The big 2014 Georgia Tech football preview: Higher upside, lower downside

Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.

1. It still works

About six and a half years ago, Georgia Tech set about on an experiment. Under Chan Gailey, the Ramblin' Wreck had hit a pretty clear ceiling. They went either 7-5 or 7-6 five times in six seasons (despite game-breaking talent like Calvin Johnson), and the one time they did better than that (9-5 in 2006), they missed out on a golden opportunity to win the ACC by falling to Wake Forest, 9-6, in perhaps the least watchable conference title game in the history of conference title games.

Gailey was dumped after the 2007 season, and Tech decided to throw itself a curveball, hiring Navy coach and flexbone guru Paul Johnson. This was a golden opportunity to find out if the option offense could work in today's major college football landscape, and the early impressions were more than positive. Tech improved to 9-4 in 2008, then won 11 games and an ACC title in 2009. (Yes, this was the version of the ACC existed before Clemson and Florida State both got their respective acts together, but it still counts.) The offense was a revelation, and the defense was good enough.

Four years later, however, Tech has settled back in. The Yellow Jackets have won, yes, seven games per year since the 2009 title.

Johnson's offense still works. I say it every year. The flexbone is not the best offense for drawing five-star talent every year, and it certainly isn't great on third-and-8. At the same time, Johnson and Georgia Tech aren't going to draw much five-star talent anyway (if that was the goal, Johnson wouldn't have gotten the job), and almost no offense is particularly strong on third-and-8. When operated efficiently, the offense is the least of Johnson's problems. Even with shaky operation at times in 2013, the Jackets still finished 31st in Off. F/+. You're not going to win a national title with the flexbone option, but you can certainly win.

2. The defense is (technically) getting better

At this point, two things are indeed Johnson's problems. First of all, the defense is still a work in progress. Ted Roof installed a 4-3 defense last fall, and the Yellow Jackets improved from 58th in Def. F/+ to ... 57th. They've ranked between 53rd and 70th each of the last five seasons. And now a line that improved by quite a bit in 2013 must replace six of its top seven tacklers.

The second problem is some combination of a problem in need of fixing and luck in need of a turnaround. Almost every year, Georgia Tech finished two to three games above .500 in games decided by more than one possession (exceptions: 6-2 in 2009, only 4-3 in 2010). They thump you more than you thump them.

But the closer games have escaped the Jackets. In one-possession games, Tech went 10-3 in 2008-09, then 5-6 in 2010-11, then 1-6 in 2012-13. The offense closes drives as well as anybody, but a sudden lack of big plays has forced the Jackets to remain methodical, and the defense still hasn't been able to pick up the slack. Tech has been a bounce or two away from nine or 10 wins each of the last two years but hasn't gotten them. And it is certainly opening up the offense to questions about predictability, adjustments, etc.

Under Johnson, Tech has finished in the top 50 of the F/+ rankings all but one year and, thanks in part to some drastic special teams improvement, returned to the top 40 after a three-year absence last fall. Is that good enough? How many more seven-win Gailey specials does Johnson get before the seat underneath him starts to get warm? And what happens if a young, volatile team takes a hefty step backwards while teasing a big upside in 2014?

2013 Schedule & Results

Record: 7-6 | Adj. Record: 9-4 | Final F/+ Rk: 34
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Adj. Score	Adj. W-L	5-gm Adj. Avg.
31-Aug	Elon	N/A	70-0	W	41.6 - 23.5	W
14-Sep	at Duke	41	38-14	W	37.7 - 15.9	W
21-Sep	North Carolina	38	28-20	W	30.5 - 28.4	W
26-Sep	Virginia Tech	27	10-17	L	26.4 - 29.8	L
5-Oct	at Miami	36	30-45	L	25.0 - 51.5	L	2.4
12-Oct	at BYU	30	20-38	L	36.9 - 36.4	W	-1.1
19-Oct	Syracuse	75	56-0	W	48.6 - 18.9	W	0.5
26-Oct	at Virginia	79	35-25	W	45.0 - 34.8	W	2.1
2-Nov	Pittsburgh	54	21-10	W	33.8 - 17.8	W	5.9
14-Nov	at Clemson	16	31-55	L	35.8 - 39.2	L	10.6
23-Nov	Alabama A&M	N/A	66-7	W	41.2 - 21.2	W	14.5
30-Nov	Georgia	22	34-41	L	37.8 - 26.2	W	10.9
30-Dec	vs. Ole Miss	28	17-25	L	24.4 - 29.1	L	7.9

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk	Spec. Tms.	Rk
F/+	+8.3%	31	+1.5%	57	+2.2%	22
Points Per Game	35.1	26	22.8	29
Adj. Points Per Game	35.7	18	28.7	74

3. A midseason blip

One more successful drive against Virginia Tech, and Georgia Tech might have won its second straight division title.

At the start and end of the season, the Yellow Jacket defense was something more than mediocre.

• Adj. Points Per Game (first 3 games): Georgia Tech 36.6, Opponent 22.6 (plus-14.0)
• Adj. Points Per Game (next 5 games): Georgia Tech 36.4, Opponent 34.3 (plus-2.1)
• Adj. Points Per Game (next 4 games): Georgia Tech 37.2, Opponent 26.1 (plus-11.1)

The Jackets allowed 17.0 points per game and 5.0 yards per play to Duke (season average: 5.9) and North Carolina (5.9) and, aside from a sketchy first quarter against UNC, played standard, efficient, death-by-a-thousand-cuts offense. They started 2-0 in conference play and handily beat what ended up being the division champions (Duke) on the road. But as the calendar approached October, and a second starting safety got hurt -- Jamal Golden was lost for the season with a shoulder injury, with Isaiah Johnson missing the entire season -- the defense suffered a glitch just long enough to cost them a spot in the title game. They allowed 5.3 yards per play to Virginia Tech (season average: 5.0), then got destroyed by flaky Miami and BYU offenses. In those two games, they allowed 83 points and 984 yards (8.1 per play), and that was that. Tech was 3-3, 2-2 in conference, and an understandable loss at Clemson in November knocked them out of the division race.

The offense had its ups and downs but was mostly steady. The defense wasn't quite good enough for quite long enough.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.10	84	IsoPPP+	95.7	87
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	46.0%	31	Succ. Rt. +	118.5	11
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	29.8	64	Def. FP+	97.4	84
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	4.9	15	Redzone S&P+	125.4	7
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	21.8		ACTUAL	24	+2.2

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	44	22	11	35
RUSHING	6	10	7	4
PASSING	120	48	85	118
Standard Downs		24	13	69
Passing Downs		29	17	91

Q1 Rk	15	1st Down Rk	25
Q2 Rk	20	2nd Down Rk	9
Q3 Rk	39	3rd Down Rk	10
Q4 Rk	7

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.
Vad Lee				82	180	1561	11	10	45.6%	10	5.3%	7.9
Justin Thomas	5'11, 185	So.	4 stars (5.8)	9	17	131	1	2	52.9%	2	10.5%	4.7
Tim Byerly	6'0, 215	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	1	4	3	0	0	25.0%	1	20.0%	-0.6
Matthew Jordan	6'2, 204	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)

4. Triple option really wasn't Vad Lee's thing

Following Tech's bowl loss to Ole Miss, starting quarterback Vad Lee announced he was transferring, saying "the triple option was never really my thing." Leaving aside the the obvious questions about why he ended up on Paul Johnson's roster to begin with -- I actually laughed out loud when I read this from Connor Tapp: "A reasonable gut reaction to Lee's statement might lead you to question his decision-making, but let's keep in mind that college is a time for experimentation." -- it looked pretty bad. Tech has been struggling to generate momentum, Paul Johnson is complaining about Tech's disadvantages in recruiting, seven wins is becoming the norm, and you lose your starting quarterback because he doesn't like your offense.

The thing is, Lee might not have been wrong. The offense was perfectly efficient and as effective as ever in the red zone, but with Lee running the show behind what seemed like a fine line, the big plays dried up. Lee himself averaged only 3.3 yards per carry (backups Justin Thomas and Tim Byerly averaged 8.4) while completing just 46 percent of his passes. After ranking 43rd in Passing Success Rate+ in 2012 (with Tevin Washington taking most of the snaps), Tech fell to 85th in 2013.

Some of the struggle may indeed have been because of the line; Tech's Stuff Rate (negative run plays) went up, which could be attributed to runners, blockers, or both. Plus, while the Jackets don't pass a lot, they did still have to replace three of 2012's top four targets. Jeff Greene caught 60 percent of his targets as No. 1 target in 2012, and DeAndre Smelter caught only 49 percent in 2013. Regardless, Lee's production was probably replaceable.

Unless Byerly can catch him (and there's at least a small chance this happens), Thomas is the most likely starter in 2014. The former four-star athlete, a 100-meter track champion in Alabama, has the running part down, but his early passing audition left something to be desired. He's not a very big specimen, but his potential as a play-maker is off the charts. If efficiency doesn't suffer too much, Tech's explosiveness will probably improve. But that's quite an important "if."

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Carry	Opp. Rate
Vad Lee	QB				172	572	8	3.3	3.5	32.6%
David Sims	BB				161	884	11	5.5	3.7	42.9%
Zach Laskey	BB	6'1, 217	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	84	481	7	5.7	3.6	50.0%
Robert Godhigh	AB				79	744	7	9.4	10.2	55.7%
Justin Thomas	QB	5'11, 185	So.	4 stars (5.8)	31	276	2	8.9	13.4	38.7%
Synjyn Days	AB	6'2, 232	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	28	98	4	3.5	2.4	32.1%
Broderick Snoddy	AB	5'9, 190	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	24	150	0	6.3	4.1	58.3%
Tim Byerly	QB	6'0, 215	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	17	125	2	7.4	4.2	64.7%
B.J. Bostic	AB	5'11, 172	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	16	86	0	5.4	2.9	56.3%
Matt Connors	BB	6'0, 205	Sr.	NR	16	102	2	6.4	10.3	31.3%
Tony Zenon	AB	5'8, 174	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	14	35	0	2.5	2.5	35.7%
Charles Perkins	AB	6'0, 216	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	13	114	2	8.8	9.0	46.2%
Deon Hill	AB	6'0, 194	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	13	119	0	9.2	7.0	61.5%
Dennis Andrews	AB	6'0, 182	So.	3 stars (5.6)	12	146	0	12.2	11.4	66.7%
Donovan Wilson	BB	6'0, 213	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)
Christopher Leggett	RB	5'10, 210	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)
Myles Autry	RB	5'11, 170	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)

5. Give it to the A-Back

Okay, that's a misleading title for this section. The Tech triple option is going to do what the Tech triple option does. In 2012, with mostly Washington running the option, quarterbacks accounted for 33 percent of Tech's carries, B-backs (fullbacks) accounted for 37 percent, and A-backs (slotbacks) accounted for about 29 percent.

In 2013, with Lee taking most of the snaps, it was quarterbacks 32 percent, B-backs 38 percent, A-backs 29 percent. Calling for that ratio to change is probably a waste of time, and justifiably so: the slotbacks have success on the edges of the defense because the quarterbacks and fullbacks are pounding away at the middle. Give it to the slotbacks too much, and you might throw off the effectiveness of the option as a whole.

But damn, it's got to be tempting. Even without leading A-back Robert Godhigh, the Jackets return some exciting options. Broderick Snoddy and B.J. Bostic are particularly efficient, while the trio of Charles Perkins, Deon Hill and Dennis Andrews, knocked pretty far down the depth chart in 2013, combined to average 10.0 yards per carry in about three carries per game. Godhigh was a masterful A-back, averaging 9.4 yards per carry and 11.2 yards per target as the No. 2 receiver. But the stable of race-you-to-the-corner speedsters is still quite impressive.

Receiving Corps

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Target Rate	%SD	Yds/ Target	NEY	Real Yds/ Target	RYPR
DeAndre Smelter	WR	6'3, 225	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	43	21	345	48.8%	24.2%	38.1%	8.0	50	7.5	53.4
Robert Godhigh	RB				42	23	471	54.8%	23.6%	50.0%	11.2	168	11.2	72.9
Darren Waller	WR	6'5, 232	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	34	17	367	50.0%	19.1%	48.4%	10.8	131	9.8	56.8
Micheal Summers	WR	6'1, 190	So.	3 stars (5.6)	21	10	211	47.6%	11.8%	47.4%	10.0	68	8.3	32.6
Synjyn Days	RB	6'2, 232	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	8	3	43	37.5%	4.5%	62.5%	5.4	-6	6.1	6.7
B.J. Bostic	RB	5'11, 172	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	7	5	33	71.4%	3.9%	60.0%	4.7	-25	4.0	5.1
Deon Hill	RB	6'0, 194	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	7	4	49	57.1%	3.9%	100.0%	7.0	-3	4.7	7.6
Zach Laskey	RB	6'1, 217	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	7	3	54	42.9%	3.9%	20.0%	7.7	8	14.6	8.4
David Sims	RB				5	2	71	40.0%	2.8%	100.0%	14.2	39	6.7	11.0
Tony Zenon	RB	5'8, 174	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	2	1	6	50.0%	1.1%	0.0%	3.0	-8	2.7	0.9
Dennis Andrews	RB	6'0, 182	So.	3 stars (5.6)	1	1	37	100.0%	0.6%	N/A	37.0	27	0.0	5.7
Matt Connors	RB	6'0, 205	Sr.	NR	1	1	3	100.0%	0.6%	N/A	3.0	-7	0.0	0.5
Corey Dennis	WR	6'2, 208	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)
Ricky Jeune	WR	6'3, 218	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)
Qua Searcy	WR	5'11, 170	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)

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	114.5	3.14	3.37	44.1%	71.8%	16.4%	114.8	6.2%	5.6%
Rank	12	34	50	16	42	20	52	102	50

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Shaquille Mason	RG	6'1, 311	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	26	1st All-ACC
Will Jackson	LT				42
Jay Finch	C				41
Ray Beno	RT				34
Trey Braun	LG	6'5, 295	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	8
Bryan Chamberlain	RT	6'4, 286	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	8
Chase Roberts	LT	6'3, 270	So.	3 stars (5.5)	3
Errin Joe	RT	6'3, 326	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0
Thomas O'Reilly	C	6'3, 302	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0
Nick Brigham	LG	6'3, 302	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0
Freddie Burden	C	6'3, 292	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0
Shamire Devine	LG	6'7, 370	RSFr.	3 stars (5.7)
Chris Griffin	LT	6'6, 294	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)
Andrew Marshall	OL	6'4, 265	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)

6. A sudden dearth of experience up front

Efficiency might already be an issue for Tech with Thomas behind center. But after two years of strong continuity up front, the Yellow Jackets' offensive line has some rebuilding to do as well, and nothing throws off efficiency like a glitchy, young line.

Now, Tech does still return four players with starting experience (39 career starts, 26 of which come from all-conference guard Shaq Mason), but three departed starters had combined for 117 starts. The Tech line will always have the advantage of uniqueness with its options and cut blocking, and after four starters were listed under 300 pounds last fall, bigger players like Shamire Devine and Errin Joe could enter the rotation this year. Still, you never know if last year's backups are as capable as last year's starters until they prove it.

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.16	67	IsoPPP+	100.6	56
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	43.9%	85	Succ. Rt. +	93.6	85
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	30.3	68	Off. FP+	102.5	32
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	3.9	38	Redzone S&P+	72.8	124
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	20.8		ACTUAL	20.0	-0.8

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	28	79	85	39
RUSHING	11	54	52	24
PASSING	85	93	99	55
Standard Downs		84	95	50
Passing Downs		76	58	96

Q1 Rk	49	1st Down Rk	76
Q2 Rk	94	2nd Down Rk	77
Q3 Rk	60	3rd Down Rk	70
Q4 Rk	83

7. Another tweak

You can't claim that Johnson isn't trying to fix his defense. Georgia Tech has moved from a 4-3 to a 3-4 to a 4-3 through the years and has cycled through different coordinators. Ted Roof replaced Al Groh as coordinator last year and moved back toward a four-man line. This year, the tweak is relatively minor, but presumably in an attempt to fix a pretty dreadful pass defense -- Tech ranked 54th in Rushing S&P+ but 93rd in Passing S&P+ (despite a top-25 pass rush) -- the Jackets will be implementing basically a permanent nickel, a 4-2-5 designed to get more speed and pass defense capabilities onto the field.

A lot of teams have adopted the 4-2-5 alignment through the years. It seems a natural defense to battle spread offenses, and TCU has proven that it can succeed at a very high level. But it can lead to you getting pushed around a good amount, and if you don't have the right personnel, it seems you can get gashed even more easily than in a 4-3.

The right personnel might be a bit of an issue in 2014. The return of safety Isaiah Johnson will help, as will plain old experience (the top four returning tacklers in the secondary were all sophomores last year), but a 4-2-5 asks quite a bit of the defensive line, and the Tech line is starting nearly from scratch in 2014.

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	99.1	3.10	2.88	38.7%	77.8%	20.1%	126.4	8.1%	6.3%
Rank	62	87	24	58	109	48	21	5	75

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Jeremiah Attaochu	DE				13	41.0	6.1%	16.0	12.5	0	2	1	0
Jabari Hunt-Days	DE				13	38.0	5.7%	7.0	2.5	1	1	1	0
Euclid Cummings	DT				13	31.0	4.6%	5.5	2.5	0	0	1	0
Adam Gotsis	DT	6'5, 285	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	13	30.5	4.5%	14.5	5.5	1	1	0	0
Emmanuel Dieke	DE				13	21.5	3.2%	2.0	1.0	0	1	1	0
Anthony Williams	DE				10	7.5	1.1%	2.0	1.0	0	2	0	0
Christopher Crenshaw	DE				4	6.0	0.9%	1.0	0.5	0	0	0	0
Jimmie Kitchen	NT	6'3, 270	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	8	4.5	0.7%	0.5	0.0	0	0	0	1
Patrick Gamble	NT	6'5, 280	So.	3 stars (5.7)	8	4.5	0.7%	0.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Nick Menocal (2012)	DE	6'3, 244	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	14	4.5	0.6%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Shawn Green	NT	6'0, 280	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	7	4.0	0.6%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Francis Kallon	DT	6'5, 296	So.	4 stars (5.8)	10	3.5	0.5%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Tyler Stargel	DE	6'3, 242	So.	3 stars (5.6)
Roderick Rook-Chungong	DE	6'3, 248	So.	3 stars (5.6)
Darius Commissiong	DL	6'3, 275	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)
Kenderius Whitehead	DE	6'5, 220	So.	3 stars (5.5)
KeShun Freeman	DE	6'4, 230	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)

8. A sudden dearth of experience up front, part 2

In terms of line stats, Tech's defense progressed nicely in 2013. After ranking 82nd in Adj. Line Yards and 53rd in Adj. Sack Rate in 2012, the Jackets improved to 62nd and 21st, respectively. Jeremiah Attaochu, who played OLB in Groh's 3-4, took nicely to the position of 4-3 end and recorded a sack per game, and he got plenty of help.

This year, Attaochu is gone, as are the next three ends on last year's list. So is tackle Euclid Cummings. And for that matter, so is likely Attaochu replacement Jabari Hunt-Days, who was deemed academically ineligible for 2014. So that leaves Adam Gotsis, some slightly experienced fellow tackles, and a whole hell of a lot of inexperience at defensive end.

One can see the end position turning into something impressive in 2015-16 as young, athletic players like Roderick Rook-Chungong, Tyler Stargel, KeShun Freeman (in for spring and already listed as a co-starter), and Kenderius Whitehead grow into their new roles. But one can also see them struggling to make much noise in 2014. And considering how much a good pass rush helped out a scuffling secondary in 2013, that's a scary thought.

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Quayshawn Nealy	LB	6'1, 236	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	13	55.0	8.2%	3.5	0.0	2	2	0	2
Brandon Watts	LB				12	54.0	8.0%	3.5	2.5	1	1	1	0
Paul Davis	LB	5'11, 218	So.	2 stars (5.2)	13	38.0	5.7%	5.0	1.0	0	1	0	0
Tyler Marcordes	LB	6'4, 243	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	13	13.5	2.0%	2.5	1.5	2	0	1	0
Anthony Harrell	LB	6'2, 229	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	7	9.0	1.3%	2.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Daniel Drummond	LB				10	4.5	0.7%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Beau Hankins	LB	6'1, 225	So.	3 stars (5.6)	8	3.5	0.5%	0.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Chase Alford	LB	6'1, 225	So.	NR	5	2.5	0.4%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Kyle Travis	LB	6'3, 230	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	13	2.0	0.3%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Tremayne McNair	LB	6'2, 230	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	9	2.0	0.3%	0.0	0.0	0	1	0	0
Marcus Allen	LB	6'2, 231	So.	3 stars (5.7)	2	2.0	0.3%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Jemea Thomas	S				13	80.5	12.0%	6.5	3	2	8	2	0
Isaiah Johnson (2012)	SS	6'2, 213	Sr.	2 stars (5.1)	13	70.0	9.4%	4.5	1	1	1	1	1
D.J. White	CB	5'11, 190	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	13	45.0	6.7%	1	0	1	5	2	0
Demond Smith	NB	6'0, 194	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	13	38.5	5.7%	3	0.5	0	4	0	0
Louis Young	CB				13	34.5	5.1%	2	0	2	5	0	0
Domonique Noble	NB	6'2, 216	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	13	26.0	3.9%	2	0	0	3	0	0
Chris Milton	CB	5'11, 183	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	13	14.5	2.2%	1	0	2	2	0	0
Jamal Golden	FS	6'0, 193	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	3	10.0	1.5%	0	0	0	0	1	0
Lynn Griffin	CB	6'0, 200	So.	3 stars (5.6)	12	7.5	1.1%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Coray Carlson	S				7	6.5	1.0%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Zach Allen	DB	5'9, 177	So.	2 stars (5.0)	3	2.0	0.3%	0	0	0	1	0	0
John Marvin	SS	6'1, 199	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)
Corey Griffin	FS	6'2, 195	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)
Step Durham	CB	5'11, 175	Fr.	4 stars (5.8)
Lance Austin	DB	5'10, 170	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)
Lawrence Austin	DB	5'9, 170	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)

9. "The secondary is the least of Tech's worries"

Tech ranked 23rd in Passing S&P+ with a mediocre pass rush in 2012. Heading into last fall, the secondary appeared to be returning basically everybody but corner Rod Sweeting, and I declared in the Tech preview that the Jackets were going to be just fine in the backfield. But Isaiah Johnson didn't recover in time from a Sun Bowl knee injury as I assumed he would, and Golden joined him on the sideline after three games.

Turns out, if you lose your starting cornerback and end up having to replace your two most experienced safeties, you could suffer. Jemea Thomas moved from corner to safety midway through the year to stem some of the bleeding, and it worked pretty well, but the damage from the Miami game had been done.

Moving to more of a 4-2-5, and therefore putting more defensive backs on the field a year after they struggled quite a bit, is ripe for a backfire. But with the return of Johnson and Golden, it makes sense. With them at strong and free safety, that frees up Demond Smith and Domonique Noble to get aggressive at the nickel back role (they combined for five tackles for loss and seven break-ups last year). Plus, D.J. White more or less held his own as No. 1 corner when Thomas moved to safety, and four-star freshman Step Durham was in for spring.

With the turnover up front, it's possible that the secondary goes from the defense's biggest weakness to its biggest strength in a single offseason. (That's both good and bad. Hooray, the secondary is better. Boo, the line is potentially much worse.)

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Sean Poole			45	42.3	3	11	15	57.8%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
Harrison Butker	6'3, 201	So.	73	62.9	30	4	41.1%
David Scully			8	63.3	3	0	37.5%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Harrison Butker	6'3, 201	So.	53-54	5-7	71.4%	5-7	71.4%
Andrew Chau	5'10, 174	Jr.	4-4	0-0	N/A	0-0	N/A

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Lynn Griffin	KR	6'0, 200	So.	8	26.5	0
Jemea Thomas	KR			8	23.5	0
DeAndre Smelter	PR	6'3, 225	Sr.	11	11.3	0
Jamal Golden	PR	6'0, 193	Sr.	3	3.7	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams F/+	22
Field Goal Efficiency	63
Punt Return Efficiency	18
Kick Return Efficiency	53
Punt Efficiency	21
Kickoff Efficiency	59
Opponents' Field Goal Efficiency	32

2014 Schedule & Projection Factors

2014 Schedule
Date	Opponent	Proj. Rk
30-Aug	Wofford	NR
6-Sep	at Tulane	91
13-Sep	Georgia Southern	125
20-Sep	at Virginia Tech	19
4-Oct	Miami	30
11-Oct	Duke	56
18-Oct	at North Carolina	35
25-Oct	at Pittsburgh	39
1-Nov	Virginia	62
8-Nov	at N.C. State	66
15-Nov	Clemson	5
29-Nov	at Georgia	10

Five-Year F/+ Rk	7.8% (40)
Two-Year Recruiting Rk	69
TO Margin/Adj. TO Margin*	-4 / -1.1
TO Luck/Game	-1.1
Approx. Ret. Starters (Off. / Def.)	10 (5, 5)

10. Another Gailey in the works

I also proclaimed last year that, with a potentially rough schedule on tap, Tech fans might end up being happy with pulling another Gailey and going 7-5 again. They pulled that off despite the mid-season defensive lull.

This time around, the schedule eases up a bit. The Jackets finish the season with two projected top-10 opponents, but in the first 10 games only two teams project higher than Tech's No. 34 ranking last year: No. 19 Virginia Tech and No. 30 Miami. If the Jackets can avoid a pratfall at Tulane and beat Duke again (this time at home), they could start the season 4-2 or 5-1 and, in theory, position themselves for another run at a division title.

Or, the offense could lose efficiency, the defensive line could get pushed around too much, and Tech could lose to both Tulane and Duke (in addition to the Hokies and Hurricanes) and head into a tough road trip (at UNC, at Pitt) at 2-4. Both options are on the table.

Thanks mostly to Justin Thomas and a more stable secondary, this 2014 Georgia Tech squad seems to have more upside than its 2013 counterpart. But until Thomas and/or Tim Byerly prove that they can pass at least as well ("well") as Vad Lee, and until the Tech defensive line proves it isn't a complete liability, there's more downside as well.

Tech improved back into the 30s last year and projects in the 40s this year, but I see this team ending up in either the 20s or 50s. There's a lot of volatility here, and I'm curious what happens with Johnson's job if he fails to at least pull a Gailey this time around.