Nebraska can be a Big Ten West contender if it makes 1 fewer mistake per game

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. First impressions

In Mike Riley, Nebraska elected to bring in a guy who a) is the opposite of Pelini in demeanor and b) only won more than nine games once in 14 years at Oregon State.

The minuses and pluses (he won 70 games in 10 years at Oregon State; just think of what he could do at a bigger program) of his hire were evident, and that makes it difficult to know what to expect. His friendly grandpa carriage means he will earn a level of goodwill that Pelini never did, and perhaps that means that on-the-field bar won't be as high.

Then again, Solich was a super-nice guy. He got dumped after averaging 9.7 wins.

It was easy to see what Nebraska AD Shawn Eichorst saw in Riley. Pelini was a fiery coach who always won, but never won quite enough. His win percentage (.713) was very close to Frank Solich's (.753), and Solich got fired. It was probably going to happen at some point regardless. Winning nine games each year doesn't keep you gainfully employed in Lincoln forever.

But Pelini's demeanor betrayed him quite a few times, and when he left, there was a natural desire to replace him with his temperamental opposite. Riley is exactly that. And as a head coach at three different levels (NFL, CFL, college football), he's now won 153 career games. Not bad. He was guaranteed to win the 2015 offseason, going on a statewide glad-handing tour and showing everybody just how good a guy he seems to be.

But then the games started, and Nebraska finished below .500 for just the third time in 54 years. Despite solid experience on both sides of the ball, the Huskers fell from 28th to 36th in Off. S&P+ and from 46th to 57th in Def. S&P+.

They got creative in the ways they figured out how to lose close games.

• Against BYU, they lost via Hail Mary.
• Against Miami, they pulled off a fierce fourth-quarter comeback, then fell in overtime.
• Against Illinois, they blew a 13-0 lead in the fourth quarter and gave up the game-winning TD with 10 seconds left.
• Against Wisconsin, they took a 21-20 lead with under four minutes left but allowed a 46-yard field goal with four seconds left.
• Against Northwestern, they failed on a two-point conversion that would have tied the game with four minutes left, then allowed a bad offense to run out the final minutes.
• Against Purdue, they allowed three touchdowns in five minutes to turn a 21-16 deficit into 42-16, then once again failed to make stops during a mad comeback in a 55-45 loss.
• Against Iowa, they outgained the undefeated Hawkeyes by 183 yards but threw a pick six (and three other interceptions) and allowed the Hawkeyes to score TDs in each of their three scoring opportunities in a 28-20 loss.

That's a spectacular, diverse set of failures. The Huskers were the anti-Iowa, figuring out ways to lose games they were well-positioned to win. On paper, the Huskers and Hawkeyes were very similar. But Nebraska ended up with half the wins.

That's the bad news. The good news is that, even though there were moments of good luck, too (the Michigan State win in particular), this level of misfortune will be almost impossible to replicate. When you win games by an average of 16 points and lose by an average of four, that means your record probably doesn't quite reflect your quality.

S&P+ likes the Huskers quite a bit, and if the bad bounces turn into good bounces, NU could be in store for a whale of a season. The Huskers might even win nine games!

This is Bill C's daily preview series, working its way through every 2016 team. Catch up on the Big Ten so far!

2015 Schedule & Results

Record: 6-7 | Adj. Record: 7-6 | Final F/+ Rk: 36 | Final S&P+ Rk: 48
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Percentile Performance	Win Expectancy	vs. S&P+	Performance vs. Vegas
5-Sep	BYU	35	28-33	L	50%	23%	-9.1	-12.0
12-Sep	South Alabama	102	48-9	W	94%	100%	+12.3	+12.0
19-Sep	at Miami-FL	62	33-36	L	33%	10%	+0.6	+0.5
26-Sep	Southern Miss	56	36-28	W	89%	91%	-15.6	-14.0
3-Oct	at Illinois	65	13-14	L	46%	32%	+8.9	+6.0
10-Oct	Wisconsin	32	21-23	L	69%	51%	0.0	-3.0
17-Oct	at Minnesota	55	48-25	W	86%	96%	+29.2	+25.0
24-Oct	Northwestern	52	28-30	L	44%	27%	-8.0	-9.5
31-Oct	at Purdue	93	45-55	L	14%	3%	-20.1	-20.5
7-Nov	Michigan State	9	39-38	W	72%	66%	+6.1	+7.0
14-Nov	at Rutgers	101	31-14	W	90%	100%	+4.4	+7.5
27-Nov	Iowa	38	20-28	L	45%	15%	-7.3	-6.5
26-Dec	vs. UCLA	28	37-29	W	74%	63%	+13.5	+15.0

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk
S&P+	34.1	36	27.0	57
Points Per Game	32.8	43	27.8	76

2. A different team every week

Nebraska's performance was all over the map. The Huskers took on the profile of a super-young team, playing poorly one week, well the next, back and forth, all year. In terms of single-game percentile performances, they hit the 86 percent or better mark (~top 20 caliber) four times and fell below 50 percent (top 65 or worse) five times.

If you're a super-young team, this makes sense. It can even be a hint at the ceiling to come. But was Nebraska really that young? The Huskers had a second-year starter at quarterback, juniors and seniors atop the depth chart in the skill positions and on the offensive and defensive lines, and mostly juniors and seniors in the secondary. They were dealing with a coaching change, but this is the level of experience you strive for.

This season, Nebraska could start as many as eight seniors on offense and four or five on defense. There are questions at quarterback (Tommy Armstrong Jr. has a bit of an interceptions problem) and in the trenches, but this team is too experienced to be so up and down. Either it gets rectified, or it reflects very poorly on Riley and his staff.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.30	47	IsoPPP+	118.5	21
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	42.6%	56	Succ. Rt. +	110.2	30
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	30.5	86	Def. FP+	29.9	71
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Scoring Opportunity	4.5	58	Redzone S&P+	112.4	29
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	19.9		ACTUAL	27	+7.1

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	34	23	30	21
RUSHING	52	32	41	35
PASSING	33	21	28	16
Standard Downs		24	46	18
Passing Downs		24	15	30

Q1 Rk	29	1st Down Rk	20
Q2 Rk	22	2nd Down Rk	35
Q3 Rk	20	3rd Down Rk	16
Q4 Rk	30

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.
Tommy Armstrong Jr.	6'1, 220	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.9003	222	402	3030	22	16	55.2%	11	2.7%	7.0
Ryker Fyfe	6'3, 215	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	NR	34	55	440	5	5	61.8%	2	3.5%	7.4
AJ Bush	6'4, 225	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8044
Patrick O'Brien	6'4, 230	Fr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9189

3. Those pesky picks

Armstrong brings most of what you would love to see from a dual-threat quarterback. He averages more than six yards per carry (not including sacks), and he doesn't take many sacks. He's a little bit on the inefficient side (55 percent completion rate), but he looks downfield a lot and usually gets the ball where it needs to be. Nebraska's top three wideouts (Jordan Westerkamp, Brandon Reilly, and Alonzo Moore) each averaged at least 9.3 yards per target.

He was at the helm of an explosive passing game, and he added some efficiency to the run game. That Nebraska ranked in the top 25 in both Standard Downs S&P+ and Passing Downs S&P+ was a nice sign that he could both carry out the game plan and make plays when the game plan failed.

He also threw 16 interceptions. An interception rate over 3 percent or so is pretty damaging, and Armstrong's was 4 percent. Backup Ryker Fyfe's: 11 percent.

Only five teams threw more interceptions than Nebraska in 2015, and while part of that was perhaps unlucky -- interceptions accounted for 31 percent of opponents' passes defensed (INTs + break-ups), and the national average trends closer to about 22 percent; that, and fumble recoveries led to NU suffering 4.5 poitns per game of bad turnover luck, third-worst in FBS -- Armstrong and Fyfe both threw into tight coverage a lot.

Offensive coordinator Danny Langsdorf didn't put together the most QB-friendly system in the world. NU was a little bit predictable, running more frequently than the national average on standard downs and passing more frequently on passing downs, and there wasn't much of a horizontal aspect: Either Armstrong was looking downfield or dumping to running back Terrell Newby.

This approach frequently worked. But it is begging for a high INT rate, unless you've got a supremely accurate quarterback. Armstrong is probably a better thrower than he gets credit for, but he's not supremely accurate.

Basically the entire receiving corps returns. Last year's top six targets are back, as is electric return man De'Mornay Pierson-El, who missed more than half the season with injury.

Perhaps Pierson-El's full-time presence will allow NU to work the ball more horizontally and/or throw more frequently on standard downs. At Oregon State, Langsdorf did an interesting job of tweaking his system for the strengths of the personnel, and if NU can add "accurate throwing and good blocking on screen passes" to the list of strengths, the Huskers will have an answer for just about anything a defense wants to do. At least, they will if Armstrong is completing passes mostly to his own team.

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Opp.	Opp. Rate	Fumbles	Fum. Lost
Terrell Newby	RB	5'10, 200	Sr.	4 stars (6.0)	0.9404	147	765	6	5.2	4.9	38.8%	0	0
Imani Cross	RB					111	444	6	4.0	2.7	37.8%	1	1
Tommy Armstrong Jr.	QB	6'1, 220	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.9003	87	529	7	6.1	6.4	42.5%	3	2
Andy Janovich	FB					42	265	3	6.3	6.5	42.9%	1	0
Devine Ozigbo	RB	5'11, 230	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8560	40	216	1	5.4	5.5	35.0%	1	0
Alonzo Moore	WR	6'2, 195	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8856	14	106	0	7.6	4.3	71.4%	0	0
Brandon Reilly	WR	6'2, 200	Sr.	NR	NR	11	96	0	8.7	5.4	63.6%	0	0
Mikale Wilbon	RB	5'9, 195	So.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8822	9	35	0	3.9	3.9	44.4%	0	0
Ryker Fyfe	QB	6'3, 215	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	NR	5	-17	0	-3.4	4.2	40.0%	1	1
Jamal Turner	WR					4	23	0	5.8	14.9	25.0%	0	0
Harrison Jordan	FB	5'10, 230	Jr.	NR	NR
Adam Taylor	RB	6'2, 210	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9058
Tre Bryant	RB	5'11, 200	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8638

4. Hype vs. production

In Terrell Newby, Mikale Wilbon, and Adam Taylor, Nebraska boasts three former four-star recruits in the backfield. Taylor has struggled with injuries, and Wilbon was lost in a crowded depth chart. Newby was perfectly decent in 2015 but was not quite efficient enough to be an efficiency back or explosive enough to be a big-play guy.

Between these three, big sophomore Devine Ozigbo, and incoming freshman Tre Bryant, Nebraska appears to have plenty of upside in the backfield. But even with these options, plus Imani Cross and fullback Andy Janovich, NU still ranked just 41st in Rushing Success Rate+ last year. And now Cross, Janovich, and four of six linemen with starting experience are gone. How quickly can upside turn into production?

Receiving Corps

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Target Rate	Yds/ Target	%SD	Success Rate	IsoPPP
Jordan Westerkamp	WR	6'0, 200	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9060	100	66	926	66.0%	23.1%	9.3	63.0%	56.0%	1.53
Brandon Reilly	WR	6'2, 200	Sr.	NR	NR	68	40	754	58.8%	15.7%	11.1	58.8%	52.9%	1.96
Cethan Carter	TE	6'4, 240	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8572	47	24	329	51.1%	10.9%	7.0	40.4%	38.3%	1.65
Alonzo Moore	WR	6'2, 195	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8856	40	24	395	60.0%	9.2%	9.9	72.5%	52.5%	1.89
Stanley Morgan Jr.	WR	6'1, 200	So.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8765	40	25	304	62.5%	9.2%	7.6	57.5%	50.0%	1.48
Terrell Newby	RB	5'10, 200	Sr.	4 stars (6.0)	0.9404	37	24	159	64.9%	8.5%	4.3	43.2%	29.7%	1.34
Lane Hovey	WR					24	12	158	50.0%	5.5%	6.6	70.8%	50.0%	1.30
De'Mornay Pierson-El	WR	5'9, 185	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8460	21	12	111	57.1%	4.8%	5.3	42.9%	38.1%	1.22
Jamal Turner	WR					19	9	93	47.4%	4.4%	4.9	57.9%	42.1%	1.11
Taariq Allen	WR					11	5	41	45.5%	2.5%	3.7	72.7%	36.4%	1.00
Devine Ozigbo	RB	5'11, 230	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8560	9	5	62	55.6%	2.1%	6.9	55.6%	33.3%	1.95
Sam Cotton	TE	6'5, 250	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8181	6	3	35	50.0%	1.4%	5.8	33.3%	33.3%	1.28
Mikale Wilbon	RB	5'9, 195	So.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8822	3	2	28	66.7%	0.7%	9.3	33.3%	66.7%	1.32
Lavan Alston	WR	6'0, 175	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8832
Matt Snyder	TE	6'5, 255	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8523
JD Spielman	WR	5'9, 180	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8690
Jack Stoll	TE	6'4, 235	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8524
Derrion Grim	WR	6'0, 195	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8521

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	109.4	3.16	3.07	40.8%	61.1%	17.7%	185.8	1.3%	5.7%
Rank	29	25	80	38	98	38	14	6	31

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	2015 Starts	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Alex Lewis	LT					13	26
Zach Sterup	RG					7	17
Dylan Utter	LG	6'1, 295	Sr.	NR	NR	13	14
Ryne Reeves	C					13	14
Nick Gates	LT	6'5, 290	So.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8929	10	10
Chongo Kondolo	RG					9	9
David Knevel	RT	6'9, 315	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8767	0	0
Jerald Foster	LG	6'3, 310	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8708	0	0
Paul Thurston	C					0	0
Corey Whitaker	RT	6'5, 295	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8322	0	0
Sam Hahn	RT	6'7, 300	Sr.	NR	NR	0	0
Zach Hannon	OL	6'5, 315	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8625	0	0
Tanner Farmer	OL	6'4, 295	So.	4 stars (5.9)	0.9021	0	0
Jalin Barnett	OL	6'4, 310	RSFr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9207
Christian Gaylord	LT	6'6, 300	RSFr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8882
Michael Decker	OL	6'4, 285	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8544
John Raridon	OL	6'4, 275	Fr.	4 stars (5.9)	0.9435
Matt Farniok	OL	6'6, 300	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.9049
Bryan Brokop	OL	6'5, 275	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8847

5. A successful line rebuilds again

Nebraska only returned two players with more than a game of starting experience last year but gelled into a solid unit. The Huskers struggled in short-yardage situations but did a fantastic job of keeping defenders out of the backfield. The rushing stuff rates were low, as were the sack rates.

This year Nebraska returns ... two players with starting experience. A double dip of attrition can lead to a really young two-deep, but NU will still boast senior guard Dylan Utter and a couple of other juniors or seniors on the two-deep.

Still, as with running back, it would help if some guys pretty quickly lived up to their four-star billing. Sophomore Nick Gates started most of the year at left tackle and appears to be a keeper, but if at least one four-star youngster from a pool of sophomore Tanner Farmer, redshirt freshman Jalin Barnett, and incoming freshmen John Raridon and Matt Farniok could play at a high level in 2016, this unit might survive. Proven depth is an obvious issue, though.

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.43	117	IsoPPP+	94.4	89
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	38.0%	32	Succ. Rt. +	107.8	41
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	30.1	59	Off. FP+	30.5	52
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Scoring Opportunity	4.4	69	Redzone S&P+	106.0	41
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	19.5		ACTUAL	15.0	-4.5

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	64	67	41	89
RUSHING	9	35	18	57
PASSING	122	81	53	95
Standard Downs		77	40	96
Passing Downs		61	36	71

Q1 Rk	48	1st Down Rk	88
Q2 Rk	62	2nd Down Rk	106
Q3 Rk	91	3rd Down Rk	44
Q4 Rk	98

6. Get the passer

Nebraska's run defense improved dramatically in 2015. The Huskers went from 88th in Rushing S&P+ to 35th, frequently invading the backfield and playing better than almost anyone in short-yardage situations. The line rotation wasn't incredibly deep -- they played mostly four ends and two tackles -- and the defense as a whole dramatically faded from the start of a game to the end. But all in all, there was little to complain about from the perspective of run D.

The problem was that opponents didn't have to run. The pass defense regressed just as significantly as the run defense improved. The cornerback position was a M*A*S*H unit, with both Jonathan Rose and Daniel Davie missing significant time, and NU ended up allowing 60 completions of 20-plus yards, fourth-worst in the country.

The breakdowns were significant -- NU opponents on third-and-4 or more: 67-for-118 for 879 yards, seven touchdowns, two interceptions, and a 135.5 passer rating. And with decent turnover in both the front and back of the defense, it's hard to say with certainty that things will improve.

If one single thing were to improve, though, the pass rush could do a whole lot of good. As invasive as NU was against the run, the Huskers ranked 96th in Adj. Sack Rate. Only two players had more than three sacks, and none had more than 4.5.

I'm not exactly sure who might step up to more effective pass rush; sophomore Freedom Akinmoladun led the team with 4.5 sacks and still has a lot more developing to do, but who else? The linebackers were used conservatively and combined for all of one sack. That put a lot of pressure on the line to generate pressure; in turn, that ended up putting pressure on the DBs to cover guys for an extended period of time.

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	122.8	2.26	2.33	30.8%	42.3%	22.8%	82.2	4.0%	4.6%
Rank	6	6	5	5	2	31	96	98	112

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Maliek Collins	DT					13	21.5	3.4%	6.0	2.5	0	1	0	0
Greg McMullen	DE					13	20.5	3.3%	6.5	4.0	0	0	1	0
Ross Dzuris	DE	6'3, 255	Sr.	NR	NR	13	19.0	3.0%	6.5	2.5	0	0	0	0
Freedom Akinmoladun	DE	6'4, 255	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8575	11	16.0	2.5%	6.0	4.5	0	0	0	0
Kevin Maurice	DT	6'3, 300	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8286	10	15.5	2.5%	2.5	1.0	0	0	2	0
Jack Gangwish	DE					10	11.0	1.8%	3.0	1.5	0	0	0	0
Vincent Valentine	DT					10	7.0	1.1%	3.5	3.0	0	0	0	0
Mick Stoltenberg	DT	6'5, 290	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8296	9	2.0	0.3%	1.0	1.0	0	0	0	0
Kevin Williams	DT					8	1.5	0.2%	0.5	0.0	0	0	0	1
A.J. Natter	DE	6'5, 260	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8903
Peyton Newell	DT	6'3, 290	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8882
Sedrick King	DE	6'4, 250	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8224
Carlos Davis	DT	6'2, 295	RSFr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8891
Khalil Davis	DT	6'2, 290	RSFr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8730
DaiShon Neal	DE	6'7, 270	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8588
Ben Stille	DE	6'5, 240	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8578
Collin Miller	DE	6'3, 235	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8496

7. A successful line rebuilds, part 2

NU linemen combined for 35 tackles for loss last year, and those responsible for 19.5 are gone. Adkinmoladun, end Ross Dzuris, and tackle Kevin Maurice are all steady options, but the Huskers will need youngsters to step up quickly, be they sophomores like Mick Stoltenberg and Peyton Newell or redshirt freshmen like DaiShon Neal or the Davis twins, Carlos and Khalil.

Not a single lineman was a four-star recruit per the 247Sports Composite, but only one of the five departees was, and NU still had a solid front four.

The linebacking corps has some former four-stars and quite a few strong run defenders. They took complete advantage of the opportunities the line gave them to make plays, and they did so despite constant shuffling -- of seven LBs with at least four tackles, none played in all 13 games. Basically everybody is back, which should result in good competition on the two-deep. Now if one of them could blitz a little bit...

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Josh Banderas	LB	6'3, 240	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9053	9	48.0	7.6%	6.5	0.0	0	2	0	0
Dedrick Young	LB	6'1, 220	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8609	12	43.5	6.9%	3.5	0.0	0	3	0	0
Chris Weber	LB	6'3, 230	Jr.	NR	NR	10	34.0	5.4%	3.0	0.0	0	2	0	0
Marcus Newby	LB	6'1, 235	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8941	10	25.5	4.1%	4.0	1.0	0	4	0	0
Michael Rose-Ivey	LB	6'0, 230	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.9010	7	19.0	3.0%	2.5	0.0	0	1	0	0
Luke Gifford	LB	6'3, 230	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8460	6	4.5	0.7%	0.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Tyrin Ferguson	LB	6'2, 225	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8312	10	4.0	0.6%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Brad Simpson	LB	6'0, 230	Sr.	NR	NR	13	3.5	0.6%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Quayshon Alexander	LB	6'3, 235	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8716
Greg Simmons	LB	6'2, 240	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8525

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Nate Gerry	S	6'2, 220	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8534	13	64.0	10.2%	2.5	1	4	7	1	0
Joshua Kalu	CB	6'1, 190	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8429	13	63.0	10.0%	5	1	3	7	0	0
Byerson Cockrell	S					12	54.5	8.7%	3	0	0	6	0	0
Jonathan Rose	CB					9	36.0	5.7%	1	0	1	7	0	0
Chris Jones	CB	6'0, 185	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8233	13	23.0	3.7%	2	1	2	5	0	0
Aaron Williams	S	5'11, 185	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8610	13	20.5	3.3%	3	0	0	0	0	0
Daniel Davie	CB					6	17.5	2.8%	0	0	0	5	0	0
Antonio Reed	S	6'2, 220	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8026	13	9.5	1.5%	0	0	0	0	2	0
Kieron Williams	S	6'1, 195	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	NR	13	6.0	1.0%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Boaz Joseph	CB	6'1, 190	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8422	12	2.0	0.3%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Charles Jackson	S	5'11, 180	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9605
Eric Lee Jr.	DB	6'0, 190	RSFr.	4 stars (5.9)	0.9414
Avery Anderson	DB	6'0, 185	RSFr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8935
Lamar Jackson	S	6'3, 195	Fr.	4 stars (5.9)	0.9582
Marquel Dismuke	DB	6'2, 180	Fr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9064
Tony Butler	DB	6'2, 195	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8650
JoJo Domann	DB	6'1, 205	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8619

8. Depth in the back?

While the lineup changed quite a bit at cornerback, all four of last year's constants -- corners Joshua Kalu and Chris Jones, safeties Nate Gerry and Aaron Williams -- are back. But these constants were only so reliable, and it will be interesting to see how quickly an exciting batch of four-star youngsters (both true and redshirt freshmen) can break into the two-deep. Their development could impact both how much the secondary improves and whether the Huskers have any depth at all. Three of last year's top seven are gone, and again, this unit struggled.

Riley and his staff figured out how to get by at times without a ton of star recruits at Oregon State, but the Beavers were playing at or below their recruiting rankings late in Riley's tenure. If improved recruiting is a requirement for a Riley rebound, it could flash its first glimpses in the secondary. NU has recruited very, very well there over Riley's first two classes.

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Sam Foltz	6'2, 205	Sr.	56	44.2	5	9	14	41.1%
Tyson Broekemeier			5	37.0	1	2	2	80.0%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
Drew Brown	5'11, 195	Jr.	79	60.4	32	0	40.5%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Drew Brown	5'11, 195	Jr.	44-46	8-10	80.0%	13-17	76.5%

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Stanley Morgan Jr.	KR	6'1, 200	So.	14	23.1	0
Jordan Stevenson	KR			6	14.2	0
Jordan Westerkamp	PR	6'0, 200	Sr.	6	10.2	0
De'Mornay Pierson-El	PR	5'9, 185	Jr.	4	12.0	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams S&P+	58
Field Goal Efficiency	24
Punt Return Success Rate	48
Kick Return Success Rate	96
Punt Success Rate	102
Kickoff Success Rate	76

9. Outkicking coverage

Nebraska once again had the legs. Drew Brown missed a couple of PATs but was forgiven because of the massive number of long field goals he was asked to attempt, and usually made. Only 41 percent of his kickoffs were touchbacks, which is a little bit low, but he still proved solid overall. Meanwhile, punter Sam Foltz boomed away with a 44.2-yard average, 21st in the country.

The main special teams problem, however: Foltz's kicks were long but frequently returnable. Only nine of 56 were fair caught, and the Huskers allowed 11.5 yards per return, 105th in the country.

Pierson-El's return will assure NU of a strong punt returner (especially since Jordan Westerkamp is pretty good in his own right), but opponent returns could remain an issue if Foltz can't generate a little bit more hang time.

2016 Schedule & Projection Factors

2016 Schedule
Date	Opponent	Proj. S&P+ Rk	Proj. Margin	Win Probability
3-Sep	Fresno State	94	20.0	88%
10-Sep	Wyoming	110	26.6	94%
17-Sep	Oregon	18	0.1	50%
24-Sep	at Northwestern	46	2.9	57%
1-Oct	Illinois	76	14.7	80%
15-Oct	at Indiana	56	4.2	60%
22-Oct	Purdue	88	18.2	85%
29-Oct	at Wisconsin	37	-0.2	50%
5-Nov	at Ohio State	14	-8.3	32%
12-Nov	Minnesota	42	8.0	68%
19-Nov	Maryland	62	12.1	76%
25-Nov	at Iowa	38	-0.1	50%
Projected wins: 7.9

Five-Year F/+ Rk	20.2% (29)
2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk	29 / 24
2015 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin*	-12 / -0.3
2015 TO Luck/Game	-4.5
Returning Production (Off. / Def.)	78% (94%, 63%)
2015 Second-order wins (difference)	6.8 (-0.8)

10. You like tossups, right?

That Nebraska went 3-7 in one-possession games was a huge piece of the Huskers' 2015. But that was mainly because of the seven losses. Lost in this: 10 of 13 Nebraska games were decided by one possession! And an 11th by just 10 points!

In theory, there could be a few more sure results this year. NU opens with bad Fresno State and Wyoming teams and gets Illinois, Purdue, and Maryland at home. (Granted, the Huskers went 0-2 in games against that trio last year.)

But while that will likely assure that NU tops last year's win total, the Huskers' season will still be defined by the tossups -- in five games, Nebraska has between a 50 and 60 percent chance of winning, per S&P+ projection. In three of those, they have exactly a 50 percent chance of winning.

Flip a coin a few times, and NU could end up 11-1. Flip it a few more, and NU could be 7-5. (I would recommend Riley aim for the former.) Regardless, if NU can shore up last year's weaknesses just a bit -- turnovers, big pass plays allowed, drastic ups and downs -- and, as importantly, get a few more bounces, the Huskers could be a significant rebound threat and Big Ten West contender.