Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.

1. How high can a Yellow Jacket fly?

As college football fans, we find glory in the smaller moments. This is the most beautifully strange American sport; of that, there is no question.

But for such a weird pastime, the end results are usually predictable.

TL;DR Brad Barr-USA TODAY Sports



Projected S&P+ ranking: 19



5-year recruiting ranking: 42



Biggest strength: Justin Thomas is a wonderful option quarterback, and most of his line returns.



Biggest question mark: Can experience help a woefully inefficient defense?



Biggest 2015 game(s): The trip to Notre Dame (Sept. 19) will tell us about Tech's top-10 potential, and the trip to Miami (Nov. 21) might determine the ACC Coastal.



In one sentence: Georgia Tech was legitimately awesome, beating three top-15 teams on the way to 11 wins and an Orange Bowl bid, so don't assume a drop-off before it happens. : 19: 42: Justin Thomas is a wonderful option quarterback, and most of his line returns.: Can experience help a woefully inefficient defense?: The trip to Notre Dame (Sept. 19) will tell us about Tech's top-10 potential, and the trip to Miami (Nov. 21) might determine the ACC Coastal.Georgia Tech was legitimately awesome, beating three top-15 teams on the way to 11 wins and an Orange Bowl bid, so don't assume a drop-off before it happens.

Since 1992, only 13 schools have won a national title; only two -- Florida and Florida State -- won their first title in that span. Most of the list of champions emerged as national powers in the 1950s or earlier and have encountered only rare dry spells since then.

Alabama, Florida State, Oregon, and Ohio State were four of the five biggest favorites to reach the College Football Playoff when the year began, and all four made it. Sure, there were unique story lines along the way: Ole Miss and Mississippi State surging to the top of the polls, Duke remaining a Playoff contender into November, etc. But in the end, we got the result we expected.

Well, mostly. None of us saw crazy old Paul Johnson and his Georgia Tech squad running an SEC team off the field to win the Orange Bowl.

I've long been a defender of Johnson's Yellow Jackets, but even I severely underestimated them. Since bottoming out in 2010, when they finished 6-7 and ranked 74th in F/+, they had clawed their way back to respectability. They ranked 37th in both 2012 and 2013, their 14-13 record held back by a 1-6 record in one-possession games. And in Justin Thomas, they appeared to find an exciting quarterback. Still, there were limitations, as I wrote in last year's preview.

Johnson's offense still works. I say it every year. The flexbone is not the best offense for drawing five-star talent, and it certainly isn't great on third-and-8. At the same time, Johnson and Georgia Tech aren't going to draw much five-star talent anyway, and almost no offense is particularly strong on third-and-8. When operated efficiently, the offense is the least of Johnson's problems. Even with shaky operation in 2013, the Jackets still finished 31st in Off. F/+. You're not going to win a national title with the flexbone option, but you can certainly win.

Perhaps because the end results are usually predictable, I delight more than I should in the surprises. Georgia Tech finishing 11-3 and No. 8 in F/+ tickled me beyond belief.

Eighth is high. Sometimes you can ride a stretch of close wins to a nice record, but the stats won't be fooled. If you rank eighth in F/+, you're really good, and you're probably going to remain good. Of the nine teams that ranked eighth between 2005 and 2013, three ranked even higher the next year, and all but one remained at least in the top 20.

(The USF team that ranked eighth in 2007 turned out to be a flash in the pan, but if history has taught us anything, it's that 2007 was the exception to every rule.)

In terms of final F/+ rankings, the Jackets beat No. 4 Georgia on the road, beat No. 13 Mississippi State and No. 14 Clemson by a combined 37 points, and nearly took down No. 15 Florida State for the ACC title.

Should we be taking them more seriously? When a team without a long history of success or without incredible recruiting rankings succeeds, we assume regression is coming. Should we? Or is the Ramblin' Wreck, with an incredible option quarterback, a stellar line, and a more experienced defense, ready to be the best team in the ACC?

2014 Schedule & Results

Record: 11-3 | Adj. Record: 13-1 | Final F/+ Rk: 8 Date Opponent Opp. F/+ Rk Score W-L Percentile

Performance Adj. Scoring

Margin Win

Expectancy 30-Aug Wofford N/A 38-19 W 73% 14.4 99% 6-Sep at Tulane 93 38-21 W 83% 21.8 96% 13-Sep Georgia Southern 57 42-38 W 86% 24.8 63% 20-Sep at Virginia Tech 33 27-24 W 50% 0.1 24% 4-Oct Miami 31 28-17 W 86% 25.1 77% 11-Oct Duke 51 25-31 L 63% 7.7 32% 18-Oct at North Carolina 70 43-48 L 49% -0.4 39% 25-Oct at Pittsburgh 43 56-28 W 97% 45.3 100% 1-Nov Virginia 39 35-10 W 95% 38.9 99% 8-Nov at NC State 55 56-23 W 97% 44.8 100% 15-Nov Clemson 14 28-6 W 92% 33.1 82% 29-Nov at Georgia 4 30-24 W 93% 33.8 78% 6-Dec vs. Florida State 15 35-37 L 62% 7.3 28% 31-Dec vs. Mississippi State 13 49-34 W 97% 44.4 98%

Category Offense Rk Defense Rk S&P+ 45.5 3 26.7 54 Points Per Game 37.9 12 25.7 54

2. Everything fell into place

Even an 11-3 team is going to have glitches. For the first half of 2014, the Yellow Jackets were good, but they weren't great.

They allowed bad Tulane and Virginia Tech offenses to average 5.5 and 5.9 yards per play, and they got torched by Georgia Southern, Miami, and North Carolina (combined: 34.3 points per game, 7.6 yards per play). And while the offense was fine, it let them down against Duke -- they gained 483 yards but had to settle for three field goals (missing one) and threw an interception from the Duke 10 in a 31-25 loss.

Following a frustrating shootout loss to UNC, Tech was 5-2 but a bystander in the ACC Coastal race. But then Duke began to stumble, and the Jackets caught fire.

Average Percentile Performance (first 7 games) : 70% (~top 40 | record: 5-2)

: 70% (~top 40 | record: 5-2) Average Percentile Performance (last 7 games): 90% (~top 15 | record: 6-1)

Sometimes your stats improve by remaining about the same. In the first seven games, Tech averaged 6.8 yards per play and allowed 6.4. In the last seven, the margin was 6.6 to 6.3. But the last seven games included four top-15 opponents and no dead weight. The Jackets destroyed Clemson, holding the Tigers to 190 total yards. They outgained Georgia by 75 yards and survived pratfalls to win a thriller. They averaged 6.4 yards per play against Florida State but stalled out just enough to drop a two-point heartbreaker. And they averaged 7.9 per play against a Mississippi State unit that had allowed 5.5 per play for the season.

The Tech defense was an issue throughout the year, capable of slowing down mediocre units but lacking the firepower to do anything against good ones. But the Jackets only had to make a few stops a game, thanks to a terrifying option offense. And for the most part, it was good enough to do that.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE Raw Category Rk Opp. Adj. Category Rk EXPLOSIVENESS IsoPPP 0.89 44 IsoPPP+ 148.0 3 EFFICIENCY Succ. Rt. 53.1% 1 Succ. Rt. + 132.1 3 FIELD POSITION Def. Avg. FP 29.1 54 Def. FP+ 102.0 44 FINISHING DRIVES Pts. Per Trip in 40 5.1 8 Redzone S&P+ 137.3 1 TURNOVERS EXPECTED 15.5 ACTUAL 18 +2.5

Category Yards/

Game Rk S&P+ Rk Success

Rt. Rk PPP+ Rk OVERALL 20 2 2 3 RUSHING 2 2 2 1 PASSING 123 5 20 3 Standard Downs 1 3 1 Passing Downs 4 2 5

Q1 Rk 4 1st Down Rk 2 Q2 Rk 16 2nd Down Rk 9 Q3 Rk 3 3rd Down Rk 8 Q4 Rk 6



Quarterback

Note: players in bold below are 2015 returnees. Players in italics are questionable with injury/suspension.

Player Ht, Wt 2015

Year Rivals 247 Comp. Comp Att Yards TD INT Comp

Rate Sacks Sack Rate Yards/

Att. Justin Thomas 5'11, 189 Jr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9371 96 187 1719 18 6 51.3% 10 5.1% 8.4 Tim Byerly 6'0, 212 Sr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.7000 9 13 148 1 0 69.2% 1 7.1% 10.0 Matthew Jordan 6'2, 200 RSFr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8204 Christian Campbell 6'2, 195 Fr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8650 Jaylend Ratliffe 6'2, 200 Fr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8591

3. Two more years of Justin Thomas

Heading into 2014, Thomas was tantalizing but unproven.

The former four-star athlete, a 100-meter track champion in Alabama, has the running down, but his early passing audition left something to be desired. He's not a big specimen, but his potential as a playmaker is off the charts. If efficiency doesn't suffer much, Tech's explosiveness will probably improve. But that's an important "if."

As a freshman in 2013, Thomas averaged 8.9 yards per (non-sack) carry but completed just nine of 17 passes with two picks and two sacks. If you're good enough at running the option, you're going to find opportunities to hit receivers downfield, but Thomas wasn't ready.

He was in 2014. His INT rate fell from 11.7 percent to 3.2, and his sack rate fell from 10.5 percent to 5.1. Part of that was a 2013 sample size issue -- your rates might be skewed when you only attempt 19 passes -- but part was obvious improvement.

The option is the most important facet of the Tech offense; Thomas was only once asked to throw more than 18 passes in a game. But aside from an implosion against Duke (6-for-15, 61 yards, two picks), he was somewhere between tolerable and excellent throughout. His passer rating was above 145 in nine games and above 200 in four. He threw for more than 1,700 yards, the first time a Tech QB had done that since the 2009 ACC title run. He was able to punish defenses for getting distracted by the run, and that's all the Tech pass has to do.

And now we've got two more years to see what he can do. This is going to be fun.

Running Back

Player Pos. Ht, Wt 2015

Year Rivals 247 Comp. Rushes Yards TD Yards/

Carry Hlt Yds/

Opp. Opp.

Rate Fumbles Fum.

Lost Justin Thomas QB 5'11, 189 Jr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9371 180 1143 8 6.4 7.1 46.1% 7 5 Zach Laskey BB

171 851 9 5.0 2.8 39.8% 2 2 Synjyn Days BB

157 924 9 5.9 4.7 42.7% 3 2 Charles Perkins AB

49 443 0 9.0 7.1 63.3% 0 0 Tony Zenon AB

45 293 4 6.5 7.2 48.9% 2 2 Tim Byerly QB 6'0, 212 Sr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.7000 44 212 7 4.8 4.0 40.9% 2 0 Deon Hill AB

34 232 3 6.8 3.6 64.7% 0 0 Broderick Snoddy AB 5'9, 190 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8347 28 283 3 10.1 6.6 75.0% 0 0 B.J. Bostic AB

22 134 1 6.1 3.2 63.6% 0 0 Matt Connors BB

21 113 2 5.4 4.7 38.1% 0 0 Dennis Andrews AB







16 106 0 6.6 6.5 50.0% 0 0 Patrick Skov (Stanford) BB 6'1, 235 Sr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8414 12 18 4 1.5 0.0% 1 1 Marcus Allen BB 6'2, 225 Jr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8571 Isiah Willis AB 5'9, 193 Jr. NR NR C.J. Leggett BB 5'10, 207 RSFr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8570 Qua Searcy AB 5'11, 167 RSFr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8510 Clinton Lynch AB 6'0, 181 RSFr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.7819 Mikell Lands-Davis BB 5'11, 205 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8619 Omahri Jarrett AB 5'10, 168 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8302 TaQuon Marshall AB 5'10, 175 Fr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8479 Marcus Marshall AB 5'10, 200 Fr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8442 Quaide Weimerskirch BB 6'0, 205 Fr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8149

4. A theory gets tested

I've long held a theory that the slotback in a flexbone-style offense has the simplest job in football. He must simply catch pitches and be fast, and he will succeed. Now, "simple" is not "easy," mind you, but while Johnson doesn't sign many blue-chippers, he can find fast guys to catch pitches.

This is the most plug-and-play offense in the ACC: the B-backs fall forward up the middle, the A-backs hit the corner, and the receivers block well and leap high for lobs. If the QB is up to snuff, the offense will succeed.

This theory will be tested. The return of Thomas and six linemen with starting experience (68 career starts) should assure the Tech offense functions. But there is drastic turnover at the other skill positions.

Tech must replace its top three B-backs (the fullback types) and four of the five A-backs who had at least 20 carries. Each of the A-backs averaged at least 6.1 yards per carry, and returning senior Broderick Snoddy averaged a hilarious 10.1, but the level of experience takes a major hit.

Johnson loaded up on running backs in February's signing class, and it is realistic to assume some combination of Snoddy, redshirt freshmen, and freshmen will still thrive on the outside, and that Stanford transfer Patrick Skov, converted linebacker Marcus Allen, and youngsters will take advantage of space up the middle. But if anything, the lack of experience could cause more mistakes -- missed assignments, drops, etc. And while the Tech offense will be as explosive as ever, the efficiency could drop a few notches.

Everything I just said goes for the receiver position, too. A Tech receiver's job is to block and occasionally spring downfield. Players like junior Micheal Summers, sophomores Antonio Messick and Ricky Jeune, and some interesting true freshmen could do that despite the loss of last year's top two. But the mistakes could increase.

Receiving Corps

Player Pos. Ht, Wt 2015

Year Rivals 247 Comp. Targets Catches Yards Catch Rate Target

Rate %SD Yds/

Target NEY Real Yds/

Target RYPR DeAndre Smelter WR

62 35 715 56.5% 33.9% 54.8% 11.5 281 11.6 139.2 Darren Waller WR

47 26 442 55.3% 25.7% 57.4% 9.4 118 9.4 86.0 Tony Zenon AB

18 8 161 44.4% 9.8% 38.9% 8.9 56 8.8 31.3 Deon Hill AB

12 10 178 83.3% 6.6% 66.7% 14.8 62 14.7 34.6 Micheal Summers WR 6'1, 196 Jr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8428 11 7 45 63.6% 6.0% 54.5% 4.1 -40 4.0 8.8 Charles Perkins AB

8 3 84 37.5% 4.4% 62.5% 10.5 43 11.7 16.4 Zach Laskey BB

8 6 49 75.0% 4.4% 37.5% 6.1 -22 5.0 9.5 B.J. Bostic AB

6 2 37 33.3% 3.3% 16.7% 6.2 9 14.9 7.2 Synjyn Days BB

4 3 33 75.0% 2.2% 50.0% 8.3 -2 7.8 6.4 Broderick Snoddy AB 5'9, 190 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8347 3 3 100 100.0% 1.6% 66.7% 33.3 66 29.1 19.5 Antonio Messick WR 6'3, 195 So. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8035 1 1 16 100.0% 0.5% 0.0% 16.0 5 N/A 3.1 Corey Dennis WR

1 1 7 100.0% 0.5% 100.0% 7.0 -4 N/A 1.4 Ricky Jeune WR 6'3, 214 So. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8443 Brandon Oliver WR 5'11, 208 Sr. NR NR Harland Howell WR 6'3, 200 Fr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8476 Christian Philpott WR 6'3, 203 Fr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8697 Dorian Walker WR 6'0, 175 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8494 Brad Stewart WR 6'1, 190 Fr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8517



Offensive Line

Player Pos. Ht, Wt 2015

Year Rivals 247 Comp. Career Starts Honors/Notes Shaquille Mason RG 39 All-American, 2014 2nd All-ACC Trey Braun LG 6'5, 294 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8363 21 Bryan Chamberlain LT 6'4, 295 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8444 20 Freddie Burden C 6'3, 302 Jr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8222 13 Chris Griffin RT 6'6, 284 So. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8352 7 Errin Joe RT 6'3, 313 Sr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8640 6 Eason Fromayan LG 6'4, 290 So. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8289 1 Shamire Devine RG 6'7, 365 So. 3 stars (5.7) 0.9077 0 Andrew Marshall C 6'4, 270 So. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8503 0 Thomas O'Reilly C

0 Nick Brigham RG

0 Trey Klock LT 6'4, 273 RSFr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8401

Gary Brown RG 6'3, 288 RSFr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8326

Jake Stickler RT 6'5, 261 RSFr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8489

Will Bryan OL 6'4, 285 Fr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8606



5. How important was Shaq?

In 2013, Georgia Tech ranked a solid 12th in Adj. Line Yards, but heading into 2014, the Yellow Jackets had to replace three line starters who had combined for 117 career starts. Outside of all-ACC guard Shaquille Mason, the Tech line was awfully untested.

And the Jackets improved to third in Adj. Line Yards. Part of that had to do with Thomas and the experienced supporting cast, but the line did its job. No one allowed a lower percentage of run stops in the backfield than Tech, and for this type of offense, that might be the most important stat of all.

So now Tech returns four starters, six with starting experience (68 career starts), but Mason's gone. Was he the lynchpin? Will seniors Trey Braun, Bryan Chamberlain, and Errin Joe assure more mistake-proof play? A good line can usually overcome one loss, but Mason was awfully good.

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

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE Raw Category Rk Opp. Adj. Category Rk EXPLOSIVENESS IsoPPP 0.78 33 IsoPPP+ 96.8 76 EFFICIENCY Succ. Rt. 49.4% 123 Succ. Rt. + 89.6 111 FIELD POSITION Off. Avg. FP 30.7 53 Off. FP+ 102.0 38 FINISHING DRIVES Pts. Per Trip in 40 4.2 50 Redzone S&P+ 105.9 44 TURNOVERS EXPECTED 24.1 ACTUAL 29.0 +4.9

Category Yards/

Game Rk S&P+ Rk Success

Rt. Rk PPP+ Rk OVERALL 81 91 102 76 RUSHING 64 94 97 87 PASSING 90 84 104 65 Standard Downs 83 97 71 Passing Downs 107 95 95

Q1 Rk 77 1st Down Rk 109 Q2 Rk 98 2nd Down Rk 92 Q3 Rk 77 3rd Down Rk 51 Q4 Rk 53

6. Continuity, at least

One of the flaws in my ratings is that I haven't figured out an easy way to strip special teams from the offensive and defensive ratings. Since field position is part of the overall equation, that means the kicking (offense) and return games (defense) factor into the unit rankings in a way that isn't directly applicable to offense and defense.

In that regard, Jamal Golden, with his efficient returns more than his decent safety play, may have had the most positive impact on Georgia Tech's defensive ratings. Without solid field position and red zone stops, the Yellow Jackets' had very little going for them when the defense was on the field. Bend-don't-break can work, but Tech's defense bent a lot.

While it's been a while since Tech had an effective defense, youth dragged the Jackets down last year, as did the loss of lineman Jabari Hunt-Days to suspension. The ends were freshmen and sophomores, the leading tackler was a sophomore, and a few freshmen played roles in the secondary.

With only three starters gone and Hunt-Days back (and heavier), experience will be a strength, which means that one should expect some improvement. And if the defense improves enough to account for the offense being less efficient, then the Ramblin' Wreck move on at the same pace. That sounds good in theory, at least.

Defensive Line

Name Pos Ht, Wt 2015

Year Rivals 247 Comp. GP Tackles % of Team TFL Sacks Int PBU FF FR KeShun Freeman DE 6'1, 236 So. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8560 14 45.5 6.4% 9.5 4.5 0 1 1 0 Jabari Hunt-Days (2013) DT 6'3, 290 Sr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8797 13 38.0 5.7% 7.0 2.5 1 1 1 0 Adam Gotsis DT 6'5, 282 Sr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8026 14 29.5 4.1% 6.5 3.0 1 3 0 0 Shawn Green NT

13 22.5 3.2% 4.5 1.5 0 4 0 0 Patrick Gamble NT 6'5, 286 Jr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8760 14 19.5 2.7% 1.5 0.0 0 1 1 0 Roderick Rook-Chungong DE 6'3, 243 Jr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8714 12 16.5 2.3% 2.5 1.5 0 1 0 0 Tyler Stargel DE 6'3, 246 Jr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8344 14 5.5 0.8% 1.0 1.0 0 1 0 0 Antonio Simmons DE 6'3, 228 So. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8206 8 4.0 0.6% 0.5 0.0 0 0 0 0 Francis Kallon NT 6'5, 296 Jr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9130 6 2.0 0.3% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Tyler Merriweather DE 6'3, 231 So. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8282 5 1.5 0.2% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Kenderius Whitehead DE 6'5, 209 Jr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8978 Kyle Cerge-Henderson DT 6'1, 280 Fr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8414 Anree Saint-Amour DE 6'3, 236 Fr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8672 Brentavious Glanton DT 6'2, 280 Fr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8432



















Linebackers

Name Pos Ht, Wt 2015

Year Rivals 247 Comp. GP Tackles % of Team TFL Sacks Int PBU FF FR P.J. Davis WILL 5'11, 218 Jr. 2 stars (5.2) 0.7811 14 100.5 14.1% 8.5 4.0 1 0 3 0 Quayshawn Nealy ILB

14 74.5 10.4% 6.0 1.5 2 5 1 1 Tyler Marcordes SAM 6'4, 235 Sr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.7859 14 25.5 3.6% 5.5 2.0 0 0 1 0 Anthony Harrell MIKE 6'2, 237 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8360 13 16.5 2.3% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Beau Hankins MIKE 6'1, 231 Jr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8567 14 8.0 1.1% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Kyle Travis LB

11 7.5 1.1% 1.5 0.0 0 1 0 0 Tremayne McNair ILB

12 5.5 0.8% 1.0 1.0 0 1 0 0 Domonique Noble WILL 6'2, 214 Sr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8584 10 5.0 0.7% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Chase Alford ILB 6'1, 234 Jr. NR 0.7800 14 2.5 0.4% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Terrell Lewis SAM 6'2, 227 So. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8219 Victor Alexander LB 5'10, 220 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8650 Tyler Cooksey LB 6'3, 220 Fr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8615 Brant Mitchell LB 6'2, 240 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8535



















7. Size vs. quickness

Looking at the top returning members of the front seven, you notice something: they're small. The top five returning ends average 6'3, 237. Including Hunt-Days, the top three returning tackles average 6'4, 286. Leading tackler P.J. Davis is 5'11, 218. This isn't mid-major small, but it's smaller than most power-conference fronts.

This can work if it results in extra speed and aggressiveness. You might get pushed around, but you can make up for it in your attacking. Havoc can become doubly important when you are a bit on the light side.

Georgia Tech didn't create nearly enough havoc. The Jackets ranked 102nd in Adj. Sack Rate and a decent-not-great 62nd in stuff rate. There were some bright spots -- KeShun Freeman was Tech's best pass rusher as a true freshman, tackle Adam Gotsis combined 6.5 TFLs with four passes defensed, and the top three linebackers combined for 20 tackles for loss and eight passes defensed. The secondary made plays, but early-down inefficiency was a big hindrance. Tech couldn't stop the run and couldn't rush the passer enough to make up the difference.

Hunt-Days will help. Plus, Freeman is no longer a freshman, and the experience is solid: only three primary members of last year's rotation are gone. But experience alone doesn't make you more disruptive. You need raw talent, too.

Secondary

Name Pos Ht, Wt 2015

Year Rivals 247 Comp. GP Tackles % of Team TFL Sacks Int PBU FF FR Demond Smith SS 6'0, 191 Sr. 3 stars (5.5) NR 14 63.5 8.9% 2 0 1 4 1 0 Isaiah Johnson SS

13 61.5 8.6% 3 0 1 5 2 1 D.J. White CB 5'11, 188 Sr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8799 14 59.0 8.3% 2.5 0 4 8 1 0 Jamal Golden FS 6'0, 193 Sr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8088 14 52.0 7.3% 4 0 4 3 3 0 Chris Milton CB 5'11, 190 Sr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8665 14 28.5 4.0% 1 0 2 4 0 0 Lawrence Austin FS 5'9, 184 So. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8450 14 15.0 2.1% 0 0 1 1 1 0 Corey Griffin FS 6'2, 194 So. 2 stars (5.4) 0.7793 14 13.0 1.8% 0 0 1 2 0 0 Lance Austin NB 5'10, 187 So. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8466 14 9.0 1.3% 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lynn Griffin CB 6'0, 199 Jr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8034 12 4.5 0.6% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Step Durham CB 5'11, 188 So. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8793 8 4.0 0.6% 0 0 0 1 0 0 Zach Allen DB 5'9, 179 Jr. 2 stars (5.0) NR Shaun Kagawa SS 5'11, 202 So. 2 stars (5.3) NR John Marvin DB 6'1, 193 So. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8197 A.J. Gray S 6'1, 196 Fr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8640 Dante Wigley DB 6'1, 183 Fr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8482



















8. Give the secondary some sort of help

Opponents completed 63 percent of their passes, and in the Jackets' three losses, the completion rate was 73 percent. Opposing quarterbacks had plenty of time to find open men and weren't forced to throw too often on passing downs.

It's miraculous that the Tech secondary made as many plays as it did.The top three safeties combined for nine TFLs, six picks, and 12 breakups, and the top two corners combined for 3.5, six, and 12, respectively. That's not bad, and it hints at a potential strength.

Everybody but Isaiah Johnson is back, and the unit has quite a few seniors. If the front seven can make a few more run stops or get a few more hands on quarterbacks, Tech defenders should be capable of making more plays on the ball. But that's a significant if.

Special Teams

Punter Ht, Wt 2015

Year Punts Avg TB FC I20 FC/I20

Ratio Ryan Rodwell 6'2, 188 Jr. 32 40.2 2 7 13 62.5%

Kicker Ht, Wt 2015

Year Kickoffs Avg TB OOB TB% Harrison Butker 6'3, 202 Jr. 87 63.3 52 1 59.8%

Place-Kicker Ht, Wt 2015

Year PAT FG

(0-39) Pct FG

(40+) Pct Harrison Butker 6'3, 202 Jr. 65-66 7-12 58.3% 4-6 66.7%

Returner Pos. Ht, Wt 2015

Year Returns Avg. TD Jamal Golden KR 6'0, 193 Sr. 30 23.7 0 Broderick Snoddy KR 5'9, 190 Sr. 5 22.4 0 Jamal Golden PR 6'0, 193 Sr. 11 4.1 0

Category Rk Special Teams F/+ 31 Field Goal Efficiency 95 Punt Return Efficiency 7 Kick Return Efficiency 51 Punt Efficiency 73 Kickoff Efficiency 37 Opponents' Field Goal Efficiency 95

9. Few worries in special teams

So Harris Butker's leg is a bit scattershot -- he made a higher percentage of his longer field goals than his shorter ones. But he wasn't asked to attempt many FGs, and his kickoffs were strong. And while Golden wasn't incredibly explosive in the return game, he consistently made the first guy miss and got upfield.

There were no extreme strengths or weaknesses, and with everybody back, that should be the case again.

2015 Schedule & Projection Factors

2015 Schedule Date Opponent Proj. S&P+ Rk 3-Sep Alcorn State NR 12-Sep Tulane 92 19-Sep at Notre Dame 16 26-Sep at Duke 54 3-Oct North Carolina 44 10-Oct at Clemson 15 17-Oct Pittsburgh 38 24-Oct Florida State 17 31-Oct at Virginia 46 12-Nov Virginia Tech 26 21-Nov at Miami 28 28-Nov Georgia 3

Five-Year F/+ Rk 15.1% (35) 2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk 37 / 42 2014 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin* 11 / 8.7 2014 TO Luck/Game +0.8 Approx. Ret. Starters (Off. / Def.) 13 (5, 8) 2014 Second-order wins (difference) 10.1 (0.9)

10. The schedule isn't very cooperative

Notre Dame and Georgia in non-conference play with trips to Clemson, Miami, Duke and Virginia? Yikes. If Georgia Tech is going to earn its fifth division title in a decade, the Jackets will have to earn it.

After a relatively soft start, with three opponents projected worse than 50th in the first four weeks, the final eight games of the schedule are rugged. If the offense is more mistake-prone with such young skill position guys, or if the defense doesn't improve enough, Tech might not find a sure win after September 12.

But if the balance is still there, as I suspect it might be, then the Jackets have a chance at another really fun season. With Thomas and a strong line, the big-play spigot should remain on, and the defense probably won't regress.

Even if Tech isn't ready to be a top-10 team again, top-20 should be expected. That alone makes the Jackets the safest bet in the Coastal. Maybe Virginia Tech's offense improves enough to get the Hokies back into the top 20, and maybe Miami's defense and quarterback play do the same. But Georgia Tech already was a top-20 team and didn't lose a ton of breakthrough talent.