FAU football kept getting in its own way last year, but can the Owls fly in 2016?

Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.

1. Time to leap/fly?

"The first year it sleeps, the second year it creeps, the third year it leaps."

Heading into his third season at ULM, former Warhawks head coach Todd Berry provided one of my favorite quotes. Ultimately he couldn't sustain the success he found, but Berry laid the template for how to put the pieces together over the course of three years. ULM went 9-15 in his first two seasons but broke through with eight wins and the program's first ever bowl bid in year three.

The premise is simple: In the first year, you're just trying to figure out what you've got. You're inheriting a set of demoralized athletes who probably didn't do very well the year before, you're moving pieces around, and you're trying to figure out exactly how much of your vision you can unveil.

In year two, you've got more of the pieces where you want them, but they're still developing, and you still don't have that many of your own recruits on the two-deep (or if you do, they're redshirt freshmen or sophomores). In year three, things begin to fall into place. The depth chart is a mix of fourth- and fifth-year players and your guys, and you finally have the depth and the type of talent you have been looking for.

It makes perfect sense on paper, but it obviously doesn't always play out this way. Sometimes injuries or defections slow you down. Or sometimes things click immediately, and you don't have to wait until the third year. But for Charlie Partridge and FAU, this is the template to strive for.

When FAU chose Partridge over Brian Wright in 2014, it was clear the Owls were aiming for upside. Wright had gone 4-0 as FAU's interim coach in 2013, and no one would have blamed the school for simply keeping him on board. But Partridge was known as a phenomenal recruiter, one who might be able to bring in a level of talent unseen in most C-USA programs. As a head coach, he was a completely unknown quantity, but the potential was tantalizing.

Two years in, Partridge is 6-18. His teams have played good pass defense, and in 2015 the pass offense took a decent step forward. But the Owls figured out incredibly creative ways to lose games last fall, and any semblance of progress was tainted by close losses and a second straight 3-9 record.

Now comes year three. Sophomores have become juniors in the skill positions, the lines are as experienced as they've been in a long time, and freshmen have become sophomores in a high-ceiling secondary. The Owls are projected to win six games, and as many as eight or nine are winnable. As with FIU (and every other mid- or lower-tier C-USA team, for that matter), there is opportunity on the table for Partridge's Owls. Do they leap (or, uh, fly)?

2015 Schedule & Results

Record: 3-9 | Adj. Record: 3-9 | Final F/+ Rk: 96 | Final S&P+ Rk: 93
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Percentile Performance	Win Expectancy	vs. S&P+	Performance vs. Vegas
5-Sep	at Tulsa	95	44-47	L	35%	41%	+0.5	+4.0
11-Sep	Miami-FL	62	20-44	L	13%	2%	-8.6	-6.5
19-Sep	Buffalo	98	15-33	L	62%	81%	-25.5	-18.0
26-Sep	at Charlotte	124	17-7	W	68%	97%	+4.7	-1.5
10-Oct	Rice	123	26-27	L	33%	46%	-25.3	-4.5
17-Oct	Marshall	58	17-33	L	24%	4%	-12.5	-9.5
24-Oct	at UTEP	125	17-27	L	37%	58%	-28.5	-16.0
31-Oct	Florida International	112	31-17	W	80%	98%	+12.2	+16.5
7-Nov	at Western Kentucky	15	19-35	L	17%	0%	+2.5	+8.0
14-Nov	Middle Tennessee	82	17-24	L	26%	13%	-8.6	-1.5
21-Nov	at Florida	27	14-20	L	24%	7%	+18.2	+25.0
28-Nov	at Old Dominion	117	33-31	W	39%	56%	-2.4	-2.0

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk
S&P+	23.2	105	29.3	74
Points Per Game	22.5	105	28.8	83

2. Figuring out creative ways to drop games

The wins could come in September, though. FAU plays four teams that ranked 108th or worse in F/+ last season, but three pop up in the first four games of the year (and two are on the road). If the Owls start slow or play as poorly away from home as they did last year, they might be destined for another 3-9 campaign.

I was close. I got the record right but the causes wrong: The Owls just couldn't get out of their own damn way early on.

The win expectancy figure above is intended to look at a given game's key stats and announce that, with these stats, a team could have expected to win the game X percent of the time. It is a good way of looking at teams that fell victim to or were boosted by randomness. It isn't luck, per say; it's simply a look at who rolled snake eyes more than others.

• Win expectancy said FAU would have beaten Tulsa 41 percent of the time (thanks to a field position advantage and the Owls' recovery of three of four fumbles) and Rice 46 percent of the time (thanks to per-play superiority and blown Rice opportunities). The Owls lost both games by a combined four points.
• Win expectancy said FAU would have beaten Buffalo 81 percent of the time; the Owls outgained the Bulls by 0.9 yards per play and 200 total yards. They managed to lose by 18 because of THREE return touchdowns.
• Win expectancy said FAU would have beaten UTEP 58 percent of the time; the Owls outgained the Miners by 1.6 yards per play. They Owls lost by 10.

FAU was putting itself in position to beat fellow mid-majors. Plus, the Owls trailed Miami by only three at halftime before fading. FAU had all the components of an improving team except one: results. But over the second half of the season, the results and performance began to match up a bit better.

• First 7 games
  Expected wins: 3.29 | Actual wins: 1 | Average percentile performance: 38.9%
• Last 5 games
  Expected wins: 1.74 | Actual wins: 2 | Average percentile performance: 37.2%

Young teams often figure out interesting ways to stumble before figuring things out in future seasons. But some never do. We'll find out in 2016 if FAU is capable of growing up enough to create a few more breaks for itself.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.17	111	IsoPPP+	87.0	110
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	40.3%	83	Succ. Rt. +	91.9	105
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	29.2	55	Def. FP+	29.4	59
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Scoring Opportunity	3.2	123	Redzone S&P+	82.6	124
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	24.7		ACTUAL	25	+0.3

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	81	108	105	110
RUSHING	72	110	113	106
PASSING	75	96	73	101
Standard Downs		114	105	116
Passing Downs		85	101	74

Q1 Rk	100	1st Down Rk	92
Q2 Rk	82	2nd Down Rk	102
Q3 Rk	85	3rd Down Rk	95
Q4 Rk	126

3. The offense is still the issue

That FAU was in position to win so many games despite an awful offense was an achievement in itself. The Owls took a step forward offensively in 2014, rising from 103rd to 86th in Off. S&P+; in 2015, they gave those gains away, falling back to 105th.

Quarterback Jaquez Johnson was awesome in the season opener against Tulsa (263 passing yards, 97 rushing yards) but battled injury, then inconsistency, thereafter. His passer rating topped 138 on four occasions but sank below 110 six times. Meanwhile, redshirt freshman Jason Driskel (of the footballing Driskels) looked like a freshman. His completion rate hovered around 50 percent all season while he learned what passes he could and couldn't get away with at the FBS level.

The passing game wasn't the major issue, however: The Owls fell from 81st to 110th in Rushing S&P+. An experienced line wasn't quite as effective, nor was Johnson, and all-or-nothing back Jay Warren became more all and more nothing. Warren rushed 19 times for 187 yards (9.8 per carry) against the two best teams on the schedule (Miami, WKU) and averaged just 3.4 per carry against everybody else. Star recruit Trey Rodriguez briefly erupted in the middle of the season, but there was simply no consistency to be found here.

After failing to land the head coaching job, Brian Wright originally remained on staff as FAU's offensive coordinator, but Partridge let him go in December. The replacement: Travis Trickett, former Samford O.C. Trickett's a hurry-up, no-huddle guy: In 2015, Samford averaged 77.5 plays and 34.6 points per game, leaning on a high-efficiency passing game (70 percent completion rate, 11.3 yards per completion). That would seem to fit the returning personnel well.

That said, Driskel needs to prove a bit more in the efficiency department or risk getting replaced by either three-star redshirt freshman Daniel Parr or incoming mid-three-star Steven Frank. Plus, a further breakout from Rodriguez might necessitate a decent amount of running ... if Rodriguez is still on the team, anyway.

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.
Jaquez Johnson					129	240	1592	9	7	53.8%	16	6.3%	5.9
Jason Driskel	6'2, 210	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8129	77	151	965	3	4	51.0%	10	6.2%	5.4
Daniel Parr	6'3, 190	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8364
Steven Frank	6'4, 225	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8519

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Opp.	Opp. Rate	Fumbles	Fum. Lost
Greg Howell	RB	6'1, 205	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8233	133	598	3	4.5	2.7	41.4%	2	2
Jay Warren	RB	6'0, 205	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8356	95	449	3	4.7	7.5	32.6%	2	2
Jaquez Johnson	QB					84	375	2	4.5	3.6	41.7%	7	2
Trey Rodriguez	RB	5'10, 185	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8566	70	419	5	6.0	4.6	47.1%	0	0
Marcus Clark	RB	5'8, 185	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7856	37	184	1	5.0	4.3	37.8%	0	0
Jason Driskel	QB	6'2, 210	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8129	18	116	1	6.4	3.1	61.1%	3	2
Henry Bussey	WR	5'9, 180	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7556	14	65	0	4.6	3.9	50.0%	0	0
Devin Singletary	RB	5'9, 198	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7914
James Charles	RB	5'10, 200	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7810

Receiving Corps

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Target Rate	Yds/ Target	%SD	Success Rate	IsoPPP
Jenson Stoshak	WR-L					99	57	825	57.6%	26.5%	8.3	68.7%	50.5%	1.50
Kalib Woods	WR-Z	6'3, 193	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8300	68	27	330	39.7%	18.2%	4.9	67.6%	36.8%	1.17
Henry Bussey	WR-W	5'9, 180	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7556	44	29	236	65.9%	11.8%	5.4	61.4%	38.6%	1.23
Kamrin Solomon	WR-Z	6'2, 205	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7882	39	22	382	56.4%	10.4%	9.8	48.7%	41.0%	2.23
Nate Terry	TE	6'6, 220	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7000	38	16	185	42.1%	10.2%	4.9	57.9%	36.8%	1.30
Tyler Cameron	QB					35	21	257	60.0%	9.4%	7.3	57.1%	48.6%	1.45
Marcus Clark	RB	5'8, 185	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7856	14	9	116	64.3%	3.7%	8.3	35.7%	35.7%	2.25
Trey Rodriguez	RB	5'10, 185	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8566	13	10	93	76.9%	3.5%	7.2	30.8%	53.8%	1.34
Tony Thomas	WR-W	5'10, 190	Sr.	NR	NR	8	6	52	75.0%	2.1%	6.5	75.0%	50.0%	1.32
Greg Howell	RB	6'1, 205	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8233	6	5	54	83.3%	1.6%	9.0	66.7%	66.7%	1.33
Ralph Leonard	WR-L					3	1	8	33.3%	0.8%	2.7	33.3%	33.3%	0.55
Calvain Holmes	WR					2	1	9	50.0%	0.5%	4.5	50.0%	50.0%	1.01
Dustin Bowens	TE	6'4, 260	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7900
Bobby Mitchell	WR	6'2, 175	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8156
Tavaris Harrison	WR	6'3, 166	RSFr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.8169
Ladante Harris	WR	5'10, 168	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7932
John Mitchell	WR	6'4, 195	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8025
Antonio Hadden	WR	6'2, 200	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7893

4. Getting the ball to the right guys

Trickett's efficiency-based system could mean very good things for Henry Bussey and Kamrin Solomon, who were in their own ways FAU's most efficient returning receivers. Bussey's 66 percent catch rate was easily the best on the team among frequent targets, and Solomon's 41 percent success rate (percentage of targets that resulted in 'successful' plays, not just catches) was the best of anyone not named Jenson Stoshak (who has run out of eligibility).

The loss of Stoshak, by far FAU's most frequently targeted receiver, hurts. And it will be interesting to see how Trickett employs Greg Howell and Warren. Howell was far more consistent than Warren, gaining at least five yards on 41 percent of his carries, but he rarely gained more than about five yards. Warren, meanwhile, was a zero-or-30 guy.

If efficiency is the name of the game, then Howell and Rodriguez (if he gets his act together) would be key contributors. And one assumes that stocky freshmen Devin Singletary and James Charles might get a run in the backfield as well. But from an efficiency standpoint, there are few known quantities in the skill positions.

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	91.6	2.71	3.31	41.0%	63.0%	18.9%	83.8	7.1%	5.9%
Rank	107	96	57	36	82	55	91	106	36

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	2015 Starts	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Reggie Bain	LT	6'4, 295	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7856	12	24	2015 2nd All-CUSA
Dillon DeBoer	C	6'6, 295	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7000	12	30
Mikingson Marsaille	LG					12	12
Jakobi Smith	RG	6'3, 300	Jr.	NR	0.7500	11	12
Kelly Parfitt	RT	6'6, 313	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8044	11	11
Antonyo Woods	RG	6'3, 295	Jr.	NR	NR	2	2
Matthew Weiner	LT	6'4, 275	So.	NR	NR	0	0
Siffo Pierre	LG	6'4, 310	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7000	0	0
Richard Williams	C	6'2, 280	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7833	0	0
Arthur Crouse	LT	6'6, 280	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7000	0	0
Roman Fernandez	LG	6'0, 305	Jr.	NR	NR	0	0
Austin Bland	OL	6'3, 285	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8407	0	0
Tarrick Thomas	OL	6'4, 280	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8503
Bryan Beck	OL	6'6, 290	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7583
Brandon Walton	OL	6'5, 300	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8430
Ean Biancardi	OL	6'5, 285	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7793

5. The line should do its part

The offensive line was a relative strength in 2014, and the Owls returned basically 3.5 starting linemen last fall, so I expected pretty good things. But through some combination of iffy play and a young backfield that didn't take advantage of blocking very well, FAU's line stats regressed. The Owls were pretty good at creating opportunities for runners (especially Howell) and were decent at keeping run defenders out of the backfield, but short-yardage was an issue, as were sacks.

It's never easy to separate the performance of the line from the performance of the guys it's blocking for, but in theory, with a more experienced backfield and four starters returning up front (79 career starts), the line should again be a relative strength.

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.21	43	IsoPPP+	101.2	62
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	41.7%	67	Succ. Rt. +	96.0	81
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	30.5	52	Off. FP+	29.1	88
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Scoring Opportunity	4.5	75	Redzone S&P+	92.5	102
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	21.0		ACTUAL	23.0	+2.0

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	70	69	81	62
RUSHING	66	112	113	99
PASSING	81	46	30	57
Standard Downs		70	80	62
Passing Downs		55	61	64

Q1 Rk	86	1st Down Rk	79
Q2 Rk	74	2nd Down Rk	76
Q3 Rk	116	3rd Down Rk	96
Q4 Rk	49

6. Same old problems

In 2013, FAU ranked 10th in Passing S&P+ and 71st in Rushing S&P+. In 2014, 54th and 114th, respectively. In 2015, 46th and 112th.

FAU is developing a reputation, in other words. The Owls featured a devastating pass rush and got by with countless freshmen in the secondary, but they couldn't keep from getting pushed around and couldn't force enough passing downs to play to their strengths.

At first glance, that shouldn't be any different in 2016. The back seven is young (not not TOO young) and exciting. The pass rush returns a pair of ends who combined for 18 sacks last year. Meanwhile, the interior line returns just one contributor over 280 pounds.

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	3.24	3.16	40.0%	72.2%	13.9%	153.9	6.1%	12.4%
Rank	120	113	59	87	101	122	7	29	6

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Trevon Coley	DT					12	46.0	6.7%	8.5	4.5	0	2	1	0
Trey Hendrickson	DE	6'4, 265	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7956	12	30.5	4.5%	14.5	13.0	0	0	5	0
Hunter Snyder	DE	6'7, 260	So.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7583	12	24.5	3.6%	6.5	5.0	0	0	1	0
Brandin Bryant	DT					12	24.0	3.5%	10.5	5.0	0	0	1	0
Ray Ellis	DT	6'1, 280	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7444	11	19.0	2.8%	1.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Nick Internicola	DE	6'3, 230	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8603	12	15.5	2.3%	2.0	2.0	0	1	0	0
Shalom Ogbonda	DT	6'4, 290	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8157	11	12.0	1.8%	1.0	0.5	0	0	0	0
Robinson Eugene	DE					10	11.0	1.6%	1.0	0.5	0	0	0	0
Steven Leggett	DT	6'1, 270	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7785	8	7.5	1.1%	1.0	1.0	0	0	0	0
Haiden Nagel	DE	6'4, 250	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	NR	11	5.0	0.7%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Denzel Whitfield	DT					10	3.0	0.4%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Josh Ballesteros	DE	6'2, 210	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7751
Josh Kendall	DT	6'2, 269	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7593
William Davis	DT	6'0, 265	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8329
Kevin McCrary	DT	6'2, 265	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8497

7. Turnover in the beef department

From the perspective of returning personnel, this appears to be a "strength gets stronger, weakness gets weaker" situation. Trey Hendrickson returns after a major breakout season; after recording five sacks in 2014, he erupted for 13, with five forced fumbles, last fall. Meanwhile, he found a lovely complement in then-freshman Hutner Snyder on the other side. Both are back, as is former star recruit Nick Internicola. That could be the best pass-rushing trio in Conference USA.

Meanwhile, both starting tackles are gone. Trevon Coley and Brandin Bryant went 300 and 290 pounds, respectively, and even with Coley providing a decent play-making presence, FAU was helpless against the run. Without them, you're looking at junior Ray Ellis, senior Shalom Ogbonda, and sophomore Steven Leggett, who combined for three tackles for loss and an average of 280 pounds of girth last year.

One assumes they will be attempting to pack on some weight this spring and summer, as will three-star signees William Davis and Kevin McCrary, who could contribute immediately if beefy enough. But the pressure's on. You can't take advantage of a great pass rush if you can't force passing downs, and you cannot free up a potentially awesome linebacker like Azeez Al-Shaair (72 tackles and seven tackles for loss as a freshman) to make plays if your tackles are getting pancaked.

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Azeez Al-Shaair	LB	6'2, 215	So.	2 stars (5.2)	0.8005	12	72.0	10.5%	7.0	1.5	0	2	1	0
Nate Ozdemir	LB	6'2, 230	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	NR	12	44.5	6.5%	2.5	1.0	0	2	0	0
Robert Relf (2014)	LB	6'3, 230	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7991	11	44.5	6.4%	1.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Freedom Whitfield	LB					12	39.0	5.7%	3.0	0.0	0	2	0	0
Jerrad Ward	LB	6'0, 215	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	NR	9	16.5	2.4%	2.0	1.0	0	0	0	0
Jacob Douglas	LB	5'10, 220	So.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7400	4	11.5	1.7%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Khantrell Burden	LB	6'1, 205	So.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7683	9	3.5	0.5%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Jake Stewart	LB	6'0, 215	So.	NR	NR	10	1.5	0.2%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Kris Harris	LB	6'0, 225	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8322
Da'Von Brown	DB	6'0, 185	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8033
Rashad Smith	NB	6'2, 195	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7993

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Sharrod Neasman	SS					12	57.5	8.4%	0	0	3	4	0	0
Jalen Young	FS	5'11, 175	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8423	12	55.5	8.1%	2	0	3	2	1	0
Cre'von LeBlanc	CB					12	36.5	5.3%	0.5	0	4	11	0	0
Ocie Rose	NB	6'2, 185	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8220	12	33.0	4.8%	1	0	3	5	2	0
Herb Miller	CB	6'2, 185	So.	2 stars (5.4)	NR	12	25.5	3.7%	0	0	1	7	1	0
Jake Stoshak	FS	6'0, 180	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8006	11	19.0	2.8%	0	0	0	1	0	0
Lester Thomas	FS	5'10, 165	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7759	8	14.0	2.0%	0	0	0	3	0	0
DJ Juste	NB	6'2, 190	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7933	10	8.0	1.2%	1	0	0	0	0	0
Raekwon Williams	CB	5'11, 180	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7000	12	8.0	1.2%	1	0	0	4	0	0
Andrew Soroh	SS	6'2, 205	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7893	10	5.5	0.8%	1	0	0	0	0	0
Shelton Lewis	CB	6'0, 171	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8217	11	3.5	0.5%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Marquese Dudley-Gordon	S	6'0, 188	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8423	6	2.5	0.4%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Kemar Downer	DB	5'11, 170	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8173	6	1.5	0.2%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Anthony Hamilton	DB	5'10, 195	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	NR
Reggie Brown	CB	5'11, 180	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7906
Rodrick Archer	S	6'1, 190	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8342
Richie Kittles	S	5'11, 175	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8134
Korel Smith	CB	5'10, 175	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8139

8. The secondary should still be a strength

The back of the defense can only be a strength if the front allows it. But it's still pretty easy to get excited about the pass defense. FAU ranked 46th in Passing S&P+ in 2015 despite the fact that four of the top six DBs were freshmen. And while the loss of safety Sharrod Neasman and corner Cre'von LeBlanc hurt, Jalen Young and Ocie Rose are star safeties in the making, and fellow sophomore Herb Miller showed serious potential in defensing eight passes.

There's a little bit of imbalance here -- a lot more returning at safety/nickelback than corner -- but this is going to be a really good unit, especially if Hendrickson and Snyder are still producing up front. And because the ends are so good, defensive coordinator Roc Bellantoni doesn't have to take too many risks with his potentially awesome linebacking corps. They can help in coverage, too.

So much of this team's fate will be determined by how much opponents have to pass. There will be serious pressure on the defensive front.

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Dalton Schomp	6'1, 220	Sr.	45	48.0	2	13	15	62.2%
Ryan Rickel	6'0, 170	Sr.	10	35.2	1	6	7	130.0%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
Greg Joseph	6'1, 210	Sr.	62	62.9	33	1	53.2%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Greg Joseph	6'1, 210	Sr.	28-28	13-16	81.3%	5-11	45.5%

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Henry Bussey	KR	5'9, 180	Jr.	17	22.0	0
Cre'von LeBlanc	KR			17	16.9	0
Jenson Stoshak	PR			14	7.6	0
Cre'von LeBlanc	PR			5	6.0	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams S&P+	50
Field Goal Efficiency	97
Punt Return Success Rate	44
Kick Return Success Rate	43
Punt Success Rate	14
Kickoff Success Rate	24

9. Fantastic in the field position game

So many C-USA teams were forced to depend on freshmen in special teams last year, but FAU had both experience and quality in the kick and return games, and it showed. Place-kicking was a little bit scattershot, but FAU had the components of an awesome field position game, and the tilted field created all sorts of advantages. Granted, they were advantages that the offense and run defense often squandered, but that doesn't have to be the case again in 2016.

This should be one of the best special teams units in C-USA. And maybe this year the offense takes advantage of its opportunities.

2016 Schedule & Projection Factors

2016 Schedule
Date	Opponent	Proj. S&P+ Rk	Proj. Margin	Win Probability
3-Sep	Southern Illinois	NR	15.4	81%
10-Sep	at Miami	30	-21.2	11%
17-Sep	at Kansas State	67	-13.2	22%
24-Sep	Ball State	101	3.9	59%
1-Oct	at Florida International	113	1.4	53%
8-Oct	Charlotte	123	10.7	73%
15-Oct	at Marshall	75	-11.6	25%
29-Oct	Western Kentucky	45	-9.8	29%
5-Nov	at Rice	119	2.3	55%
12-Nov	UTEP	126	12.7	77%
19-Nov	Old Dominion	111	7.4	67%
26-Nov	at Middle Tennessee	90	-6.9	34%
Projected wins: 5.9

Five-Year F/+ Rk	-27.1% (107)
2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk	81 / 87
2015 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin*	-2 / -3.7
2015 TO Luck/Game	+0.7
Returning Production (Off. / Def.)	58% (54%, 62%)
2015 Second-order wins (difference)	5.0 (-2.0)

10. Getting out of your own way

In theory, this doesn't have to be a make-or-break year for FAU. The Owls are still incredibly young -- right now, I'm guessing they only start about two seniors on offense and two to three on defense -- and might still be a year or two away from peaking under Partridge.

Still, there is a golden opportunity to seize some power in Conference USA right now. WKU and Marshall are still the class of the league, and Louisiana Tech and maybe Southern Miss aren't far behind. But FAU has recruited as well as anyone not named Marshall of late, and the Owls really were just a small handful of plays from 6-6 or 7-5 last year.

S&P+ likes FAU's schedule. Southern Illinois, Ball State, Charlotte, UTEP, and ODU all visit Boca Raton, and if the Owls win those five games, they only need to pick up one more to go bowling. And with trips to Rice, FIU, and MTSU all on the docket, that seems semi-realistic. But now it's up to FAU to prove that last year's blown opportunities were a function of youth and randomness, not flawed talent and coaching.