Opportunity awaits for FIU football in 2016, but are the Golden Panthers ready?

Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.

1. A coaching redshirt year

FIU will likely be a better team, one that will probably get fewer lucky bounces and will definitely get fewer home games. That will tamp down major bowl hopes. But if the passing game isn't a total albatross, the Panthers will be a tough out, giving us an even more conflicted version of the job Ron Turner is doing.

-- The big 2015 FIU football guide

Sometimes you can only learn so much about yourself. In 2014, Ron Turner's second FIU team used a little bit of turnovers luck and quite a bit of defensive improvement to move from 124th to 96th in the F/+ rankings and from 1-11 to 4-8. It returned most of a bad offense and almost all of a strong defense, aside from a couple of safeties and the defensive coordinator.

The offense was dismal enough to tamp down enthusiasm, but it wasn't hard for me to talk myself into the job Turner was doing. Turner's hire was as maligned as a hire could be, but one could begin to see how it might work out pretty well for FIU.

In 2015, however, FIU dealt with a different kind of luck: injuries luck. It had none. The Golden Panthers returned three starting offensive linemen and got a combined nine starts out of them. They got one game out of starting linebacker Davison Colimon and four out of Treyvon Williams. Their secondary, a strength in 2014, got plucked apart: three of the top five returnees (Jordan Davis, Wilkenson Myrtil, Shermarke Spencer) played a combined five games.

September was as cruel as it could possibly be from an injuries standpoint, and combined with a change in coordinator, the defense fell apart. In terms of S&P+, FIU's defense regressed by about 6.5 points per game, and while the offense improved by 5.5, it was a net loss.

Still, while FIU fell a bit in the advanced ratings, the win total went from four to five. The Golden Panthers alternated between helpless and awesome, crushing three C-USA foes (UTEP, ODU, Charlotte) by a combined 141-55 and continuing to hint at their potential despite an overcrowded treatment room.

The final two games of the year brought perhaps a predictable crash. FIU was run off the field by Marshall and WKU, undoing a lot of the positivity the first 10 games had put together.

Still, while quite a few C-USA teams got waylaid by injury in 2015, not many showed the flashes of quality that the Panthers did. And your post-injury year can often provide you with depth you didn't expect to have. FIU now returns eight linemen with at least seven games of starting experience, four starting linebackers (in a three-LB system), and six to eight starting defensive backs.

The offense, a question mark throughout Turner's tenure, must continue to improve, and the defense must prove it still has the ceiling it showed in 2014. And, of course, injuries could wreak havoc all over again. But if you're looking for a potential breakthrough among the teams in the lower half of C-USA, FIU might be your best bet.

2015 Schedule & Results

Record: 5-7 | Adj. Record: 4-8 | Final F/+ Rk: 112 | Final S&P+ Rk: 108
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Percentile Performance	Win Expectancy	vs. S&P+	Performance vs. Vegas
3-Sep	at Central Florida	128	15-14	W	15%	40%	+12.0	+14.0
12-Sep	at Indiana	61	22-36	L	22%	19%	-5.4	-6.5
19-Sep	NC Central	N/A	39-14	W	66%	100%	+3.5
26-Sep	at Louisiana Tech	57	17-27	L	20%	5%	+8.1	+4.5
3-Oct	at Massachusetts	100	14-24	L	8%	3%	-1.5	-7.0
10-Oct	UTEP	125	52-12	W	94%	100%	+25.9	+25.5
17-Oct	at Middle Tennessee	82	34-42	L	21%	14%	+4.0	+1.0
24-Oct	Old Dominion	117	41-12	W	58%	93%	+20.4	+16.5
31-Oct	at Florida Atlantic	96	17-31	L	7%	2%	-12.2	-16.5
7-Nov	Charlotte	124	48-31	W	58%	97%	+3.9	-1.0
14-Nov	at Marshall	58	0-52	L	1%	0%	-37.0	-40.0
21-Nov	Western Kentucky	15	7-63	L	1%	0%	-38.3	-39.5

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk
S&P+	20.9	112	34.1	101
Points Per Game	25.5	90	29.8	85

2. Up, down, done

The win expectancy figure above is intended to toss all the stats from a given game up into the air and announce that, with these stats, you could have expected to win this given game X percent of the time. It gives us a way of looking at which teams might have had loaded dice on their side. Sometimes you'll see a team played in a ton of games in the 30- to 70-percent range and that the final record was determined partially by chance.

Other times, you'll get FIU's 2015 season. The Golden Panthers either played well and won or played poorly and lost. After an unlikely win over UCF in the season opener, each of their final four wins were slam dunks above 90 percent in win expectancy. Meanwhile, all seven of their losses were below 20 percent in win expectancy, and five were at five percent or worse. After September 3, there was little room for doubt in any of these results.

With the depth issues that FIU was dealing with, it probably makes sense that the three worst performances of the season (from a percentiles perspective) came in the last four games. FIU undoubtedly faded. And the last two games were lost causes from the opening kickoff.

• Average Percentile Performance (first 2 games): 19% (record: 1-1 | average score: Opp 25, FIU 19)
• Average Percentile Performance (middle 8 games): 42% (record: 4-4 | average score: FIU 33, Opp 24)
• Average Percentile Performance (last 2 games): 1% (record: 0-2 | average score: Opp 58, FIU 4)

In theory, improved health and depth can prevent the same type of fade from happening this time around. That's important because two of the four most highly projected opponents on the schedule show up in November again.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.18	104	IsoPPP+	83.4	114
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	39.3%	94	Succ. Rt. +	87.1	114
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	30.0	71	Def. FP+	33.5	118
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Scoring Opportunity	4.5	59	Redzone S&P+	87.8	113
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	22.1		ACTUAL	15	-7.1

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	106	115	114	114
RUSHING	122	119	118	122
PASSING	52	107	91	111
Standard Downs		116	112	115
Passing Downs		104	112	101

Q1 Rk	107	1st Down Rk	115
Q2 Rk	117	2nd Down Rk	103
Q3 Rk	115	3rd Down Rk	122
Q4 Rk	104

Quarterback

Note: players in bold below are 2016 returnees. Players in italics are questionable with injury/suspension.

Player	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Comp	Att	Yards	TD	INT	Comp Rate	Sacks	Sack Rate	Yards/ Att.
Alex McGough	6'3, 218	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8158	269	420	2722	21	8	64.0%	24	5.4%	5.7
Trey Anderson					5	20	132	1	0	25.0%	1	4.8%	6.0
Bud Martin	6'0, 217	So.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7733
Christian Alexander	6'3, 221	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8297
Maurice Alexander	6'0, 180	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7915

3. Dink and dunk gets you only so far

Only when the bar is really low can you consider FIU's 2015 offensive output "improvement." The Golden Panther attack improved from horrendous to merely bad, but they still weren't particularly good at anything. And while you can perhaps blame offensive line shuffling for part of that, that will only get you so far. FIU has lacked at the skill positions for a while now.

Perhaps because of the line and a lack of confidence in the run, FIU's play-calling approach changed drastically in 2015. In 2014, the Panthers ran the ball 65 percent of the time on standard downs and 40 percent on passing downs; last fall those percentages shifted to 45 percent and 27 percent, respectively. And that manifested itself in the form of lots of dinks and lots of dunks. Alex McGough completed 64 percent of his passes, which seems impressive at first. But he averaged just 10.1 yards per completion -- only 25 of his 269 completions gained 25 yards.

An efficiency passing game can work if it's actually efficient. But while FIU's No. 91 ranking in Passing Success Rate+ was a relative strength, it wasn't something that could carry FIU against decent defenses.

If FIU could break at least a few big plays from short passes, the Golden Panthers were in business. In their last four wins, McGough completed 69 percent of his passes at 12.8 yards per completion -- not explosive, but not awful. In the other eight games, though? A 62 percent completion rate and just 8.7 yards per completion. You could see exactly what FIU wanted to do offensively, but it only occasionally worked.

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Opp.	Opp. Rate	Fumbles	Fum. Lost
Alex Gardner	RB	5'10, 192	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8106	186	760	9	4.1	3.8	30.6%	2	2
Alex McGough	QB	6'3, 218	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8158	64	275	3	4.3	3.8	34.4%	8	4
Anthony Jones	RB	5'11, 190	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8226	48	243	2	5.1	6.3	31.3%	0	0
Anthon Samuel	RB					32	104	1	3.3	3.7	21.9%	0	0
Trey Anderson	QB					9	95	0	10.6	13.1	44.4%	0	0
Lamarq Caldwell	RB					9	31	0	3.4	2.8	22.2%	0	0
Silas Spearman III	RB	5'8, 190	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7800
Napoleon Maxwell	RB	6'0, 208	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7706
Alfonso Randolph	RB	5'11, 197	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7800
Shawndarrius Phillips	RB	5'11, 226	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7756
D'Angelo Ware	RB	5'9, 190	Fr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.8500

Receiving Corps

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Target Rate	Yds/ Target	%SD	Success Rate	IsoPPP
Thomas Owens	WR	6'1, 198	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7000	88	51	638	58.0%	20.4%	7.3	56.8%	47.7%	1.42
Alex Gardner	RB	5'10, 192	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8106	68	60	442	88.2%	15.8%	6.5	72.1%	51.5%	1.12
Clinton Taylor	WR					58	37	387	63.8%	13.5%	6.7	67.2%	43.1%	1.44
Jonnu Smith	TE	6'3, 232	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7833	56	36	397	64.3%	13.0%	7.1	64.3%	39.3%	1.70
Julian Williams	WR	5'11, 190	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7200	39	19	176	48.7%	9.0%	4.5	59.0%	30.8%	1.38
Akil Dan-Fodio	TE					32	21	241	65.6%	7.4%	7.5	68.8%	50.0%	1.29
Ya'Keem Griner	TE					31	21	225	67.7%	7.2%	7.3	54.8%	45.2%	1.47
Dennis Turner	WR	6'0, 175	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8026	24	11	150	45.8%	5.6%	6.3	50.0%	29.2%	2.05
Anthony Jones	RB	5'11, 190	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8226	11	5	22	45.5%	2.6%	2.0	72.7%	18.2%	1.07
Shawn Abrams	WR	6'4, 175	Sr.	NR	NR	10	6	74	60.0%	2.3%	7.4	70.0%	50.0%	1.34
Anthon Samuel	RB					6	4	16	66.7%	1.4%	2.7	66.7%	33.3%	0.82
Shug Oyegunle	WR	5'9, 193	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7894	3	2	83	66.7%	0.7%	27.7	33.3%	33.3%	7.88
Juwan Caesar	WR					2	1	3	50.0%	0.5%	1.5	100.0%	0.0%	0.00
Jonathan Pavlov	TE	6'4, 251	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7894
Stantley Thomas	WR	6'2, 185	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7926
Tony Gaiter	WR	5'9, 178	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8148
Darrius Scott	WR	5'11, 185	Fr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7889

4. Big plays, somehow, some way

Here's a list of FIU returnees whose stats hint at potential explosiveness:

• Sophomore running back Anthony Jones, whose 6.3 highlight yards per opportunity was well above average (anything over about 5 is pretty good, and anything over 10 means you're Dalvin Cook).
• Junior receiver Thomas Owens caught a combined 15 passes for 282 yards (18.8 per catch) against Indiana, UTEP, and Charlotte (and averaged 9.9 per catch against everybody else).
• Junior receiver Shug Oyegunle caught a 79-yard touchdown against UTEP, and junior Dennis Turner caught a 64-yard touchdown aganist NC Central. They otherwise combined for 11 catches and 90 yards.

That's pretty much it. These guys did most of their damage against NC Central (FCS) and UTEP (122nd in Def. S&P+), but we at least have visual evidence that they can get into the open field and outrun people.

There's experience in the skill position arsenal, but one way or another, FIU will need to generate a few more big plays if the Golden Panthers want to make a serious run at a bowl bid.

Maybe it comes via experience -- fast guys get smarter and more able to use their speed as they get more reps (and better blocking). Or maybe it comes from a newcomer. Freshman RB D'Angelo Ware was a mid-three-star recruit per the 247Sports Composite, and Tony Gaiter was a three-star as well. Stantley Thomas is a high-two-star with decent size.

It just has to come from somewhere. Dink and dunk might work on NC Central, but as we saw last year, it doesn't work on everybody. It forces you to be flawless in your execution, and FIU ... is not flawless.

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	87.1	2.53	3.38	30.8%	55.6%	21.6%	100.7	3.7%	6.8%
Rank	117	114	52	125	116	94	61	37	54

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	2015 Starts	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Michael Montero	C	6'2, 299	Sr.	NR	NR	12	12	2015 2nd All-CUSA
Aaron Nielsen	LG					4	27
Jordan Budwig	LG	6'4, 324	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7941	0	24
Dieugot Joseph	LT	6'6, 297	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7726	5	15
Daquane Wilkie	RT	6'3, 284	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7000	12	12
Edens Sineace	RT	6'5, 303	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7000	8	8
Trenton Saunders	RG	6'4, 290	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8041	5	8
Chris Miller	LG	6'4, 328	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7656	7	7
Kai Absheer	RG	6'5, 305	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7000	7	7
Neal Mars	C	6'3, 287	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7652	0	0
Chris Flaig	RG	6'5, 302	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7759	0	0
Josh Deuyour	OL	6'9, 310	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7706	0	0
Dallas Connell	OG	6'3, 283	Fr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7785
Douglas Connell	C	6'3, 288	Fr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7678
Shane McGough	C	6'2, 280	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7556

5. Injuries created a wealth of experience, part 1

That FIU's line stats improved at all could be a sign of good things to come. The Golden Panthers ranked 124th in Adj. Line Yards and 125th in Adj. Sack Rate in 2014, and while quick passing helped to keep pressure off of the QB, improvement to 117th and 61st, respectively, is still improvement. That FIU raised its level at least a little bit without almost any starting experience was impressive.

Aaron Nielsen, Jordan Budwig, and Dieugot Joseph had combined for 57 of FIU's 60 returning starts heading into 2015, and they combined to start just nine games. Budwig missed the whole season, and both Nielsen and Joseph missed about two-thirds. This forced freshmen like Daquane Wilkie, Chris Miller, and Kai Absheer into action, and while the result wasn't good, again, it wasn't any worse than 2014.

Now Budwig and Joseph rejoin a line that features a ton of sophomores and all-conference center Michael Montero. If FIU can establish the run at least a LITTLE bit and force defenses to mind the line of scrimmage, they can get more two-on-one opportunities in their quick passing game. And they can stress defenses to the point of giving up a few more big plays. The line might now have the depth to play its part in that equation.

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.08	2	IsoPPP+	94.6	85
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	48.6%	123	Succ. Rt. +	79.3	126
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	29.8	69	Off. FP+	26.5	115
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Scoring Opportunity	4.4	65	Redzone S&P+	90.2	108
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	20.0		ACTUAL	18.0	-2.0

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	76	110	126	85
RUSHING	83	122	127	105
PASSING	61	102	116	82
Standard Downs		120	128	95
Passing Downs		87	108	70

Q1 Rk	104	1st Down Rk	125
Q2 Rk	110	2nd Down Rk	105
Q3 Rk	115	3rd Down Rk	115
Q4 Rk	122

6. From one extreme to the other

Before essentially trading coordinators with Pitt, FIU's defense was admirably aggressive. The 2014 Golden Panther defense was willing to sacrifice a few big plays in the name of three-and-outs, and for the most part it worked. FIU was good against the run and better against the pass, and they closed out drives beautifully: 17th in Passing Downs S&P+, 35th in Redzone S&P+.

Defensive coordinator Josh Conklin was did well enough that new Pitt head coach Pat Narduzzi plucked him away to run a different Panther defense. In turn, Turner hired Matt House, who had been Paul Chryst's defensive coordinator at Pitt in 2014.

Between the coordinator change and the injury-addled back seven, FIU's defensive identity flipped around 180 degrees. In 2015, the Panthers ranked 126th in Success Rate+ but allowed just 46 gains of 20-plus yards, 17th in the country. Aggressive in 2014, they turned into one of the bendiest bend-don't-break defenses in FBS. Consequently, it faded through the course of 60 minutes, getting a little bit worse in each successive quarter, and it offered almost no resistance against Marshall and WKU at the end of the season.

In 2016, we should find out how much of this flexibility was design and how much of this was necessity. If the injury bug doesn't bite quite as much, House should be able to deploy a pretty solid back seven, but now he has something new to worry about: a completely reconstructed pass rush.

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	90.9	3.03	2.30	44.1%	62.5%	18.2%	94.8	3.8%	6.7%
Rank	102	88	4	122	44	90	75	103	79

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Lars Koht	DT					12	37.5	5.7%	8.0	4.0	0	0	1	0
Michael Wakefield	DE					12	33.5	5.1%	15.0	7.5	0	2	4	0
Denzell Perine	DE					12	33.0	5.0%	10.5	4.5	0	3	2	0
Imarjaye Albury	DT	6'1, 293	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8382	12	12.0	1.8%	0.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Darrian Dyson	DT					10	10.5	1.6%	1.0	0.5	0	1	0	0
Marques Cheeks	DT	6'3, 290	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8116	11	8.5	1.3%	0.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Josh Glanton	DE	6'3, 263	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7200	9	7.5	1.1%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Leonard Washington	DT	6'0, 295	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7400	12	5.5	0.8%	1.5	0.0	0	0	0	1
Fermin Silva	DE	6'2, 234	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8361	9	5.0	0.8%	0.5	0.5	0	0	0	0
John Broome	DE	6'2, 241	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7794	6	5.0	0.8%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Milord Juste	DT	6'0, 268	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7959	7	3.5	0.5%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Anthony Johnson	DE	6'3, 266	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7744	12	2.5	0.4%	0.0	0.0	0	1	0	0
Madison Kubat	DE	6'2, 237	Sr.	NR	NR	6	2.0	0.3%	0.0	0.0	0	0	1	0
Jermaine Sheriff	DE	6'2, 250	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7556
R.J. Harris	DE	6'3, 263	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8115
Newton Salisbury	DE	6'3, 246	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7000
Devontay Taylor	DE	6'3, 278	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7793
Andrew Tarver	DT	6'1, 305	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8054

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Anthony Wint	LB	6'0, 224	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7876	12	64.5	9.7%	5.5	0.5	1	2	0	0
Jephete Matilus	LB					12	41.0	6.2%	5.0	2.0	0	0	0	0
Davison Colimon (2014)	LB	6'1, 217	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7600	12	40.0	30.0%	8.0	4.0	1	0	0	1
Vontarius West	LB	6'0, 203	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8331	12	30.5	4.6%	3.5	0.0	0	0	1	0
Treyvon Williams	LB	6'0, 229	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7839	4	26.5	4.0%	1.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
De'Shawn Hazziez	LB	6'2, 214	Sr.	NR	NR	12	14.5	2.2%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Luis Rosado	LB					9	11.0	1.7%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Jordan Guest	LB	6'4, 221	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7683	10	9.5	1.4%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Fred Russ	LB	6'0, 228	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7659	7	4.0	0.6%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0

7. The only playmakers are gone

At first glance, it appears the linebackers didn't really do their jobs in 2015. FIU did well in short-yardage situations and made a decent number of stops in the backfield, but if a runner got past the line of scrimmage, he ran a long way.

This, along with a pass rush that was almost completely driven by the line, gives you an idea of last year's front-seven strengths and weaknesses. FIU was able to penetrate a bit with its defensive line. But in 2016 the linebacking corps better be ready to step up because the line is replacing four of its top five, including each of its three best pass rushers.

The defensive tackle position appears to be in decent shape. Seniors Imarjaye Albury, Marques Cheeks and Leonard Washington all return, and all bring decent size to the table. But active tackle Lars Koht is gone, as are a pair of ends that combined for 25.5 tackles for loss. Can a set of ends led by sophomore Fermin Silva (a former star recruit) and senior Josh Glanton be nearly as effective? And if not, is higher aggression even an option for House?

Linebacker is definitely more well-stocked with the return of Davison Colimon; he should be able to replicate Jephete Matilus' production, and former star recruit Vontarius West might be ready to raise his game in his junior campaign. But it's possible that improvement at LB is simply offset by regression up front. And that's a little scary.

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Richard Leonard	CB					12	52.0	7.9%	2.5	0	1	8	0	0
Tyree Johnson	S	5'9, 188	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7656	12	51.5	7.8%	1	0	0	4	1	0
Jeremiah McKinnon	CB					12	48.0	7.3%	2.5	0.5	3	8	1	0
Niko Gonzalez	S	5'11, 191	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7000	10	36.0	5.4%	2.5	0	2	4	0	0
Jordan Davis (2014)	S	6'1, 218	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7400	12	34.0	5.3%	0	0	1	2	1	0
Xavier Hines	S	5'11, 189	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8274	11	28.5	4.3%	1.5	1	0	0	0	0
Mark Bruno	CB	5'10, 178	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7956	11	22.5	3.4%	2	1	1	4	1	0
Deonte Wilson	CB	6'0, 190	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7200	11	15.0	2.3%	1	0	0	0	0	0
Wilkenson Myrtil (2014)	CB	6'0, 196	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7500	12	14.0	2.2%	0	0	2	2	0	0
Shermarke Spence (2014)	S	5'9, 182	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7444	12	12.5	2.0%	0	0	1	1	1	0
Emmanuel Lubin	CB	6'1, 187	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8106	9	7.0	1.1%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Kenyatta Anderson	CB	6'0, 188	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8222	9	4.5	0.7%	0	0	0	1	0	0
Jeremy Derrick	LB	6'2, 202	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7906
Sage Lewis	LB	6'1, 232	RSFr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7980
Hunter Orem	LB	6'2, 207	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7966
Shakur Cooper	LB	6'1, 217	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7900
Jestin Green	CB	6'0, 184	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7898
Isaiah Hill	S	5'11, 195	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7826

8. Injuries created a wealth of experience, part 2

If the pass rush fades, the secondary will be asked to do more than it did a year ago, and it will have to do so without its two starting cornerbacks; Richard Leonard and Jeremiah McKinnon combined for five tackles for loss, four interceptions, and 16 break-ups last year, and that puts pressure on players like sophomore Mark Bruno and seniors Deonte Wilson and Wilkenson Myrtil to produce, along with perhaps former three-star signees Emmanuel Lubin and Kenyatta Anderson.

But at the very least, we know that safety should be a strength. Sophomore Tyree Johnson was thrust into a pretty significant role last year, as were juniors Niko Gonzalez and Xavier Hines. But they're all back, as are previously injured Jordan Davis and Shermarke Spence. Gonzalez and Hines are both potentially small enough to move to corner if need be, and if they were to do so, the depth should still allow FIU to field good safeties.

The return of Myrtil and Davis in particular allows for a situation where FIU loses two of four starters but still returns four staters.

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Stone Wilson	5'10, 178	So.	42	40.5	2	18	10	66.7%
Chris Ayers	6'0, 180	Sr.	21	39.4	3	9	4	61.9%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
Austin Taylor	5'8, 176	Sr.	57	59.6	18	0	31.6%
Stone Wilson	5'10, 178	So.	5	61.0	1	0	20.0%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Austin Taylor	5'8, 176	Sr.	32-36	8-10	80.0%	2-4	50.0%

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Richard Leonard	KR			29	21.6	0
Anthony Jones	KR	5'11, 190	So.	9	23.3	0
Richard Leonard	PR			15	10.7	0
Clinton Taylor	PR			3	7.7	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams S&P+	74
Field Goal Efficiency	66
Punt Return Success Rate	9
Kick Return Success Rate	60
Punt Success Rate	83
Kickoff Success Rate	73

9. Lots of potential on special teams

So many C-USA teams were reliant on freshmen in key special teams roles, and FIU was no different -- punter Stone Wilson was decent in his first year, and Anthony Jones showed promise as a backup kick returner.

But unlike many of the teams we've previewed so far, FIU was actually decent in special teams. The pressure's on Jones and whoever else is tasked with replacing Richard Leonard, a solid return man, but Wilson is back and kicker Austin Taylor proved reasonably strong-legged. Taylor needs to bring a little bit more consistency to the table (he was 2-for-4 on long field goals but missed four PATs), but FIU ranked 83rd or better in every special teams efficiency category. It could be worse.

2016 Schedule & Projection Factors

2016 Schedule
Date	Opponent	Proj. S&P+ Rk	Proj. Margin	Win Probability
1-Sep	Indiana	56	-13.0	23%
10-Sep	Maryland	62	-12.0	24%
17-Sep	at Massachusetts	127	1.0	52%
24-Sep	Central Florida	99	-2.1	45%
1-Oct	Florida Atlantic	100	-1.4	47%
8-Oct	at UTEP	126	0.8	52%
15-Oct	at Charlotte	123	-1.2	47%
22-Oct	Louisiana Tech	84	-6.6	35%
29-Oct	Middle Tennessee	90	-4.8	39%
5-Nov	at Western Kentucky	45	-21.7	10%
19-Nov	Marshall	75	-9.5	29%
26-Nov	at Old Dominion	111	-4.5	40%
Projected wins: 4.4

Five-Year F/+ Rk	-30.1% (112)
2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk	105 / 98
2015 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin*	3 / -2.1
2015 TO Luck/Game	+2.1
Returning Production (Off. / Def.)	64% (80%, 48%)
2015 Second-order wins (difference)	4.7 (0.3)

10. Count the tossups

If FIU can simply keep most of its intended starters on the field at any given time, the Golden Panthers should rise back into the top 100 and, with seven opponents projected 90th or worse S&P+, threaten for their first bowl bid since 2011. And with two power-conference foes -- Indiana and Maryland -- visiting to start the season, there's a chance for a statement win on top.

I like the depth and experience Ron Turner has put together, both intentionally and by way of injury/necessity. The offense just needs a little something from the run game, and the defense needs to produce just a little bit of a pass rush for the Golden Panthers to end up a couple of steps ahead of the league's bottom teams. We'll see if they get it.

We saw FIU's upside on four occasions last year, even with the injuries. Now we just need to see more of it. If FIU is around 90th instead of 110th, it could swing a lot of games. Following the Indiana and Maryland games, the Golden Panthers play seven consecutive games in which it has between a 35 and 52 percent chance of winning. If they're a little bit better than projected, they could go 5-2 or better. Worse, and they could go 1-6 and plant Turner firmly on the hot seat.