltz was still effective -- Watson averaged 7.9 yards per attempt when UNC rushed four or fewer defenders but only 4.1 when they rushed more. Music to Mike Stoops' ears.
One other note: Deshaun Watson is an efficiency machine, but he was only 4-for-14 on passes thrown 10 or more yards downfield. Marquise Williams was only 5-for-16, so this didn't hurt that much, but big plays are still awfully hard to come by for the Tigers.
Rushing
North Carolina | Clemson | |||
Rush-Yds | YPC | Rush-Yds | YPC | |
To Edge | 8-50 | 6.3 | 19-126 | 6.6 |
Toward Tackle | 6-22 | 3.7 | 11-49 | 4.5 |
Up Middle | 7-33 | 4.7 | 3-5 | 1.7 |
Neither team saw much success between the tackles, but in part because of Watson, Clemson held the edge on the edges.
QB Activity
North Carolina | Clemson | |||||
QB Move | Rushes-Yds | Passes-Yds | Sacks-Yds | Rushes-Yds | Passes-Yds | Sacks-Yds |
Bootleg | 1-1 | 2-9 | ||||
Rollout | 2-3 | 4-35 | ||||
Option - speed option | 1-11 | |||||
Option - zone read | 4-19 | 7-24 | ||||
QB Draw | 3-6 | 12-83 | ||||
QB Sneak | 1-0 | |||||
Sack - in pocket | 1-(-10) | |||||
Broken Play | 1-(-3) | 1-(-3) |
UNC defended the zone read well (as did Clemson), but the straight-up QB draw, often with the RB as a lead blocker, saw effectiveness, especially on a 33-yarder that set up Clemson's second touchdown.
Loading comments...