clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Army football is experienced, and now's the time to turn tight losses into tight wins

New, comments

This is Bill C's daily preview series, working its way through every 2016 team. Stay tuned!

USA Today

Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here. Below, a unique review of last year's team, a unit-by-unit breakdown of this year's roster, the full 2016 schedule with win projections for each game, and more.

1. A glimmer

One break per game. If Army had figured out how to generate one more break per game, the Black Knights could have started 2015 5-0.

  • Against Fordham in Week 1, they recovered two of five fumbles and bombed a punt snap for a safety in a 37-35 loss.
  • Against UConn in Week 2, they outgained the Huskies per-play by a 6.5-5.8 margin and recovered both of the game's fumbles to keep the game within 22-17, then got the ball back with two minutes left and a chance to win. They immediately threw an interception.
  • Against Wake Forest in Week 3, they held a 7-0 halftime lead, recovered three of four fumbles, picked off the Demon Deacons three times, and won the field position battle. But they missed a 39-yard field goal early in the fourth quarter, and Wake made a 47-yarder at the buzzer. 17-14, Wake.
  • Against Penn State in Week 5, after an easy win over EMU, they trailed 13-0 but scored twice in 10 minutes and got the ball back with 6:48 left, down 20-14, despite losing three fumbles. They stalled at midfield.

They lost by seven to Rice, three to Tulane, 10 to Rutgers, and four to Navy. Only Duke beat the Knights by more than 17. The cadets were 1-7 in one-possession games, but if you're hungry enough for hope, that's what it looks like. With a super-young team in Monken's second year, Army proved it could stay close to decent teams by slowing the tempo, milking the clock, and kicking pretty well. They got good breaks to stay close against decent teams and bad breaks to end up close against bad teams.

From a drama standpoint, this was a happy development. Army lost three games by at least 20 points in 2014, three in 2013, four in 2012, etc. But it seemed like smoke and mirrors. Army was less efficient than its opponent, produced fewer points per scoring opportunity, and lost the field position battle, and while the Knights were able to spring big plays (32 gains of 30-plus yards, 43rd in FBS) and avoid allowing too many (26 of 30-plus, 54th), they were done in by little plays. Their adjusted scoring margin, per S&P+: minus-20.9 points per game. This was the fifth straight year that number got worse.

Still, if you're going to be a poor team on paper, you might as well be a poor team that will return a majority of your difference-makers and doesn't wilt. Keeping games close when you're outmanned requires tenacity, and that made me hopeful that Monken will get things figured out. But at Army, where there have been two bowl bids and three winning records in 25 years (and no wins over Navy in nearly 15), you have to be perfect to be good.

Though the ceiling is only going to be so high, 2016 represents an opportunity to take a clear step forward. Army returns two interesting quarterbacks, eight of its top nine running backs, its main receiver, eight offensive linemen with starting experience, three of four defensive linemen, 10 of 11 linebackers, and six of eight defensive backs (plus a key contributor who missed 2015 with injury). They are among FBS' top 25 in returning production.

If experience leads to one more break per game, the Black Knights might be in business.

2015 Schedule & Results

Record: 2-10 | Adj. Record: 0-12 | Final F/+ Rk: 108 | Final S&P+ Rk: 123
Date Opponent Opp. F/+ Rk Score W-L Percentile
Performance
Win
Expectancy
vs. S&P+ Performance
vs. Vegas
4-Sep Fordham N/A 35-37 L 28% 71% -3.1
12-Sep at Connecticut 80 17-22 L 24% 38% +3.8 +2.5
19-Sep Wake Forest 92 14-17 L 16% 29% +3.4 +3.0
26-Sep at Eastern Michigan 122 58-36 W 27% 62% +21.8 +25.0
3-Oct at Penn State 47 14-20 L 26% 28% +22.9 -6.0
10-Oct Duke 74 3-44 L 0% 0% -20.0 -29.5
17-Oct Bucknell N/A 21-14 W 15% 66% -18.8
24-Oct at Rice 123 31-38 L 14% 23% -6.5 +2.5
7-Nov at Air Force 63 3-20 L 4% 0% +5.1 0.0
14-Nov Tulane 119 31-34 L 18% 37% -4.6 -5.5
21-Nov Rutgers 101 21-31 L 7% 7% -8.3 -5.5
12-Dec vs. Navy 21 17-21 L 16% 3% +35.0 +12.0

Category Offense Rk Defense Rk
S&P+ 18.5 115 39.5 120
Points Per Game 22.1 109 27.8 75

2. Consistency: not always good

It really was like there was an inverse relationship between the quality of the opponent and the breaks Army got. Despite youth, the Knights were one of the most consistent teams in the country, and not in a good way. In terms of percentile performances, they were between 14 and 28 percent nine times in 12 games and were never higher. But good bounces gave them a shot against Penn State and UConn, and bad bounces took them down against Fordham, Rice, and Tulane.

Young teams aren't typically this even-keeled. In theory, if this large base of returning contributors improves, then this could result in higher-quality consistency. But it's hard to ride that logic too far when we don't really know the upside involved.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
Raw Category Rk Opp. Adj. Category Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS IsoPPP 1.26 66 IsoPPP+ 89.7 101
EFFICIENCY Succ. Rt. 41.5% 70 Succ. Rt. + 91.5 106
FIELD POSITION Def. Avg. FP 31.8 107 Def. FP+ 33.8 121
FINISHING DRIVES Pts. Per Scoring Opportunity 4.6 53 Redzone S&P+ 86.0 116
TURNOVERS EXPECTED 26.1 ACTUAL 22 -4.1
Category Yards/
Game Rk
S&P+ Rk Success
Rt. Rk
PPP+ Rk
OVERALL 108 105 106 101
RUSHING 12 87 84 83
PASSING 127 57 122 22
Standard Downs 101 92 102
Passing Downs 107 118 97
Q1 Rk 113 1st Down Rk 102
Q2 Rk 81 2nd Down Rk 86
Q3 Rk 112 3rd Down Rk 119
Q4 Rk 49

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.
Ahmad Bradshaw 5'11, 198 Jr. 2 stars (5.3) NR 23 48 429 5 2 47.9% 3 5.9% 7.6
A.J. Schurr 11 29 300 3 4 37.9% 4 12.1% 7.8
Chris Carter 5'11, 170 So. NR NR 13 21 348 2 2 61.9% 4 16.0% 12.7
Joey Benden 5'10, 180 Fr. 2 stars (5.2) NR

3. Step one: Find a QB

With both starter Ahmad Bradshaw and backup A.J. Schurr injured, Chris Carter took over at quarterback against Rutgers. The result was beyond intriguing. Carter rushed 19 times for 116 yards (not including one sack), and he completed four of his first five passes for 140 yards and a touchdown. His sixth was intercepted, which finished off any hopeful comeback attempt in a 31-21 loss, but Army fans caught a glimpse.

Forced to watch Navy's Keenan Reynolds develop into the ultimate service academy option quarterback over the previous four years, fans of the Black Knights have been left to hope that their own offense might find its savior one day. Army has long had solid option quarterbacks -- Trent Steelman from 2009-12, Angel Santiago in 2013-14 -- but it's gone a long time without a Reynolds.

Carter went 9-for-15 for 208 yards against Navy. But once again, he was picked off in the fourth quarter, and on Army's last chance, a misguided trick play resulted in another pick.

Carter and Bradshaw finished spring listed as co-starters, and that makes sense. Bradshaw has shown plenty of potential in two years, and while Carter hinted at massive potential, he's still only a sophomore with two career starts.

Army coaches trusted Carter to throw more than Bradshaw, though. He threw 21 passes in two games compared to Bradshaw's 48 in eight. Bradshaw was the more efficient runner (39 percent of his carries gained at least five yards, compared with Carter's meager 34 percent), and while he fumbled too much (8.7 percent of his carries), Carter did even more (13.2 percent).

Having two interesting quarterbacks is a good problem. My theory is that, in case of a tie on the depth chart, you should choose the younger guy who might star for a longer period of time. But Bradshaw's still got a shot, and Carter showed enough upside to tell us that if Bradshaw's the first-stringer, the QB position's ceiling is awfully high.

Running Back

Player Pos. Ht, Wt 2016
Year
Rivals 247 Comp. Rushes Yards TD Yards/
Carry
Hlt Yds/
Opp.
Opp.
Rate
Fumbles Fum.
Lost
Ahmad Bradshaw QB 5'11, 198 Jr. 2 stars (5.3) NR 127 510 5 4.0 4.6 39.4% 11 4
Aaron Kemper FB 5'6, 210 Sr. NR NR 101 544 3 5.4 9.8 25.7% 0 0
A.J. Schurr QB 94 428 7 4.6 4.9 38.3% 7 3
Matt Giachinta FB 61 286 1 4.7 3.4 36.1% 1 1
Drue Harris FB 6'0, 220 So. 2 stars (5.4) 0.7726 46 176 2 3.8 4.4 23.9% 0 0
Chris Carter QB 5'11, 170 So. NR NR 38 160 1 4.2 4.5 34.2% 5 2
John Trainor SB-T 5'11, 190 Jr. NR NR 31 280 2 9.0 7.9 61.3% 1 0
Jordan Asberry SB-A 5'9, 185 So. 2 stars (5.3) 0.7926 30 213 0 7.1 5.4 56.7% 1 1
Joe Walker SB-A 6'0, 204 Sr. NR NR 27 203 1 7.5 7.5 59.3% 1 0
Christian Drake SB-A 5'10, 178 So. 2 stars (5.2) NR 17 138 1 8.1 8.6 52.9% 2 0
Tyler Campbell SB-T 5'11, 170 So. 2 stars (5.2) NR 17 118 1 6.9 3.7 64.7% 0 0
Nicholas Black SB-T 5'8, 188 So. 2 stars (5.2) NR 12 44 0 3.7 2.7 33.3% 2 1
Elijah St. Hilaire SB-T 5'9, 195 Sr. 3 stars (5.5) NR
Andy Davidson FB 6'2, 220 So. 2 stars (5.2) 0.7533
Cole Macek FB 5'11, 220 So. NR NR

4. The balance was a little off

I assume Army fans get tired of Navy comparisons, but it's unavoidable.

See if you can spot the difference between Army's and Navy's option distribution and effectiveness.

  • Fullbacks
    Navy: 42% of carries, 4.9 yards per carry, 38% opportunity rate, 3.6 highlight yards/opp
    Army: 35% of carries, 4.8 yards per carry, 28% opportunity rate, 6.4 highlight yards/opp
  • Quarterbacks
    Navy: 39.0% of carries, 5.8 yards per carry, 40% opportunity rate, 6.2 highlight yards/opp
    Army: 43.1% of carries, 4.2 yards per carry, 38% opportunity rate, 4.7 highlight yards/opp
  • Slotbacks
    Navy: 19.4% of carries, 9.1 yards per carry, 62% opportunity rate, 7.1 highlight yards/opp
    Army: 22.3% of carries, 7.4 yards per carry, 57% opportunity rate, 6.5 highlight yards/opp

The option is about creating a vortex between the tackles. You pound away with the fullbacks up the middle and the quarterbacks off tackle, and if you're good enough at that, then when you eventually pitch to your slotback on the edge, he's got acres of space.

For Army, the biggest problem I see is that the fullbacks weren't gaining enough up the middle. Aaron Kemper is far more explosive (and far smaller) than a fullback should be, and he's strong as an ox, but the fullback's role is to reliably gain small chunks of yardage, not serve as an all-or-nothing threat on the outside. Kemper and sophomore Drue Harris had an opportunity rate well under 30 percent, which just won't fly. Kemper's explosiveness is nice, but you have to have balance. And while Black Knight quarterbacks were pretty efficient, they had to take on a heavier load.

Navy quarterbacks also attempted 132 passes last year to Army's 109. That's not a huge difference -- 10.2 attempts per game to 9.1 -- but considering Navy spent most of the year leading and Army spent most of it trailing, the difference was perhaps more magnified.

Since Monken and the staff seemed to trust Carter to throw more, maybe that makes him the best option at QB? Because we might need to see what big Edgar Poe can do with more touches. He's quite a deep threat.

Receiving Corps

Player Pos. Ht, Wt 2016
Year
Rivals 247 Comp. Targets Catches Yards Catch Rate Target
Rate
Yds/
Target
%SD Success
Rate
IsoPPP
Edgar Poe WR-X 6'4, 215 Sr. 2 stars (5.3) 0.7694 32 16 441 50.0% 33.7% 13.8 40.6% 50.0% 2.73
John Trainor SB-T 5'11, 190 Jr. NR NR 12 8 176 66.7% 12.6% 14.7 75.0% 66.7% 2.03
DeAndre Bell WR-Z 12 7 166 58.3% 12.6% 13.8 16.7% 50.0% 2.75
Kelvin White TE 8 3 48 37.5% 8.4% 6.0 50.0% 25.0% 2.49
Nicholas Black SB-T 5'8, 188 So. 2 stars (5.2) NR 7 3 41 42.9% 7.4% 5.9 42.9% 28.6% 1.81
Joe Walker SB-A 6'0, 204 Sr. NR NR 6 3 85 50.0% 6.3% 14.2 50.0% 33.3% 4.31
Jordan Asberry SB-A 5'9, 185 So. 2 stars (5.3) 0.7926 5 2 40 40.0% 5.3% 8.0 60.0% 40.0% 1.79
Matt Giachinta FB 4 1 5 25.0% 4.2% 1.3 25.0% 0.0% 0.00
Tyler Campbell SB-T 5'11, 170 So. 2 stars (5.2) NR 3 3 57 100.0% 3.2% 19.0 33.3% 66.7% 2.31
Darnell Woolfolk RB 5'9, 220 So. NR NR 1 1 18 100.0% 1.1% 18.0 0.0% 100.0% 1.58
Christian Drake SB-A 5'10, 178 So. 2 stars (5.2) NR 1 0 0 0.0% 1.1% 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.00
Aaron Kemper FB 5'6, 210 Sr. NR NR 1 0 0 0.0% 1.1% 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.00
Jeff Ejekam WR-Z 6'2, 199 Jr. 2 stars (5.2) NR 1 0 0 0.0% 1.1% 0.0 100.0% 0.0% 0.00
Jermaine Adams WR-Z 6'1, 211 Jr. NR NR
Christian Poe WR-X 6'3, 200 So. 2 stars (5.3) 0.7694
Quinten Parker TE 6'1, 225 So. NR NR
Kjetil Cline WR 6'0, 185 Fr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8381
Caleb Auer TE 6'3, 240 Fr. 2 stars (5.3) NR

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 96.6 2.99 2.54 39.1% 69.4% 19.1% 48.2 6.4% 15.6%
Rank 86 50 111 63 40 59 128 94 127
Player Pos. Ht, Wt 2016
Year
Rivals 247 Comp. 2015 Starts Career Starts Honors/Notes
Matt Hugenberg C 12 24
Justin Gilbert RT 6'7, 271 Sr. 2 stars (5.2) NR 6 18
Ryan Alexander LT 12 15
Mike Houghton RG 6'4, 284 Jr. NR NR 9 11
Jaryn Villegas LG NR 5 9
Rick Kurz LT 6'2, 265 So. 2 stars (5.3) NR 8 8
Victor Nieves III LG 6'4, 318 So. NR 0.7667 6 6
Colby Enegren LG 6'2, 279 Sr. NR NR 0 3
Brett Toth RT 6'6, 259 Jr. 2 stars (5.2) NR 2 2
Bryce Holland C 6'2, 289 Jr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.7667 0 2
Lofi Tamasese RG 6'1, 288 Sr. NR NR 0 0
Joshua Boylan C 6'2, 273 Jr. NR NR 0 0
Mike Houghton RG 6'4, 284 Jr. NR NR 0 0
Tim Gant RG 6'3, 265 So. 2 stars (5.3) NR 0 0
Trey Neville OT 6'4, 250 Fr. 2 stars (5.2) 0.7667

5. Lay off, injury bug

That Army's run-blocking numbers were decent was an accomplishment considering the shuffling on the two-deep. Eight different players started a game on Army's offensive line, and only two started more than nine games.

Injuries can hurt in the present tense and help in the future tense, and that could be said here -- Army loses two starters up front but returns five more who started for at least half the year. That said, the injuries only end up helping if they lay off at some point. By the end of spring football, four projected starters were sidelined, and Monken was left to only say, "I hope it won’t become a revolving door like it has been."

Continuity could turn a decent line into an excellent one, but there's no promise that continuity will come.

SIGN UP FOR OUR COLLEGE FOOTBALL NEWSLETTER

Get all kinds of college football stories, rumors, game coverage, and Jim Harbaugh oddity in your inbox every day.

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE
Raw Category Rk Opp. Adj. Category Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS IsoPPP 1.33 99 IsoPPP+ 82.3 120
EFFICIENCY Succ. Rt. 42.1% 71 Succ. Rt. + 88.5 105
FIELD POSITION Off. Avg. FP 27.8 111 Off. FP+ 25.8 123
FINISHING DRIVES Pts. Per Scoring Opportunity 5.0 111 Redzone S&P+ 82.0 126
TURNOVERS EXPECTED 11.6 ACTUAL 11.0 -0.6
Category Yards/
Game Rk
S&P+ Rk Success
Rt. Rk
PPP+ Rk
OVERALL 47 118 105 120
RUSHING 58 88 86 88
PASSING 48 123 126 119
Standard Downs 119 103 121
Passing Downs 109 112 106
Q1 Rk 117 1st Down Rk 109
Q2 Rk 124 2nd Down Rk 121
Q3 Rk 99 3rd Down Rk 116
Q4 Rk 80

6. Improvement in the front, regression in the back

I used one word to open my summary of the Army defense in last year's preview: "Yuck." In Monken's first season, the Black Knights ranked a dismal 127th in Def. S&P+ -- their third straight year ranked 119th or worse -- and the issues in the front seven were so pronounced that it was difficult to figure out short-term fixes.

The good news: despite iffy odds, and despite basically only playing three linemen all year, Army's front seven improved. The Black Knights weren't particularly disruptive, but they stiffened in short-yardage situations, and they improved from dead last in Rushing S&P+ to 88th.

Despite a slightly better pass rush, the pass defense got worse, falling from 118th in Passing S&P+ to 123rd. I thought the secondary could be decent, but that went out the window when star cornerback Josh Jenkins (four tackles for loss, 12 passes defensed in 2014) missed the season because of head injuries suffered during a Fourth of July altercation with a teammate. Freshman Brandon Jackson was thrust into a go-to role, and that rarely goes well.

The pieces could come together this year. Almost everybody from the front seven is back, and so is Jenkins. Including Jenkins, the D returns 10 starters, and while returning a ton of players from a bad defense isn't necessarily a great thing, Army could rank 115th or better in Def. S&P+ for the first time since 2011. Baby steps, right?

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 99.1 2.87 2.61 39.6% 61.9% 18.5% 72.1 6.1% 3.7%
Rank 66 65 12 81 39 87 109 29 119
Name Pos Ht, Wt 2016
Year
Rivals 247 Comp. GP Tackles % of Team TFL Sacks Int PBU FF FR
John Voit DE 6'3, 247 Jr. 2 stars (5.2) NR 12 41.5 7.1% 4.5 2.0 0 0 1 0
Jordan Smith DT 6'3, 258 Sr. NR NR 12 33.0 5.6% 2.5 0.0 0 1 2 0
T.J. Atimalala NG 12 28.0 4.8% 6.5 0.0 0 0 0 0
Eddy Ruzga DT 6'3, 241 Sr. NR NR 8 5.0 0.9% 2.0 1.0 0 0 0 0
Evan Finnane DE
Shawn Lemoto DT 6'3, 263 Sr. NR NR
Andrew McLean DT 6'4, 272 Jr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.7533
Spencer Welton DE 6'1, 230 Jr. NR NR
Raymond Wright NG 6'3, 265 So. 2 stars (5.3) 0.7778
Cordarrell Davis NG 6'0, 240 So. NR NR
Chandler Ramirez DE 6'0, 210 So. NR NR








Linebackers

Name Pos Ht, Wt 2016
Year
Rivals 247 Comp. GP Tackles % of Team TFL Sacks Int PBU FF FR
Andrew King MIKE 6'0, 246 Sr. NR NR 12 73.5 12.6% 16.5 4.5 0 0 0 0
Jeremy Timpf WILL 6'1, 225 Sr. NR NR 12 70.5 12.1% 5.0 1.5 1 2 1 0
Alex Aukerman SAM 6'1, 228 Jr. 2 stars (5.3) NR 12 26.0 4.4% 2.5 0.0 0 0 0 0
Bayle Wolf RUSH 6'0, 221 Jr. 2 stars (5.3) NR 7 23.5 4.0% 2.0 2.0 0 0 1 0
Kenneth Brinson RUSH 6'2, 225 So. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8464 12 13.5 2.3% 3.5 0.5 0 1 0 0
Scott Washle MIKE 6'1, 238 Jr. 2 stars (5.3) 0.7744 6 8.5 1.5% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0
Justin Fahn LB 12 7.5 1.3% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0
Cole Macek LB 5'11, 220 So. NR NR 12 5.5 0.9% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0
Calen Holt WILL 6'0, 210 So. 2 stars (5.3) NR 12 5.0 0.9% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0
Gibby Gibson SAM 6'1, 200 So. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8178 10 3.5 0.6% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0
Andy Davidson WILL 6'2, 220 So. 2 stars (5.2) 0.7533 12 2.5 0.4% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0
Tyler L'Hommedieu LB 6'0, 213 Jr. NR NR
James Nachtigal RUSH 6'0, 205 So. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8111
Ryan Parker LB 6'1, 205 Fr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8154
Joe Ryan LB 6'1, 215 Fr. 2 stars (5.3) 0.7778
Jack King LB 6'2, 205 Fr. 2 stars (5.2) 0.7667
Ryan Grady LB 6'2, 201 Fr. 2 stars (5.2) 0.7497
Jake Ellington LB 6'3, 222 Fr. 2 stars (5.3) NR

7. The best depth in quite a while

Limitations can be freeing. Army has almost no size up front, but when you don't have conventional size, you don't stick to conventional tactics. Army figured out how to stiffen in short-yardage despite a line that featured nobody heavier than 268-pound T.J. Atimalala, and the Black Knights improved as the game went on despite massive depth issues. This wasn't a good defense, but it overcame obstacles in finishing 120th.

In 2016, depth shouldn't be as much of a problem. Coordinator Jay Bateman will have no choice but to dip into his reserve of linemen with the loss of Atimalala, but that's basically the only loss. John Voit and Jordan Smith are back up front, and former star recruit Andrew McLean might finally be ready to contribute.

The linebacking corps should be a legitimate strength. Andrew King and Jeremy Timpf have combined for 44 tackles for loss, 12 sacks, and 13 passes defensed over the last two years. Plus, Rush ends Bayle Wolf and Kenneth Brinson (a former mid-three-star recruit) showed decent potential. If players like sophomore Gibby Gibson, McLean, and direct-admit freshmen like Ryan Parker are able to live up to decent recruiting hype, then Army might have enough play-makers to create havoc.

Secondary

Name Pos Ht, Wt 2016
Year
Rivals 247 Comp. GP Tackles % of Team TFL Sacks Int PBU FF FR
Josh Jenkins
(2014)
CB 6'0, 190 Sr. NR NR 12 58.0 9.3% 4 0 4 8 0 0
Brandon Jackson CB 6'0, 170 So. NR NR 12 56.0 9.6% 5.5 2 3 5 0 0
Rhyan England FS 5'10, 192 Jr. NR NR 10 51.5 8.8% 3 0 0 4 0 0
Xavier Moss BS 6'2, 197 Sr. NR NR 12 50.0 8.5% 0 0 1 5 0 0
Tevin Long FS
12 26.5 4.5% 2.5 0.5 0 1 0 0
Chris Carnegie CB 12 26.0 4.4% 2 1 1 6 0 0
Steven Johnson CB 6'0, 191 Sr. NR NR 10 8.0 1.4% 0 0 0 1 0 0
Max Regan BS 6'2, 185 So. 2 stars (5.2) NR 11 3.0 0.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0
Marcus Hyatt CB 5'10, 170 So. 2 stars (5.3) NR 12 2.5 0.4% 0 0 0 1 0 0
Michael McFadden CB 12 2.5 0.4% 0 0 0 0 0 0
Luke Proulx BS
Gervon Simon DB 5'11, 199 Sr. NR 0.7000
Mike Reynolds DB 6'1, 180 So. 2 stars (5.2) NR
Casey Dionne FS 6'0, 180 So. 2 stars (5.2) NR
Elijah Riley DB 5'11, 190 Fr. 2 stars (5.3) NR








8. How much difference can Jenkins make?

Brandon Jackson got burned a lot last year. An unrated true freshman is not going to fare particularly well as an outmanned defense's No. 1 cornerback. But in the process, he also made 5.5 tackles for loss and defensed eight passes.

If Jenkins returns to full strength, suddenly Jackson becomes one of the more proven No. 2 corners around. With two experienced safeties (Rhyan England and Xavier Moss), that feels like a pretty good secondary. Or at least, a better secondary. And if that's accompanied by a deeper, more experienced front seven ... well, that sounds like an improved defense, doesn't it? "Improvement" could still mean 110th in Def. S&P+, but I see both sides of the ball improving this year.

Special Teams

Punter Ht, Wt 2016
Year
Punts Avg TB FC I20 FC/I20
Ratio
Alex Tardieu 50 40.2 2 16 10 52.0%
Kicker Ht, Wt 2016
Year
Kickoffs Avg TB OOB TB%
Daniel Grochowski 51 61.1 21 1 41.2%
Place-Kicker Ht, Wt 2016
Year
PAT FG
(0-39)
Pct FG
(40+)
Pct
Daniel Grochowski 31-31 4-6 66.7% 2-3 66.7%
Returner Pos. Ht, Wt 2016
Year
Returns Avg. TD
Marcus Hyatt KR 5'10, 170 So. 29 19.8 0
Nicholas Black KR 5'8, 188 So. 5 19.4 0
Edgar Poe PR 6'4, 215 Sr. 18 5.8 0
Nicholas Black PR 5'8, 188 So. 3 -1.3 0
Category Rk
Special Teams S&P+ 87
Field Goal Efficiency 101
Punt Return Success Rate 77
Kick Return Success Rate 82
Punt Success Rate 37
Kickoff Success Rate 49

9. Wanted: new field position legs

Punter Alex Tardieu and kicker Daniel Grochowski weren't good enough to prevent a field position disadvantage, but they were both solid and gave opponents few good return opportunities. They're gone, and all the members of a pretty shaky return unit are back. Not necessarily a fair trade. You never know how new kickers/punters are going to perform, but it's hard to imagine this unit improving much on last year's iffy No. 87 Special Teams S&P+ rating, not with the two best players gone.

2016 Schedule & Projection Factors

2016 Schedule
Date Opponent Proj. S&P+ Rk Proj. Margin Win Probability
2-Sep at Temple 61 -22.2 10%
10-Sep Rice 119 1.5 53%
17-Sep at UTEP 126 -2.0 45%
24-Sep at Buffalo 109 -7.7 33%
8-Oct at Duke 51 -23.5 9%
15-Oct Lafayette NR 27.5 94%
22-Oct North Texas 128 5.9 63%
29-Oct at Wake Forest 74 -19.5 13%
5-Nov Air Force 80 -11.3 26%
12-Nov vs. Notre Dame 11 -32.2 3%
19-Nov Morgan State NR 27.5 94%
10-Dec vs. Navy 66 -17.9 15%
Projected wins: 4.6
Five-Year F/+ Rk -34.7% (121)
2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk 126 / 126
2015 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin* -11 / -14.5
2015 TO Luck/Game +1.5
Returning Production (Off. / Def.) 78% (71%, 85%)
2015 Second-order wins (difference) 3.6 (-1.6)

10. Experience isn't an issue

Army has ranked 125th and 123rd in Monken's first two years. It probably isn't surprising that S&P+ projects the Black Knights 124th this year. Honestly, though, I expect something more like 105th. I would be pretty surprised if a team with this much experience -- and potential at quarterback -- didn't improve.

Even at 124th, Army is projected to have a shot at five wins thanks to two FCS opponents and four FBS teams projected 109th or worse. The Cadets would need to get to seven wins for traditional bowl eligibility thanks to the two FCS teams, but a team that ranked, say, 105th could easily approach six or seven wins.

I like the niche Army is carving out with its heavy load of Eastern-seaboard teams (mixed with stops in Texas -- ND-Army is in San Antonio this year), and I really liked the Monken hire. That it has taken him a couple of years to get affairs in order makes sense, and even if it was with smoke and mirrors, I think it was a very good sign that Army was able to keep games close and avoid blowouts. But the step after "be competitive" is "actually win," and Army hasn't done that. We'll see if this year is any different.