The big 2014 Tulane football preview: The future is suddenly bright

Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.

1. A tip of the cap

On Wednesday, we discussed a team undergoing a relatively impressive rebuild; two years in, Memphis' Justin Fuente has raised Memphis' F/+ ranking by almost 40 spots, and while the wins haven't come yet (and might not in 2014 because of a tough schedule), the Tigers are undeniably moving in the right direction.

Today, we're going to discuss a team that has one-upped Memphis in the "rapid improvement" department. Two years ago, Curtis Johnson took over a Tulane team that had ranked 114th in 2011 (five spots ahead of Memphis) and hadn't ranked better than 99th in what, for lack of a better term, I'll call the F/+ era (2005-present). Since going 12-0 under Tommy Bowden in 1998, the Green Wave had finished with a winning record just twice; since 2002's Hawaii Bowl win, they had not done so. From 2008-11, Tulane went 11-38.

The program was directionless, and the facilities and recruiting draw were unimpressive. And by the end of Johnson's second season, the Green Wave were fighting it out with Louisiana-Lafayette deep into the New Orleans Bowl.

Tulane lost to finish 2013 with a 7-6 record, but ... 7-6! Tulane! We're probably not talking enough about how impressive Johnson's performance was last year. Thanks almost entirely to the defense, which improved from 102nd in Def. F/+ in 2012 to 29th in 2013, Tulane was salty, fun, and downright decent last fall.

I thought the Green Wave would improve; I didn't see seven wins.

2. It makes sense, really

LSU has finished in the AP top 20 for 11 of the last 13 years, top 10 for seven. Louisiana-Lafayette has won nine games for three straight years after failing to do so for more than three decades; the Ragin' Cajuns are now the three-time defending New Orleans Bowl champions. Louisiana-Monroe has won 14 games in two years and reached its first ever bowl in 2012. Louisiana Tech won 17 games in 2011-12 and spent some time ranked in the AP polls in 2012.

And now Tulane just popped up to reach a bowl for the first time in more than a decade.

Louisiana football is humming right now. And this makes perfect sense; Louisiana is absolutely loaded with football prospects.

So which state takes the crown? Louisiana. [...]

Over the period of study Louisiana produced Division I-FBS recruits at almost two and a half times the national average. It ranked first in both average per capita rake and in median per capita rate, though it didn’t rank first in all years. Alabama is a strong runner up, having ranked first in two years (both 2013 and 2012, so maybe there is a trend starting).

Now, academic standards at Tulane and UL-Monroe have forced those schools to expand outside of the state for some of their recruiting needs, but only so much. All five FBS schools in the state of Louisiana have won at least seven games in one of the last two seasons.

When you take per-capita football products into account, this isn't very surprising. In fact, the surprising part might be that four of these five schools were struggling not too long ago. Good hires make all the difference. And so far, it looks like Curtis Johnson was one hell of a hire.

2013 Schedule & Results

Record: 7-6 | Adj. Record: 4-9 | Final F/+ Rk: 70
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Adj. Score	Adj. W-L	5-gm Adj. Avg.
29-Aug	Jackson State	N/A	34-7	W	20.8 - 33.2	L
7-Sep	South Alabama	68	39-41	L	27.6 - 30.8	L
12-Sep	at Louisiana Tech	112	24-15	W	18.5 - 16.3	W
21-Sep	at Syracuse	75	17-52	L	20.7 - 37.5	L
28-Sep	at UL-Monroe	109	31-14	W	22.9 - 20.2	W	-5.5
5-Oct	North Texas	51	24-21	W	19.6 - 27.6	L	-4.7
12-Oct	East Carolina	40	36-33	W	24.9 - 26.0	L	-4.2
26-Oct	Tulsa	94	14-7	W	19.0 - 22.5	L	-5.4
2-Nov	at Florida Atlantic	73	17-34	L	13.5 - 26.8	L	-4.7
9-Nov	at UTSA	67	7-10	L	22.1 - 23.1	L	-5.4
23-Nov	UTEP	119	45-3	W	28.5 - 15.2	W	-1.1
30-Nov	at Rice	69	13-17	L	2.2 - 14.3	L	-3.3
21-Dec	UL-Lafayette	86	21-24	L	31.3 - 16.1	W	0.4

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk	Spec. Tms.	Rk
F/+	-11.6%	105	+7.4%	29	+0.5%	56
Points Per Game	24.8	91	21.4	18
Adj. Points Per Game	20.9	113	23.8	27

3. The defense was decent, then good, then great

Tulane and Memphis in 2013 were the same but different. Both teams featured offenses that never came around and held them back. Both teams rode defense as far as it would take them. But while Memphis' defense was very good at the beginning of the season and eventually gave out after a string of close losses, Tulane's just got better and better.

Adj. Points Per Game (first 4 games): Opponent 29.5, Tulane 21.9 (minus-7.6)
Adj. Points Per Game (next 6 games): Opponent 24.4, Tulane 20.3 (minus-4.1)
Adj. Points Per Game (last 3 games): Tulane 20.7, Opponent 15.2 (plus-5.5)

The Green Wave allowed 6.0 yards per play to South Alabama and 5.7 to Syracuse as part of a hit-or-miss September. But after pulling off a strangely offense-friendly 36-33 win over ECU on October 12, the defense would allow more than 4.9 yards per play in a game just one time. (Strangely, UTSA averaged 5.8 per play but scored just 10 points.)

A series of close wins kept Tulane in contention for the Conference USA West title into November, but a series of close losses finished them off. The offense played at even an average level (~28.0 Adj. Points) just twice all year; that usually catches up to you.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.05	108	IsoPPP+	90.9	107
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	37.6%	109	Succ. Rt. +	88.9	97
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	30.4	77	Def. FP+	95.4	103
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	4.0	83	Redzone S&P+	96.6	76
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	21.7		ACTUAL	24	+2.3

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	118	105	98	116
RUSHING	102	103	97	105
PASSING	103	101	100	106
Standard Downs		108	106	100
Passing Downs		97	82	117

Q1 Rk	110	1st Down Rk	109
Q2 Rk	96	2nd Down Rk	112
Q3 Rk	103	3rd Down Rk	113
Q4 Rk	124

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.

Nick Montana

6'3, 208

Sr.

3 stars (5.5)

158

296

1717

14

10

53.4%

22

6.9%

5.0

Devin Powell

6'3, 213

So.

2 stars (5.4)

60

110

681

5

5

54.5%

9

7.6%

5.3

Tanner Lee

6'4, 203

RSFr.

2 stars (5.3)

Glen Cuiellette

6'1, 205

Fr.

3 stars (5.5)

4. Let's start over

The offense really was bad last year. Tulane was something approaching mediocre -- not good, not terrible -- when it came to converting on passing downs (82nd in Passing Downs Success Rate+) and finishing drives (76th in Redzone S&P+); the Green Wave were something approaching terrible in just about every other possible way.

Nick Montana's completion percentage of 53 percent would have been fine if he was averaging about 16 yards per completion, but he averaged 10.9. Orleans Darkwa was a strong short-yardage runner with almost no explosiveness. Of the seven players targeted by at least 15 passes in 2013, only two averaged better than a miserable 5.6 yards per target, and one (Rob Kelley) is a fullback.

All things considered, the fact that Ryan Grant averaged 8.5 yards per target and racked up 1,039 receiving yards for the season is damn near super-human.

Grant is gone now, as is Darkwa. Without his best long and short threats, offensive coordinator Eric Price appears to be going young. Really young. Redshirt freshmen Tanner Lee (quarterback) and Sherman Badie (running back) finished spring practice atop the depth chart in the backfield (PDF). (Lee technically finished tied with sophomore Devin Powell for the top spot, but hey, his name is listed first.) Meanwhile, three sophomores are starters on the interior of the offensive line; hell, there's a sophomore atop the two-deep at fullback, too (Lazedrick Thompson). If you're going to stink, at least stink with guys who could improve with experience.

Things can't get much worse for the Tulane offense, so now's as good a time as any to ride with youth, especially considering how many three-star recruits Johnson has recently reeled in at the skill positions.

(One youngster who might have played a role but probably won't now: three-star freshman receiver Teddy Veal, who allegedly did something very, very stupid this past weekend.)

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Carry	Opp. Rate
Orleans Darkwa	RB				188	863	12	4.6	3.7	42.0%
Rob Kelley	FB	5'10, 228	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	98	420	3	4.3	5.0	32.7%
Josh Rounds	RB	5'11, 189	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	49	163	0	3.3	2.4	32.7%
Nick Montana	QB	6'3, 208	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	23	116	0	5.0	4.1	34.8%
Lazedrick Thompson	FB	6'0, 209	So.	3 stars (5.5)	22	68	0	3.1	3.3	22.7%
Dante Butler	FB	5'10, 216	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	24	146	0	6.1	7.7	41.6%
Devin Powell	QB	6'3, 213	So.	2 stars (5.4)	10	42	0	4.2	2.3	40.0%
Marshall Wadleigh	FB	5'11, 195	So.	NR
Sherman Badie	RB	5'10, 192	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)
Dontrell Hilliard	RB	6'0, 185	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
Ryan Grant	WR-Z				122	77	1039	63.1%	32.6%	51.4%	8.5	97	8.7	118.4
Justyn Shackleford	WR-X	5'11, 174	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	82	36	419	43.9%	21.9%	48.6%	5.1	-120	4.5	47.8
Xavier Rush	WR-Z	6'2, 203	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	35	17	196	48.6%	9.4%	33.3%	5.6	-44	5.7	22.3
Kedrick Banks	WR-Z	5'9, 181	So.	2 stars (5.3)	27	19	118	70.4%	7.2%	38.1%	4.4	-102	4.2	13.5
Rob Kelley	FB	5'10, 228	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	26	18	176	69.2%	7.0%	40.0%	6.8	-34	5.6	20.1
Sydie London	TE	6'2, 238	Jr.	NR	17	12	58	70.6%	4.5%	62.5%	3.4	-81	3.8	6.6
Josh Rounds	RB	5'11, 189	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	15	12	65	80.0%	4.0%	60.0%	4.3	-66	3.5	7.4
Devon Breaux	WR-X	5'11, 169	So.	2 stars (5.3)	14	6	101	42.9%	3.7%	66.7%	7.2	10	7.0	11.5
Orleans Darkwa	RB				13	8	57	61.5%	3.5%	54.5%	4.4	-42	5.1	6.5
Dante Butler	FB	5'10, 216	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	14	7	79	50.0%	3.7%	42.9%	5.6	-19	4.2	9.0
Matt Marfisi	TE	6'6, 252	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	5	4	53	80.0%	1.3%	100.0%	10.6	9	5.9	6.0
Lazedrick Thompson	RB	6'0, 209	So.	3 stars (5.5)	2	1	31	50.0%	0.5%	100.0%	15.5	17	8.6	3.5
Teddy Veal	WR	5'11, 175	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)
Kendall Ardoin	TE	6'6, 215	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)

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	87.6	2.53	3.45	37.5%	77.8%	21.9%	91.5	4.9%	8.8%
Rank	110	117	44	83	11	106	78	74	93

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Zach Morgan	C				40
Sean Donnelly	RT	6'8, 312	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	23
Rio Mares	RG				21
Mike Henry	C				14
Arturo Uzdavinis	LT	6'6, 295	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	13
Nathan Shienle	C	6'5, 317	So.	2 stars (5.4)	12
Chris Taylor	RG	6'1, 324	So.	3 stars (5.6)	3
Todd Jacquet	LT	6'5, 277	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	2
Alex Paul	LG	6'6, 326	So.	2 stars (5.4)	1
Nate Skold	RT	6'6, 290	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0
Colton Hanson	LG	6'5, 318	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0
Kenneth Santa Marina	LT	6'5, 323	RSFr.	3 stars (5.7)
Brandon Godfrey	C	6'4, 277	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)
Jason Stewart	RG	6'4, 395	RSFr.	2 stars (5.3)
Junior Diaz	C	6'2, 277	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)

5. The good news: the line won't be much worse

Losing three players who combined for 75 career starts -- basically six combined seasons -- is never a good thing. But when they were the starters for a generally poor line, that makes the loss a little easier to take. Tulane's offensive line absolutely improved in 2013, but it was still rather mediocre.

Tulane will start two senior tackles, which certainly won't hurt in terms of pass protection. But the Green Wave aim for balance and will need the young interior linemen to play well. Sophomores Colton Hanson, Nathan Shienle (a 2013 starter), and Chris Taylor are currently listed as first-stringers, and two three-star redshirt freshmen could make noise, too.

Recruiting has been solid here, and the size of this line is rather impressive -- the 12 linemen listed on the post-spring depth chart average 6'5, 311, and that's with two 277-pounders dragging the average down -- but at some point potential has to turn into production.

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.21	92	IsoPPP+	87.2	117
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	35.7%	10	Succ. Rt. +	110.2	29
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	33.0	13	Off. FP+	105.5	9
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	3.7	17	Redzone S&P+	120.5	12
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	31.7		ACTUAL	35.0	+3.3

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	22	40	29	67
RUSHING	17	29	24	41
PASSING	60	56	36	96
Standard Downs		42	22	120
Passing Downs		46	53	60

Q1 Rk	69	1st Down Rk	58
Q2 Rk	20	2nd Down Rk	20
Q3 Rk	40	3rd Down Rk	74
Q4 Rk	71

6. A mid-major Michigan State

Tulane was basically the mid-major Michigan State, only if Michigan State's offense hadn't improved after September. The Green Wave tried to ride field position and an intensely efficient defense to wins, and it worked to at least a degree. The line was big and strong, and the corners were aggressive, especially on standard downs (sometimes detrimentally so). Tulane dared opponents to beat the defense deep, and while the big plays were quite big, they were also rare.

The more I discuss the importance of efficiency, field position, etc., the more I find my line of thinking shifting when it comes to the importance of big plays. The single most telling stat in the average box score is yards per play, and explosiveness has long been seen (by me and basically everybody else) as the end-all, be-all in football. But efficiency and three-and-outs drive field position, and even a slight advantage in field position can create a huge advantage overall. Tulane sacrificed random big plays for three-and-outs on defense, and it worked. Again, with a terrible offense, Tulane was a small handful of plays away from double-digit wins.

Notice we're talking in the past tense here. Defensive co-coordinators Jon Sumrall and Lionel Washington have some work to do to replicate last year's success.

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	121.6	2.29	2.51	32.9%	43.8%	29.0%	158.6	6.7%	10.7%
Rank	8	5	10	9	1	1	7	21	8

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Julius Warmsley	DT				13	38.0	5.2%	18.0	6.0	0	2	2	0
Tyler Gilbert	DE	6'3, 244	Sr.	NR	13	23.0	3.1%	6.0	3.0	0	0	0	0
Royce LaFrance	DE	6'3, 244	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	13	23.0	3.1%	10.0	6.5	0	2	0	1
Andre Robinson	DE	6'1, 235	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	13	16.0	2.2%	5.0	1.0	0	0	0	0
Calvin Thomas (2012)	DT	6'3, 286	So.	2 stars (5.2)	12	15.0	2.1%	2.0	2.0	0	1	0	0
Chris Davenport	NT				12	14.0	1.9%	4.0	1.5	0	1	0	0
Kenny Welcome	NT	6'2, 289	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	13	13.0	1.8%	2.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Aaron Bryant	DE	6'2, 252	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	12	11.5	1.6%	1.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Tanzel Smart	DT	6'2, 331	So.	3 stars (5.5)	12	10.5	1.4%	0.5	0.0	0	1	0	0
Corey Redwine	NT	6'0, 316	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	12	7.0	1.0%	0.0	0.0	0	0	1	0
Jeremy Peeples	DE				8	4.5	0.6%	0.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Ade Aruna	DE	6'6, 230	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)
Quinlan Carroll	DE	6'1, 213	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)
Eric Bell	DT	6'2, 250	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)
Eldrick Washington	DT	6'1, 240	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)
Luke Jackson	DE	6'2, 215	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)
Braynon Edwards	DT	6'2, 350	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)
Sean Wilson	DE	6'4, 265	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)
Peter Woullard	DE	6'3, 240	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)

7. Two big gaps in the middle

Tulane was insanely aggressive in 2013, and the Green Wave were able to consistently dominate the middle of the field. Defensive tackle Julius Warmsley was one of the best defensive play-makers in the country, especially against the run. Nose tackle Chris Davenport (a former five-star LSU signee) was an immovable space-eater. Middle linebacker Zach Davis racked up nine tackles for loss, and safeties Sam Scofield and Darion Monroe were dominant, both near to and far from the line of scrimmage.

Three of the five players I just mentioned are gone, and more than anything else, the loss of both Warmsley and Davenport could change the tenor of the defense. Tulane's defensive line will be far less proven in 2014. There are plenty of potential play-makers here -- ends Tyler Gilbert and Royce LaFrance combined for 9.5 sacks and 16 tackles for loss, and to be sure, projected starting tackles Tanzel Smart and Corey Redwine (combined: 647 pounds) are beefy. But Redwine was special and Davenport was quite athletic for his size, and they allowed Tulane to put together top-10 rankings in the run-blocking categories above.

There will be regression here.

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Nico Marley	WLB	5'8, 180	So.	2 stars (5.2)	13	53.0	7.2%	11.0	2.0	1	2	1	0
Zach Davis	MLB				10	41.0	5.6%	9.0	3.5	0	2	2	0
Dominique Robertson	MLB				12	38.5	5.3%	4.0	1.0	1	1	1	2
Kyle Davis	WLB				11	11.5	1.6%	3.5	0.5	1	0	0	0
Edward Williams	MLB	6'3, 221	So.	3 stars (5.7)	7	7.0	1.0%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Matthew Bailey	WLB	5'11, 203	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	11	7.0	1.0%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	1
Eric Thomas	MLB	5'9, 234	So.	2 stars (5.3)	13	4.5	0.6%	0.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Sergio Medina	LB	6'0, 210	So.	2 stars (5.3)	13	3.5	0.5%	0.5	0.0	0	1	0	0
Brandon Schmidt	LB	5'8, 226	Sr.	NR	9	2.5	0.3%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Rae Juan Marbley	LB	6'0, 215	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)
Zachery Harris	LB	6'0, 220	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)
Robert Kennedy	LB	6'1, 230	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Sam Scofield	SS	6'1, 185	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	13	89.0	12.1%	9.5	1.5	0	8	2	1
Darion Monroe	FS	5'10, 189	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	13	73.5	10.0%	9	3.5	1	6	1	0
Jordan Batiste	CB				12	45.0	6.1%	8	7	1	8	4	0
Derrick Strozier	BOSS				13	44.0	6.0%	4.5	0	3	14	0	0
Jordan Sullen	CB				13	38.5	5.3%	0.5	0	3	10	0	0
Lorenzo Doss	CB	5'11, 175	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	13	29.5	4.0%	1.5	0	7	9	0	1
Jarrod Franklin	BOSS	5'11, 194	So.	2 stars (5.3)	13	19.5	2.7%	1.5	1	1	0	1	0
Taurean Nixon	CB	6'0, 185	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	9	12.0	1.6%	0	0	0	1	0	0
Richard Allen	CB	5'9, 168	So.	2 stars (5.3)	13	8.0	1.1%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Parry Nickerson	CB	5'11, 157	So.	2 stars (5.4)	1	6.0	0.8%	0	0	0	0	1	0
Brandon LeBeau	FS	6'0, 201	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	12	6.0	0.8%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Leonard Davis	SS	6'0, 186	So.	2 stars (5.3)	13	4.5	0.6%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Richard Carthon	S	5'7, 197	Jr.	NR	11	4.5	0.6%	0	0	0	0	0	0
William Townsend	CB	6'0, 190	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)
Tristan Cooper	DB	6'0, 175	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)

8. Cry havoc

Regression is less likely in the back. Starting cornerbacks Jordan Batiste (transfer) and Jordan Sullen (graduation) are gone, as is stud BOSS safety Derrick Srozier. But Tulane had six play-making defensive backs last season, and three return. Scofield and Monroe combined for 18.5 tackles for loss and 15 passes defensed -- a rare combination -- last fall, and corner Lorenzo Doss should be ready for an even bigger role. As I always say about guys with pretty high ratios of passes defensed to tackles, they're either phenomenal cover men or terrible tackles. You're not going to find a PDs-to-tackles ratio much higher than Doss' 16-to-29.5 (even if his seven interceptions to nine break-ups were a bit lucky).

Granted, Tulane wants to play five defensive backs as much as possible, and 5 > 3. Still, there's experience here, and quite a few freshmen (now sophomores) got solid playing time last fall: Jarrod Franklin, Richard Allen, pre-injury Parry Nickerson, etc.

If the pass defense regresses, it will probably be because opponents are running more successfully and throwing from more advantageous situations.

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Peter Picerelli	6'1, 190	Jr.	80	41.5	5	22	23	56.3%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
Cairo Santos			62	62.8	47	2	75.8%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Cairo Santos			38-38	9-10	90.0%	7-13	53.8%

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Devin Boutte	KR	5'8, 170	Sr.	14	19.4	0
Dante Butler	KR	5'10, 216	Sr.	7	19.4	0
Devin Boutte	PR	5'8, 170	Sr.	23	4.1	0
Darion Monroe	PR	5'10, 189	Jr.	6	6.3	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams F/+	56
Field Goal Efficiency	38
Punt Return Efficiency	73
Kick Return Efficiency	75
Punt Efficiency	79
Kickoff Efficiency	37
Opponents' Field Goal Efficiency	3

9. Wanted: a new cannon

Special teams was a mixed bag for Tulane last year. Returns were okay, punting was okay, and kickoffs and place-kicking were well above average.

Cairo Santos was automatic inside 40 yards and booted more than three-quarters of his kickoffs for touchbacks. He's the only loss in this unit, but he's a huge one. Once Tulane crossed the opponent's 40-yard line, the Green Wave had a pretty decent chance of ending up with at least three points. That was quite an asset for a points-challenged squad.

2014 Schedule & Projection Factors

2014 Schedule
Date	Opponent	Proj. Rk
28-Aug	at Tulsa	64
6-Sep	Georgia Tech	44
13-Sep	SE Louisiana	NR
20-Sep	at Duke	55
27-Sep	at Rutgers	70
11-Oct	Connecticut	86
18-Oct	at Central Florida	24
31-Oct	Cincinnati	54
8-Nov	at Houston	41
15-Nov	Memphis	95
22-Nov	at East Carolina	72
6-Dec	Temple	87

Five-Year F/+ Rk	-20.2% (115)
Two-Year Recruiting Rk	80
TO Margin/Adj. TO Margin*	11 / 10.0
TO Luck/Game	+0.4
Approx. Ret. Starters (Off. / Def.)	13 (7, 6)

10. Downgrade and upgrade

So basically, the run defense will probably regress, the pass defense probably won't, the ace kicker is gone, and it would be pretty difficult for the offense to get any worse (though it might a little in the short-term). Add that up, and Tulane might end up seeing slight regression overall.

After such a breakthrough, there are worse things in the world than a single step backwards, but with the youth movement on offense and two new defensive tackles, Tulane should be happy with any ranking above about 80th or 85th.

The problem is that Tulane might get a little worse while the schedule gets harder. Only four opponents are projected worse than 85th, for instance, and all six road games come against teams projected 72nd or better. A second straight bowl bid will be tough.

Still, last season completely changed the trajectory and outlook of what was for quite a while a directionless program. Tulane is moving back to campus with its sparkly new stadium, Curtis Johnson has been recruiting pretty well, and the future is bright for this program. That's a statement that would seem stunning not very far into the past, even if there's a speed bump in the near future.