The big 2015 Southern Miss football guide: It's a long road back

Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.

1. Rebound vs. dead cat bounce

The consistency was admirable, but there was never any major breakthrough. Or at least, there hadn't since 1999, when USM finished 9-3 and 14th in the AP Poll.

In 2011, Southern Miss got its breakthrough, finishing 12-2 and winning Conference USA.

In 2012-13, Southern Miss went 1-23.

Fedora left for North Carolina after 2011, but while USM had a heavy senior class, it still seemed as if there were a few pieces left over for new head coach Ellis Johnson. Regardless, the Golden Eagles' 18-year win streak ended with a zero-win season.

And in 2013, the team got even worse.

It almost feels like cruelty to bring it up every year, but it still blows my mind that the steadiest mid-major program for almost two decades could fall apart overnight. Southern Miss was over .500 every year from 1994 to 2011, never finishing with fewer than six or more than nine wins, then went full-on Achilles, killing itself to finally break through and collapsing after crossing the finish line.

Adding 2014, the Golden Eagles are now 4-32 since the end of the Larry Fedora era. That would be awful for any team, much less one so solid for so long.

But there might be a silver lining: after a stunning two-year collapse, Southern Miss actually improved. It wasn't by much -- a 3-9 record with a No. 110 F/+ ranking isn't a surge -- but it was a bounce. And now we get to see if it was the result of some "they were almost impossibly bad in 2013" regression to the mean, or some actual program progression that will continue.

Southern Miss will have all the offensive experience you could possibly want and depth of options at positions that were still lagging last fall. The defense will be starting over, and because of that, it's hard to imagine any significant breakthrough in Todd Monken's third year, but another step forward is a possibility. When you fall through a trap door, there's no quick way out, but improvement can still feel like improvement.

2014 Schedule & Results

Record: 3-9 | Adj. Record: 3-9 | Final F/+ Rk: 110
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Percentile Performance	Adj. Scoring Margin	Win Expectancy
30-Aug	at Mississippi State	13	0-49	L	5%	-38.2	0%
6-Sep	Alcorn State	N/A	26-20	W	18%	-21.8	37%
13-Sep	at Alabama	2	12-52	L	10%	-29.8	0%
20-Sep	Appalachian State	104	21-20	W	71%	12.8	61%
27-Sep	Rice	86	23-41	L	22%	-17.9	2%
4-Oct	at Middle Tennessee	87	31-37	L	34%	-9.5	13%
18-Oct	at North Texas	125	30-20	W	55%	2.9	62%
25-Oct	Louisiana Tech	35	20-31	L	38%	-7.3	3%
1-Nov	at UTEP	90	14-35	L	38%	-7.2	17%
8-Nov	Marshall	17	17-63	L	15%	-24.4	0%
13-Nov	at UTSA	109	10-12	L	60%	5.7	72%
29-Nov	UAB	79	24-45	L	7%	-34.9	0%

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk
S&P+	21.9	101	32.7	94
Points Per Game	19.0	117	35.4	111

2. Schedule-dependent growth

If you squint, you can see a little bit of in-season growth from Southern Miss in the above percentile chart. The Golden Eagles' average percentile performance was 25 percent through the first five games, then 41 percent in the next four before a late fade.

That growth (if it actually existed) seemed dependent on the quality of the opponent. Southern Miss played its best games against its worst opponents, and more of those came in the middle of the year.

• Average percentile performance (vs. F/+ top 40): 17% (average score: Opponent 49, USM 12)
• Average percentile performance (vs. No. 41-100): 25% (average score: Opponent 40, USM 23)
• Average percentile performance (vs. No. 101+): 51% (average score: USM 22, Opponent 18)

(Here's where I remind you that these percentile performances are opponent-adjusted numbers, so while it seems like a no-brainer to say a team fared better against bad opponents, that's not necessarily true.)

The offense, lacking entirely in big-play capability, had a low ceiling no matter the opponent. But the Southern Miss defense seemed capable of dominating less athletic offenses.

What that might mean for 2015 is hard to say since the offense returns just about everybody and the defense does not. But it does hint at a D that is reliant on aggressiveness but didn't have enough.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	0.73	121	IsoPPP+	76.5	119
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	37.4%	109	Succ. Rt. +	96.8	79
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	32.3	111	Def. FP+	98.0	92
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	3.4	121	Redzone S&P+	80.9	122
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	28.7		ACTUAL	26	-2.7

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	100	110	85	119
RUSHING	124	114	94	121
PASSING	34	105	64	116
Standard Downs		109	95	111
Passing Downs		95	45	116

Q1 Rk	89	1st Down Rk	94
Q2 Rk	123	2nd Down Rk	93
Q3 Rk	103	3rd Down Rk	122
Q4 Rk	70

3. Big plays nowhere to be found

First, the encouraging part: Southern Miss' offense was woefully inefficient in 2013 (Success Rate+ rank: 121st) and improved dramatically last fall (79th).

Second-year starting quarterback Nick Mullens was asked to do less because the run game was slightly more reliable (from "maybe the worst in the country" in 2013 to merely bad), and he responded by raising his completion rate from 49 percent to 60, lowering his sack rate from 8.3 to 5.4 percent, and cutting his interception rate from 5.1 to 2.5 percent.

Meanwhile, the big plays disappeared. Mullens averaged 11.3 yards per completion, and the run game produced 42 rushes of 10-plus yards (119th in the country) and just one of 40-plus. Southern Miss had a much better relationship with the chains, but when you aren't breaking off big gains, you eventually stall. This struggle had a role in USM averaging a woeful 3.4 points per scoring opportunity.

There is hope. Michael Thomas became a reliable passing downs target, averaging 14.4 yards per catch, and two freshmen (Marquise Ricard and former star recruit James Cox) averaged at least 13.9. Plus, backs Ito Smith, Jalen Richard, and Tez Parks (two of whom were freshmen) showed potential in the open field -- they just didn't get into the open field enough. Perhaps as the experience levels improve, explosive players will get more opportunities to explode.

Quarterback

Note: players in bold below are 2015 returnees. Players in italics are questionable with injury/suspension.

Player

Ht, Wt

2015 Year

Rivals

247 Comp.

Comp

Att

Yards

TD

INT

Comp Rate

Sacks

Sack Rate

Yards/ Att.

Nick Mullens

6'1, 196

Jr.

2 stars (5.3)

0.7817

218

365

2470

12

9

59.7%

21

5.4%

6.1

Cole Weeks

59

112

761

2

5

52.7%

13

10.4%

5.3

Tyler Matthews (TCU)

6'4, 215

So.

4 stars (5.8)

0.8957

Parker Adamson

6'4, 214

So.

2 stars (5.4)

0.7593

Gunner Roach

6'1, 176

RSFr.

2 stars (5.4)

0.8004

Gabe Green

6'1, 210

Fr.

2 stars (5.4)

0.8074

4. Incumbent faces a tough reelection battle

Mullens improved in just about every way a quarterback can.

A second-year starting sophomore, he wasn't ready to torch good defenses yet -- against Mississippi State and Alabama, he was 39-for-77 for 419 yards, two interceptions, and four sacks (yards per attempt, including sacks: 4.9) -- but when punching in the right weight class, he showed quite a bit of potential. In a four-game span against Appalachian State, Rice, MTSU, and North Texas, he completed 109 of 175 passes (62 percent) for 1,282 yards, eight touchdowns, six interceptions (a bit high), and eight sacks. Yards per attempt: 6.7. His passer rating was at least 125.2 in three of the four games, as well.

Mullens made mistakes, but he was a sophomore with a young receiving corps and a shaky line. He was only going to be able to do so well.

When you start as a freshman and sophomore, you assume you will start as a junior and senior. But Mullens has a battle on his hands. TCU transfer and former four-star recruit Tyler Matthews is now in Hattiesburg, and Monken has said each (not to mention sophomore Parker Adamson and redshirt freshman Gunner Roach) will get a shot at the starting job. Roach was a three-star recruit according to the 247Sports Composite, as was incoming freshman Gabe Green. I assume that Mullens keeps the job, but he'll have to continue improving.

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Opp.	Opp. Rate	Fumbles	Fum. Lost
Ito Smith	RB	5'9, 182	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8354	136	536	2	3.9	4.9	29.4%	3	1
George Payne	RB	6'0, 207	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	NR	86	271	6	3.2	2.6	25.6%	0	0
Jalen Richard	RB	5'8, 207	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8054	42	236	1	5.6	7.3	35.7%	2	0
Nick Mullens	QB	6'1, 196	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7817	28	173	0	6.2	5.1	50.0%	6	2
Tez Parks	RB	6'1, 193	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8432	28	156	0	5.6	8.7	35.7%	1	0
Cole Weeks	QB					12	67	0	5.6	4.9	50.0%	8	4
Patrick Brooks	RB	5'10, 175	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7993

Receiving Corps

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Target Rate	%SD	Yds/ Target	NEY	Real Yds/ Target	RYPR
Tyre'oune Holmes (2013)	WR-H	5'11, 170	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7993	81	53	410	65.4%	18.9%	52.5%	5.1	-227	4.6	51.0
Casey Martin	WR-H	5'10, 175	Sr.	NR	N/A	74	55	531	74.3%	16.3%	52.7%	7.2	-117	7.3	58.3
Michael Thomas	WR-X	6'1, 186	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7783	68	41	592	60.3%	15.0%	52.9%	8.7	90	8.7	65.0
Markese Triplett	WR-Y					63	41	566	65.1%	13.9%	44.4%	9.0	72	8.7	62.1
Marquise Ricard	WR-Z	6'2, 192	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7519	61	30	417	49.2%	13.5%	55.7%	6.8	33	6.9	45.8
Jalen Richard	RB	5'8, 207	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8054	38	24	184	63.2%	8.4%	55.3%	4.8	-107	4.8	20.2
D.J. Thompson	WR-Z	6'3, 198	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8569	36	22	231	61.1%	7.9%	44.4%	6.4	-38	6.5	25.4
James Cox	WR-X	6'1, 190	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8246	26	15	219	57.7%	5.7%	53.8%	8.4	34	8.5	24.0
Kyle Foster	WR-Y	6'3, 218	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7685	24	12	168	50.0%	5.3%	41.7%	7.0	15	8.0	18.4
Ito Smith	RB	5'9, 182	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8354	15	8	76	53.3%	3.3%	40.0%	5.1	-24	4.1	8.4
Daythan Davis	FB	6'1, 228	So.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7583	14	9	87	64.3%	3.1%	57.1%	6.2	-22	6.2	9.5
George Payne	RB	6'0, 207	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	NR	12	8	109	66.7%	2.6%	66.7%	9.1	13	9.6	12.0
Curtis Mikell	WR-H	5'8, 168	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7759	6	6	48	100.0%	1.3%	50.0%	8.0	-20	7.9	5.3
Kyle Sloter	WR	6'4, 218	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8113	5	2	12	40.0%	1.1%	40.0%	2.4	-15	3.5	1.3
Jay'Shawn Washington	FB/TE	6'1, 226	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7000
Korey Robertson	WR	6'1, 200	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8093
Julian Allen	TE	6'3, 234	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8056
Taylor Marini	TE	6'4, 237	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7933

5. Options

Ito Smith, a true freshman in 2014, became USM's go-to back almost immediately, rushing 45 times in the first two games and averaging 15 carries in the final four.

He battled injury in the middle of the year, which gave then-sophomore George Payne a shot at the starting job. (He averaged just 3.9 yards per carry in four games as the feature back). Jalen Richard averaged 6.7 yards per carry over the season's final four games, and Tez Parks carried 20 times in the first four games before fading into the pack.

All four are scheduled to return, as are nine of the 10 members of the offensive line's two-deep (including eight players with a combined 77 games of starting experience).

At receiver, six wideouts were targeted at least twice per game, and five return. So does bouncy possession receiver Tyre'oune Holmes, who led the Golden Eagles with 53 catches in 2013 but missed 2014 with injury. Those responsible for 86 percent of last year's targets are back, and now you add Holmes.

Depth doesn't matter if quality isn't involved, but while we wait to figure out the latter, Southern Miss has bucketloads of the former, and skillsets vary nicely. Holmes and Casey Martin are efficiency guys; they combined to catch 70 percent of their targets in their most recent seasons. Michael Thomas, Marquise Ricard, Kyle Foster, and James Cox are potential vertical threats if the horizontal game has defenses stretched out.

When you don't have a lot of proven talent, you want options. In every unit of the offense, Southern Miss will have that. And there's just enough potential to talk yourself into some pretty impressive numbers.

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	80.1	2.18	2.9	32.2%	58.3%	25.9%	93.2	4.0%	10.9%
Rank	122	126	99	119	115	123	80	47	112

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Rashod Hill	LT	6'6, 302	Sr.	NR	NR	23
Cameron Tom	C	6'4, 287	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7893	21
Fred Moore	RG					16
Brandon Farmer	LG	6'2, 308	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7578	12
Devin Farrior	RG	6'4, 304	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7908	7
Norman Price	RT	6'4, 321	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8529	6
Jerry Harris	RT	6'3, 302	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7993	4
Oliver Bates	LT	6'2, 282	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7611	2
Randal Agee	C	6'0, 292	Sr.	NR	NR	2
Thomas Collins	LG	6'3, 318	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7593	0
Bradley Nugent	C	5'11, 270	Sr.	NR	NR	0
Andrew Peterson	OL	6'6, 295	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	NR
Jacob Fleming	OL	6'4, 302	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7919
Tyler Stutzman	OL	6'4, 265	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7300
Drake Dorbeck	OL	6'6, 320	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7959
Ty Pollard	OL	6'6, 302	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	N/A

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	0.93	108	IsoPPP+	90.6	97
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	44.5%	97	Succ. Rt. +	93.6	95
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	26.8	124	Off. FP+	94.0	123
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	4.6	91	Redzone S&P+	98.9	66
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	16.0		ACTUAL	16.0	0.0

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	106	100	93	97
RUSHING	112	85	76	92
PASSING	84	99	110	92
Standard Downs		89	76	96
Passing Downs		97	118	77

Q1 Rk	64	1st Down Rk	97
Q2 Rk	111	2nd Down Rk	116
Q3 Rk	71	3rd Down Rk	83
Q4 Rk	118

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	100.5	2.84	3.21	38.6%	59.2%	20.2%	64	2.6%	5.1%
Rank	60	53	57	59	21	52	118	112	108

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Dasman McCullum	DE					12	49.5	7.4%	13.0	4.5	1	1	4	1
Rakeem Nunez-Roches	DT					11	45.0	6.7%	14.0	3.0	0	0	0	0
Adam Williams	NT					12	30.5	4.6%	4.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Michael Smith	DE	6'4, 277	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7000	10	23.5	3.5%	0.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Dylan Bradley	BANDIT	6'1, 265	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8237	8	20.5	3.1%	5.0	3.0	0	0	1	0
Wil Freeman	DT	6'6, 261	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8133	11	10.5	1.6%	1.0	0.0	0	1	0	0
Draper Riley	NT	6'4, 289	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7933	9	10.0	1.5%	1.0	1.0	0	0	0	0
Ja'Boree Poole	BANDIT	6'2, 241	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7685	12	8.0	1.2%	1.5	1.5	0	0	0	0
Nic Bekkers	DL					11	6.5	1.0%	2.0	1.0	0	0	0	0
Rod Crayton	DL	6'1, 287	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8484	5	4.0	0.6%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Jerry McCorvey	DL	6'3, 250	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7944	12	2.5	0.4%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Jon Michael Edwards	DE	6'4, 230	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8352
Ricky Parks	DE	6'3, 280	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8411
Derrick Dixon	DE	6'3, 240	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7956
LaDarius Harris	DT	6'1, 280	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7991
Jauan Collins	DT	6'0, 295	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7893

6. The strongest unit rebuilds

In 2014, Southern Miss' front began to look like the line you remember from the 2011 Conference USA championship squad. The Golden Eagles were great in short-yardage situations and inevaded the backfield against the run. The duo of Dasman McCullum and Rakeem Nunez-Roches combined for 19.5 non-sack tackles for loss, and nose tackle Adam Williams pitched in another four.

The run defense was only decent because of what tended to happen when a runner got past the line, and these players weren't as effective at rushing the passer as they were at stuffing running backs, but defensive coordinator David Duggan had something to work with. Past tense. McCullum, Nunez-Roches, and Williams are gone.

Hope is not lost: five players who were at least minor role-players last year return, including pass rush specialist Dylan Bradley. Tackles like Wil Freeman and Draper Riley had decent pedigrees when they showed up in Hattiesburg. If one of two JUCO linemen (either Ricky Parks or Derrick Dixon) shows up ready, and if former star recruit Jon Michael Edwards can live up to his three-star billing, maybe the line will be fine. Treading water is the goal.

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Alan Howze	WLB					12	56.5	8.5%	2.0	0.0	0	0	1	0
Brian Anderson	MLB	5'10, 248	Sr.	NR	NR	8	51.5	7.7%	3.0	0.0	0	1	0	0
Elijah Parker	LB	6'2, 208	Jr.	NR	NR	10	30.5	4.6%	0.5	0.0	0	1	0	0
Terrick Wright	WLB	6'2, 228	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.7000	12	17.0	2.5%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Justin Penn	SPUR					11	11.0	1.6%	1.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
David Bertucci	SPUR	5'11, 198	Sr.	NR	NR	9	6.5	1.0%	0.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
C.J. Perry	MLB	6'0, 233	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	NR	12	6.5	1.0%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Darian Yancey	LB	6'1, 225	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8106
Paxton Schrimsher	LB	6'3, 225	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8215

7. Creating pressure

Even with the trio of star linemen, the pass rush really did lack. McCullum, Nunez-Roches, and Bradley combined for a decent 10.5 sacks; the rest of the team had 3.5, and the linebackers had none. None!

Injuries and shuffling were issues -- of the five linebackers to average at least one tackle, three missed time. And healthy or not, there was almost no disruptive play. If the line didn't make a play, the secondary was going to have to.

Middle linbacker Brian Anderson missed one-third of the season and still nearly led the team in tackles, which suggests he is a steady tackler if nothing else, but this unit will need to produce more ... which is to say is needs to produce something at all.

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Jacorius Cotton	BS					12	60.5	9.1%	3	1	0	5	1	1
Emmanuel Johnson	FS					12	56.0	8.4%	3.5	0	0	2	0	0
Kalan Reed	CB	5'11, 191	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7600	12	32.0	4.8%	1	0	2	9	0	0
Picasso Nelson Jr.	CB	5'10, 187	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7785	12	28.5	4.3%	0	0	2	7	0	0
Jomez Applewhite	CB	6'1, 177	So.	2 stars (5.4)	NR	12	26.5	4.0%	2.5	0	2	1	1	0
Cornell Armstrong	DB	5'11, 175	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8159	12	26.0	3.9%	3	0	0	4	0	0
Trae Collins	CB	5'11, 183	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7600	10	12.0	1.8%	1	0	0	1	0	0
Troy Jeter	BS	5'11, 180	Jr.	NR	NR	10	4.5	0.7%	0	0	0	1	1	0
Kevin Williams Jr.	FS	5'11, 194	So.	NR	NR	6	4.0	0.6%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Kelsey Douglas	DB	5'11, 192	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7959	5	2.5	0.4%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Urell Johnson	DB				N/A	6	2.0	0.3%	0	0	0	1	0	0
Evan Osborne	DB	6'3, 198	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7752
Xavier Marion	DB	6'0, 195	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7693
Walden Davis	DB	5'10, 192	RSFr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8500
DeShadrick Truly	DB	6'0, 190	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.8100
Devonta Foster	DB	6'0, 190	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8000
D'Nerius Antoine	DB	6'0, 231	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	NR

8. Now the strongest defensive unit

If the front seven holds, I'm not worried about the secondary. Aggressive safeties Jacorius Cotton and Emmanuel Johnson are gone, but senior corner Kalan Reed returns, as does a foursome of exciting sophomores.

Picasso Nelson Jr., Jomez Applewhite, and Cornell Armstrong combined for 5.5 tackles for loss and 16 passes defensed, and Trae Collins saw decent playing time as well. Plus, redshirt freshman Walden Davis (a 247 three-star) and a trio of JUCO transfers could fill in an exciting two-deep. There could still be some youth-related issues, but with minimal help from the front seven, this unit should be decent. And it should be downright awesome in 2016-17.

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Tyler Sarrazin	6'3, 204	Jr.	66	39.5	4	19	17	54.5%
Matthew Moseley	5'10, 163	Sr.	1	36.0	0	1	0	100.0%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
Corey Acosta			52	61.6	17	0	32.7%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Corey Acosta			21-23	13-14	92.9%	6-11	54.5%

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Michael Thomas	KR	6'1, 186	Sr.	26	24.0	1
Ito Smith	KR	5'9, 182	So.	10	22.3	0
Casey Martin	PR	5'10, 175	Sr.	15	8.9	0
Jalen Richard	PR	5'8, 207	Sr.	2	9.0	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams F/+	108
Field Goal Efficiency	34
Punt Return Efficiency	42
Kick Return Efficiency	46
Punt Efficiency	99
Kickoff Efficiency	127
Opponents' Field Goal Efficiency	2

9. Cover the kicks

Michael Thomas and Casey Martin combined to give USM a nice return unit, and Corey Acosta was perfectly fine as a place-kicker. Southern Miss blocked three kicks, and opponents strangely missed field goals at a high rate. In all, special teams tended to result in a net win for the Golden Eagles ... at least, until the Southern Miss coverage unit got involved.

One-third of Acosta's kickoffs were touchbacks, but USM still ranked 127th in Brian Fremeau's kickoff efficiency ratings; meanwhile, half of Tyler Sarrazin's punts were either fair caught or pinned inside the 20, and Southern Miss still ranked 99th in punt efficiency. If you got a return opportunity against the Golden Eagles, you were making the most of it.

And now Acosta's gone, and opponents might not be as charitable on three-point attempts.

2015 Schedule & Projection Factors

2015 Schedule
Date	Opponent	2014 F/+ Rk
5-Sep	Mississippi State	13
12-Sep	Austin Peay	NR
19-Sep	at Texas State	95
26-Sep	at Nebraska	30
3-Oct	North Texas	125
10-Oct	at Marshall	17
17-Oct	UTSA	109
24-Oct	at Charlotte	NR
31-Oct	UTEP	90
14-Nov	at Rice	86
21-Nov	Old Dominion	108
28-Nov	at Louisiana Tech	35

Five-Year F/+ Rk	-17.9% (96)
2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk	98 / 84
2014 TO Margin/Adj. TO Margin*	-10 / -12.7
2014 TO Luck/Game	+1.1
Approx. Ret. Starters (Off. / Def.)	15 (10, 5)
2014 Second-order wins (difference)	2.7 (0.3)

10. The slow climb continues

The offense seems to have potential, and if experience leads to efficiency, there is enough big-play potential to think the yardage and point totals could improve by quite a bit. That alone makes Southern Miss a nice bet to improve -- the offense should gain more ground than the defense loses.

Southern Miss was 110th in the F/+ ratings last year, and if the Golden Eagles can work their way into the No. 95-100 range this year, that could mean great things. Five of six home opponents ranked 90th or worse in 2014, and Southern Miss draws FBS newcomer Charlotte on the road. With seven or eight decent opportunities for wins, it wouldn't take many breaks for the Golden Eagles to improve to 4-8 or 5-7, maybe 6-6 with a good amount of luck.

There's no quick way back when you fall this far, but I don't think Southern Miss' improvement was a mirage. The Golden Eagles should take another net step forward and are still young enough that they should return 13-14 starters again next year. A year ago, there was nowhere to look for hope. This year, there's a path. That's good enough for now.