Two-Deep Recruiting Comparison: Clemson vs. Auburn 2010

by FIGUREFOUR on May 10, 2011 6:00 AM EDT in Recruiting

AUBURN AL - SEPTEMBER 18: Quarterback Cameron Newton #2 of the Auburn Tigers rushes upfield in overtime against the Clemson Tigers at Jordan-Hare Stadium on September 18 2010 in Auburn Alabama. (Photo by Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images)

We wanted to look at how Clemson matched up talent-wise against some of last year's foes. Today we compare Clemson and Auburn circa September, 2010. We were able to obtain the two-deep roster posted on Tigernet prior to the Clemson/Auburn matchup for this exercise (special thanks to T-Net for this info).

Keep in mind as you look through this data that only players who were officially signed were given a "Star Rating". Players who were not signed could not be quantitatively assessed a recruiting rating. Such players get a "NA" rating and were not included in the averaged data. Again, all data was attained from www.Scout.com and www.Rivals.com. Players whose Scout/Rivals data was not available but were signed were assigned a "NR".

Figure 1 and Table I both show an average of offensive players, defensive players, and specialist listed on the two-deep roster. Tables II through IV show the two-deep roster used for analysis along with the recruiting ratings for each player on the roster.

The data show the teams to be pretty evenly matched based on overall average recruiting star ratings. Auburn averaged around 0.06 stars per player better than Clemson on the offensive side of the ball while Clemson bettered Auburn by 0.07 stars per player on defense. Auburn's specialists were, by virtue of a strong Rivals rating, over 0.15 stars per player better than Clemson. Overall, the Auburn Tigers led Clemson in average talent by a mere 0.01 stars per player.

On paper, and strictly from a Rivals/Scout rating perspective, this contest appeared to be a pretty even matchup in terms of two-deep talent.

Data can be seen below and after the Jump.

Figure 1: Average Star Rating per Player (Two-Deep Depth Chart)

Table I: Average Star Rating Per Player (Two-Deep Depth Chart)

Team	Recruiting Source	Offense	Defense	Specialists	Overall Average
Clemson	Scout	3.46	3.32	3.10	3.34
	Rivals	3.50	3.36	3.00	3.36
	Average	3.48	3.34	3.05	3.35
Auburn	Scout	3.48	3.27	3.36	3.37
	Rivals	3.60	3.27	3.07	3.35
	Average	3.54	3.27	3.21	3.36

Table II: Star Ratings per Offensive Player

Clemson Offense								Auburn Offense
Pos.	#	Player	Hgt	Wgt	Cl.	Scout	Rivals	Pos.	#	Player	Hgt	Wgt	Cl.	Scout	Rivals
LT	61	CHRIS HAIRSTON	6-7	325	*Gr.	2	3	LT	73	LEE ZIEMBA	6-8	319	Sr.	4	4
	63	Brandon Thomas	6-4	300	*Fr.	4	4		75	Brandon Mosley	6-6	299	Jr.	3	4
LG	73	DAVID SMITH	6-5	315	*Jr.	3	3	LG	66	MIKE BERRY	6-3	316	Sr.	3	4
	62	Mason Cloy	6-3	295	*Jr.	3	3		53	Bart Eddins	6-4	304	Sr.	5	4
C	55	DALTON FREEMAN	6-5	285	*So.	4	4	C	50	RYAN PUGH	6-4	297	Sr.	4	4
	78	Ben Ramsey	6-4	280	*Sr.	N/A	N/A		63	Blake Burgess	6-2	278	Fr.	N/A	N/A
RG	74	ANTOINE McCLAIN	6-5	330	Jr.	4	4	RG	57	BYRON ISOM	6-3	291	Sr.	3	3
	54	Matt Sanders	6-6	320	*So.	3	3		76	Jorrell Bostrom	6-3	322	Sr.	N/A	N/A
RT	72	LANDON WALKER	6-6	310	*Jr.	4	4	or	79	Jared Cooper	6-4	300	Jr.	2	3
	79	Phillip Price	6-5	300	*Jr.	N/A	N/A	RT	77	A.J. GREENE	6-5	291	Jr.	4	3
TE	83	DWAYNE ALLEN	6-4	255	*So.	4	4		71	John Sullen	6-6	312	So.	2	3
	82	Drew Traylor	6-5	245	*Jr.	3	2	TE/WR	43	PHILLIP LUTZENKIRCHEN	6-4	258	So.	4	4
	84	Darrell Smith	6-3	235	*Fr.	3	2	or	18	KODI BURNS	6-2	207	Sr.	5	4
WR	21	XAVIER DYE	6-5	210	Sr.	3	3		80	Emory Blake	6-1	192	So.	3	4
	85	Brandon Clear	6-5	210	*Jr.	3	3	WR	81	TERRELL ZACHERY	6-2	210	Sr.	3	4
	6	DeAndre Hopkins	6-1	195	Fr.	4	4		9	Quindarius Carr	6-1	186	Jr.	3	3
QB	11	KYLE PARKER	6-1	200	*So.	4	4		3	DeAngelo Benton	6-2	201	So.	3	4
	10	Tajh Boyd	6-1	230	*Fr.	5	4	QB	2	CAMERON NEWTON	6-6	250	Jr.	4	5
RB	23	ANDRE ELLINGTON	5-10	190	*So.	4	4		14	Barrett Trotter	6-2	211	So.	3	3
or	8	JAMIE HARPER	6-0	235	Jr.	5	4	RB	27	MARIO FANNIN	5-11	228	Sr.	4	4
	25	Roderick McDowell	5-9	185	*Fr.	3	4		23	Onterio McCalebb	5-10	171	So.	4	4
FB	30	CHAD DIEHL	6-2	265	*Jr.	2	3		5	Michael Dyer	5-9	215	Fr.	5	5
	48	Kasey Nobles	6-1	250	*Sr.	N/A	N/A	HB	32	ERIC SMITH	5-10	240	Jr.	3	3
WR	18	JARON BROWN	6-2	200	*So.	3	3		4	Shaun Kitchens	6-3	217	Fr.	3	3
	87	Terrance Ashe	6-2	200	*Gr.	N/A	N/A		1	Trovon Reed	6-0	181	Fr.	5	4
	80	Brandon Ford	6-4	220	*So.	3	4	WR	89	DARVIN ADAMS	6-3	185	Jr.	3	2
WR	26	MARQUAN JONES	6-0	195	Jr.	3	4		82	Jay Wisner	6-2	190	Sr.	N/A	N/A
	7	Bryce McNeal	6-1	180	*Fr.	4	4		87	Derek Winter	6-0	208	Jr.	2	2

Table III: Star Ratings per Defensive Player

Clemson Defense								Auburn
Pos.	#	Player	Hgt	Wgt	Cl.	Scout	Rivals	Pos.	#	Player	Hgt	Wgt	Cl.	Scout	Rivals
DE	93	Da'QUAN BOWERS	6-4	275	Jr.	5	5	LDE	45	ANTOINE CARTER	6-4	256	Sr.	4	3
	97	Malliciah Goodman	6-4	265	So.	4	4		55	Corey Lemonier	6-4	227	Fr.	5	4
NG	98	BRANDON THOMPSON	6-2	310	Jr.	4	4		95	Dee Ford	6-4	240	So.	4	3
or	89	MIGUEL CHAVIS	6-5	285	Sr.	3	3	DT	98	ZACH CLAYTON	6-3	296	Sr.	2	2
DT	99	JARVIS JENKINS	6-4	315	Sr.	4	4		54	Jeffrey Whitaker	6-3	308	Fr.	4	4
	94	Rennie Moore	6-4	270	*Jr.	3	3	DT	90	NICK FAIRLEY	6-5	298	Jr.	3	3
BE	40	ANDRE BRANCH	6-5	260	*Jr.	2	2		93	Mike Blanc	6-4	297	Sr.	2	3
	90	Kourtnei Brown	6-5	250	*Jr.	4	4	RDE	49	MICHAEL GOGGANS	6-3	261	Sr.	3	4
SLB	34	QUANDON CHRISTIAN	6-3	215	*Fr.	3	3		94	Nosa Eguae	6-2	258	Fr.	2	2
	41	Daniel Andrews	5-11	210	Jr.	2	2		13	Craig Sanders	6-4	248	Fr.	4	4
MLB	42	CORICO HAWKINS	5-11	230	So.	3	3	LLB	46	CRAIG STEVENS	6-4	229	Sr.	3	4
	33	Spencer Shuey	6-3	250	*Fr.	3	3		21	Eltoro Freeman	5-11	225	Jr.	4	4
WLB	20	BRANDON MAYE	6-2	235	*Jr.	2	3	or	35	Jonathan Evans	5-11	230	So.	3	3
	46	Jonathan Willard	6-2	220	*So.	3	4	MLB	17	JOSH BYNES	6-2	235	Sr.	4	4
CB	12	MARCUS GILCHRIST	5-11	190	Sr.	4	4		58	Harris Gaston	6-1	231	Fr.	3	3
	29	Xavier Brewer	5-11	190	*So.	4	3	or	5	Jake Holland	6-0	231	Fr.	3	4
SS	2	DeANDRE McDANIEL	6-1	215	Sr.	4	4	RLB	25	DAREN BATES	5-11	203	So.	2	2
	5	Jonathan Meeks	6-1	205	So.	4	4		33	Jessel Curry	6-1	214	Fr.	3	3
FS	31	RASHARD HALL	6-2	200	*So.	3	3		38	Jawara White	6-1	243	Fr.	3	3
	32	Carlton Lewis	6-3	215	*So.	3	3	LCB	14	DEMOND WASHINGTON	5-9	182	Sr.	5	3
CB	36	BYRON MAXWELL	6-1	205	*Gr.	4	4		22	T'Sharvan Bell	6-0	180	So.	3	4
	15	Coty Sensabaugh	6-0	180	*Jr.	2	2	S	4	ZAC ETHERIDGE	6-0	213	Sr.	3	3
									16	Ikeem Means	6-0	204	So.	N/A	N/A
								S	2	AAIRON SAVAGE	5-11	200	Sr.	N/A	N/A
									26	Mike McNeil	6-2	208	Jr.	4	4
								RCB	15	NEIKO THORPE	6-2	186	Jr.	3	3
									3	Chris Davis	5-10	182	Fr.	3	3
								or	6	Jonathan Mincy	5-10	180	Fr.	3	3

Table IV: Star Ratings per "Specialist"

Clemson Specialists								Auburn Specialists
Pos.	#	Player	Hgt	Wgt	Cl.	Scout	Rivals	Pos.	#	Player	Hgt	Wgt	Cl.	Scout	Rivals
PK	39	CHANDLER CATANZARO	6-2	205	*Fr.	N/A	N/A	PK	18	WES BYRUM	6-2	216	Sr.	3	3
	13	Spencer Benton	6-2	195	*So.	2	2		36	Cody Parkey	6-0	184	Fr.	4	3
P	96	DAWSON ZIMMERMAN	6-2	205	Jr.	3	2	P	17	RYAN SHOEMAKER	6-0	177	Sr.	2	2
	19	Richard Jackson	6-0	195	*Gr.	3	3		30	Steven Clark	6-5	232	Fr.	2	2
KO	13	Spencer Benton	6-2	195	*So.	2	2	KO	18	Wes Byrum	6-2	216	Sr.	3	3
LS	71	Matt Skinner	6-7	230	*So.	2	2	LS	61	Josh Harris	6-1	230	Jr.	N/A	N/A
	52	Phillip Fajgenbaum	6-0	225	*Fr.	N/A	N/A		64	Forrest Hill	6-1	238	Fr.	N/A	N/A
H	16	Michael Wade	6-2	210	*Gr.	3	3	H	19	Neil Caudle	6-3	198	Sr.	4	4
	14	Donny McElveen	6-2	205	*Fr.	N/A	N/A		15	Clint Moseley	6-3	223	Fr.	2	3
PR	12	Marcus Gilchrist	5-11	190	Sr.	4	4	PR	9	Quindarius Carr	6-1	186	Jr.	3	3
	6	DeAndre Hopkins	6-1	195	Fr.	4	4	or	89	Darvin Adams	6-3	185	Jr.	3	2
KOR	12	Marcus Gilchrist	5-11	190	Sr.	4	4	or	1	Trovon Reed	6-0	181	Fr.	5	4
	6	DeAndre Hopkins	6-1	195	Fr.	4	4	KOR	14	Demond Washington	5-9	182	Sr.	5	3
								&	27	Mario Fannin	5-11	228	Sr.	4	4
									23	Onterio McCalebb	5-10	171	So.	4	4
								&	15	Neiko Thorpe	6-2	186	Jr.	3	3

Tweet Comment 19 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Excellent work. Really excellent work.

'11: Minimum Goal: Win 10 games again
'10: 7th in offense, 41st in defense. Division Champions. 10-4. (6-3)
'09: 3rd in offense, 107th in defense. 7-6 (4-4)

Tomahawk Nation: Nole-Holds-Barred Analysis of FSU Sports!
Follow Tomahawk Nation's Twitter feed!

by Bud Elliott on May 10, 2011 10:59 AM EDT reply actions

One could take this as evidence that one or two players, whether you bought em or not

can make the difference between a National Title and nothing.

Or that we just have shitty coaching.

Shakinthesouthland.com-Clemson sports analysis

Follow Shakin the Southland on Twitter!

by DrB on May 10, 2011 6:42 PM EDT reply actions

I think it shows the teams were very close in talent

And that is what the game showed as well.

It also means a team with our level of talent can go a lot farther than they have, if everything falls into place. And maybe that one guy who is a superstar can carry a team on his own, or at least one side of it. Spiller certainly did more than his share his last year.

It will be very interesting to see how they look this year without Newton.

by Cristo on May 10, 2011 9:47 PM EDT reply actions

I know this was a lot of work. Thanks for that.

Fairley apparently did a LOT of growing from that initial 3 star rating, or it was just a bad rating. I noticed their DL was 3 seniors and 1 junior (Fairley). I’m just wondering how we managed to push them around so much during the first half of that game. Probably the best we’ve played since that opening half of the first game of the year against FSU a few years ago (2007?).

by mdlusk on May 11, 2011 4:05 AM EDT reply actions

Nick Fairley had a little bit of a rocky road getting to AU

Also, FWIW, his 2007 star ratings were used here (3 stars and 3 stars) but his 2009 JuCo rating (3 stars and 4 stars) show a little improvement there. The latter probably should have been reflected in this article (I just noticed them after you brought this point up and did not intentionally use the old #’s).

You are absolutely correct by saying that Auburn was a mature team last season and will have a distinct dropoff and huge growing pains trying to replace so many players, especially in the trenches.

Clemson’s first half was (for the most part) well organized and well executed. Auburn followed the pattern of falling behind early yet roaring back in the second half for a win several times over the season. We also were fortunate to play auburn early in the season as they improved a lot as the year went on and Cam Newton got more comfortable in the offense.

Clemson Sports Analysis and Insight
www.shakinthesouthland.com

by FIGUREFOUR on May 11, 2011 5:11 AM EDT up reply actions

Yeah, I would not want to play the Auburn that destroyed South Carolina in the SECCG.

by mdlusk on May 11, 2011 6:49 AM EDT up reply actions

sorry for the double post

Did we also do that well against AU because we spent the whole summer camp practicing for them instead of a week? I just find it really hard to believe our offense was that outstanding for that half.

I know that we also caught them early, which really helped us. Had it been game 9 instead of 3, they had matured a lot, and we had imploded. Even though we managed to hang with FSU at their house late in the year, I think AU would have blown us completely off the field by then. But maybe Parker wouldn’t have gotten that ding and lost all semblance of a decent Div I QB. Who knows, anyway it was the intersection of us down, them up.

I’m hoping for a smattering of revenge this season, though without Cam and Fairley it loses its punch.

by mdlusk on May 11, 2011 6:58 AM EDT up reply actions

There's the phrase that gamblers use, "College football is all about psyche."

We had good playcalling that game and pretty equal talent on paper but, I think it was all about psyche and confidence.

We came into that game as a defending division champion that was a minute away from a BCS bowl and they came into the game as the 4th place team in the SEC West that had just barely escaped Miss St. the week before.

I think our guys believed that we were the better team. Remember that right after the game a lot of people, including STS, thought Auburn was no better than the 3rd best team in the SEC West, that we were the better team, and that we just choked.

I think that had we scored at the end of that game and won, we would have had a much different season.

by TheKraken on May 11, 2011 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions

I agree, much different season.

Shakinthesouthland.com-Clemson sports analysis

Follow Shakin the Southland on Twitter!

by DrB on May 11, 2011 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions

I think winning that game would have certainly helped

but do you think the offensive play-calling would have been any less “offensive” the rest of the year?

Certainly our psyche would have been different.

by mdlusk on May 12, 2011 4:21 AM EDT up reply actions

I think if Billy had won it his way, he'd have the clout in staff meetings

to do what he wanted instead of being shouted down by Brad Scott and shut down by Dabo…

Shakinthesouthland.com-Clemson sports analysis

Follow Shakin the Southland on Twitter!

by DrB on May 12, 2011 7:58 AM EDT up reply actions

hmm, I just wish we would have been able to find out.

Why anyone EVER listened to Brad Scott, I’ll never know.

Dabo was so brainless that he didn’t know that he didn’t know enough whether to let Billy have his way. He didn’t even realize how little he knows about being a HC. That scares me more than anything else about him.

Let’s hope Chad is able to tell him where to stick it when Dabo tries to interfere to the detriment of the team. Hopefully Brad’s absence will help. And Dabo’s still green as grass, just a little less green after the disaster that was last season. I like the staff now (for the most part) I I just wish we had a different HC.

I hope that’s not too strongly worded.

by mdlusk on May 12, 2011 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions

Interesting analysis. Thanks! The teams were close in player-talent & score, but Auburn coaches were better.

Clemson did well in the first half but in the second half Clemson’s coaches adjusted badly by going conservative, trying to run out the clock, and trying to do so with Jamie Harper— especially at critical times. Whereas, Auburn’s coaches adjusted by opening up their offense and shredding Clemson’s defense.

I’m pretty sure that if Auburn’s coaches had Clemson’s players and Clemson’s coaches had Auburn’s players, Auburn still would have won, and Clemson would not have made an undefeated national title run.

by RazzMcTazz on May 11, 2011 7:31 PM EDT reply actions

I dont think Auburn made any big adjustment on their offense

Clemson gave up big plays because guys who normally are where they should be weren’t.

Shakinthesouthland.com-Clemson sports analysis

Follow Shakin the Southland on Twitter!

by DrB on May 11, 2011 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions

It's interesting that this analysis of the 2-deep basically confirms what my and the game results told told me.

I would have thought that Auburn had similar (but slightly superior) player-talent, with Auburn having a slight edge on offense and Clemson having a slight edge on defense.

by RazzMcTazz on May 11, 2011 7:56 PM EDT reply actions

Thanks for doing this analysis. Ton of work. I hope you'll do the same for Clemson's other opponents last year.

Here’s my gut feel prediction about the other opponents.

Clemson had superior talent to every team that Clemson beat (UNT, Presby, UMD, GT, NCSU, & Wake).

Clemson had superior talent to at least 3 teams that Clemson lost to (UNC, BC, & USF).

Clemson had similar talent to two teams that Clemson lost to, (SCar & FSU) but I’ll guess that Clemson had a small edge on SCar and FSU had a small edge on Clemson.

Miami had superior talent.

by RazzMcTazz on May 11, 2011 8:04 PM EDT reply actions

I want to do as many comparisons as possible, but am having difficulty

running across the two-deep rosters at the time of the game. I am still hunting these items, but if anyone gets a decent link for these items, please pass them along and we’ll work on them over downtime.

Clemson Sports Analysis and Insight
www.shakinthesouthland.com

by FIGUREFOUR on May 11, 2011 8:19 PM EDT up reply actions

This is great, thanks

by TheKraken on May 11, 2011 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions

Pre-game depth charts for Clemson & its 2010 opponents follow.

FSU:
http://www.tigernet.com/view/story.do?id=9080

SCar:strong>
http://www.tigernet.com/view/story.do?id=9145

USF:
http://www.tigernet.com/view/story.do?id=9229

Presby:
http://www.tigernet.com/view/story.do?id=8845

GT:
http://www.tigernet.com/view/story.do?id=9013

BC:
http://www.tigernet.com/view/story.do?id=9030

UNC:
http://www.tigernet.com/view/story.do?id=8944

NCSU:
http://www.tigernet.com/view/story.do?id=9050

I couldn’t find the pre-game depth charts for Wake, UMD & Miami, but in their absense, the following August depth charts might be close enough for a reasonable comparison.

Wake Depth chart August 2010 (not pre-game):
http://cfn.scout.com/2/988734.html
http://www.accblitz.com/blog/acc-football-depth-charts/wake-forest-football-depth-chart

UMD depth chart August 2010 (not pre-game):
http://www.accblitz.com/blog/acc-football-depth-charts/maryland-football-depth-chart

Miami:
http://www.accblitz.com/blog/acc-football-depth-charts/miami-football-depth-chart

by RazzMcTazz on May 12, 2011 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions