Defensive Line Recruiting Analysis: Clemson vs ACC Coastal 2006-Present

Today, we compare Clemson's defensive line recruiting endeavors to ACC Coastal teams.  Assumptions made in creating this article can be found here.  I should point out that we strictly used www.scout.com position classifications.  It is possible that some players ended up at a different position ball after they arrived on campus for any of the schools in this article.

Table I and Figure 1 (below) both illustrate Clemson's ranking based on defensive line class size since 2006.  Clemson (at 3.83 players per class) was well behind Virginia Tech (5.17 players per class) and also trailed Miami and UNC at four players per class each.  The Tigers recruited more players than Duke, Virginia, and Georgia Tech.  Overall, the average ACC Coastal football program brought in 0.36 lineman (at 3.47 per class) fewer than Clemson from 2006-present.

Notable items in this category are UVa's and Va Tech's '11 class (seven defensive linemen) and Clemson's seven total linemen in '07.  Clemson brought in four and five linemen over the past two seasons, respectively.  Georgia Tech's 2.33 linemen per class was surprisingly low.  You should really never have a class with only one defensive linemen and the Yellow Jackets did this three times over the past six classes.

Table I:  Recruiting Class Size

Class Size

Team

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

AVERAGE

Clemson

3

7

2

2

4

5

3.83

Duke

5

3

1

4

5

4

3.67

Georgia Tech

1

3

1

5

3

1

2.33

Miami (Fl)

5

3

4

5

3

4

4.00

North Carolina

5

3

4

2

5

5

4.00

Virginia

3

4

2

3

1

7

3.33

Virginia Tech

5

4

5

6

4

7

5.17

ACC Coastal Average

3.8

3.2

2.4

3.8

3.4

4.2

3.47

Players_signed_individual_team_graph_clem_vs_acc_coastal_medium
Figure 1:  Individual Institution Recruiting Class Size

Players_signed_graph_clem_vs_acc_coastal_medium
Figure 2:  Average non-Clemson vs Clemson Recruiting Class Size

Table II and Figure 3 show the average star-rating per player for each team, as shown below.  Clemson (3.63 stars/player) led the division in average star-rating.  North Carolina was just behind the Tigers at 3.56 stars per player and Miami rounded out the top three with 3.41 stars per player.  Overall, Clemson was 0.67 stars per player better than the ACC Coastal average.

Overall, there were 32 players signed by ACC Coastal schools who graded out at four stars or greater by BOTH Rivals and Scout.  We are providing a list of these linemen in Table III below.  Clemson accounted for ten of these signings.  You notice that Corey Crawford is listed in both the '10 and '11 classes, so the CU signings only include nine actual players.  Miami, UNC and Va Tech had the vast bulk of the remaining players on this list.

Table II:  ACC Atlantic Team Average Player Star Rating

Average Star Rating (per player)

Team

Service

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

AVERAGE

Clemson

Scout

4.00

3.14

4.50

3.50

3.25

3.20

3.60

Rivals

4.00

3.00

4.50

3.50

3.75

3.20

3.66

Average

4.00

3.07

4.50

3.50

3.50

3.20

3.63

Duke

Scout

2.60

2.00

2.00

2.25

2.00

2.25

2.18

Rivals

2.40

2.33

2.00

3.00

2.40

2.25

2.40

Average

2.50

2.17

2.00

2.63

2.20

2.25

2.29

Georgia Tech

Scout

2.00

3.67

2.00

3.20

3.33

2.00

2.70

Rivals

2.00

3.67

2.00

3.20

3.67

2.00

2.76

Average

2.00

3.67

2.00

3.20

3.50

2.00

2.73

Miami (Fl)

Scout

3.20

4.33

3.50

3.20

2.67

4.00

3.48

Rivals

3.40

3.33

3.50

3.60

2.67

3.50

3.33

Average

3.30

3.83

3.50

3.40

2.67

3.75

3.41

North Carolina

Scout

2.80

4.00

3.75

4.00

3.20

3.40

3.53

Rivals

3.20

4.00

3.50

4.50

3.00

3.40

3.60

Average

3.00

4.00

3.63

4.25

3.10

3.40

3.56

Virginia

Scout

2.33

2.50

3.00

2.67

2.00

3.00

2.58

Rivals

2.33

3.00

2.50

2.67

3.00

2.86

2.73

Average

2.33

2.75

2.75

2.67

2.50

2.93

2.65

Virginia Tech

Scout

3.40

2.25

2.80

2.33

3.25

3.00

2.84

Rivals

3.20

2.50

2.80

3.17

3.25

3.14

3.01

Average

3.30

2.38

2.80

2.75

3.25

3.07

2.92

ACC Coastal Average

Scout

2.72

3.13

2.84

2.94

2.74

2.94

2.89

Rivals

2.76

3.14

2.72

3.36

3.00

2.86

2.97

Average

2.74

3.13

2.78

3.15

2.87

2.90

2.93

Players_star_rating_individual_team_graph_clem_vs_acc_coastal_medium
Figure 3:  Schools' Recruiting Average Player Star Rating

Players_star_rating_graph_clem_vs_acc_coastal_medium
Figure 4:  Average vs Clemson Recruiting Class Average Player Star Rating 

Table III:  ACC Coastal Four Star Players (for BOTH Rivals and Scout)

Player

Class

Scout

Rivals

Hometown

HT/WT/40

College

Position

Jamie Cumbie

2006

4

4

Morris, IL

6-6/255/4.70

Clemson

DE

Ricky Sapp

2006

5

5

Bamberg, SC

6-5/225/4.70

Clemson

DE

Kourtnei Brown

2007

4

4

Charlotte, NC

6-5/225/4.60

Clemson

DE

Jarvis Jenkins

2007

4

4

Central, SC

6-5/284/4.90

Clemson

DT

Da'Quan Bowers

2008

5

5

Bamberg, SC

6-5/265/4.80

Clemson

DE

Brandon Thompson

2008

4

4

Thomasville, GA

6-2/294/4.84

Clemson

DT

Malliciah Goodman

2009

4

4

Florence, SC

6-3.5/252/4.55

Clemson

DE

Corey Crawford

2010

4

4

Columbus, GA

6-6/250/4.75

Clemson

DE

Josh Watson

2010

4

4

Chatham, VA

6-4/253

Clemson

DT

Corey Crawford

2011

4

4

Columbus, GA

6-6/250/4.75

Clemson

DE

Derrick Morgan

2007

4

4

Coatesville, PA

6-4/260/4.90

Georgia Tech

DE

Jason Peters

2007

4

4

Baton Rouge, LA

6-3/255/4.70

Georgia Tech

DE

J.C. Lanier

2009

4

4

Twin City, GA

6-2.5/344/5.70

Georgia Tech

DT

Allen Bailey

2007

5

4

Darien, GA

6-3/260/4.80

Miami (Fl)

DE

Marcus Forston

2008

5

5

Miami, FL

6-2.5/305/4.90

Miami (Fl)

DT

Dyron Dye

2009

4

4

Sanford, FL

6-5/225/4.70

Miami (Fl)

DE

Olivier Vernon

2009

4

4

Hialeah, FL

6-2/237/4.53

Miami (Fl)

DE

Anthony Chickillo

2011

5

4

Tampa, FL

6-4/235/4.70

Miami (Fl)

DE

Jalen Grimble

2011

5

4

Las Vegas, NV

6-3.5/255/4.80

Miami (Fl)

DT

Marvin Austin

2007

5

5

Washington, DC

6-3/300/4.90

North Carolina

DT

Tydreke Powell

2007

4

4

Ahoskie, NC

6-3/283

North Carolina

DT

Quinton Coples

2008

4

4

Chatham, VA

6-7/240/4.65

North Carolina

DE

Robert Quinn

2008

4

4

North Charleston, SC

6-4/255/4.78

North Carolina

DE

Donte Moss

2009

5

5

Jacksonville, NC

6-4/226

North Carolina

DE

Brandon Willis

2010

4

4

Duncan, SC

6-2.5/255

North Carolina

DT

Delvon Simmons

2011

5

4

Mc Keesport, PA

6-5/262

North Carolina

DT

Jason Adjepong

2006

4

4

Carteret, NJ

6-2/254/4.75

Virginia Tech

DE

John Graves

2006

4

4

Richmond, VA

6-3/250/4.88

Virginia Tech

DT

Zack McCray

2010

4

4

Lynchburg, VA

6-3/230/4.70

Virginia Tech

DE

Kris Harley

2011

4

4

Indianapolis, IN

6-2/260/4.95

Virginia Tech

DT

Corey Marshall

2011

4

4

Dinwiddie, VA

6-1/250/4.90

Virginia Tech

DE

Nick Jenkins

2007

4

4

Olney, MD

6-3/310

Virginia

DT

Clemson was again above average in terms of number of players signed and led this group of teams in terms of stars per player.  All around, it appears as though either Clemson or UNC did the best overall recruiting DL based solely on combined numbers.  Clemson could improve by bringing in another quality lineman or two, but overall the Tigers look pretty good compared to the ACC Coastal.

X
Log In Sign Up

forgot?
Log In Sign Up

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

Join Shakin The Southland

You must be a member of Shakin The Southland to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Shakin The Southland. You should read them.

Join Shakin The Southland

You must be a member of Shakin The Southland to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Shakin The Southland. You should read them.

Spinner

Authenticating

Great!

Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.

tracking_pixel_9347_tracker