Dabo Swinney, the head coach of Clemson University’s football team, has long been a figure of confidence and conviction in the college football world. Known for his leadership style, recruiting prowess, and the championship pedigree he’s built at Clemson, Swinney’s every move is scrutinized by fans, analysts, and the media. When he made the decision to hire a new defensive coordinator following the departure of the long-time defensive coordinator Brent Venables in 2021, Swinney’s choice inevitably garnered mixed reactions.
This piece will explore the implications of Dabo Swinney’s decision to select a new defensive coordinator, particularly in the wake of the departure of Venables, one of the key figures in Clemson’s sustained success. Reactions from the media, fans, former players, and experts have been varied. For some, it felt like a step backward—a “downgrade” from the high standards Venables set during his tenure. For others, it was a logical, albeit bold, move that reflected Swinney’s unwavering trust in his program’s philosophy and a shift toward a new era in Clemson football.
Before diving into the controversy surrounding Swinney’s choice, it’s important to first look at what Venables brought to Clemson. Venables was more than just a defensive coordinator for the Tigers; he was the mastermind behind the team’s dominant defense that helped them win two National Championships (2016 and 2018) and establish a dynasty in the college football landscape.
Clemson’s defense under Venables was legendary. His aggressive, blitz-heavy schemes and meticulous attention to detail were trademarks of a unit that consistently ranked among the best in the nation. Venables helped develop NFL talent, most notably players like Christian Wilkins, Dexter Lawrence, and Clelin Ferrell, who all became first-round picks in the NFL Draft. Venables’ ability to adjust his defensive approach to match the strengths of his players and the challenges posed by opposing offenses made him one of the most respected defensive minds in college football.
When Venables departed in 2021 to become the head coach at the University of Oklahoma, Clemson lost not just a coordinator but a pillar of their program’s success. His departure created a vacuum, and many wondered how Swinney would fill that void. The question wasn’t just about finding a qualified coach; it was about maintaining the same level of excellence that had defined the Tigers’ defense under Venables.
The Search for a Successor
Swinney’s approach to hiring a new defensive coordinator was revealing. He decided to promote from within, selecting his longtime assistant, Wes Goodwin, who had served as a defensive analyst for several years. Goodwin’s elevation to the role of defensive coordinator was somewhat surprising to some in the college football world. Though he was well-respected within the program and had gained experience working with Venables, Goodwin was relatively unknown to the wider college football audience.
At first glance, Goodwin’s promotion might seem like a natural fit. After all, Swinney has always emphasized continuity within his coaching staff, and promoting someone from within the program could keep the defensive culture that Venables built intact. Goodwin had been an integral part of the Tigers’ defensive success, but his transition from analyst to coordinator raised eyebrows, given his lack of experience in a high-profile role.
Goodwin’s hiring brought mixed reactions. Some fans and analysts were enthusiastic about the continuity he would bring, trusting that the culture Swinney had cultivated at Clemson would remain unbroken. On the other hand, others were skeptical, feeling that Swinney should have pursued a more high-profile, experienced coach to maintain the standard of excellence that had been set under Venables.
The “Downgrade” Debate
It didn’t take long for critics to start calling Goodwin’s hiring a “downgrade.” The argument was simple: Clemson had just lost a coaching legend in Venables, who had played a pivotal role in shaping one of the most dominant defenses in college football. Replacing him with someone who had never been a coordinator at the major college football level was seen by many as a step backward for the program. It wasn’t necessarily that Goodwin was thought to be unqualified—it was the lack of a proven track record that raised concerns.
Fans who felt this way pointed to Clemson’s performance on defense in the seasons following Venables’ departure. While the Tigers were still a solid team defensively, they were no longer the juggernaut they had been under Venables. Critics argued that the defense was showing signs of slipping, with inconsistent performances and a perceived lack of the aggressive, opportunistic playmaking that had defined Clemson’s defense in previous years.
The 2022 and 2023 seasons, for instance, saw Clemson’s defense struggle at times. While the Tigers still had talented players—such as Myles Murphy, Trenton Simpson, and Andrew Mukuba—there were moments when the defense seemed to lack the same level of cohesion and ferocity that had been a hallmark of Venables’ tenure. Some of this was undoubtedly due to the changing landscape of college football, with offenses becoming more dynamic and high-powered. Still, the notion that Swinney had opted for a “lesser” option in Goodwin was a sentiment that many fans found hard to shake.
The “Wow” Factor: The Other Side of the Coin
On the other side of the debate, there were those who supported Swinney’s decision and were optimistic about Goodwin’s potential. Some believed that Swinney had a clear vision for the future of Clemson’s defense and trusted Goodwin to execute that plan. This perspective highlighted the internal culture of the Clemson football program, emphasizing that Swinney’s approach was about long-term sustainability, rather than short-term results.
Supporters of Goodwin’s hire pointed to his deep understanding of Clemson’s defensive system. Having worked alongside Venables for several years, Goodwin was seen as someone who had absorbed much of Venables’ defensive philosophy. He was familiar with the players, the culture, and the expectations at Clemson. For those who believe in the “next man up” mentality, Goodwin’s promotion seemed to be a natural and logical progression, rather than a risky gamble.
There were also those who saw the hire as an opportunity for Clemson to carve out a new identity on defense. While Venables’ defense was known for its aggressive, blitz-heavy style, Goodwin might have a different approach that could still achieve success. College football was evolving, and Swinney’s decision to promote internally was seen by some as a sign of stability and adaptability, rather than an attempt to mimic the past.
Additionally, some were impressed by the quiet confidence and humility that Goodwin exhibited as a coach. Unlike some high-profile coordinator hires that come with an inflated sense of self-importance, Goodwin was seen as someone who was willing to put in the work and earn the respect of his players and peers. This grounded approach was attractive to those who believed that chemistry and fit were just as important as experience when it came to leading a defense.
Looking Ahead: The Verdict
Ultimately, the question of whether Goodwin was a “downgrade” or a solid hire will only be answered with time. College football is notorious for its volatility, and the landscape changes quickly. While the transition may not have been seamless, Clemson’s defense has continued to recruit well and remains one of the top programs in the ACC and nationally.
In a broader sense, Swinney’s decision to promote from within could be a reflection of the broader trends in college football. As the coaching carousel spins ever faster, stability and continuity within programs have become increasingly rare. Many top-tier programs have experienced significant turnover in recent years, particularly on the coaching staff. Swinney’s choice to remain loyal to his assistant and to trust his own program’s system may have been a calculated risk that will eventually pay off, even if it doesn’t look like an immediate home run.
What is clear, however, is that the hiring of Goodwin represents a new chapter for Clemson football—one that may or may not live up to the expectations set by the Venables era. Regardless of the outcome, Swinney’s decision will continue to fuel debate for years to come, as Clemson fans, analysts, and critics alike weigh in on whether the Tigers made the right call.
In conclusion, opinions on Dabo Swinney’s selection of Wes Goodwin as Clemson’s new defensive coordinator differ greatly. For some, it was a disappointing choice, a perceived “downgrade” from the legendary Brent Venables. For others, it was an opportunity for continuity and a natural progression for a program that has built its identity around loyalty, hard work, and stability. Only time will reveal whether Swinney’s gamble will pay off or whether it will become a cautionary tale of how even the most successful programs must adapt to survive in the ever-evolving world of college football.
