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. Typical media

As a Missouri fan/blogger in the 2000s, I viewed it as an annual benchmark. The summer was for counting up the number of analysts predicting this was the year Nebraska reached the big-time again, and this was the year Colorado bounced back. We made fun of these predictions annually. It was "typical media" doing "typical media" things. Lazy thinking, etc.

So I get it.

Fans of Big Ten schools that aren't Michigan are probably tired of seeing the Wolverines really high in this year's preseason rankings.

It's not the first time. Only twice in the last nine years have they finished higher than they started -- they began 2005 fourth and finished unranked, began 2007 fifth and ended up 18th, began 2012 eighth and finished 24th, and began 2013 17th and finished unranked -- but they frequently get the benefit of the doubt.

The short version (Rick Osentoski-USA TODAY Sports)



2016 projected wins: 9.6



Projected S&P+ ranking: 6 (1 in Big Ten)



5-year recruiting ranking: 9 (2 in Big Ten)



Biggest strength: The defense was the best in the country for the first half of 2015 and returns most of its playmakers.



Biggest question mark: The run game produced almost no big plays last year and led to some late-game issues.



Biggest 2016 game: Michigan has at least a 67 percent chance of winning in 10 of 12 games. That makes the other two -- at Michigan State (Oct. 29) and at Ohio State (Nov. 26) pretty big, yeah?



Summary: Turnaround artist Jim Harbaugh brought significant improvement last year. If the Wolverines can improve a bit on the ground (on both offense and defense), they have the schedule for a run to the Playoff. 9.6: 6 (1 in Big Ten): 9 (2 in Big Ten): The defense was the best in the country for the first half of 2015 and returns most of its playmakers.: The run game produced almost no big plays last year and led to some late-game issues.: Michigan has at least a 67 percent chance of winning in 10 of 12 games. That makes the other two -- at Michigan State (Oct. 29) and at Ohio State (Nov. 26) pretty big, yeah?Turnaround artist Jim Harbaugh brought significant improvement last year. If the Wolverines can improve a bit on the ground (on both offense and defense), they have the schedule for a run to the Playoff.

So I know what it sounds like for me to say Michigan is probably going to be really good this year. But ... Michigan is probably going to be really good.

Not because of the classic helmets, and not because Bo Schembechler was awesome back in the day. No, the Wolverines are going to be excellent because they have an excellent coach, have the offensive experience requisite for a team breaking in a new quarterback, used recruiting to supplement last year's thinnest unit (defensive line), replaced an excellent defensive coordinator with last year's most excellent defensive coordinator, and have continuity where you tend to need it most (receiving corps, secondary).

Harbaugh drastically exceeded expectations in his first season back. His Wolverines were projected 35th in S&P+ and finished sixth. That was bolstered by their work in the first half of the season -- they obviously weren't playing at a top-10 level down the stretch -- but thanks to the combination of full-season output, returning production, and recent recruiting, UM is projected sixth this time.

Is that too much, too soon? Sometimes you regress after surging a little bit too much in a single season, even when you return a lot of the reasons for that surge. (On the other hand, the second half of last season might have qualified as regression.) And anytime you stick a new starting quarterback on the field, you run the risk of finding out he's not as good as you thought.

Maybe the offense doesn't function as smoothly under new quarterbacking. Maybe the defense doesn't click with Don Brown like it did for DJ Durkin (now Maryland's head coach). Maybe the defense will fade again. Maybe the running game still won't gain much traction.

(And if you want to bring up the fact that Michigan was excellent in Brady Hoke's first year, go for it.)

My confidence in these projections has nothing to do with Michigan and everything to do with Harbaugh.

He inherited a dreadful Stanford and improved it from 94th in S&P+ to 71st, then 45th, then 30th, and then sixth. He inherited a 49ers team that hadn't had a winning record in nine seasons and went 36-11-1 in his first three years. In one season, he fielded what was, per S&P+, the best UM team in nine years. The Wolverine offense ranked in the Passing S&P+ top 10 last year! With Jake Rudock at quarterback!

Harbaugh is weird. He gives strange, Schembechler-esque answers. In barely a year and a half, he's figured out the most creative, shark-jumping ways of getting attention.

But he's also one of the most proven coaches in football. And I'd be willing to bet last year's improvement was a precursor to this year's. Maybe next year's, too.

Record: 10-3 | Adj. Record: 11-2 | Final F/+ Rk: 8 | Final S&P+ Rk: 6 Date Opponent Opp. F/+ Rk Score W-L Percentile

Performance Win

Expectancy vs. S&P+ Performance

vs. Vegas 3-Sep at Utah 22 17-24 L 63% 58% -5.0 -1.0 12-Sep Oregon State 107 35-7 W 91% 100% +10.9 +12.0 19-Sep UNLV 105 28-7 W 95% 100% -9.7 -13.0 26-Sep BYU 35 31-0 W 100% 100% +23.8 +26.0 3-Oct at Maryland 76 28-0 W 97% 100% +12.2 +12.0 10-Oct Northwestern 52 38-0 W 98% 100% +23.3 +30.5 17-Oct Michigan State 9 23-27 L 69% 68% -25.2 -12.0 31-Oct at Minnesota 55 29-26 W 50% 45% -17.8 -11.0 7-Nov Rutgers 101 49-16 W 97% 100% -4.0 +8.0 14-Nov at Indiana 61 48-41 W 75% 88% -10.1 -6.0 21-Nov at Penn State 47 28-16 W 88% 98% +5.1 +8.5 28-Nov Ohio State 3 13-42 L 21% 0% -33.4 -29.0 1-Jan vs. Florida 27 41-7 W 95% 100% +27.8 +29.5

Category Offense Rk Defense Rk S&P+ 34.7 32 13.6 2 Points Per Game 31.4 50 16.4 6

2. Everything changed when ... well ... you know

Even adjusting for opponent, what Michigan's defense did over the first six games of 2015 was monumental.

Utah averaged 5.1 yards per play and 30.6 points per game in 2015; against Michigan, the Utes averaged 4.8 and scored 24 with help from a pick six.

Oregon State averaged 5.1 yards per play and 19 points per game; against Michigan, they averaged 2.6 yards per play and scored seven.

UNLV averaged 5.6 yards per play and 28.6 points per game; against Michigan, they averaged 3.8 and scored seven.

BYU averaged 6 yards per play and 33.7 points per game; against Michigan, they averaged 2.1 and got shut out.

Maryland averaged 5.4 yards per play and 24.7 points per game; against Michigan, they averaged 1.7 and got shut out.

Northwestern averaged 4.5 yards per play and 19.5 points per game; against Michigan, they averaged 2.9 and got shut out.

From that perch, the Wolverines were almost destined to slip. Keep that up, and you're the greatest defense of all time. Over the second half of the season, starting with the cursed Michigan State game, they struggled compared to the standard they had set.

First 6 games :

Record: 5-1 | Average percentile performance: 91% (~top 10) | Yards per play: UM 5.5, Opp 3.1 (+2.4)

: Record: 5-1 | Average percentile performance: 91% (~top 10) | Yards per play: UM 5.5, Opp 3.1 (+2.4) Last 7 games:

Record: 5-2 | Average percentile performance: 71% (~top 35) | Yards per play: UM 5.9, Opp 5.5 (+0.4)

The defense really only had three bad games. Minnesota had Michigan fooled all game, averaging 6.8 yards per play, but the Gophers still only scored 26 points. Allowing 5.9 and 41 points to Indiana was rough, and of course there was nothing positive to take away from the Ohio State loss (42 points, 7 yards per play).

These three games accounted for 23 percent of their games played but 40 percent of their yards allowed.

Offense

Q1 Rk 25 1st Down Rk 28 Q2 Rk 18 2nd Down Rk 57 Q3 Rk 22 3rd Down Rk 21 Q4 Rk 98

3. Manball redefined

Part of the reason Harbaugh's offenses found success so quickly at Stanford was that, in an age of offenses getting faster and more spread-out, his staff doubled down on size and power. Sure, the Cardinal eventually had Andrew Luck, but Harbaugh's first star was Toby Gerhart. And he sure did love his tight ends.

In Harbaugh's first year at UM, with offensive coordinator Tim Drevno (his former line coach at San Diego, Stanford, and San Francisco) calling the shots, Michigan sure did enjoy the forward pass. And without an immense tight end presence (Jake Butt did catch 51 passes, but he was the only tight end with more than 12 catches), the Wolverines were still really good at throwing.

Whether this was more by choice or necessity -- and judging by the S&P+ ratings (43rd in rushing, eighth in passing), it could have been the latter -- it worked. Rudock began the season missing open targets in a tight loss to Utah, but by midseason, he was outstanding. His passer rating over the first eight games was 120.3; last five games: 168.3.

In theory, the run should be stronger in 2016, if Drevno were to want to lean on that. Three of the top four halfbacks are back (along with another four-star freshman in Kareem Walker), and with almost all of the two-deep returning, one would assume moderate improvement.

But if Michigan is able to figure out its quarterback situation again, this receiving corps might demand more passing.

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. Jake Rudock 249 389 3017 20 9 64.0% 17 4.2% 7.2 John O'Korn

(Houston) 6'4, 209 Jr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8594 90 173 951 6 8 52.0% 11 6.0% 4.8 Shane Morris

(2014) 6'3, 208 Jr. 4 stars (6.0) 0.9674 14 40 128 0 3 35.0% 1 2.4% 3.0 Wilton Speight 6'6, 239 So. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8728 9 25 73 1 1 36.0% 0 0.0% 2.9 Brandon Peters 6'5, 205 Fr. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9674

4. Got a QB?

Graduate transfers can help immensely, but most of them will leave after one season. Rudock clicked late in the year, and then his time was up.

So the QB search begins again, and this year's starter will emerge from a pile of misfit toys. Wilton Speight did just enough to lead Michigan to the go-ahead score against Minnesota after Rudock got hurt, but for the season he completed just nine of 25 passes. John O'Korn was last seen throwing eight interceptions in five games at Houston and losing his job to Greg Ward Jr. Shane Morris was last seen failing to breathe life into a 2014 Michigan offense. Brandon Peters has not been seen at all; that's the upside to being a four-star true freshman.

This situation looks at least a little dire ... until you remember the lack of Rudock buzz last year. It took a little while for Harbaugh, Drevno, and quarterbacks coach Jedd Fisch to get him going, but they did it. This time, everyone but Peters has been working with Fisch for a while.

It appears Speight is the front-runner. That could change in fall camp, but he and O'Korn eased ahead of Morris, to the extent that coaches experimented with playing Morris at receiver. Whoever starts will have one exciting advantage: they've got one of the Big Ten's best sets of receivers.

Running Back

Player Pos. Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. Rushes Yards TD Yards/

Carry Hlt Yds/

Opp. Opp.

Rate Fumbles Fum.

Lost De'Veon Smith RB 5'11, 228 Sr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.9151 181 755 6 4.2 4.3 30.9% 1 0 Drake Johnson RB 6'1, 210 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8441 55 271 4 4.9 3.9 40.0% 1 0 Derrick Green RB 47 157 2 3.3 1.8 27.7% 0 0 Sione Houma FB 43 184 5 4.3 2.8 34.9% 0 0 Jake Rudock QB 41 254 4 6.2 4.9 41.5% 6 4 Ty Isaac RB 6'3, 228 Jr. 5 stars (6.1) 0.9732 30 205 1 6.8 5.8 53.3% 2 1 Jabrill Peppers S 6'1, 208 So. 5 stars (6.1) 0.9992 17 75 2 4.4 2.4 58.8% 3 0 Joe Kerridge FB 14 62 1 4.4 9.3 21.4% 0 0 Karan Higdon RB 5'10, 189 So. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8715 11 19 0 1.7 3.5 9.1% 0 0 Jehu Chesson WR 6'3, 200 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8650 8 155 2 19.4 23.9 62.5% 0 0 Henry Poggi FB 6'4, 273 Jr. 4 stars (6.0) 0.9419 Khalid Hill FB 6'2, 263 Jr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8575 Kareem Walker RB 6'1, 210 Fr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9498

















Receiving Corps

Player Pos. Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. Targets Catches Yards Catch Rate Target

Rate Yds/

Target %SD Success

Rate IsoPPP Amara Darboh WR 6'2, 215 Sr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9150 96 58 727 60.4% 23.9% 7.6 58.3% 52.1% 1.31 Jehu Chesson WR 6'3, 200 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8650 80 50 764 62.5% 20.0% 9.6 58.8% 55.0% 1.67 Jake Butt TE 6'6, 250 Sr. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9258 76 51 654 67.1% 19.0% 8.6 59.2% 50.0% 1.64 De'Veon Smith RB 5'11, 228 Sr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.9151 26 19 159 73.1% 6.5% 6.1 57.7% 38.5% 1.60 Grant Perry WR 6'0, 184 So. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8503 25 14 128 56.0% 6.2% 5.1 52.0% 32.0% 1.51 A.J. Williams TE 15 12 129 80.0% 3.7% 8.6 80.0% 60.0% 1.24 Drake Johnson RB 6'1, 210 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8441 13 6 96 46.2% 3.2% 7.4 38.5% 38.5% 1.93 Drake Harris WR 6'4, 181 So. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9663 12 6 39 50.0% 3.0% 3.3 41.7% 25.0% 1.26 Jabrill Peppers S 6'1, 208 So. 5 stars (6.1) 0.9992 10 8 79 80.0% 2.5% 7.9 60.0% 50.0% 1.64 Sione Houma FB 10 8 77 80.0% 2.5% 7.7 70.0% 60.0% 1.27 Maurice Ways WR 6'3, 210 So. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8687 6 3 40 50.0% 1.5% 6.7 33.3% 50.0% 1.11 Ian Bunting TE 6'7, 252 So. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8904 5 5 72 100.0% 1.2% 14.4 20.0% 100.0% 1.45 Tyrone Wheatley Jr. TE 6'6, 280 RSFr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8953 Devin Asiasi TE 6'4, 265 Fr. 4 stars (6.0) 0.9626 Dylan Crawford WR 6'2, 183 Fr. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9425 Ahmir Mitchell WR 6'3, 205 Fr. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9265 Brad Hawkins WR 6'2, 205 Fr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8997 Nick Eubanks TE 6'6, 230 Fr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8843

5. Everything a QB could want (more or less)

If the running game doesn't improve, Michigan's offense should still be solid.

"Solid" might not be enough for a top-10 team, but the floor is high because Amara Darboh, Jehu Chesson, and Butt are all back. They each caught between 50-58 passes last year, and each took turns being the go-to guy in difference situations. All three were efficient (success rates at 50 percent or higher), and Chesson was explosive, too.

The running backs are pretty good at catching (De'Veon Smith, at least), and there are quite a few exciting young sophomores and freshmen. (One of them: massive redshirt freshman Tyrone Wheatley Jr., who seems to be developing into quite a blocker and pass catcher while the size of an offensive tackle.)

Great, so the receivers will do well, and the line is in better shape than it's been in a few years. Rudock's ability to get rid of the ball quickly helped, but the sack rates were good, and the line kept the pocket pretty clean for the RBs, too.

Still, Michigan runners rarely found the second level of the defense. I usually consider a highlight yardage average of 5 or more to be pretty explosive; none of UM's top three backs last year topped 4.3. Ty Isaac showed some potential but only got 30 carries.

Smith and Drake Johnson are back, and Isaac was apparently a star in the spring game. If the run game can break just a few more big plays, this offense, which already improved from 82nd to 32nd in Off. S&P+ last year, could crack at least the top 25.

At the very least, run game improvement could help Michigan avoid late-game predictability. The Wolverines had a top-25 offense for three quarters, then very much did not in the fourth.

Offensive Line

Player Pos. Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. 2015 Starts Career Starts Honors/Notes Graham Glasgow C 13 37 Kyle Kalis RG 6'5, 305 Sr. 5 stars (6.1) 0.9753 13 30 Mason Cole C 6'5, 305 Jr. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9408 13 25 Ben Braden LG 6'6, 322 Sr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8803 13 25 Erik Magnuson RT 6'6, 305 Sr. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9594 13 24 Grant Newsome LT 6'7, 300 So. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9074 0 0 David Dawson LG 6'4, 316 Jr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9537 0 0 Patrick Kugler C 6'5, 302 Jr. 4 stars (6.0) 0.9696 0 0 Juwann Bushell-Beatty RG 6'5, 325 So. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8887 0 0 Blake Bars RT 0 0 Mason Cole LT 6'5, 305 Jr. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9408 0 0 Jon Runyan RG 6'4, 304 RSFr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8403



Nolan Ulizio RT 6'5, 291 RSFr. 2 stars (5.3) 0.8343



Ben Bredeson OL 6'5, 293 Fr. 4 stars (6.0) 0.9790





Michael Onwenu OL 6'3, 350 Fr. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9549







SIGN UP FOR OUR COLLEGE FOOTBALL NEWSLETTER Get all kinds of college football stories, rumors, game coverage, and Jim Harbaugh oddity in your inbox every day. Email:

Defense

Q1 Rk 11 1st Down Rk 11 Q2 Rk 14 2nd Down Rk 16 Q3 Rk 14 3rd Down Rk 52 Q4 Rk 5

6. A Don Brown defense

Michigan returns four of its top five tacklers on the line and six of seven in the secondary. There's turnover at linebacker, but most of last year's stars -- ends Chris Wormley and Taco Charlton up front, corner Jourdan Lewis and everything guy Jabrill Peppers in the back -- are back.

One guy who isn't: Durkin.

This could end up a big deal. Durkin inherited a good defense (18th in Def. S&P+ in 2014) and made it tremendous. The Wolverines faded in the second half of the season, but they still finished second in Def. S&P+. For all we know, Durkin's ability to pull the strings was better than anybody else's will be.

Still, Harbaugh made one hell of a replacement hire. With almost none of the blue-chip athletes Michigan boasts, Brown crafted the No. 3 defense in the country at Boston College last year.

BC's defense worked because the front four was dominant. (It's amazing how many defenses work when you've got a great line, huh?) It allowed Brown to play aggressively (up front) and conservatively (in the back) at the same time, taking only calculated risks with the secondary. BC was incredible at creating inefficiency and preventing big plays. The Eagles also had one of the best redzone defenses in the country. They were the total package.

This is going to be a good defense no matter what, but if it's going to remain in the top five, it's going to need to improve up front. Or at least progress back to the level it showed earlier in 2015.

Defensive Line

Name Pos Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. GP Tackles % of Team TFL Sacks Int PBU FF FR Chris Wormley DE 6'5, 303 Sr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.9428 13 34.0 5.5% 14.5 6.5 0 1 1 0 Maurice Hurst DT 6'2, 282 Jr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.9039 13 26.0 4.2% 6.5 3.0 0 0 0 0 Taco Charlton DE 6'6, 285 Sr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9366 13 25.5 4.1% 8.5 5.5 0 0 1 0 Willie Henry DE

13 23.5 3.8% 10.0 6.5 0 2 0 0 Ryan Glasgow DT 6'4, 300 Sr. 2 stars (5.2) NR 9 19.0 3.1% 5.0 1.0 0 0 0 0 Mario Ojemudia DE 5 14.5 2.4% 6.0 2.0 0 0 0 0 Matthew Godin DT 6'6, 288 Sr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8871 11 11.0 1.8% 1.0 0.5 0 0 0 0 Tom Strobel DT

11 3.0 0.5% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Brady Pallante DT 6'1, 280 So. 2 stars (5.3) 0.8059 7 1.5 0.2% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Chase Winovich DE 6'3, 245 Jr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8938 Bryan Mone DT 6'4, 320 So. 3 stars (5.7) 0.9434 Lawrence Marshall DE 6'4, 250 So. 3 stars (5.7) 0.9250 Rashan Gary DE 6'5, 293 Fr. 5 stars (6.1) 1.0000 Ron Johnson DE 6'4, 245 Fr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8985



















7. It's all about the line

I don't want to understate the importance of having steady linebackers, but on average, a team can withstand turnover at LB better than it can turnover on the line or in the secondary, especially when you're not replacing All-Americans.

Joe Bolden, Desmond Morgan, Royce Jenkins-Stone, and James Ross were good, and LB depth could become a serious issue with only a few known replacements, but I can only pretend to worry about that unit so much. If the line reaches its potential, the linebackers will find plenty of opportunities to make plays.

Things fell apart for the line right around the time of Mario Ojemudia's injury. There was still play-making potential on the edge, but it seemed to be a tough blow for Michigan's tenuous depth. Ryan Glasgow going down was the knockout punch.

Depth might not be any better this year. When you were only comfortable with seven guys, and two are gone, improvement isn't guaranteed. But when you've got reinforcements like all-world freshman Rashan Gary, it's hard to worry too much.

Obviously injuries could do a number, but the upside is even higher. The injury bug up front could dictate whether Michigan's defense is ridiculous or merely very good.

Linebackers

Name Pos Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. GP Tackles % of Team TFL Sacks Int PBU FF FR Joe Bolden ILB 13 60.0 9.7% 6.5 0.0 0 0 0 1 Desmond Morgan ILB 13 54.0 8.8% 2.0 1.0 1 3 1 0 Royce Jenkins-Stone OLB 13 29.0 4.7% 6.0 3.0 0 0 1 0 James Ross OLB 13 28.0 4.5% 5.5 1.0 0 0 0 0 Ben Gedeon ILB 6'3, 248 Sr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9135 12 27.5 4.5% 3.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Noah Furbush OLB 6'4, 242 So. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8666 9 3.5 0.6% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Allen Gant OLB

6 1.5 0.2% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Mike McCray OLB 6'4, 240 Jr. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9371 Carlo Kemp ILB 6'3, 250 Fr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8954 Devin Bush OLB 6'0, 220 Fr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8921 Elysee Mbem-Bosse ILB 6'3, 232 Fr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8701



















Secondary

Name Pos Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. GP Tackles % of Team TFL Sacks Int PBU FF FR Jarrod Wilson FS 13 49.5 8.0% 1 1 2 3 0 0 Jourdan Lewis CB 5'10, 175 Sr. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9453 13 44.5 7.2% 3.5 1 2 20 1 0 Jabrill Peppers NB 6'1, 208 So. 5 stars (6.1) 0.9992 12 39.5 6.4% 5.5 0.0 0 10 0 0 Delano Hill FS 6'0, 212 Sr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8953 13 39.5 6.4% 2.5 0 0 2 0 0 Dymonte Thomas SS 6'2, 195 Sr. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9682 11 20.5 3.3% 0 0 0 7 0 0 Jeremy Clark CB 6'4, 210 Sr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8700 13 18.0 2.9% 0 0 3 3 0 0 Channing Stribling CB 6'2, 181 Sr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8625 11 15.5 2.5% 0.5 0 2 3 0 0 Wayne Lyons SS 13 5.0 0.8% 0 0 0 1 0 0 Brandon Watson FS 5'11, 191 So. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8513 12 5.0 0.8% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tyree Kinnel S 5'11, 201 So. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9180 David Long CB 6'0, 187 Fr. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9658 Lavert Hill CB 5'11, 175 Fr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9359 Chris Evans DB 5'11, 190 Fr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8911



















8. Few worries in the back

The line lost its push late in the year, which meant for a few glitches in pass defense. But for the most part, the Wolverines had few issues through the air. Only two teams managed a passer rating better than 125.3 against Michigan (Minnesota and Ohio State).

The loss of Jarrod Wilson isn't optimal. He was steady enough at free safety that it let others take some chances. Jourdan Lewis defensed 22 passes, and two other corners defensed at least five. Wilson allowed for experimentation with Peppers, one of the best athletes in college football.

Per Harbaugh, Peppers would be the best on the team at just about any non-line position. At nickelback, he can play a lot of different roles. Assuming Delano Hill or some other safety can maintain Wilson's steadiness, it's really hard to worry here. Michigan is loaded in the back.

Special Teams

Punter Ht, Wt 2016

Year Punts Avg TB FC I20 FC/I20

Ratio Blake O'Neill 53 41.3 4 14 23 69.8%

Kicker Ht, Wt 2016

Year Kickoffs Avg TB OOB TB% Kenny Allen 6'3, 210 Sr. 78 61.4 34 2 43.6%

Place-Kicker Ht, Wt 2016

Year PAT FG

(0-39) Pct FG

(40+) Pct Kenny Allen 6'3, 210 Sr. 46-46 15-16 93.8% 3-6 50.0%

Returner Pos. Ht, Wt 2016

Year Returns Avg. TD Jourdan Lewis KR 5'10, 175 Sr. 15 25.2 0 Jabrill Peppers KR 6'1, 208 So. 8 27.9 0 Jabrill Peppers PR 6'1, 208 So. 17 11.4 0

Category Rk Special Teams S&P+ 36 Field Goal Efficiency 53 Punt Return Success Rate 29 Kick Return Success Rate 16 Punt Success Rate 93 Kickoff Success Rate 17

9. Losing only your weakest link

Blake O'Neill's punting average went up slightly after the debacle at the end of the Michigan State game. Over his next two games, he averaged more than 44 yards per punt.

But overall, punting was the only special teams category in which Michigan didn't produce decent efficiency numbers. That made O'Neill the most replaceable piece, and now he will be replaced.

With Peppers and Lewis in returns and Kenny Allen on kicks and kickoffs, this should again be a strong special teams unit. Punting will determine whether or not Michigan improves on last year's No. 36 Special Teams S&P+ ranking.

2016 Schedule Date Opponent Proj. S&P+ Rk Proj. Margin Win Probability 3-Sep Hawaii 118 36.2 98% 10-Sep Central Florida 99 29.8 96% 17-Sep Colorado 82 25.0 93% 24-Sep Penn State 28 11.5 75% 1-Oct Wisconsin 37 14.5 80% 8-Oct at Rutgers 87 18.9 86% 22-Oct Illinois 76 22.4 90% 29-Oct at Michigan State 22 2.3 55% 5-Nov Maryland 62 19.9 87% 12-Nov at Iowa 38 7.7 67% 19-Nov Indiana 56 18.9 86% 26-Nov at Ohio State 14 -0.5 49% Projected wins: 9.6

Five-Year F/+ Rk 26.7% (19) 2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk 14 / 9 2015 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin* -4 / -1.1 2015 TO Luck/Game -1.2 Returning Production (Off. / Def.) 42% (25%, 59%) 2015 Second-order wins (difference) 10.6 (-0.6)

10. A two-game schedule?

We don't know if quarterback play will be solid, if a decent (but not explosive enough) running game will improve, if the defensive line will withstand an injury or two better than it did last year, and if the linebacking corps can avoid a drop-off.

Since QB play (among other things) cost the Wolverines a victory against Utah, and since perilous run defense led to a late-season drop, these are significant.

But there's so much to like. Michigan has an excellent receiving corps, its best offensive line in years, and play-makers galore in the front and back of the defense. It also has a dynamite coaching staff and is led by a head coach as consistently successful as he is weird.

Because last year's best Big Ten teams (Ohio State and Michigan State) are replacing breakthrough talent, this is the year for Michigan to make its move. The Wolverines aren't a slam dunk -- and they have to go to both East Lansing and Columbus -- but it's not hard to see why some think otherwise.