What should Rutgers football's standard be in the Big Ten?

Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.

1. So ... where's this going?

About nine years ago, Rutgers appeared in its first bowl in 27 years and only its second ever.

Greg Schiano's reputation has had its ups and downs since, but in 2005, the former Miami defensive coordinator became Rutgers' savior. After the program won 11 games in the five-year Terry Shea era (five of which came in one season), Schiano took over at age 35 and went 3-20 in his first two years.

But the Scarlet Knights won nine games over the next two, and in year 5 came the breakthrough. The next year, Rutgers won 11 games and finished 12th in the AP poll.

For most programs, we have a level of reasonable goals in our heads. They can change over time -- our estimation of what Kansas State might be capable of, for instance, has changed drastically over the last three decades -- but we have an idea.

Some teams should be happy with bowl bids. Others should aim for the occasional division title. Others feel like failures for winning fewer than 10 games.

For Rutgers, expectations have changed, but it's hard to figure out where the bar is at this point. The Scarlet Knights have been to nine bowls in 10 seasons and have won nine or more games four times, and their success (and strategic location) earned them a spot in a bigger conference.

And in their first season in the Big Ten, they treaded water, finishing a decent 8-5 (3-5 in conference) with a win over Michigan and a bowl romp over North Carolina. But they got obliterated in every battle versus a good team and finished 81st in the F/+ rankings.

After ranking 41st or better in four of six seasons, they haven't ranked better than 58th in the three years since Schiano left for an NFL job. They're still winning, and they certainly boast a rather athletic team. But recruiting, thought to be a Kyle Flood specialty, hasn't surged, and the general feeling around the fanbase is one of restlessness. (That hasn't been aided by woeful public relations.)

A local fanbase might not be the most reliable barometer for reasonable expectations, but ... what exactly should we be expecting from Rutgers?

I'm not sure what a fair ceiling is, but I do know stability would be nice. In just the three-year Flood era, Rutgers' offense has ranked as high as 56th in Off. S&P+ (2014) and as low as 119th (2012), and the defense has ranked as high as 13th (2012) and as low as 86th (2014). Combine the two best units, and you've got a top-20 team. Combine the two worst, and you've got a bottom-20 team.

Consistency and an identity would be welcome, but that might be difficult. After last year's offensive success, the quarterback and three linemen left and the coordinator stepped down. The defense could get a little nastier, but it might happen just in time for the offense to regress.

We're not so far removed from Rutgers' destitution to know that going to a bowl every year and holding your own against college football's second tier is nothing to sneeze at. But dissatisfaction is understandable, and if the offense slides, the negative buzz could pick up more volume.

2014 Schedule & Results

Record: 8-5 | Adj. Record: 7-6 | Final F/+ Rk: 81
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Percentile Performance	Adj. Scoring Margin	Win Expectancy
28-Aug	at Washington State	77	41-38	W	55%	2.7	65%
6-Sep	Howard	NR	38-25	W	63%	7.5	99%
13-Sep	Penn State	45	10-13	L	50%	0.0	39%
20-Sep	at Navy	44	31-24	W	80%	19.6	85%
27-Sep	Tulane	93	31-6	W	88%	27.9	100%
4-Oct	Michigan	54	26-24	W	49%	-0.4	40%
18-Oct	at Ohio State	1	17-56	L	14%	-25.0	0%
25-Oct	at Nebraska	30	24-42	L	16%	-23.3	0%
1-Nov	Wisconsin	25	0-37	L	6%	-35.5	0%
15-Nov	Indiana	88	45-23	W	92%	33.5	100%
22-Nov	at Michigan State	11	3-45	L	6%	-36.9	0%
29-Nov	at Maryland	62	41-38	W	41%	-5.0	28%
26-Dec	vs. North Carolina	70	40-21	W	85%	24.0	99%

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk
S&P+	30.2	56	30.8	86
Points Per Game	26.7	83	30.2	89

2. Stumbling in the spotlight

Percentile numbers like those above usually send me looking for trends. With only 12-14 data points, you can identify any trend you want if you try hard enough, but you can often find a narrative worth pursuing.

With the data above, you can point to a season that started well, cratered in the middle, and finished reasonably well.

• Average Percentile Performance (first 5 games): 67% (record: 4-1)
• Average Percentile Performance (next 4 games): 21% (record: 1-3)
• Average Percentile Performance (first 5 games): 56% (record: 3-1)

Rutgers began 5-1, with only a tossup loss to Penn State marring a perfect start. But the Knights proceeded to lose four of their next five before rebounding with a crazy comeback against Maryland and the UNC romp. That makes for a fine story line.

But it's hard to notice a trend among the four eggs Rutgers laid in October and November.

• Average Percentile Performance (vs. F/+ top 30): 11% (record: 0-4 | avg. score: Opp 45, RU 11)
• Average Percentile Performance (vs. everyone else): 67% (record: 8-1 | avg. score: RU 34, Opp 22)

For perspective, the 67th percentile represents a performance on the border of the top 40. Not bad! The 11th percentile would constitute a ranking between about 110th and 115th. Against the four top-30 teams on the schedule, Rutgers played like Idaho; against everybody else, the Scarlet Knights were more like West Virginia.

The 2013 season told a similar tale; Rutgers played four BCS-level teams that won at least nine games and lost by an average of 22 points. Against everybody else: 6-3 with a plus-4.9 scoring margin.

If you're looking for another reason why Rutgers fans seem frustrated, that's a good one. When the biggest spotlight has shined, Rutgers has played its worst football. This hasn't always been the case -- in Flood's first season in 2012, Rutgers beat 10-win Cincinnati and barely lost to 11-win Louisville -- but it isn't a positive development.

The 2015 schedule features four teams that finished in last year's top 30 (including both Big Ten title game participants and Michigan State), which is either a reason for dread or an opportunity for redemption.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	0.92	32	IsoPPP+	118.3	31
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	44.0%	44	Succ. Rt. +	111.7	32
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	32.3	114	Def. FP+	98.0	92
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	4.5	62	Redzone S&P+	114.2	29
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	15.8		ACTUAL	20	+4.2

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	76	30	32	31
RUSHING	65	50	39	70
PASSING	69	15	30	11
Standard Downs		26	30	30
Passing Downs		43	41	49

Q1 Rk	54	1st Down Rk	52
Q2 Rk	21	2nd Down Rk	61
Q3 Rk	42	3rd Down Rk	35
Q4 Rk	57

3. Big play-calling shoes to fill

Ralph Friedgen's coaching career began when he took a graduate assistant position at Maryland in 1969, a year after his career as a Maryland guard ended. He was Maryland's offensive coordinator from 1982-86, then came back as Maryland's head coach from 2001-10. He was fired after 2010, and it looked like his career had come to an end as he approached age 64.

He had one final act. Flood lured him out of his forced retirement. It was perhaps Flood's most important recruiting win. Friedgen brought efficiency; Rutgers improved from 101st in Success Rate+ to 32nd and sacrificed little explosiveness in the process.

Quarterback Gary Nova's numbers improved across the board despite an upgrade in competition: his per-attempt yardage went from 6.1 to 7.9, his completion rate from 54.5 percent to 57.2 percent, his sack rate from 7.6 percent to 5.2, and his interception rate from 4.6 percent to 3.7. He developed a fun rapport with star receiver Leonte Carroo, and despite a revolving door at running back, Rutgers' offense looked magnificent at times.

At 67, Friedgen decided that "getting up at 4:30 every morning and working 18 hours a day for 15 weeks of the year" was a bit too much. Flood convinced him to stay as a "special assistant," but receivers coach Ben McDaniels will now be running the show.

McDaniels would be well-advised not to change much, unless his quarterback situation forces him to.

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.
Gary Nova					187	327	2851	22	12	57.2%	18	5.2%	7.9
Chris Laviano	6'3, 210	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8597	11	28	107	0	1	39.3%	1	3.4%	3.3
Hayden Rettig	6'3, 205	So.	4 stars (6.0)	0.9312
Giovanni Rescigno	6'3, 240	RSFr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7985
Michael Dare	6'5, 185	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8584

4. Got a quarterback?

In 2009, I wrote this about Rutgers quarterback Mike Teel in the Football Outsiders Almanac: "As alcohol is to Homer Simpson, Teel was the cause of and solution to most of Rutgers' problems."

He was also the last Rutgers quarterback to play well until Nova's 2014. Between 2010-13, RU quarterbacks -- Tom Savage, then Chas Dodd, then Nova -- failed to produce even a 130 passer rating. Savage managed a 128.8 in 2009, then crumbled and transferred. Dodd hit 126.8 as a freshman, then got replaced by Nova, who hit 125.8 in 2012.

Nova's 2014 rating: 145.3. Under Friedgen, and with Carroo living up to potential, Rutgers improved from 84th in Passing S&P+ to 15th.

So now the reins go to any of three youngsters: last year's backup Chris Laviano, LSU transfer Hayden Rettig, or redshirt freshman Giovanni Rescigno. (Incoming freshman Michael Dare was well-touted, and lord knows Rutgers has played freshman QBs, but we'll assume he's a longshot, if only because he needs to put on about 20 pounds before facing Joey Bosa.) Rettig was a blue-chipper in high school, Laviano looked pretty good in the spring, and Rescigno passes the eyeball test.

Whoever wins the job (and my guess is Laviano) will have to clear a high bar if Rutgers is to avoid offensive regression. And he'll be protected by a line that must replace three players who had combined for 112 career starts. Two two-year starters (tackle Keith Lumpkin, guard Chris Muller) return, and there is a nice mix of experience and high recruiting in the pipeline, but treading water is the best-case scenario.

Then again, the skill position players might have something to say about that.

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Opp.	Opp. Rate	Fumbles	Fum. Lost
Desmon Peoples	RB	5'8, 175	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8591	115	447	3	3.9	3.1	33.9%	1	0
Robert Martin	RB	6'0, 200	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8681	87	434	7	5.0	4.3	37.9%	1	1
Justin Goodwin	RB	6'0, 200	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8303	83	328	1	4.0	3.6	36.1%	1	1
Josh Hicks	RB	5'10, 205	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8625	71	438	2	6.2	6.2	45.1%	1	0
Paul James	RB	6'0, 205	Sr.	NR	NR	64	363	5	5.7	4.8	46.9%	3	2
Gary Nova	QB					27	125	3	4.6	5.1	37.0%	4	1
Chris Laviano	QB	6'3, 210	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8597	6	81	0	13.5	9.3	83.3%	0	0
Janarion Grant	WR	5'11, 175	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8609	6	48	0	8.0	7.3	66.7%	1	1
Charles Snorweah	RB	5'10, 175	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8336

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
Leonte Carroo	WR	6'1, 205	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9182	94	55	1086	58.5%	27.8%	59.6%	11.6	409	11.6	183.8
Janarion Grant	WR	5'11, 175	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8609	45	25	312	55.6%	13.3%	53.3%	6.9	1	6.5	52.8
Andre Patton	WR	6'4, 200	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8494	42	20	223	47.6%	12.4%	59.5%	5.3	-35	5.3	37.8
Tyler Kroft	TE					39	24	269	61.5%	11.5%	48.7%	6.9	-24	7.0	45.6
John Tsimis	WR	6'0, 185	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8377	33	19	188	57.6%	9.8%	51.5%	5.7	-47	6.1	31.9
Michael Burton	FB					22	15	150	68.2%	6.5%	59.1%	6.8	-29	6.7	25.4
Andrew Turzilli	WR					20	10	347	50.0%	5.9%	50.0%	17.4	220	19.5	58.8
Desmon Peoples	RB	5'8, 175	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8591	11	8	132	72.7%	3.3%	36.4%	12.0	37	11.7	22.4
Justin Goodwin	RB	6'0, 200	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8303	9	9	57	100.0%	2.7%	11.1%	6.3	-44	5.1	9.6
Paul James	RB	6'0, 205	Sr.	NR	NR	7	4	120	57.1%	2.1%	28.6%	17.1	71	16.5	20.3
Carlton Agudosi	WR	6'6, 210	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8317	6	5	32	83.3%	1.8%	66.7%	5.3	-26	5.1	5.4
Nick Arcidiacono	TE	6'5, 235	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8330	4	1	11	25.0%	1.2%	75.0%	2.8	-5	2.1	1.9
Robert Martin	RB	6'0, 200	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8681	2	2	25	100.0%	0.6%	50.0%	12.5	2	11.2	4.2
Ruhann Peele	WR	6'1, 190	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8734
Logan Lister	TE	6'5, 245	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8220
Nakia Griffin	TE	6'5, 220	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8385
Anthony Folkerts	TE	6'4, 215	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8342
Rashad Blunt	WR	6'2, 185	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8185

5. Toys in the toy box

Carroo hinted at a high ceiling in 2013, averaging 17.1 yards per catch and scoring nine touchdowns for an offense in desperate need of positivity. And in 2014, he eased seamlessly into the No. 1 role, doubling his catches and averaging an eye-popping 11.6 yards per target. His sub-60 percent catch rate isn't ideal, but when you average 19.7 yards per catch, you're allowed misses.

When Paul James is healthy, he's one of the nation's more exciting backs. A 205-pounder with open-field explosiveness (6.1 highlight yards per opportunity in 2013), James has averaged 5.7 yards per carry over the past two years, but he suffered a broken fibula in 2013 and tore his ACL four games into 2014.

In James' absence, two freshmen got quite a bit of work; Robert Martin and Josh Hicks combined to average 5.5 yards per carry, and Hicks erupted late: 20 carries for 114 yards against Indiana, 19 for 202 against UNC. (Martin chipped in 19 for 100 against the hapless Tar Heel defense.)

If James is at 100 percent, Rutgers has as high a ceiling at the skill positions as almost anybody in the conference. The big plays should be frequent, but Rutgers' improved efficiency is at risk.

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	100.6	2.9	2.46	39.9%	66.0%	20.8%	143.5	4.4%	4.6%
Rank	70	72	117	56	75	87	22	57	20

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Kaleb Johnson	LG					49
Betim Bujari	C					36
Taj Alexander	RT					27
Keith Lumpkin	LT	6'8, 310	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8947	26
Chris Muller	RG	6'6, 300	Jr.	4 stars (5.9)	0.9164	25
Bryan Leoni	LT					0
Ryan Brodie	RG	6'5, 300	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8879	0
Derrick Nelson	C	6'3, 290	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8222	0
Dorian Miller	LG	6'3, 285	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8823	0
J.J. Denman	RT	6'6, 300	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9002	0
Marcus Applefield	RT	6'6, 290	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8377
Jacquis Webb	LT	6'5, 310	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8425
Tariq Cole	LG	6'6, 350	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8436
Zack Heeman	OL	6'7, 270	RSFr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8302
Jack Shutack	OL	6'6, 270	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8439
Zach Venesky	OL	6'2, 285	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8438

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	0.97	119	IsoPPP+	88.0	107
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	42.1%	77	Succ. Rt. +	103.9	50
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	30.2	69	Off. FP+	101.0	51
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	4.5	76	Redzone S&P+	106.3	43
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	20.5		ACTUAL	18.0	-2.5

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	100	87	54	107
RUSHING	108	90	52	105
PASSING	71	83	77	87
Standard Downs		79	47	93
Passing Downs		105	80	106

Q1 Rk	46	1st Down Rk	92
Q2 Rk	116	2nd Down Rk	70
Q3 Rk	66	3rd Down Rk	119
Q4 Rk	87

6. Remember when Rutgers' defense was awesome?

In 2012, Rutgers allowed 4.6 yards per play and gave up more than 15 points four times in 13 games. The Scarlet Knights continued the standard set by Schiano's best defenses.

In 2013, Rutgers fell from 13th in Def. S&P+ to 80th. A young secondary suffered breakdowns. In 2014, the Knights fell to 86th, with a defense that allowed 100 rushes of 10-plus yards (124th in the country).

Rutgers has wanted to remain aggressive. But if you're going to give up tons of big plays, you better have an efficiency ranking in the 20s, not the 50s. That balance has disintegrated.

Joe Rossi's first year as Rutgers coordinator was a learning experience; as constructed, RU has sacrificed size to get speed on the field, and while that helped to create a nice pass rush, it created disadvantages against the run.

It also potentially contributed to a disturbing trend: Rutgers tended to collapse as a half unfolded. RU ranked 46th and 66th in first- and third-quarter S&P+ but crumbled to 116th and 87th in the second and fourth quarters.

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	96.7	3.25	3.14	45.4%	68.3%	18.2%	117.4	7.4%	9.0%
Rank	81	110	47	122	72	85	32	15	37

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
David Milewski	DE					13	47.0	6.5%	9.0	4.0	0	2	2	0
Kemoko Turay	DE	6'6, 235	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8085	13	20.5	2.8%	8.5	7.5	0	1	0	0
Darius Hamilton	DT	6'4, 255	Sr.	5 stars (6.1)	0.9881	13	38.5	5.3%	11.5	6.0	0	0	1	0
Kenneth Kirksey	NT					13	20.0	2.8%	3.5	0.5	0	0	1	0
Djwany Mera	DE	6'4, 260	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8778	13	14.5	2.0%	2.5	1.5	0	1	0	0
Julian Pinnix-Odrick	DT	6'5, 260	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8748	12	12.5	1.7%	2.0	2.0	0	0	1	0
Daryl Stephenson	NT					13	12.0	1.7%	1.0	0.0	0	1	0	0
Quanzell Lambert	DE	6'1, 250	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9039	13	7.0	1.0%	1.5	1.0	0	0	0	0
Sebastian Joseph	NT	6'4, 285	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8131	13	1.5	0.2%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Myles Nash	DE	6'5, 225	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8622	8	1.5	0.2%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Kevin Wilkins	NT	6'3, 290	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8344
Eric Wiafe	DL	6'5, 270	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8208
Donald Bedell	DE	6'4, 235	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8073
Jimmy Hogan	DE	6'4, 225	RSFr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8224
Jon Bateky	DE	6'4, 245	Fr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8296
Marques Ford	DE	6'4, 230	Fr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9008
Kamaal Seymour	DT	6'6, 290	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8392

7. Size matters?

Rutgers has its share of talent. Darius Hamilton hasn't played like the five-star he was in high school, but he's been a four-star, at least. Kemoko Turay came out of nowhere to serve as one of the better pass-rush specialists in the Eastern time zone. Linebacker Quentin Gause was able to slice into the backfield and make some plays against the run.

The problem was twofold: 1) You could add "... despite being undersized" to the end of each of those sentences, and 2) there wasn't much size elsewhere. Of the seven returning contributors, the ends average 6'4, 243, and the tackles average 6'4, 267. If you have elite speed at all positions, maybe you can make this work. Rutgers only had good speed. If the Scarlet Knights weren't making a play against the run, they were allowing one.

In terms of pure talent, there's a lot to like. Not only are Turay and Hamilton back, high-upside younger players like Quanzell Lambert, Myles Nash, Kevin Wilkins, and incoming four-star Marques Ford could play a role, and senior Djwany Mera has hinted at upside.

But if size was an issue, then unless every player on the team slaps on 20 pounds while sacrificing no speed, I'm not sure how things will improve much. Rossi might have a better idea of how to compensate for it.

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Steve Longa	WLB	6'1, 225	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8655	13	86.5	12.0%	4.5	2.0	0	1	1	1
Quentin Gause	SLB	6'1, 220	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8665	13	61.5	8.5%	7.0	1.0	0	1	1	0
Kevin Snyder	MLB					12	53.0	7.3%	1.5	1.5	0	5	1	0
L.J. Liston	MLB					10	13.0	1.8%	1.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
T.J. Taylor	SLB	6'3, 200	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.7993	13	3.5	0.5%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Anthony Milito	LB					1	1.5	0.2%	0.5	0.5	0	0	0	0
Devan Carter	LB	6'2, 215	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8013
Brandon Russell	MLB	6'1, 210	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7919
Isaiah Johnson	MLB	6'2, 225	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7923
Deonte Roberts	WLB	6'1, 205	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8119
Sidney Gopre	LB	6'1, 205	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8660

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Lorenzo Waters	SS					13	61.0	8.4%	5	2	2	1	1	0
Gareef Glashen	CB					13	50.0	6.9%	1.5	0	1	9	0	0
Johnathan Aiken	FS					13	49.0	6.8%	3	1	0	1	1	0
Delon Stephenson	FS	5'11, 190	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8222	11	32.0	4.4%	2	0	0	3	0	0
Davon Jacobs	SS	6'0, 195	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8696	13	30.0	4.2%	1.5	1.5	1	0	0	0
Anthony Cioffi	CB	6'0, 185	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8059	12	28.0	3.9%	2	0	2	2	1	0
Nadir Barnwell	CB	5'11, 185	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9140	10	26.0	3.6%	1	0	0	4	0	0
Dre Boggs	CB	5'11, 175	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8449	10	14.5	2.0%	0	0	0	4	0	0
Andre Hunt	FS	6'0, 190	So.	NR	NR	9	5.0	0.7%	1	1	0	1	0	0
Brian Verbitski	CB	6'0, 175	Jr.	NR	NR
Saquan Hampton	FS	6'0, 180	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8344
Kiy Hester	SS	6'0, 205	RSFr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9054
Isaiah Wharton	CB	6'1, 200	RSFr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7683
Darian Dailey	CB	5'11, 175	RSFr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7619
Blessuan Austin	DB	6'1, 180	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8306
Najee Clayton	DB	6'2, 200	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8610
Jarius Adams	CB	5'10, 180	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8295

8. Athletic and green(ish)

The front seven has upside but lacks size. The secondary has upside but lacks experience.

At least, sort of. Rutgers will be forced to replace three starters, including aggressive safeties (Lorenzo Waters and Johnathan Aiken, who combined for eight tackles for loss) and a decent cornerback (Gareef Glashen). That's never a good thing, but at least the backups saw the field. The top four returnees are all juniors who had at least 26 tackles in 2014.

Of course, some younger players could still help. Sophomore Dre Boggs managed to break up four passes while on the field long enough to record only 14.5 tackles (that either means a high ceiling or he's awful at tackling), and four-star redshirt freshman Kiy Hester, originally a Miami signee, had a pretty good spring.

There is reason to fear what might become of the pass defense, but there is talent, and the pass rush will again be strong. If the defense ranks in the 80s, it will be because of the run, not the pass.

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Tim Gleeson	6'2, 195	Sr.	32	40.3	2	6	11	53.1%
Joseph Roth	6'0, 175	Sr.	31	36.3	0	9	2	35.5%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
Kyle Federico	6'0, 190	Sr.	71	58.8	17	3	23.9%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Kyle Federico	6'0, 190	Sr.	41-43	11-12	91.7%	5-9	55.6%

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Janarion Grant	KR	5'11, 175	Jr.	36	25.2	0
Josh Hicks	KR	5'10, 205	So.	9	18.0	0
Janarion Grant	PR	5'11, 175	Jr.	6	7.5	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams F/+	66
Field Goal Efficiency	47
Punt Return Efficiency	17
Kick Return Efficiency	47
Punt Efficiency	86
Kickoff Efficiency	104
Opponents' Field Goal Efficiency	27

9. Kick it away from Grant

Good: While Janarion Grant is still figuring out how to make a consistent impact on offense, he is one hell of a return man. The bouncy junior helped Rutgers to return efficiency ratings in the top 20 (punts) and top 50 (kicks), and even when he isn't doing very well, he's a bit of an optical illusion; you're terrified of him until his knee touches the ground.

Bad: Rutgers' coverage units made it seem like opponents also had a Janarion Grant. Rutgers ranked 58th in punt return average allowed and 95th in kick return average allowed. Tim Gleeson (an Aussie and the older brother of Ole Miss' Will) had better averages, but kicked a more returnable ball and was replaced by Joseph Roth. Either could start in 2015, though Gleeson seems to have better upside.

2015 Schedule & Projection Factors

2015 Schedule
Date	Opponent	2014 F/+ Rk
5-Sep	Norfolk State	NR
12-Sep	Washington State	77
19-Sep	at Penn State	45
26-Sep	Kansas	99
10-Oct	Michigan State	11
17-Oct	at Indiana	88
24-Oct	Ohio State	1
31-Oct	at Wisconsin	25
7-Nov	at Michigan	54
14-Nov	Nebraska	30
21-Nov	at Army	121
28-Nov	Maryland	62

Five-Year F/+ Rk	-5.6% (70)
2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk	64 / 48
2014 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin*	-2 / 4.7
2014 TO Luck/Game	-2.6
Approx. Ret. Starters (Off. / Def.)	11 (6, 5)
2014 Second-order wins (difference)	6.5 (1.5)

10. The top-30 jinx might not be much of an issue

It felt like Rutgers was ranked artificially low last season. For two-thirds of the year, the Scarlet Knights were a borderline top-40 team, but their poor performances, all against very good teams, tore their ranking apart.

On the schedule, there are four more teams that ranked in the F/+ top 30; three visit Piscataway, which offers an opportunity for either a buzz-building upset or another demoralizing blowout. But if Rutgers plays at the same level against teams below the 75th percentile, the Scarlet Knights will likely win enough to bowl once more.

It is justifiable to worry about where this program stands; the strengths, weaknesses, and offensive identity all seem to change each year, and the F/+ ranking has been on the wrong side of 50. It's deal with that without ending up on the wrong side of six wins, too.

Still, Flood has sustained what has easily been Rutgers' most successful decade of football. There's something to be said for that.