It isn't an overreaction to be concerned about Clemson Football quarterback development

We shouldn't overreact to Trent Pearman's impressive performance on Saturday, but it isn't unreasonable to be concerned about the quarterbacks that are ahead of him on the depth chart.
Clemson quarterback Trent Pearman (14) passes during the first quarter of the Spring football game
Clemson quarterback Trent Pearman (14) passes during the first quarter of the Spring football game / Ken Ruinard / staff / USA TODAY NETWORK

I joked on X yesterday that there were two things I was wrong about going into the Clemson Football Spring Game. There were probably more than two, but two stuck out like a sore thumb.

First, I told my 12-year-old that it was only going to be in the upper 50s/lower 60s and that she would be cold in the t-shirt and shorts she was wearing. I was appropriately attired in a hoodie and jeans. End result = she was comfortable and I was burning up.

The second thing was that I scoffed at the predictions that Trent Pearman would make noise as the third-string quarterback. End result = Pearman was the best quarterback on the field on Saturday.

Do you know that soundbite from Walt Deptula’s show on the ROAR of Depeche Mode singing ‘WRONG!’ over and over? Yeah, that’s been an earworm in my brain for the past 18 hours or so.

What are we to make of this situation?

Let’s start with stats. Pearman was very good for the day. He switched between squads because there were only three quarterbacks that were going to play. He went 10-13 for 113 yards and one touchdown for the Orange team. He went 3-5 for 28 yards for the White team but also had a huge 49-yard touchdown run.

Let that sink in for a minute. A 49-yard rushing touchdown when the rules are no-hits allowed on the quarterback. That means no defender came even close to putting a hand on him.

Cade Klubnik went 13-26 for 158 yards and one interception. Christopher Vizzina was 14-25 for 108 yards and two interceptions.

For completion percentage: Pearman was 72%, Vizzina was 54% and Klubnik was 50%. That is one big positive to note - no one was under 50% passing. That's good.

They say we shouldn’t overreact to the Spring Game, but there is a legitimate reason for concern. We can thank the format for this year’s game.

Because Pearman was switching between the two teams, we were able to see him play with the same squads as Klubnik and Vizzina. Same players, same offensive play caller. Apples to apples. We saw Pearman outperform both the quarterbacks ahead of him on the depth chart.

Overreacting would be saying that Pearman should be the starting quarterback. It is not an overreaction to say Pearman’s performance is a fair reason for our level of concern about Klubnik to increase, and Vizzina for that matter.

For whatever reason, Pearman was successful in navigating an ocean that Klubink and Vizzina struggled with most of the day. That is a fair reason to be concerned about the latter two and their development thus far.