The big 2014 Purdue football preview: No quick solutions

Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.

1. That really couldn't have gone much worse

The idea of a Year 0 season comes up relatively frequently in these previews. See April's USF preview, for instance. The idea is simple: sometimes a coach needs, basically, a redshirt season in a new job to get all the pieces sorted out, install his system(s), attract the type of talent he's looking for, etc.

For every immediate success story, there's a stripping-everything-down-to-the-studs situation. It doesn't earn the new coach any good will, but it can certainly be overcome. The obvious, common examples: George O'Leary and Lou Holtz going winless in their first years at UCF and South Carolina, respectively, before thriving.

If Darrell Hazell's tenure at Purdue ends up leading to bowl bids and an occasional run at a division crown, his 2013 season will be regarded as the year the seeds were planted. But since we don't know what's happening from here, all we can say for sure is this: it stunk.

Purdue gained 116 total yards (2.1 per play) against an Ohio State defense that ranked 45th in Def. F/+. The Boilermakers allowed 509 yards (7.1 per play) to an Iowa offense that ranked 60th in Off. F/+.

Purdue needed a late interception with 19 seconds left to fend off Indiana State, 20-14. If your initial reaction is, "Wasn't Indiana State pretty good last year?", you're actually thinking of Eastern Illinois, the other baby(ish) blue FCS team from the Midwest. Indiana State went 1-11 and lost by 41 points to Illinois State (also not Eastern Illinois).

Here are some teams that ranked ahead of Purdue (No. 114) in last year's F/+ rankings: New Mexico (3-9, No. 110), Kent State (Hazell's former team, 4-8, No. 106), California (1-11, No. 103), Kansas (3-9, No. 101), Army (2-10, No. 100), Temple (2-10, No. 98), Memphis (3-9, No. 83), and Hawaii (1-11, No. 82).

Here are some teams that ranked ahead of Purdue (No. 157) in Jeff Sagarin's inclusive FBS/FCS rankings: Montana State, Samford, Murray State, Brown, South Carolina State, Dartmouth, Harvard, and Princeton.

On the bright side, the Boilermakers did still rank ahead of four Ivy League schools, though Yale and Penn got awfully close. But technically it could have been worse.

Again, maybe this all ends up just fine. Maybe Purdue fans end up laughing about how poorly this went before the eventual rebuild. Maybe. But unlike Willie Taggart at USF, Hazell isn't exactly lapping his conference competition in the recruiting game. If there's a way out of this hole, it's going to take quite a bit of climbing.

2013 Schedule & Results

Record: 1-11 | Adj. Record: 1-11 | Final F/+ Rk: 114
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Adj. Score	Adj. W-L	5-gm Adj. Avg.
31-Aug	at Cincinnati	64	7-42	L	22.3 - 27.8	L
7-Sep	Indiana State	N/A	20-14	W	16.0 - 20.9	L
14-Sep	Notre Dame	26	24-31	L	23.6 - 25.7	L
21-Sep	at Wisconsin	19	10-41	L	18.3 - 36.2	L
28-Sep	Northern Illinois	60	24-55	L	30.8 - 31.0	L	-6.1
12-Oct	Nebraska	39	7-44	L	9.1 - 23.9	L	-8.0
19-Oct	at Michigan State	6	0-14	L	26.6 - 22.3	W	-6.2
2-Nov	Ohio State	9	0-56	L	6.1 - 35.8	L	-11.7
9-Nov	Iowa	29	14-38	L	26.5 - 49.7	L	-12.7
16-Nov	at Penn State	61	21-45	L	30.2 - 40.9	L	-14.9
23-Nov	Illinois	71	16-20	L	13.1 - 29.8	L	-15.2
30-Nov	at Indiana	56	36-56	L	33.5 - 36.6	L	-16.7

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk	Spec. Tms.	Rk
F/+	-14.6%	113	-11.5%	107	-1.2%	91
Points Per Game	14.9	121	38.0	114
Adj. Points Per Game	21.3	110	31.7	99

2. Bad on offense, then just bad

Hazell spent seven seasons as a Jim Tressell assistant, and as he proved at Kent State, he shares his former boss's aversion to pace. This can help when you're outmanned; shrink the game, minimize the number of possessions, and you will need fewer breaks to either keep up or win. That teams like Alabama, Georgia, and Florida State tend to operate at a plodding pace almost works to their detriment; if you have a per-play advantage, you should in theory want a lot of plays. For Purdue in 2013, a complete lack of pace made perfect sense.

You do eventually have to score, though. Purdue scored 14 or fewer points in six of 12 games in 2013 and scored seven points in a three-game span in October and November. Predictably, the defense, which was rather competent over the first half of the season, eventually gave out.

Adj. Points Per Game (first 7 games): Opponent 26.8, Purdue 21.0 (minus-5.8)
Adj. Points Per Game (last 5 games): Opponent 38.6, Purdue 21.9 (minus-16.7)

In retrospect, Purdue's near-upset of Notre Dame qualifies as one of the most confusing outcomes of the year. This was a Notre Dame team that beat the No. 6, No. 11, and No. 13 teams in the country according to F/+, and nearly beat No. 3 on the road (and, yes, lost to Pitt). Meanwhile, this was a Purdue team that lost its other four games against top-40 opponents by an average score of 39-6.

Regardless, the peak came around halftime on the evening of September 14, and the final nine games were one giant valley, a chasm that just got bigger and deeper.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	0.99	120	IsoPPP+	93.2	97
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	36.6%	115	Succ. Rt. +	91.0	90
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	30.4	79	Def. FP+	101.4	41
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	3.3	117	Redzone S&P+	91.5	93
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	19.1		ACTUAL	22	+2.9

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	121	102	91	103
RUSHING	124	97	84	114
PASSING	79	102	94	87
Standard Downs		99	90	103
Passing Downs		108	87	81

Q1 Rk	84	1st Down Rk	79
Q2 Rk	113	2nd Down Rk	114
Q3 Rk	85	3rd Down Rk	98
Q4 Rk	80

3. Going down swinging

Two things you notice from the numbers and charts above:

A.) Purdue's offense wasn't actually good at anything. The only ranking above 79th anywhere above is the Boilermakers' No. 41 ranking in opponent-adjusted field position, which was due almost entirely to a badass punter. So yeah, Cody Webster, the punter, was Purdue's best offensive player, and it wasn't close.

B.) Purdue passed like crazy when it was losing big. I guess that's a positive sign? Despite a slow pace almost custom-made for avoiding huge losses, Purdue went down swinging in a way that almost assured that a bad loss got worse. In theory, that's good for installing a winner's mentality ... and pretty bad at establishing any precedent for success.

The offense was all sorts of young in 2013, so in theory, getting a lot of practice at picking yourself off the dirt could pay off. (I meant that figuratively, but it does bear mentioning that quarterback Danny Etling has already been sacked 31 times in his career, and his senior prom was only about 13 months ago.)

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.
Danny Etling	6'2, 218	So.	4 stars (5.8)	149	267	1690	10	7	55.8%	31	10.4%	4.9
Rob Henry				81	152	832	4	6	53.3%	8	5.0%	4.9
Austin Appleby	6'5, 229	So.	3 stars (5.5)	5	6	68	1	0	83.3%	0	0.0%	11.3
David Blough	6'1, 190	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Carry	Opp. Rate
Akeem Hunt	RB/WR	5'9, 184	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	123	464	1	3.8	4.2	28.5%
Brandon Cottom	RB	6'4, 258	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	45	154	1	3.4	2.9	33.3%
Dalyn Dawkins	RB				32	115	0	3.6	2.7	31.3%
Danny Etling	QB	6'2, 218	So.	4 stars (5.8)	24	119	1	5.0	3.1	41.7%
Rob Henry	QB				21	86	2	4.1	3.8	38.1%
B.J. Knauf	WR	5'10, 183	So.	3 stars (5.6)	14	92	1	6.6	6.1	50.0%
Raheem Mostert	RB	5'11, 186	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	11	37	0	3.4	1.9	45.5%
Keyante Green	RB	5'9, 205	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)
David Yancey	RB	5'10, 205	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)

Receiving Corps

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Target Rate	%SD	Yds/ Target	NEY	Real Yds/ Target	RYPR
DeAngelo Yancey	WR	6'2, 200	So.	3 stars (5.5)	70	32	546	45.7%	18.6%	47.2%	7.8	79	8.0	65.6
Justin Sinz	TE	6'4, 251	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	55	41	340	74.5%	14.6%	60.0%	6.2	-122	6.7	40.9
Akeem Hunt	RB/WR	5'9, 184	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	52	38	340	73.1%	13.8%	43.2%	6.5	-93	7.7	40.9
Cameron Posey	WR	6'1, 182	So.	3 stars (5.5)	34	26	297	76.5%	9.0%	45.5%	8.7	7	9.5	35.7
Shane Mikesky	WR	6'4, 211	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	31	17	186	54.8%	8.2%	66.7%	6.0	-38	7.3	22.4
B.J. Knauf	WR	5'10, 183	So.	3 stars (5.6)	28	14	136	50.0%	7.4%	52.4%	4.9	-58	5.8	16.3
Danny Anthrop	WR	6'0, 180	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	27	17	313	63.0%	7.2%	25.0%	11.6	105	5.4	37.6
Dalyn Dawkins	RB				20	9	84	45.0%	5.3%	41.7%	4.2	-49	2.3	10.1
Sterling Carter	TE				14	8	74	57.1%	3.7%	71.4%	5.3	-29	5.1	8.9
Gary Bush	WR				13	10	57	76.9%	3.4%	83.3%	4.4	-54	0.4	6.9
Gabe Holmes	TE	6'5, 243	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	12	9	69	75.0%	3.2%	40.0%	5.8	-32	7.1	8.3
Brandon Cottom	RB	6'4, 258	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	10	7	99	70.0%	2.7%	33.3%	9.9	18	2.5	11.9
Kurt Freytag	FB				6	4	32	66.7%	1.6%	100.0%	5.3	-16	3.6	3.8
Dolapo Macarthy	TE	6'5, 220	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	2	1	6	50.0%	0.5%	100.0%	3.0	-8	3.3	0.7
Patrick Bade	TE				2	1	5	50.0%	0.5%	100.0%	2.5	-9	2.8	0.6
Dan Monteroso	WR	6'3, 185	So.	3 stars (5.5)
Bilal Marshall	WR	6'3, 182	So.	3 stars (5.6)
Matt Burke	TE	6'6, 220	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)

4. Experience won't be an issue

Granted, experience needs to be helpful and developmental in some way, and granted, simply being on the field while your team is getting whipped doesn't automatically make you better in the future. If there's minimal talent, experience doesn't really matter.

But if we're to believe some combination of recruiting rankings and previous production, there are some interesting players among Purdue's skill position ranks, and it certainly doesn't hurt that basically everybody returns -- the top three running backs (four including Akeem Hunt), the top eight pass targets, and of course, Etling himself. Etling overtook Rob Henry as Purdue's starting quarterback, and while his production was certainly lacking, it was lacking in a "he never had a chance" kind of way. His first game was against Northern Illinois. His next four were against Nebraska, Michigan State, Ohio State, and Iowa. That's just unfair.

Etling did start to figure some things out late in the season. In his last three games, he managed a passer rating of at least 120.0 each week and completed 67 percent of his passes with six touchdowns to two interceptions. When you think about him getting all of his receivers back -- including DeAngelo Yancey (also a freshman in 2013), jack-of-all-trades Akeem Hunt (who had great per-touch numbers in 2012), and tight end Gabe Holmes (25 receptions in 2012 before injury setbacks in 2013) -- you can start to talk yourself into Purdue's passing game a bit. At least, you can if you ignore the offensive line.

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	89	2.78	1.26	33.5%	46.9%	23.6%	81.6	5.6%	8.8%
Rank	104	86	126	115	125	120	93	88	93

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Justin Kitchens	RT				25
Trevor Foy	RG				22
Kevin Pamphile	LT				21
Robert Kugler	C	6'3, 284	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	19
Devin Smith	LG				14
Jordan Roos	RG	6'5, 320	So.	3 stars (5.6)	6
Jason King	LG	6'3, 300	So.	2 stars (5.4)	5
Cameron Cermin	LT	6'5, 300	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0
Cody Davis	C				0
J.J. Prince	RT	6'6, 288	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0
Jack De Boef	LT	6'7, 290	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0
Joey Warburg	LG	6'5, 271	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0
Jason Tretter	RT	6'6, 300	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)
Charlie Long	LG	6'1, 250	RSFr.	NR
David Hedelin	OL	6'5, 285	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)
Cory Clemente	OL	6'8, 375	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)

5. A short-yardage abomination

On the plus side, if you have to lose four of your five most experienced linemen, you might as well lose them from a pretty awful line. What's it going to do, get worse than 104th in Adj. Line Yards and 93rd in Adj. Sack Rate? Technically, that's possible, but if anything it's only got so far to sink.

Three players with starting experience (30 career starts) do return, but the key to 2014's line might be the addition of two rather well-regarded JUCO transfers -- David Hedelin and Cory Clemente. (Clemente is enormous, but that's neither here nor there.) If they can find a spot in the rotation, and if there's any sort of positive second-year-in-the-system development, Etling might actually get a bit of protection in 2014. But that's not a given.

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.05	24	IsoPPP+	110.4	19
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	51.9%	123	Succ. Rt. +	90.1	99
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	28.5	100	Off. FP+	100.5	55
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	5.0	117	Redzone S&P+	82.7	112
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	14.3		ACTUAL	20.0	+5.7

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	105	77	99	61
RUSHING	116	76	95	63
PASSING	55	76	89	47
Standard Downs		67	99	10
Passing Downs		87	94	59

Q1 Rk	85	1st Down Rk	49
Q2 Rk	63	2nd Down Rk	55
Q3 Rk	59	3rd Down Rk	107
Q4 Rk	69

6. Bend-don't-break, like it or not

Purdue's defense was perhaps a bit above average over the first half of the season. That's lukewarm praise, but it still counts as praise. Before the late-season collapse, the Boilermakers had a pretty good bend-don't-break thing going on; they were terribly inefficient (99th in Success Rate+), but they were in the top 20 when it comes to IsoPPP (an opponent-adjusted big-play prevention measure). The big plays they allowed weren't very big; the problem, of course, is that small big plays still add up. That, and this was an awful defense in the red zone. Bend-don't-break only works if you don't break.

And if you want to attempt some other style of defense, you need play-makers. It's not evident that Purdue has very many.

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	95.5	3.38	3.61	49.7%	77.4%	14.8%	105.8	2.8%	7.4%
Rank	79	115	97	124	107	114	49	108	53

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Bruce Gaston	DE				12	39.5	5.6%	7.0	3.0	0	0	0	0
Ryan Russell	JACK	6'5, 275	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	12	30.0	4.3%	5.5	2.0	0	0	0	0
Greg Latta	DE				12	25.0	3.6%	1.5	1.0	0	2	1	0
Ryan Isaac	NG				12	16.0	2.3%	0.5	0.0	1	0	0	0
Jake Replogle	DE	6'4, 240	So.	3 stars (5.5)	7	11.5	1.6%	1.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Jalani Phillips	JACK	6'4, 260	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	7	8.5	1.2%	4.0	2.0	0	2	0	0
Ryan Watson	NG	6'2, 306	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	7	7.0	1.0%	1.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Evan Panfil	DE	6'4, 240	So.	3 stars (5.5)	7	5.0	0.7%	1.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Jules Williams	DE				8	3.5	0.5%	3.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Chuck Ayres	DE	6'4, 265	Jr.	NR	5	3.5	0.5%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Ra'Zahn Howard	NG	6'4, 315	So.	2 stars (5.4)	6	3.0	0.4%	1.0	1.0	0	2	0	0
Eric McDaniel	DT				7	2.0	0.3%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Michael Rouse II	DE	6'4, 305	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)
Antoine Miles	JACK	6'3, 250	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)
John Strauser	DE	6'2, 242	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)
Will Colmery	DE	6'5, 250	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Will Lucas	WILL				12	61.5	8.8%	2.5	1.0	0	3	0	0
Sean Robinson	MIKE	6'3, 240	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	11	37.0	5.3%	2.0	0.0	0	1	0	0
Joe Gilliam	WILL	6'1, 227	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	12	28.0	4.0%	2.0	0.0	0	3	0	0
Ruben Ibarra	MIKE				7	25.0	3.6%	5.0	1.0	0	0	0	0
Collin Link	SAM	6'2, 210	Sr.	NR	12	21.0	3.0%	2.5	2.0	0	0	1	0
Andy James Garcia	LB	6'0, 220	So.	3 stars (5.6)	12	12.5	1.8%	0.0	0.0	1	0	0	0
Jimmy Herman	SAM	6'4, 220	So.	3 stars (5.5)	12	11.5	1.6%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Armstead Williams	LB				12	7.0	1.0%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Johnny Thompson	LB	6'3, 200	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)
Garrett Hudson	MIKE	6'3, 230	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)
Danny Ezechukwu	WILL	6'3, 240	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)
Gelen Robinson	LB	6'2, 230	Fr.	4 stars (5.8)
Ja'Whaun Bentley	LB	6'2, 245	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)

7. Are there any play-makers here?

The jack position is usually categorized as an outside linebacker in your typical 3-4 alignment, often a bigger linebacker who isn't quite big enough to be a defensive end. Purdue's jacks are listed as defensive ends, but the use of "jack" gives you a rough idea of what defensive coordinator Greg Hudson is aiming for. Whether we want to classify his defense as a 3-4 or a 4-3, he wants some of those 3-4 principles -- disguising attackers, confusing blockers near the line, etc.

With the right weapons, a 3-4 defense almost gives you an opportunity to blitz without blitzing, since you're disguising where your rush is coming from. And that's great. But you need play-makers for it to work. Even while posting decent numbers for half the year, Purdue just had no chance of making big plays, only preventing them. The Boilers made just 55 tackles for loss in 2013, 114th in the country. They made a "havoc" play (tackle for loss, pass defensed, forced fumble) on only 11.5 percent of their snaps, 117th in the country. Hudson had no choice but to play things conservatively, and that might not change in 2014.

Purdue only had five players with at least 4.0 tackles for loss, and three of them are gone. Ryan Russell could be a pretty good jack, and young players like redshirt freshman Antoine Miles and Danny Ezechukwu, and perhaps four-star freshman Gelen Robinson appear to have athleticism (and open playing time if they earn it), but unless a newcomer breaks through in a major way, it's hard to imagine Purdue wreaking much more havoc than it did last season.

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Anthony Brown	CB	5'11, 192	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	12	60.0	8.6%	3	0	0	3	1	0
Frankie Williams	CB	5'9, 186	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	12	53.5	7.6%	2	0	2	3	0	0
Taylor Richards	S	5'10, 192	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	12	53.5	7.6%	1	0	1	2	1	0
Ricardo Allen	CB				12	47.5	6.8%	4	1	6	3	1	0
Antoine Lewis	CB	5'10, 185	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	12	22.0	3.1%	0.5	0	0	1	0	0
Landon Feichter	S	6'0, 189	Sr.	NR	7	19.5	2.8%	1.5	0	1	1	0	0
Leroy Clark	CB	5'10, 175	So.	3 stars (5.6)	11	15.0	2.1%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Austin Logan	S	6'0, 190	So.	3 stars (5.5)	10	11.5	1.6%	1	0	1	0	0	0
Normondo Harris	CB				9	10.0	1.4%	0	0	0	1	1	0
Ashkan Mizani	S				6	3.0	0.4%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Robert Gregory	S	6'2, 211	So.	3 stars (5.7)
Evan Feichter	S	6'0, 187	So.	NR
DaWan Hunte	CB	5'10, 180	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)
Tim Cason	CB	6'1, 185	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)
Juan Jenkins	S	6'0, 200	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)

8. The wrong kind of symbolism

Let's just say it doesn't say good things about your secondary when your quarterback gets overtaken on the first string, then moves to safety and immediately finds himself on the two-deep.

Granted, Rob Henry didn't exactly see a lot of playing time at safety in the final half of the season, but the implication wasn't stellar. Seven of last year's top eight defensive backs do return, and the fact that the top corners, Anthony Brown (a safety last year) and Frankie Williams, each made multiple stops behind the line gives you a modicum of encouragement. But somebody has to make a play to get the defense off of the field, especially if the Boilers don't make any improvements on their red zone defense. Who exactly is it going to be?

No really, I'm asking. Williams? DaWan Hunte? A healthy Landon Feichter?

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Cody Webster			70	43.5	1	18	24	60.0%
Rob Henry			3	37.0	1	0	2	66.7%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
Thomas Meadows	6'0, 182	Jr.	37	59.0	6	0	16.2%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Paul Griggs	6'1, 200	Jr.	21-22	4-7	57.1%	2-5	40.0%

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Akeem Hunt	KR	5'9, 184	Sr.	24	26.1	1
Raheem Mostert	KR	5'11, 186	Sr.	11	23.5	1
Frankie Williams	PR	5'9, 186	Jr.	5	16.8	0
B.J. Knauf	PR	5'10, 183	So.	4	5.0	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams F/+	91
Field Goal Efficiency	115
Punt Return Efficiency	26
Kick Return Efficiency	57
Punt Efficiency	1
Kickoff Efficiency	122
Opponents' Field Goal Efficiency	121

9. An odd dichotomy

Cody Webster averaged 43.5 yards per punt, with a good percentage of his kicks ending up either fair caught, inside the 20, or both. Purdue was going to have pretty good net punting numbers even with a sketchy coverage unit, but the fact that the Boilers were first in Punt Efficiency suggests that the coverage unit was pretty awesome.

Meanwhile, Purdue ranked 122nd in Kickoff Efficiency. Covering punts is different than covering kickoffs, but ... you don't usually see that.

Purdue ranked first in punting and still ranked 91st overall in special teams, and that was before Webster graduated. The return game seems solid, but the legs are a giant question mark.

2014 Schedule & Projection Factors

2014 Schedule
Date	Opponent	Proj. Rk
30-Aug	Western Michigan	117
6-Sep	Central Michigan	109
13-Sep	vs. Notre Dame	25
20-Sep	Southern Illinois	NR
27-Sep	Iowa	34
4-Oct	at Illinois	63
11-Oct	Michigan State	13
18-Oct	at Minnesota	73
1-Nov	at Nebraska	40
8-Nov	Wisconsin	15
22-Nov	Northwestern	50
29-Nov	at Indiana	47

Five-Year F/+ Rk	-9.3% (86)
Two-Year Recruiting Rk	67
TO Margin/Adj. TO Margin*	-2 / -4.9
TO Luck/Game	+1.2
Approx. Ret. Starters (Off. / Def.)	13 (7, 6)

10. More wins, at least

I'm not guaranteeing three wins here (sadly), but the simple fact that Purdue plays Western Michigan, Central Michigan, and Southern Illinois in the first month of the season should guarantee that the Boilers finish better than 1-11 in 2014. Plus, a major increase in overall experience might get them within shouting distance of an upset or two.

Still, how do you look at the schedule above and see anything more than about a 3-9 or 4-8 record? It would take a pretty significant upset for PU to do any better than 1-3 in conference home games, and while trips to Illinois, Minnesota, and perhaps Indiana are in no way intimidating, all three of those teams are still projected quite a bit higher than Purdue in 2014.

Granted, three or four wins would represent improvement, but you'd still like the ceiling to be higher than that. And it's hard to see Purdue's ceiling getting too much higher in 2014 or, perhaps, even 2015.

Even if Hazell ends up succeeding, it's hard to figure out how that happens soon.