The big 2014 Temple football preview: Owls were downright decent after September

Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.

1. There's hope

Temple went 4-42 from 2003-06. We all have a pretty good understanding of how tough this job was in the not-too-distant past, but in case you needed a reminder, there it is. And as a fan of a school that was once bad, then became good, I know that there is a nagging feeling in your gut even when things are going well.

Even when Temple was surging — from 4-42 to 9-15 in 2007-08, to 26-12 from 2009-11 — Owl fans had to have a bit of doubt, a bit of a lingering "What if things fall apart again?" worry. And at first glance, it certainly appears as if those concerns were justified; after three straight strong seasons and a top-25 F/+ ranking in 2011 (the 9-4 Owls were 25th), they fell to 4-7 and 84th in 2012. And after head coach Steve Addazio took the Boston College job, Matt Rhule took over, and Temple fell to 2-10 and 98th.

From a macro view, it appears the cycle is complete. Temple is back to the bottom of the FBS pecking order.

From a micro view, however, there's still hope. First, despite an awful record, Rhule inked the No. 59 class in the country according to Rivals.com; the Owls tied in the rankings with Iowa and Wake Forest and finished ahead of schools like Colorado, Boise State, Utah, Northwestern, and Cincinnati. Granted, they had larger classes than all of those teams (sans Wake), but still, this is excellent major-conference company for a mid-major team that did so poorly last year. It might not mean a lot for the 2014 team, but it certainly sets the table for future seasons.

Second, the 2013 team actually wasn't that bad after September. We'll get into this more below, but while the Owls were almost the worst FBS team in the country over the first month of the season — it takes quite a bit to lose to both Fordham and Idaho — they actually played pretty well once the calendar hit October. They were a combined 13 points from winning their final four games of the year, and it took some incredible, unlikely heroics for eventual AAC champion UCF to survive its trip to Philadelphia on Nov. 16. The offense improved dramatically, and the defense went from horrific to below average. This improvement took place over a long enough period of time (six to eight games, basically) that it could be considered sustainable, especially considering some of the star power that returns in the offensive backfield and at linebacker.

Temple almost certainly isn't going to be a good team in 2014. But there is evidence to suggest that while the Owls did indeed lose double-digit games for the first time since 2006 last fall, they have a future that is far from destitute. They should improve a bit this coming season, and they could improve quite a bit more in 2015.

2013 Schedule & Results

Record: 2-10 | Adj. Record: 6-6 | Final F/+ Rk: 98
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Adj. Score	Adj. W-L	5-gm Adj. Avg.
31-Aug	at Notre Dame	26	6-28	L	22.6 - 39.5	L
7-Sep	Houston	46	13-22	L	21.3 - 30.4	L
14-Sep	Fordham	N/A	29-30	L	20.9 - 60.3	L
28-Sep	at Idaho	116	24-26	L	19.0 - 39.3	L
5-Oct	Louisville	12	7-30	L	34.4 - 30.2	W	-16.3
11-Oct	at Cincinnati	64	20-38	L	41.3 - 30.3	W	-10.7
19-Oct	Army	100	33-14	W	23.0 - 22.0	W	-8.7
26-Oct	at SMU	84	49-59	L	43.2 - 50.3	L	-2.2
2-Nov	at Rutgers	91	20-23	L	29.2 - 35.1	L	0.7
16-Nov	Central Florida	21	36-39	L	43.7 - 37.3	W	1.1
23-Nov	Connecticut	93	21-28	L	25.8 - 22.2	W	-0.4
30-Nov	at Memphis	83	41-21	W	39.0 - 23.2	W	2.6

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk	Spec. Tms.	Rk
F/+	-0.2%	63	-13.6%	116	-2.2%	100
Points Per Game	24.9	89	29.8	83
Adj. Points Per Game	30.3	53	35.0	109

2. Just about the worst September imaginable

Temple allowed 6.4 yards per play to Fordham and averaged 3.9 against Houston. In the first four games of the year, the Owls gained more than 385 yards just once (410 against Idaho) and allowed fewer than 520 once (478 against Idaho). The Owls started 0-4, but the scores weren't even indicative of how badly they were getting outplayed; their yardage margin was minus-181 against Notre Dame, minus-224 against Houston, minus-135 against Fordham (!) and minus-68 against Idaho. This was a bad, bad team at the start of the year, perhaps the worst in FBS.

Adj. Points Per Game (first 4 games): Opponent 42.4, Temple 21.0 (minus-21.4)
Adj. Points Per Game (last 8 games): Temple 35.0, Opponent 31.3 (plus-3.7)

Though the score and yardage don't really indicate it, the ship began to turn around against Louisville. Against Cincinnati, the Owls actually outgained the Bearcats on a per-play basis (6.7 to 6.0) but couldn't hold onto the ball. The offense came alive against SMU and Rutgers, and the defense showed serious signs of life against UConn and Memphis.

To be sure, Temple still had plenty of deficiencies. Despite improved play, the Owls still managed to go 1-6 in an iffy conference, and overall, they still beat only Army and a Memphis team that had run out of gas. But there was clear, definitive improvement here. And a lot of it coincided with Rhule's decision to hand the reins to a freshman quarterback.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.12	72	IsoPPP+	99.7	63
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	45.8%	35	Succ. Rt. +	100.9	57
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	29.8	65	Def. FP+	97.4	84
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	4.4	55	Redzone S&P+	110.4	27
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	18.3		ACTUAL	19	+0.7

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	75	63	58	63
RUSHING	82	37	28	57
PASSING	46	82	86	62
Standard Downs		47	43	61
Passing Downs		89	88	54

Q1 Rk	54	1st Down Rk	65
Q2 Rk	40	2nd Down Rk	75
Q3 Rk	116	3rd Down Rk	43
Q4 Rk	61

3. A pass-first offense that struggled to pass

The offense clearly improved over the final two-thirds of the season, but this was still a situation in which the strengths of the personnel didn't match the intentions of the offensive coordinator. Rhule appointed Marcus Satterfield to the O.C. position when he came to town; Satterfield had previously overseen the spreading-out of a pass-happy Chattanooga offense, and despite Rhule's own run-first leanings, Temple threw the ball a lot in 2013 — about 5 percent more than the national average on standard downs and almost nine percent more on passing downs.

The problem is that the Owls couldn't really pass. The offense's biggest strength was run blocking. Its next-biggest strength was at the running back position. And even when freshman quarterback P.J. Walker began to emerge and show serious potential as a runner, he still averaged 38 passes per game over his final five starts. He was occasionally good at passing, mind you — 20-for-32 for 328 yards, four scores, and one interception against Memphis, for instance — but this was indeed an offense that seemed to play away from its strengths, even as it uncovered more strengths. We'll see how that changes as Walker continues to mature and the receiving corps looks for a couple of new go-tos.

Quarterback

Note: players in bold below are 2014 returnees. Players in italics are questionable with injury/suspension.

Player	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	Comp	Att	Yards	TD	INT	Comp Rate	Sacks	Sack Rate	Yards/ Att.
P.J. Walker	6'1, 200	So.	2 stars (5.4)	152	250	2084	20	8	60.8%	23	8.4%	7.1
Connor Reilly	6'3, 215	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	76	148	771	2	2	51.4%	7	4.5%	4.5
Clinton Granger				6	16	58	0	1	37.5%	1	5.9%	2.7
Thomas Rumer	6'3, 212	So.	NR
Frank Nutile	6'4, 199	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)

4. A world of potential

The Connor Reilly experiment just wasn't working out. Against Notre Dame, Houston and Idaho, Reilly threw 44 passes per game but completed just 50 percent of them at just 10.3 yards per completion. If you're passing first, you need to be gaining more than five yards per pass to be effective. (Actually, that goes for if you're passing first, second, third, or ever.) Against Louisville, Satterfield and Rhule decided to give the lion's share of the signal calling to a freshman from Elizabeth, N.J. The result: barring injury, Temple has its quarterback for the foreseeable future.

In eight games as Temple's No. 1 quarterback, P.J. Walker managed a passer rating of at least 150.0 five times. He also rushed for 92 yards against SMU and 59 against Memphis. He took quite a few sacks, as mobile quarterbacks are wont to do, but his per-attempt yardage (including sacks) was still almost 60 percent better than Reilly's. And in his last six starts, his completion percentage rose to 63 percent.

Walker has some serious tools here, and people are noticing. He's heading to the Manning Passing Academy in July, and he gives Temple a marketable star for potentially the next three years.

Like so many mobile QBs, Walker has to better learn when to throw the ball away instead of trusting his legs to get him out of trouble. And while his interception rate was acceptable for a freshman, it will still need to improve. But he's shown far more potential than a two-star true sophomore is supposed to have revealed at this point.

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Carry	Opp. Rate
Kenneth Harper	RB	6'0, 225	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	136	612	9	4.5	4.2	37.5%
Zaire Williams	RB	5'11, 195	So.	3 stars (5.7)	101	533	3	5.3	4.8	40.6%
P.J. Walker	QB	6'1, 200	So.	2 stars (5.4)	67	470	3	7.0	8.4	43.3%
Jamie Gilmore	RB	5'8, 190	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	34	179	0	5.3	4.5	47.1%
Connor Reilly	QB	6'3, 215	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	27	168	1	6.2	3.8	55.6%
Clinton Granger	QB				8	49	1	6.1	3.1	50.0%
Chris Coyer	TE				7	42	0	6.0	3.7	42.9%
Bashir Lee	RB	5'9, 180	RSFr.	3 stars (5.7)
David Hood	RB	5'11, 190	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)

Receiving Corps

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Target Rate	%SD	Yds/ Target	NEY	Real Yds/ Target	RYPR
Robbie Anderson	WR				78	44	791	56.4%	20.1%	60.9%	10.1	220	10.9	104.8
Jalen Fitzpatrick	WR	5'11, 180	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	75	38	429	50.7%	19.3%	60.6%	5.7	-94	5.9	56.8
Ryan Alderman	WR				57	40	548	70.2%	14.7%	53.8%	9.6	84	9.2	72.6
John Christopher	WR	5'10, 185	Jr.	NR	54	31	331	57.4%	13.9%	50.9%	6.1	-67	6.3	43.8
Kenneth Harper	RB	6'0, 225	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	33	26	241	78.8%	8.5%	54.8%	7.3	-45	6.8	31.9
Chris Coyer	TE				28	20	277	71.4%	7.2%	58.3%	9.9	47	10.7	36.7
Zaire Williams	RB	5'11, 195	So.	3 stars (5.7)	18	11	128	61.1%	4.6%	62.5%	7.1	-9	5.9	17.0
Nate Hairston	WR	6'0, 185	So.	2 stars (5.3)	12	7	62	58.3%	3.1%	33.3%	5.2	-27	6.9	8.2
Romond Deloatch	TE	6'4, 225	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	11	3	35	27.3%	2.8%	54.5%	3.2	-26	3.2	4.6
Chris Parthemore	TE				10	6	51	60.0%	2.6%	33.3%	5.1	-24	5.3	6.8
Tyler Karpinski	WR				6	4	22	66.7%	1.5%	100.0%	3.7	-26	3.1	2.9
Clinton Granger	QB				3	2	37	66.7%	0.8%	100.0%	12.3	13	6.9	4.9
Samuel Benjamin	WR	6'0, 195	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	2	2	12	100.0%	0.5%	100.0%	6.0	-8	3.3	1.6
Khalif Herbin	WR	5'7, 170	So.	2 stars (5.4)
Delvon Randall	WR	6'0, 190	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)
Brodrick Yancy	WR	5'11, 184	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)
Ventell Bryant	WR	6'3, 160	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)
Derrick Ingram	WR	6'1, 193	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)

5. Might want to run more

In 2013, seven Temple wideouts and tight ends were targeted more than 10 times. Only three averaged better than a paltry 6.1 yards per target; all three are gone. Without Robbie Anderson (18.0 yards per catch as a freshman before basically flunking off of the team), Ryan Alderman (70 percent catch rate), and Chris Coyer (71 percent catch rate), Walker's receiving corps might have some inexperience issues in 2014. Jalen Fitzpatrick is a potentially decent possession receiver, but when it comes to stretching the field, Temple might be relying on sophomore Khalif Herbin or a newcomer. Three-star receiver Deivon Randall enters the fold, as do quite a few high-two-star targets. But this is a young group.

Meanwhile, running backs Kenneth Harper and Zaire Williams both return; they were lacking a bit from a big-play perspective, but their efficiency numbers are strong, especially when accompanied by the threat of Walker running. Plus, Bashir Lee, a one-time Tennessee commitment, also joins the fold. Temple once again seems to have more potential on the ground than through the air; we'll see if this impacts the offensive philosophy.

It does bear mentioning, by the way, that a very good offensive line must replace four players who had combined for 56 career starts. Five players with starting experience return, and star recruit Aaron Ruff joins

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	3.19	3.26	41.6%	67.3%	20.5%	83.3	4.9%	8.8%
Rank	29	25	65	40	70	78	89	74	93

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Jeff Whittingham	LG				22
Kyle Friend	C	6'2, 305	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	21
Zach Hooks	RT	6'6, 300	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	21
Pete White	RG				14
Cody Booth	LT				11
Sean Boyle	RT				9
Brendan McGowan	LG	6'4, 300	So.	2 stars (5.3)	3
Jacob Quinn	C	6'5, 295	Jr.	NR	2
Dion Dawkins	LT	6'5, 325	So.	2 stars (5.4)	2
Leon Johnson	LT	6'6, 300	RSFr.	NR	0
Adam Metz	RG	6'5, 295	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	0
Eric Lofton	RT	6'5, 300	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	0
Aaron Ruff	OL	6'4, 295	Fr.	4 stars (5.8)
James McHale	OL	6'6, 298	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.24	103	IsoPPP+	92.5	104
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	46.3%	99	Succ. Rt. +	84.7	112
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	27.0	111	Off. FP+	90.6	124
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	4.3	76	Redzone S&P+	92.1	83
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	14.2		ACTUAL	13.0	-1.2

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	110	115	112	110
RUSHING	77	94	86	97
PASSING	121	118	123	117
Standard Downs		114	104	116
Passing Downs		107	109	47

Q1 Rk	107	1st Down Rk	115
Q2 Rk	120	2nd Down Rk	102
Q3 Rk	101	3rd Down Rk	90
Q4 Rk	94

6. Opponents knew to pass

I spent a lot of words on the offense, mainly because the offense is potentially exciting and interesting. The defense still has quite a bit of work to do. Temple had one of the least-efficient pass defenses in the country, with an ineffective pass rush and mostly feckless secondary. The run defense wasn't terrible, but opponents knew they could get yards through the air anytime they wanted. Louisville, SMU and UCF combined to complete 89 of 129 (69 percent) for 1,290 yards, 10 touchdowns and no picks, and for the season, opponents threw 24 touchdown passes to only three interceptions.

The Owls were terribly young in 2013 — just look at the number of returning sophomores and juniors below with lofty tackle totals — and did improve as the year progressed. They have a potentially strong set of linebackers and all sorts of newcomers in the secondary, but as we saw last year, the offense will come around before the defense does.

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	90.3	2.66	4.32	39.3%	55.3%	19.1%	56.3	3.5%	3.7%
Rank	106	28	126	66	7	64	121	94	116

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Matt Ioannidis	DE	6'4, 285	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	12	24.5	3.3%	7.5	3.0	0	0	1	0
Kamal Johnson	DT				12	15.0	2.0%	3.0	1.0	0	2	0	0
Hershey Walton	NT	6'4, 300	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	12	14.5	2.0%	2.0	1.0	0	1	0	0
Levi Brown	DT				10	14.5	2.0%	2.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Haason Reddick	DE	6'1, 215	So.	NR	9	12.5	1.7%	4.0	1.0	0	1	0	0
Sean Daniels	DE				3	10.5	1.4%	3.0	2.0	0	0	0	0
Averee Robinson	NT	6'1, 285	So.	2 stars (5.3)	11	8.5	1.2%	1.0	1.0	0	0	0	0
Shahbaz Ahmed	DE	6'3, 255	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	10	7.5	1.0%	3.0	2.0	0	0	1	0
Kiser Terry	DE	6'3, 250	So.	3 stars (5.5)	6	6.0	0.8%	2.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Shahid Paulhill	DL				5	5.5	0.7%	1.0	1.0	0	0	0	0
Brandon Chudnoff	DE	6'2, 250	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	9	5.0	0.7%	2.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Bryan Osei	DL	6'2, 250	So.	2 stars (5.4)	6	3.0	0.4%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Avery Ellis	DE	6'2, 235	So.	2 stars (5.3)
Michael Dogbe	DE	6'3, 223	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)
Freddie Booth-Lloyd	DE	6'3, 225	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Tyler Matakevich	WLB	6'1, 230	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	12	121.5	16.5%	11.5	1.0	1	0	3	0
Nate D. Smith	MLB	6'0, 230	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	12	56.5	7.7%	6.0	3.0	0	4	0	1
Blaze Caponegro	SLB				10	38.0	5.2%	5.5	0.0	0	1	0	0
Sharif Finch	SLB	6'4, 218	So.	2 stars (5.4)	11	26.0	3.5%	4.0	2.0	0	1	0	0
Rob Dvoracek	SLB	6'2, 230	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	8	17.5	2.4%	3.0	0.0	0	3	0	0
Jarred Alwan	MLB	6'1, 230	So.	3 stars (5.6)	12	17.5	2.4%	2.0	1.0	0	1	0	0
Michael Felton	LB	6'0, 215	Jr.	NR	12	6.0	0.8%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Avery Williams	WLB	5'10, 200	So.	2 stars (5.3)	9	5.0	0.7%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Buddy Brown	LB	6'3, 215	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)
Jared Folks	LB	6'2, 218	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)

7. Quality at linebacker

Again, there were some strengths in the front seven. Temple was fantastic against short-yardage rushing, and the top six linebackers combined for 32 tackles for loss. Tyler Matakevich was one of nation's best tackling-machine linebackers, Nate D. Smith is a developing play-maker, and tackle Hersey Walton is a nice roadblock up front.

As you see here, most of Temple's high-quality recruiting came on the defensive side of the ball; if three-star prospects like Freddie Booth-Lloyd, Jared Folks, or 2013 signee Buddy Brown came make an early impact, Temple could have the depth for an improved run defense overall. There's nothing saying the pass rush will improve, however.

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Abdul Smith	FS				12	63.5	8.6%	2	0	1	2	2	0
Tavon Young	CB	5'10, 160	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	12	46.0	6.3%	1	0	1	5	1	0
Anthony Robey	CB	5'10, 190	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	12	43.0	5.9%	2	0	0	3	0	0
Jihaad Pretlow	SS	5'11, 190	So.	2 stars (5.4)	12	33.0	4.5%	2	0	0	4	0	0
Stephaun Marshall	SS	5'11, 190	So.	2 stars (5.4)	12	30.0	4.1%	1.5	0	0	2	0	0
Zamel Johnson	CB				12	30.0	4.1%	0	0	0	2	0	0
Brandon Shippen	CB	5'11, 185	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	12	14.0	1.9%	0	0	0	1	0	0
Will Hayes	DB	5'9, 182	Jr.	NR	10	13.0	1.8%	0	0	0	0	1	0
Jahad Thomas	CB	5'10, 170	So.	2 stars (5.2)	10	4.0	0.5%	1	0	0	0	0	0
Brian Burns	DB				9	4.0	0.5%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Nate Hairston	CB	6'0, 185	So.	2 stars (5.3)
Nate L. Smith	FS	6'1, 185	So.	3 stars (5.7)
Boye Aromire (Virginia Tech)	DB	6'0, 192	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)
Artrel Foster	DB	6'0, 170	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)
Shahid Lovett	DB	6'2, 205	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)
Khiry Lucas	DB	6'1, 185	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)
Alex Wells	DB	6'0, 202	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)
Anthony Davis	DB	6'1, 175	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)
Cequan Jefferson	DB	5'11, 175	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)
Sean Chandler	DB	5'11, 173	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)
Shamir Bearfield	DB	5'11, 175	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)

8. A total transfusion in the secondary

So ... do you think Rhule may have felt the need for an upgrade in the secondary? In the 2014 recruiting class, Temple added three three-star junior college defensive backs and four three-star freshmen. Virginia Tech transfer Boye Aromire is also eligible, and former star recruit Nate L. Smith could potentially be ready for a larger role.

Whoever ends up actually playing, Temple clearly needed an upgrade. There were certainly some youth issues in this unit, with two freshmen and a sophomore among the top five in the rotation. But even taking a bad pass rush into account, the secondary was lacking. Defensive coordinator Phil Snow has options now; we'll see if he can find four players who can take a little bit of pressure off of the front seven.

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Paul Layton			61	42.8	3	16	24	65.6%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
Jim Cooper, Jr.	6'1, 195	So.	45	58.9	6	0	13.3%
Paul Layton			6	55.2	0	2	0.0%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Nick Visco			32-35	3-5	60.0%	0-0	N/A
Jim Cooper, Jr.	6'1, 195	So.	1-3	0-2	0.0%	0-1	0.0%

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Jahad Thomas	KR	5'10, 170	So.	24	19.8	0
Robbie Anderson	KR			10	21.5	0
Ryan Alderman	PR			10	5.8	0
Robbie Anderson	PR			4	4.3	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams F/+	100
Field Goal Efficiency	125
Punt Return Efficiency	34
Kick Return Efficiency	67
Punt Efficiency	24
Kickoff Efficiency	81
Opponents' Field Goal Efficiency	37

9. A special teams reset

Temple was awful in the place-kicking department, strong at punting and decent at punt returns in 2013. This means nothing, as the chief place-kicker, starting punter, and lead return men Ryan Alderman and Robbie Anderson are gone. Experience is minimal.

2014 Schedule & Projection Factors

2014 Schedule
Date	Opponent	Proj. Rk
28-Aug	at Vanderbilt	58
6-Sep	Navy	67
20-Sep	Delaware State	NR
27-Sep	at Connecticut	86
11-Oct	Tulsa	64
17-Oct	at Houston	41
25-Oct	at Central Florida	24
1-Nov	East Carolina	72
7-Nov	Memphis	95
15-Nov	at Penn State	38
29-Nov	Cincinnati	54
6-Dec	at Tulane	90

Five-Year F/+ Rk	-3.4% (68)
Two-Year Recruiting Rk	72
TO Margin/Adj. TO Margin*	-6 / -4.1
TO Luck/Game	-0.8
Approx. Ret. Starters (Off. / Def.)	13 (6, 7)

10. Like the Big East was, the AAC is loaded in the middle

And that might be a problem for teams like Temple and others (like Memphis) looking to move up in stature.

Temple might have the pieces in place to sustain last season's late improvement, and make no mistake: after September, Temple was a better team than the record would suggest; the Owls were a small handful of plays (including a mini-Hail Mary) away from a much better record, going 0-5 in games decided by one possession.

With players like P.J. Walker and Tyler Matakevich getting supplemented by an exciting recruiting class, things are shaping up for Temple in 2015. But with a rebuilt receiving corps and offensive line, not to mention uncertainties in the pass rush, pass defense, and special teams, the Owls probably can't count on improving beyond about 75th or 85th in the F/+ rankings. That's a problem considering eight opponents project no worse than 72nd.

There's potential for a strong start here, with home games against Navy, Delaware State and Tulsa and a less-than-intimidating trip to UConn. But anything less than about a 4-1 start will probably doom the Owls' postseason chances ... and I don't see a 4-1 start. Temple should improve this fall, but with so many sophomores and juniors (and, potentially, freshmen) playing key roles, 2015 is the year for the breakthrough.