Texas Tech's air raid is firing again. Now for some better luck and much better defense

Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.

1. Hello, reset button

As tends to be the case, Tech's fantastic bowl performance raised expectations higher than trends suggest they should be, and that could backfire if the Red Raiders finish 6-6 or 7-5.

I don't see it, though. I don't think the defense improves until 2015, and while I like the offense, I don't necessarily like it to improve without Jace Amaro. I see Tech once again as a top-50-but-not-much-better squad, one likely to start 5-2, then struggle to find Win No. 6. (If it doesn't come against Texas at home or at Iowa State, it might not come.)

-- 2014 Texas Tech guide

I thought I was tapping the brakes when talking about Texas Tech last year, but I evidently wasn't doing it enough.

Kliff Kingsbury's team had razed Arizona State in the 2013 Holiday Bowl; the win cranked up the hype enough that, despite losing five games in a row to finish the regular season, the Red Raiders received enough votes to start the year 38th in the AP poll.

This wasn't a runaway hype train, but the vibes were positive. Kingsbury was recruiting well, the offense was ready to take a step forward after scuffling along with freshman quarterbacks, and the defense ... well, the defense probably wasn't going to be worse. All aboard the Kliff Express.

A year later, the Kliff Express has a few more empty seats. The defense collapsed, allowing 34 or more points in eight of 10 games against power conference teams (and 82! against TCU). The offense was fine but fell into some ill-timed funks, and after surviving Central Arkansas and UTEP, the Red Raiders beat only Kansas and Iowa State after September 6.

It wasn't even a particularly good 4-8. Despite awful turnovers luck, Tech went 3-2 in one-possession games; you could say that the Red Raiders were as close to 1-11 as 6-6.

What many assumed would be Tech's return to league-average play -- Tech hasn't been above average within the Big 12 since Mike Leach left -- was a disaster. The Red Raiders missed a bowl for the second time since 1999, blue-chip quarterback Jarrett Stidham decommitted and ended up signing with Baylor, and a year after he had the world wrapped around his finger, Kingsbury is starting over.

Indeed, since the Leach/Adam James controversy of 2009, Texas Tech has been a Big 12 also-ran. The Red Raiders took a step forward in Tommy Tuberville's third and final season (2012) but found their nadir again with a Leach disciple calling the shots.

Since ranking 27th in Def. S&P+ in Leach's final season, Tech hasn't cracked the top 70 in that category, even with the otherwise defensively sound Tuberville. And after winning at least nine games in three of Leach's final four seasons, the Red Raiders haven't topped eight since.

Right before the 2014 season, Kingsbury signed a contract extension that made him one of the nation's most well-paid coaches. This seemed like a risk at the time because of inexperience, but his trajectory seemed clear enough that few questioned the move too loudly.

Now, entering his third year, Kingsbury faces increasing pressure. His contract makes him unfirable, but he has plenty to prove. Can (another) new defensive coordinator figure out the right buttons to push? Can an offense that returns virtually everybody pick up the difference? And after 12 losses in 14 conference games, can the Red Raiders at least hold their own?

2014 Schedule & Results

Record: 4-8 | Adj. Record: 5-7 | Final F/+ Rk: 82
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Percentile Performance	Adj. Scoring Margin	Win Expectancy
30-Aug	Central Arkansas	N/A	42-35	W	59%	5.0	95%
6-Sep	at UTEP	90	30-26	W	77%	17.5	87%
13-Sep	Arkansas	9	28-49	L	40%	-6.1	5%
25-Sep	at Oklahoma State	75	35-45	L	29%	-13.3	10%
4-Oct	at Kansas State	26	13-45	L	24%	-16.2	1%
11-Oct	West Virginia	40	34-37	L	67%	10.1	64%
18-Oct	Kansas	99	34-21	W	55%	2.7	75%
25-Oct	at TCU	6	27-82	L	47%	-1.8	2%
1-Nov	Texas	53	13-34	L	20%	-19.7	1%
15-Nov	Oklahoma	19	30-42	L	44%	-3.5	7%
22-Nov	at Iowa State	92	34-31	W	50%	0.0	73%
29-Nov	vs. Baylor	10	46-48	L	85%	24.0	60%

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk
S&P+	36.3	23	36.3	114
Points Per Game	30.5	56	41.3	126

2. Is 3 games a trend?

Despite the decent close-game record, luck wasn't on Tech's side. From a statistical standpoint, the Red Raiders did enough to beat UCA and UTEP by far more than 11 combined points -- they outgained these two by a combined 341 yards but recovered zero of three fumbles against UTEP and threw a couple of early picks against Central Arkansas. They prevailed and went on to produce a win expectancy over 50 percent in four conference games. So perhaps saying they were closer to 1-11 than 6-6 is a faulty way of looking at things.

Still, the bad performances were nightmarish. While the Red Raiders played at the 59th percentile or higher (~top 50) four times, they were in the 29th percentile or lower three times. In the three games that I thought would decide the season (Arkansas, OSU, KSU), they were outscored by 63 points and allowed 6.7 yards per play. They allowed 82 points to TCU, then played even worse the next week against Texas.

If there's hope to be found, it's that the Red Raiders improved in each of their final three games.

• Average Percentile Performance (first 9 games): 46% (Tech yards per play: 6.2)
• Average Percentile Performance (last 3 games): 60% (Tech yards per play: 7.8)

Granted, a lot of this late "surge" took place because of the offense. After struggling against TCU and Texas, freshman quarterback Patrick Mahomes, in for the injured Davis Webb, thrived. In the final three games, he completed 57 percent of his passes at 16.5 yards per completion (unheard of for the typically efficiency-first air raid offense) with 14 touchdowns to two interceptions. The defense, meanwhile, still allowed 7 yards per play to OU and Iowa State before buckling down against Baylor (5.7).

That the offense returns most key contributors is an excellent sign, but the late-season improvement didn't really give much hope that the defense was going to improve enough to matter.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	0.96	17	IsoPPP+	119.1	30
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	43.5%	50	Succ. Rt. +	112.0	31
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	30.1	73	Def. FP+	100.0	65
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	4.7	41	Redzone S&P+	101.0	62
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	26.8		ACTUAL	28	+1.2

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	10	29	30	30
RUSHING	82	49	38	64
PASSING	5	27	28	27
Standard Downs		49	43	51
Passing Downs		9	18	6

Q1 Rk	32	1st Down Rk	23
Q2 Rk	22	2nd Down Rk	72
Q3 Rk	35	3rd Down Rk	7
Q4 Rk	41

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.
Davis Webb	6'5, 226	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8672	211	345	2539	24	13	61.2%	4	1.1%	7.2
Patrick Mahomes	6'3, 219	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8807	105	185	1547	16	4	56.8%	9	4.6%	7.7
Vincent Testaverde					15	26	116	0	1	57.7%	0	0.0%	4.5
Nic Shimonek (Iowa)	6'3, 241	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8175

3. A pretty good backup, one way or another

Mahomes was incredible down the stretch, especially considering he was a true freshman. He got hurt against Texas, and Vincent Testaverde finished the game. But he returned the next week and took no prisoners.

That left Tech with either great quarterback depth or an awkward quarterback battle, depending on your perspective. In 2013, Kingsbury had three solid quarterbacks but lost both Baker Mayfield (Oklahoma) and Michael Brewer (Virginia Tech) to transfer. Webb, the most successful of the three despite freshman status, remained and played perfectly well over the first half of the season. He made mistakes, sure -- against Arkansas, OSU, and KSU, as the defense proved it had no hope of making stops, he threw eight interceptions trying to force the issue -- but he still finished with 2,539 passing yards, 24 touchdowns, and a 138.4 passer rating.

And then Mahomes outplayed him in the final three games.

Mahomes had limited availability in the spring because of baseball commitments, and Webb was still recovering from shoulder surgery, so not much was decided. We assume Mahomes will win the battle because he's younger and produced better averages, but both quarterbacks have cases.

• Completion Rate: Webb 61%, Mahomes 57%
• Yards Per Completion: Mahomes 14.7, Webb 12.0
• TD Rate: Mahomes 9%, Webb 7%
• INT Rate: Webb 4%, Mahomes 2%
• Sack Rate: Mahomes 5%, Webb 1%

Webb was the more efficient, with a higher completion rate and far lower sack rate; in 717 career pass attempts, Webb has been sacked only 11 times. That's mind-boggling. But in the process of getting the ball out of his hands as soon as humanly possible, he does force the issue and throws some picks.

Mahomes waits for his receivers to get downfield, which leads to both bigger completions and more sacks. That he threw only four interceptions while averaging nearly 15 yards per completion was rare, but he did get sacked more frequently.

Efficiency is a big part of any offense, especially the air raid, so maybe Webb's still got a solid shot. He produced at least a 136 passer rating in five of seven games, and a lot of his mistakes against Arkansas, OSU, and KSU were due to the pressure the horrendous Tech defense put on the offense to keep up.

But the biggest key for Kingsbury might be not losing the backup to transfer. That he has had three different freshman quarterbacks putting up big numbers in two seasons is impressive, but at some point you'd like to keep a guy long enough to develop him.

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Opp.	Opp. Rate	Fumbles	Fum. Lost
DeAndre Washington	RB	5'8, 192	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8876	188	1103	2	5.9	4.9	46.3%	1	1
Justin Stockton	RB	5'10, 193	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8672	48	396	4	8.3	13.0	39.6%	1	1
Patrick Mahomes	QB	6'3, 219	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8807	37	158	0	4.3	3.0	37.8%	3	2
Quinton White	RB	5'7, 208	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8413	29	121	0	4.2	2.5	41.4%	1	0
Davis Webb	QB	6'5, 226	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8672	13	59	1	4.5	4.3	38.5%	5	3
Kenny Williams	RB					11	78	1	7.1	8.9	45.5%	1	1
Jakeem Grant	WR	5'7, 170	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8363	5	35	0	7.0	4.3	60.0%	2	2
Demarcus Felton	RB	5'7, 193	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8463
Corey Dauphine	RB	5'11, 185	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.9134

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
Jakeem Grant	WR	5'7, 170	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8363	110	67	938	60.9%	20.7%	61.8%	8.5	120	8.4	133.0
Bradley Marquez	WR					102	65	821	63.7%	19.2%	58.8%	8.0	34	8.1	116.4
Reginald Davis	WR	6'0, 184	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9274	48	29	318	60.4%	9.0%	64.6%	6.6	-37	6.7	45.0
DeAndre Washington	RB	5'8, 192	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8876	45	30	328	66.7%	8.5%	64.4%	7.3	-32	7.2	46.5
Devin Lauderdale	WR	5'10, 180	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8852	43	31	589	72.1%	8.1%	53.5%	13.7	222	13.6	83.5
Ian Sadler	WR	5'11, 200	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8748	42	23	336	54.8%	7.9%	47.6%	8.0	49	7.9	47.6
Dylan Cantrell	WR	6'3, 213	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8717	40	20	312	50.0%	7.5%	75.0%	7.8	57	6.8	44.2
D.J. Polite-Bray	DB					22	11	92	50.0%	4.1%	59.1%	4.2	-48	4.1	13.0
Cameron Batson	WR	5'9, 170	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8449	17	9	41	52.9%	3.2%	70.6%	2.4	-72	2.3	5.8
Justin Stockton	RB	5'10, 193	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8672	14	12	76	85.7%	2.6%	85.7%	5.4	-62	6.3	10.8
Jordan Davis	WR					13	8	97	61.5%	2.4%	46.2%	7.5	-1	7.9	13.7
Quinton White	RB	5'7, 208	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8413	13	10	82	76.9%	2.4%	23.1%	6.3	-35	6.0	11.6
Brad Pearson	WR	6'2, 213	Sr.	NR	NR	7	6	38	85.7%	1.3%	85.7%	5.4	-31	5.3	5.4
Jakari Dillard	WR	6'4, 195	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8545
J.F. Thomas	WR	6'4, 180	Fr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9217
Tony Brown	WR	6'1, 187	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8763
Keke Coutee	WR	5'10, 170	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8672
Jonathan Giles	WR	5'11, 180	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8322

4. Plenty of dangerous pieces

Whoever ends up playing behind center will have all the weapons he could want.

First, last year's top three running backs all return; senior DeAndre Washington was wonderfully efficient, taking advantage of big line splits and defensive preoccupation to grind out at least five yards in nearly half of his carries. He isn't explosive, but he can leave the big gains to sophomore Justin Stockton, who did most of his damage early (12.4 yards per carry against UCA and UTEP, then 6.6 the rest of the year) but showed dramatic big-play capability.

Meanwhile, six of last year's top seven wide receivers return. Renowned kick returner Jakeem Grant produced solid numbers as a No. 1 target, Reginald Davis provided a decent efficiency option, and former four-star prospect Devin Lauderdale made big plays. [Update: Davis could miss time early in the season as a result of a marijuana possession charge he received in May.]  Lauderdale was a large part of Mahomes' late success, catching 11 passes for 263 yards and four touchdowns in the last three games.

These three, plus sophomores Ian Sadler and Cameron Batson, a new batch of exciting freshmen (including four-star J.F. Thomas), and the running backs will give Mahomes or Webb too many weapons for defenses to handle. If the quarterback makes the proper reads, he will almost certainly find an exciting receiver to target.

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	113.4	3.07	4.15	43.5%	68.8%	20.2%	244.8	2.0%	3.1%
Rank	22	45	5	23	54	77	2	9	5

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Le'Raven Clark	LT	6'6, 307	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.9059	38	2014 1st All-Big 12
Jared Kaster	C	6'3, 287	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8970	25
Reshod Fortenberry	RT					25
Alfredo Morales	LG	6'4, 316	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8559	24
Baylen Brown	RG	6'5, 312	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8609	12
James Polk	LG					10
Tony Morales	C	6'3, 290	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8985	4
Dominique Robertson	OL					1
Trey Keenan	RG					0
Poet Thomas	RT	6'6, 330	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8282	0
Robert Castaneda	RG	6'4, 301	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8307
Justin Murphy	RT	6'7, 270	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8160
Emeka Okafor (Houston)	LG	6'5, 320	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7000
Paul Stawarz	LT	6'5, 295	Jr.	NR	NR
Conner Dyer	OL	6'5, 265	Fr.	4 stars (5.9)	0.9034
Madison Akamnonu	OL	6'6, 270	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8989

5. Few worries up front

Even with Mahomes, Tech's sack rates were excellent. The Red Raider line has long been a strength, particularly in pass protection -- wide splits, big bodies, and a quick-passing style have been a lovely combination -- and it's hard to imagine that changing much with the return of all-conference tackle Le'Raven Clark and four others with starting experience.

The starting right tackle could be untested, be it sophomore Poet Thomas or redshirt freshman Justin Murphy. But until proven otherwise, the Tech line gets the benefit of the doubt, especially with the addition of Houston transfer Emeka Okafor and two four-star freshmen (per the 247Sports Composite), Conner Dyer and Madison Akamnonu.

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	0.88	82	IsoPPP+	86.6	109
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	46.6%	116	Succ. Rt. +	92.4	100
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	26.6	125	Off. FP+	94.9	122
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	5.2	127	Redzone S&P+	98.6	69
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	22.7		ACTUAL	15.0	-7.7

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	125	109	104	109
RUSHING	124	116	119	106
PASSING	98	75	45	102
Standard Downs		106	99	103
Passing Downs		103	97	101

Q1 Rk	33	1st Down Rk	117
Q2 Rk	113	2nd Down Rk	103
Q3 Rk	121	3rd Down Rk	125
Q4 Rk	126

6. Death, taxes, Bo Ryan, and a new Texas Tech defense

4-3, 3-4, 4-2-5, 4-3, 3-4. Perhaps the only surprise is that, in the last five years, Tech hasn't given the 3-3-5 a significant look. The Red Raiders have tried everything else.

It's now David Gibbs' turn to make something of a defense that has been mediocre for a while but was awful last fall.

Eliminating drama might be a decent first step. Last year, coordinator Matt Wallerstedt resigned after a poor start and was eventually accused of coming to work under the influence and giving away Tech's signs to opponents. He naturally denied the signal allegations, but there's no question that the Tech D had to deal with ineptitude on the field and awkwardness off of it.

Assuming Gibbs' tenure is free of drama, it will be interesting to see what he's able to accomplish. Gibbs' Houston defenses were unabashed ball hawks, doing everything they could to induce quarterback mistakes.

Fostering interceptions became a function of Gibbs' chess-match scheme. Just as hurry-up offenses run a base set of plays over and over from different formations, Houston's defense would run the same calls from multiple looks. This flexibility is due in part to UH's rush end position, a linebacker who plays as a standing defensive end regardless of a 3-4, 4-3 or nickel look.

Gibbs estimates that a college quarterback can be fooled by coverages into throwing a potential interception at least once every six passing plays. Gibbs has a theory that tempo/spread offenses sacrifice two tenets of old-school logic:

1. Maximizing the skill players with the best hands. Spread teams often rotate skill players during a drive.

2. The lack of attention given to turnovers in hurry-up practice schedules.

We know the Kingsbury offense is going to produce points and short possessions. One can see what he might like in Gibbs, whose defenses move just as quickly and place a premium on breaking serve. He's willing to give up yards and points if his guys are also able to create (and take advantage of) mistakes.

If he succeeds, he could succeed quickly. If he fails, he will fail miserably.

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	85.6	3.35	4.06	44.7%	72.1%	13.4%	100.6	4.2%	8.7%
Rank	120	118	125	121	96	122	65	78	42

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Pete Robertson	BANDIT	6'3, 243	Sr.	NR	NR	12	65.0	8.4%	15.5	13.0	0	3	2	0
Keland McElrath	DT	6'4, 307	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8344	11	37.5	4.8%	2.5	0.5	0	0	1	0
Branden Jackson	DE	6'4, 272	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8951	12	34.5	4.5%	9.5	3.0	0	2	1	0
Rika Levi	NT	6'2, 330	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8416	11	16.0	2.1%	1.5	0.5	0	0	0	0
Marcus Smith	DT	6'3, 316	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7926	10	14.0	1.8%	0.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Jackson Richards	NT					10	13.0	1.7%	2.0	1.0	0	0	2	0
Andre Ross	BANDIT	6'2, 234	Sr.	NR	0.9000	8	7.5	1.0%	1.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Gary Moore	DE	6'5, 220	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8772	11	6.0	0.8%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Demetrius Alston	DT	6'3, 274	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8035	6	6.0	0.8%	0.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Brandon Thorpe	DT					6	3.0	0.4%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Kris Williams	BANDIT	6'1, 230	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8348	7	2.5	0.3%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Donte Phillips	DT	6'2, 280	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8186	5	2.0	0.3%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Josh Outlaw	DT	6'4, 309	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8748
Zach Barnes	DE	6'3, 232	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8252
Breiden Fehoko	DT	6'3, 293	Fr.	4 stars (5.9)	0.9744

7. Simply dreadful against the run

Perhaps the most important player will be rush end Pete Robertson. Robertson's a motor guy; he wasn't much in run defense, but he pursued well, and he wreaked havoc in the pass rush. Pressure will be key in forcing quarterback mistakes, and Robertson is one of the most proven pass rushers in the conference.

Of course, harassing the passer only matters if you can force your opponent to throw. Tech's pass defense was pretty efficient, but the Red Raiders had one of the worst run defenses in America. They ranked 119th in Rushing S&P+ and 120th in Adj. Line Yards. They had almost no presence in the backfield, and opposing runners were able to gain five or more yards on 45 percent of their carries. Opponents ran 67 percent of the time on standard downs (7 percent above the national average) and 34 percent of the time on passing downs (1 percent above); they knew they had nothing to fear by keeping it on the ground, and while good rushing teams like Arkansas and TCU had plenty of success on the ground, so did lesser attacks like UTEP and Iowa State.

That virtually everybody from last year's front four returns is a good thing, but sometimes you need some new blood. Perhaps younger players like sophomore tackles Demetrius Alston and Josh Outlaw or four-star freshman Breiden Fehoko can bring a bit more hope to the run D.

Of course, keeping your starting rotation on the field could help. Of the eight players who averaged at least 0.9 tackles per game, only two played in all 12 games. For that matter, only two of four linebackers and three of 12 defensive backs did the same. Tech wasn't quite as wrecked by injury as a team like Iowa State was, but it was close. Injuries can create depth in the future tense, so perhaps there's reason for optimism there ... however slight.

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Sam Eguavoen	MIKE					10	60.5	7.8%	5.5	2.0	1	2	1	1
Micah Awe	MIKE	6'0, 221	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8454	12	58.5	7.5%	3.0	1.0	0	3	0	0
V.J. Fehoko	WILL					12	50.5	6.5%	3.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Malik Jenkins	WILL	6'1, 220	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8144	8	8.0	1.0%	1.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Sam Atoe	SAM	5'11, 231	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7993	12	8.0	1.0%	1.5	1.0	0	0	0	0
Kahlee Woods	LB	6'1, 234	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8324	7	5.5	0.7%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Jacarthy Mack	SAM	6'2, 196	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8394
Dakota Allen	MIKE	6'2, 235	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8520
Mike Mitchell (Ohio State)	WILL	6'3, 226	So.	5 stars (6.1)	0.9726
D'Vonta Hinton	LB	5'10, 210	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8389

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Keenon Ward	FS	5'9, 205	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8640	10	60.0	7.7%	1.5	0	1	6	1	0
Tevin Madison	CB	5'10, 163	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8291	12	51.0	6.6%	3	0	1	7	0	0
J.J. Gaines	SS	6'0, 180	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8494	10	50.0	6.5%	2.5	0	2	4	1	0
Austin Stewart	RAID					12	45.5	5.9%	3	0	0	1	0	0
Justis Nelson	CB	6'2, 177	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8222	11	39.5	5.1%	2.5	1	0	16	0	0
Nigel Bethel II	CB	5'9, 188	So.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8807	9	35.5	4.6%	1.5	0	0	6	0	0
Kenny Williams	RAID					12	18.0	2.3%	0.5	0	0	0	0	0
Derrick Dixon	S	5'9, 194	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8587	11	18.0	2.3%	0	0	0	2	0	0
Jalen Barnes	SS	6'0, 191	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8188	10	15.0	1.9%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Josh Keys	S					5	11.0	1.4%	0	0	0	1	0	0
Dorian Crawford	DB					6	5.5	0.7%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Jah'Shawn Johnson	CB	5'10, 179	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8395	4	4.5	0.6%	0	0	1	0	0	0
Thierry Nguema	CB	5'10, 175	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7917	12	2.0	0.3%	0	0	0	0	0	0
D.J. Polite-Bray	CB	6'0, 185	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8007
Tevin Madison	CB	5'10, 163	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8291
Payton Hendrix	S	6'2, 203	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8866
Paul Banks	CB	6'1, 175	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8007
Jamile Johnson	CB	6'0, 205	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8769

8. Hope in the secondary

Between Robertson's pass rushing prowess, Gibbs' exciting tactics, and a naturally aggressive secondary, Tech's pass defense is loaded with potential.

Corners Tevin Madison, Justis Nelson, and Nigel Bethel II combined for seven tackles for loss and 30 passes defensed despite being underclassmen. [Update: Bethel was suspended for the first three games of the season after punching Tech women's basketball player Amber Battle during an offseason pickup basketball game.] Safeties Kenon Ward and J.J. Gaines had their moments, as well. This secondary is deep and far more experienced than it was a year ago. And the upside will only improve if younger players like redshirt freshman Payton Hendrix or freshman Jamile Johnson force their way onto the field.

Gibbs tactics could quickly pay off, and Tech could force far more turnovers if opponents have to pass. That's an "if" the size of West Texas.

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Taylor Symmank	6'3, 194	Sr.	54	42.6	5	24	17	75.9%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
Kramer Fyfe			47	60.9	21	1	44.7%
Taylor Symmank	6'3, 194	Sr.	22	60.5	10	0	45.5%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Ryan Bustin			42-44	9-11	81.8%	1-3	33.3%

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Jakeem Grant	KR	5'7, 170	Sr.	23	22.4	0
Justin Stockton	KR	5'10, 193	So.	16	16.2	0
Cameron Batson	PR	5'9, 170	So.	17	3.8	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams F/+	84
Field Goal Efficiency	56
Punt Return Efficiency	111
Kick Return Efficiency	108
Punt Efficiency	18
Kickoff Efficiency	78
Opponents' Field Goal Efficiency	103

9. Where'd the return game go?

Special teams are a small-sample enterprise, complete with randomness and misleading stats. We know Jakeem Grant has absurd potential as a kick return man; he proved that with two touchdowns in six returns back in 2012. But he has averaged barely 22 yards per return over the last two years, and neither he nor Justin Stockton got any sort of consistent run blocking last year.

Returns were an extreme weakness for an otherwise decent unit. Punter Taylor Symmank was able to boot high and long, and he should remain a strength, but with a new place-kicker, the return game will need to improve.

2015 Schedule & Projection Factors

2015 Schedule
Date	Opponent	Proj. S&P+ Rk
5-Sep	Sam Houston State	NR
12-Sep	UTEP	99
19-Sep	at Arkansas	12
26-Sep	TCU	18
3-Oct	vs. Baylor	14
10-Oct	Iowa State	86
17-Oct	at Kansas	95
24-Oct	at Oklahoma	10
31-Oct	Oklahoma State	43
7-Nov	at West Virginia	40
14-Nov	Kansas State	33
26-Nov	at Texas	36

Five-Year F/+ Rk	-1.2% (59)
2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk	47 / 41
2014 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin*	-13 / -4.1
2014 TO Luck/Game	-3.7
Approx. Ret. Starters (Off. / Def.)	18 (9, 9)
2014 Second-order wins (difference)	4.8 (-0.8)

10. Opportunities early

The first seven games are pretty extreme: four opponents projected 86th or worse, three projected 18th or better.

This provides a world of opportunity and peril. Lose to any of Sam Houston, UTEP, Iowa State, or Kansas, and bowl eligibility is almost certainly out the window. Beat either Arkansas, TCU, or Baylor, and you will be about 5-2 and a pretty big story heading into late October.

You can see whatever you want. An optimist will point to a potential top-20 offense. Plus, said optimist could point to new life on defense and a potentially excellent pass defense.

A pessimist would simply have to point out that the run defense was so embarrassing that Tech went 4-8 despite a good offense and decent pass defense.

I'm leaning toward the optimist's point of view. Tech had poor injuries luck and turnovers luck, and while there's nothing saying luck will shift, the Red Raiders have extra depth because of the injuries and should force plenty of takeaway opportunities in Gibbs' system.

If nothing else changes but turnover margin, Tech could be bowling again. If actual quality improves as well, Tech will be bowling again.