Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
Last 5 yrs of recruiting #'s for random teams from 2017
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 57
| visibility 1

Last 5 yrs of recruiting #'s for random teams from 2017


Jan 3, 2022, 1:41 AM

How are we last in quantity of recruits and don't use the portal. I guarantee we have more walk-on schollies than any P5 team and now haven't filled our roster.

I am not going by stars nor their quality ranking, the only parameters are the total number of commits. But also consider this doesn't include T. Portal recruits which all of these schools have taken players except Clemson. Just look at total HS recruits #'s:

Coastal = 133
Bama = 130
Ta&m = 127
UGA = 121
VT = 121
ND = 114
UNC = 114
NCST = 113
OHSt = 112
UVA = 111
Coots = 108
BC = 103

Clem = 102

I just picked a random group of schools. I should have added a Big12 and Pac 12 but I just grabbed a few schools. In 5yrs, there is no way you can have a full 85 schollie roster without picking up walk-ons if you don't use the portal.

I know it's been discussed and discussed but when you have a crazy year like we had this year with injuries, if we had another 10-14 quality players to fill our roster, it could have made a difference. Why are we giving kids from millionaire coaches schollies when we could have added another 10-12 quality 3-5* players? I am fine with some guys that earn their schollie as a walk-on but seriously why can't Dabo and Venables pay for their kids to open more slots even if they were worthy of a schollie. Sounds a little harsh but I would like to see the numbers of the 2017-18 roster.

I have faith, and I think we have a great 2022 base of players, but what about 23 and 24 if we dont have full roster being developed today.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Wait, so which 10-14 players are you suggesting to remove


Jan 3, 2022, 1:59 AM

Did those other teams sign and keep all of those guys?

Are they all "quality" , "3-5 star" players?

And do you think we have refused 5 star players and instead gave those scholarships to coaches kids?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Wait, so which 10-14 players are you suggesting to remove


Jan 3, 2022, 2:05 AM

Im not saying remove, but to fill the roster. There are a bunch of schollie players that wouldn't have a P5 schollie if they were not sons, legacy, or friends of coaches.

Players like Brown, Swinney's, Venables, Rencher, Edwards brother's, etc., then add enough players to bring our roster to a full 85. That is 10-14 right there easily.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Its indefensible but this poster doesn't care


Jan 3, 2022, 2:18 AM

he thinks it's fine to have a roster full of coaches and friends kids on the schollys all the while being 10+ under the limit, being practically last in offensive production all the while Will Swinney starts at WR.

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Its indefensible but this poster doesn't care


Jan 3, 2022, 2:24 AM

That's pretty much my point. Nothing against those guys, glad they are living a dream that many of us would have given a kidney for. But these kids shouldn't replace the opportunity to give 4-5* players opportunities. The people that don't see a problem with roster management after this year are blind to what's happening in the rest of the P5 world.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Are you talking about ONE year with extraordinary attrition


Jan 3, 2022, 2:46 AM

where nobody could have seen it coming, or are you talking about a tenure full of poor roster management that has cost us wins?

We had 10-3 season filled with unexpected circumstances. It's not like this is what we've been.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Are you talking about ONE year with extraordinary attrition


Jan 3, 2022, 4:46 AM

If we had another 4* QB, 2 more 4* WR, 2 more 4* OL, 1 more RB, thats only 6 and we still fill the walk-ons then we get to a full 85 schollie. We didn't need to give schollie to 6th yr Edwards bros, Rencher, Swinney's, Brown, Batson, etc. We could put either Portal kids or let's skip that but put 4* HS kids on the team but we mismanaged roster.

I think Batson moved on so probably not him, but you get the point.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

So for 2022 our depth chart is


Jan 3, 2022, 8:44 AM

QB-2 five stars and a 3 star
WR-Ngata, the 2 Williams and Collins, Stelatto, and Randall all 4 stars and Spector a 3 star
OL-signed 2 more 4 stars
RB-1 five star and 2 four stars

And we are actively seeking the deeper, developmental depth at all those positions except QB where no one is coming in anyway.

On OL weve already shown we'd add a starter caliber guy with the portal offer to the UVa center.

How many guys do you think we sign in February? I'm betting it's 6-8. And I do believe we see a portal guy at some point, remembering portal guys want to play right now. LB seems the spot of biggest need

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: So for 2022 our depth chart is


Jan 3, 2022, 10:29 AM

I think there is a slight misconception that all players in the portal want to start and are not there just to better themselves. So yes, typically when players leave Clemson, they leave so they are not 2-3 deep on the chart. But there are a lot of players that are good, they realize they are better than their FCS team, or maybe they are on a good Coastal team, but they want to join a P5 team for better coaching or they think they can build their draft stock by joining a quality team.

There are players in SoCon, WAC, AAC, etc that were missed and should be P5 players. If we can grab a couple of them with a couple yrs to play then they could help tremendously.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

If a player is looking to better his draft stock


Jan 3, 2022, 10:34 AM

he's looking to play. How that can be debated is pure nonsense

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: If a player is looking to better his draft stock


Jan 3, 2022, 12:22 PM

All players want to start! But some players are smart enough to look for better programs. I guess you didn't really read what I posted. There are quality players that are FCS or lower FBS teams that want better coaching, better facilities, and better exposure. There are players that realize they won't start as a transfer in their first year but they know they are D1 guys after a year or 2 in college. They still have 2-3yrs to build their draft stock.

I think that is understandable.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

It should also be understandable we have to think


Jan 3, 2022, 1:37 PM

They are better than who we already have

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: It's not the whole story


Jan 3, 2022, 8:50 AM [ in reply to Re: Are you talking about ONE year with extraordinary attrition ]

I don't think there's a direct correlation at all. At least not 1 to 1.

Think about how few players have left early? The whole 2018 defensive line, ETN, and several others.

One of the biggest reasons for Dabo's success, is the culture he has created. That family atmosphere has reeled in more than one Momma, who felt sure that Clemson would be the perfect place for her son. That may change with NIL, but it's worked so far.

I don't disagree, that Dabo needs to jump into the transfer pool. Just like recruiting, he'll be very selective.

Go Tigers!

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

So who is starting at WR in 2016 or 2018 if


Jan 3, 2022, 8:30 AM [ in reply to Re: Its indefensible but this poster doesn't care ]

6 of the 9 scholarship WR are unavailable in the bowl game? BTW, we were 3-0 with Swinney starting

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: So who is starting at WR in 2016 or 2018 if


Jan 3, 2022, 8:59 AM

We are not 3-0 because Swinney started. I have zero problem with him playing, but his dad could afford to pay for him. He basically took the spot of another 4* that could have been on the roster. His schollie could be a DB or a 4* WR. Could have got lucky and found a 2* Gallman, maybe a 3* Beasly, or a 4" Nuk. But for every walk-on, coaches kids, or every unfilled roster spot from recruiting is the lost opportunity to find a Simmons, Dorian O'daniel, Vic B. , or a Tyler Davis.

Every no-star legacy, friend or coaches son that can find a free schollies are taking opportunities away from us finding studs even if they are not 4-5*. If we recruited bonafide 4"+ players then even better.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

You do realize that it was the players who decided that


Jan 3, 2022, 9:14 AM

Swinney should get one of the scholarships that were available don’t you? Probably not.

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

So we are letting players manage the roster now?


Jan 3, 2022, 10:13 AM

Sounds like a great idea.

While we’re at it, we should let them decide who plays and which plays to run too.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"All those 'Fire Brownell' guys can kiss it." -Joseph Girard III

"Everybody needs to know that Coach Brownell is arguably the best coach to come through Clemson." -PJ Hall


So Parker Fox's scholarship should be revoked?


Jan 3, 2022, 10:22 AM

his dad can surely afford to pay his way. You understand the players had a say in that, don't you?

In our case, I'm guessing you think that Will Swinney who never botched a hold in 4 years or Will Spiers who punted for us for 5 years play meaningless positions and are unworthy of the recognition a scholarship brings, especially when it's their teammates who are singling their contributions out.

If you're going to troll, troll basketball as well. They do the same thing every year

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

You know that’s not how the program works. Stop playing


Jan 3, 2022, 11:08 AM [ in reply to So we are letting players manage the roster now? ]

ignorant just so you can criticize a highly successful coach with a highly successful program all in an attempt to deflect from the fact that the BB program continues to wallow in mediocrity under Brownell.


https://clemsontigers.com/will-swinney-2021-program-story/


military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

3 of those 4 you named were high 4 star recruits


Jan 3, 2022, 9:17 AM [ in reply to Re: So who is starting at WR in 2016 or 2018 if ]

Beasley being a 3 star. You act like high 4 star recruits are looking to come in and sit 2-3 years. You had 2, walk on coaches kids on scholarship, the Swinney's. BV's kids were 3 star recruits. Will Swinney and Spiers were the starting holder and punter for 5 years, but of course those positions mean nothing and are unworthy of a scholarship.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: 3 of those 4 you named were high 4 star recruits


Jan 3, 2022, 10:45 AM

Edwards bros, Brown, Swinney's, Rencher, Batson, and whoever else. Im not going to run thru the roster to pull names, but you dont think another schollie kid can be a holder? Im not opposed to Swinney's being on team, I love it actually. But Dabo could afford to pay for college and we could add a 3-5*. And missed the premise of that recruited kid could potentially be another stud. But add the fact that our 85 roster hasn't been full for couple yrs. Clemson has 4*'players begging to get offers and we keep non-D1 players taking roster spots.

Love Dabo, always will! But he needs roster full so when we lose 9 players to portal and have injury bug, it doesn't hurt as bad.

Agree or disagree, that's your option.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

most of the guys you just named schollies didn't count


Jan 3, 2022, 11:19 AM

toward the 85 this year

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Since you refused to answer the question


Jan 3, 2022, 11:07 AM [ in reply to Re: So who is starting at WR in 2016 or 2018 if ]

regarding who would have started in 2016 and 2018 had, like against Wake, the coots, and ISU when 6 of our 9 receivers were on the shelf, I'll answer it for you.

2016: Top receivers by order, Williams, Scott, Renfrow, Cain, McLeod, Thompson, Overton, Powell, Chase . So if the top 6 were hurt we're left with Overton, who did nothing until he was a senior, Powell who did nothing until he was a senior, and Chase who did nothing period, plus walkons.

2018: Higgins, Ross, Refrow, Rogers, Overton, Thompson, Powell, Chase, and Spector. So eith the top 6 out, its Powell, Chase and Spector starting.

2021: Ross, Ngata, EJ, Spector, Ladson, B. Collins, Ajou, D. Collins and Stellato who was hurt, so we started the Collins' and Swinney over Ajou.

I'd say the Collins' were far better in their role than the 7-8-9 guys in 2016 and 2018 would have been

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Since you refused to answer the question


Jan 3, 2022, 11:27 AM

I believe in the Collins Towers. Those guys basically saved our season. But we could have 2-3 more WRs on our team.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

We've carried 9 true scholarship receivers forever


Jan 3, 2022, 1:43 PM

and became known as WRU. You're getting ridiculous. You lose your top 6 receivers you're going to suffer. It's not that difficult

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Its indefensible but this poster doesn't care


Jan 3, 2022, 8:44 AM [ in reply to Its indefensible but this poster doesn't care ]

It’s practically indefensible to try to debate topics of which you fail to equip yourself with facts. I just responded to the op that from 2014-2018 we signed 100 players per Rivals. Even lower than the total presented in the op. So if you want to keep crying about the state of Clemson football find another line of attack.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Jstone D329 - “ It’s ok to want a coaching change”
Brownell @Clemson: 8 seasons ranked 50th or worse by Sports Reference’s SRS
1-29: Brad Brownell road record against ranked ACC opponents
142, 161, 294, 307, 293, 166, 225, 180, 260, 164, 141, 72, 68 - assist rankings amongst all D1 programs during Brownell's tenure


10-14 players?


Jan 3, 2022, 2:36 AM [ in reply to Re: Wait, so which 10-14 players are you suggesting to remove ]

You listed 8. Not 10-14.

All schools give walk-ons scholarships. All schools have guys on scholarship that never play.

Both Venables kids are solid players who most definitely could play P5. Jake's and Will's scholarships are open. They both did a ton for the program. Tyler can play and adds depth.

What coaches in America have college-aged sons that they turned away from their program?

Has the scholarship distribution ever been a reason we lost a game?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Wait, so which 10-14 players are you suggesting to remove


Jan 3, 2022, 2:17 AM [ in reply to Wait, so which 10-14 players are you suggesting to remove ]

Would you rather Artavis Scott catching punts or Will Brown? Would tou rather Amari Rodgers or Swinney running slot? Why do we give schollie to Will Swinney when his $8mil salaried dad could easily pay for it and I guarantee there were scholarships that he would qualify for. That position could have been filled by another 4* receiver that could have been NFL talent instead of coaches son. Don't get me wrong, Will has been an asset for kickoff holder, but he probably would have started at Furman or Charlotte.

I just feel like we are going backwards in recruiting and we need to change our numbers. Dabo will adjust but just seems to be slow to migrate.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Wait, so which 10-14 players are you suggesting to remove


Jan 3, 2022, 2:54 AM

Because we already have enough trouble holding onto four-star recruits at the bottom end of our roster. 4-5* guys who don’t make the two deep don’t stay around to be available when the guys ahead of them get hurt. Those guys have already entered the portal. Our problem is that we recruited and got players, DLine, QB, wide receivers who either weren’t as good as we thought they were or they stayed injured. Too many misses in recruiting.

Recruit CW42, DW4, TL16, etc. and you win championships. With Lawrence, Ferrell, Bryant, Wilkins, and Huggins, no one could just run the ball down our throat - remember that Pittsburg just ran the clock out on us with first downs this year with 8 minutes plus on the clock.
Recruit DJU5, XT, our current upper classes of WR’s and you can’t compete. We got who we wanted in many cases. They just aren’t good enough to win a championship.
XT3, JM7, and KJH5 are talented would not start over Clelin Ferrel or Austin Bryant.

Dabo Swinney puts together a great roster. But the high end 5 star guys have to play like it. No school and no roster can win a championship when you have so many misses at the top end in recruiting.

In recruiting, there are guys that you want and there are guys that you get. And the guys that you both want and get have to be good enough to win a championship.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Wait, so which 10-14 players are you suggesting to remove


Jan 3, 2022, 3:04 AM [ in reply to Re: Wait, so which 10-14 players are you suggesting to remove ]

I don't understand your point with punt returns, and Will Swinney played only because of an anomaly situation at WR.

We went "backwards" in recruiting after 4 players bailed out with the loss Brent Venables.

We do need to fill those unexpected scholarship openings. We will.

There are Will Browns everywhere. You don't see them because it's extremely rare to see the circumstances we saw at WR this year.

You're not talking about a trend, so there's no basis to say Dabo is "slow to migrate". You said he will adjust and he will. No reasons or need to push the negative narrative.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Does it matter who returns punts when we basically fair catch


Jan 3, 2022, 8:27 AM [ in reply to Re: Wait, so which 10-14 players are you suggesting to remove ]

all of them. Artavis probably had more fair catches than anyone in school history. And it's really a disingenuous argument when you know Brown was not the primary punt returner, but rather in the role due to injury.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Wait, so which 10-14 players are you suggesting to remove


Jan 3, 2022, 2:17 AM [ in reply to Wait, so which 10-14 players are you suggesting to remove ]

Would you rather Artavis Scott catching punts or Will Brown? Would tou rather Amari Rodgers or Swinney running slot? Why do we give schollie to Will Swinney when his $8mil salaried dad could easily pay for it and I guarantee there were scholarships that he would qualify for. That position could have been filled by another 4* receiver that could have been NFL talent instead of coaches son. Don't get me wrong, Will has been an asset for kickoff holder, but he probably would have started at Furman or Charlotte.

I just feel like we are going backwards in recruiting and we need to change our numbers. Dabo will adjust but just seems to be slow to migrate.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Wait, so which 10-14 players are you suggesting to remove


Jan 3, 2022, 2:57 AM

Will Brown was returning punts because Will Taylor was injured early in the season, and Will Swinney started in the slot because Ross, Williams, Spector, Ladson, Ajou, and Stellato were out. Both Wills did good jobs, neither cost us a loss, and they well earned their schollies this year.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Wait, so which 10-14 players are you suggesting to remove


Jan 3, 2022, 4:27 AM

Missing the point! Our roster could have more 3-5* players but we have friends and family there. Will S. Could have been on team no matter if our schollie roster was full or not. Drew Sw. can be on team no matter what our schollie numbers are! Why can't Dabo spend $40k a yr and have his sons on the team. Plus the school would find then schollies. Why are we spending schollies on kids like 6thyr Rencher who almost never saw field when he was just a friend.

All these schollies could have been 4" players using their schollie. I love Dabo but I think he got over confident in his use of schollie walk on players.

I am afraid we are in a Rabbit Hole also where Dabo is using Walk-on coaches too?? I 100% hope I am wrong, but I must admit my concern!

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Wait, so which 10-14 players are you suggesting to remove


Jan 3, 2022, 8:18 AM

Sounds like you want to get rid of the "Friends and Family Plan?"

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Wait, so which 10-14 players are you suggesting to remove


Jan 3, 2022, 10:50 AM [ in reply to Re: Wait, so which 10-14 players are you suggesting to remove ]

I think Mr. Rancher was very instrumental in instilling the culture that Dabo believes in. Some players contribute more off the field than on.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

If you go by this years attrition numbers


Jan 3, 2022, 8:32 AM [ in reply to Re: Wait, so which 10-14 players are you suggesting to remove ]

Amari would have been hurt and unavailable

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Wait, so which 10-14 players are you suggesting to remove


Jan 3, 2022, 8:17 AM [ in reply to Wait, so which 10-14 players are you suggesting to remove ]

If you want to get technical, then yes we have not offered 5 star kids because of coaches' kids being on scholarship. We did not offer Trenton Simpson until we basically gave up on Flowe because we didn't have the scholarship to offer.

We don't even use those scholarships as a buffer in case we are pleasantly surprised and end up in an oversign situation. If we are not willing to pull one of those scholarships in that situation, then we are putting them ahead of 5* recruits.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Wait, so which 10-14 players are you suggesting to remove


Jan 3, 2022, 8:25 AM [ in reply to Wait, so which 10-14 players are you suggesting to remove ]

We haven't refused 5* players to commit, the problem is we have been too stingy with offers and we dont have fallback offers if someone doesn't commit or if they decommit.

Yes I know this year is an anomaly, but not having a plan to fill a full roster is not excusable. Then denying opportunities from portal just adds to the questions. I know I have said similar things in couple posts, but tell me why Clemson doesn't have roster full of 4* players if we don't get the 5" we want. Why didn't we have all these backup players jumping to join a team that is of National championship caliper? Just concerned we have played walk-ons, we have lost player interests because we shunned too many recruits that had interest.

I wonder if HS coaches have told P5 (D1) players, yeah dont waste time on Clemson. They offer 20% of the player that other schools do. Let's work on an offer from Florida or UNC. Let's not waste time on Clemson, they probably won't offer. Therefore from our first 60 offers the HS coaches push players to other schools since Clemson won't offer.
..
Just a thought, but our recruiting needs to step up. Dabo can't live on the developmental approach any longer because players will transfer. You need quality from day 1!

Walk-ons and 2* guys are probably not a great system nowadays!?!?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Disagree


Jan 3, 2022, 9:55 AM

The developmental guy is exactly who you target those last 10-15 scholarships. Guys who you've communicated to, put in the 2-3 years and see where it leads. Then you point to guys like Skalski, Spector, Turner, Gallman, Renfrow, Beasley, Ferrell, Wallace, Shuey, Shatley, McFadden, McDowell, Humphries, and say, see...

Those type guys have and will always play an important role at Clemson

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Disagree


Jan 3, 2022, 11:55 AM

Are you the TD Monster?

As you disagree, I disagree with your last statement. Yes, your premise of schollie distribution used to work 3yrs ago. But we need every 3-5* player we can put on the team. 8-14 walk-ons or open schollies is not great management.

If we have 2 more OL, 2 more WR, 1 more RB, another QB, that is 6 and it changes the whole offense. We could have those 6 and still have room for some walk-ons. Could have had us in playoffs instead of starting the Will's.

Don't take offense to the fact that I sound negative towards Will Swinney because that is far from truth. He has been an asset to the team, but he could have been an asset not at the expense of another 4* player. That 4* could have been the game changer of 2021.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Disagree


Jan 3, 2022, 12:13 PM

Y’all just could have, should have everything to make your point. Using the same logic, Will Brown could have been the next Renfrow and wasn’t the guy y’all say is the worst QB ever a 5*? The coaches invest significant time evaluating these guys. I’ll stick with their decisions. As far as the end being near because we have umfilled scholarships, this is an extreme and isolated situation. Those 4* that could have been a game changer this year gave up and transferred and we lost 4 commitments with the extremely unusual coaching departures. Give the staff a minute - they’ll fix it.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Last 5 yrs of recruiting #'s for random teams from 2017


Jan 3, 2022, 8:17 AM

You are correct in your assessment. Clemson takes notoriously few recruits each year and the conversation has moved from how many recruit to " but our 15 recruits average 4.3 stars" This means nothing when you have gaping holes at the QB and WR and OL position. Bottom line Clemson has to recruit more players whether they come from high school or portal. I won't go so far as to say the roster has been mismanaged but it has definitely been under managed. Any one who is capable of being honest will admit that.

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Last 5 yrs of recruiting #'s for random teams from 2017


Jan 3, 2022, 8:42 AM

So now you know that for the 5 year period 2017-2021 Clemson signed less players than a particular list of schools. Now why don’t you run the same for every 5 year period back to 2012 - that 5 year period culminated in a National Championship. If results are similar would that not suggest that the current roster management debate is much ado about nothing? I’ll go ahead and let you know that 2012-2016 was 111 which would still be near the bottom of your list. 2014-2018 was 100 even, even lower than the current total signees. Yet, somehow we managed to be respectable.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Jstone D329 - “ It’s ok to want a coaching change”
Brownell @Clemson: 8 seasons ranked 50th or worse by Sports Reference’s SRS
1-29: Brad Brownell road record against ranked ACC opponents
142, 161, 294, 307, 293, 166, 225, 180, 260, 164, 141, 72, 68 - assist rankings amongst all D1 programs during Brownell's tenure


Re: Last 5 yrs of recruiting #'s for random teams from 2017


Jan 3, 2022, 9:08 AM

We managed to be respectable on the back of generational QB play, and a DL that was Top 5 all time. You can be selective in recruitment when you have Freshman and Sophomores that produce at the level. We have none of those now so yes things have to change. You have to go deeper in the talent pool to find those players, which means taking more till you find them. To not take an honest look at all aspects of the program after the uncharacteristically bad offensive play throughout the season, and constant depth problems would not be prudent. College football does not stand still and Clemson doesn't need to either. What worked ten years ago doesn't today.

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Last 5 yrs of recruiting #'s for random teams from 2017


Jan 3, 2022, 11:02 AM

lol - we were respectable in 2018? first 15-0 ever was not solely due to Trevor. And if "generational QB play" is all that matter we'd have lost to Texas Tech in 2016.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Jstone D329 - “ It’s ok to want a coaching change”
Brownell @Clemson: 8 seasons ranked 50th or worse by Sports Reference’s SRS
1-29: Brad Brownell road record against ranked ACC opponents
142, 161, 294, 307, 293, 166, 225, 180, 260, 164, 141, 72, 68 - assist rankings amongst all D1 programs during Brownell's tenure


Re: Last 5 yrs of recruiting #'s for random teams from 2017


Jan 3, 2022, 12:17 PM [ in reply to Re: Last 5 yrs of recruiting #'s for random teams from 2017 ]

These guys should be working for the main stream media. They pick a situation out of context and try to use it to start a panic.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Last 5 yrs of recruiting #'s for random teams from 2017


Jan 3, 2022, 12:36 PM [ in reply to Re: Last 5 yrs of recruiting #'s for random teams from 2017 ]

This was before transfer portal. We were first team in 2016 to win Natty with an avg recruiting class under 10 ranking since Stoops in 2003 or 2004, one of those years. But we were over 10 avg in 2018.

I believe it's going to take a better class average now as player turnover is going to increase which is going to demand more intensive roster management.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Last 5 yrs of recruiting #'s for random teams from 2017


Jan 3, 2022, 8:47 AM

So after we over sign like those teams, you’re fine with us telling 5-10 players a year we weren’t serious about their offer after all, and cutting them loose. Glad you’re not running out program.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Last 5 yrs of recruiting #'s for random teams from 2017


Jan 3, 2022, 8:57 AM

This would make sense if we had been significantly below the 85 number for several years. It’s just right now and will be better by spring practice. Nobody was panicking about our number of 2017 and 2018 recruits in 2019. Y’all just relax and give Dabo and Co. a little time to react to what has happened in the last couple of months. We’ll be fine.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Last 5 yrs of recruiting #'s for random teams from 2017


Jan 3, 2022, 9:27 AM

Fist I doubt you see any team keep 85 scholarship players anymore. High rated guys aren't into waiting their turn anymore so those guys 50 and back are probably looking to enter the portal at any given time. Most walk-ons don't receive scholarship until their senior year. It's rare you have a Renfrow that earns his after a year. You ask why Dabo can't pay for his sons and Dabo talked about his sons the other week how he wanted his kids not to grow up the way he had to. That even after giving his kids the life he never had how proud he was bc his sons, Will in particular, developed his work ethic. That's why Will earned a scholarship, because of HIS work ethic. Dabo's money isn't Will's money and it's not fair to Will that his dad is one of the highest paid coaches in the game so he should have to depend on daddy's money. If Will earned his scholarship then he should get his scholarship. As far as the Venables boys they were offered scholarships out of high school they we're never walk-ons so not sure why you bring their names up. Also you lose any creditability when one of the first things you say is you have no idea how many scholarship walk-on's are on other teams that you just reckon it's not as many as Clemson. Dabo is always going to be under the 85, he just is. Dabo is also going to reward walk-on's who bust their behind with scholarships their senior year. Dabo said that this team played the bowl game without 28 scholarship players and some positions were hit harder than others mainly WR. Look the receivers were not good this year but it had nothing to do with Will Swinney playing. Clemson had everyone they needed to have a great season, unfortunately the guys they had, mainly on offense, did not play to the standard we're use to. So this whole argument about walk-on's and scholarship numbers is asinine and plain dumb. I mean it's obvious some of you have no idea what you are talking about. Clemson very easily could have beaten Georgia and NC State. The only one they just straight up lost was Pitt and even in that one it had more to do with what Clemson didn't do than what Pitt did. So Clemson had one of the worse offenses in the country and easily Dabo's worse, maybe 2010 or 14 but I'd have to actually look, and still within a handful of plays of being a 1 loss Playoff team if not undefeated. Now I doubt they could have won a championship this year but this season was easily a year Clemson could have kept those other streaks alive. I find it odd that a number of supposed Tigers fans act this way with just a hint of adversity. This is a down year for Clemson and still 99% of teams out there would have LOVED to be where Clemson is this year. This for me is easily Dabo's finest hour as a coach. People thought after the first half of the season this was it for Clemson and Dabo rallied the team and still kept the double digit winning seasons alive. It was a year where other teams would have folded. This was a rock in the road that the bandwagon hit and bounced some people off but it's obvious not enough fell off.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Last 5 yrs of recruiting #'s for random teams from 2017


Jan 3, 2022, 9:32 AM

Finally some one with sense, we could have the same roster be undefeated in the playoffs and nobody would say anything. But things happened and DJ playing the way he did we still ended up 10-3. Just wait until we are back in the playoffs next year these same people will be singing praises.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Last 5 yrs of recruiting #'s for random teams from 2017


Jan 3, 2022, 9:40 AM [ in reply to Re: Last 5 yrs of recruiting #'s for random teams from 2017 ]

Great post TigerAiden.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Last 5 yrs of recruiting #'s for random teams from 2017


Jan 3, 2022, 5:01 PM [ in reply to Re: Last 5 yrs of recruiting #'s for random teams from 2017 ]

Well said.
Really not fair to compare any earlier era to the current TP and NIL era in terms of rosters. It's the wild west and it will settle down (some, maybe) after a few years of hundreds of kids not finding a new team. But the NIL impact will live on likely. I recall all this 'coaches' kids and family stuff several years ago (Davis brothers etc) and it seemed to work out. It will again but that doesn't mean status quo either, Dabo and the Tigers can remain selective but need to adjust also.
The sky ain't falling but the world isn't prefect either.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Last 5 yrs of recruiting #'s for random teams from 2017


Jan 3, 2022, 9:34 AM

Don't be jealous of what coaches earn. Football is big business and schools get a return for their investments.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

So pointing out that the coaches earn a ton of money makes him jealous?


Jan 3, 2022, 10:20 AM

Come on.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"All those 'Fire Brownell' guys can kiss it." -Joseph Girard III

"Everybody needs to know that Coach Brownell is arguably the best coach to come through Clemson." -PJ Hall


You have to look at 6 years now due to Covid


Jan 3, 2022, 9:41 AM

We are not as far off a full roster as people are mentioning and the time to look at numbers will be after Feb signing and again after spring ball.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

It’s unfair to hang this year on Dabo


Jan 3, 2022, 12:03 PM

What is happening isn’t his fault, and our plan worked incredibly well. Now that said, moving forward it needs to change. So this recruiting class being tiny… it is what it is. Can’t blame Dabo.

We do, however, need to sign between 25-30 guys in 2023. We know the drill now and it’s time to adjust. I think Dabo will. He deserves the benefit of the doubt. If he signs 20 kids next year and we have 10 scholarships wasting away on walk ons then I think it’s fair to criticize. Let’s withhold judgement, though. He’s earned that right for sure.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 57
| visibility 1
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic