The big 2015 Tulane football guide: Fighting to clear the bar you've raised

Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.

1. A higher baseline

In 2014, Tulane scored 8.8 fewer points per game than it did the year before and allowed a touchdown more. The Green Wave's full-season scoring margin went from plus-44 points to minus-149, and their performance in close games regressed -- they went 3-4 in one-possession games in 2013 and 1-3 in 2014. A great defense became good, and a bad offense got worse.

Oh, by the way, this was Tulane's second-best team of the last decade. The F/+ ratings go back to 2005; from 2005-12, Tulane never ranked better than 101st. The Green Wave surged to 65th in 2013 and last fall fell to 93rd.

It's all about expectations, isn't it? Near the end of the Chris Scelfo era and throughout Bob Toledo's five-year tenure, there were none. The Green Wave had no identity, minimal skill, and a cavernous stadium. Now, they've got high defensive standards, a pretty on-campus venue, and bowl hopes. That last year's 3-9 season was disappointing, after Tulane had averaged 2.6 wins per year between 2008-12, was a sign of progress.

That's the thing about higher bars: you still have to clear them.

Here's what I wrote about Curtis Johnson when Tulane hired him in 2012:

Johnson is an intriguing hire. When you are a mid-major, your options are to hire an up-and-comer and hope he stays long enough to win, or hire a coach who failed at a major-conference level and is on his way down.

Johnson is an odd combination of experienced and up-and-coming. At 50 years old, the New Orleans native racked up 18 years of assistant experience -- he recruited Marshall Faulk to San Diego State, Ed Reed to Miami -- and spent the last six years as Sean Payton's receivers coach. He has been a receivers coach for 25 years, but he is a New Orleans guy. There is nothing on his resume to suggest he can turn underachievers into overachievers, but … there is nothing to suggest he cannot.

His staff is a combination of old hands and charismatic youngsters, and if he can bring former three-star recruits out of their shell and bring in new ones, Tulane could have a much higher ceiling.

While recruiting rankings haven't been kind to the Green Wave within their conference, Johnson has hammered the local channels. In his four classes, he has signed 24 players from New Orleans, 33 from elsewhere in Louisiana, and only 17 from out of state. Perhaps as a result*, Tulane has a roster that has suffered minimal turnover and is developing depth it has rarely had.

So now Tulane just has to win again. The Green Wave have won 10 games in two years -- the most for a two-year span since they won 13 games in 2002-03 -- but regressing by four wins from one year to another is never a good thing. The Tulane defense should again be sound, but it almost isn't an exaggeration to say that the Green Wave haven't had a good offense since Shaun King was quarterback.

Tulane isn't a good program yet. But if it's ever going to get there, it's going to be by following the steps Johnson has followed.

* If strong local recruiting doesn't have a direct correlation to turnover, it at least doesn't hurt your attrition levels.

2014 Schedule & Results

Record: 3-9 | Adj. Record: 3-9 | Final F/+ Rk: 93
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Percentile Performance	Adj. Scoring Margin	Win Expectancy
28-Aug	at Tulsa	117	31-38	L	25%	-15.6	40%
6-Sep	Georgia Tech	8	21-38	L	31%	-11.3	4%
13-Sep	SE Louisiana	NR	35-20	W	68%	11.1	98%
20-Sep	at Duke	51	13-47	L	20%	-19.4	1%
27-Sep	at Rutgers	81	6-31	L	7%	-34.1	0%
11-Oct	Connecticut	119	12-3	W	69%	11.8	96%
18-Oct	at Central Florida	60	13-20	L	44%	-3.6	15%
31-Oct	Cincinnati	47	14-38	L	27%	-14.1	3%
8-Nov	at Houston	73	31-24	W	84%	23.3	92%
15-Nov	Memphis	41	7-38	L	30%	-12.3	1%
22-Nov	at East Carolina	61	6-34	L	7%	-34.2	0%
6-Dec	Temple	67	3-10	L	19%	-20.1	1%

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk
S&P+	19.3	117	26.8	55
Points Per Game	16.0	124	28.4	81

2. Up, down, staying the same

In my recent Tulsa preview, we discussed a team with a small range between its best and worst performances. Tulane was a bit more unpredictable. Tulane ended up grading out better despite a season-opening road loss to the Golden Hurricane, mainly because the high points were higher.

• Average Percentile Performance (4 best games): Tulane 70%, Tulsa 40%
• Average Percentile Performance (4 worst games): Tulane 13%, Tulsa 6%

The floors were similar; the ceilings were not.

What's funny about Tulane's in-season progression was that, no matter how high or low they strayed, their averages returned to normal.

• Average Percentile Performance (first 4 games): 36% (record: 1-3)
• Average Percentile Performance (next 4 games): 37% (record: 1-3)
• Average Percentile Performance (last 4 games): 35% (record: 1-3)

I don't know if that's encouraging. But I do know that the personality of the squad didn't change much -- the defense was usually doing what it could (the Green Wave allowed 5.3 or fewer yards per play six times), and the offense was usually holding it back (they averaged 5.1 yards per play or fewer nine times).

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	0.78	104	IsoPPP+	83.5	108
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	35.5%	119	Succ. Rt. +	83.0	120
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	33.2	120	Def. FP+	97.0	101
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	2.9	128	Redzone S&P+	81.0	121
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	22.4		ACTUAL	25	+2.6

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	110	118	122	108
RUSHING	94	104	116	87
PASSING	87	117	121	107
Standard Downs		103	119	96
Passing Downs		120	119	119

Q1 Rk	107	1st Down Rk	106
Q2 Rk	111	2nd Down Rk	113
Q3 Rk	111	3rd Down Rk	73
Q4 Rk	98

3. Fixing an unfixable offense

The last time Tulane averaged even 25 points per game, J.P. Losman was the quarterback. Losman is 34 years old.

In 10 years of S&P+ data, the Green Wave have never ranked better than 83rd in Off. S&P+, and even while going in 7-6 in 2013, they did so despite the offense (112th), not because of it.

This much failure in an era of fireworks has to be looked at as a systemic issue, not a tactical one. But if you look at recruiting rankings, you don't see a huge difference between the offensive personnel that struggled and the defensive personnel that more than held its own.

So what has caused this? And what can third-year coordinator Eric Price do to turn the tide?

At least in 2014, one of the primary reasons for struggle was youth. You see that in the returning personnel. The leading returning passer and rusher and the SEVEN leading returning receivers are all sophomores. And while running back Sherman Badie was a revelation, the quarterback (Tanner Lee) and his receivers ... well ... played like freshmen. (And the only big-play threat in the receiving corps, Xavier Rush, missed five games with injury.) In theory, if you keep this unit together, there might be enough athleticism to thrive when chemistry gets up to speed.

But in theory, a Tulane offense shouldn't stink for 12 consecutive seasons. Theory and reality haven't seen eye to eye. They rarely do in New Orleans.

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.
Tanner Lee	6'4, 220	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7986	185	336	1962	12	14	55.1%	22	6.1%	5.0
Nick Montana					45	79	342	1	3	57.0%	1	1.3%	4.3
Devin Powell	6'3, 228	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7826	10	26	111	0	0	38.5%	2	7.1%	3.3
Glen Cuiellette	6'1, 205	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8008

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Opp.	Opp. Rate	Fumbles	Fum. Lost
Sherman Badie	RB	6'0, 195	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8253	121	688	3	5.7	9.1	33.9%	1	1
Lazedrick Thompson	RB	6'1, 217	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8050	109	533	4	4.9	4.1	41.3%	0	0
Dontrell Hilliard	RB	6'0, 185	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8059	97	452	3	4.7	4.9	36.1%	2	2
Josh Rounds (2013)	RB	5'11, 195	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7752	49	163	0	3.3	2.4	32.7%	NR	NR
Dante Butler	FB					34	171	0	5.0	3.9	44.1%	1	0
Tanner Lee	QB	6'4, 220	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7986	14	41	0	2.9	3.9	35.7%	1	1
Nick Montana	QB					5	26	0	5.2	2.3	40.0%	1	0
Nigel Anderson	RB	5'10, 187	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8463

4. Big-play Badie

A 34 percent opportunity rate (percentage of carries gaining at least five yards) isn't very good. Of the 134 FBS running backs who had at least 120 carries, Sherman Badie's opportunity rate ranked 100th. But when you take into account the fact that Badie was a freshman running behind a line filled with sophomores, you come to the conclusion that Badie could be a special player.

Even with limited open-field opportunities, Badie managed to average 5.7 yards per carry. Granted, those opportunities dried up as opponents loaded the box and Badie hit a freshman wall -- first six games: 7.2 yards per carry; next six games: 3.3 -- but his potential was unmistakable. And his inefficiency was balanced a bit by Lazedrick Thompson and Dontrell Hilliard, who were more efficient and less explosive. Combined with the return of junior Josh Rounds and the addition of mid-three-star freshman Nigel Anderson, Tulane has more than enough high-caliber running back. But Price wants balance in his offense, and Tulane had none.

For the running game to thrive, the passing game has to at least suffice. With so many sophomores, you could talk yourself into this group doing impressive things in 2016 or 2017, but improvement in 2015 could be only marginal.

Teddy Veal was heavily targeted as a well-touted freshman, but his punt-returner skill set led to more dancing than yards, and his per-target average of 4.8 yards was the fifth-worst in the country for a No. 1 target. The median average for a No. 1 target was 8.3, almost double Veal's average.

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
Teddy Veal	WR-Z	5'11, 185	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8285	80	40	381	50.0%	19.3%	40.0%	4.8	-129	4.7	36.0
Justyn Shackleford	WR-X					71	37	490	52.1%	17.1%	49.3%	6.9	23	6.9	46.3
Xavier Rush	WR					36	15	295	41.7%	8.7%	33.3%	8.2	95	7.4	27.9
Dontrell Hilliard	RB	6'0, 185	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8059	36	30	244	83.3%	8.7%	47.2%	6.8	-103	7.0	23.1
Sherman Badie	RB	6'0, 195	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8253	33	24	108	72.7%	8.0%	57.6%	3.3	-176	3.3	10.2
Terren Encalade	WR-X	6'0, 185	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7719	30	20	235	66.7%	7.2%	70.0%	7.8	-5	7.8	22.2
Charles Jones	TE	6'3, 235	So.	2 stars (5.2)	NR	27	21	192	77.8%	6.5%	63.0%	7.1	-53	7.0	18.1
Leondre James	WR-Z	6'0, 175	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8019	27	15	169	55.6%	6.5%	63.0%	6.3	-18	5.9	16.0
Dante Butler	FB					22	19	159	86.4%	5.3%	81.8%	7.2	-60	10.0	15.0
Trey Scott	TE	6'2, 205	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7594	22	9	76	40.9%	5.3%	45.5%	3.5	-45	3.7	7.2
Devon Breaux	WR-X	6'0, 182	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8493	21	8	70	38.1%	5.1%	28.6%	3.3	-39	3.8	6.6
Matt Marfisi	TE					7	2	17	28.6%	1.7%	85.7%	2.4	-13	4.3	1.6
Lazedrick Thompson	RB	6'1, 217	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8050	2	1	4	50.0%	0.5%	100.0%	2.0	-9	NR	0.4
Larry Dace	WR-Z	5'9, 175	Sr.	NR	NR
Kendall Ardoin	TE	6'6, 215	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7959
Darius Williams	WR	6'2, 195	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8059

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	89.8	2.8	2.19	38.1%	60.0%	23.6%	104.3	4.7%	6.7%
Rank	105	85	125	79	110	114	60	68	49

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Sean Donnelly	RT					35
Arturo Uzdavinis	LT	6'7, 300	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7798	25
Nathan Shienle	C	6'5, 300	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7000	24
Chris Taylor	RG	6'2, 310	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8416	15
Colton Hanson	LG	6'5, 315	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7826	12
Todd Jacquet	RG	6'5, 290	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8025	2
Alex Paul	LG	6'6, 320	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7993	1
Nate Skold	LT					0
Brandon Godfrey	LG	6'4, 295	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7867	0
Jason Stewart	RG	6'4, 355	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7901	0
Kenneth Santa Marina	RT	6'6, 305	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8650	0
Junior Diaz	C	6'1, 276	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8251
John Leglue	LT	6'6, 280	RSFr.	2 stars (5.2)	NR
Devon Johnson	RT	6'5, 330	RSFr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8159
Leeward Brown	OL	6'3, 344	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8535
Keeyon Smart	OL	6'4, 332	Fr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8174

5. Quite a few three-stars up front

Tackle Sean Donnelly was in his third year as a starter, but of the six other players who finished 2014 with starting experience, five were sophomores, and one was a junior.

All six of those players are now upperclassmen, and combined with contributions from up to six other linemen who were once three-star recruits, this line appears to have experience and potential. The sack rates were good (in part because Tanner Lee was throwing a lot of quick passes to Veal and others), and the line stats could have been worse considering the youth.

The offensive line and the running backs could combine to become quite formidable ... as long as defenses have to mind the passing game at least a little bit.

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	0.82	45	IsoPPP+	103.4	57
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	41.7%	71	Succ. Rt. +	98.7	73
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	27.2	121	Off. FP+	95.0	119
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	3.6	10	Redzone S&P+	109.7	31
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	22.3		ACTUAL	28.0	+5.7

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	56	59	69	57
RUSHING	52	68	62	67
PASSING	69	61	79	52
Standard Downs		54	64	50
Passing Downs		73	78	80

Q1 Rk	82	1st Down Rk	93
Q2 Rk	45	2nd Down Rk	53
Q3 Rk	62	3rd Down Rk	78
Q4 Rk	99

6. The offense only needs to be competent

The Tulane defensive line was spectacular in 2013; the Green Wave ranked eighth in Adj. Line Yards, first in both Power Success Rate and Stuff Rate, and seventh in Adj. Sack Rate. They had to replace two monstrous tackles in Julius Warmsley and Chris Davenport, so regression was inevitable.

But the line was still solid, and an experienced secondary was able to knock out big plays enough for Tulane to play high-quality bend-don't-break defense and snuff out scoring opportunities.

Six of last year's top seven linemen and six of seven linebackers return, which should allow Tulane to account for turnover in the secondary. Tulane fell from 18th to 55th in Def. S&P+ in 2014, but 55th is still good for an AAC team, and I wouldn't expect much, if any, regression. That could mean good things for the Green Wave if the offense is not awful.

Of course, you could rephrase that: That could mean good things for the Green Wave if the offense is not [what it has been for most of 12 years].

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	109.1	2.40	3.24	41.7%	53.8%	25.7%	109	6.5%	5.3%
Rank	34	10	61	96	7	7	44	30	104

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Tanzel Smart	DT	6'1, 303	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8067	12	34.0	5.4%	6.5	2.0	0	1	1	0
Tyler Gilbert	DE					12	29.5	4.6%	13.0	4.5	0	1	1	0
Royce LaFrance	DE	6'4, 265	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8000	12	26.0	4.1%	10.5	6.0	0	2	2	1
Sean Wilson	DT	6'4, 265	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7893	12	22.5	3.5%	2.5	1.0	0	1	0	0
Corey Redwine	DT	6'1, 305	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7593	12	12.5	2.0%	1.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Daren Williams	DE	6'4, 235	So.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7933	9	7.0	1.1%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Ade Aruna	DE	6'5, 247	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8093	8	6.5	1.0%	1.0	1.0	0	0	1	0
Andre Robinson	DE					12	4.0	0.6%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Eldrick Washington	DT	6'1, 265	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8085	9	2.0	0.3%	1.0	1.0	0	0	0	0
Calvin Thomas	DT	6'4, 275	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7500
Quinlan Carroll	DE	6'1, 220	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7876
Eric Bell	DT	6'2, 255	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7960
Luke Jackson	DE	6'2, 230	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7863
Braynon Edwards	DT	6'2, 350	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7693
Peter Woullard	DE	6'3, 240	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7693
Robert Kennedy	DE	6'1, 230	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7693
John Washington	DT	6'1, 302	Fr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8488

7. Merely a minor drop-off

The pass rush dropped off, and it was easier to get to the second level of Tulane's defense, but the Green Wave still made plenty of plays. They fell only to seventh in Power Success Rate, seventh in Stuff Rate, and 34th in Adj. Line Yards, and now they return every linemen but one: Tyler Gilbert.

Gilbert was a strong run defender, and he could be missed, but it's hard to worry about the run defense with the return of tackles Tanzel Smart and Corey Redwine, end Royce LaFrance, and each of the top three linebackers, including Nico Marley (13 non-sack tackles for loss).

(Redwine briefly elected to forego his senior season last December, then returned as a graduate student. LaFrance sat out spring for academic reasons. Both are expected to be eligible this fall.)

The pass rush could still be an issue; assuming LaFrance returns in good standing, Tulane will return its sacks leader, but in playing a conservative 4-2-5 defense with minimal blitzing (linebackers combined for just 2 sacks), Tulane asked a lot of its line. That paid off in run defense, but a younger secondary might be asked to cover for quite a while if Tulane doesn't get more pressure from its front four on passing downs.

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Nico Marley	WLB	5'9, 200	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7855	12	64.0	10.1%	13.5	0.5	1	3	1	0
Edward Williams	MLB	6'3, 230	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8395	10	30.5	4.8%	4.5	0.5	1	1	0	0
Eric Thomas	MLB	5'10, 227	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7652	12	24.5	3.9%	6.0	1.0	0	2	1	0
Matthew Bailey	LB					9	12.5	2.0%	1.5	0.0	0	1	1	0
Rae Juan Marbley	LB	6'0, 215	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8406	12	8.5	1.3%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
William Townsend	WLB	6'0, 195	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7000	9	8.0	1.3%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Zachery Harris	MLB	6'0, 220	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8026	5	5.5	0.9%	1.5	0.0	0	0	0	0

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Sam Scofield	FS					12	77.0	12.1%	5	1	3	4	0	0
Darion Monroe	FS	5'11, 197	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8865	12	62.0	9.8%	5	1	2	1	2	1
Parry Nickerson	CB	5'11, 179	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7959	12	45.5	7.2%	2.5	0	6	6	0	1
Lorenzo Doss	CB					12	42.0	6.6%	5	1	3	9	0	0
Brandon LeBeau	NB					11	34.5	5.4%	4.5	1	0	2	0	0
Taurean Nixon	NB					11	26.5	4.2%	0	0	1	4	0	0
Jarrod Franklin (2013)	NB	5'11, 196	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7819	13	19.5	2.7%	1.5	1	1	0	1	0
Leonard Davis	SS	6'0, 198	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7919	12	13.0	2.0%	0.5	0.5	0	0	0	0
Richard Carthon	S	5'7, 197	Sr.	NR	NR	12	5.5	0.9%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Richard Allen	CB	5'9, 178	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7920	7	4.0	0.6%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Rene Fleury	NB	6'1, 210	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7685	10	2.0	0.3%	0	0	0	0	1	0
Tristan Cooper	FS	5'11, 185	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7859	9	1.5	0.2%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Stephon Lofton	CB	5'11, 195	RSFr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7652
Carlton Williams	SS	6'0, 190	RSFr.	NR	NR
Donnie Lewis	CB	5'11, 170	RSFr.	2 stars (5.2)	NR
Malik Eugene	S	5'8, 162	Fr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8033
Darius Black	S	5'10, 166	Fr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7989

8. A lot to replace in the back

In safety Darion Monroe and corner Parry Nickerson, Tulane returns two starting defensive backs who combined for 7.5 tackles for loss, eight interceptions, and seven break-ups. In safeties Sam Scofield, Brandon LeBeau and Taurean Nixon and corner Lorenzo Doss, Tulane must replace four DBs who combined for 14.5 TFLs, seven picks, and 19 break-ups.

The Green Wave return a lot and replace a lot; getting Jarrod Franklin back from injury will help, but the pass defense is going to rely on players with minimal experience, be they 2014 backups like safety Leonard Davis or rotation newcomers like redshirt freshman Stephon Lofton or 247 three-star freshman Malik Eugene.

Tulane's run defense will be perfectly fine, but there are reasons to doubt the pass defense.

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Peter Picerelli	6'1, 190	Sr.	71	37.8	3	22	18	56.3%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
Trevor Simms	6'3, 195	Sr.	34	62.1	15	5	44.1%
Peter Picerelli	6'1, 190	Sr.	5	55.4	1	0	20.0%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Andrew DiRocco	6'1, 180	So.	22-24	6-11	54.5%	2-4	50.0%
Trevor Simms	6'3, 195	Sr.	0-0	0-0	N/A	0-1	0.0%

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Dontrell Hilliard	KR	6'0, 185	So.	17	15.3	0
Leondre James	KR	6'0, 175	So.	12	18.1	0
Teddy Veal	PR	5'11, 185	So.	9	4.6	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams F/+	126
Field Goal Efficiency	123
Punt Return Efficiency	123
Kick Return Efficiency	126
Punt Efficiency	121
Kickoff Efficiency	88
Opponents' Field Goal Efficiency	20

9. Yuck

In a few previews each year, I note that a team's punter might have been its best offensive player, creating a field position edge that offensive efficiency could not. Special teams provide you an opportunity to make up ground that your primary units lost.

Tulane's only made things worse. Kickoffs were mediocre, place-kicking was abysmal (two missed PATs, five missed sub-40 FGs), returns were nonexistent, and despite a decent fair catch rate, punt coverage was awful.

The sophomore return men seem to have some potential, and at the least, place-kicker Andrew DiRocco was a freshman. But there was almost nothing redeeming, and it almost certainly played a role in Tulane going 1-3 in one-possession games.

2015 Schedule & Projection Factors

2015 Schedule
Date	Opponent	2014 F/+ Rk
3-Sep	Duke	51
12-Sep	at Georgia Tech	8
19-Sep	Maine	NR
3-Oct	Central Florida	60
10-Oct	at Temple	67
16-Oct	Houston	73
24-Oct	at Navy	44
31-Oct	at Memphis	41
7-Nov	Connecticut	119
14-Nov	at Army	121
21-Nov	at SMU	127
28-Nov	Tulsa	117

Five-Year F/+ Rk	-29.3% (115)
2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk	81 / 78
2014 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin*	3 / -0.1
2014 TO Luck/Game	+1.3
Approx. Ret. Starters (Off. / Def.)	15 (8, 7)
2014 Second-order wins (difference)	3.5 (-0.5)

10. Hold on, then win late

Tulane fell from 65th to 93rd in the F/+ rankings, but with increased experience in every unit but the secondary, you can talk yourself into the Green Wave improving back into the 80s or, with a few good breaks, the 70s. With five opponents who ranked 117th or worse and three home opponents who ranked 51st or worse, it isn't hard to carve a path back to bowl eligibility. But getting to 6-6 or better will require early survival.

Four of the five worst opponents don't show until after November 1, and a tricky road slate will all but ensure Tulane has a losing record heading into the final month. If this still-young team can keep its nerve, the Green Wave could craft a late-season streak and go bowling again.

It speaks to expectations that I'm saying this about a team that finished 3-9 and 93rd last year, but it does seem like Curtis Johnson is doing good things. His last two teams have been Tulane's best in the last decade, and he will be playing so many sophomores and juniors that, on paper, the Green Wave could play at a high level in 2016. This fall is a bit of a mystery, and while this team has upside, the bar should probably still be set at five or six wins and a ranking in the 80s.