Pinstripe Bowl Analytics

The 22-10 loss in the Pinstripe Bowl was defined by Clemson’s systemic offensive failure, which fatally burdened the defense. In the decisive 3rd quarter, the offense’s inability to sustain a drive or produce any momentum led to an extreme Time of Possession (TOP) disparity, forcing the defense to defend 23 plays while receiving virtually no rest. This fatigue allowed Penn State to perfectly convert all their 3rd downs in the 4th quarter, resulting in a 16-point surge. Compounding the issue was an anemic 1.7 yards-per-carry rushing average and a poor showing on special teams that together ensured the team could not overcome the hole that was dug in the third-quarter.

OFFENSE

• Total Yards / Yards Per Play: 236 total yards / 3.6 yards per play

• Explosive Plays (passes > 20 yds, runs > 10 yds): 2 pass, 1 run

• EPA/Play: -0.21 — not only were the total yards few, they had minimal impact on offensive success

• Success Rate: 38% — EPA dropped from -0.10 on early downs to -0.48 on 3rd and 4th down.  More on 3rd down conversions later

Advertisement

Passing Game

• Cade Klubnik: 22 of 39, 56.4%, 193 yds, 0 TD, 0 INT, 98 rating — very poor outing

• T.J. Moore – 6 / 83 / 0

• Pass Block PFF:  70 — solid and average for the season

• Sacks: 4 — arguably, only the 2nd one was costly creating an impossible 3rd and 18 but resulted in 3 points on the drive.  The first was just in PSU territory and forced a punt. Numbers 3 and 4 were on the final drive with under 5:00 left in the 4th.  The defense had shown zero ability to stop them in the quarter

• Drops: 4 — roughly double the drop rate as compared to the regular season (15% vs 8%)

• Pressure Rate: 39% — the OL allowed a steady amount of pressure; Klubnik was slightly more efficient when he was blitzed (higher compl % and YPA)

• EPA/Play: -0.27 — solidly bottom 20% nationally

Running Game

• Run Yards / Yards Per Play: 43 rushing yards / 1.7 yards per rush

• Adam Randall: 11 rushes, 35 yards, 3.2 YPC, 1 TD

• Run Block PFF: outside of Blake Miller’s very nice 79, the unit graded at 59 — overall poor but average for the season

• Tackles For Loss: 6 — accounted for 44 yards lost, which essentially erased all positive rushing gains as well as kept the offense behind the chains

• EPA/Play:  -0.07 — bottom 40% nationally

Summary: Clemson’s offense struggled basically everywhere (efficiency and balance, producing only 3.6 yards per play, outgained by 161 yards and failing to sustain drives). The run game was largely ineffective, putting pressure on the passing game. Klubnik protected the ball but rarely threatened vertically outside of two chunk plays. Protection issues and negative runs stalled momentum. Red-zone opportunities were limited, forcing reliance on field goals. Overall, execution and physicality lagged behind PSU for most of the game.

DEFENSE

• Total Yards Allowed: 397 yards allowed / 5.2 yards per play

• Explosive Plays: 6 — 4 passes, 2 runs

• EPA/Play: -0.15 — lowered by the low EPA for the run game, the pass game was solid

• Success Rate: 41% — EPA climbed -0.40 on early downs to a staggering +0.52 on 3rd and 4th down

Passing Game

• QB Ethan Grunkemeyer:  23 of 34, 67.6%, 262 yards, 2 TD, 0 INT, 152 rating — this was an excellent performance by the young QB

• Trebor Pena:  5 catches, 100 yards, 1 TD — his 73-yard TD was effectively the ballgame

• Sacks:  2 sacks

• Explosive Plays Allowed: 4 explosive passes (73, 35, 30, 27), multiple explosive runs

• EPA/Play:  +0.02 — PSU used play action very effectively (42% of dropbacks) where they completed 73% of those attempts

Running Game

• Run Yards:  135 yards, 3.3 YPC

• Quinton Martin:  20 carries, 101 yards, 0 TD, 5.0 YPC — very efficient ball carrier

• Tackles For Loss:  6 TFLs

• EPA/Play: -0.30 — good yardage, but it didn’t translate to high leverage situations

Summary: Clemson’s defense showed solid effort early but wore down under PSU’s sustained drives and tempo. Pressure was inconsistent, allowing Grunkemeyer to operate efficiently. Missed tackles and explosive plays, particularly in the fourth quarter, proved costly. The lack of takeaways limited momentum swings. While run defense was serviceable, coverage busts and third-down issues allowed PSU’s skill players to control the game late.

Advertisement

SPECIAL TEAMS

• Nolan Hauser: 1 of 2 FG, 1 for 1 on XP — missed a chip shot early; could have kick started a little momentum, but didn’t really matter in the end

• Jack Smith: 35 yards per punt, 1 inside the 20 — easily his worst game of the year and that fake punt was one of the worst I have ever seen

• Ryan Barker (no relation):  3 for 3 FG, 1 for 1 XP — perfect kicking day in some challenging conditions

• Gabrel Nwosu:  45 yards per punt — very good yardage and flipping field position

Summary: Clemson special teams were poor, highlighted by a missed field goal and a significant punting disadvantage. PSU consistently flipped field position and scored when they had the chance. Coverage units were mostly sound, but overall impact favored PSU, especially in a low-margin game.

SITUATIONAL

• 3rd Down: Clemson 5 of 15 (33%) | PSU 11 / 19 (58%) — PSU converted 4 of 4 in the 4th quarter when it scored 16 points to put Clemson away for good

• 4th Down: Clemson 1 / 3 (33%) | PSU 0 / 2 (0%)

• Red Zone: Clemson 1 / 2 (50%) | PSU 2 / 2 (100%) — missed FG; 2 trips into the Red Zone is not going to get it done

• Penalties: Clemson 1 for 5 yds | PSU 3 for 35 yds — both teams showed solid discipline and committed few penalties

• Time of Possession: Clemson 26:59 | PSU 33:01 — this is ultimately the stat that decided the game. TOP in the 3rd quarter favored PSU by a whopping 6 minutes, leaving the Tiger defense on the field to defend 20 plays while PSU defended 8

• Turnovers: Clemson 0 | PSU 0

Summary: Clemson struggled in key efficiency situations, particularly on third down and time of possession. PSU controlled tempo and sustained drives, keeping Clemson’s offense sidelined. Discipline was strong, but situational execution lagged. Red-zone efficiency and possession control ultimately tilted the game in PSU’s favor.

Advertisement

I prefer to think about bowl games as the first glimpse into the future.  The defensive issues were not solely a lack of talent in the next wave of players. However, the offense must urgently address its foundational issues of rushing inefficiency (1.7 YPC) and constant third-down failures (33% conversion rate), several young players stepped up on the defensive side after heavy opt-outs. Ultimately, the 3rd quarter collapse revealed the critical need for offensive consistency to protect the defensive unit, offensive line development, finding a way to run the ball effectively and deciding who will be the signal caller the top priorities heading into the offseason.  It has to happen fast as the season kicks off with an away game against Lane Kiffin’s new look LSU Tigers.