Two-Deep Recruiting Comparison: Clemson vs. Florida State 2010

by FIGUREFOUR on May 17, 2011 6:00 AM EDT in Recruiting

We continue to examine how Clemson's two-deep roster matched up to opponents from a season ago. Today we compare Clemson and FSU circa November 8, 2010. We were able to attain the two-deep roster posted on Tigernet prior to the Clemson/FSU matchup for this exercise (special thanks to T-Net for this info and STS member RazzMcTazz for running down links to the pregame two-deep for us).

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 matchup numbers show a Clemson team with superior recruiting talent on offense and a Seminole squad with more defensive and special teams talent. Overall, Scout rated Clemson's talent slightly ahead of the ‘Noles and Rivals scored the Seminole talent 0.15 stars per player better than Clemson. The average of both services gave FSU an overall 0.06 stars per player advantage heading into the contest.

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 Service	Offense	Defense	Specialists	Overall Average
Clemson	Scout	3.48	3.36	3.00	3.34
	Rivals	3.57	3.45	2.90	3.40
	Average	3.52	3.41	2.95	3.37
FSU	Scout	3.10	3.61	3.11	3.32
	Rivals	3.19	3.91	3.44	3.55
	Average	3.14	3.76	3.28	3.43

Table II: Star Ratings per Offensive Player

Clemson Offense								Florida State 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	67	ANDREW DATKO	6-6	307	Jr.	3	3
	63	Brandon Thomas	6-4	300	*Fr.	4	4		77	Zebrie Sanders	6-6	307	Jr.	4	4
LG	73	DAVID SMITH	6-5	315	*Jr.	3	3	LG	62	RODNEY HUDSON	6-2	288	Sr.	3	3
	62	Mason Cloy	6-3	295	*Jr.	3	3		73	Rhonne Sanderson	6-2	280	So.	2	2
C	55	DALTON FREEMAN	6-5	285	*So.	4	4	C	60	RYAN McMAHON	6-1	285	Sr.	3	3
	78	Ben Ramsey	6-4	280	*Sr.	N/A	N/A		66	Jacob Stanley	6-1	279	Jr.	N/A	N/A
RG	74	ANTOINE McCLAIN	6-5	330	Jr.	4	4	RG	73	RHONNE SANDERSON	6-2	280	So.	2	2
	54	Matt Sanders	6-6	320	*So.	3	3		76	Garrett Faircloth	6-6	292	Fr.	2	2
RT	72	LANDON WALKER	6-6	310	*Jr.	4	4	RT	77	ZEBRIE SANDERS	6-6	307	Jr.	4	4
	79	Phillip Price	6-5	300	*Jr.	N/A	N/A		59	Henry Orelus	6-2	300	Fr.	3	3
TE	83	DWAYNE ALLEN	6-4	255	*So.	4	4	TE	88	BEAU RELIFORD	6-6	254	Jr.	2	2
	82	Drew Traylor	6-5	245	*Jr.	3	2		85	Ja'Baris Little	6-3	237	Jr.	3	4
or	80	Brandon Ford	6-4	220	*So.	3	4	WR-X	83	BERT REED	5-10	175	Jr.	4	4
WR	6	DeANDRE HOPKINS	6-1	195	Fr.	4	4		82	Willie Haulstead	6-3	213	So.	3	4
	21	Xavier Dye	6-5	210	Sr.	3	3	QB	7	CHRISTIAN PONDER	6-3	222	Sr.	3	3
QB	11	KYLE PARKER	6-1	200	*So.	4	4		3	E.J. Manuel	6-4	234	So.	5	4
	10	Tajh Boyd	6-1	230	*Fr.	5	4	TB	38	JERMAINE THOMAS	5-11	192	Jr.	3	3
RB	8	JAMIE HARPER	6-0	235	Jr.	5	4	or	23	CHRIS THOMPSON	5-8	185	So.	3	4
	25	Roderick McDowell	5-9	185	*Fr.	3	4	or	33	TY JONES	5-10	210	Jr.	N/A	N/A
FB	30	CHAD DIEHL	6-2	265	*Jr.	2	3	FB	24	LONNIE PRYOR	6-0	213	So.	4	4
	48	Kasey Nobles	6-1	250	*Sr.	N/A	N/A		21	Debrale Smiley	5-11	231	So.	3	2
WR	18	JARON BROWN	6-2	200	*So.	3	3	WR-Z	8	TAIWAN EASTERLING	5-11	200	Jr.	2	3
	26	Marquan Jones	6-0	195	Jr.	3	4		84	Rodney Smith	6-6	222	So.	4	4
WR	7	BRYCE McNEAL	6-1	180	*Fr.	4	4
	87	Terrance Ashe	6-2	200	*Gr.	N/A	N/A

Table III: Star Ratings per Defensive Player

Clemson Defense								Florida State Defense
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	98	MARKUS WHITE	6-4	265	Sr.	4	5
	97	Malliciah Goodman	6-4	265	So.	4	4		95	Björn Werner	6-4	273	Fr.	4	3
NG	98	BRANDON THOMPSON	6-2	310	Jr.	4	4	NG	99	JACOBBI McDANIEL	6-0	298	So.	5	5
	89	Miguel Chavis	6-5	285	Sr.	3	3		92	Anthony McCloud	6-2	302	So.	2	2
DT	99	JARVIS JENKINS	6-4	315	Sr.	4	4	DT	93	EVERETT DAWKINS	6-2	285	So.	3	4
	94	Rennie Moore	6-4	270	*Jr.	3	3		97	Demonte McAllister	6-2	280	Fr.	4	4
BE	40	ANDRE BRANCH	6-5	260	*Jr.	2	2	RDE	49	BRANDON JENKINS	6-3	250	So.	4	4
	97	Malliciah Goodman	6-4	265	So.	4	4		58	Dan Hicks	6-4	260	Fr.	2	2
SLB	34	QUANDON CHRISTIAN	6-3	215	*Fr.	3	3	SLB	16	MISTER ALEXANDER	6-3	237	Sr.	3	3
	8	Justin Parker	6-1	225	Fr.	3	4		7	Christian Jones	6-4	228	Fr.	4	5
MLB	42	CORICO HAWKINS	5-11	230	So.	3	3	MLB	29	KENDALL SMITH	6-0	242	Sr.	4	4
	33	Spencer Shuey	6-3	250	*Fr.	3	3		11	Vince Williams	6-0	249	So.	3	4
WLB	20	BRANDON MAYE	6-2	235	*Jr.	2	3	WLB	13	NIGEL BRADHAM	6-2	240	Jr.	5	5
	46	Jonathan Willard	6-2	220	*So.	3	4		22	Telvin Smith	6-3	203	Fr.	3	4
CB	12	MARCUS GILCHRIST	5-11	190	Sr.	4	4	or	48	Jeff Luc	6-0	251	Fr.	5	4
	15	Coty Sensabaugh	6-0	180	*Jr.	2	2	FCB	5	GREG REID	5-8	185	So.	4	5
SS	2	DeANDRE McDANIEL	6-1	215	Sr.	4	4		1	Michael Harris	5-11	183	Jr.	3	4
	32	Carlton Lewis	6-3	215	*So.	3	3	SS	4	TERRANCE PARKS	6-2	218	Jr.	4	3
FS	31	RASHARD HALL	6-2	200	*So.	3	3		30	Jajuan Harley	6-2	212	So.	4	4
	5	Jonathan Meeks	6-1	205	So.	4	4	FS	10	NICK MOODY	6-2	228	So.	3	4
CB	29	XAVIER BREWER	5-11	190	*So.	4	3		15	Ochuko Jenije	5-11	201	Sr.	2	4
or	36	BYRON MAXWELL	6-1	205	*Gr.	4	4	BCB	27	XAVIER RHODES	6-1	210	Fr.	3	3
									20	Lamarcus Joyner	5-8	183	Fr.	5	5

Table IV: Star Ratings per "Specialist"

Clemson Specialists								Florida State 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	DUSTIN HOPKINS	6-2	185	So.	3	3
or	19	RICHARD JACKSON	6-0	195	*Gr.	3	3		29	Chris Finn	5-11	163	Fr.	N/A	N/A
or	13	SPENCER BENTON	6-2	195	*So.	2	2	P	45	SHAWN POWELL	6-4	235	Jr.	2	2
P	96	DAWSON ZIMMERMAN	6-2	205	Jr.	3	2		44	Derek Williams	6-1	180	Fr.	N/A	N/A
	19	Richard Jackson	6-0	195	*Gr.	3	3	KO	18	Dustin Hopkins	6-2	185	So.	3	3
KO	13	Spencer Benton	6-2	195	*So.	2	2	LS	64	Dax Dellenbach	6-1	224	So.	2	2
LS	71	Matt Skinner	6-7	230	*So.	2	2	H	45	Shawn Powell	6-4	235	Jr.	2	2
	52	Phillip Fajgenbaum	6-0	225	*Fr.	N/A	N/A	PR	5	Greg Reid	5-8	185	So.	4	5
H	16	Michael Wade	6-2	210	*Gr.	3	3		20	Lamarcus Joyner	5-8	183	Fr.	5	5
	14	Donny McElveen	6-2	205	*Fr.	N/A	N/A	KOR	5	Greg Reid	5-8	185	So.	4	5
PR	12	Marcus Gilchrist	5-11	190	Sr.	4	4		23	Chris Thompson	5-8	185	So.	3	4
	6	DeAndre Hopkins	6-1	195	Fr.	4	4
KOR	12	Marcus Gilchrist	5-11	190	Sr.	4	4

Tweet Comment 18 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Can you say coaching?

Clemson Offensive talent > FSU Offensive talent, yet FSU had the much better offense.

FSU Defensive talent > Clemson Defensive talent, yet Clemson had the better defense.

by ggggmen08 on May 17, 2011 7:47 AM EDT reply actions

Unfortunately

Your right. Dabo & Co handcuffed themselves on the offensive side of the ball when he signed on. Hopefully they can fix this in a year or two.

Don't give up, don't ever give up ~ Jim Valvano

by AParker on May 17, 2011 7:54 AM EDT up reply actions

I dont think i'd say FSU had the better offense

I’d say we have idiots calling plays in the red zone when you get inside their 40 pretty much the entire game and dont get jack from it.

Shakinthesouthland.com-Clemson sports analysis

Follow Shakin the Southland on Twitter!

by DrB on May 17, 2011 8:13 AM EDT up reply actions

But you can’t just say that anymore. We said Clemson had better talent the last two years, but this year that isn’t the case.

'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 17, 2011 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions

I can't necessarily say that about the coaching anymore either

by ggggmen08 on May 17, 2011 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions

With Dabo I think you can.

'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 18, 2011 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions

Hard to validate this during the first year of a system change:

FSU Defensive talent > Clemson Defensive talent, yet Clemson had the better defense.

though it’s not wrong if you look at as a snapshot with no other information.

by jasonole59 on May 18, 2011 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions

Just as hard to validate a coach's ability after one season as the head man.

Shakinthesouthland.com-Clemson sports analysis

Follow Shakin the Southland on Twitter!

by DrB on May 18, 2011 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions

So we have the predictions of players' performance,

based on their high school performance, years ahead of when they actually play in college games, rife with errors

then we distribute those estimates over a 1-5 integer scale…

then build some sort of composite of all those players’ rankings based on everyone on the 2-deep, even though they don’t all play equal amounts, and their play is being affected by the players opposing them…

Ignoring the effects of the decisions made by the coaching staffs before and during the game itself…

What is all this supposed to mean?

Did we get “3 quality” play from Xavier Dye in this game, or ever? Did we get “4.5 quality” from Boyd or Harper in this game? McDowell?

I don’t think any conclusion can be drawn other than the comparison of the average recruiting rankings of the teams. Nothing about what happened in the game, or who won or lost, or why.

by Cristo on May 17, 2011 12:35 PM EDT reply actions

Obviously. But it is a meaningful (if not perfect) indicator of whether Clemson's coaches are doing more with less, less with more.

Stats show that teams with higher star-rated recruits tend to do better, and that higher star-rated recruits tend to do better in the NFL draft (roughly 4 years after the star ratings are assigned), so clearly the star-ratings (though imperfect) have meaning— especially on average. If Clemson consistently loses to teams with lower star rankings I’ll have a differnt opinion of the coaching staff than if Clemson consistently beats teams with higher star rankings.

by RazzMcTazz on May 17, 2011 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions

It’s probably the best predictor of who will win in a matchup, actually. Google dr. saturday higher ranked recruiting team.

'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 18, 2011 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions

That series star-rankings by Dr. Saturday was really good. Thanks.

The compilation of the 5 articles is here.
http://www.tomahawknation.com/2011/1/31/1965917/recruiting-rankings-do-matter

by RazzMcTazz on May 19, 2011 2:50 AM EDT up reply actions

Great job on the analysis. Thanks for doing this again!

Interestingly, like with the Auburn-Clemson star-ratings and game results, Clemson narrowly lost to a team that had narrowly higher star ratings.

I was a bit surprised to see Clemson edge FSU on offensive player talent (especially on the O-line), but not surprised to see that FSU edged Clemson on defensive player talent. But both defenses, out-star-ranked the opponents’ offenses by almost exactly the same amount (0.26 advantage for Clemson’s defense over FSU’s offense, and 0.24 advantage for FSU’s defense).

by RazzMcTazz on May 17, 2011 3:58 PM EDT reply actions

FSU

Nice analysis!
I do think these teams are evenly matched talent-wise and have played games that indicate that closeness the last 5-7 years. Last year was a disaster as we dominated FSU like no one has in a long time in the first half and had jack-squat on the scoreboard to show for it. I was sitting in the FSU section and was worried that we ruined our opportunity due to pitiful play-calling in the redzone. Ironically, you should hear the FSU fans screaming about Jimbo’s incompetence. Then Manual ate up our D in the second half and one of our 20 kickers couldn’t put the ball in the ocean from the sand dunes.
Also, without Ellington, our effectiveness in the redzone was impacted significantly – just no go-to guy. It’s not always coaching as the majority of people on this site seem to think but do think Morris is a huge upgrade over Napier.

These are really good football games to watch; great speed, intensity and usually a few huge plays.

by rswdad on May 17, 2011 5:54 PM EDT reply actions

Manuel really didnt impress

FSU had success on two bombs, the speed option and a QB Trap. It just so happened that they connected on the drives when they got those two bombs.

And the playcalling in the redzone for Clemson was definitely a coaching issue. When Harper can run the ball all the way down the field and you abandon the run to pass, you have a serious problem with the calls.

Shakinthesouthland.com-Clemson sports analysis

Follow Shakin the Southland on Twitter!

by DrB on May 17, 2011 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Napier paid the price for that

And now we’ll see if his replacement has any more of a clue.

I guess he has slightly more experience, at least 1 year and in high school.

by Cristo on May 18, 2011 9:20 AM EDT up reply actions

Should correct Anthony McCloud and Debrale Smiley, both of whom were 3-stars post JUCO

'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 18, 2011 11:32 AM EDT reply actions

at least on rivals.

'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 18, 2011 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions