What Clemson’s one loss this year shows about Virginia Tech’s chance at an upset

Outside of Louisville-Clemson in October, the ACC proceeded through the season with little drama. It’s not that there weren’t exciting games, because there were. But Clemson had what proved to be an insurmountable edge in the ACC Atlantic the second James Quick prematurely went out of bounds in Death Valley. Looking back, Virginia Tech’s win at Pitt on Oct. 27 just about wrapped up the Coastal, too.

The only tremendous thrill came at Clemson’s expense. When Pitt beat the Tigers on the road on Nov. 12, it didn’t fundamentally change either division race. The Hokies still led the Coastal, and Clemson still had a tiebreaker edge on Louisville in the Atlantic, with an easy schedule left to play. The loss didn’t matter in the standings.

But it might turn out to hurt this week, or in the Playoff if Clemson beats Tech in Saturday’s ACC Championship Game in Orlando (8 p.m. ET, ABC).

Other teams had come close to beating Clemson, but we’ll look at Pitt, even if the main difference was simply a field goal.

From Ian Boyd’s postmortem on Pitt-Clemson, we have a picture of exactly what Pitt did on the road to beat a vastly more talented team.

First, Pitt stopped the run, which hasn’t been that hard against Clemson this year. Pitt played defense in such a way that Clemson was bound to get some big passing plays, but Pitt would create turnovers, too.

And on offense, Pitt ran plays that were designed to make Clemson make bad choices, turning the Tigers’ aggression against them.

Hokies coach Justin Fuente has been 2016’s most successful first-year hire. He took over a team that went 7-6 last year and looked drab while Frank Beamer was on his way out the door. He brushed up the offense, retained Bud Foster to run an improved defense, and went 9-3. Now Fuente could get a conference title and Orange Bowl bid. To have a chance, he has to be like the team he beat in Pittsburgh a few weeks ago.

The Hokies defend the run at about a top-40 level. They’re 36th nationally in yards allowed per carry (3.9), and they’re 37th in Defensive Rushing S&P+. If they have a problem, it’s that they give up too many long runs. In 12 games, 19 have gone for 20 or more yards against them, ranking No. 75 in the country.

But Clemson’s running game isn’t good at big plays. The Tigers are 124th in Rushing IsoPPP, which measures explosive carries. Wayne Gallman is a workhorse, but no one will ever confuse him with Dalvin Cook. The Tigers only have 12 20-plus-yard runs this year (No. 99), and just four of 30-plus (No. 106).

The Tigers’ 4.5-yard rushing average is 62nd in the country overall, and the one thing about VT’s rush defense the Tigers could take advantage of, the Tigers aren’t good at.

VT ranks No. 10 in opponent passer rating, as opposed to Pitt’s No. 111.

When Watson played Pitt, he had an interception bug. He got picked three times, including once at Pitt’s goal line while trying to salt away the game. Watson’s been pick-prone, throwing 14 in 12 games. Last year, he threw only 13 in 15. He’s brilliant, but he’s interceptable.

Watson did gash Pitt otherwise. He threw 70 times and completed 52 for 580 yards and three scores. Throwing that much made sense, because Pitt was limiting the run and has, in general, a horrible secondary. Tech is one of several teams that keyed on Pitt’s love for man-to-man coverage and had an aerial field day. Clemson did, too, but Pitt’s aggressive style baited Watson into mistakes.

Sometimes, Pitt brought the house.

Sometimes, pass-rushing ends dropped into coverage while linebackers fired.

Pitt’s pressures left it susceptible to Watson and his talented receivers. But sometimes, the pressures worked, and sometimes, Watson made bad decisions because of it.

On the one hand, Virginia Tech isn’t as good at getting pressure as Pitt. The Panthers have All-ACC edge rusher Ejuan Price, who had 12 sacks this year, compared to 26 for all of Tech’s defense.

But the Hokies have an infinitely better secondary, with top-end playmakers like rover Terrell Edmunds and free safety Chuck Clark. Cornerbacks Brandon Facyson and Adonis Alexander had 17 breakups between them.

Tech’s mix of better coverage and worse pass rushing means a boom-or-bust effort like Pitt had against Watson is unlikely. But Foster is a smart guy. He could find a way to either:

It’s been easy to miss in a four-loss season, but Pitt’s offense is brilliant. The Panthers finished the regular season scoring 42 points per game (10th nationally) and ranking fifth in Offensive S&P+. They scored a whopping 76 points in their last game.

Virginia Tech’s offense isn’t quite as good. The Hokies score 35 per game (35th nationally) and rank 58th in S&P+, which thinks they’ve scored about four points more, on average, than they should’ve, based on how they played.

As Ian outlined, Pitt beat Clemson with a bunch of option plays, like this one, which can wreak havoc on a defensive line’s decision making:

Pitt also threw in some jet sweeps, and quarterback Nathan Peterman made a couple of important downfield throws. Peterman and VT QB Jerod Evans both run several times a game, for about four yards a carry each.

Virginia Tech doesn’t have much of a downfield throwing game, even though it’s got quality receivers. The Hokies prefer more efficient options.

VT doesn’t run very well, but Clemson’s run defense has problems with big plays. The Tigers are 109th in Defensive Rushing IsoPPP, the explosiveness measure, and have let up 15 20-plus-yarders. If Evans can make some throws early to open up the Tiger front, there could be room.

Virginia Tech’s defense matches up well, and Fuente’s a good offensive thinker. He could figure out how to score points, even though he’s playing a top-10 defense on the other side. If all of that happens, we’ll have a close game.

Clemson will still be the more talented bunch. But if Tech mimics some of what Pitt did, it can have a chance. When you’re playing for the ACC and the Orange Bowl in your first year in a new job, a chance is all you can ask for.