The big 2014 Clemson football guide: Ferocity on D and options on O

Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.

1. Two years

Two years ago, Clemson had me confused. The Tigers were regressing on paper, but they had managed to win the ACC anyway. The offense was beginning to show immense potential, and the defense was an unmitigated disaster. A 10-win 2011 campaign was a sign of a breakthrough, while a 70-33 loss to West Virginia in the Orange Bowl was a debacle in every possible way. Getting an accurate read on the program as a whole was nearly impossible.

Can you trend in the right and wrong directions at the same time? If so, it would make sense that Clemson would be the one to figure out how. [...]

On paper, Swinney has addressed his team's weaknesses and enhanced its strengths. But on paper, this defense shouldn't have been anywhere near this bad last year either, so why should we automatically think it will change [...]

It is difficult to ignore the magnitude of upside the team will possess in 2012 (and, probably, 2013 and beyond); but it is also difficult to ignore the wackiness that generally accompanies Clemson football.

Since I wrote that in summer 2012, Clemson has gone 22-4. The Tigers are undefeated against teams not named Florida State or South Carolina. They've taken down LSU, Ohio State, Auburn (in 2012, yes), and Georgia. They've gone 14-2 in the ACC. They've scored 1,055 points and allowed just 611. They have built one of the best defensive lines in the country. They have held onto ace offensive coordinator Chad Morris. They have all but defeated the notion of "Clemsoning."

(Orange Bowl conqueror West Virginia, by the way, has currently lost 14 of 20 games.)

Stereotypes exist until they don't. Clemson has destroyed pretty much everything you had come to believe about Clemson in two years.

2. When the stats have high expectations

Even a rather sophisticated projection system -- and I've never claimed mine is all that sophisticated -- has to lean on generalizations to project future success. It's not necessarily going to know which breakthrough freshman is going to change everything, and it's definitely not going to know which key injuries are going to shift the narrative and affect the national title race. But it's going to tell you who has and hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt. And according to my May S&P+ projections, Clemson has all sorts of benefit at the moment.

Now, I cannot necessarily justify placing Clemson in the top five, not with a new quarterback, not without Sammy Watkins and Martavis Bryant. But if you view projections as the best starting point for conversation, this projection hints at just how much Clemson returns and just how well Dabo Swinney and his staff have been recruiting. The Tigers are going to have an absolutely ferocious front six/seven on defense, and while they're replacing quite a few difference makers on offense, they're making replacements from a deep pool of former four- or five-star recruits.

With trips to Athens and Tallahassee on the docket before September 21, we won't have to wait long to find out if Clemson is indeed in better shape than we think. And even with losses in both of those games, this team has a pretty high floor and could very well be playing like a top-10 team by the end of the season.

We live in a college football world where Clemson is suddenly one of the country's most trustworthy commodities. I'm jinxing the hell out of this, aren't I...

2013 Schedule & Results

Record: 11-2 | Adj. Record: 11-2 | Final F/+ Rk: 16
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Adj. Score	Adj. W-L	5-gm Adj. Avg.
31-Aug	Georgia	22	38-35	W	35.4 - 30.8	W
7-Sep	S.C. State	N/A	52-13	W	20.4 - 23.9	L
19-Sep	at N.C. State	92	26-14	W	23.1 - 26.6	L
28-Sep	Wake Forest	81	56-7	W	46.2 - 19.6	W
5-Oct	at Syracuse	75	49-14	W	47.4 - 18.6	W	10.6
12-Oct	Boston College	65	24-14	W	27.1 - 13.5	W	12.4
19-Oct	Florida State	1	14-51	L	32.7 - 27.3	W	14.2
26-Oct	at Maryland	63	40-27	W	38.6 - 23.0	W	18.0
2-Nov	at Virginia	79	59-10	W	39.9 - 16.7	W	17.3
14-Nov	Georgia Tech	34	55-31	W	49.2 - 22.2	W	16.9
23-Nov	The Citadel	N/A	52-6	W	35.0 - 14.7	W	18.3
30-Nov	at South Carolina	10	17-31	L	34.1 - 15.9	W	20.8
3-Jan	vs. Ohio State	9	40-35	W	52.2 - 21.9	W	23.8

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk	Spec. Tms.	Rk
F/+	+13.0%	19	+14.0%	13	-0.4%	78
Points Per Game	40.2	8	22.2	24
Adj. Points Per Game	37.0	13	21.1	13

3. Ignition

I'm talking a big game about Clemson here, considering the Tigers finished 2013 with an F/+ ranking of only 16th. But by the end of the season, this was one of the five or six best teams in the country.

• Adj. Points Per Game (first 3 games): Opponent 27.1, Clemson 26.3 (minus-0.8)
• Adj. Points Per Game (next 5 games): Clemson 38.4, Opponent 20.4 (plus-18.0)
• Adj. Points Per Game (last 5 games): Clemson 42.1, Opponent 18.3 (plus-23.8)

Clemson's ratings got penalized a bit by the fact that Georgia got destroyed by injuries (the Tigers were actually the only team to face the full-strength Dawgs all year, and one Georgia starter had already fallen by the end of the first quarter) and NC State collapsed after September. They faced the strongest version of both of those teams and played just well enough to survive.

But both the offense and defense found their respective grooves against Wake Forest, and things just escalated from there. The Tigers weren't good enough to keep up with Florida State, but nobody was. They whipped mediocre teams, and they fared as well as just about anybody in taking on two top-10 teams away from home to finish the season. This wasn't an elite team in September, but it almost certainly was in January.

So now we get to find out who was most responsible for last year's breakthrough. If Brent Venables' defense was the primary catalyst, that's very good news for 2014 -- Clemson returns most of a dominant unit and all of its defensive line. If the offense was still carrying most of the weight here, that could be problematic, at least at the start of the season. Morris' offense is going to be raw, inexperienced, and full of upside it might not realize until later in the year.

Youth is often a reason for September-to-November improvement, and while that doesn't explain 2013, it might explain 2014.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.23	27	IsoPPP+	107.2	32
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	49.2%	14	Succ. Rt. +	118.0	12
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	27.2	16	Def. FP+	103.4	21
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	4.7	27	Redzone S&P+	97.7	72
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	23.6		ACTUAL	24	+0.4

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	9	13	12	8
RUSHING	56	32	16	43
PASSING	9	10	14	7
Standard Downs		9	11	25
Passing Downs		24	31	24

Q1 Rk	17	1st Down Rk	16
Q2 Rk	13	2nd Down Rk	29
Q3 Rk	24	3rd Down Rk	13
Q4 Rk	46

4. A new, old identity

When you look at the above numbers and forget what you know about Clemson's 2013 personnel, you see what is kind of a straight-forward spread attack. Efficiency-based passing. Passing to set up the run. Super-duper pace. Great efficiency and shaky red zone production. These sound pretty normal, which makes sense -- Chad Morris cut his teeth in Texas high school coaching, where the spread was first to emerge and take hold. He knows those principles well, and he teaches them even better.

At Clemson, however, this nearly generic vision of the spread took on a new identity when handed over to Tajh Boyd and Sammy Watkins. With Boyd, Clemson had a quarterback who was half Cam Newton and half Brett Favre, an efficient runner with a stubborn streak, a passer willing to take a hit in the name of getting the ball downfield. And in Watkins, they had one of the best all-around play-makers in the country, a receiver with strong hands and route-running and an athlete capable of taking a short pass a long way.

Without these two (and Martavis Bryant, a less unique weapon but a lovely post-up target downfield), the Morris offense became something distinguishable from other spreads. Without them, it will just be a spread.

Now, because of Morris' own abilities, and because of the blue-chip prospects around him, "less unique" doesn't equal "bad." There is enough depth at both running back and receiver to spread the ball around in a both effective and unpredictable fashion. It just won't be the same, is all.

Quarterback

Note: players in bold below are 2014 returnees. Players in italics are questionable with injury/suspension.

Player	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	Comp	Att	Yards	TD	INT	Comp Rate	Sacks	Sack Rate	Yards/ Att.
Tajh Boyd				283	413	3851	34	11	68.5%	31	7.0%	8.2
Cole Stoudt	6'4, 210	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	46	58	413	5	0	79.3%	2	3.3%	6.8
Chad Kelly				10	17	58	0	0	58.8%	1	5.6%	3.1
Deshaun Watson	6'3, 190	Fr.	5 stars (6.1)

5. Stock up on bubble wrap

For all intents and purposes, Clemson currently has two quarterbacks on the roster. Granted, they're pretty damn good -- Cole Stoudt is a longtime backup who was nearly flawless in scrub time against S.C. State and Wake Forest last year and was at least competent against Florida State and Virginia, while freshman Deshaun Watson is a five-star, no-ceiling talent who was in for spring ball.

You could do much worse than having Stoudt and Watson on your two-deep. But to fill out a three-deep, you need to add a walk-on. Chad Kelly is gone, leaving CU with two and no more.

Watson suffered a broken collarbone this spring, and while he is expected to be fine in August, it was a scary reminder that the threat of injury is always lingering. And if Clemson suffers two of them in short succession this year, all bets are off. For all we know, former walk-ons Austin McCaskill and Nick Schuessler would fare just fine. But Swinney and Morris probably don't want to find out for sure.

(Through this lens, the thought of the line replacing three starters, including all-conference tackle Brandon Thomas, is a bit scary. Still, two full-time starters return, as do three others with starting experience. Recruiting hasn't been as high-caliber up front as it has in other units, but this was a good line last year and should be at least decent this year.)

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Carry	Opp. Rate
Roderick McDowell	RB				189	1025	5	5.4	4.4	45.5%
Tajh Boyd	QB				123	614	10	5.0	3.3	45.5%
D.J. Howard	RB	6'0, 195	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	57	213	2	3.7	4.2	28.1%
Zac Brooks	RB	6'1, 190	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	48	246	2	5.1	3.3	41.7%
C.J. Davidson	RB	5'10, 190	Jr.	NR	34	155	4	4.6	3.2	35.3%
Chad Kelly	QB				15	119	1	7.9	8.8	53.3%
Cole Stoudt	QB	6'4, 210	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	12	62	2	5.2	2.4	58.3%
Jay Jay McCullough	TE	6'3, 235	So.	3 stars (5.5)	6	43	0	7.2	2.5	66.7%
Tyshon Dye	RB	5'11, 215	RSFr.	4 stars (5.8)
Wayne Gallman	RB	6'1, 200	RSFr.	3 stars (5.7)
Adam Choice	RB	5'10, 200	Fr.	4 stars (5.9)
Jae'lon Oglesby	RB	5'11, 175	Fr.	4 stars (5.8)

Receiving Corps

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Target Rate	%SD	Yds/ Target	NEY	Real Yds/ Target	RYPR
Sammy Watkins	WR				131	101	1464	77.1%	27.6%	64.5%	11.2	343	11.1	220.6
Martavis Bryant	WR				65	42	828	64.6%	13.7%	67.9%	12.7	320	12.6	124.8
Adam Humphries	WR	5'11, 190	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	52	41	483	78.8%	10.9%	77.1%	9.3	32	8.4	72.8
Roderick McDowell	RB				37	29	199	78.4%	7.8%	30.3%	5.4	-121	5.4	30.0
Germone Hopper	WR	6'0, 180	So.	4 stars (5.9)	36	22	147	61.1%	7.6%	100.0%	4.1	-127	2.2	22.2
Mike Williams	WR	6'3, 205	So.	4 stars (5.8)	30	20	316	66.7%	6.3%	55.0%	10.5	78	9.4	47.6
Stanton Seckinger	TE	6'4, 230	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	30	21	244	70.0%	6.3%	65.4%	8.1	0	8.2	36.8
Jordan Leggett	TE	6'5, 240	So.	3 stars (5.7)	21	12	176	57.1%	4.4%	50.0%	8.4	21	13.0	26.5
Sam Cooper	TE	6'6, 250	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	13	6	50	46.2%	2.7%	33.3%	3.8	-37	5.4	7.5
Charone Peake	WR	6'2, 205	Jr.	4 stars (5.9)	11	8	84	72.7%	2.3%	63.6%	7.6	-7	7.9	12.7
D.J. Howard	RB	6'0, 195	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	9	8	123	88.9%	1.9%	20.0%	13.7	40	11.9	18.5
Daniel Rodriguez	WR	5'8, 175	Jr.	NR	8	7	20	87.5%	1.7%	N/A	2.5	-53	0.0	3.0
Jay Jay McCullough	TE	6'3, 235	So.	3 stars (5.5)	5	4	17	80.0%	1.1%	N/A	3.4	-27	0.0	2.6
Artavis Scott	WR	5'11, 185	Fr.	4 stars (6.0)
Kyrin Priester	WR	6'1, 185	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)
Demarre Kitt	WR	6'1, 195	Fr.	4 stars (5.9)
Trevion Thompson	WR	6'3, 185	Fr.	4 stars (5.8)
Milan Richard	TE	6'3, 235	Fr.	4 stars (5.8)

6. New blood, for better or worse

A well-executed spread run by a strong quarterback can overcome a lack of standout skill-position talent, as long as there is plenty of competence. We really don't know about standouts at this point, but there are options.

It's an interesting mix of limited veterans and high-upside youngsters. At running back, you've got senior D.J. Howard and juniors Zac Brooks and C.J. Davidson, who combined to average 4.4 yards per carry (decent efficiency, no explosiveness) backing up Hot Rod McDowell. You've also got two four-star true freshmen and two high-caliber redshirt freshmen.

At receiver, you've got veteran possession receivers Adam Humphries and Charone Peake (combined: 11.6 yards per catch, 78 percent catch rate in 2013), four-star sophomores Germone Hopper and Mike Williams, four four-star true freshmen, and three nearly interchangeable tight ends. I'm excited about Williams as a Bryant-type of downfield threat, but this unit's strength will be in its numbers, not its singular upside.

Of course, you'd still like to have the go-to star to go to in crunch time, and there's a good chance that if one emerges, he won't truly become the clear No. 1 until after the Georgia and FSU games.

Offensive Line

Category	Adj. Line Yds	Std. Downs LY/carry	Pass. Downs LY/carry	Opp. Rate	Power Success Rate	Stuff Rate	Adj. Sack Rate	Std. Downs Sack Rt.	Pass. Downs Sack Rt.
Team	112.1	3.15	3.53	42.5%	74.2%	18.8%	107.1	5.6%	6.6%
Rank	21	32	38	29	31	59	60	88	60

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Brandon Thomas	LT				36	2nd All-ACC
Tyler Shatley	RG				27
David Beasley	LG	6'4, 320	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	19
Gifford Timothy	RT				17
Ryan Norton	C	6'3, 280	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	13
Kalon Davis	RG	6'5, 340	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	8
Shaq Anthony	RT	6'4, 280	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	5
Isaiah Battle	LT	6'7, 275	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	4
Reid Webster	LG	6'3, 300	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0
Joe Gore	RT	6'5, 300	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0
Eric MacLain	LG	6'4, 295	Jr.	4 stars (5.9)	0
Jay Guillermo	C	6'3, 315	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0
Tyrone Crowder	RG	6'2, 345	RSFr.	4 stars (5.8)

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.32	117	IsoPPP+	91.4	107
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	34.0%	5	Succ. Rt. +	125.8	5
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	31.6	33	Off. FP+	100.5	55
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	4.5	96	Redzone S&P+	121.4	11
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	25.7		ACTUAL	30.0	+4.3

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	24	11	5	31
RUSHING	53	12	7	26
PASSING	16	17	9	53
Standard Downs		13	5	105
Passing Downs		18	12	79

Q1 Rk	12	1st Down Rk	15
Q2 Rk	23	2nd Down Rk	5
Q3 Rk	17	3rd Down Rk	27
Q4 Rk	28

7. ATTTAAAAAACK

Some defenses master the art of the bend-don't-break, handing you four to six yards but never allowing big plays.

But in 2013, a set of defenses brought back the art of the killing-machine defense. Michigan State, Clemson, Baylor, and Oklahoma State all packed the line of scrimmage and risked big plays in the name of minimal efficiency, and it worked quite well. Michigan State led the way, but Clemson did just fine as well, ranking 13th in Def. F/+ for the season.

Third-year defensive coordinator Brent Venables didn't need much time to craft a defense that works a lot like his 2007-08 Oklahoma defenses, which had a deep roster of attacking options of the line and allowed him to go to a semi-permanent nickel formation. Four linemen up front can almost create blitz pressure themselves, allowing seven super-fast defenders to sink into coverage.

Clemson leveraged offenses into short gains and mistakes. When the Tigers allowed a big play, it was a huge one -- they ranked 44th in allowing 175 10+ yard gains but ranked 81st in allowing 28 30+ yard gains -- but you can allow occasional big gains when you're forcing countless three-and-outs and 30+ turnovers. Clemson was fun and aggressive on defense in 2013, and while there may be a few more glitches in the secondary this year, the overall identity probably won't change much.

Defensive Line

Category	Adj. Line Yds	Std. Downs LY/carry	Pass. Downs LY/carry	Opp. Rate	Power Success Rate	Stuff Rate	Adj. Sack Rate	Std. Downs Sack Rt.	Pass. Downs Sack Rt.
Team	121.4	2.63	2.46	31.7%	58.1%	25.1%	169.6	6.9%	12.9%
Rank	9	26	9	6	17	9	3	18	2

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Grady Jarrett	DT	6'1, 295	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	13	45.0	6.1%	10.5	2.0	0	0	0	0
Vic Beasley	DE	6'2, 235	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	13	36.0	4.9%	23.0	13.0	0	6	4	1
Corey Crawford	DE	6'5, 270	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	13	35.0	4.7%	10.5	2.5	1	4	1	0
Shaq Lawson	DE	6'3, 270	So.	4 stars (5.8)	13	23.5	3.2%	10.0	4.0	0	1	0	0
D.J. Reader	DT	6'2, 325	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	13	17.0	2.3%	5.0	3.0	0	0	0	0
Josh Watson	DT	6'4, 290	Sr.	4 stars (6.0)	13	16.0	2.2%	3.0	1.0	0	0	0	0
DeShawn Williams	DT	6'1, 295	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	13	15.5	2.1%	1.5	0.0	0	1	0	0
Tavaris Barnes	DT	6'3, 270	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	13	7.5	1.0%	2.0	1.0	0	1	0	0
Roderick Byers	DE	6'3, 290	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	6	5.5	0.7%	1.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Martin Aiken	DE	6'2, 230	So.	3 stars (5.7)	12	5.0	0.7%	0.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Kevin Dodd	DT	6'5, 275	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	4	4.5	0.6%	0.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Carlos Watkins	DT	6'3, 295	Jr.	4 stars (5.9)	3	3.5	0.5%	1.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Scott Pagano	DT	6'2, 290	RSFr.	4 stars (5.8)
Ebenezer Ogundeko	DE	6'2, 255	RSFr.	4 stars (5.8)
Dane Rogers	DE	6'3, 270	RSFr.	3 stars (5.7)

8. If this isn't the best defensive line in the country ...

... it's in the top three or four. Clemson's was one of only three defenses to rank in the top 10 in both Adj. Line Yards and Adj. Sack Rate (the others: Virginia Tech and Tulane), and the entire two-deep returns in 2014. Senior end Vic Beasley is one of the best pure pass rushers in college football, and while he takes some risks and falls out of position from time to time, the rest of the defense is adept at covering for him. The tackles position is loaded and deep, and in Shaq Lawson, Corey Crawford, and others, Clemson has quite a few ends capable of standing up to run blocking. This is a nearly flawless unit; it's amazing to think of how much this line struggled barely two years ago.

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Spencer Shuey	WLB				13	74.5	10.1%	6.5	1.0	0	1	0	1
Stephone Anthony	MLB	6'2, 245	Sr.	5 stars (6.1)	13	70.5	9.5%	15.0	4.5	1	3	2	0
Quandon Christian	SLB				13	32.0	4.3%	9.0	1.0	0	2	1	1
Tony Steward	WLB	6'1, 230	Sr.	5 stars (6.1)	13	16.5	2.2%	2.5	1.0	0	0	1	0
Ben Boulware	WLB	5'11, 230	So.	4 stars (5.8)	11	16.5	2.2%	1.5	0.0	1	0	0	0
Kellen Jones	LB	6'1, 225	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	3	6.5	0.9%	2.0	1.0	0	0	0	0
T.J. Burrell	SLB	5'11, 215	So.	3 stars (5.5)	13	3.5	0.5%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
B.J. Goodson	MLB	6'1, 235	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	7	2.0	0.3%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Dorian O'Daniel	SLB	6'2, 210	RSFr.	4 stars (5.9)
Korie Rogers	LB	6'2, 220	Fr.	4 stars (6.0)

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Robert Smith	S	5'10, 210	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	13	59.5	8.0%	2.5	1	1	4	0	0
Bashaud Breeland	CB				13	47.5	6.4%	5	2	4	10	2	0
Jayron Kearse	S	6'4, 205	So.	4 stars (5.8)	12	35.5	4.8%	0.5	0	4	0	1	0
Travis Blanks	NB	6'0, 200	Jr.	4 stars (6.0)	11	28.0	3.8%	0	0	0	0	2	0
Darius Robinson	CB				13	27.0	3.6%	3	0	3	1	0	0
Martin Jenkins	CB	5'9, 185	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	13	23.5	3.2%	1	0	1	1	0	0
Garry Peters	CB	6'0, 185	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	10	18.5	2.5%	4.5	0	0	4	1	0
Korrin Wiggins	NB	5'11, 190	So.	3 stars (5.7)	12	13.0	1.8%	0.5	0	2	2	0	0
Jadar Johnson	S	6'1, 195	So.	3 stars (5.7)	11	6.0	0.8%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Jerrodd Williams	S				12	5.5	0.7%	0	0	0	1	0	0
Taylor Watson	S	5'10, 210	Sr.	NR	11	5.5	0.7%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Cordrea Tankersley	CB	6'0, 195	So.	3 stars (5.7)	12	4.5	0.6%	0.5	0	0	0	0	0
C.J. Jones	CB				9	1.5	0.2%	0	0	0	0	0	0
T.J. Green	S	6'3, 195	So.	2 stars (5.4)
Mackensie Alexander	CB	5'11, 185	RSFr.	4 stars (6.0)
Adrian Baker	CB	5'11, 165	RSFr.	3 stars (5.7)

9. An impeachable back seven

As good as the line was, it got plenty of help from the rest of the defense. Linebackers Spencer Shuey, Stephone Anthony, and Quandon Christian were spectacular in run support (24 non-sack tackles for loss between them), and corners Bashaud Breeland and Darius Robinson were aggressive on the outside, combining for seven interceptions and 11 break-ups.

Four of the five players I just mentioned are gone. Anthony's back, as are last year's top three safeties (Robert Smith, Jayron Kearse, Travis Blanks), but there might be some holes to exploit. If you think of the line as a unit that doesn't have much room for growth, one that is already as good as it can be, then losses in the back seven could cause this defense to regress overall.

"Could." There's still upside. Either five-star senior Tony Steward or four-star sophomore Ben Boulware will replace Shuey. Super-aggressive senior corner Garry Peters could hold up while playing a larger role, and sophomore Cordrea Tankersley and redshirt freshman Mackensie Alexander both surpassed Peters on the post-spring depth chart. Clemson still has more speed and depth than most of its ACC brethren, so it's conceivable that the drop-off will be small or non-existent. Still, it's something to watch.

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Bradley Pinion	6'5, 230	Jr.	56	39.4	0	N/A	20	N/A

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
Bradley Pinion	6'5, 230	Jr.	79	60.6	38	3	48.1%
Ammon Lakip	5'10, 200	Jr.	11	60.4	1	1	9.1%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Chandler Catanzaro			61-62	9-10	90.0%	4-4	100.0%
Ammon Lakip	5'10, 200	Jr.	5-5	0-1	0.0%	1-1	100.0%

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Sammy Watkins	KR			14	20.9	0
Germone Hopper	KR	6'0, 180	So.	4	17.3	0
Adam Humphries	PR	5'11, 190	Sr.	20	10.6	0
Daniel Rodriguez	PR	5'8, 175	Jr.	5	6.2	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams F/+	78
Field Goal Efficiency	24
Punt Return Efficiency	121
Kick Return Efficiency	73
Punt Efficiency	26
Kickoff Efficiency	78
Opponents' Field Goal Efficiency	78

2014 Schedule & Projection Factors

2014 Schedule
Date	Opponent	Proj. Rk
30-Aug	at Georgia	10
6-Sep	S.C. State	NR
20-Sep	at Florida State	1
27-Sep	North Carolina	35
4-Oct	N.C. State	66
11-Oct	Louisville	16
18-Oct	at Boston College	69
25-Oct	Syracuse	67
6-Nov	at Wake Forest	83
15-Nov	at Georgia Tech	44
22-Nov	Georgia State	128
29-Nov	South Carolina	7

Five-Year F/+ Rk	17.9% (19)
Two-Year Recruiting Rk	13
TO Margin/Adj. TO Margin*	6 / 2.0
TO Luck/Game	+1.5
Approx. Ret. Starters (Off. / Def.)	12 (4, 8)

10. Welcome to the starting lineup, Cole (or Deshaun)

Now go on the road beat Georgia and Florida State.

Schedule will dictate perceptions for Clemson in 2014. Even if the Tigers indeed finish the season in the F/+ top 10, there's a good chance they won't be good enough right out of the gates to win at Georgia or Florida State. Hell, a certifiable top-10 team might go 0-2 in those games. A 1-2 start, followed by eight straight mostly non-noteworthy games, will likely create a "Clemson's rebuilding" narrative.

But if the Tigers play well at home (and therefore take down both UNC and Louisville), they could very well be 9-2 when South Carolina visits.

I like this team. Both Clemson and South Carolina this year could be examples of the power of depth over star power. Both are losing irreplaceable players, but both have tons of options in creating a new identity.

The offensive line and cornerback positions give me pause, but only Georgia and Florida State can fully exploit the former issue, and less than half the schedule can exploit the latter. This might not actually be the fifth-best team in the country, but I'll be shocked if a three-year streak of 10+ wins isn't four at the end of 2014.

Follow @SBNationCFB Follow @SBNRecruiting