Texas Tech's offense is amazing, and the defense is totally wasting it

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. Extreme in both directions

Big 12 defenses get a bad rap sometimes. There have been plenty of strong defenses that were labeled as poor simply because of the extreme tempo and effectiveness of the offenses they faced.

Since 2007, when the spread offense really took off in the conference, six of its defenses have ranked in the Def. S&P+ top 10 and 30 have ranked in the top 30. Only nine have ranked 100th or worse.

The Big 12 just plays a different game than much of the rest of the country, and our insistence on evaluating defenses by total yards or points gives us false impressions.

It usually does, anyway. In Lubbock, our impressions are accurate. In 2008, Mike Leach's breakthrough season, the Red Raiders ranked fourth in Off. S&P+ and 84th in Def. S&P+. In 2011, a 5-7 season for Tommy Tuberville, they ranked 26th and 110th, respectively. And over the last two seasons under Kliff Kingsbury, Tech has gone all the way to the extremes. In 2014, the team ranked 23rd and 114th. In 2015: third and 121st.

Last fall, Tech was the Big 12 stereotype personified. On two occasions, the Red Raiders scored over 50 points and lost; once, they scored 53 and lost by 17. On three other occasions, they allowed over 40 points and won. The 2015 Tech offense might have been the best yet. And Kingsbury's charges went 7-6.

This is fun as hell, mind you. Only three times did a Tech game feature fewer than 80 points. In the Texas Bowl against LSU, Tech allowed more than 10 yards per play and still only trailed by a touchdown in the latter third quarter.

It's fun knowing Tech is guaranteed to produce five or six amazing shootouts a year. Even if the spread isn't your thing, and even if the thought of defense-free football makes you shudder, you have to admit it feels right for the id of the spread offense and air-it-out football to reside in West Texas.

If you're a Tech fan, however, this has to be conflicting. Kingsbury has been in charge for three seasons and has brought exactly what he was asked to bring to town. But in the last two years, he is only 11-14 because his team cannot pretend to make a stop.

Since Leach was run out of town following 2009, Tech has never played at a Big 12-average level (as seen in the chart below). The Red Raiders are dangerous, and preparing for them is in no way pleasant since you know you're going to be in for a four-hour track meet. But they've gone 40-36 in that span -- a tough out is still an out.

Can this change? Of course. Every year is an opportunity for change, and in defensive coordinator David Gibbs, Kingsbury has hired someone who is both seasoned and accustomed to the challenge of attacking the spread.

A starter on Colorado's 1990 national title team and a former DC at Minnesota, Auburn, and Houston, Gibbs was brought in a year ago. But there was only space for him to bring one assistant (LBs coach Zac Spavital). Following last year's troubles, three coaches were fired, and Gibbs was able to put a little more of his stamp on the defense. We'll see if that makes a difference.

2015 Schedule & Results

Record: 7-6 | Adj. Record: 8-5 | Final F/+ Rk: 60 | Final S&P+ Rk: 62
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Percentile Performance	Win Expectancy	vs. S&P+	Performance vs. Vegas
5-Sep	Sam Houston State	N/A	59-45	W	53%	74%	-2.2
12-Sep	UTEP	125	69-20	W	93%	100%	+28.5	+28.0
19-Sep	at Arkansas	11	35-24	W	81%	83%	+27.0	+22.5
26-Sep	TCU	19	52-55	L	59%	32%	+7.3	+4.0
3-Oct	vs. Baylor	14	35-63	L	27%	1%	-15.1	-11.0
10-Oct	Iowa State	79	66-31	W	88%	99%	+24.0	+22.5
17-Oct	at Kansas	127	30-20	W	37%	71%	-16.6	-21.0
24-Oct	at Oklahoma	4	27-63	L	23%	0%	-19.7	-22.0
31-Oct	Oklahoma State	40	53-70	L	38%	13%	-11.6	-14.0
7-Nov	at West Virginia	31	26-31	L	65%	48%	+9.3	+3.5
14-Nov	Kansas State	81	59-44	W	87%	99%	+9.3	+9.5
26-Nov	at Texas	68	48-45	W	66%	80%	-2.4	+4.5
29-Dec	vs. LSU	10	27-56	L	9%	0%	-17.9	-21.5

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk
S&P+	43.6	3	40.2	121
Points Per Game	45.1	2	43.6	125

2. Instant shootouts

Tech's 2015 offense was one of the nation's best, and not only because of tempo. On a per-play basis, the Red Raiders proved they could move the ball against anybody. The problem was that they couldn't move the ball well enough against good opponents to offset what the opponent was doing to their defense.

• Texas Tech vs. F/+ top 40:
  Record: 1-6 | Avg. percentile performance: 43% (~top 75) | Yards per play: Opp 7.8, Tech 6.3 (-1.5)
• Texas Tech vs. F/+ No. 41+:
  Record: 6-0 | Avg. percentile performance: 71% (~top 35) | Yards per play: Tech 7.7, Opp 6.0 (+1.7)

Against seven top-40 opponents, Tech never scored fewer than 26 points. But the imbalance here was obvious. Good opponents were able to make enough stops to win, often comfortably.

Every offense was good in a Tech game -- even Kansas and UTEP scored 20 points -- but top-40 teams were able to treat Tech like Tech treated everyone else. The Red Raiders were unable to afford any offensive droughts.

Tech's offense almost cannot be better than it was; the Red Raiders have peaked until the defense figures out how to get the ball away from the opponent before the end zone.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.39	15	IsoPPP+	124.6	10
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	48.5%	11	Succ. Rt. +	115.6	14
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	29.1	51	Def. FP+	28.5	48
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Scoring Opportunity	5.2	9	Redzone S&P+	108.3	42
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	19.7		ACTUAL	23	+3.3

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	2	10	14	10
RUSHING	40	4	4	9
PASSING	2	29	40	29
Standard Downs		28	24	30
Passing Downs		6	9	4

Q1 Rk	8	1st Down Rk	9
Q2 Rk	10	2nd Down Rk	51
Q3 Rk	47	3rd Down Rk	5
Q4 Rk	6

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.
Patrick Mahomes II	6'3, 219	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8807	364	573	4653	36	15	63.5%	27	4.5%	7.5
Davis Webb					22	41	300	2	0	53.7%	0	0.0%	7.3
Nic Shimonek	6'3, 210	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8175
Payne Sullins	6'2, 180	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7778
Jett Duffey	6'1, 200	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8559

3. The scary part: Mahomes can get better

There's only so much Tech can improve offensively. The Red Raiders averaged 43.6 adjusted points per game last fall, third in the country and only one-tenth of a point from first-place Baylor. Per Off. S&P+, Tech had the 18th-best offense of the 11-season (and 1,345-team) S&P+ era.

The offensive line is starting over, and both the top rusher and receiver are gone. With this turnover, it might be difficult to match last year's output. But they have a chance because Pat Mahomes II hasn't yet hit his peak. The junior from Whitehouse and son of a former baseball pro threw for 4,653 yards and 36 touchdowns and rushed for more than 600 non-sack yards despite hobbling around on a bad ankle for part of the season. Neither his interception rate (2.6 percent) nor sack rate (4.5 percent) were bad, but both could improve.

Mahomes is nearly the perfect spread quarterback, capable of making most throws accurately, making quick decisions, and getting the ball upfield with his legs if the defense overcompensates for the pass. He had a wonderful supporting cast, and we'll see if some new pieces can live up to a high standard. But in a country full of solid spread QBs, Mahomes might have been the best. And he wasn't quite full-speed.

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Opp.	Opp. Rate	Fumbles	Fum. Lost
DeAndre Washington	RB					233	1492	14	6.4	6.2	42.9%	5	2
Patrick Mahomes II	QB	6'3, 219	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8807	104	616	10	5.9	3.8	49.0%	5	2
Justin Stockton	RB	5'10, 192	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8672	61	367	5	6.0	6.3	45.9%	0	0
Quinton White	RB	5'7, 209	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8413	9	29	0	3.2	1.4	44.4%	0	0
Jakeem Grant	WR					8	68	2	8.5	10.5	50.0%	1	0
Demarcus Felton	RB	5'7, 190	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8463	6	73	1	12.2	16.0	50.0%	0	0
Corey Dauphine	RB	6'0, 194	RSFr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.9134
Da'Leon Ward	RB	5'10, 180	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8593

Receiving Corps

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Target Rate	Yds/ Target	%SD	Success Rate	IsoPPP
Jakeem Grant	IR					127	90	1263	70.9%	21.6%	9.9	55.9%	48.0%	1.99
Reginald Davis	WR	6'0, 188	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9274	69	38	536	55.1%	11.7%	7.8	68.1%	44.9%	1.64
Devin Lauderdale	WR					68	43	633	63.2%	11.5%	9.3	63.2%	50.0%	1.67
Ian Sadler	IR	5'11, 197	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8748	62	42	596	67.7%	10.5%	9.6	50.0%	56.5%	1.52
DeAndre Washington	RB					57	41	401	71.9%	9.7%	7.0	66.7%	42.1%	1.55
Cameron Batson	IR	5'9, 173	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8449	39	29	327	74.4%	6.6%	8.4	56.4%	51.3%	1.58
Tony Brown	WR	6'1, 187	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8763	32	14	250	43.8%	5.4%	7.8	68.8%	37.5%	1.70
Zach Austin	IR	5'11, 187	Jr.	NR	NR	30	22	238	73.3%	5.1%	7.9	60.0%	66.7%	1.06
Justin Stockton	RB	5'10, 192	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8672	27	22	341	81.5%	4.6%	12.6	66.7%	55.6%	2.28
Jonathan Giles	WR	5'11, 184	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8322	20	15	143	75.0%	3.4%	7.2	55.0%	65.0%	1.03
Keke Coutee	IR	5'11, 173	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8672	18	11	105	61.1%	3.1%	5.8	50.0%	44.4%	1.18
Ja'Deion High	WR	5'11, 179	Jr.	NR	NR	15	8	111	53.3%	2.5%	7.4	60.0%	46.7%	1.35
Brad Pearson	IR					9	5	47	55.6%	1.5%	5.2	77.8%	44.4%	1.25
Quinton White	RB	5'7, 209	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8413	8	6	32	75.0%	1.4%	4.0	100.0%	37.5%	1.02
Dylan Cantrell	WR	6'3, 212	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8717
Derrick Willies	WR	6'3, 215	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9041
De'Quan Bowman	WR	5'11, 180	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8566
T.J. Vasher	WR	6'5, 198	Fr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8919

4. Interchangeable parts?

In DeAndre Washington, Mahomes and Tech had one of the most underrated backs in college football. The combination of Washington and Mahomes' ability meant the Red Raiders had every weapon. Washington was both efficient and explosive and even averaged a solid 7 yards per pass target out of the backfield.

In Jakeem Grant, Tech had maybe the fastest player in college football. When he was hand-timed at 4.12 in the 40-yard dash at Tech's pro day, it was almost believable. He's tiny, but he grew into a receiver equally adept close to and far from the line of scrimmage, and he averaged 9.9 yards per target as a senior.

Now the first string in the skill corps has been thinned out. Can the new guys provide the same threat?

Signs are encouraging in the backfield. Junior Justin Stockton produced averages nearly identical to Washington's; he rushed seven times for 101 yards in a romp over Iowa State, and he scored five touchdowns on just 61 carries. He produced higher catch and success rates than Washington in the passing game as well. You never know what's going to happen to productivity when you move someone from backup to feature guy, but Stockton could be excellent. Goodness knows he has the speed.

Though Ian Sadler and Cameron Batson aren't as fast as Grant (almost nobody is), they both produced a higher success rate last fall, and Sadler averaged a comparable 9.6 yards per target. If they can provide a similar level of stress on the interior, then the outside receivers -- seniors Reginald Davis and Dylan Cantrell, junior Ja'Deion High, sophomores Tony Brown and Jonathan Giles, four-star JUCO transfer Derrick Willies, four-star freshman T.J. Vasher -- should be just fine.

Tech will have speed, and its offense will be good. The question is whether last year's seniors were too good to be replaced without drop-off.

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	119.5	3.58	3.79	45.2%	88.2%	14.9%	152.0	3.8%	5.8%
Rank	9	2	16	6	2	5	22	40	34

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	2015 Starts	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Le'Raven Clark	LT					13	51	2015 1st All-Big 12
Alfredo Morales	LG					13	37	2015 2nd All-Big 12
Jared Kaster	C					13	38
Baylen Brown	LT	6'5, 309	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8609	11	23
Tony Morales	C	6'3, 285	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8985	7	7
Emeka Okafor	LG					4	4
Justin Murphy	RG	6'6, 298	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8160	4	4
Poet Thomas	LT					0	0
Robert Castaneda	C					0	0
Paul Stawarz	RG	6'5, 295	So.	NR	NR	0	0
Cole Collier	LG	6'1, 286	So.	2 stars (5.2)	NR	0	0
Ethan Smith	RT	6'6, 278	So.	NR	NR	0	0
Conner Dyer	OL	6'4, 268	RSFr.	4 stars (5.9)	0.9034
Madison Akamnonu	LG	6'5, 294	RSFr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8989
Terence Steele	RT	6'6, 285	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7733
Cody Wheeler	C	6'4, 293	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7733
Zach Adams	OL	6'6, 315	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8481

5. Interchangeable Parts? Part II

The large splits of the offensive line in the spread were originally designed to counter natural disadvantages. Even if a defensive end has superior talent, he still has to run further to get to the quarterback; even if a defensive tackle has a clear advantage in the middle, a running back still has space to get around him. You could succeed with "five dumpy linemen who could get run over slowly."

In this sense, maybe the loss of two all-conference linemen and two more with starting experience won't hurt as bad as instinct might tell us. Plus, hey, line experience might be overrated anyway.

Most of last year's two-deep is gone, and there will possibly be a redshirt freshman presence in the starting lineup, but at least Tech returns two-year starting tackle Baylen Brown (who will move from RT to LT), center Tony Morales, and guard Justin Murphy.

The line's sack rates were a little bit higher than normal last year, in part because of Mahomes' scrambling ability. That probably won't sink, but if there's a concern, it comes in run-blocking. Large splits or not, Tech was fantastic at creating space for Washington and Stockton.

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.32	95	IsoPPP+	86.0	113
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	50.1%	126	Succ. Rt. +	87.3	112
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	29.5	75	Off. FP+	29.8	71
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Scoring Opportunity	5.6	128	Redzone S&P+	83.3	123
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	23.1		ACTUAL	25.0	+1.9

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	127	115	112	113
RUSHING	127	124	112	126
PASSING	113	88	106	78
Standard Downs		105	105	101
Passing Downs		121	117	121

Q1 Rk	94	1st Down Rk	106
Q2 Rk	114	2nd Down Rk	101
Q3 Rk	68	3rd Down Rk	109
Q4 Rk	126

6. If you're going to build your defense around turnovers, force turnovers

Total yardage is a stat often cited by analysts and fans. At Houston, it's ignored outright.

"As far as I’m concerned, we can be last in the nation in total defense as long as we’re in the top 20 in scoring defense."

In a lot of ways, Gibbs is a man after my own heart. He has proven adaptable over 20 years, as he moved from ultra-young defensive coordinator to NFL position coach to college DC.

In 1999, Gibbs' Minnesota defense allowed just 16 points per game; his 2005 Auburn allowed 15.5. Realizing that was not conceivable in Texas, Gibbs recalibrated. As Houston DC, he geared around one simple thing: separating the offense from the ball. Instead of aiming to make a huge stop on every set of downs, a Gibbs defense tries to fool the QB into making a single foolish read and hacks at the ball with reckless abandon. To Gibbs, it is worth the risk of giving up extra yards if it means a potential turnover.

If you're going to give up yards like Tech did last year, however, you better get a ton of turnovers. And while the Red Raiders improved -- they went from 1.3 turnovers per game in 2014 to 1.9 -- they didn't improve enough to offset the yardage.

Turnovers are part skill and part luck. Your pass rush, level of aggressiveness in the secondary, and propensity for hacking at the ball before dragging an opponent to the ground can affect your opportunities. You aren't always going to get lucky like Gibbs' 2013 Houston defense did, but you can still create chances. There's an obvious risk-reward balance, and Tech's 2015 unit was completely imbalanced. Forcing 25 turnovers is great, but it doesn't mean much when you're giving up 44 gains of 30-plus yards (worst in FBS).

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	91.5	3.43	3.89	44.8%	76.2%	16.6%	67.8	3.2%	6.9%
Rank	99	126	124	123	111	102	114	109	76

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Pete Robertson	RUSH					12	52.5	6.4%	13.5	5.0	0	2	2	0
Branden Jackson	DE					13	27.5	3.3%	4.5	2.0	0	1	1	0
Demetrius Alston	DT					13	19.0	2.3%	3.5	2.0	0	0	0	0
Breiden Fehoko	DT	6'3, 295	So.	4 stars (5.9)	0.9744	13	15.0	1.8%	4.0	1.0	1	0	0	0
Rika Levi	NT					12	11.5	1.4%	1.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Gary Moore	DE	6'5, 240	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8772	11	11.0	1.3%	4.0	3.0	0	1	0	0
Kris Williams	DE	6'1, 240	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8348	10	8.5	1.0%	0.0	0.0	0	1	0	0
Zach Barnes	RUSH	6'3, 240	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8252	7	7.0	0.8%	0.5	0.5	0	0	0	0
Ondre Pipkins (Michigan)	DT	6'3, 317	Sr.	5 stars (6.1)	0.9707	6	5.5	0.9%%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Keland McElrath	DT					8	4.5	0.5%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	1
Talor Nunez	DE	6'4, 256	Jr.	NR	NR	2	3.0	0.4%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Kolin Hill	RUSH	6'2, 250	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8575
Broderick Washington	NT	6'3, 305	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8361
Lonzell Gilmore	DT	6'3, 250	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7859
Mych Thomas	NT	6'1, 325	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8487
Houston Miller	DE	6'4, 240	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8486
Nick McCann	DT	6'2, 300	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8447
Noah Jones	DE	6'3, 250	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8446

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Micah Awe	MIKE					13	101.5	12.3%	6.5	0.0	0	2	1	0
Dakota Allen	MIKE					12	66.0	8.0%	6.0	0.0	2	1	0	0
D'Vonta Hinton	WILL	5'9, 225	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8389	13	42.5	5.1%	5.5	2.0	0	0	1	0
Malik Jenkins	SAM	6'1, 225	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8144	13	40.0	4.8%	4.0	0.0	0	2	1	0
Sam Atoe	SAM					10	8.5	1.0%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Mike Mitchell	LB					9	5.0	0.6%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	1
Bobby Esiaba	LB					8	3.0	0.4%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Kahlee Woods	SAM	6'1, 225	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8324	13	3.0	0.4%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Luke Stice (Houston)	WILL	6'0, 230	Sr.	NR	NR
Jacarthy Mack	LB	6'2, 197	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8394
Johnathan Picone	MIKE	6'1, 220	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8351
Jordyn Brooks	LB	6'2, 230	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8475
Brayden Stringer	LB	6'2, 205	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8406

7. The good news: It almost literally can't get worse

That Tech's front seven is changing isn't in any way a good thing. The Red Raiders have to replace four of their top five linemen and five of seven linebackers. Change like this rarely results in improvement, and it has to be a concern that last year's defense faded so drastically in the second and fourth quarters -- that suggests depth problems, and now half the two-deep is gone. But at the very least, you can't get much worse than 124th in Rushing S&P+.

Even with the 21 non-sack tackles for loss generated by since-departed linebackers Micah Awe and Dakota Allen and end Pete Robertson, the Red Raiders were too easily pushed to the side up front, allowing more than 200 yards 10 times and more than 300 seven times.

The further development of four-star sophomore Breiden Fehoko is key to Tech's improvement up front. The blue-chipper found a spot in the rotation and led Tech tackles with four tackles for loss, and if he continues to progress toward his ceiling, Tech might be alright. And he could get help from big JUCO transfer Mych Thomas and former Michigan blue-chipper Ondre Pipkins.

Linebacker could be an issue. Dakota Allen was recently dismissed, which means there's a chance that true freshman Johnathan Picone, second on the depth chart after spring ball, could start from day one. Sophomore D'Vonta Hinton and senior Malik Jenkins flashed play-making ability, but when you've got a freshman mike, your ceiling might not be too high for a while.

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
J.J. Gaines	CB					13	66.5	8.1%	4.5	1	4	4	2	0
Jah'Shawn Johnson	S	5'10, 176	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8395	13	65.0	7.9%	4.5	0	2	3	2	2
Tevin Madison	S	5'10, 166	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8291	13	56.5	6.8%	2.5	1	2	11	2	0
Keenon Ward	S	5'9, 200	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8640	12	50.0	6.1%	1.5	0	0	4	0	0
Nigel Bethel II	CB	5'9, 187	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8807	9	39.0	4.7%	0.5	0	1	11	0	0
Justis Nelson	CB	6'2, 180	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8222	13	38.0	4.6%	1	0	2	4	0	0
Thierry Nguema	CB	5'10, 170	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7917	10	25.5	3.1%	0	0	1	3	0	0
Paul Banks III	CB	6'2, 185	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	NR	7	13.5	1.6%	0	0	0	2	0	0
John White	DB					13	10.0	1.2%	0	0	0	0	1	0
Payton Hendrix	S	6'2, 199	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8866	11	7.0	0.8%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Jalen Barnes	DB					5	2.5	0.3%	0	0	0	1	0	0
D.J. Polite-Bray	CB	6'0, 195	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8007
Jamile Johnson	DB	6'0, 210	RSFr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8769
Kevin Moore	DB	6'1, 195	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8472

8. The secondary could be fine, with help

With an effective front seven, a harried secondary might have the weapons to thrive. I really like the hire of cornerbacks coach Karl Scott -- he was the defensive coordinator at Southeastern Louisiana two years ago when the Lions had the most efficient pass defense in FCS and forced 28 turnovers. He inherits an active set of safeties (Jah'Shawn Johnson, Tevin Madison, and Keenon Ward combined for 8.5 TFLs, four INTs, 18 break-ups, and four forced fumbles) and a set of cornerbacks that, at the very least, has experience.

Tech ranked 88th in Passing S&P+, which isn't good but is a lot better than the run defense. There is some potential here, but the DBs need more help than they will probably get.

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Taylor Symmank			33	46.0	4	5	6	33.3%
Michael Barden	5'10, 174	So.	16	44.8	1	4	3	43.8%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
Clayton Hatfield	5'10, 171	So.	70	61.9	31	4	44.3%
Taylor Symmank			37	64.5	27	0	73.0%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Clayton Hatfield	5'10, 171	So.	53-54	11-11	100.0%	3-5	60.0%
Michael Barden	5'10, 174	So.	19-19	2-3	66.7%	0-0	N/A

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Jakeem Grant	KR			39	26.1	2
Tyler Scalzi	KR	6'4, 238	Sr.	5	5.8	0
Cameron Batson	PR	5'9, 173	Jr.	13	6.2	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams S&P+	5
Field Goal Efficiency	27
Punt Return Success Rate	88
Kick Return Success Rate	48
Punt Success Rate	13
Kickoff Success Rate	30

9. A couple of huge losses

Grant was a very good receiver, but he was an even more dangerous return man, not incredibly efficient but all sorts of explosive. Meanwhile, punters Taylor Symmank and Michael Barden were effective, if rarely called-upon. But Grant and Symmank (also a deep kicker on kickoffs) are gone. Barden and place-kicker Michael Hatfield are back, and there are certainly plenty of return-man options from the deep, speedy receiving corps, but it might be difficult for Tech to match last year's top-10 special teams ranking.

2016 Schedule & Projection Factors

2016 Schedule
Date	Opponent	Proj. S&P+ Rk	Proj. Margin	Win Probability
3-Sep	Stephen F. Austin	NR	31.7	97%
10-Sep	at Arizona State	57	-0.6	49%
17-Sep	Louisiana Tech	84	12.5	77%
29-Sep	Kansas	112	22.5	90%
8-Oct	at Kansas State	67	1.0	52%
15-Oct	West Virginia	33	0.8	52%
22-Oct	Oklahoma	4	-11.9	25%
29-Oct	at TCU	31	-6.7	35%
5-Nov	Texas	34	0.8	52%
12-Nov	at Oklahoma State	23	-9.6	29%
19-Nov	at Iowa State	71	1.8	54%
25-Nov	vs. Baylor	13	-9.9	28%
Projected wins: 6.4

Five-Year F/+ Rk	0.3% (58)
2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk	41 / 42
2015 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin*	2 / 3.4
2015 TO Luck/Game	-0.6
Returning Production (Off. / Def.)	74% (76%, 72%)
2015 Second-order wins (difference)	7.0 (0.0)

10. A little defense could turn a lot of games

Even with the worst non-Kansas power-conference defense in the country, Tech won seven games and came within a crazy deflection of beating TCU. And with six games projected within a touchdown, a little bit of defensive improvement in Gibbs' second year could turn a projected 6-6 campaign into 8-4 or better.

Then again, with so many new pieces on offense, the defense might have to improve simply to offset regression.

We've gotten glimpses of what Texas Tech could become under Kingsbury. Indeed, in three years back in Lubbock, his Tech offense has scored at least 34 points 23 times and has beaten good teams like 2013 Arizona State and an awesome 2015 Arkansas. With a few more turnovers and less frequent big opponent gains, there are a lot of wins on the table. But until the D actually proves itself, this is looking like a five- to seven-win year. Mahomes deserves better.