SUPPORT US. OUR SITE IS 100% OWNED BY A 2002 CLEMSON GRADUATE→ Get THREE Months of CST+ for just $1.00
Clemson’s approach to the transfer portal has clearly entered a new phase. The Tigers have already landed six portal commitments, the most they have ever secured in a single cycle, signaling a willingness to use the modern roster landscape to supplement, not replace, their traditional developmental model.
What this does not mean, however, is that Clemson has suddenly found guaranteed answers.
These players are just arriving in Tiger Town. Their futures are unwritten. That reality makes one thing especially important: they should be evaluated for who they are as players, not where they previously played, especially if more players from the Group of Five are added.
Roster turnover is now unavoidable. Clemson has experienced departures across multiple position groups, particularly on defense, as players leave for the NFL or exhaust eligibility.
The transfer portal is not a static transaction. It gives, and it takes away. Clemson’s roster today will likely look different tomorrow.
Clemson Portal Additions
- CB Elliot Washington II from Penn State ★★★★ Impact
- LB Luke Ferrelli from California ★★★★★ Impact
- S Jerome Carter III from Old Dominion ★★★ Impact
- DB Donovan Starr from Auburn ★★★★ Impact
- S Corey Myrick from Southern Miss ★★★ Impact
- DL Kourtney Kelly from West Georgia ★★★ Impact
In that environment, the focus has to shift from clinging to familiar names or schools to identifying players who fit the program’s standards, culture, and long-term needs.
One of the easiest traps for fans to fall into is judging portal additions by the logo on their previous helmet. A player coming from a G5 program or a lower level of college football often carries an unfair assumption: if he were good enough, he’d already be at a Power Four school.
That assumption doesn’t hold up historically or practically; just look at NFL rosters.
College football development is not linear, and it is rarely instant. Some players need time. Some didn’t have the grades. Some need the right system. Some simply weren’t fully formed prospects coming out of high school, and now the modern transfer portal finally allows those players to develop first and move later.
That reality is especially relevant when evaluating defensive additions like safeties Jerome Carter III from Old Dominion, Corey Myrick from Southern Miss and Kourtney Kelly from the University of West Georgia.
Their production and experience earned them this opportunity. The conference patch on his jersey is insignificant. Whether they succeed at Clemson remains to be seen, but dismissing any player based solely on his previous school ignores how often this exact path has worked at the highest levels of football.
There is a tendency in the portal era to expect instant results, and that’s understandable, but it doesn’t have to be that way all the time, either. That mindset overlooks the foundation Clemson has been built on: development.
Not every addition is meant to be a finished product. Some are long-term investments. Some need time to acclimate to speed, scheme, and competition. That doesn’t make them poor evaluations — it makes them realistic ones.
When you can dive into another program and bring in a player that’s developing, you do it.
At this point, it appears that the Tigers are filling specific needs created by natural attrition and modern roster movement. In the past, those spots would have gone almost exclusively to high school signees.
Today, they can also go to college players who have already logged meaningful snaps elsewhere.
The portal now allows Clemson to:
- Add experience to the roster
- Target players who have already developed physically
- Evaluate real college film, not just high school projection
None of that guarantees success, but it does expand the pool of legitimate options.
Clemson’s most active transfer cycle ever should not be viewed as a collection of instant solutions or future disappointments. It should be viewed for what it is: an ongoing evaluation process.
Take a look at what Clemson brought in last year vs. what they lost in the portal from a production standpoint.
In
- DE — Will Heldt | 20 Solo, 27 Assists, 7.5 Sacks
- WR — Tristan Smith | 24 Receptions, 239 Yards, 1 TD
- LB — Jeremiah Alexander | 11 Solo, 25 Assists, 1 Sack
Out
- WR — Noble Johnson ➡️ Arizona State | 3 Receptions, 16 Yards
- S — Sherrod Covil Jr. ➡️ Virginia Tech | 1 Solo
- WR — Troy Stellato ➡️ Kentucky | 1 Reception, 4 Yards
- DE — A.J. Hoffler ➡️ Georgia Tech | 9 Solo, 8 Assists, 1.5 Sacks
- DT — Tre Williams ➡️ Michigan | 12 Solo, 8 Assists
- CB — Tavoy Feagin ➡️ Ole Miss | No Stats
The numbers speak for themselves. If you can bring in players who are more productive, you’ve made a profit, even if larger numbers leave.
Players deserve the same patience Clemson has always preached; patience rooted in development, competition, and growth. Judging them solely by where they came from or even previous production misses the bigger picture entirely.
Will they all pan out? Who knows, but it is really important to remember that the helmet doesn’t determine the ceiling; the work does.
