Few position groups drew more criticism during Clemson’s 2025 season than the safeties. Missed tackles were magnified, explosive plays lingered, and the season ended with a coaching change. For many fans, the verdict was clear: the position failed.
The reality was far more nuanced. On one hand, Ricardo Jones grabbed 6 INTs (tied for 2nd among full-time FBS safeties) and Ronan Hanafin emerged as a physical run defender in his first year after converting from wide receiver. On the other, the unit struggled
to finish tackles, contributing to Clemson ranking 117th nationally in preventing explosive plays.
To understand why Clemson overhauled the room in 2026 with transfers Jerome Carter and Corey Myrick, lets take a look at what happened and set the baseline with the 2025 group.
2025 Position Snapshot
🛡️Coverage 🟠 — Some were serviceable, some need improvement
🤝Tackling 🔴 — the worst performing category of the group
🏃Run Support 🟡 — Hanafin was the bright spot in run support
🎯Ball Production 🟡 — Jones was a ball hawk
📈Consistency 🟠 — Game to game performances were a toss up
The Scheme Demands
In Tom Allen’s 4-2-5 defense, safeties are the ultimate safety net. The scheme relies on aggression up front, requiring safeties to fit the run aggressively, communicate coverage shifts, erase errors made by the front seven, and limit catastrophic plays.
In 2025, the workload was immense. Opponents threw against Clemson at the highest rate in the country (ranking 136th in Opponent Pass Rate). Being tested at this rate exposed a significant flaw: missed tackles. Among FBS safeties playing 470+ snaps, good to elite players stay at or under a 10% missed tackle rate; Clemson’s rotation was 13%-18%. The group delivered splash-play takeaways, but lacked the down-to-down stability Allen’s defense requires.
2025 Player Reviews
Ricardo Jones (Transferred Out)
- Strengths: Ball Production | Needs Development: Tackling
- Profile: 🛡️Coverage 🟡 | 🤝Tackling 🔴 | 🏃Run Support 🟠 | 🎯Ball Production 🟢 | 📈Consistency 🟡
- Verdict: A true ball hawk. Once settled into the free safety role, his 6 INTs changed games. However, a high missed-tackle rate and inconsistent run fits held him back from becoming a complete player.
Ronan Hanafin
- Strengths: Run Support | Needs Development: Coverage
- Profile: 🛡️Coverage 🟠 | 🤝Tackling 🟡 | 🏃Run Support 🟢 | 🎯Ball Production 🟡 | 📈Consistency 🟢
- Verdict: Clemson’s most improved defender. Transitioning from wide receiver, he took over strong safety duties over the final eight games, offering steady run defense and physical tackling. Refining his coverage vision is his next step.
Khalil Barnes (Transferred Out)
- Strengths: Versatility | Needs Development: Defining Trait
- Profile: 🛡️Coverage 🟠 | 🤝Tackling 🟠 | 🏃Run Support 🟠 | 🎯Ball Production 🟠 | 📈Consistency 🟠
- Verdict: Provided experience and positional flexibility, but rarely dominated in any single phase and lacked physicality at times.
Kylon Griffin
- Strengths: Raw Upside | Needs Development: Snap Volume
- Profile: 🛡️Coverage 🟢 | 🤝Tackling 🟢 | 🏃Run Support 🟡 | 🎯Bal Production 🟡 | 📈Consistency 🟡
- Verdict: Flashed impressive range, a forced fumble, and tight coverage in limited action. He enters 2026 as an intriguing wild card.
The 2026 Offseason Response
Clemson didn’t just recruit talent from the portal—they targeted specific metric gaps. Incoming transfers Corey Myrick and Jerome Carter directly address the tackling and explosive-coverage deficits of 2025.
Corey Myrick (Transfer In – Southern Miss)
- Best Trait: Limiting Explosive Plays | Growth Area: Tackling
- Profile: 🛡️Coverage 🟢 | 🤝Tackling 🟡 | 🏃Run Support 🟢 | 🎯Ball Production 🟢 | 📈Consistency 🟡
- Verdict: Surrendered just 21 receptions for 109 yards on 33 targets in 2025. He adds an elite coverage grade, robust run defense, and an 11.6% missed tackle rate—a major upgrade for the back end.
Jerome Carter (Transfer In – Old Dominion)
- Best Trait: Turnover Creation | Growth Area: Consistency
- Profile: 🛡️Coverage 🟡 | 🤝Tackling 🟡 | 🏃Run Support 🟢 | 🎯Ball Production 🟢 | 📈Consistency 🟠
- Verdict: Matches Ricardo Jones’ turnover output with 6 INTs of his own, while offering far stouter run defense and a 11.3% missed tackle rate.
Position Comparison: 2025 vs. 2026
🛡️Coverage 🟡 — 🟢Myrick’s lockdown metric profile + Hanafin/Griffin development
🤝Tackling 🟡 — 🟡 Carter & Myrick lower the overall missed tackle baseline significantly
🏃Run Support 🟡 — 🟢Three dynamic run-fit defenders (Hanafin, Carter, Myrick).
🎯Ball Production 🟡 — 🟢 Carter replaces INT volume; Myrick adds PBUs/forced fumbles
📈Consistency 🟠 — 🟡 Modest improvement
The Bottom Line
The 2025 unit wasn’t a total failure, but it relied too heavily on individual splash plays to mask systemic issues.
The 2026 room is built on balance. Rather than depending on one player to create takeaways while another handles the run, Clemson now boasts four safeties whose skill sets naturally overlap. The talent profile suggests this room can transition from a liability into a defensive strength—now they just have to prove it on Saturdays.
Evaluation Methodology Each safety was evaluated using five core responsibilities in Clemson’s scheme, combining PFF metrics and advanced data:
- 🛡️ Coverage: PFF grade, NCAA passer rating allowed, targets, yards, and TDs surrendered
- 🤝 Tackling: Missed tackle percentage
- 🏃 Run Support: Run-defense grades and run-fit reliability
- 🎯 Ball Production: Interceptions, pass breakups (PBUs), and forced fumbles
- 📈 Consistency: Game-to-game grading stability throughout the season
