Wake Forest football's goal for 2016: Keep building toward a promising 2017

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. The long road back

That Dave Clawson and his staff were able to maintain a top-40 defense in his first year was a nice sign, but patience is required when it comes to fixing an offense that was almost too awful for words. That they won a game that was scoreless at the end of regulation -- 6-3 over Virginia Tech in double overtime -- is both apt and misleading; usually when your offense is this bad, the defense gives out.

With only four opponents projected worse than 60th (none after October 1), Wake's win total probably isn't going to improve much. But the defense is experienced enough to maintain form, and the offense has almost no choice to progress. If the Deacs can improve into the 70s or 80s this year, they could be positioned to make the Year 3 surge that Clawson patented in his former jobs.

-- 2015 Wake Forest guide

First things first: Wake Forest's win total did not improve in Clawson's second year. In both seasons, the Demon Deacons took down an FCS opponent (Gardner-Webb in 2014, Elon in 2015), Army (by three points each year), and a similarly offensively challenged ACC opponent (Virginia Tech in 2014, Boston College in 2015). That's impressive symmetry.

You had to squint to see any improvement, but it was there. Clawson's Deacs got blown out less and competed better in conference play -- average ACC score in 2014: Opp 30, Wake 12; in 2015: 27-15. After ranking dead last in Off. S&P+ in 2014, Wake improved to a merely bad 107th.

This is the precise definition of "baby steps," something that matters in the grand scheme but doesn't impress many eyeballs. Still, minor improvement means Wake is still on the Clawson timeline.

Clawson's win percentage (Fordham, Richmond, BGSU) by year:

• Year 1: 0.400 (10-25)
• Year 2: 0.389 (14-22)
• Year 3: 0.529 (18-16)
• Year 4: 0.725 (29-11)

Clawson is a methodical builder. In 2014, he stripped Wake's depth chart down to its freshman-and-sophomore foundation. In 2015, he added a new layer of freshman depth. This fall, he'll have his most experienced lineup yet, and there could still be as few as two seniors starting on offense and five on defense. He's keeping unexpected attrition to a minimum and letting guys develop. He's recruiting incrementally better -- per the 247Sports Composite, his signing class ranked 14th in the ACC in 2014, 12th in 2015, and 11th in 2016.

This is a long road with lots of traffic. Clawson's progress could cease at any moment. But he's proven himself a patient driver, one who resists the urge to take fruitless shortcuts.

I would expect Wake Forest to be rewarded for his patience this year. A bowl bid is likely still a year away, but I would expect to see tangible progress in 2016, of the "more good" variety instead of "slightly less bad."

2015 Schedule & Results

Record: 3-9 | Adj. Record: 5-7 | Final F/+ Rk: 92 | Final S&P+ Rk: 92
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Percentile Performance	Win Expectancy	vs. S&P+	Performance vs. Vegas
3-Sep	Elon	N/A	41-3	W	86%	100%	+26.6
12-Sep	at Syracuse	85	17-30	L	40%	25%	-7.6	-8.0
19-Sep	at Army	108	17-14	W	59%	71%	-3.4	-3.0
26-Sep	Indiana	61	24-31	L	35%	13%	-10.1	-3.5
3-Oct	Florida State	12	16-24	L	45%	7%	+23.4	+11.0
10-Oct	at Boston College	70	3-0	W	50%	28%	+16.1	+10.5
17-Oct	at North Carolina	24	14-50	L	15%	0%	-32.0	-19.0
24-Oct	NC State	49	17-35	L	6%	0%	-8.1	-8.5
30-Oct	Louisville	39	19-20	L	52%	26%	+13.3	+10.5
14-Nov	at Notre Dame	7	7-28	L	31%	2%	+8.1	+6.0
21-Nov	at Clemson	2	13-33	L	14%	0%	+16.1	+9.0
28-Nov	Duke	74	21-27	L	66%	55%	+0.4	-2.0

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk
S&P+	22.9	107	27.8	61
Points Per Game	17.4	120	24.6	43

2. Punching your weight

Wake Forest didn't yet have much athleticism to offer against the good teams on the schedule. Because of a plodding tempo and decent defense, the Demon Deacons were able to keep thing respectable against the best teams; Clemson, Notre Dame, and Florida State only beat them by an average of 28-12.

The trip to UNC resulted in a 50-14 disaster, but the Deacs nearly countered with a home upset of Louisville. (That was one of the oddest games of 2015. Wake completed only nine of 30 passes with four interceptions and four sacks, but two were touchdown bombs of 58 and 78 yards.)

Still, this was a team that punched its weight pretty well. If you're adding heft each year, that's not bad.

• Wake Forest vs. F/+ top 60:
  Record: 0-6 | Avg. Percentile Performance: 27% (~top 95) | Yards per play: WF 5.5, Opp 4.6 (+0.9)
• Wake Forest vs. No. 61 and worse:
  Record: 3-3 | Avg. Percentile Performance: 56% (~top 55) | Yards per play: Opp 6.5, WF 4.1 (-2.4)

Tempo did favors for Wake's defense and hid some of the offense's progress. And by "progress" in this case, I basically mean that the Deacs were able to move the ball here and there against bad teams. Hey, that counts. Need I remind you of the title of last year's preview?

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.22	90	IsoPPP+	84.8	113
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	34.7%	119	Succ. Rt. +	89.1	110
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	29.0	48	Def. FP+	27.2	20
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Scoring Opportunity	3.5	118	Redzone S&P+	91.9	106
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	21.4		ACTUAL	24	+2.6

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	114	114	110	113
RUSHING	123	118	114	123
PASSING	60	98	94	96
Standard Downs		113	113	111
Passing Downs		97	78	103

Q1 Rk	119	1st Down Rk	111
Q2 Rk	79	2nd Down Rk	110
Q3 Rk	116	3rd Down Rk	79
Q4 Rk	91

3. Balance doesn't mean rushing and passing for equal yards

Offensive coordinator Warren Ruggiero was handed an impossible task. Ruggiero has been a coordinator at different levels for 20 years and served in the same role for Clawson at Bowling Green.

Ruggiero has proven adaptable, but in 2014 he was handed a set of personnel that had absolutely no chance. His quarterback was a true freshman. His top two running backs were freshmen. He had one experienced lineman and two experienced receivers. And for the most part, these players were not only young, but also less touted as recruits. There was no natural athleticism advantage.

The 2014 was unfathomably bad.

In 2015, it was ... fathomably bad. Progress! There were two new freshmen at tailback, freshmen started 25 games on the offensive line, and there were three freshmen and a sophomore among the top five receivers. We got to see some semblance of an identity.

This fall, all of these recent freshmen and sophomores will be sophomores and juniors.

At BGSU in 2013, Ruggiero's offense was balanced, rushing and passing at normal rates and playing at an average pace. One assumes he's trying to do the same thing, but with a miserable run game and only half-miserable passing game, he was still forced to lean on the pass.

Balance doesn't have to mean running and passing at normal rates, of course. It means being able to do whichever you need to do. Most of all, to me, it means being able to move the ball on standard downs. Passing downs are "somebody please make a play" situations, but on standard downs, you can implement a game plan of realistic ways to move the ball.

Perhaps it's encouraging that Wake was downright mediocre on passing downs (78th in Passing Downs Success Rate+), especially with a sophomore quarterback and a freshman backup throwing the passes. Perhaps it's also encouraging that, per the per-quarter numbers above, Wake improved as a half wore on. Ruggiero was able to find tweaks and adjustments.

But Ruggiero was still unable to find balance on standard downs (113th in Standard Downs Success Rate+). Until he does so, Wake's offense will continue to struggle.

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.
John Wolford	6'1, 200	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8435	142	234	1791	9	11	60.7%	22	8.6%	6.2
Kendall Hinton	6'0, 195	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8528	93	178	929	4	5	52.2%	17	8.7%	4.3
Kyle Kearns	6'2, 195	RSFr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8677
Jamie Newman	6'4, 220	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8585

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Opp.	Opp. Rate	Fumbles	Fum. Lost
Tyler Bell	TB	5'11, 215	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8013	131	446	1	3.4	4.2	24.4%	1	1
Kendall Hinton	QB	6'0, 195	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8528	76	478	7	6.3	5.7	48.7%	4	2
Matt Colburn	TB	5'10, 200	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8321	66	239	1	3.6	4.6	22.7%	1	1
John Wolford	QB	6'1, 200	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8435	51	261	3	5.1	6.2	37.3%	5	1
Isaiah Robinson	TB	5'10, 225	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8308	39	120	0	3.1	3.0	25.6%	0	0
Dezmond Wortham	TB	6'0, 200	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8391	9	21	0	2.3	0.9	22.2%	0	0
Rocky Reid	TB	6'0, 220	RSFr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8643
Cade Carney	RB	5'11, 215	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8457
Arkeem Byrd	RB	6'1, 190	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8453

4. Can anybody here gain five yards?

In 2014, freshmen Isaiah Robinson and Dezmond Wortham took on the lion's share of Wake Forest carries. And in a combined 15 carries per game, they gained five yards on just 22.5 percent of those carries, about 3 per game. That is mind-numbingly awful.

Last fall, things improved! With Robinson and Wortham combining for just 48 carries, a new pair of freshmen -- Tyler Bell and Matt Colburn -- rushed 16 times per game and gained five yards on 24 percent of their carries, about four per game!

Okay, that's still miserable. But quarterback Kendall Hinton, also a freshman last year, was able to add some pop to the run game, producing above-average rates in both efficiency (49 percent opportunity rate) and explosiveness (5.7 highlight yards per opportunity). The problem: He's not a very good passer. Or at least, he wasn't last year. Meanwhile, John Wolford completed a decent 61 percent of his passes but wasn't nearly as efficient (or as frequent) a runner.

The two quarterbacks split reps with the first string in spring practice, and the draw for each is obvious. Wolford has now started for most of two years and was able to mostly improve his averages -- completion rate (from 58 percent to 61), yards per completion (from 9.5 to 12.6), sack rate (from 13 percent to 8.6) -- despite a drastically young receiving corps.

Hinton is a legitimately strong runner, though, and "legitimately strong" is not something you can apply to much of this offense. With a more seasoned line and now four runners who are at least semi-experienced, playing Hinton more might result in something approximating a decent run game. It would just come with an aerial cost.

Receiving Corps

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Target Rate	Yds/ Target	%SD	Success Rate	IsoPPP
Cortez Lewis	WR-X	6'1, 200	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8107	91	47	611	51.6%	23.5%	6.7	51.6%	36.3%	1.76
K.J. Brent	SLOT					78	42	583	53.8%	20.1%	7.5	56.4%	46.2%	1.39
Cam Serigne	TE	6'3, 240	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7938	70	46	562	65.7%	18.0%	8.0	57.1%	47.1%	1.52
Tabari Hines	FL	5'10, 165	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8347	51	32	366	62.7%	13.1%	7.2	52.9%	39.2%	1.77
Chuck Wade	FL	6'0, 195	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8251	47	33	348	70.2%	12.1%	7.4	48.9%	46.8%	1.39
Jared Crump (2014)	WR	6'3, 205	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8162	46	26	280	56.5%	14.4%	6.1	39.1%	N/A	N/A
Tyler Bell	RB	5'11, 215	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8013	24	18	127	75.0%	6.2%	5.3	70.8%	37.5%	1.20
Isaiah Robinson	TB	5'10, 225	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8308	7	6	57	85.7%	1.8%	8.1	42.9%	42.9%	1.58
Alex Bachman	SLOT	6'0, 180	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8035	5	1	8	20.0%	1.3%	1.6	60.0%	20.0%	0.53
Steve Donatell	TE					4	3	31	75.0%	1.0%	7.8	50.0%	75.0%	0.81
Jalen Latter	WR	6'0, 195	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.8086
Devin Pike	TE	6'6, 255	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8422
Nick Luedeke	TE	6'5, 255	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8119
Steven Claude	WR	6'2, 190	RSFr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8631
Scotty Washington	WR	6'5, 215	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8544
Brandon Chapman	TE	6'5, 250	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8432
LaRonde' Liverpool	TE	6'3, 225	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8416
Jeremiah Brown	WR	6'2, 175	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8246

5. A strong 2017 receiving corps

Cortez Lewis averaged a decent 13 yards per catch as a freshman No. 1 target in a major conference. Tight end Cam Serigne averaged 8 yards per target as a sophomore. Two freshman flankers (Tabari Hines, Chuck Wade) combined for a 66 percent catch rate.

None of these stats are incredible, but all are decent considering the level of experience and responsibility. Plus, Wade and redshirt freshman Scotty Washington were standouts in spring ball. Converted cornerback Jalen Latter had his moments in March and April, too.

Of all the names mentioned above, everyone but Latter will be back in 2017, and everyone but Latter and Serigne will be back in 2018. After significant growing pains at both QB and WR, it's not hard to see a good receiving corps emerging here. It just might not happen for another year. But especially if Wolford wins the quarterback job, expect a few more bright spots this fall, even if accompanied by more inconsistency. This unit has a nice combination of size, speed, and variety. It just needs a little more seasoning.

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	99.8	2.5	2.98	30.8%	75.9%	23.2%	69.8	8.8%	9.6%
Rank	73	118	88	125	16	109	114	119	99

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	2015 Starts	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Dylan Intemann	RG					11	39
Josh Harris	C	6'4, 300	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8131	12	24
Tyler Hayworth	LG	6'4, 330	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8191	12	21
Justin Herron	LT	6'5, 310	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8472	12	12
Phil Haynes	RT	6'4, 300	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7859	9	9
A'Lique Terry	C	6'1, 295	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8316	0	7
Ryan Anderson	RT	6'6, 290	So.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7000	4	4
Patrick Osterhage	RG	6'4, 285	So.	2 stars (5.4)	NR	0	0
Cameron Gardner	OL	6'5, 275	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7892	0	0
Taylor Chambers	OL	6'8, 300	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8170	0	0
Nathan Gilliam	OL	6'5, 295	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8519
T.J. Haney	OL	6'6, 315	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8414
Taleni Suhren	OL	6'5, 290	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8615
Je'Vionte' Nash	OL	6'3, 295	Fr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8317

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.31	88	IsoPPP+	104.0	51
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	39.9%	55	Succ. Rt. +	103.2	52
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	26.9	118	Off. FP+	28.0	100
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Scoring Opportunity	4.3	56	Redzone S&P+	110.8	28
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	14.7		ACTUAL	11.0	-3.7

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	38	50	52	51
RUSHING	52	26	35	26
PASSING	32	85	84	84
Standard Downs		56	66	61
Passing Downs		49	44	44

Q1 Rk	81	1st Down Rk	37
Q2 Rk	55	2nd Down Rk	48
Q3 Rk	20	3rd Down Rk	33
Q4 Rk	12

6. Playing into your hands

One benefit to having a bad offense: Opponents might be more inclined to run the ball quite a bit and take fewer offensive risks, especially when they have even the smallest of leads. This worked out pretty well for Wake Forest in 2015 because the Demon Deacons had a stout run defense.

Opponents ran the ball five percent more than average on standard downs and seven percent more on passing downs. Defensive coordinator Mike Elko's defense flowed to the ball well, preventing big-play opportunities while making few plays behind the line.

It's not hard to expect more of the same in 2016. Linebackers Brandon Chubb and Hunter Williams are gone, which could hurt -- they combined for 13.5 non-sack tackles for loss on a defense that could have stood to make a few more TFLs. But with the return of nearly every lineman, plus middle linebacker Marquel Lee, it's fair to assume another strong run defense. The line dealt with a few injuries -- end Duke Ejiofor and tackles Josh Banks and Shelldon Lewinson combined to miss 12 games -- which gave more players reps. That has created a deep line.

The main question, then, is what happens if opponents pass more? In theory, an improved Wake offense could make opponent leads both less frequent and less safe, meaning the Deacs could face more passes after ranking just 85th in Passing S&P+ last year.

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	109.6	2.72	2.91	34.2%	65.5%	19.2%	120.1	5.7%	9.2%
Rank	34	39	39	26	59	80	33	42	30

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Wendell Dunn	DROP	6'3, 250	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8367	12	26.5	4.1%	7.5	1.0	0	0	1	0
Duke Ejiofor	DE	6'4, 270	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8200	7	20.5	3.2%	7.5	4.5	0	0	0	0
Josh Banks	DT	6'4, 280	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8192	9	17.5	2.7%	2.0	1.0	0	0	0	0
Chris Calhoun	DROP	6'4, 240	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8423	12	15.5	2.4%	4.0	0.0	1	1	0	0
Zeek Rodney	NT	6'1, 300	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8735	12	14.5	2.3%	2.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Tylor Harris	DT					12	13.5	2.1%	3.5	1.5	0	2	0	0
Chris Stewart	DT	6'3, 275	So.	2 stars (5.2)	NR	12	12.0	1.9%	1.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Shelldon Lewinson	NT	6'2, 260	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8087	8	10.0	1.6%	0.5	0.5	0	1	0	0
Willie Yarbary	DT	6'2, 280	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8152	12	7.5	1.2%	0.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Julian Jackson	DE	6'4, 240	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7700	11	4.0	0.6%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Ali Lamot	DE	6'2, 275	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8191
Rashawn Shaw	DE	6'3, 245	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8578
Paris Black	DE	6'3, 255	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8420
Elontae Bateman	DT	6'2, 285	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8032
Sulaiman Kamara	DT	6'2, 290	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8797
Emmanuel Walker	DE	6'4, 220	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8504
Zander Zimmer	DE	6'4, 220	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8487

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Brandon Chubb	BUCK					12	79.5	12.4%	8.5	0.5	0	2	0	0
Marquel Lee	MIKE	6'3, 240	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8013	12	54.0	8.4%	10.0	3.0	0	1	0	0
Hunter Williams	ROV					12	46.0	7.2%	7.5	2.0	1	0	0	0
Demetrius Kemp	ROV	6'1, 215	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8210	12	14.5	2.3%	2.0	0.0	1	0	0	0
Grant Dawson	MIKE	6'1, 230	Jr.	NR	NR	12	11.0	1.7%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Jaboree Williams	BUCK	6'0, 235	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8178	12	9.5	1.5%	1.0	0.0	0	1	0	0
Zack Wary	LB	6'4, 230	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8448	8	9.5	1.5%	0.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Teddy Matthews	ROV					12	3.0	0.5%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Kalin McNeil	LB	6'1, 225	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8185	6	2.0	0.3%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Justin Strnad	LB	6'2, 215	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8067
Nate Mays	LB	6'1, 220	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8029

7. The pass rush could be key

How infrequently did opponents pass? Wake Forest ranked 33rd in Adj. Sack Rate but featured just one player with more than three sacks. Ejiofor managed 4.5 in just seven games, which is encouraging. Lee added three more.

The pass rush could be key for what was a reasonably high-risk, high-reward pair of cornerbacks. Brad Watson and Dionte Austin combined for 4.5 TFLs and 23 passes defensed (mostly from Watson) last year. If quarterbacks are under pressure, this duo could thrive.

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Brad Watson	CB	6'0, 200	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8069	12	59.5	9.3%	2.5	1	2	16	1	0
Ryan Janvion	WHIP	5'11, 195	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8116	11	54.0	8.4%	1	0	0	1	1	0
Zach Dancel	STUD					12	50.0	7.8%	3	1	0	2	3	0
Cameron Glenn	WHIP	6'1, 200	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8289	10	31.0	4.8%	0.5	0	1	1	0	0
Thomas Brown	STUD	6'3, 225	Sr.	NR	NR	10	20.0	3.1%	3	2	0	1	0	0
Dionte Austin	CB	6'0, 165	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8675	12	19.0	3.0%	2	1	0	5	0	0
Josh Okonye	S	6'0, 200	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7992	12	13.5	2.1%	1.5	1	0	0	0	0
Devin Gaulden	CB					9	10.5	1.6%	1	0	0	1	0	0
John Armstrong	CB	5'9, 165	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8116
Thomas Dillon	CB	5'10, 175	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8104
Amari Henderson	CB	6'1, 175	RSFr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8256
Jessie Bates	S	6'2, 190	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8129
Traveon Redd	DB	6'0, 190	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8478

8. Now to stop good passing games

When the defense wasn't making a havoc play, QBs were finding plenty of open options. Opponents completed 62 percent of their passes, and since only two of Watson's and Austin's passes defensed were interceptions, that bailed passers out a bit and resulted in some negative turnovers luck for WF.

One other problem: Wake safeties weren't very disruptive. They were decent at cleaning up messes, as evidenced by opponents' 12.2 yards per completion average. But you have to make some plays, too, and they didn't, at least not really.

One other problem: Wake could only really stop bad pass offenses. Against teams ranked outside of the F/+ top 60, the Deacs limited quarterbacks to a 123.8 passer rating -- not amazing, but pretty good. Against top-60 opponents: 150.5. The run defense was good against most, and the pass defense was decent against some.

Experience and continuity will help the pass defense, and Watson is a particularly strong piece. But as the Wake offense improves, the Wake defense will be asked to prove that it has shored up a weakness.

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Alexander Kinal			75	43.8	3	25	27	69.3%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
Mike Weaver	6'1, 195	Jr.	44	62.3	20	2	45.5%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Mike Weaver	6'1, 195	Jr.	24-25	10-12	83.3%	1-6	16.7%

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Chuck Wade	KR	6'0, 195	So.	17	18.5	0
Matt Colburn	KR	5'10, 200	So.	4	16.0	0
Tabari Hines	PR	5'10, 165	So.	23	4.0	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams S&P+	96
Field Goal Efficiency	110
Punt Return Success Rate	106
Kick Return Success Rate	127
Punt Success Rate	12
Kickoff Success Rate	61

9. The one strong piece is gone

A good special teams unit can be such a boon for a rebuilding team. It was not for Wake Forest. The Deacs had one of the least effective return units in the country, and while place-kicker Mike Weaver was decent on kickoffs and fine inside of 40 yards, Wake's offense needed all the help he could get, and Weaver's range ended around the 40-yard mark.

Punter Alexander Kinal, however, was a legitimate strength, particularly for a team that punted so much. Kinal punted more than six times per game and was remarkably consistent. He will be missed, not only because he was good but because the rest of the unit wasn't. Of course, if Weaver is kicking off a bit more, that won't be as much of a problem.

2016 Schedule & Projection Factors

2016 Schedule
Date	Opponent	Proj. S&P+ Rk	Proj. Margin	Win Probability
1-Sep	Tulane	122	18.6	86%
10-Sep	at Duke	51	-7.5	33%
17-Sep	Delaware	NR	33.8	97%
24-Sep	at Indiana	56	-6.8	35%
1-Oct	at N.C. State	40	-10.3	28%
8-Oct	Syracuse	44	-1.7	46%
15-Oct	at Florida State	5	-22.6	10%
29-Oct	Army	124	19.5	87%
5-Nov	Virginia	68	2.2	55%
12-Nov	at Louisville	20	-17.3	16%
19-Nov	Clemson	3	-20.1	12%
26-Nov	Boston College	50	-0.6	49%
Projected wins: 5.5

Five-Year F/+ Rk	-17.0% (96)
2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk	58 / 62
2015 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin*	-13 / -6.7
2015 TO Luck/Game	-2.6
Returning Production (Off. / Def.)	84% (89%, 79%)
2015 Second-order wins (difference)	3.3 (-0.3)

10. Home field advantage

The Clawson Plan is two stagnant years followed by breakthroughs in years three and four. As long as we're defining "breakthrough" conservatively, I see the trend holding here. So does S&P+, which projects a No. 74 ranking and 5.5 wins.

The schedule helps out. Wake's home slate includes visits from Tulane, Delaware, Syracuse, Army, Virginia, and Boston College; the Deacs are given at least a 46 percent chance of winning in each of those games. Go 5-1 and steal a road win somewhere, and you're bowling.

My guess is that the postseason is still another year away, but after a couple of years defined by decent defense and absurdly bad offense, we should get a pretty clear vision of what Clawson is building this year.