Temple football had one of the most improved defenses ever. Now for an AAC title shot?

Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.

1. From 2-10 to 6-6 to ... ?

You don't have to believe it. Small samples create results your eyes don't expect, and no matter what, we're working with samples of 12 to 15 Saturdays. Another 15-20 Saturdays might paint a different picture.

Regardless, on the 12 Saturdays that Temple played football last fall, the Owls put together a series of results that suggested they had one of the best defenses in FBS. They allowed 17.5 points per game, fourth in the country. They allowed 4.75 yards per play, 11th.

And when you adjust for opponent, the rankings don't change much. Temple ranked 16th in Def. S&P+, driven by the ability to limit big plays, prevent teams from turning scoring opportunities into seven points, and improve dramatically as a half unfolded.

You don't have to believe that Temple's 2014 defense was better than Georgia's (17th in Def. S&P+), Michigan's (18th), Virginia's (19th), etc. But it was awfully effective.

Two other interesting notes about this defense:

1. In 10 years of S&P+ data, the only unit to ever improve by more than 90 spots in one season had been Auburn's offense in Gus Malzahn's return, jumping 91 spots. Temple's defense improved by 97.

2. It returns all 11 starters and almost its entire second string. It also adds the fruits of a second straight solid recruiting class.

A unit that improves so dramatically likely improved too much and will see statistical regression. And a unit that returns all 11 starters is almost guaranteed to improve. These conflicting traits make Temple a fascinating team.

Of course, with a top-20 defense, Temple still went 6-6. That was a rise from 2013's 2-10 finish, but it was still a mediocre finish in a mediocre conference. That tells you most of what you need to know about the offense.

But the combination of experience (the starting quarterback, two of three primary rushers, three of the top four receivers, and four starting linemen) and new blood (four three-star-plus running backs, two-three star receivers, and a four-star redshirt freshman lineman) could drag the Owls higher on the scoreboard.

And if the offense indeed improves, then ... why wouldn't Temple be an AAC contender? Especially with four of the six best teams on the schedule coming to Philadelphia?

Temple is one of college football's most fascinating teams in 2015. At least, on paper. (A bend-don't-break defense and sketchy offense don't create a team that is pleasing to the eye.) Matt Rhule has upgraded Temple's recruiting, and after a full-fledged Year Zero in 2013 (the Owls might have been the worst team in FBS for the first month), his squad made clear progress. I don't know what to expect, but if you play the Count the Ifs game, it doesn't take many ifs to make the Owls a legitimate top-50 team.

2014 Schedule & Results

Record: 6-6 | Adj. Record: 6-6 | Final F/+ Rk: 67
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Percentile Performance	Adj. Scoring Margin	Win Expectancy
28-Aug	at Vanderbilt	115	37-7	W	77%	17.4	100%
6-Sep	Navy	44	24-31	L	22%	-18.1	7%
20-Sep	Delaware State	NR	59-0	W	92%	33.1	100%
27-Sep	at Connecticut	119	36-10	W	73%	14.2	100%
11-Oct	Tulsa	117	35-24	W	44%	-3.4	91%
17-Oct	at Houston	73	10-31	L	20%	-19.7	6%
25-Oct	at Central Florida	60	14-34	L	7%	-33.8	0%
1-Nov	East Carolina	61	20-10	W	79%	18.6	88%
7-Nov	Memphis	41	13-16	L	59%	5.2	44%
15-Nov	at Penn State	45	13-30	L	29%	-13.2	23%
29-Nov	Cincinnati	47	6-14	L	21%	-18.9	4%
6-Dec	at Tulane	93	10-3	W	71%	13.2	99%

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk
S&P+	18.8	120	19.0	16
Points Per Game	23.1	100	17.5	4

2. Either great on the road or iffy at home

After an up-and-down start, Temple's defense was consistent. The Owls allowed 7.3 yards per play against Navy's masterful option, suffocated Delaware State to the tune of 1.8 yards per play, then settled into a rhythm; in each of their other 10 games, they allowed between 3.8 and 5.4 yards per play.

That's the only time I'll use the word "consistent." Temple's week-to-week performances were all over the map, thanks to their hit-or-mostly-miss offense. When the offense showed up, the Owls played like a top-40 team: 77th percentile against Vanderbilt, 92nd against Delaware State, 73rd against UConn, 79th against ECU, 71st against Tulane.

When the offense was a liability, it was too much for the defense to overcome. The five performances at the 70th percentile or greater were offset by five weeks spent below the 30th percentile. Temple's week-to-week performance chart looked like a heartbeat, but there's another interesting trait that could be important:

• Average Percentile Performance (home): 53% (record: 3-3)
• Average Percentile Performance (road): 46% (record: 3-3)

This is the first year I've been working with the idea of using percentiles to measure performance, so I don't know all the ins and outs yet, but a team's home averages seem to be about 25 percent higher than its road averages. Temple's were not. The Owls were almost the same team at home and away.

We can draw either of two conclusions from this, beyond the general "sample sizes!" warning: either Temple was strong on the road, or the team derived no advantage at Lincoln Financial Field. Coaches like to say that good defense travels, so maybe the Owls were destined to have smaller home-road splits. But as I've discussed regarding UMass and its games at Gillette Stadium, a half-empty stadium is going to dissipate noise.

The Linc holds 68,500 people, and Temple averaged 23,370, peaking at 28,408. That's not a terrible average, and it could improve with an incredible home slate that features visits from Penn State and Notre Dame. But an actual home-field environment could do wonders.

Of course, that's a touchy issue. The Linc arrangement ends after 2017, and while the university debates making the commitment for a near-campus stadium, the pro and con lists are long. As a fan of underdogs, I would love to see the program improve and move into a happy stadium. But there are concrete reasons why it might not happen.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	0.80	97	IsoPPP+	89.0	98
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	36.1%	114	Succ. Rt. +	85.3	119
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	29.0	51	Def. FP+	99.0	77
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	3.3	124	Redzone S&P+	89.8	95
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	24.3		ACTUAL	27	+2.7

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	120	104	117	98
RUSHING	118	93	97	97
PASSING	88	106	116	91
Standard Downs		91	107	81
Passing Downs		121	120	115

Q1 Rk	115	1st Down Rk	113
Q2 Rk	86	2nd Down Rk	70
Q3 Rk	80	3rd Down Rk	58
Q4 Rk	118

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.

P.J. Walker

6'1, 200

Jr.

2 stars (5.4)

0.8091

203

381

2317

13

15

53.3%

19

4.8%

5.5

Connor Reilly

10

19

77

0

1

52.6%

1

5.0%

3.8

Tim DiGiorgio

6'3, 191

So.

NR

NR

Frank Nutile

6'4, 199

RSFr.

3 stars (5.5)

0.8079

Lenny Williams

5'10, 196

RSFr.

2 stars (5.3)

0.8234

Logan Marchi

6'1, 170

Fr.

2 stars (5.2)

0.7881

3. Pass first, couldn't pass (again)

As strong as the defense was, the offense was almost equally weak. Despite an intriguing talent at quarterback, the Owls had a pass-first offense that couldn't pass.

P.J. Walker lost his two best targets from 2013, and his stats regressed: his completion rate fell from 61 percent to 53, his interception rate rose from 3 percent to 4 percent, and his per-attempt yardage fell from 7.1 to 5.5. Even his rushing average fell from 7 (not including sacks) to 5.2.

Opponents figured out his tendencies, and Temple didn't have enough weapons to help him counteract a slump. Walker pressed, and opponents took advantage.

An ankle injury didn't help. He battled a limp, and there was quite a split between his first five games and his last seven.

• P.J. Walker's passing (first 5 games): 62% completion rate, 11.3 yards per completion, 5.7% TD rate, 2.5% INT rate
• P.J. Walker's passing (last 7 games): 47% completion rate, 11.5 yards per completion, 1.8% TD rate, 4.9% INT rate.

Walker's rating was 138 or higher in four of the first five, then fell below 113 for each of the final seven and below 85 for four games in a row. Consequently, Temple scored 20 or fewer points in each of the last seven games and averaged 10.5 points per game over the last four.

A healthy Walker still has quite a bit going for him, and if the skill positions give him more options, a bounceback is more than achievable.

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Opp.	Opp. Rate	Fumbles	Fum. Lost
P.J. Walker	QB	6'1, 200	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8091	87	451	3	5.2	4.8	42.5%	9	2
Kenneth Harper	RB					87	307	5	3.5	5.5	25.3%	1	0
Jahad Thomas	RB	5'10, 170	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7000	80	384	0	4.8	7.1	30.0%	2	1
Jamie Gilmore	RB	5'8, 190	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8596	56	229	1	4.1	4.0	32.1%	0	0
David Hood	RB	5'9, 185	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7793	11	62	0	5.6	3.7	54.5%	0	0
Zaire Williams	RB	5'11, 195	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8615	7	17	0	2.4	0.5	14.3%	0	0
Hassan Dixon	RB					7	12	1	1.7	1.2	14.3%	0	0
Bashir Lee	RB	5'9, 188	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8612
T.J. Simmons	RB	6'1, 195	Fr.	4 stars (5.9)	0.8740
Chapelle Cook	RB	6'1, 214	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8464
Jager Gardner	RB	6'2, 205	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8148
Ryquell Armstead	RB	5'11, 205	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8117

4. No shortage of running backs

Walker was still an efficient runner, something that couldn't be said for any of Temple's primary backs. None had an Opportunity Rate (percentage of carries gaining at least five yards) greater than 32.1 percent, and while both Kenneth Harper and Jahad Thomas were explosive in open field, they rarely saw open field.

In 2015, there will at least be options. Thomas and Jamie Gilmore return, as do sophomore David Hood and junior Zaire Williams, who averaged 5.3 yards per carry in 2013 before battling injury last year. And if none of these are up to snuff, bring on the youngsters. T.J. Simmons was a top-200 recruit according to Rivals, and three other incoming freshmen were three-stars. Plus, Bashir Lee, a former star recruit, is only a sophomore.

This is a quantity-leads-to-quality situation. Nine Temple running backs produced well at some point in either college or high school. The odds are good that a couple will produce in 2015.

The odds are also good that the line will improve -- it returned only one starter in 2014, and a shuffled-around lineup struggled. Now, seven with starting experience return, including all-conference center Kyle Friend. And if two well-touted redshirt freshmen (including a Rivals four-star in Aaron Ruff) live up to potential, there's room in the rotation.

This won't be a great line, but if the line and running backs both improve, Temple won't have to rely nearly as much on Walker.

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
Jalen Fitzpatrick	WR					89	53	730	59.6%	23.9%	56.2%	8.2	80	8.3	91.5
John Christopher	WR	5'10, 185	Sr.	NR	NR	42	24	194	57.1%	11.3%	59.5%	4.6	-103	4.6	24.3
Brandon Shippen	WR	5'11, 189	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7700	35	12	165	34.3%	9.4%	57.1%	4.7	-4	4.7	20.7
Romond Deloatch	WR	6'4, 225	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8325	32	14	169	43.8%	8.6%	53.1%	5.3	-15	5.3	21.2
Kenneth Harper	RB					32	27	158	84.4%	8.6%	37.5%	4.9	-154	4.9	19.8
Nate Hairston	WR	6'0, 185	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7000	23	13	88	56.5%	6.2%	52.2%	3.8	-73	3.8	11.0
Jahad Thomas	RB	5'10, 170	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7000	22	14	364	63.6%	5.9%	68.2%	16.5	194	18.1	45.7
Colin Thompson	TE	6'4, 250	So.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9408	19	11	98	57.9%	5.1%	63.2%	5.2	-38	5.3	12.3
Jamie Gilmore	RB	5'8, 190	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8596	16	13	166	81.3%	4.3%	68.8%	10.4	15	10.6	20.8
Khalif Herbin	WR	5'7, 170	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8026	15	9	53	60.0%	4.0%	73.3%	3.5	-57	3.0	6.6
Brodrick Yancy	WR	5'11, 184	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8060	13	6	35	46.2%	3.5%	38.5%	2.7	-43	3.0	4.4
Keith Kirkwood	WR	6'3, 210	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	NR	9	4	69	44.4%	2.4%	55.6%	7.7	17	7.9	8.7
Wanemi Omuso	TE					9	6	51	66.7%	2.4%	77.8%	5.7	-21	5.5	6.4
Samuel Benjamin	WR	6'0, 195	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8077
Ventell Bryant	WR	6'3, 180	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7966
Kip Patton	TE	6'5, 230	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7979
Patrick Anderson	WR	6'4, 225	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8155
Cortrelle Simpson	WR	5'10, 175	Fr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7985

5. Step right up! Opportunities available!

Of course, you know what else helps a quarterback? Receivers. And it's not clear whether Walker has any.

Three of last year's top four return, but John Christopher, Brandon Shippen, and Romond Deloatch combined to average an abysmal 4.8 yards per target over nine targets per game. Only Jalen Fitzpatrick was productive, and he's gone. This unit struggled with separation, drops ... everything a receiving corps is supposed to do.

Aside from four-star sophomore tight end Colin Thompson, Rhule's staff hasn't recruited any slam dunks, so there isn't immediate hope for improvement. Redshirt freshman Ventell Bryant had a nice spring, and there's always a chance that a freshman like Patrick Anderson or Cortrelle Simpson carve out a niche.

But while the running game should absolutely improve, we can't say the same about the pass. And that could be an obvious issue if coordinator Marcus Satterfield continues with his pass-first preferences.

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	81.9	2.42	1.96	32.2%	64.1%	24.2%	108.6	3.9%	6.3%
Rank	120	120	127	119	91	116	54	44	45

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Kyle Friend	C	6'2, 305	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7909	33	2014 2nd All-AAC
Dion Dawkins	LT					13
Brendan McGowan	C	6'4, 300	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7519	13
Eric Lofton	RT	6'5, 300	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7444	12
Shahbaz Ahmed	LG	6'3, 285	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7873	9
Jacob Quinn	RG					5
Semaj Reed	LT	6'7, 300	So.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7000	1
Brian Carter	LG	6'3, 280	So.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7000	1
Leon Johnson	RG	6'6, 300	So.	NR	0.7000	1
Adrian Sullivan	RT	6'5, 280	So.	2 stars (5.2)	NR	0
Aaron Ruff	OL	6'3, 300	RSFr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8571
James McHale	OL	6'6, 300	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8117
Benson Israel	OL	6'1, 316	Fr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.8008

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	0.72	7	IsoPPP+	117.7	24
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	37.6%	21	Succ. Rt. +	102.5	56
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	33.2	13	Off. FP+	102.0	38
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	2.8	1	Redzone S&P+	122.6	10
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	25.4		ACTUAL	30.0	+4.6

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	24	39	56	24
RUSHING	54	54	56	52
PASSING	13	34	69	17
Standard Downs		35	57	25
Passing Downs		45	64	40

Q1 Rk	62	1st Down Rk	51
Q2 Rk	20	2nd Down Rk	24
Q3 Rk	94	3rd Down Rk	67
Q4 Rk	6

6. The best bend-don't-break D in the country

This offseason, I tweaked my S&P+ ratings to deal not only with efficiency (Success Rates) and explosiveness (PPP), but also the components that go into field position and finishing drives. The latter helped Temple's defensive ratings dramatically.

The Owls were efficient for a mid-major defense and prevented big plays at a top-25 level. But their biggest strength was how they played when the field shrank. Opponents averaged 2.8 points per scoring opportunity (first downs inside Temple's 40), less than a field goal per trip. And even adjusting for opponent, Temple had a top-10 defense in this regard.

Playing bend-don't-break is both effective and tenuous. From a tactical standpoint, you can continue playing smart near the goal line, but waiting until the last second to make a stop can lead to huge changes from year to year based on personnel. If your linebacking corps is suddenly weaker near the goal line, or if your defensive backs give up a few more big plays and easy scores, the balance gets shifted.

Luckily, that won't be an immediate issue. The Owls return every starter and almost every backup. Beyond omnipresent injury concerns, it appears veteran coordinator Phil Snow could find a lot of the same success.

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	97.3	2.81	2.63	36.3%	73.8%	22.2%	107.6	4.3%	8.9%
Rank	76	47	21	33	101	28	50	73	39

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Matt Ioannidis	DT	6'4, 285	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8091	12	36.5	5.0%	11.0	3.5	0	3	0	0
Praise Martin-Oguike	DE	6'2, 250	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7585	12	31.0	4.3%	9.5	7.0	0	0	5	1
Sharif Finch	DE	6'4, 240	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7833	12	27.5	3.8%	7.5	2.0	1	1	2	0
Hershey Walton	NT	6'4, 300	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7778	12	22.5	3.1%	4.5	0.0	0	2	0	0
Haason Reddick	DE					10	20.0	2.7%	7.5	2.0	0	1	0	0
Avery Ellis	DE	6'2, 246	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7736	11	15.5	2.1%	4.5	2.0	0	0	1	0
Jacob Martin	DE	6'3, 230	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7826	12	9.5	1.3%	1.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Brandon Chudnoff	DE	6'2, 250	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8086	10	5.5	0.8%	1.5	1.5	0	0	0	0
Averee Robinson	NT	6'1, 285	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7806	12	4.5	0.6%	1.5	1.5	0	0	0	1
Jullian Taylor	DE	6'5, 240	So.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7833	2	3.5	0.5%	1.5	1.0	0	0	0	0
Michael Dogbe	DE	6'3, 240	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8168	4	2.5	0.3%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Kiser Terry	DT	6'3, 275	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7000	9	2.5	0.3%	1.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Freddie Booth-Lloyd	DT	6'0, 315	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8219
Brenon Thrift	DE	6'3, 230	RSFr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8005
Greg Webb	DT	6'1, 312	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8731
Dana Levine	DE	6'4, 213	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8169
Josiah Bronson	DE	6'5, 265	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7833

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Tyler Matakevich	WLB	6'1, 235	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7100	12	102.5	14.1%	10.5	1.5	1	3	0	0
Nate D. Smith	MLB	6'0, 225	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7659	11	58.5	8.0%	2.0	0.0	1	1	3	0
Avery Williams	SLB	5'10, 210	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7200	9	30.5	4.2%	3.5	1.0	0	1	0	0
Stephaun Marshall	WLB	5'11, 205	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8220	12	27.5	3.8%	2.0	2.0	0	3	0	0
Jarred Alwan	MLB	6'1, 230	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8362	10	19.0	2.6%	0.0	0.0	0	0	1	0
Rob Dvoracek (2013)	SLB	6'2, 230	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8148	8	17.5	2.4%	3.0	0.0	0	3	0	0
Michael Felton	WLB	6'0, 215	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7000	12	13.0	1.8%	2.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Shahid Lovett	SLB					6	6.5	0.9%	0.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Buddy Brown	LB					2	1.5	0.2%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Rob Ritrovato	LB	6'0, 210	So.	NR	NR	4	1.5	0.2%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Jared Folks	LB	6'2, 218	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7954
Daishaun Grimes	LB	6'2, 192	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8125

7. Sound and stout

Temple's success was based around invasive play, stout linebacking, and big-play prevention. Of the 10 players who recorded at least three tackles for loss, nine return. So does each component of one of the best linebacking corps in the country.

Tyler Matakevich is an absolute wrecking ball, the rare weakside linebacker who combines tackling-machine capabilities -- it's obvious that the defense filters the ball toward Matakevich and MLB Nate D. Smith, and Matakevich has a chance to become the seventh player in NCAA history to record 100-plus tackles in each of his four seasons -- with residence in the backfield. Tackles Matt Ioannidis and Hershey Walton combined for 15.5 tackles for loss and commanded attention, which freed Matakevich up to wreck shop.

Combine this work with a pass-rush specialist in Praise Martin-Oguike and depth at linebacker -- both Smith and Avery Williams missed time, and Rob Dvoracek missed the season with injury, but then-sophomores Avery Williams, Stephaun Marshall, and Jarred Alwan stepped up -- and you've got a lovely front seven. The run defense could stand to improve (and should), but the steadiness and play-making ability that emerged on a shrunken field were fantastic.

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Sean Chandler	CB	5'11, 180	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8019	12	60.5	8.3%	3	1	1	8	2	0
Alex Wells	FS	6'0, 200	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8200	9	43.5	6.0%	0	0	0	5	0	0
Will Hayes	SS	5'9, 182	Sr.	NR	NR	12	37.0	5.1%	1.5	0	0	3	0	0
Boye Aromire	SS	6'0, 200	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8609	12	30.5	4.2%	0.5	0	0	0	3	0
Jihaad Pretlow	SS					11	27.5	3.8%	1	0	0	1	1	0
Tavon Young	CB	5'10, 174	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7600	12	22.5	3.1%	0	0	4	9	0	1
Nate L. Smith	FS	6'1, 185	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8684	11	10.5	1.4%	0	0	1	0	0	0
Khiry Lucas	CB	6'2, 200	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7000	11	8.0	1.1%	0	0	1	0	0	0
Anthony Davis	DB	5'11, 180	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8634	9	7.0	1.0%	0	0	0	2	0	0
Anthony Robey	CB					12	6.0	0.8%	0	0	0	1	0	0
Samuel Benjamin	DB					11	6.0	0.8%	0.5	0	0	0	1	0
Artrel Foster	DB	6'0, 170	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8106	12	4.5	0.6%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Cequan Jefferson	DB	5'10, 180	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8678	5	2.0	0.3%	0	0	1	0	0	0
Shamir Bearfield	DB	5'11, 175	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8209
Jyquis Thomas	DB	6'1, 182	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7876
Kareem Ali, Jr.	CB	5'11, 175	Fr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8711
Jeremiah Atoki	DB	6'2, 190	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8116

8. Havoc in the back

Temple's defense seemed to play things conservatively, then ratchet up the aggressiveness as a half wore on. The Owls ranked 62nd and 94th in first- and third-quarter S&P+, then 20th and sixth in the second and fourth quarters.

The secondary's ability to prevent big plays was the defense's most important strength, but some newcomers made quite a few plays, and it made an immense difference. True freshman Sean Chandler was a sound tackler and occasional play-maker opposite the sticky Tavon Young, and JUCO transfer Alex Wells and Virginia Tech transfer Boye Aromire were immediate difference-makers at safety.

Five of the top seven returnees are seniors, to there will be a drop-off in 2016, but a) with four-star freshman Kareem Ali Jr. and redshirt freshman Shamir Bearfield, there is potential among the youngest players, and b) worry about 2016 in 2016. This secondary should be stellar.

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Alex Starzyk	6'3, 205	So.	70	38.4	4	26	17	61.4%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
Jim Cooper	6'1, 195	Jr.	60	61.7	12	0	20.0%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Austin Jones	5'10, 190	So.	30-30	10-16	62.5%	3-6	50.0%
Tyler Mayes	6'2, 200	Sr.	2-2	2-2	100.0%	0-0	N/A

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Jahad Thomas	KR	5'10, 170	Jr.	14	23.7	0
Khalif Herbin	KR	5'7, 170	Jr.	12	17.7	0
John Christopher	PR	5'10, 185	Sr.	8	3.0	0
Khalif Herbin	PR	5'7, 170	Jr.	7	15.4	1

Category	Rk
Special Teams F/+	26
Field Goal Efficiency	108
Punt Return Efficiency	67
Kick Return Efficiency	105
Punt Efficiency	66
Kickoff Efficiency	1
Opponents' Field Goal Efficiency	25

9. Now this is a coverage unit

Depth at linebacker and defensive back paid off. Temple had one of the best coverage units in college football. Opponents averaged 19 yards per kick return (28th in FBS) and 3 yards per punt return (fifth); Temple's punt efficiency was decent despite a low punting average (38.4 yards), and the Owls kickoff efficiency was spectacular (first in FBS).

The return game and place-kicking could stand to improve, but if the offense is more efficient, special teams should assure that Temple does well in field position.

2015 Schedule & Projection Factors

2015 Schedule
Date	Opponent	2014 F/+ Rk
5-Sep	Penn State	45
12-Sep	at Cincinnati	47
19-Sep	at Massachusetts	120
2-Oct	Charlotte	NR
10-Oct	Tulane	93
17-Oct	Central Florida	60
22-Oct	at East Carolina	61
31-Oct	Notre Dame	34
6-Nov	at SMU	127
14-Nov	at South Florida	123
21-Nov	Memphis	41
28-Nov	Connecticut	119

Five-Year F/+ Rk	-8.6% (77)
2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk	71 / 79
2014 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin*	3 / 1.1
2014 TO Luck/Game	+0.8
Approx. Ret. Starters (Off. / Def.)	19 (8, 11)
2014 Second-order wins (difference)	6.6 (-0.6)

10. A schedule for a run (if you can ignore the names)

Temple ranked 67th in F/+ last year and returns almost everybody. That level of experience could produce a top-60 team and could quite possibly a top-50 team.

Now look at the schedule: five games against teams that ranked 119th or worse last year, no games against teams that ranked better than 34th, and four of the six best opponents (as of last year) coming to Lincoln Financial Field. Even if the Linc doesn't provide an immense advantage, playing at home is still better than playing on the road, yes?

If the Temple offense takes steps toward competence -- and while there is plenty of reason to worry about the passing game, the run game should indeed improve, perhaps by quite a bit -- the defense should be able to turn last year's close losses into wins.

I shouldn't go overboard, but it doesn't take many ifs to turn Temple into an AAC contender with this schedule. The pressure is on the offense, because the defense is loaded for bear. Temple should bowl again no matter what, but there could be a lot more than that at stake.