Dana Holgorsen needs a big 2016. Can West Virginia do it?

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. Expectations in a foreign land

West Virginia almost got it right last year. The Mountaineers came out on fire, beating opponents solid (Georgia Southern), mediocre (Maryland) and bad (Liberty) by a combined 130-23. They finished with a win over Texas Tech and romps over Texas, Kansas, and Iowa State. They took a 10-point halftime lead at Kansas State in the regular season finale. They beat Arizona State in the Sun Devils' backyard in a bowl.

For two-thirds of the year, WVU played at a breakthrough level, and the year-end S&P+ rating for Dana Holgorsen's squad was high. The Mountaineers finished 24th in S&P+, their highest rating since ranking first in 2007.

(Yeah, WVU ranked first in 2007 and would have had a chance to win a hypothetical Playoff. Sorry to dredge up bad Backyard Brawl memories out of nowhere, WVU fans.)

From 20,000 feet, this was undeniable progress in Holgorsen's fifth year. His team collapsed in 2013, and he was maybe a little bit lucky to be employed by 2014, but he rebounded that year, then rebounded again.

Unfortunately, the season was 13 games long instead of 8.5. After the 3-0 start, WVU got whipped by Oklahoma, then lost safety Karl Joseph, the heart of the defense, to injury.

In his absence, the defense briefly crumbled, allowing 135 points to Oklahoma State, Baylor, and TCU. WVU lost those games by a combined 61 points. WVU went from great to bad in a heartbeat.

The late-season rally took a hit when, clinging to a 23-17 lead in Manhattan, WVU accidentally kicked a ball to KSU's all-world return man Morgan Burns. The Mountaineers then got stuffed on fourth-and-1 near midfield with less than three minutes left and lost, 24-23, despite outgaining the Wildcats by 143 yards.

West Virginia set the bar high and then failed to clear it, first for a month, then for 30 key minutes.

That can be more frustrating for fans and administrators than simply being mediocre would be. Holgorsen and his squad showed what they were clearly capable of, then lost three games by 20-plus points and blew a double-digit lead.

Maybe it isn't surprising, then, that a few days after the loss to Kansas State, it appeared the school was considering firing Holgorsen. That didn't happen, but it revealed he's under pressure.

It also sparked a conversation about expectations. In WVU's 103 top-division seasons, the Mountaineers have, per S&P+ or Est. S&P+, ranked in the 90th percentile or better eight times, in the 80s 13 times, in the 70s 15 times, and in the 60s 16 times. That's the equivalent of ranking in the top 50 or better every other year and in the top 25 once every four years.

But since 1980, WVU has been in the 60th percentile or better 72 percent of the time and in the 80th or better 31 percent. Don Nehlen's run in Morgantown redefined what could be accomplished, and Rich Rodriguez's 33-5 run from 2005-07 raised the bar even higher.

It's an interesting thought. What should WVU sustain in a conference that requires infinite travel, far removed from the recruiting base, with no nearby rivals? The Mountaineers have won either seven or eight games three times in their four years in the Big 12 and were lucky to win even four in the other year. If Holgorsen can put 2013 further in the rearview and establish a rhythm in the eight-win range, is that enough? If it isn't ... shouldn't it be?

While his offense is experienced and explosive, his defense has to replace key pieces. But if the Mountaineers could put another top-30 product on the field while saving some of their good performances for good opponents, that might go a long way toward earning him a seventh season.

2015 Schedule & Results

Record: 8-5 | Adj. Record: 10-3 | Final F/+ Rk: 31 | Final S&P+ Rk: 24
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Percentile Performance	Win Expectancy	vs. S&P+	Performance vs. Vegas
5-Sep	Georgia Southern	48	44-0	W	100%	100%	+36.0	+24.5
12-Sep	Liberty	N/A	41-17	W	88%	100%	-6.5
26-Sep	Maryland	76	45-6	W	96%	100%	+19.8	+22.0
3-Oct	at Oklahoma	4	24-44	L	20%	0%	-18.0	-13.0
10-Oct	Oklahoma State	40	26-33	L	58%	49%	-23.7	-14.0
17-Oct	at Baylor	14	38-62	L	29%	2%	-24.7	-3.0
29-Oct	at TCU	19	10-40	L	16%	0%	-25.6	-16.0
7-Nov	Texas Tech	60	31-26	W	52%	52%	-9.3	-3.5
14-Nov	Texas	68	38-20	W	71%	91%	-2.9	+9.5
21-Nov	at Kansas	127	49-0	W	97%	100%	+19.8	+21.0
28-Nov	Iowa State	79	30-6	W	94%	100%	+9.6	+10.0
5-Dec	at Kansas State	81	23-24	L	77%	96%	-14.9	-7.5
2-Jan	vs. Arizona State	50	43-42	W	54%	58%	-9.6	0.0

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk
S&P+	34.3	35	22.2	28
Points Per Game	34.0	35	24.6	44

2. A brief stumble wrecked everything

Even with the blown lead at KSU, West Virginia played at about a top-20 level for two-thirds of the season. But October was a truly miserable experience.

• First 3 games:
  Record: 3-0 | Avg. percentile performance: 95% (~top 6) | Yards per play: WVU 6.8, Opp 4.7 (+2.1)
• Next 4 games:
  Record: 0-4 | Avg. percentile performance: 31% (~top 90) | Yards per play: Opp 6.7, WVU 4.7 (-2.0)
• Next 5 games:
  Record: 4-1 | Avg. percentile performance: 78% (~top 30) | Yards per play: WVU 6.0, Opp 4.3 (+1.7)

We can look at this in one of two ways.

1. The combination of getting rocked by OU and losing Joseph led to a funk. It's conceivable. When you suddenly lack for confidence and have to play Baylor and TCU on the road, bad things can happen.

2. Did you notice that the four-game slump happened against the four best teams? It's possible WVU's success was totally dependent on having an athleticism advantage and that, when that advantage didn't exist, the Mountaineers had little to offer.

If you're a WVU fan, you're hoping (1) rings truer than (2). But in such a small-sample season, either or both are possible.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.32	34	IsoPPP+	106.6	47
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	44.2%	38	Succ. Rt. +	103.2	60
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	29.1	53	Def. FP+	27.8	31
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Scoring Opportunity	4.6	54	Redzone S&P+	98.4	79
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	19.8		ACTUAL	22	+2.2

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	23	49	60	47
RUSHING	16	47	54	46
PASSING	42	53	67	48
Standard Downs		50	71	44
Passing Downs		47	42	54

Q1 Rk	67	1st Down Rk	54
Q2 Rk	29	2nd Down Rk	56
Q3 Rk	38	3rd Down Rk	59
Q4 Rk	109

3. Always be closing

WVU's biggest problems came late, either in drives or games. The Mountaineers ranked 79th in Redzone S&P+, settling too frequently for field goals, and even though Josh Lambert was pretty good (17-for-19 inside of 40 yards, 4-for-9 outside), he was still asked to kick 28 field goals.

My colleague Bud Elliott has a theory that close-game records are by a large portion random, but coaching, quarterback play, and place-kicking can sway games in your favor, just as a good bullpen can allow for a somewhat sustainable close-game record in baseball.

I'm all in on this theory; it makes perfect sense. But even if you have a kicker good enough to lean on, you don't want to have to do it.

Let's put it this way: Last year, 15 FBS teams asked their kickers to attempt at least 28 field goals each. They were 35-39 in one-possession games. There is no negative correlation there, but there isn't a positive one either. WVU was ill-served by stalling out in opposition territory.

To say the least, the Mountaineers were also ill-served by dreadful offense in the final 15 minutes of games. Granted, part of this sample includes blowout wins, but not all of it. In the first 45 minutes, quarterback Skyler Howard produced a completion rate of 58 percent, an interception rate of 3.1 percent, and a passer rating of 150.1. Fourth quarter: 41 percent, 4.9 percent, and 73.5, respectively. Yuck.

WVU's offense produced big plays but wasn't nearly efficient enough to succeed at its tempo. That resulted in quick three-and-outs. And when moving chains was a necessity late in games, or when the field shrunk in scoring opportunities, it resulted in incompletions and throwaways.

Efficiency is the goal in 2016. And without running back Wendell Smallwood or inside receiver Jordan Thompson, it might be difficult to improve.

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.
Skyler Howard	6'0, 207	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8532	221	403	3145	26	14	54.8%	31	7.1%	6.8
William Crest Jr.	6'2, 210	So.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8837	11	25	124	0	1	44.0%	1	3.8%	4.2
David Sills	6'4, 204	So.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8711
Chris Chugunov	6'1, 203	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8241
Cody Saunders	6'1, 202	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8479

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Opp.	Opp. Rate	Fumbles	Fum. Lost
Wendell Smallwood	RB					238	1519	9	6.4	4.6	51.3%	2	1
Rushel Shell	RB	5'10, 220	Sr.	4 stars (6.0)	0.9844	161	708	8	4.4	3.5	39.8%	2	1
Skyler Howard	QB	6'0, 207	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8532	126	698	6	5.5	5.5	41.3%	5	3
William Crest Jr.	QB	6'2, 210	So.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8837	19	121	1	6.4	4.6	52.6%	0	0
Elijah Wellman	TE	6'1, 235	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7933	14	73	1	5.2	3.0	57.1%	1	0
Donte Thomas-Williams	RB					14	43	0	3.1	3.2	14.3%	1	0
Jacky Marcellus	RB					8	18	0	2.3	1.4	37.5%	0	0
Justin Crawford	RB	6'0, 200	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8793
Kennedy McKoy	RB	6'0, 201	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8594
Martell Pettaway	RB	5'9, 200	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8721

Receiving Corps

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Target Rate	Yds/ Target	%SD	Success Rate	IsoPPP
Shelton Gibson	WR	5'11, 195	Jr.	4 stars (5.9)	0.9341	80	37	887	46.3%	19.7%	11.1	57.5%	41.2%	2.69
Daikiel Shorts Jr.	IR	6'1, 204	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8317	66	44	511	66.7%	16.3%	7.7	72.7%	57.6%	1.31
Jovon Durante	WR	6'0, 165	So.	4 stars (5.9)	0.9293	55	25	395	45.5%	13.5%	7.2	74.5%	43.6%	1.65
Jordan Thompson	IR					47	32	509	68.1%	11.6%	10.8	48.9%	59.6%	1.62
Wendell Smallwood	RB					34	26	160	76.5%	8.4%	4.7	50.0%	38.2%	0.98
Ka'Raun White	WR	6'1, 198	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7883	26	15	275	57.7%	6.4%	10.6	50.0%	46.2%	1.95
David Sills	QB/WR	6'4, 204	So.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8711	26	7	131	26.9%	6.4%	5.0	61.5%	23.1%	2.14
Rushel Shell	RB	5'10, 220	Sr.	4 stars (6.0)	0.9844	20	16	101	80.0%	4.9%	5.1	60.0%	40.0%	1.22
Gary Jennings	WR	6'2, 207	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8389	13	7	116	53.8%	3.2%	8.9	61.5%	46.2%	1.73
Devonte Mathis	IR	6'1, 220	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8540	12	6	47	50.0%	3.0%	3.9	66.7%	33.3%	1.03
William Crest Jr.	QB	6'2, 210	So.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8837	9	4	29	44.4%	2.2%	3.2	55.6%	33.3%	0.76
Elijah Wellman	HB	6'1, 235	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7933	5	5	16	100.0%	1.2%	3.2	80.0%	60.0%	0.62
Trevon Wesco	HB	6'4, 275	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8255	3	2	8	66.7%	0.7%	2.7	66.7%	66.7%	0.51
Ricky Rogers	WR	6'1, 203	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8742	2	2	51	100.0%	0.5%	25.5	100.0%	100.0%	2.26
Michael Ferns (Michigan)	HB	6'3, 242	So.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9284
Stone Wolfley	HB	6'4, 247	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8705
Steven Smothers	WR	5'9, 154	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.9033
Marcus Simms	WR	6'0, 175	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8585

4. Wanted: efficiency options

Smallwood gained at least five yards on 51 percent of his carries; that made him one of the steadier feature backs in college football. WVU was only decent in short-yardage situations, but Smallwood was an efficiency back for a team desperately in need of one. Second-stringer Rushel Shell found five yards only 40 percent of the time.

Of the 11 players targeted by at least nine passes in 2015, only two had a success rate better than 46 percent: inside receivers Daikiel Shorts Jr. (58 percent) and Thompson (60 percent). Shorts is back, Thompson is not.

It's impossible to overstate how important efficiency can be for a tempo offense. West Virginia ranked seventh in the country in Adj. Tempo, but 41 drives lasted three or fewer plays before a punt or turnover. On nearly one of every four possessions, WVU's defense got off the field only to have to go right back on. That's a tricky combination.

The offensive line is experienced, which could help Shell and new backups like JUCO transfer Justin Crawford be efficient. But WVU's outside receivers are terribly all or nothing -- Shelton Gibson and Jovon Durante: 20.7 yards per catch with only a 46 percent catch rate -- which pressures the inside receivers. It also means quite a few passing downs for Howard.

Holgorsen has stocked up on interesting H-Back candidates (half-fullback, half-tight end), and it could be interesting to see if players like Michigan transfers Michael Ferns, redshirt freshman Stone Wolfley, or rare options Elijah Wellman or Trevon Wesco are featured more frequently. The ability to dump to them for five or six yards could make a huge difference in determining which defense is exhausted late in games.

Offensive Line

Category	Adj. Line Yds	Std. Downs LY/carry	Pass. Downs LY/carry	Opp. Rate	Power Success Rate	Stuff Rate	Adj. Sack Rate	Std. Downs Sack Rt.	Pass. Downs Sack Rt.
Team	113.7	3.31	3.86	45.1%	66.0%	17.1%	91.1	6.9%	9.7%
Rank	14	12	12	8	65	27	76	100	102

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	2015 Starts	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Marquis Lucas	LT					13	30
Tyler Orlosky	C	6'4, 295	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8799	13	29
Adam Pankey	LG	6'5, 316	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8082	12	25
Kyle Bosch	RG	6'5, 308	Jr.	4 stars (5.9)	0.9589	13	15
Marcell Lazard	RT	6'6, 310	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8672	6	6
Yodny Cajuste	LT	6'5, 300	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8506	6	6
Stone Underwood	C					1	2
Tony Matteo	LG	6'4, 300	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8389	1	1
Amanii Brown	C	6'5, 303	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8205	0	1
Sylvester Townes	OL	6'6, 298	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7988	0	0
Grant Lingafelter	RG	6'6, 306	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8169	0	0
Dontae Angus	OL	6'6, 328	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8595	0	0
Matt Jones	OL	6'3, 317	RSFr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8707
Rob Dowdy	LT	6'4, 290	RSFr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8640
Colton McKivitz	RT	6'7, 295	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8202
Craig Smith	OL	6'6, 310	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8156
Josh Sills	OL	6'6, 315	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8450

5. Strength up front

It does appear the line will be solid. The sack rates were higher than you would want last year -- that's another sign of inefficiency -- but some can probably be pinned on Howard. He carried nearly 10 times per game not including sacks, and he was frequently good at it. But the downside to mobility is trusting it too often.

When it came to run blocking, WVU's line passes lots of tests (with help from Smallwood). The Mountaineers ranked eighth in opportunity rate and 27th in stuff rate. They kept a relatively clean backfield, and now they basically return three starters and two half-starters. Marcell Lazard and Yodny Cajuste each started six games as freshmen, and with Cajuste taking over for departed Marquis Lucas at left tackle, this line could end up just as successful.

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.43	118	IsoPPP+	118.0	16
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	34.1%	8	Succ. Rt. +	126.8	4
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	29.8	65	Off. FP+	31.0	41
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Scoring Opportunity	3.7	16	Redzone S&P+	135.8	3
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	26.5		ACTUAL	31.0	+4.5

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	61	9	4	16
RUSHING	51	3	3	13
PASSING	83	22	16	35
Standard Downs		9	4	20
Passing Downs		16	12	20

Q1 Rk	6	1st Down Rk	16
Q2 Rk	19	2nd Down Rk	35
Q3 Rk	42	3rd Down Rk	11
Q4 Rk	4

6. Be! Aggressive! Be! Be! Aggressive!

There's something so appealing about a defense that forces the issue. You can win with a bend-don't-break style -- waiting for a college offense to make a mistake pays off frequently -- but defenses that attack and risk big plays in the name of turnovers and three-and-outs are pleasing to the eye.

Coordinator Tony Gibson's WVU defense, therefore, was all sorts of fun to watch, especially before Joseph's injury. The Mountaineers hit you really hard and took away the thing you wanted to do the most. (In September and November, anyway.)

Adjusting for opponent, WVU prevented big plays reasonably well. The Mountaineers allowed 31 gains of 30-plus yards (90th in FBS), but that was in the Big 12, home of five of the 22 teams with the most 30-yard gains. If you didn't have big-play ability, you had no chance of moving the ball against WVU.

WVU's ability against the run was encouraging. This defense ranked third in Rushing Success Rate+ and returns three of its top four up front. But the line will be thin and under pressure. Outside of the three key returnees, no other returning lineman recorded more than 5.5 tackles last year, and with the top four linebackers and four of the top six defensive backs (plus Joseph) gone, the line could have to cover for some inexperienced moments in the back.

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	110	2.76	3.15	33.6%	64.7%	19.5%	79.3	6.1%	5.0%
Rank	32	44	58	17	57	73	99	29	107

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Kyle Rose	NT					13	42.5	5.5%	5.0	4.0	0	0	0	0
Noble Nwachukwu	DE	6'2, 275	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8429	13	42.0	5.5%	13.0	8.5	0	1	1	0
Christian Brown	DE	6'2, 298	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8509	13	28.5	3.7%	4.5	2.0	0	0	0	0
Darrien Howard	NT	6'1, 297	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8884	13	14.5	1.9%	3.0	1.0	0	1	0	0
Eric Kinsey	DE					12	12.5	1.6%	3.0	0.5	0	1	0	0
Isaiah Bruce	DE					13	11.0	1.4%	1.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Jaleel Fields	NT	6'1, 290	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8312	4	5.5	0.7%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Jon Lewis	DL					6	3.0	0.4%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Larry Jefferson	DE	6'5, 225	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8568
Xavier Pegues	DE	6'2, 282	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8266
Adam Shuler II	DE	6'4, 270	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8492

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Nick Kwiatkoski	SAM					13	74.5	9.7%	10.0	3.0	3	7	1	0
Shaq Petteway	WILL					13	57.0	7.4%	11.5	3.5	0	3	0	0
Jared Barber	MIKE					12	55.5	7.2%	11.0	2.5	0	1	0	1
Edward Muldrow III	WILL					12	24.5	3.2%	3.0	2.0	0	0	0	0
Al-Rasheed Benton	MIKE	6'1, 235	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8707	13	17.5	2.3%	4.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Sean Walters	WILL	6'2, 228	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8227	12	16.5	2.1%	1.0	1.0	0	0	0	0
Xavier Preston	SAM	6'2, 236	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8449	13	14.0	1.8%	3.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Justin Arndt	SAM	5'11, 215	Sr.	NR	NR	13	7.5	1.0%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Hodari Christian	MIKE	6'0, 225	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8526	7	3.0	0.4%	0.0	0.0	0	0	1	0
David Long	WILL	5'11, 225	RSFr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8550
Brendan Ferns	LB	6'3, 220	Fr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9351
Zach Sandwisch	LB	6'2, 210	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8531
Adam Hensley	LB	6'3, 220	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8305

7. Starting over

As solid as the line was, the linebacking corps was a unique source of havoc. Nick Kwiatkoski, Shaq Petteway, and Jared Barber combined for 32.5 tackles for loss, nine sacks, and 14 passes defensed in 2015; WVU didn't make a ton of plays behind the line of scrimmage, but the chaos created by the linebackers resulted in a lot of confused quarterbacks. It also meant a lot of one-yard rushes.

All three starting LBs are gone, as is top backup Edward Muldrow III. The new batch of linebackers could be just as disruptive -- while 17.4 percent of the starters' tackles were TFLs, the average was a nearly identical 16.7 percent for Al-Rasheed Benton, Sean Walters, and Xavier Preston.

Still, these are tough shoes to fill. And if there are any injuries, Gibson might end up fielding a defense that is simply too young and thin to be as efficient as he needs.

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Dravon Askew-Henry	FS	5'11, 198	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9353	13	53.0	6.9%	1	0	1	4	0	0
KJ Dillon	SPUR					13	49.0	6.4%	6.5	0	2	8	0	0
Daryl Worley	CB					12	47.5	6.2%	2	0	6	12	2	0
Terrell Chestnut	CB					12	33.0	4.3%	1	0	3	11	2	0
Jarrod Harper	BS	6'0, 210	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8361	13	32.5	4.2%	3	0	0	4	0	0
Rick Rumph III	CB					12	20.5	2.7%	1	0	0	3	0	0
Jeremy Tyler	BS	5'11, 210	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8212	12	19.5	2.5%	0	0	1	2	1	0
Antonio Crawford (Miami)	CB	5'10, 185	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8406	13	18.0	2.5%	1	1	0	5	1	0
Nana Kyeremeh	CB	5'10, 186	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8382	13	17.5	2.3%	0.5	0	1	1	1	0
Karl Joseph	BS					4	17.5	2.3%	2	1	5	1	0	0
Marvin Gross Jr.	SPUR	6'3, 208	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8514	13	12.5	1.6%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Rasul Douglas	CB	6'2, 208	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8969	11	7.0	0.9%	0	0	1	1	1	0
Khairi Sharif	FS	5'8, 181	Sr.	NR	NR	13	5.5	0.7%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Shane Commodore	BS	6'0, 205	Jr.	NR	NR	5	2.0	0.3%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Jordan Adams	CB	5'11, 175	RSFr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8640
Kevin Williams	S	5'11, 196	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8414
Deamonte Lindsay	SPUR	6'2, 196	RSFr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8192
Kyzir White	SPUR	6'3, 215	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9010
Elijah Battle	CB	6'0, 185	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8342
Toyous Avery	S	5'11, 194	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8093
Jacquez Adams	CB	5'10, 160	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8429
Jake Long	CB	6'0, 180	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8189
Sean Mahone	CB	5'10, 200	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8450

8. So many play-makers gone

It's a similar story in the back. WVU won't lack for experience -- of the eight returnees who played last year, five are seniors and three are juniors (plus, Miami transfer Antonio Crawford is a senior as well) -- but the Mountaineers still must replace a ton of known play-makers. Corners Daryl Worley and Terrell Chestnut combined for nine picks and 23 PBUs, plus four forced fumbles. K.J. Dillon had 6.5 tackles for loss from the SPUR position. Joseph had five interceptions in just four games.

This was a uniquely active secondary, and that's a lot of havoc to replace. Still, it could be worse. Safeties Dravon Askew-Henry and Jarrod Harper are solid, and Crawford and three JUCO transfers (including four-star Kyzir White) join to assure WVU doesn't have to rely on freshmen.

The biggest concern could be that last year's linebackers (Kwiatkoski in particular) were excellent at support in pass defense. Without them, and without as much of a blitzing presence, the DBs will have to cover longer and take fewer risks.

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Nick O'Toole			71	45.4	15	18	21	54.9%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
Nick O'Toole			75	62.0	18	3	24.0%
Mike Molina	5'8, 180	Jr.	7	63.6	3	0	42.9%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Josh Lambert	6'0, 203	Jr.	53-54	17-19	89.5%	4-9	44.4%

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Jovon Durante	KR	6'0, 165	So.	14	22.6	0
Shelton Gibson	KR	5'11, 195	Jr.	11	32.8	1
Gary Jennings	PR	6'2, 207	So.	13	5.3	0
KJ Dillon	PR			8	6.3	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams S&P+	37
Field Goal Efficiency	64
Punt Return Success Rate	90
Kick Return Success Rate	28
Punt Success Rate	28
Kickoff Success Rate	64

9. Decent

Punt returns were an issue, but in most aspects WVU's special teams were perfectly decent -- neither great nor terrible. It's probably more of the same this year, the Mountaineers do lose a strong punter in Nick O'Toole. And opponents would be well-served by making sure kickoffs result in touchbacks instead of returns by Jovon Durante and Shelton Gibson.

2016 Schedule & Projection Factors

2016 Schedule
Date	Opponent	Proj. S&P+ Rk	Proj. Margin	Win Probability
3-Sep	Missouri	47	7.6	67%
10-Sep	Youngstown State	NR	27.3	94%
24-Sep	vs. BYU	35	0.8	52%
1-Oct	Kansas State	67	10.7	73%
15-Oct	at Texas Tech	43	-0.8	48%
22-Oct	TCU	31	3.0	57%
29-Oct	at Oklahoma State	23	-6.9	35%
5-Nov	Kansas	112	25.2	93%
12-Nov	at Texas	34	-3.5	42%
19-Nov	Oklahoma	4	-9.3	30%
26-Nov	at Iowa State	71	4.4	60%
3-Dec	Baylor	13	-3.7	42%
Projected wins: 6.9

Five-Year F/+ Rk	10.3% (46)
2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk	42 / 50
2015 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin*	9 / 6.7
2015 TO Luck/Game	+0.9
Returning Production (Off. / Def.)	62% (86%, 38%)
2015 Second-order wins (difference)	8.5 (-0.5)

10. Questions to answer

WVU relied on a fun but fragile recipe: big plays on offense, efficiency on defense. The former can fail you in its lack of steady chain-moving, and the latter can fail you when the opponent has more big-play guys than you have big-play stoppers.

It will be interesting to see how the recipe changes. Two of WVU's three most efficient offensive weapons are gone, and so many important guys from the linebacking corps and secondary are, too. The defense might have to scale back its intentions, and the offense might still struggle with all-or-nothing drives.

I'm a little shaky about WVU this year. The offense returns a ton of last year's production but might not be any more consistent, and the defense might not be as reliable. That's a bad combination.

A few sustained drives or a few big defensive stops could go a long way. S&P+ gives WVU between a 42 and 57 percent chance -- a virtual tossup -- in five of 12 games and between 35 and 67 in eight. A little improvement could result in nine or 10 wins; a little regression brings 5-7 into view.

It's a big year for Holgorsen's volatile team, and it could go in a lot of directions.