Check out the advanced-stats glossary here. Below, a unique review of last year's team, a unit-by-unit breakdown of this year's roster, the full 2016 schedule with win projections for each game, and more.
1. Those damned anti-social numbers
In eight years at Duke, 7 is about the only number David Cutcliffe hasn't hit. He has won 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 games, with the three highest in the last three seasons.
After winning 20 games in his first five years, he's won 27 in the last three. Duke's stature hasn't been this consistently impressive since the early 1960s.
The progress in the win column is undeniable. After attending four bowls between 1955 and 2011, the Blue Devils have attended four in a row.
Win columns and spreadsheets don't always agree. On paper, Duke has been one of the most strangely consistent teams in the country. The Blue Devils ranked 104th in S&P+ in 2009 (Cutcliffe's second year) and 48th in 2013; otherwise: 75th, 71st, 74th, 70th, 73rd, and 75th.
How is this possible? How could the 2-9 team of 2010 rank basically the same as the 9-4 team of 2014? That can't be right, can it?
It appears there are two basic causes for this disparity: special teams and close games.
I've been tinkering with ways to better represent special teams in my S&P+ ratings -- the Special Teams S&P+ figures you see below are basically in beta mode and haven't been incorporated into the overall S&P+ ratings yet. Special teams are accounted for indirectly thanks to the use of field position (kicks, returns) and drive-finishing (place-kicking) factors, but my suspicion is that they may be undervalued a bit. I could be wrong. I'm working on it.
Duke's special teams unit has been one of the most consistently strong in the country. This is the most fickle of units, with ups and downs on a yearly basis, but in Brian Fremeau's Special Teams FEI ratings, the Blue Devils haven't ranked worse than 41st since 2009 and have ranked first (2014) and fourth (2015) over the last two years. If I determine special teams are indeed undervalued, the next S&P+ update will probably be friendly to the Blue Devils.
That said, there aren't any guarantees that I'm weighting special teams incorrectly. And close-game results suggest there might be an element of randomness to Duke's improvement.
From 2008-11, Duke went 6-13 in games decided by one possession. From 2012-15, the Blue Devils have gone 13-7. My SB Nation colleague Bud Elliott has an ongoing theory that coaching, quarterback play, and place-kicking (special teams!) have a role to play in close-game results, not unlike having a good bullpen in baseball. But randomness plays a role, too, and it could be that Duke is getting a little bit luckier. (And yes, I remember last year's Miami game. There are exceptions to every rule.)
Regardless, a floor in the 70s is pretty remarkable in and of itself. In the 13 years before Cutcliffe arrived, Duke's average S&P+/Estimated S&P+ ranking was 93.2, its average win total an incredible-for-all-the-wrong-reasons 1.7. Cutcliffe has raised the bar significantly.
He may be looking to raise it even further: a little more than a month after Duke's first bowl win since 1960, he went out and signed the ACC's fifth-best recruiting class and the No. 34 overall class, per the 247Sports Composite. Cutcliffe's 2016 haul was better than North Carolina's, Louisville's, Virginia Tech's, and former ACC mate Maryland's. His class was among the ACC's bottom four every year from 2010-15.
It's doubtful that this class makes a significant impact on the 2016 team, but the longer Cutcliffe stays in Durham, the healthier this program might become.
2015 Schedule & Results
Record: 8-5 | Adj. Record: 6-7 | Final F/+ Rk: 74 | Final S&P+ Rk: 75 | ||||||||
Date | Opponent | Opp. F/+ Rk | Score | W-L | Percentile Performance |
Win Expectancy |
vs. S&P+ | Performance vs. Vegas |
3-Sep | at Tulane | 119 | 37-7 | W | 87% | 100% | +22.4 | +23.0 |
12-Sep | NC Central | N/A | 55-0 | W | 89% | 100% | +19.1 | |
19-Sep | Northwestern | 52 | 10-19 | L | 51% | 70% | -16.6 | -12.5 |
26-Sep | Georgia Tech | 64 | 34-20 | W | 68% | 94% | +17.4 | +22.5 |
3-Oct | Boston College | 70 | 9-7 | W | 32% | 28% | -11.8 | -5.0 |
10-Oct | at Army | 108 | 44-3 | W | 98% | 100% | +20.0 | +29.5 |
24-Oct | at Virginia Tech | 59 | 45-43 | W | 61% | 82% | -6.1 | +4.5 |
31-Oct | Miami-FL | 62 | 27-30 | L | 35% | 36% | -19.7 | -3.0 |
7-Nov | at North Carolina | 24 | 31-66 | L | 8% | 0% | -35.7 | -27.0 |
14-Nov | Pittsburgh | 46 | 13-31 | L | 21% | 11% | -25.1 | -21.5 |
21-Nov | at Virginia | 78 | 34-42 | L | 9% | 3% | -15.7 | -5.5 |
28-Nov | at Wake Forest | 92 | 27-21 | W | 28% | 45% | -0.4 | +2.0 |
26-Dec | vs. Indiana | 61 | 44-41 | W | 29% | 29% | +6.3 | +5.0 |
Category | Offense | Rk | Defense | Rk |
S&P+ | 25.4 | 90 | 26.0 | 52 |
Points Per Game | 31.5 | 48 | 25.4 | 47 |
2. ...and then the defense gave out
From 2009-14, Duke's defense only once cracked the Def. S&P+ top 60. Cutcliffe seemed to have settled on a bend-don't-break approach to counter an athleticism disadvantage on that side, and the result was consistent decency.
The first half of last season, then, was pretty jarring. With breakthrough talent like former Ohio State transfer Jeremy Cash (safety) and linebacker Dwayne Norman, plus what was probably the deepest defensive line Cutcliffe has had, the Blue Devils were playing some of the best defense in the country. They were more aggressive than normal, and they held their first six opponents to 9.3 points per game. Many of those opponents were really bad at offense, but 9.3 PPG is still a remarkable figure.
Duke allowed 39.1 points per game over the final seven games. "Turnaround" doesn't have to mean something good. And not surprisingly, this defensive collapse coincided nearly perfectly with the season's downward turn.
- First 7 games:
Record: 6-1 | Avg. Percentile Performance: 69% (~top 40) | Yards per play: Duke 5.5, Opp 4.0 (+1.5) - Last 6 games:
Record: 2-4 | Avg. Percentile Performance: 22% (~top 100) | Yards per play: Opp 6.9, Duke 5.6 (-1.3)
Win Expectancy looks at the key stats from a given game and determines how frequently you could have expected to win that game with those stats. Duke's win expectancy in any one game didn't top 45 percent in any of the Blue Devils' last six contests. They were somewhat lucky to beat either Wake Forest or Indiana, much less both of them. (That perhaps made up for the fact that they probably should have beaten Northwestern in September, too. And this ignores all of the zaniness from the Miami finish.)
The cause for defensive collapse isn't immediately clear. The Blue Devils were rather stable from an injuries standpoint. It may have had something to do with offensive hopelessness, but ... this was a significant collapse.
While the offenses Duke faced early in the season weren't very good, S&P+ is adjusted for opponent. Let's put it this way: Duke gave up 20 points to Georgia Tech in September, then gave up 42 to Virginia in November; those offenses weren't very different in 2015, but UVA scored twice as much. And now Cash, Norman, and three-quarters of the starting defensive line are gone.
Offense
FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE | ||||||
Raw Category | Rk | Opp. Adj. Category | Rk | |||
EXPLOSIVENESS | IsoPPP | 1.22 | 85 | IsoPPP+ | 92.8 | 94 |
EFFICIENCY | Succ. Rt. | 40.1% | 86 | Succ. Rt. + | 99.2 | 76 |
FIELD POSITION | Def. Avg. FP | 26.9 | 13 | Def. FP+ | 28.3 | 45 |
FINISHING DRIVES | Pts. Per Scoring Opportunity | 4.0 | 102 | Redzone S&P+ | 86.6 | 114 |
TURNOVERS | EXPECTED | 24.1 | ACTUAL | 21 | -3.1 |
Category | Yards/ Game Rk |
S&P+ Rk | Success Rt. Rk |
PPP+ Rk |
OVERALL | 36 | 92 | 76 | 94 |
RUSHING | 37 | 71 | 69 | 66 |
PASSING | 45 | 94 | 75 | 99 |
Standard Downs | 110 | 103 | 112 | |
Passing Downs | 41 | 35 | 45 |
Q1 Rk | 92 | 1st Down Rk | 48 |
Q2 Rk | 75 | 2nd Down Rk | 72 |
Q3 Rk | 53 | 3rd Down Rk | 96 |
Q4 Rk | 63 |
3. Quick three-and-outs
Duke needed that defensive efficiency early on because the offense wasn't really pulling its weight. The Blue Devils had fallen from 40th to 76th in Off. S&P+ in 2014 and had to replace their starting quarterback, two leading receivers, and two linemen who had combined to start 95 games. They fell further.
Offensive coordinator Scottie Montgomery, who since left to take the head coaching job at ECU, implemented a high-tempo, pass-first system, but in both 2014 and 2015, the Blue Devils were done in by a lack of efficiency. Efficiency, the ability to stay ahead of the chains and avoid three-and-outs, is vital to any offense but is particularly vital to one that wants to move quickly. Going three-and-out is bad enough, but doing so in about 15 minutes is sure to weigh on your defense over time.
Quarterback Thomas Sirk was a solid runner and showed play-making potential on passing downs; the problem was that he faced a metric ton of passing downs. Run or pass, Duke couldn't establish its game plan in 2015. Montgomery was well-regarded but couldn't get a feel for how to drag Duke's offense back toward respectability. So now Zac Roper will give it a try. Roper was a graduate assistant for Cutcliffe at Ole Miss in the early-2000s, spent 2005-07 as a Cornell assistant, and has been on Cutcliffe's Duke staff since the beginning. We'll see what he attempts to change, but Duke simply must improve on offense, particularly on first down.
Quarterback
Note: players in bold below are 2016 returnees. Players in italics are questionable with injury/suspension.
Player | Ht, Wt | 2016 Year |
Rivals | 247 Comp. | Comp | Att | Yards | TD | INT | Comp Rate |
Sacks | Sack Rate | Yards/ Att. |
Thomas Sirk | 6'4, 220 | Sr. | 3 stars (5.7) | 0.8358 | 251 | 427 | 2625 | 16 | 8 | 58.8% | 11 | 2.5% | 5.9 |
Parker Boehme | 6'2, 220 | Jr. | 3 stars (5.5) | 0.8432 | 43 | 78 | 579 | 2 | 1 | 55.1% | 5 | 6.0% | 6.7 |
Quentin Harris | 6'1, 185 | RSFr. | 3 stars (5.5) | 0.8354 | |||||||||
Daniel Jones | 6'5, 210 | RSFr. | NR |
Running Back
Player | Pos. | Ht, Wt | 2016 Year |
Rivals | 247 Comp. | Rushes | Yards | TD | Yards/ Carry |
Hlt Yds/ Opp. |
Opp. Rate |
Fumbles | Fum. Lost |
Thomas Sirk | QB | 6'4, 220 | Sr. | 3 stars (5.7) | 0.8358 | 152 | 860 | 8 | 5.7 | 4.6 | 45.4% | 2 | 1 |
Shaquille Powell | RB | 125 | 542 | 3 | 4.3 | 3.5 | 32.0% | 0 | 0 | ||||
Shaun Wilson | RB | 5'9, 180 | Jr. | 3 stars (5.5) | 0.8455 | 84 | 424 | 3 | 5.0 | 8.8 | 26.2% | 2 | 2 |
Jela Duncan | RB | 5'10, 210 | Sr. | 3 stars (5.7) | 0.8764 | 69 | 479 | 4 | 6.9 | 6.7 | 47.8% | 1 | 1 |
Parker Boehme | QB | 6'2, 220 | Jr. | 3 stars (5.5) | 0.8432 | 40 | 207 | 5 | 5.2 | 6.1 | 40.0% | 2 | 2 |
Nicodem Pierre | RB | 6'2, 210 | So. | 3 stars (5.6) | 0.8541 | 15 | 76 | 0 | 5.1 | 1.6 | 60.0% | 0 | 0 |
Zach Boden | RB | 5'10, 200 | Sr. | NR | NR | 9 | 34 | 2 | 3.8 | 1.8 | 33.3% | 0 | 0 |
Joseph Ajeigbe | RB | 5'9, 215 | Jr. | 3 stars (5.5) | 0.8414 | 4 | 8 | 0 | 2.0 | 1.1 | 25.0% | 1 | 1 |
Brittain Brown | RB | 6'1, 195 | Fr. | 3 stars (5.7) | 0.8696 | ||||||||
Elijah Deveaux | RB | 6'0, 225 | Fr. | 3 stars (5.6) | 0.8522 |
4. All the pieces of a decent run game
The run game regressed quite a bit in 2015, from 43rd to 71st in Rushing S&P+, but there seems to be potential here. Sirk is big and relatively efficient, and more importantly, backup Parker Boehme is, too. With Sirk battling back from a February Achilles injury, it is quite possible that the starting job is Boehme's when the season begins.
Leading running back Shaq Powell is gone, but Powell wasn't very effective last year. Shaun Wilson was slightly less efficient but far more explosive, and 17th-year senior Jela Duncan both proved more efficient and showed more burst than Powell. Powell averaged 4.3 yards per carry; Wilson and Duncan averaged 5.9.
These two will be running behind a line that returns three of last year's starters and kept a cleaner backfield than almost any line in the country. Duke ranked third in stuff rate and fourth in Adj. Sack Rate. and, with some more high-profile recruits coming up in the freshman and sophomore classes, could be set up to succeed well into the future.
Though Wilson was far too inefficient, the combination of Sirk/Boehme, Wilson, Duncan, and this line appears to give Duke an excellent run foundation. We'll see how Roper attempts to deploy the run, however, in what has typically been a pass-first attack.
Receiving Corps
Player | Pos. | Ht, Wt | 2016 Year |
Rivals | 247 Comp. | Targets | Catches | Yards | Catch Rate | Target Rate |
Yds/ Target |
%SD | Success Rate |
IsoPPP |
Max McCaffrey | WR | 82 | 52 | 643 | 63.4% | 16.9% | 7.8 | 58.5% | 47.6% | 1.51 | ||||
T.J. Rahming | WR | 5'10, 165 | So. | 3 stars (5.7) | 0.8675 | 79 | 43 | 571 | 54.4% | 16.3% | 7.2 | 60.8% | 41.8% | 1.57 |
Johnell Barnes | WR | 62 | 34 | 411 | 54.8% | 12.8% | 6.6 | 59.7% | 45.2% | 1.37 | ||||
Anthony Nash | WR | 6'5, 200 | Sr. | 2 stars (5.4) | 0.8336 | 59 | 32 | 475 | 54.2% | 12.2% | 8.1 | 47.5% | 42.4% | 1.78 |
Shaquille Powell | RB | 44 | 35 | 212 | 79.5% | 9.1% | 4.8 | 47.7% | 34.1% | 1.24 | ||||
Braxton Deaver | TE | 40 | 21 | 183 | 52.5% | 8.2% | 4.6 | 62.5% | 42.5% | 1.00 | ||||
Shaun Wilson | RB | 5'9, 180 | Jr. | 3 stars (5.5) | 0.8455 | 25 | 19 | 207 | 76.0% | 5.2% | 8.3 | 60.0% | 48.0% | 1.55 |
Erich Schneider | TE | 6'7, 240 | Sr. | 3 stars (5.6) | 0.8096 | 25 | 15 | 123 | 60.0% | 5.2% | 4.9 | 68.0% | 40.0% | 1.24 |
David Reeves | TE | 20 | 13 | 104 | 65.0% | 4.1% | 5.2 | 65.0% | 50.0% | 0.90 | ||||
Jela Duncan | RB | 5'10, 210 | Sr. | 3 stars (5.7) | 0.8764 | 15 | 11 | 89 | 73.3% | 3.1% | 5.9 | 60.0% | 46.7% | 1.13 |
Chris Taylor | WR | 6'1, 180 | So. | 3 stars (5.5) | 0.8199 | 12 | 5 | 36 | 41.7% | 2.5% | 3.0 | 75.0% | 25.0% | 1.16 |
Terrence Alls | WR | 10 | 6 | 56 | 60.0% | 2.1% | 5.6 | 30.0% | 50.0% | 1.13 | ||||
Ryan Smith | WR | 5'7, 170 | Sr. | 3 stars (5.5) | 0.7994 | 9 | 6 | 85 | 66.7% | 1.9% | 9.4 | 66.7% | 55.6% | 1.56 |
Trevon Lee | WR | 6'1, 185 | So. | 3 stars (5.7) | 0.8743 | |||||||||
Quay Chambers | WR | 6'3, 220 | Jr. | 2 stars (5.4) | 0.8073 | |||||||||
Johnathan Lloyd | WR | 6'0, 190 | So. | 3 stars (5.7) | 0.8481 | |||||||||
Davis Koppenhaver | TE | 6'4, 230 | Jr. | 3 stars (5.6) | 0.8086 | |||||||||
Daniel Helm (Tennessee) |
TE | 6'4, 240 | So. | 4 stars (5.9) | 0.9182 | |||||||||
Aaron Young | WR | 6'2, 200 | RSFr. | 3 stars (5.5) | 0.8529 | |||||||||
Keyston Fuller | WR | 6'0, 180 | RSFr. | 3 stars (5.5) | 0.8625 | |||||||||
Scott Bracey | WR | 6'2, 200 | Fr. | 4 stars (6.0) | 0.9344 | |||||||||
Mark Birmingham | TE | 6'4, 235 | Fr. | 3 stars (5.7) | 0.8899 |
5. Early playing time available?
Over the course of about 39 passes per game, Sirk and Boehme basically targeted six players: four wide receivers, Powell, and tight end Braxton Deaver. Of those six, only two return: wideouts T.J. Rahming and Anthony Nash.
The loss of Max McCaffrey and Johnell Barnes means an already inefficient passing game must replace its two most efficient (or, perhaps the least inefficient) weapons. Rahming and Nash combined to average nearly 14 yards per completion, but Sirk and Boehme are going to need some help from an efficiency standpoint.
The good news is that the list of candidates is long. Sophomore Chris Taylor finished the spring ahead of Rahming on the depth chart, while senior Ryan Smith, junior Quay Chambers, and redshirt freshman Keyston Fuller all had their moments in spring ball.
Meanwhile, in the high-upside department, you one figures that sophomore tight end Daniel Helm (a Tennessee transfer and former four-star recruit) and four-star freshman Scott Bracey, the gem of the 2016 class, could contribute sooner than later. The big-play potential is clear, but we'll see if Duke can actually produce a receiver with a success rate over 50 percent for once.
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 | 110.1 | 3.07 | 3.24 | 38.6% | 72.0% | 13.9% | 260.0 | 1.2% | 4.1% |
Rank | 26 | 36 | 67 | 73 | 32 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 12 |
Player | Pos. | Ht, Wt | 2016 Year |
Rivals | 247 Comp. | 2015 Starts | Career Starts | Honors/Notes |
Matt Skura | C | 13 | 40 | 2015 1st All-ACC | ||||
Lucas Patrick | LG | 13 | 26 | |||||
Casey Blaser | RT | 6'5, 290 | Sr. | 2 stars (5.3) | 0.8045 | 13 | 26 | |
Gabe Brandner | LT | 6'6, 285 | Jr. | 3 stars (5.5) | 0.8043 | 13 | 13 | |
Tanner Stone | RG | 6'6, 300 | Sr. | 2 stars (5.4) | 0.7951 | 13 | 13 | |
Sterling Korona | LT | 6'7, 290 | Jr. | 2 stars (5.4) | 0.8251 | 0 | 0 | |
Trip McNeill | LG | 6'5, 300 | So. | 3 stars (5.6) | 0.8550 | 0 | 0 | |
Jake Sanders | LG | 6'5, 305 | So. | 3 stars (5.5) | 0.8389 | 0 | 0 | |
Zach Harmon | C | 6'3, 285 | So. | 3 stars (5.6) | 0.8497 | 0 | 0 | |
Austin Davis | RG | 6'4, 290 | Jr. | 3 stars (5.5) | 0.8470 | 0 | 0 | |
Christian Harris | RT | 6'6, 295 | So. | 3 stars (5.5) | 0.8417 | 0 | 0 | |
Reno Rosene | OT | 6'7, 325 | RSFr. | 3 stars (5.7) | 0.8656 | |||
Robert Kraeling | OL | 6'7, 270 | Fr. | 4 stars (5.8) | 0.8873 | |||
Liam Smith | OL | 6'4, 270 | Fr. | 3 stars (5.5) | 0.8695 | |||
Julian Santos | OL | 6'3, 315 | Fr. | 4 stars (5.8) | 0.8686 | |||
Jaylen Miller | OL | 6'3, 315 | Fr. | 3 stars (5.5) | 0.8535 |
Defense
FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE | ||||||
Raw Category | Rk | Opp. Adj. Category | Rk | |||
EXPLOSIVENESS | IsoPPP | 1.22 | 48 | IsoPPP+ | 99.1 | 71 |
EFFICIENCY | Succ. Rt. | 39.6% | 52 | Succ. Rt. + | 93.6 | 91 |
FIELD POSITION | Off. Avg. FP | 32.8 | 15 | Off. FP+ | 30.7 | 50 |
FINISHING DRIVES | Pts. Per Scoring Opportunity | 4.4 | 70 | Redzone S&P+ | 105.6 | 43 |
TURNOVERS | EXPECTED | 21.0 | ACTUAL | 20.0 | -1.0 |
Category | Yards/ Game Rk |
S&P+ Rk | Success Rt. Rk |
PPP+ Rk |
OVERALL | 60 | 81 | 91 | 71 |
RUSHING | 49 | 45 | 92 | 24 |
PASSING | 88 | 99 | 93 | 106 |
Standard Downs | 72 | 89 | 64 | |
Passing Downs | 86 | 87 | 81 |
Q1 Rk | 47 | 1st Down Rk | 77 |
Q2 Rk | 57 | 2nd Down Rk | 51 |
Q3 Rk | 110 | 3rd Down Rk | 63 |
Q4 Rk | 54 |
6. Extra aggression backfired a bit
Perhaps it's fitting that both Duke coordinators have Cornell ties. Big Red alum and former head coach Jim Knowles has led Cutcliffe's defense since 2010; his bend-don't-break approach led to immediate improvement, and he has sustained most of that improvement from year to year.
Set aside Duke's bipolarity problem in 2015 -- so good for half the year, then so bad -- and look merely at the full-season numbers. You get a vision of a team that took a few more chances, especially in pass defense, and ended up with more big plays in both directions. Safety Jeremy Cash made an incredible 18 tackles for loss, and the next six leading DBs combined for 18.5 TFLs and 31 passes defensed. The Blue Devils also allowed 51 passes of 20-plus yards, 110th in FBS. That's not very bend-don't-break.
Though everybody but Cash is back in the secondary, Cash was such a unique talent that I assume Duke will revert to a more flexible form in 2016.
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 | 102 | 2.84 | 1.97 | 33.7% | 57.6% | 19.7% | 60.9 | 4.0% | 3.7% |
Rank | 49 | 60 | 1 | 21 | 23 | 68 | 121 | 98 | 119 |
Name | Pos | Ht, Wt | 2016 Year |
Rivals | 247 Comp. | GP | Tackles | % of Team | TFL | Sacks | Int | PBU | FF | FR |
A.J. Wolf | DT | 6'4, 280 | Sr. | 2 stars (5.3) | 0.8105 | 13 | 37.5 | 5.0% | 4.0 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Carlos Wray | DT | 13 | 33.0 | 4.4% | 4.5 | 2.0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | ||||
Deion Williams | DE | 13 | 27.0 | 3.6% | 3.5 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
Kyler Brown | DE | 11 | 25.5 | 3.4% | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||||
Mike Ramsay | DT | 6'2, 295 | Jr. | 2 stars (5.3) | 0.7785 | 13 | 20.0 | 2.7% | 4.5 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Brandon Boyce | DT | 6'0, 255 | So. | 3 stars (5.6) | 0.8403 | 13 | 17.5 | 2.3% | 4.0 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Quaven Ferguson | DT | 6'2, 305 | So. | 2 stars (5.4) | 0.8169 | 13 | 13.0 | 1.7% | 2.5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Britton Grier | DE | 13 | 10.0 | 1.3% | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
Marquies Price | DE | 6'6, 245 | So. | 3 stars (5.6) | 0.8519 | 10 | 9.0 | 1.2% | 3.5 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Edgar Cerenord | DT | 6'1, 300 | So. | 3 stars (5.5) | 0.8514 | 13 | 4.5 | 0.6% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Allen Jackson | DE | 6'5, 260 | Sr. | 3 stars (5.5) | 0.8364 | 9 | 2.0 | 0.3% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Dominic McDonald | DE | 6'2, 240 | Jr. | NR | 0.8535 | |||||||||
Trevon McSwain | DE | 6'6, 265 | RSFr. | 3 stars (5.6) | 0.8625 | |||||||||
Zach Morris | DT | 6'3, 295 | RSFr. | 3 stars (5.5) | 0.8479 | |||||||||
Twazanga Mugala | DE | 6'3, 230 | RSFr. | 2 stars (5.3) | 0.8170 | |||||||||
Chidi Okonya | DE | 6'6, 220 | Fr. | 3 stars (5.7) | 0.8863 |
Linebackers
Name | Pos | Ht, Wt | 2016 Year |
Rivals | 247 Comp. | GP | Tackles | % of Team | TFL | Sacks | Int | PBU | FF | FR |
Dwayne Norman | WLB | 13 | 88.5 | 11.8% | 8.5 | 1.0 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 0 | ||||
Tinashe Bere | MLB | 6'1, 230 | So. | 3 stars (5.5) | 0.8376 | 11 | 41.5 | 5.5% | 4.5 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Zavier Carmichael | MLB | 6'0, 220 | Jr. | 3 stars (5.5) | 0.8384 | 13 | 24.0 | 3.2% | 2.5 | 1.0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
Ben Humphreys | WLB | 6'2, 215 | So. | 4 stars (5.8) | 0.9270 | 13 | 21.0 | 2.8% | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Chris Holmes | WLB | 6 | 4.0 | 0.5% | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
Joe Giles-Harris | LB | 6'2, 220 | RSFr. | 3 stars (5.7) | 0.8487 | |||||||||
Brandon Hill | LB | 6'3, 220 | Fr. | 3 stars (5.6) | 0.8767 | |||||||||
Koby Quansah | LB | 6'1, 220 | Fr. | 4 stars (5.8) | 0.8733 | |||||||||
Xander Gagnon | LB | 6'3, 225 | Fr. | 3 stars (5.6) | 0.8569 |
7. A rebuild on the run front
Duke's pass rush was nonexistent in 2015, but the Blue Devils made up for it with a combination of discipline up front and risk in the back. That resulted in a lot of big pass plays, but at the very least, the defense was never caught napping on passing downs rushes.
Duke was also excellent in short-yardage situations. This wasn't an elite run defense (45th in Rushing S&P+), but it pursued the ball well and stiffened at the right times.
Knowles played a lot of guys last year, and that might come in handy in 2016. Three of the top four linemen are gone, as is Dwayne Norman, but Duke still returns five linemen who made at least nine tackles (each made at least 2.5 tackles for loss, too) and three linebackers who made at least 21. And as with the offensive line, the freshman and sophomore classes seem to have a ton of promise. As many as four sophomore linemen and two sophomore linebackers could be in the rotation, plus at least a couple of redshirt freshmen. And end Chidi Okonya and linebackers Brandon Hill and Koby Quansah were among Duke's more highly-rated 2016 signees.
This could be an excellent front six in 2017 and beyond; there could still be some regression in 2016, however. (And at some point, that pass rush will need to bounce back and help out a bit.)
Secondary
Name | Pos | Ht, Wt | 2016 Year |
Rivals | 247 Comp. | GP | Tackles | % of Team | TFL | Sacks | Int | PBU | FF | FR |
Jeremy Cash | S | 12 | 79.0 | 10.5% | 18 | 2.5 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 0 | ||||
DeVon Edwards | CB | 5'9, 180 | Sr. | 2 stars (5.4) | 0.7759 | 13 | 75.5 | 10.1% | 2 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
Deondre Singleton | S | 5'11, 180 | Sr. | 2 stars (5.4) | 0.8248 | 13 | 61.5 | 8.2% | 6 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 0 |
Bryon Fields (2014) |
CB | 5'11, 180 | Jr. | 3 stars (5.5) | 0.8003 | 13 | 55.5 | 7.1% | 2.5 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
Breon Borders | CB | 6'0, 180 | Sr. | 2 stars (5.4) | 0.7957 | 13 | 47.5 | 6.3% | 4 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 0 |
Alonzo Saxton II | ROV | 5'11, 180 | Jr. | 3 stars (5.7) | 0.8568 | 13 | 31.0 | 4.1% | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
Phillip Carter | ROV | 6'1, 195 | Jr. | 2 stars (5.3) | 0.7923 | 13 | 15.0 | 2.0% | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Jeremy McDuffie | CB | 5'11, 170 | So. | 3 stars (5.7) | 0.8615 | 13 | 14.5 | 1.9% | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Corbin McCarthy | S | 5'10, 200 | Sr. | 2 stars (5.4) | 0.7500 | 13 | 11.5 | 1.5% | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Zach Muniz | CB | 5'11, 170 | Jr. | 3 stars (5.6) | 0.8256 | 6 | 2.0 | 0.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
Jake Kite | S | 6'0, 185 | Jr. | 2 stars (5.4) | 0.8041 | 11 | 2.0 | 0.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Jordan Hayes | S | 6'0, 180 | RSFr. | 3 stars (5.5) | 0.8373 | |||||||||
Brandon Feamster | S | 6'3, 210 | RSFr. | 2 stars (5.3) | 0.8051 | |||||||||
Dylan Singleton | CB | 5'11, 190 | Fr. | 3 stars (5.7) | 0.9038 | |||||||||
Mark Gilbert | CB | 6'2, 170 | Fr. | 3 stars (5.6) | 0.8610 | |||||||||
Javon Jackson | DB | 5'11, 180 | Fr. | 3 stars (5.6) | 0.8543 | |||||||||
Antone Williams | DB | 5'11, 175 | Fr. | 3 stars (5.7) | 0.8533 | |||||||||
Jacob Morgenstern | S | 6'4, 215 | Fr. | 3 stars (5.5) | 0.8366 |
8. Experience isn't an issue, at least
Every class, from freshman to senior, appears rather well-represented in the Duke secondary. You've got seniors DeVon Edwards, Breon Borders, and Deondre Singleton leading the way after combining for 12 TFLs and 23 passes defensed a year ago. You've got key sophomores and juniors. You've got a loaded class of true and redshirt freshmen, including four-star newcomer Dylan Singleton. This should assure solid experience and continuity each year moving forward. But now we'll see if it assures actual quality.
Even with Cash, Duke ranked an unacceptable 99th in Passing S&P+ in 2015. The lack of a pass rush was a major impediment, but the risk-reward balance just wasn't there. The Blue Devils gave up too many plays to benefit from the plays they were making, and on third-and-4 or longer, opponents were allowed to complete 20 passes for 15-plus yards and produce a 131.1 passer rating. Duke allowed only a 49 percent completion rate in those situations but allowed 14.6 yards per completion and picked off only two of 102 passes.
Special Teams
Punter | Ht, Wt | 2016 Year |
Punts | Avg | TB | FC | I20 | FC/I20 Ratio |
Will Monday | 65 | 43.5 | 13 | 20 | 23 | 66.2% |
Kicker | Ht, Wt | 2016 Year |
Kickoffs | Avg | TB | OOB | TB% |
Ross Martin | 75 | 59.4 | 22 | 1 | 29.3% |
Place-Kicker | Ht, Wt | 2016 Year |
PAT | FG (0-39) |
Pct | FG (40+) |
Pct |
Ross Martin | 42-42 | 18-21 | 85.7% | 8-9 | 88.9% |
Returner | Pos. | Ht, Wt | 2016 Year |
Returns | Avg. | TD |
DeVon Edwards | KR | 5'9, 180 | Sr. | 24 | 29.4 | 3 |
Shaun Wilson | KR | 5'9, 180 | Jr. | 4 | 41.0 | 1 |
Ryan Smith | PR | 5'7, 170 | Sr. | 29 | 7.1 | 0 |
Category | Rk |
Special Teams S&P+ | 2 |
Field Goal Efficiency | 5 |
Punt Return Success Rate | 73 |
Kick Return Success Rate | 34 |
Punt Success Rate | 16 |
Kickoff Success Rate | 60 |
9. Got legs?
Cutcliffe has a strong special teams reputation, and it's hard to worry too much about the Duke special teams unit at any time. Still, the Blue Devils must replace a couple of fantastic legs. Ross Martin made 89 percent of his long field goals, and punter Will Monday combined length (43.5 yards per punt) with finesse (20 fair catches, 23 punts inside the 20). DeVon Edwards is dynamite in the kick return game, but every time you have to replace a key leg or two, there's a chance you end up with a dud.
2016 Schedule & Projection Factors
2016 Schedule |
||||
Date | Opponent | Proj. S&P+ Rk | Proj. Margin | Win Probability |
3-Sep | NC Central | NR | 29.7 | 96% |
10-Sep | Wake Forest | 74 | 7.5 | 67% |
17-Sep | at Northwestern | 46 | -4.1 | 41% |
24-Sep | at Notre Dame | 11 | -15.7 | 18% |
1-Oct | Virginia | 68 | 6.2 | 64% |
8-Oct | Army | 124 | 23.5 | 91% |
14-Oct | at Louisville | 20 | -13.3 | 22% |
29-Oct | at Georgia Tech | 54 | -3.3 | 42% |
5-Nov | Virginia Tech | 32 | -1.2 | 47% |
10-Jan | North Carolina | 27 | -3.2 | 43% |
19-Nov | at Pittsburgh | 29 | -9.2 | 30% |
26-Nov | at Miami | 30 | -8.9 | 30% |
Projected wins: 5.9 |
Five-Year F/+ Rk | -1.2% (64) |
2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk | 37 / 52 |
2015 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin* | -1 / -3.1 |
2015 TO Luck/Game | +0.8 |
Returning Production (Off. / Def.) | 76% (80%, 73%) |
2015 Second-order wins (difference) | 7.0 (1.0) |
Our Duke blog
Our Duke blog
10. Lots of tossups
Despite constant residence in the 70s, S&P+ projects Duke 51st this year because of solid experience and last year's recruiting boost.
Based on the schedule, though, this season could break in a lot of different ways. They're given between a 41 and 67 percent chance of winning in six games, with two to three likely wins and four likely losses. That's six games projected within 7.5 points; if the good close-game fortune continues, so will Duke's bowl streak.
Whatever Duke's goals are this year, another fast start will be necessary. The Blue Devils started 8-1 in 2014 and 6-1 in 2015 and has a decent to good chance in five of the first six games of 2016. The second half of the season, though, is full of games in which Duke is either a slight underdog (at Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, UNC) or a larger one (at Louisville, at Pitt, at Miami).
S&P+ paints a conflicting picture of Duke's recent accomplishments, but Cutcliffe appears to be achieving balance among classes and depth that Duke has maybe never had. No matter what the upside is, Cutcliffe's Blue Devils appear to have staying power, and their moment of strong upside is not that far in the rear view. Duke might have another rise in it soon, but might have to check "seven wins" off of the bingo card this fall.