Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Watch Out For Cowboys UDFA Tim Benford

Kevin Steele vs the Triple Option

Mark Crammer - AP

I'm going to tell you all some things that you don't want to hear first.

There is no defensive scheme that "solves" the option, and there will never be one that "solves" the option.

 4-3, 4-2-5, 3-3-5, 3-4, 4-4, etc., does not mean anything. Just because a team beats GT with a 4-2-5 or 3-3-5 does not mean they have "solved" the option. If you think that just because Kansas showed more 4-2-5 and 3-3-5 sets is the reason they beat GT, and that Kevin Steele should do the same thing just because Kansas won the game against them, then you are a dumbass and you don't know shit about the option.

The basic scheme that we played against GT on Thursday night last year is the same one that Iowa used to defeat them in the Bowl game.

The basic scheme that we played against GT on Thursday night last year is the same one that LSU used to defeat them in the Bowl game.

The basic scheme that we played against GT on Thursday night last year is the same one that Miami used to defeat them last season.

The basics of that scheme is the one we wrote up prior to last offseason right here. There are minor tweaks with bringing up players from the secondary in alignment and a tweak in alignment of the Linebackers, but the assignments were all apparent and very similar to anyone who was paying attention. Its the scheme I would play and the one that we used to force GT into the most 3 & outs they had of any opponent last year in that Thursday night game. We lost that game because we got outcoached, plain & simple.

So then why did GT lose to a Kansas team that lost to a 1-AA squad? Why did they lose to Iowa or Miami and not us?

Because their OL got the hell beat out of them and they couldnt block worth a damn against them. That was the overriding factor in controlling Paul Johnson's triple option in each of these games. I watched part of the Kansas game yesterday, and their OL play was atrocious. I vividly remember watching the Iowa game, and the DEs for Iowa were planting Nesbitt on his ass nearly every play and their DL as a whole completely overran Georgia Tech up front. That is why they couldn't take over the clock and grind them into dust. The second factor, and similarly important, is that teams like Iowa or LSU jumped well ahead of Georgia Tech, and it took them out of their gameplan early.

Football is always going to be about blocking and tackling. If your Front whips them, you will stop them. If GT plays really well up front, they're going to get yards. If they have good backs + that blocking, they're going to get wins, so stop this BS that keeps getting posted on message boards about "GT will be stopped because people will figure out how to stop the option." Thats nonsense. GT will be stopped through recruiting of their linemen and backs, or their defensive players, long before somebody "solves" the option. The option has been around since the beginning of football and its always going to be here. Florida runs an option-based system, Oregon is heavy on the option, and both run a version of a spread Midline attack and Veer that GT runs constantly and the basic differences are just the formation and who is doing the blocking.

Now I'm going to tell you something that you do want to hear, and probably felt after the ACCCG: 

Star-divide

The scheme we played against GT in the ACCCG is the dumbest scheme I have ever seen thrown against the option.

As I was watching the tape again this afternoon of the game, I could only shake my head at what Steele was doing. I've watched this tape several times this offseason just to try to figure out what Steele was thinking. I know some other coaches thought the same thing after seeing what we could (or couldn't, rather) do with the two best defensive ends in the ACC, hands down. At the time I was so amazed at GT's blocking ability that I didn't berate Steele publicly for it, but we should've.

Kevin Steele's scheme is why we lost the 2nd time around. If he goes back to this same scheme, which I do not see him doing (/crossesfingers) then we will lose Saturday. I want to be clear here, GT blocked us about as well as I've ever seen an option team block, ever. Their cut blocking was exceptional, to say the least. The fact that we were even in the game points to their atrocious defense and CJ Spiller's pure ability.

So how do you slow down the option? You must make a choice as a coordinator whether to make them run inside or outside.

In my opinion, step 1: Stop the FB Dive. - Everything is set up from the dive play, midline and the veer option. We did that pretty well in both games. The actual dive play did not generate that many yards for GT. Later on, when the defense was clearly worn out, it did begin to pick up, but we did not do terribly against a "true" dive play. Not all of Dwyer's carries are on actual dive plays however.

Step 2: Hammer that damn QB on every single play. If he's not on his ass you need to sit your player's on their's, on the bench. We did not do that.

Why did we not do that? Awful LB play, not playing assignments, and a genuinely dumb scheme.

The coverage for Miami was C2 on one side and Quarters on the other. Clemson ran Quarters all the way. This part was fine, and both LSU and Iowa did these same things. That part is not under debate here.

What was different was the front schemes between the two games we played against them. Now lets go into what Steele ran out there in Game 1 vs. Game 2.

Game 1 - A mix of DE on the Dive and as the Force player (on the QB).

When the DE is on Dive, MIKE and SAM/WILL (whether strong/weakside run) come over the top, with S/W on the pitch back and MIKE on the QB as force. The LB on the backside (S/W) of the play is playing Dive first, and then over the top.

The Arc Triple Option play below will show you what I'm talking about. Watch Bowers take the FB, Maye is on the QB by assignment, but the Veer block takes him out (its designed to, notice Bowers is completely unblocked, they option off him). Conner is on the pitch but has no help, and he doesnt take the pitch back like he should and it goes for a TD.

There is nothing wrong with that scheme, assuming your MIKE can get off blocks, which unfortunately we know Brandon Maye could not do. Its a common scheme, particularly from the Under front. Maye and the others can't get off blocks, probably because we don't do LB Shed drills all week.

If the Wingback blocks down on Bowers, then the assignment changes. MIKE still has QB, SAM/WILL takes the first threat outside, WILL/SAM comes over the top again to help, but the Safety must be there to take the Pitch.

When DE is on the QB, then the DTs and MIKE/Backside have Dive responsibility. The DE executes his block-down-step down rule when his OT veers inside to the 2nd level, and is supposed to be standing there in the QB's face to plant his ass or force the pitch, and SAM/WILL should be there to take the pitch man. This is the one we used for large portions of the Thursday game, and the one that Iowa used. Iowa's hugest DE somehow managed to take out everybody at once several times though.

 

Game 2 - Some DE on the Dive, but mostly DE on the pitch back. Also, he stepped MLB back 2 yards deeper from his normal alignment, theoretically so Maye would look before he runs (didn't happen), and stood both Ends up in a 2-point stance. In addition, he widened the stance of the OLBs beyond the Ends, presumably to let them see the Wingback come up to arc block with outside leverage on him, and also to make the inside veer block impossible.

When you step MIKE back, you are taking him out of position to really make it to the QB as the force player. He's just too far away from the LOS. That means he is either meant to play pitch or Dive, and he really should only be on the Dive. Iowa moved their MLB back, though not 2 yards like we did, and put him on the Dive. Instead we had Maye take the QB at times, and he scraped to play pitch at others. Dumbest shit I've ever seen. Sometimes when he was on Dive he did dumb shit on his own, or just jumped into the wrong gap and missed the guy totally.

When you stand both Ends up, the goal is obviously to make them play with their eyes: to see the play develop and not be fooled. Its also to keep them upright and able to use their hands to get over cut blocks. Well when you have guys who aren't used to being in 2 point, it can make their reactions considerably slower and less aggressive.

I see nothing wrong with the alignment change of the OLBs. That in itself is a hallmark of the Over front and is what Miami did to them as well.

Steele left the Ends on the Dive for some plays, which is not that bad itself, but as I said when you have MIKE 6-7 yards off and have to have him take the QB by gap exchange, you basically give up what we did to Nesbitt on the outside veer option (2nd vid below). Otherwise you have to use the Cornerback as the pitch and SAM/WILL as the force, which we also did, and executed it poorly (directly below).

Now for Steele's most ridiculous move of the game, he put the Ends on the pitch back. Do any of you recall Bowers or Sapp running right by Nesbitt, unblocked? Steele was being gashed so badly by Nesbitt with his Ends on the Dive that he didn't do the smartest thing he could think of, like putting the End on Nesbitt, and instead did the dumbest thing he could think of, like sending the unblocked End to hit Anthony Allen or the other Wingback.

Its so hard for me to wrap my mind around his logic that I'm having a hard time describing the assignments. SLB/WLB is aligned outside and now must attack the QB directly by gap exchange. Well what do you think the Wingback on the playside does? He arc blocks and takes out the SAM/WILL, and Nesbitt goes 20 yards once he cuts inside the Safety. If S/W gets off the block, and then misses his tackle then you must pray that the SS/FS is able to fill the gap immediately or Nesbitt gets 20 yards. MIKE is too far away to get over there before Nesbitt crosses the LOS, so they'll automatically get 3-4 a clip this way. If the pitch is not made, Bowers cannot flatten the pitch back, and he simply follows Nesbitt outside, and the pitch option is still available to him to make.

But as you see below, this is not what Steele diagrammed, making it even dumber. Look at what the OLB is doing below, he's taking the Dive while the End takes pitch, and NOBODY is there to hit Nesbitt. He actually has Maye still coming over to hit the QB, from his deeper position.

Dumb.

Comment 36 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Think we actually learned anything?

I mean, a lot has been made of Steele being doped up on pain meds after breaking his hand, but a scheme like we saw in the ACCCG had to have been what they worked on all week, right?

by OrangeBritches on Oct 20, 2010 8:39 AM EDT reply actions  

He and the coaches have plenty of film to evaluate

And they can see the same things that you do that worked/did not work for us or other teams.

Hopefully he will choose not to implement a strategy that clearly does not work.

In my simplistic view, they key would be as you state in point #2 – hammer the QB every play.

Every single play, whether he keeps, gives, pitches, whatever – whatever he appears to do, he must be slammed. No exceptions.

Not only does this start to wear on his endurance, and thus affect his running ability, but it also increases the chances that he will either pitch too soon (allowing the pitch back to be tackled for a loss) or make a bad pitch while being hit, leading to a big loss or turnover.

If the DE is the man to force the pitch, he hits the QB, even if he pitches. Every play. Always. No Matter What. Bowers/Branch should be exhausted from having to climb up off the broken heap that was formerly Nesbitt on every single play.

Maybe this strategy would not actually work, because you are taking a man (presumably a DL or LB) more or less out of the play to hit the QB even if he has handed off or pitched. I am sure it is probably too simplistic, and could be countered in some way. For example they could move to running options that do not leave the DE unblocked. But in that case, whomever is optioned hits the QB instead.

I have to believe that all that punishment, every play, no matter what happens, would take a toll.

Can it really be worse than the crap we’ve already tried and failed with so many times?

by Cristo on Oct 20, 2010 9:18 AM EDT reply actions  

Jimmy Johnson

Advocated the “hit the QB every play no matter what” defense as well when it came to the option.

Writer (and a handsome one at that),
And the Valley Shook

by Billy Gomila on Oct 20, 2010 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions  

Kansas tried this...

and one of their LB’s left the game with a concussion. The only QB held out of contact drills in practice is Nesbitt because he hurts people…

I write stuff From the Rumble Seat.

by BirdGT on Oct 20, 2010 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions  

Kansas also won the game vs GT

And they are bad. Losing an LB to a concussion doesn’t matter, that can happen in any game.

Tech is getting 69 offensive plays per game. That’s 69 times in a game he gets slammed to the ground, if I get my wish.

I’ll take 69 hits from Nesbitt, spread over our DL, vs 69 hits all on one guy FROM our DL.

by Cristo on Oct 20, 2010 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

if you watch the plays

He gets hit or tackled almost every play. It’s just a CPJ thing that QB’s are gonna get hit. He just prefers they get hit on an option from the front than blindsided in the pocket. The only times Nesbitt’s ever left a game since 2008 were after pass plays. Good fundamental defenders can’t just lay into him.

KU is bad but they didn’t beat us by hitting Nesbitt. We just suck at executing and turn the ball over a lot.

I write stuff From the Rumble Seat.

by BirdGT on Oct 20, 2010 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

Tech only had one turnover that game.

Hitting the quarterback on every play will make the offense less effective. This goes for every quarterback and every offense.

I am proud to be a Kennesaw State Fighting Owl. -- Vince Dooley

SB Nation Atlanta · Twitter

by Jason Kirk on Oct 20, 2010 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm sorry

I consider 4th down failures turnovers. We failed to convert 3 fourth downs.

I write stuff From the Rumble Seat.

by BirdGT on Oct 20, 2010 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

Basic stuff, and you

are right. Beat them up front and you win. Think we better score 35 or more.

by zilforreal on Oct 20, 2010 12:15 PM EDT reply actions  

I have some questions for the Dr.

First, why not go 4-3 under with the OLB on the line and drop DMac in the box?

(now, especially if you have the end on pitch) Why not have the end crash the A back on play side and maintain outside leverage? That way the A back can’t seal or arc block and the pitch man has to run backwards and wide to get around him in pitch relationship? Seems like that would slow the play down for pursuit or maybe even create a busted play. Even on an outside veer someone should be unblocked to take dive right?

Why not run a little 3-4/50 if you really want to hit the QB every play?

Also, (if you’re not afraid of them throwing) why not have the FS run the alley and take pitch? You dare them to throw but, everybody can come downhill on the outside and everybody gets hit. Speaking of that, would GT crack back the FS if we did that? Is that even still legal?

Thanks for answering.

by TheKraken on Oct 20, 2010 2:12 PM EDT reply actions  

playing a 4-3 under

It seems like this in an invitation to run a midline, or dive play. That tactic spreads you defense thin to stop the pitch and maybe even QB, but you leave the center uncomfortably open. If you leave the DE on hte A-back you suddently have a big numbers disadvantage in the middle of the line. YOu have the 5 O-line men plus a b-back effectively turning into a full-back. That can be 6 blockers. You’ve got the OLBs out too wide to stop anything up the middle, so All you have inside the box are 4 guys (Backside DE, 2 DTs and MLB). 6 against 4 is not going to go your way too often. Even if you bring a safety up you are still at a disadvantage.

by mrnuttle on Oct 20, 2010 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

I meant those questions individually of themselves

And maybe I’m not explaining it in enough detail. With the 4-3 under and DMac in the box, as I see it, the OLB is lined up on the line outside the DE on the short side and DMac is a few yards outside the DE and back a few yards on the wide side like cover 3. There are 2 ILBs not one and the DTs would be 2 techniques making it almost impossible for their C to block backside ILB allowing him to plug the dive untouched. Counting the A and B back, I got 5 on 5 to either side. Playside ILB has QB, playside OLB/SS has pitch.

On a separate note: I should have said, if you’re going to play the Ends in a two point stance and on pitch, why wouldn’t they hit the A back with outside leverage instead of allowing a free arc shot on a DB. They outweigh those guys and could damn near push them into the other A back coming around on the pitch. At worst, they turning the pitchman inside or forcing him backwards and wide. ( I know they’d run lead option or outside veer after we did that but they would do that anyway if the end has pitch, right?).

In any defense we run, I wouldn’t mind seeing the FS gamble and randomly run the alley downhill. If they’ve got the stomach to gamble back at us and throw to an A back, so be it.

I realize that nothing is perfect and that PJ has seen it all and is the master of adjusting to anything you do. Just wondering why we wouldn’t want our best player (DMac) in position to do some damage.

by TheKraken on Oct 20, 2010 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

I dont think you mean the canonical Under

I think you mean shift the LBs in an Under and bring someone down to create an 8-man front. I agree with that approach and that is essentially what Miami and LSU did. They had the safety in the alley on pitch.

In the textbook sense, Over or Under don’t quite work here because they run a balanced spread set. There is no strong side, and though they will have one Wing better than the other, he’s in motion so much in misdirection that declaring the front shift to him is pointless. You’d be better off calling the shift to Field/Boundary than any declaration of Strong/Weak. Then bring the SS down opposite the Sam. That would be my approach IF i wanted to leave it 5-3-1-5 up front.

I think you are asking to have the End bitchslap the Wing on the snap to prevent him from getting out to arc the S or Corner? I think you may want to play him a little wider, like a 6-7, to do that, and that opens you up if the QB cuts up behind the Tackle. I see what youre saying about pushing the QB wider or backwards by bullrushing the Wing back, but to get the outside leverage you have to widen the alignment, at least with someone like Brown or Goodman. I could see doing that if you were already in a TNT alignment, like Bear.

Personally, as I stated in the post on Bear fronts, I prefer a 3-0-3 or 2-0-2 front against them. When you do that I think you shift the playbook into 3-4/50 territory. One could always play a 2i-2i and two 5s, but you open up the Veer because the OT has a free release inside. Tradeoff Veer against Midline there.

I think whenever the wing arc-releases then you have to have the Safety respect the pass. Otherwise they cut block the End/Sam once and the Wing is wide open down field going 75 yards. They did that twice last year: once the guy fell down 20 yards up i think, another time Nesbitt flat out missed the TD throw.

On the first YT video above, the Safety got cracked. Its legal.

by DrB on Oct 20, 2010 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Why not run a 5-2 like the old days and have the DEs bookend/hit the QB & stop the pitch?

If I remember correctly, in the old days when everybody ran the option, many defenses ran a 5-2. Considering the strength of our DL (especially our DEs) and DB personnel, the weakness of our LBs, and the weakness of GT’s passing attack, wouldn’t that be the way to go? The 5-2 clogs up the middle (thwarts the dive) and helps keep the OLs off the LBs. If I remember correctly the DEs’ job was to bookend the QB and stop or disrupt the pitch or force the pitch to happen very early and relatively deep in the backfield (occasionally forcing the ball to the ground). The DEs’ job was (at the possible expense of gap integrity) to always to keep the play off the perimeter, force it back inside where the LBs and safeties can help, and to hit the QB if he pitches, passes, or keeps. The CBs played man against a weak passing threat and helped with perimeter run support should the play get to the perimeter (which it shouldn’t often). You pick your poison but it’s better to keep it them off the perimeter, make them beat you in the middle and in man-coverage. Hit the QB hard if he runs, passes, or pitches. Old time football.

I’m sure that I’m over-simplifiying but that’s the way I remember it. And looking at the film clips above, it looks like that would have worked. Of course you have to be able to tackle also. But back when many teams ran the option, and many teams ran the 5-2, the option wasn’t nearly as productive as it is now (though practice makes perfect). It’s not the perfect scheme and it won’t stop the option. But it used to work well.

Watch the NCSU-GT game (replay) on ESPN3. NCSU used a 4-man front but the DEs bookended Nesbitt, thwarted the pitch, and pursued well. The few times that GT was able to pitch to the perimeter, GT hurt NCSU badly. NCSU scored after getting a few GT stops, put GT in a hole, and forced GT to pass— which they don’t do well.

by RazzMcTazz on Oct 20, 2010 2:51 PM EDT reply actions  

4-3 under IS a 5-2 front.

But we don’t quite run Under or Over against Tech.

I’m a proponent of Bear fronts against Tech. It stops the Dive and halts the Midline. That can be run with 3-4 or 4-3.

You could still have Bowers and Branch out there playing like outside linebackers if you chose. But the Stack front we used here didn’t work because of the assignment in Game 2, and overall bad LB play.

by DrB on Oct 20, 2010 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

You're not kidding about the LB play

There was one play on the goalline (might have been the winning score) that stands out to me. I’m sure you’ve seen it, where a LB (Willard, I think) was unblocked and straight up refused to hit Dwyer with the ball…on the goalline…with the ACC title on the line. I can’t remember seeing anything like that on this level. High school, sure, but not in college at a place like Clemson.

by TheKraken on Oct 20, 2010 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

Ok, looked at it again

 Yea, not sure about that scheme. It looks like we have DE and ILB on QB and DB on pitch. ILB is scraping when there is a huge gap in front of him to fill where he could have made the play for no gain. ILB finally catches him a yard deep in the endzone. We have three guys scraping to get outside leverage and Dwyer running up the A backs backside. I don’t get it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEM4FYl2VQI&feature=related
The play is at 2:01

Is this sissage, not knowing what you’re supposed to do, or a bad scheme?

by TheKraken on Oct 20, 2010 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

The 4-3 Under ISN'T the 5-2, but it's LIKE the 5-2 with a key weakness.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but they way I remember running the 5-2, we actually had FIVE BIG ASS defensive linemen; 2DEs, 2DTs, and an NG. These were BIG guys that held the line of scrimmage and clogged up the inside. In a 4-3 Under, you’re asking a lighter LB do the job of a DT. You’re asking a 220 pounder to hold the line like a 320 pounder. If defending the option starts with stopping the dive, then you put a wall of beef up to stop the dive (and to keep the OLs from getting to the LBs and safeties).

by RazzMcTazz on Oct 20, 2010 11:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

No the 4-3 Under is a 5-2 front

There are 5 on the LOS and 2 LBs over the bubbles. You are not asking a LB to do the job of a DT. The LB on the front does the same thing an End does, which is very different, and his size does not so much matter, its the speed that negates what the offense is trying to do on the perimeter by spilling.

Its not a 5-2 Monster or a regular 50 defense.

What you describe can be done with an Undershift of the backers and playing Bear.

by DrB on Oct 21, 2010 12:28 AM EDT up reply actions  

So by "5-2" I guess I meant "5-2 Monster" with 2DEs, 2DTs, & 1 NG.

Relative to a 4-3 under, in a 5-2 Monster, you’re not asking an 275lb DE to be a 320lb DT and you’re not asking a 220lb LB to be a 275lb DE. How about running a 5-2 Monster?

by RazzMcTazz on Oct 21, 2010 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions  

I wouldnt have a problem with a 5-2 Okie or Monster.

Unless you put them in their usual 50 front alignment with the tackles playing 4i, then we’re wide open for Midline.

Problem is with these fronts, which we don’t play much of, is that the linemen use read techniques, which we don’t teach much or specialize in.

by DrB on Oct 21, 2010 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

Forward pitches?

In watching these clips, beyond the obvious misses on assignment or not getting out of blocks, the nuance that hit me is that GT gets away with a forward pitch about every third plan. Watch the first ACCCG clip above. Nesbitt pitches from the 21, past the LOS, to the 22.5 it seems.

Never seen that called but it would be good to plant the bug in the refs’ ears.

by KCClemson on Oct 21, 2010 9:01 AM EDT reply actions  

I've seen that too

Watching us play, sometimes I wonder about the ‘forwardness’ of the option pitch. It seems like it occasionally ends up farther downfield than it was pitched from. Now, it also looks like it was perfectly perpendicular to Nesbitt’s direction of motion, so…momentum, maybe?

Is forward/backward defined from the pitch spot and catch spot, or from the relative direction of the pitch?

by mjacksongt on Oct 22, 2010 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions  

Bowers says that he'll squeeze down on the tackle to take out the FB every play.
Bowers: My job is to squeeze down on the tackle and take out the fullback. I have to crash in on him and make sure he’s down on every play.

http://www.tigernet.com/view/story.do?id=9008

Wouldn’t it be better to for the DEs to get containment and be in Nesbitt’s face every play, thwarting the pitch and planting Nesbitt? Let the DTs take the dive.

by RazzMcTazz on Oct 21, 2010 12:04 PM EDT reply actions  

Oh. Under "Game 1" I thought you were saying that it's OK for the DE to take the FB dive or the QB.

But now that I’ve re-read it, I guess you’re saying that there’s nothing wrong with the DE taking the dive if the LBs can get off their block. Therefore, with our personnel (great DEs and mediocre LBs) the DE should take the QB. Unfortunately, based on what Bowers said, his assignmet will be to take the FB dive, always.

by RazzMcTazz on Oct 22, 2010 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation site about the Clemson Tigers. If you want to take a hard look at both sides of something, feel free to stick around and comment. Be forewarned, we don't pump sunshine here.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Img2_small
Clemson Expansion: Big Picture
Small
2012 RULE CHANGES = THE WUSSIFICATION OF FOOTBALL
Clem_brawl-736603_small
Bellamy
Clem_brawl-736603_small
The state of Clemson Football (long)
Small
First hand (sort of) experience with Batson's system
Small
Somebody gets it
Small
Clemson Basketball Recruiting Chart
Angels_small
Brownell & Kansas State
Collegecampus_small
Frank Martin to coach USC Basketball
Small
Veteran Hopes to Fulfill Promise at Clemson.

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Bengal Tiger

Danny_ford_small DrB

Slick_small FIGUREFOUR

Persian Tiger

Tyree_helmet_catch_small ggggmen08

Small QuackingTiger

Sumatran Tiger

Sma_20clemson-tiger-w_20_2__small redbricktiger

Ellington_small Peter_G

Cj_spiller_heisman_small F1NS

Clemson-tigers-fans_the_wave_small SJTill