Much has been made in recent weeks about what Clemson doesn’t have this upcoming season.

It doesn’t have an experienced left tackle anymore. It likely doesn’t have an experienced kicker anymore. It lacks depth along both lines of scrimmage.

Sometimes, what a team doesn’t have can disqualify it from being a championship contender. The absence of certain critical elements can, over the course of a full season, keep a squad from realizing its full potential—even when other elements exist that suggest such a run is plausible.

The examination of what an entity doesn’t have is fine, but recently, Clemson’s flaws have become the story. It’s not a bad thing, and it’s not an incorrect reading of the situation. In order to make evaluations, the bad must be taken with the good. Lately, however, a few negative developments have seemed to outweigh a great deal more positive attributes.

For a real world example, let’s say Clemson football is a drinking glass. Expectations were high exiting spring practice, so let’s assume the cup was filled up at that point. Now, based on the developments outlined above, we have poured out some of the liquid in that glass. How much is a matter of interpretation, but there’s no question some of the luster has already worn off of the preseason hype.

Because the talk was so lofty—ACC title, playoff berth, etc.—the conversation has become more about the team’s warts than its strengths, which are more assumed than directly stated. It’s not that one should overwhelm the other, but both the positives and negatives should be addressed in the same way in order to draw a fully informed conclusion.

So, I’m flipping the conversation on its head. Earlier this week, we spent about an hour on the radio discussing Clemson’s standing as a championship contender in the ACC based on six factors (five were mine, one came from my co-host). With a clean slate, we examined which of these factors were present in Clemson’s 2015 football team.

It’s not an exhaustive list, but it’s fairly all-encompassing in terms of how we discuss champions. At the end, based on this list, the legitimacy of Clemson’s candidacy as a conference champion should be somewhat clear.

1. Favorable Schedule
This first issue is a big one. You could throw luck into this discussion, too, in terms of factoring into a championship, but you can’t predict how a team will fare in that regard. Schedules, however, can be weighed and measured.
If you looked at Clemson’s schedule prior to last season, Clemson had three or four games (depending on your perspective) that figured to directly impact the trajectory of the season. The bigger games on the schedule were almost all road games. It wasn’t a tough schedule in general, but the few difficult contests were ones the Tigers probably weren’t expected to successfully navigate.

This year, the schedule is a little bit different. I see four games that should be problematic—at Louisville, Notre Dame, Georgia Tech, and Florida State. I could see anywhere from three to six games falling under this category, depending on how you feel about Louisville’s loss of talent and the difficulty of road games at Miami and at N.C. State. Regardless, because of the presence of several potential roadblocks, I feel confident in saying Clemson doesn’t necessarily enjoy a “favorable” schedule.

2. Veteran Leadership
As long as Deshaun Watson stays healthy, leadership on offense is fine. Ryan Norton can handle things up front, no matter what position he plays, but this group will follow Watson wherever he wants to go. That’s not a problem.

Defensively, it’s a different story. Vic Beasley, Grady Jarrett, Deshawn Williams, Stephone Anthony, and Robert Smith are all gone. That was your leadership core last year. Maybe Ben Boulware can step up. Maybe Shaq Lawson is ready and able to ascend into that type of role. Maybe a healthy Travis Blanks can supply that leadership, or maybe it could come from Jayron Kearse. Maybe Mackensie Alexander’s swagger can rally the troops.

The loss of so much defensive leadership is arguably more detrimental than the loss of talent on that side of the ball from last season. Because of the potential that exists, I’ll say Clemson could be alright in this category, but I’m not sure the Tigers are at a championship level here at the present time.

3. Stability at Quarterback
This is a tricky one, especially given the value of the quarterback position today. Watson is obviously a supreme talent, but the question of stability isn’t necessarily about talent. Ohio State had stability at quarterback last season while dealing with a pair of season-ending injuries. Basically, to me, it comes down to two things: the starter staying healthy or a similar player waiting in the wings that is capable of picking up where he left off.

There’s nothing wrong with Watson’s game. Clemson fans don’t need to worry about him at all. What’s troubling is the lack of a proven backup coupled with Watson’s injury history. That combination creates the slightest amount of instability, although a healthy Watson erases all doubt here.

4. Solid Coaching
Clemson’s best offensive game was the bowl game last season. That tells me everything I need to know about the work of Jeff Scott and Tony Elliott. Frankly, it’s exciting—even from a neutral storytelling perspective—to see what these guys can accomplish when they put their heads together.

We know how Brent Venables goes to work now. He’s in elite company across the nation for his ability to mold defenses. He’ll get the most out of this group, with or without so many studs from the 2014 group.

At the top, Dabo Swinney knows exactly what he’s doing. He has the coordinators he wants in place that allow him to oversee the operation, but he’s also directly invested in the process of building the program. He’s in the trenches with everyone on a daily basis. He knows his players and knows how to reach them. This area is an A+++ for Clemson, and the rest of the nation is about to find out why when the offense doesn’t miss a beat.

5. Toughness in the Trenches
On offense, this is a big, fat question mark. I fully expect two freshmen to be starting at offensive tackle simultaneously at some point this season. That creates a gigantic unknown at a critical place on the football field.

The interior line should be fine, but the edges will need to prove themselves.

Clemson’s defensive line utterly demolished its entire schedule last season, save one quarter at Georgia. Many of those players are gone, but the front line of Lawson, D.J. Reader, and Carlos Watkins should be tough enough to impose its will more often than not. Kevin Dodd will need to prove he can bring it every down, and he has progressed since the start of the 2014 campaign.

I won’t go so far as to say Clemson doesn’t possess the requisite toughness, but I’ll need to see it manifested on the field of play before I count it in the Tigers’ column.

6. Impact Player(s)
You could begin and end this conversation with Watson, but that’s too easy. Both Mike Williams and Artavis Scott could be 1,000-yard receivers. Folks are raving about Deon Cain and Ray-Ray McCloud, and they aren’t even practicing yet.

Boulware can change any game with one crushing hit, and Lawson could reach double digits in sacks. Kearse can make plays at the line of scrimmage, and he can cover 50 yards downfield. Alexander is a legitimate shutdown cornerback.

Simply put, Clemson has impact players in spades.

So what does Clemson football look like? Well, judging from this list, here’s my assessment:

In terms of competing for a conference title, the Tigers have an elite coaching staff that can tap into a group of impact skill players led by a dynamic but oft-injured quarterback. This team may need everything to break right—no injuries, no schedule surprises, youngsters grow up—for a special season to occur.

Based on my criteria, Clemson looks to be set up fairly well to make a run. It’s not a perfect storm, and winning any kind of hardware is far from a certainty, but at least this looks better than the doom-and-gloom commentary we’ve all been perpetuating recently.

God Bless!

WQ