The big 2014 Rutgers football preview: Potential vs. production for Big Ten rookie

Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.

1. What now?

Rutgers has pulled off something remarkable in recent years: the Scarlet Knights have managed to regress in six of the last seven seasons.

In a roundabout way, such an achievement is a tribute to both where they started seven years ago (it had to be pretty far up to give the team room to fall this much) and how far they bounced back in the one non-regression season (the Scarlet Knights were very good in 2011).

Still, they have regressed in six of seven years.

The 2013 season was perhaps the most frustrating year in this ongoing series of frustrations. For one thing, the Scarlet Knights didn't just regress, they regressed a lot. The offense figured out a way to add quite a few interesting, exciting pieces to the mix but still fall from 84th to 91st in Off. F/+; meanwhile, the defense cratered. After two seasons in the Def. F/+ top 20 (15th in 2011, 11th in 2012), Rutgers suffered a solid amount of attrition and fell all the way to 96th. Special teams was great, but special teams is only 10-15 percent of a given game. Rutgers was far worse than it should have been in 2013 and now joins the Big Ten looking more like a dud than a sleeping giant.

Still ... there's potential here. Recruiting isn't going quite as well for third-year coach Kyle Flood as it appeared it might a year or two ago, but despite the loss of big-play receiver Brandon Coleman, there is major upside in the skill positions, there is experience at quarterback and up the middle of the defense, and the defensive backfield actually experiences some continuity this time around. There's no excuse for Rutgers to rank below 90th in the F/+ rankings again in 2014.

Then again, there wasn't much excuse last year either. Flood faces some serious burden of proof this fall.

2013 Schedule & Results

Record: 6-7 | Adj. Record: 5-8 | Final F/+ Rk: 91
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Adj. Score	Adj. W-L	5-gm Adj. Avg.
29-Aug	at Fresno State	49	51-52	L	42.7 - 26.0	W
7-Sep	Norfolk State	N/A	38-0	W	19.4 - 6.1	W
14-Sep	Eastern Michigan	124	28-10	W	20.3 - 21.5	L
21-Sep	Arkansas	87	28-24	W	17.0 - 19.4	L
5-Oct	at SMU	84	55-52	W	29.5 - 28.9	W	5.4
10-Oct	at Louisville	12	10-24	L	24.1 - 27.9	L	1.3
26-Oct	Houston	46	14-49	L	34.7 - 46.9	L	-3.8
2-Nov	Temple	98	23-20	W	27.9 - 26.9	W	-3.3
16-Nov	Cincinnati	64	17-52	L	28.1 - 38.3	L	-4.9
21-Nov	at Central Florida	21	17-41	L	17.2 - 26.6	L	-6.9
30-Nov	at Connecticut	93	17-28	L	22.6 - 39.1	L	-9.4
7-Dec	South Florida	99	31-6	W	34.9 - 15.1	W	-3.0
28-Dec	vs. Notre Dame	26	16-29	L	19.0 - 27.2	L	-4.9

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk	Spec. Tms.	Rk
F/+	-7.1%	91	-8.5%	96	+3.3%	8
Points Per Game	26.5	77	29.8	81
Adj. Points Per Game	26.0	86	26.9	59

2. One unit, then the other

For the first month or so of the season, the Rutgers script was pretty similar. The Scarlet Knights allowed a combined 34 points to Norfolk State, EMU, and Arkansas and scored only 94 (not great considering the level of competition), riding a slow pace and solid defensive play to three wins. Sure, the season had begun with a shootout at Fresno State, but that was due as much to Fresno's pace and Rutgers' big plays as anything else. The defense broke down late in the SMU game, however, and it didn't really recover until December. And eventually the offense followed suit.

• Adj. Points Per Game (first 5 games): Rutgers 25.8, Opponent 20.4 (plus-5.4)
• Adj. Points Per Game (next 4 games): Opponent 35.0, Rutgers 29.1 (minus-5.9)
• Adj. Points Per Game (last 4 games): Opponent 27.0, Rutgers 23.4 (minus-3.6)

The offense appeared to be getting somewhere in October. Despite awful efficiency and redzone numbers, the Scarlet Knights averaged at least 5.4 yards per play in six of the first eight games and at least 6.6 in three.

But uncertainty at the quarterback position, combined with injuries to running back Paul James and speedy wideout Leonte Carroo, reduced it to a pile of mismatched parts. Rutgers averaged only 4.5 yards per play over the final five games of the year and scored more than 17 points just once in that time (and just twice in the final eight games). That meant that a late-season rebound by the defense had little effect on overall results.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.23	23	IsoPPP+	108.8	25
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	40.1%	82	Succ. Rt. +	88.4	101
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	28.4	40	Def. FP+	96.4	94
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	3.9	98	Redzone S&P+	87.1	105
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	23.6		ACTUAL	30	+6.4

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	96	91	102	86
RUSHING	101	90	100	92
PASSING	64	84	95	56
Standard Downs		109	108	71
Passing Downs		48	65	4

Q1 Rk	81	1st Down Rk	111
Q2 Rk	106	2nd Down Rk	95
Q3 Rk	82	3rd Down Rk	74
Q4 Rk	82

3. Big plays weren't a problem

IsoPPP looks at the magnitude of a team's successful plays, and as we see above, Rutgers' big plays were as big as anybody's. Paul James averaged 5.6 yards per carry, tight end Tyler Kroft averaged 13.3 yards per catch, and the top three wideouts -- Coleman, Quron Pratt, and Carroo -- all averaged at least 15.8 per catch. Rutgers had a perfectly acceptable 58 gains of at least 20 yards (65th in the country) and 25 of at least 30 (66th).

The problem was what happened when Rutgers wasn't breaking off double-digit gains. The Scarlet Knights' success rates were somewhere between underwhelming and abysmal; they constantly fell behind schedule, and while they often bailed themselves out with big plays on second- or third-and-long, they faced far too many and-longs to succeed. And when they got into the red zone, they flaked out, averaging just 3.9 points per trip inside the opponent's 40.

Coleman and Pratt are gone, but Rutgers still boasts some of the more exciting athletes in the Big Ten at skill positions. Can new offensive coordinator (and former Maryland head coach) Ralph Friedgen do a better job of turning potential into consistent production? And does he have a quarterback who can distribute the ball without crippling mistakes?

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.
Gary Nova	6'2, 220	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	165	303	2159	18	14	54.5%	25	7.6%	6.1
Chas Dodd				73	133	868	3	6	54.9%	10	7.0%	5.6
Mike Bimonte	6'4, 225	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)
Chris Laviano	6'3, 210	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)

4. Got a quarterback?

After a decade as head coach at his alma mater, Maryland, Friedgen resumes what was a long career as an accomplished offensive coordinator. He pulled the strings for The Citadel (three years), William & Mary (one), Murray State (one), Maryland (five), Georgia Tech (five), the San Diego Chargers (three), and Georgia Tech again (four). His first project back up in the booth: make something out of Gary Nova. Or Mike Bimonte or Chris Laviano. Whoever ends up behind center, figure out how to coax more consistency than a Rutgers quarterback has shown in years.

To be fair to Nova and Chas Dodd, Rutgers' two 2013 quarterbacks, last year's offensive system under Ron Prince was in no way quarterback-friendly. Nova and Dodd were asked to throw downfield quite a bit, frequently on passing downs. A lower-than-normal completion rate with relatively high interception and sack rates was probably inevitable. Still, a 55 percent completion rate is too low, and a 4.6 percent interception rate and 7.6 percent sack rate are too high.

Nova, Bimonte, and Laviano combined to complete just 11 of 33 passes for 133 yards in the spring game, but we'll ignore that for now in favor of offseason optimism.

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Carry	Opp. Rate
Paul James	RB	6'0, 210	Jr.	NR	156	881	9	5.6	6.1	40.4%
Justin Goodwin	RB	6'0, 180	So.	3 stars (5.5)	111	521	5	4.7	4.3	38.7%
Savon Huggins	RB	6'0, 200	Sr.	4 stars (5.9)	86	286	2	3.3	3.0	25.6%
Gary Nova	QB	6'2, 220	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	25	71	1	2.8	2.5	28.0%
Chas Dodd	QB				21	99	0	4.7	3.0	52.4%
Michael Burton	FB	6'0, 235	Sr.	NR	9	61	0	6.8	12.9	33.3%
Desmon Peoples	RB	5'8, 175	So.	3 stars (5.5)	6	16	0	2.7	2.1	16.7%
Devan Carter	RB	6'2, 230	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)
Jacob Kraut	RB	5'11, 240	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)
Robert Martin	RB	6'0, 191	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)
Joshua Hicks	RB	5'10, 180	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)

Receiving Corps

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Target Rate	%SD	Yds/ Target	NEY	Real Yds/ Target	RYPR
Brandon Coleman	WR				70	35	549	50.0%	17.2%	60.7%	7.8	64	8.7	65.4
Tyler Kroft	TE	6'6, 240	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	69	43	573	62.3%	17.0%	55.0%	8.3	44	8.9	68.2
Quron Pratt	WR				61	32	516	52.5%	15.0%	48.1%	8.5	84	9.1	61.4
Leonte Carroo	WR	6'1, 200	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	51	27	467	52.9%	12.6%	45.2%	9.2	104	10.4	55.6
Ruhann Peele	WR	6'1, 185	So.	3 stars (5.7)	43	28	281	65.1%	10.6%	35.0%	6.5	-56	6.2	33.5
Michael Burton	FB	6'0, 235	Sr.	NR	26	19	149	73.1%	6.4%	66.7%	5.7	-67	5.9	17.7
Savon Huggins	RB	6'0, 200	Sr.	4 stars (5.9)	15	12	66	80.0%	3.7%	40.0%	4.4	-65	4.9	7.9
Justin Goodwin	RB	6'0, 180	So.	3 stars (5.5)	14	10	86	71.4%	3.4%	57.1%	6.1	-29	6.3	10.2
Paul James	RB	6'0, 210	Jr.	NR	14	11	107	78.6%	3.4%	71.4%	7.6	-14	9.2	12.7
Carlton Agudosi	WR	6'6, 205	So.	3 stars (5.7)	10	5	79	50.0%	2.5%	50.0%	7.9	10	9.5	9.4
John Tsimis	WR	6'0, 175	So.	2 stars (5.4)	10	4	56	40.0%	2.5%	42.9%	5.6	-7	4.4	6.7
Andre Patton	WR	6'4, 195	So.	3 stars (5.7)	6	3	49	50.0%	1.5%	75.0%	8.2	7	6.7	5.8
Nick Arcidiacono	TE	6'5, 230	So.	3 stars (5.5)	6	5	44	83.3%	1.5%	N/A	7.3	-10	0.0	5.2
Paul Carrezola	TE				5	2	17	40.0%	1.2%	0.0%	3.4	-15	2.5	2.0
Janarion Grant	WR	5'11, 170	So.	3 stars (5.7)	4	2	18	50.0%	1.0%	N/A	4.5	-10	0.0	2.1
John Tsimis	WR	6'0, 175	So.	2 stars (5.4)
Tejay Johnson	WR	6'2, 205	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)
Logan Lister	TE	6'5, 240	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)

5. No shortage of athletes

If the quarterback situation is in some way stable, the rest of the offense could fall in line pretty well.

Paul James has suffered a series of injuries over the last year, but when healthy he's one of the best running backs in the conference. In Tuesday's Illinois preview, I bragged about running back Josh Ferguson's combination of efficiency (39 percent opportunity rate) and explosiveness (5.9 highlight yards per opportunity). In 15 more carries, James had him beaten in both categories: 40 percent opportunity rate, 6.1 highlight yards. He's potentially outstanding, and if or when he's hurt, it appears sophomore Justin Goodwin could be a solid backup option.

There's even more upside in the receiving corps. Tyler Kroft also managed to combine decent efficiency (by this offense's standards, anyway) and big-play ability, and while Coleman and Pratt are gone, Leonte Carroo could be the real deal. He got hurt at the end of the year, and he was sometimes invisible even when he was fine, but his big games were huge: five catches for 135 yards and three scores against Fresno State, five for 80 and two scores against Arkansas, three for 54 and two against SMU, and seven for 147 and two against Temple. He has a lot to prove in terms of consistency, but he's got clear upside. And he's not the only exciting wideout: Ruhann Peele held his own as a freshman, Carlton Agudosi was a spring standout, and while sophomore Janarion Grant only caught two passes in 2013, his return skills suggest serious athleticism. There's a lot to like here, but there's a lot to improve upon in the efficiency department.

Really, it's the same story up front. Rutgers returns five players with starting experience (98 career starts), including all-conference center Betim Bujari. Plus, the sophomore class -- four-star guards Chris Muller and J.J. Denmon, tackle Ryan Brodie, center Derrick Nelson -- has massive upside. But there was upside last year as well, and Rutgers could neither open up holes for runners nor protect quarterbacks. That is, to put it lightly, a bit of an issue.

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	92	2.55	3.16	36.1%	63.4%	21.2%	76.2	8.3%	7.8%
Rank	97	115	76	96	93	92	101	116	78

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Betim Bujari	C	6'4, 295	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	23	2nd All-AAC
Kaleb Johnson	LG	6'4, 305	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	36
Andre Civil	RT				25
Taj Alexander	RT	6'4, 290	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	14
Keith Lumpkin	LT	6'8, 315	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	13
Chris Muller	RG	6'6, 300	So.	4 stars (5.9)	12
Dallas Hendrikson	C				6
Brian Leoni	LT	6'6, 280	Sr.	NR	0
J.J. Denman	LG	6'6, 300	So.	4 stars (5.8)	0
Ryan Brodie	RT	6'5, 300	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0
Derrick Nelson	C	6'3, 285	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0
Dorian Miller	RG	6'3, 295	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)
Marcus Applefield	OL	6'6, 270	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)
Jacquis Webb	OL	6'5, 310	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.21	95	IsoPPP+	96.5	84
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	41.8%	53	Succ. Rt. +	100.1	51
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	33.8	2	Off. FP+	103.5	23
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	4.8	111	Redzone S&P+	85.0	103
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	24.5		ACTUAL	18.0	-6.5

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	74	76	51	78
RUSHING	4	22	18	34
PASSING	122	99	94	101
Standard Downs		52	49	64
Passing Downs		90	84	86

Q1 Rk	71	1st Down Rk	34
Q2 Rk	75	2nd Down Rk	66
Q3 Rk	51	3rd Down Rk	95
Q4 Rk	54

6. Big plays were a problem

Despite injuries, turnover, and youth, the front seven still performed relatively well in 2013. Rutgers still ranked 22nd in Rushing S&P+ and 31st in Adj. Line Yards, and while the pass rush wasn't amazing, it was decent. The overall defensive dropoff came via the secondary more than anything else, but that was to be expected. Only one of the top seven defensive backs from 2012's awesome unit returned in 2013.

The youth was evident and devastating. Rutgers gave up 170 passes of at least 10 yards in 2013, most in the country by a huge margin. They allowed 58 20-yard passes, third-worst in the country. Opponents completed 64 percent of their passes with 31 touchdowns to eight interceptions. And even if they didn't throw touchdown passes, once they got into the red zone, they were scoring one way or another. Rutgers not only had one of the worst offenses in the country in terms of finishing drives, it had one of the worst defenses as well.

To the extent that youth was the problem last year ... well, it will be less of a problem in 2014. But this defense was so young in 2013 that it's still pretty young now.

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	109.5	2.50	3.11	31.4%	80.0%	21.2%	99.4	3.8%	6.4%
Rank	31	12	43	5	115	37	61	81	71

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Marcus Thompson	DE				13	41.0	5.6%	7.5	5.5	0	0	1	0
Darius Hamilton	DT	6'4, 260	Jr.	5 stars (6.1)	12	34.0	4.6%	11.5	4.5	0	3	1	0
David Milewski	DE	6'4, 250	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	13	24.0	3.3%	1.5	1.0	0	1	0	0
Djwany Mera	DE	6'4, 260	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	13	22.0	3.0%	5.5	2.5	0	0	1	0
Jamil Merrell	DE				11	16.5	2.2%	3.0	2.0	0	2	0	0
Isaac Holmes	DT				13	15.5	2.1%	1.5	0.0	0	4	0	0
Daryl Stephenson	DT	6'3, 280	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	13	9.0	1.2%	1.0	1.0	0	0	0	0
Kenneth Kirksey	NT	6'1, 275	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	3	3.5	0.5%	0.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Max Issaka	DE				3	2.0	0.3%	0.0	0.0	0	0	1	0
Al Page	DT				1	2.0	0.3%	1.5	1.5	0	0	0	0
Jamil Pollard	DT	6'3, 280	So.	4 stars (5.8)
Julian Pinnix-Odrick	DE	6'5, 250	So.	3 stars (5.7)
Sebastian Joseph	NT	6'4, 270	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)
Kevin Wilkins	DT	6'3, 295	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)
Eric Wiafe	DT	6'5, 260	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)
Donald Bedell	DE	6'4, 229	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Steve Longa	WLB	6'1, 220	So.	3 stars (5.7)	13	87.0	11.9%	7.5	3.0	0	4	2	0
Kevin Snyder	MLB	6'3, 235	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	13	71.0	9.7%	7.5	2.0	0	3	0	0
Quentin Gause	SLB	6'1, 220	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	13	40.0	5.4%	8.5	1.0	0	1	0	0
Jamal Merrell	LB				10	28.5	3.9%	0.0	0.0	2	3	0	0
Quanzell Lambert	LB	6'1, 230	So.	4 stars (5.8)	11	15.5	2.1%	4.5	1.5	0	0	1	0
L.J. Liston	MLB	6'2, 230	So.	3 stars (5.6)	12	11.5	1.6%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Nick DePaola	LB				13	3.0	0.4%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Myles Nash	SLB	6'5, 205	RSFr.	3 stars (5.7)
T.J. Taylor	WLB	6'3, 190	RSFr.	3 stars (5.7)
Justin Nelson	LB	6'1, 235	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)
Sidney Gopre	LB	6'0, 190	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)
Brandon Russell	LB	6'1, 215	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)

7. A high sophomore ceiling

Kyle Flood's tenure could be made or broken by how much production he can find in his sophomore class's massive potential. Sophomores on offense -- the aforementioned linemen, Justin Goodwin, Ruhann Peele -- are vital to the Scarlet Knights' success, and that narrative continues on defense.

In his first year in a Rutgers uniform, Steve Longa emerged as one of the Knights' steadiest, most athletic defenders. Rush end Quanzell Lambert could provide a boost to a pass rush that is now without last year's best sacks guy, Marcus Thompson. Corners Nadir Barnwell, Anthony Cioffi, and Ian Thomas now have some experience to go with their upside. Deion Stephenson will be given a chance at both corner and free safety. And after injuries almost completely derailed the career of tackle Jamil Pollard, he'll potentially be back in the mix this fall.

All of these players have three years of eligibility remaining. They will be the heart and soul of Rutgers' 2015 and 2016 teams, but they have major roles to play in 2014 as well. There are also some exciting juniors: potential all-conference tackle Darius Hamilton, end Djwany Mera, and linebacker Quentin Gause, to name three. Rutgers' experience level in 2015 could be off the charts.

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Lorenzo Waters	SS	6'0, 205	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	12	49.5	6.7%	2.5	0	1	4	2	0
Jeremy Deering	FS				13	30.5	4.2%	1	0	1	1	0	0
Gareef Glashen	CB	5'10, 180	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	11	29.0	4.0%	4.5	2	1	3	0	0
Nadir Barnwell	CB	5'11, 190	So.	4 stars (5.8)	12	28.5	3.9%	3	0	0	3	0	0
Anthony Cioffi	CB	6'0, 180	So.	3 stars (5.7)	12	28.0	3.8%	4	1	0	4	2	0
Tejay Johnson	FS				12	25.0	3.4%	0.5	0	0	3	0	0
Davon Jacobs	SS	6'0, 190	So.	3 stars (5.6)	12	22.0	3.0%	1.5	1.5	0	2	0	0
Lew Toler	CB				6	20.0	2.7%	0.5	0	0	4	1	0
Johnathan Aiken	FS	5'11, 190	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	12	18.5	2.5%	1	1	0	0	0	0
Delon Stephenson	FS	5'11, 190	So.	3 stars (5.5)	8	7.5	1.0%	0	0	1	1	0	0
Ian Thomas	CB	6'1, 200	So.	3 stars (5.7)	6	7.0	1.0%	0	0	1	1	0	0
Kamren Lott	DB	5'10, 180	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)
Saquan Hampton	DB	6'0, 181	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)
Andre Boggs	DB	6'0, 170	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)

8. The secondary was as shaky as expected

Again, it was probably too much to expect Rutgers' new-look secondary to succeed to any major degree in 2013, not with three freshmen and a converted running back (Jeremy Deering) playing major roles. WMU transfer Lew Toler made little impact, so Rutgers' defense was left to sink or swim with young DBs. It sank pretty frequently.

Last year's growing pains could pay off at some point, though. Corners Barnwell, Cioffi, and Gareef Glashen combined for 11.5 tackles for loss and 11 passes defensed, showing signs of potentially successful aggressiveness down the line. Lorenzo Waters is an old hand at strong safety, Stephenson and Johnathan Aiken probably aren't going to be any less successful than Deering at free safety, and another batch of athletic freshmen could join the rotation this fall.

It's hard to say how much this secondary will improve, but it won't get worse.

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Nick Marsh			65	40.6	10	19	22	63.1%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
Nick Marsh			65	61.3	13	1	20.0%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Kyle Federico	6'0, 190	Jr.	34-35	10-13	76.9%	2-5	40.0%
Joe Behnke			0-0	1-1	100.0%	0-0	N/A

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Janarion Grant	KR	5'11, 170	So.	21	24.6	1
Quron Pratt	KR			16	23.8	1
Janarion Grant	PR	5'11, 170	So.	17	9.2	1

Category	Rk
Special Teams F/+	8
Field Goal Efficiency	95
Punt Return Efficiency	2
Kick Return Efficiency	13
Punt Efficiency	59
Kickoff Efficiency	38
Opponents' Field Goal Efficiency	26

9. Kick away from Grant

Rutgers wasted one hell of a special teams effort in 2013. Then again, the Knights still have a fantastic return man in Janarion Grant (and will for the next three years) and could still have a pretty good kick/punt coverage unit. Place-kicking could use a little shoring up, and punter/kickoffs guy Nick Marsh is gone, but Grant is a one-man field position advantage.

2014 Schedule & Projection Factors

2014 Schedule
Date	Opponent	Proj. Rk
28-Aug	at Washington State	68
6-Sep	Howard	NR
13-Sep	Penn State	37
20-Sep	at Navy	65
27-Sep	Tulane	91
4-Oct	Michigan	32
18-Oct	at Ohio State	4
25-Oct	at Nebraska	40
1-Nov	Wisconsin	15
15-Nov	Indiana	47
22-Nov	at Michigan State	13
29-Nov	at Maryland	51

Five-Year F/+ Rk	-0.2% (56)
Two-Year Recruiting Rk	50
TO Margin/Adj. TO Margin*	-12 / 0.9
TO Luck/Game	-5.0
Approx. Ret. Starters (Off. / Def.)	17 (8, 9)

10. No idea

Rutgers needed a 4-1 record in one-possession games (despite horrific turnovers luck) just to reach 6-6 in 2013. The Scarlet Knights needed an impressive comeback to beat No. 87 Arkansas at home, and they had to withstand a huge comeback to beat No. 84 SMU in overtime. They barely beat No. 98 Temple and lost by 11 to No. 93 UConn. They rarely actually looked like a bowl team last fall.

Still, they were young as hell. They were impacted by inefficiency on offense and freshman glitches on defense. They have a history, especially on the defensive side of the ball, and they've inked quite a few pretty high-profile athletes in recent years. Despite falling victim to the same affinity for self-inflicted wounds suffered by the university as a whole recently, this program isn't on terrible footing. The projections are low because Rutgers wasn't very good last year, but there's promise.

All the upside in the world doesn't matter if it doesn't turn into production, however. With four top-50 home opponents and six top-70 road opponents, the Scarlet Knights will need to bounce back by a pretty considerable amount -- perhaps to around No. 50-60 overall -- to go to their ninth bowl in 10 years. It's doable, but last year's generally sketchy play provides plenty of reason for skepticism.