Can Pat Fitzgerald take Northwestern from lucky to just plain good?

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. Bad news, good news

Last offseason, I tinkered with a measure called second-order wins. It is basically my version of the Pythagorean Wins concept, where you look at a certain component (usually points or runs scored and allowed) and determine what a team's record probably should be as opposed to what it actually is. If you're losing a ton of close games but winning a bunch of blowouts, that's probably a sign that, on average, you would be faring better than you are.

My second-order wins concept looks at the single-game win expectancy figures you see in the 2015 Schedule & Results chart below. The idea behind win expectancy is simple: It takes the key stats from a given game (success rates, explosiveness, field position factors, and other factors that end up going into the S&P+ ratings), mashes them together, and says, "With these stats, you probably could have expected to win this game X percent of the time." Add those figures up over the course of a season, and you get a glimpse of what a given team probably could have expected its record to be.

I have play-by-play data going back to 2005, which means I have data for 1344 FBS teams. Of these 1344, only 15 have managed to finish with a win total at least 2.5 games above what win expectancy would have expected. Nine, meanwhile, have ended up at least 2.5 wins below. This is a few standard deviations from the norm. It happens about once or twice per season.

It happened three times in 2015: Boston College finished 2.9 wins below expectation, and both Houston and Northwestern finished 2.8 wins above.

What happens next after a season like this is pretty predictable. Here are some examples on the "bad season" side of the ledger:

• 2013 TCU should have won about 7.2 games but went 4-8. The Horned Frogs went 12-1 the next year.
• 2013 Temple should have won about 4.5 games but went 2-10. The Owls went 6-6 the next year.
• 2011 UCF should have won about 7.8 games but went 5-7. The Knights went 10-4 the next year.
• 2010 SJSU should have won about 3.9 games but went 1-11. The Spartans went 5-7 the next year.

It's the same story the other way around.

• 2014 Florida State should have won about 9.5 games but went 13-1. The Seminoles went 10-3 the next year.
• 2013 Oklahoma should have won about 8.4 games but went 11-2. The Sooners went 8-5 the next year.
• 2010 Auburn should have won about 10.9 games but went 14-0. The Tigers went 8-5 the next year.
• 2009 Wyoming should have won about 3.8 games but went 7-6. The Cowboys went 3-9 the next year.

As this is a Northwestern preview, you can probably guess what I'm going to write next: Northwestern had no business going 10-3 last season and will struggle mightily to avoid regression in the win column this coming season.

However ... there are exceptions. On rare occasion, a team will, for lack of a better term, become its record. If you drastically overachieve with a pretty young roster, and most of your key contributors return, there's a chance that natural year-to-year improvement can offset the effects of a second-order regression to the mean.

Call it the Kansas State Exception. In 2011, KSU pulled off what second-order wins would define as one of the least likely seasons of all time; the Wildcats went 10-3 in a really good Big 12 despite ranking just 37th in S&P+. They won eight games by a single possession, and two of their three losses were either semi-competitive (29-16 Arkansas) or disastrous (58-17 Oklahoma).

The next year, KSU won just two one-possession games. But the Wildcats were so stocked and experienced (and to borrow a generic coaching cliché, they so knew how to win) that they became a rather dominant team. They went 11-2, won the Big 12, and finished sixth in S&P+. Their record really didn't improve, but they did, and it offset the effects of any luck they received.

Other teams have seem the same effects. In 2014, for instance, Bowling Green ranked 96th in S&P+ but finished 8-6; the next year, the Falcons got their injured quarterback back, played mostly dominant football in the MAC, rose to 19th in S&P+, and finished 10-4.

This can also become the Northwestern Exception. In 2015, the Wildcats started a redshirt freshman quarterback, gave a sophomore running back 24 carries per game, fielded maybe the most banged up, uncertain offensive line in college football, and dealt with perilous depth in the secondary. That they ranked 56th in S&P+ was almost something of an accomplishment.

In 2016, then, with a far more experienced offense and quite a few returning components from an awesome defense, they should absolutely improve from a ratings perspective. Maybe they don't pull off a Kansas Statian level of improvement, but perhaps the increased experience, combined with the leadership of one of the best close-game coaches in football (through 10 years on the job, Pat Fitzgerald is now 34-21 in games decided by one possession), will lead to a pretty soft landing.

2015 Schedule & Results

Record: 10-3 | Adj. Record: 10-3 | Final F/+ Rk: 52 | Final S&P+ Rk: 56
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Percentile Performance	Win Expectancy	vs. S&P+	Performance vs. Vegas
5-Sep	Stanford	6	16-6	W	82%	71%	+20.0	+22.0
12-Sep	Eastern Illinois	N/A	41-0	W	96%	100%	+16.9
19-Sep	at Duke	74	19-10	W	53%	30%	+16.6	+12.5
26-Sep	Ball State	110	24-19	W	52%	63%	-12.2	-14.5
3-Oct	Minnesota	55	27-0	W	94%	100%	+26.8	+22.5
10-Oct	at Michigan	8	0-38	L	10%	0%	-23.3	-30.5
17-Oct	Iowa	38	10-40	L	16%	0%	-35.8	-27.5
24-Oct	at Nebraska	36	30-28	W	73%	73%	+8.0	+9.5
7-Nov	Penn State	47	23-21	W	59%	43%	+3.6	-0.5
14-Nov	Purdue	93	21-14	W	55%	63%	-7.5	-9.0
21-Nov	at Wisconsin	32	13-7	W	87%	87%	+17.1	+16.0
28-Nov	vs. Illinois	65	24-14	W	79%	88%	+8.4	+6.5
1-Jan	vs. Tennessee	18	6-45	L	12%	0%	-34.3	-31.0

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk
S&P+	21.0	111	15.5	5
Points Per Game	19.5	114	18.6	12

2. Three duds

I got yelled at a lot by Northwestern fans last year for what S&P+ thought of the Wildcats. And to be sure, NU's 2015 season perfectly illustrated the difference between your résumé and your stats. Northwestern went 10-2 and beat eventual Pac-12 champion Stanford; if you're looking at things with an RPI-style lens -- who did you play, and what was your record? -- this was great.

From a play-by-play perspective, though, obvious holes emerged. Win expectancy said the Wildcats had only a 30 percent chance of winning the game against Duke, but they did. They had only a 43 percent chance of beating Penn State, but they did. The ratings aren't going to be very impressed with that, and the ratings really aren't going to be impressed with losing three games by a combined score of 123-16.

When it didn't work for Northwestern, it really didn't work.

• Northwestern vs. top 40:
  Record: 3-3 | Average percentile performance: 47% (~top 70) | Yards per play: Opp 4.8, NU 3.7 (-1.1)
• Northwestern vs. everybody else:
  Record: 7-0 | Average percentile performance: 70% (~top 40) | Yards per play: NU 5.0, Opp 4.3 (+0.7)

And when you look at averages instead of record, you certainly start to understand how Northwestern finished just 56th in S&P+.

Again, though, when you look at the youth and injuries NU was dealing with, of course the Wildcats produced a mediocre rating. That can change.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.21	93	IsoPPP+	86.0	112
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	34.2%	124	Succ. Rt. +	87.4	113
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	31.0	94	Def. FP+	28.2	42
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Scoring Opportunity	3.5	121	Redzone S&P+	84.8	118
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	21.0		ACTUAL	20	-1.0

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	116	113	113	112
RUSHING	42	99	107	73
PASSING	120	113	110	117
Standard Downs		115	116	110
Passing Downs		98	90	100

Q1 Rk	110	1st Down Rk	109
Q2 Rk	111	2nd Down Rk	117
Q3 Rk	92	3rd Down Rk	114
Q4 Rk	119

3. Bad, with reason

It wasn't too long ago that Northwestern's offense was efficient and dangerous. The Wildcats ranked in the Off. S&P+ top 50 each year from 2010-12, and that allowed them to go 23-16 in that span despite a surprisingly iffy defense.

Since 2012, the defense has improved, and the offense has fallen apart. NU was 76th in Off. S&P+ in 2013 and 111th in both 2014 and 2015.

I guess you could say that it's a good sign that Northwestern didn't actually regress offensively last year. Freshman quarterback Clayton Thorson struggled drastically for most of the year, and the line protecting him was fielding a different lineup almost every single week.

Longtime offensive coordinator Mick McCall, who has overseen this attack since 2008 had to realize exactly how limited his personnel was and went into full-fledged "protect the defense" mode. After passing more frequently than the national average on both standard and passing downs in 2014 (when senior quarterback Trevor Siemian was behind center), Northwestern skewed run-heavy. Granted, the Wildcats continued to play at a pretty fast tempo, which is not the correct answer on the Protecting Your Defense 101 final exam, but NU's 2015 offense was built around taking the fewest possible chances.

In 2016, the excuses dry up. Every running back is back, and rushing the ball a lot should probably still be the preferred approach, but with a healthier, far more experienced line, the ceiling for the ground game should be higher. And ... goodness, if Thorson doesn't improve, surely someone else on the roster is better? He was really unsuccessful last year, even by freshman standards. His 95.9 passer rating was about as bad as you'll ever see from a full-year starter, and if you take out the Eastern Illinois and Ball State games, the rating sinks to 84.1.

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.

Clayton Thorson

6'4, 220

So.

4 stars (5.9)

0.9218

150

295

1522

7

9

50.8%

21

6.6%

4.4

Zack Oliver

23

53

267

1

4

43.4%

6

10.2%

4.0

Matt Alviti

6'0, 200

Jr.

4 stars (5.8)

0.9114

Lloyd Yates

6'2, 195

RSFr.

3 stars (5.5)

0.8169

TJ Green

6'2, 190

RSFr.

NR

NR

Aidan Smith

6'2, 200

Fr.

3 stars (5.7)

0.8568

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Opp.	Opp. Rate	Fumbles	Fum. Lost
Justin Jackson	RB	5'11, 190	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9284	313	1418	5	4.5	4.4	33.2%	4	2
Clayton Thorson	QB	6'4, 220	So.	4 stars (5.9)	0.9218	79	542	5	6.9	7.6	44.3%	9	3
Warren Long	RB	6'0, 210	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8210	60	329	5	5.5	7.7	31.7%	0	0
Solomon Vault	WR	5'10, 190	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8394	56	159	0	2.8	2.6	30.4%	1	1
Auston Anderson	RB	5'9, 180	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8681	13	56	0	4.3	6.4	30.8%	1	1
Jelani Roberts	WR	5'8, 160	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8184	10	36	0	3.6	2.4	60.0%	1	0
Corey Acker	WR	5'9, 170	Jr.	NR	NR	8	82	0	10.3	8.3	62.5%	0	0
Tom Hruby	LB	6'3, 240	Sr.	NR	NR	8	25	0	3.1	1.3	37.5%	1	0
John Moten IV	RB	6'0, 190	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8539
Jeremy Larkin	RB	5'10, 175	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8738

4. Durability is a skill

The only strength the offense seemed to have was Justin Jackson's ability to carry the ball 24 times per game. Most of those carries didn't really go anywhere, but he was able to stand up and take another carry.

The only time Jackson got a break was when Northwestern was losing big. In the Wildcats' three blowout losses, he averaged just 12 carries for 43 yards per game (3.6 per carry). In wins, he didn't dominate, but he was able to grind out about 28 carries for 129 yards per game (4.7). The defense was good enough to control the game, and Jackson was used to move the chains just enough to give the D a breather.

To say the least, leaning on a low-efficiency run game with minimal explosiveness gives you almost no margin for error. And when it didn't work (against Iowa, Michigan, and Tennessee), there was no Plan B.

For Northwestern to improve enough to offset what should be some significant second-order regression to the mean, the offense will have to produce a lot more options. That probably means more opportunities for explosive backup Warren Long and more effective utilization of Solomon Vault, a WR-turned-RB-turned-WR who averaged just 2.8 yards per carry and 4.5 yards per target.

It also means some new receivers have to step up quickly. Superback Dan Vitale and two of the top three wideouts are gone, and while none had any sort of reliable rapport with Thorson (combined: 49 percent catch rate, 40 percent success rate), they were still seen as better options than the backups. And now the backups are in charge. Can players like superback Garrett Dickerson, slot receiver Flynn Nagel and maybe a youngster like Charlie Fessler not only replicate the production of last year's seniors, but exceed it? The bar isn't very high, at least.

Receiving Corps

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Target Rate	Yds/ Target	%SD	Success Rate	IsoPPP
Dan Vitale	SUPER					64	33	355	51.6%	19.4%	5.5	64.1%	39.1%	1.31
Christian Jones	WR					49	23	234	46.9%	14.8%	4.8	40.8%	44.9%	0.91
Mike McHugh	WR	6'3, 195	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8013	32	16	160	50.0%	9.7%	5.0	56.3%	31.2%	1.49
Miles Shuler	WR					31	15	149	48.4%	9.4%	4.8	54.8%	32.3%	1.23
Justin Jackson	RB	5'11, 190	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9284	28	21	162	75.0%	8.5%	5.8	57.1%	32.1%	1.68
Austin Carr	WR	6'1, 195	Sr.	NR	NR	25	16	302	64.0%	7.6%	12.1	36.0%	56.0%	1.95
Garrett Dickerson	SUPER	6'3, 245	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9122	21	12	124	57.1%	6.4%	5.9	71.4%	52.4%	1.05
Solomon Vault	WR	5'10, 190	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8394	21	11	95	52.4%	6.4%	4.5	38.1%	28.6%	1.34
Cameron Dickerson	WR					15	5	38	33.3%	4.5%	2.5	26.7%	20.0%	0.96
Jelani Roberts	WR	5'8, 160	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8184	10	8	48	80.0%	3.0%	4.8	80.0%	40.0%	0.96
Flynn Nagel	SLOT	5'11, 190	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8640	8	4	47	50.0%	2.4%	5.9	25.0%	37.5%	1.63
Macan Wilson	WR	6'0, 180	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8056	2	0	0	0.0%	0.6%	0.0	100.0%	0.0%	0.00
Andrew Scanlan	WR	6'2, 215	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8215
Marcus McShepard	WR	5'11, 200	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8282
Jayme Taylor	SUPER	6'4, 230	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8201
Cameron Green	SLOT	6'3, 210	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8535
Charlie Fessler	WR	6'4, 205	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8448
Steven Reese	WR	6'2, 190	RSFr.	NR	0.8143
Ben Skowronk	WR	6'4, 205	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8528
Riley Lees	WR	6'0, 185	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8506

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	97.3	2.74	3.02	35.2%	58.7%	21.1%	77.1	8.2%	7.1%
Rank	84	90	85	106	110	89	102	116	59

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	2015 Starts	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Geoff Mogus	LT					8	31
Matt Frazier	RG					9	25
Eric Olson	RT	6'6, 295	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8488	12	22
Ian Park	RG	6'4, 305	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8479	9	17
Blake Hance	LT	6'5, 300	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8538	8	8
Shane Mertz	RG	6'8, 310	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8425	7	7
Connor Mahoney	LG	6'4, 290	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8208	6	6
Brad North	C	6'2, 290	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8510	5	5
Adam DePietro	RT					1	2
Tommy Doles	LT	6'6, 280	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8532	0	0
J.B. Butler	RG	6'3, 305	So.	2 stars (5.4)	NR	0	0
Sam Coverdale	LG	6'7, 305	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8544	0	0
Ben Oxley	RT	6'6, 285	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8528	0	0
Jared Thomas	LG	6'4, 275	RSFr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8615
Adam Lemke-Bell	LT	6'5, 270	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8519
Andrew Otterman	LG	6'5, 295	RSFr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8215
Cam Kolwich	OL	6'4, 265	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8529
Nik Urban	OL	6'3, 270	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8522

5. Continuity? What's that?

Each year, we see a few offensive lines get completely wrecked by injury and constant shuffling. Northwestern certainly fell into that category in 2015. The Wildcats started nine different linemen and changed OL starting lineups seven times, and not a single player started all 13 games. Only one started more than nine.

No line will succeed under these circumstances, especially a year after losing three two-year starters from an already shaky line.

The good news: Six players return after starting at least five games last year, including four seniors. Plus, a couple of well-touted redshirt freshmen could enter the rotation. Experience is solid, and upside might be a little higher. So if the Wildcats can keep the same five guys on the field for most of the time, they could develop into at least an average unit.

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.14	15	IsoPPP+	122.3	12
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	35.7%	18	Succ. Rt. +	118.0	11
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	27.7	112	Off. FP+	30.5	53
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Scoring Opportunity	3.3	3	Redzone S&P+	114.2	23
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	23.6		ACTUAL	21.0	-2.6

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	13	11	11	12
RUSHING	21	22	33	19
PASSING	23	9	5	11
Standard Downs		21	36	13
Passing Downs		10	6	13

Q1 Rk	34	1st Down Rk	13
Q2 Rk	4	2nd Down Rk	11
Q3 Rk	23	3rd Down Rk	22
Q4 Rk	42

6. Opponents played into their hands

The Northwestern defense clicked in 2015. The Wildcats improved on run defense and flipped an average pass defense into one of the best in the country. And even in blowout losses, the defense wasn't to blame. Nationally, teams averaged about 5.8 yards per play; NU allowed just 5.5 while losing 38-0 to Michigan and 5.1 while losing 45-6 to Tennessee. Only Iowa was able to put up above-average yardage.

How did Northwestern's defense go from solid to spectacular in one year? Up front, a well-seasoned defensive line took a step up; meanwhile, middle linebacker Anthony Walker moved straight from being an exciting freshman to one of the best linebackers in the country. And an experienced secondary went from dominating bad passing offenses to dominating all of them. Michigan was the only team all year to produce a passer rating better than 115; the best way to counter having a bad passing offense is making sure your opponent's is just as bad.

Opponents still found the thought of passing more appealing than trying to run the ball. Northwestern's ability to generate leads played a role in that -- you're obviously more likely to throw when you're behind -- but only so much. This was the rare instance where opponents really seemed to play into Northwestern's hands. And the only offense to really do well against this defense did so on the ground: Iowa running back Akrum Wadley rushed 26 times for 204 yards.

The balance might shift back in favor of the run defense this year. Two strong ends (Dean Lowry and Deonte Gibson) have departed, but the tackle position is stocked, and Walker is back to again wreck shop in the middle. Meanwhile, four of the top seven in the secondary are gone, including two of the five who took most of the snaps.

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	111.6	2.45	3.50	34.0%	78.0%	20.6%	111.2	5.6%	5.5%
Rank	26	12	93	23	116	53	45	46	98

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Dean Lowry	DE					13	41.5	6.0%	13.5	3.0	1	6	0	1
Deonte Gibson	DE					13	29.0	4.2%	12.5	9.0	0	0	0	0
Tyler Lancaster	DT	6'3, 300	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8748	13	25.5	3.7%	5.5	1.5	0	2	2	0
Ifeadi Odenigbo	DE	6'3, 250	Sr.	4 stars (5.9)	0.9680	12	15.5	2.2%	5.0	5.0	0	0	0	0
Xavier Washington	DE	6'1, 235	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8015	13	12.0	1.7%	3.5	1.0	0	1	0	0
Jordan Thompson	DT	6'3, 275	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8776	13	11.0	1.6%	0.5	0.0	0	1	0	0
C.J. Robbins	DT	6'5, 300	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7600	12	11.0	1.6%	0.0	0.0	0	1	0	0
Greg Kuhar	DT	6'3, 305	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8590	11	8.0	1.2%	0.0	0.0	0	1	0	0
Max Chapman	DT					13	3.0	0.4%	1.5	1.5	0	1	0	0
Ben Oxley	DT					5	1.5	0.2%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Fred Wyatt	DL	6'4, 270	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8504
Joe Gaziano	DE	6'4, 255	RSFr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8643
Trent Goens	DE	6'3, 250	RSFr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8590
Tommy Carnifax	DE	6'4, 250	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8599
Jake Saunders	DT	6'3, 275	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8466
Alex Miller	DT	6'3, 260	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8030

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Anthony Walker	MIKE	6'1, 235	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8519	13	91.5	13.2%	20.5	4.0	1	4	1	2
Drew Smith	SAM					13	47.0	6.8%	10.5	2.0	0	1	1	0
Nate Hall	WILL	6'2, 230	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8216	13	41.5	6.0%	2.5	0.0	0	2	0	0
Jaylen Prater	SAM	6'0, 230	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8054	9	35.5	5.1%	1.0	1.0	0	1	0	0
Joseph Jones	SAM	6'1, 225	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8270	13	16.0	2.3%	2.0	1.0	0	0	0	0
Cameron Queiro	MIKE	6'1, 225	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8304	13	6.5	0.9%	1.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Brett Walsh	WILL	6'1, 225	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8285
Nathan Fox	MIKE	6'2, 245	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8585
Simba Short	SAM	6'2, 210	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8539
Tommy Vitale	WILL	6'3, 220	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8503
Jango Glackin	LB	6'2, 205	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8547

7. No simple tackling machine

Anthony Walker was a perfectly decent recruit in the class of 2013. Given a mid-three-star rating, he graded out 61st among OLBs per the 247Sports Composite. Guys in that recruiting range can develop into strong contributors and leaders on solid defenses. Walker has done just a little more than that.

After a solid redshirt freshman campaign in 2014 (nine tackles for loss, five passes defensed) Walker exploded last fall, not only generating the type of tackle totals you often see from the middle linebacker position, but also creating havoc. Only two linebackers made more tackles for loss in 2015 -- Louisville's Devonte Fields and Arizona State's Antonio Longino -- and they both did so from attacking positions.

Walker was the best of all worlds, and he returns this fall. He'll be asked to do quite a bit as Northwestern attempts to replace quite a few attackers -- ends Lowry and Gibson, SAM linebacker Drew Smith -- but with how his career has developed so far, he'll probably succeed. And players like ends Ifeadi Odenigbo and Xavier Washington and SAMs Jaylen Prater and Joe Jones should be able to produce enough to keep attention off of him.

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Godwin Igwebuike	S	6'0, 200	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8788	13	69.0	10.0%	4.5	0	0	5	1	0
Traveon Henry	S					12	61.0	8.8%	3	1	2	4	0	0
Matthew Harris	CB	5'11, 180	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8268	11	39.0	5.6%	1	0	4	13	1	0
Keith Watkins II	CB	5'11, 180	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8513	12	35.0	5.1%	1	0	0	6	0	0
Nick VanHoose	CB					12	34.5	5.0%	1	0	3	12	1	0
Marcus McShepard	CB					13	11.0	1.6%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Terrance Brown	S					8	6.5	0.9%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Kyle Queiro	S	6'3, 200	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8503	5	6.5	0.9%	0	0	1	0	0	0
Jared McGee	S	6'1, 215	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7885	5	4.0	0.6%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Montre Hartage	CB	6'0, 180	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7959	13	3.5	0.5%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Parrker Westphal	S	6'1, 190	So.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9379
Trae Williams	CB	5'11, 200	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8345
Alonzo Mayo	CB	5'11, 170	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8060
Jake Murray	S	6'3, 200	RSFr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7989
Roderick Campbell	CB	6'0, 180	Fr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8677

8. A test of depth in the back

Despite only two regulars playing all 13 games, the Northwestern secondary was spectacular. The Wildcats leveraged opponents into pass-heavy situations, and the secondary did the rest.

That three of five regulars return is a sign that the pass defense might only slip so far, if at all. Corners Matthew Harris and Keith Watkins II are exciting, and safety Godwin Igwebuike, like Walker, went from intriguing to all-conference-caliber in his sophomore year.

But everybody else is gone. Less proven players like safety Kyle Queiro (who missed most of last year with an arm injury) and sophomores Jared McGee and Montre Hartage will have to play larger roles. And if former four-star recruit Parrker Westphal wants to start living up to his recruiting hype, all the better.

You have to figure the pass defense regresses a bit, simply because of how good it was last year. It's hard to maintain that level, but Northwestern will have a chance.

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Hunter Niswander	6'5, 235	Jr.	85	38.0	2	30	21	60.0%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
Matt Micucci	5'11, 185	Sr.	32	57.5	7	1	21.9%
Jack Mitchell	6'3, 210	Sr.	26	61.3	13	0	50.0%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Jack Mitchell	6'3, 210	Sr.	25-28	16-19	84.2%	2-8	25.0%
Arthur Omilian			1-1	0-0	N/A	0-0	N/A

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Solomon Vault	KR	5'10, 190	Jr.	25	26.3	2
Miles Shuler	KR			4	23.3	0
Miles Shuler	PR			11	10.0	0
Flynn Nagel	PR	5'11, 190	So.	2	-1.0	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams S&P+	115
Field Goal Efficiency	108
Punt Return Success Rate	116
Kick Return Success Rate	69
Punt Success Rate	82
Kickoff Success Rate	104

9. 10 wins despite injuries, youth, and bad special teams

As I've mentioned before, my colleague Bud Elliott has espoused a theory that while close games are frequently decided by luck and randomness, you can shift the odds a bit in your favor with the combination of coaching, quarterback play, and place-kicking/special teams. Northwestern won 10 games despite the latter two. Solomon Vault was explosive, if relatively all-or-nothing in kick returns, but that was basically the only strength. NU sacrificed field position with short punts and kickoffs, and Jack Mitchell was below average in terms of place-kicking.

Everybody's back, which means this probably won't be worse. But it might not be better.

2016 Schedule & Projection Factors

2016 Schedule
Date	Opponent	Proj. S&P+ Rk	Proj. Margin	Win Probability
3-Sep	Western Michigan	65	6.1	64%
10-Sep	Illinois State	NR	23.3	91%
17-Sep	Duke	51	4.1	59%
24-Sep	Nebraska	26	-2.9	43%
1-Oct	at Iowa	38	-6.5	35%
15-Oct	at Michigan State	22	-11.9	25%
22-Oct	Indiana	56	4.8	61%
29-Oct	at Ohio State	14	-14.7	20%
5-Nov	Wisconsin	37	0.4	51%
12-Nov	at Purdue	88	4.7	61%
19-Nov	at Minnesota	42	-5.4	38%
26-Nov	Illinois	76	8.2	68%
Projected wins: 6.2

Five-Year F/+ Rk	4.1% (54)
2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk	46 / 43
2015 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin*	1 / 2.6
2015 TO Luck/Game	-0.7
Returning Production (Off. / Def.)	63% (68%, 58%)
2015 Second-order wins (difference)	7.2 (2.8)

10. Lucky, then good?

The Wildcats are also projected to win just six games, which would mark massive regression. This obviously sets strange expectations for Northwestern in 2016.

Honestly, I think stability on the offensive line could push Northwestern toward the top 40, and Fitzgerald's in-game coaching will probably result in an extra half-win or win on top of the projection. With what the Wildcats return, I would be surprised if they fell all the way to six wins. But that will be dependent on how well they play at home.

Northwestern plays six FBS opponents at home this year, and S&P+ gives the Wildcats between a 43 and 68 percent chance of winning in each game. Go 5-1 or 6-0 in these relative tossups, and the Wildcats could become a factor in the Big Ten West race despite a rough road slate (Iowa, Michigan State, Ohio State).

That might be too much to ask, but who knows? Maybe randomness will be the Wildcats' friend again in 2016.