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. Football is easy: Just make good hires

On Wednesday's Podcast Ain't Played Nobody, Steven Godfrey and I fielded a question from a Kansas State fan about hard jobs and how they go back to being hard when a legend retires.

The short version (Geoff Burke-USA TODAY Sports)



2016 projected wins: 6.8



Projected S&P+ ranking: 32 (7 in ACC)



5-year recruiting ranking: 25 (5 in ACC)



Biggest strength: Bud Foster is still running the defense, and his secondary is not 60 percent freshman this year.



Biggest question mark: The offense hasn't been good in about five years. How quickly can Justin Fuente (and maybe a new QB) change that?



Biggest 2016 game: Miami (Oct. 20). It's Fuente's first really big home game, and it will have a massive impact on the ACC Coastal race.



Summary: Following a legend is never easy, but Justin Fuente brings a great track record to the table as he takes over for Frank Beamer at Virginia Tech. If Tech generates any offensive traction, Fuente's first season could be fantastic. 6.8: 32 (7 in ACC): 25 (5 in ACC): Bud Foster is still running the defense, and his secondary is not 60 percent freshman this year.: The offense hasn't been good in about five years. How quickly can Justin Fuente (and maybe a new QB) change that?: Miami (Oct. 20). It's Fuente's first really big home game, and it will have a massive impact on the ACC Coastal race.Following a legend is never easy, but Justin Fuente brings a great track record to the table as he takes over for Frank Beamer at Virginia Tech. If Tech generates any offensive traction, Fuente's first season could be fantastic.

Nearly three decades ago, we made a tremendous hire in [Bill] Snyder. Since then, he's fielded a lot of good teams and a few great ones. The university has made tens of millions of dollars in stadium and facility improvements. Additionally, fan support has greatly increased, through both donations and ticket sales. However, we still struggle to recruit at even a top 50 or 60 level. And the general perception seems to be that we will fall back to pre-Snyder levels of incompetence when he finally retires for good.

My response to him was basically that even recruiting at a top-50 or top-60 level is a sign that KSU won't fall to pre-Snyder levels of incompetence because that pre-Snyder bar is really, really low. I also noted that part of KSU fans' concerns is that they saw what happened the first time Snyder left. Within three years, they were, per S&P+, the No. 90 team in the country. (I also defended Ron Prince's performance in Manhattan a bit, and I don't feel proud of that, so I'll just move on.)

You could make the case that Virginia Tech fans could have similar worries. The Hokie program was not nearly in the sort of dire shape that KSU was in in the late-1980. Early-1980s Northwestern aside, no major-conference program can match that depth; still, before Frank Beamer, Tech had finished a season ranked in the AP poll just twice. The Hokies had been to six bowls.

During the 29-year Beamer era, on the other hand, they finished 16 seasons ranked and seven seasons ranked in the top 10. They bowled in each of his last 23 years. They are in the ACC because of Beamer.

Like Kansas State, Tech attempted to significantly enhance its infrastructure to maximize the effects of Beamer's success. But should Tech fans be more worried about their lot in life now that Beamer retired?

Maybe, but probably not. Tech went out and replaced him with the most sure-thing hire of the offseason.

No hire is truly a sure thing, of course. You can never completely know a new coach's fit within the culture of the program ahead of time, you don't know which recruiting battles he's going to win and lose, etc. You only know how good he's been in his previous job(s).

Justin Fuente was completely and totally awesome at his. Gary Patterson's former offensive coordinator at TCU, Fuente inherited a Memphis program in wretched shape in 2012 and almost instantly began improving the Tigers' lot in life. They had gone 5-31 in the three years before his arrival, and they ranked 120th in S&P+ in 2011. In 2012-13, they went 7-17 with rankings in the 80s. In 2014-15, they went 19-7 and ranked 49th and 55th, respectively.

He made a great defensive coordinator hire in Barry Odom (now Missouri's head coach), and the defense surged in the very first year and rose to 23rd in Def. S&P+ in 2014. The offense took a couple more years to turn around but did so, peaking at 27th in Off. S&P+ in 2014.

Fuente proved himself organized and extremely effective. If Memphis ends up in the Big 12 one day (not that the Big 12 is ever actually going to expand...), he might be the primary reason why. And the fact that he stuck the landing by retaining legendary defensive coordinator Bud Foster made his hire at VT seem even stronger.

Taking over for a legend is never easy, but Beamer did Fuente one final favor by lowering the bar a little bit. After winning at least 10 games in a season 13 times in 17 years between 1995-2011, the Hokies had settled into a seven-win existence, going either 7-6 or 8-5 in each of his final four seasons on the job.

The 8-5 team of 2013 was close to doing quite a bit better, but for the most part Tech has sunk from being a top-15 or 20 team each year to top-40. And in 2015, the Hokies ranked 59th in S&P+ with a fifth straight subpar offense and a surprisingly average defense as well.

Fuente inherits a team with talent and flaws, and he doesn't have to win 10 games right out of the gates. This is a nice arrangement for both parties.

Record: 7-6 | Adj. Record: 7-6 | Final F/+ Rk: 59 | Final S&P+ Rk: 59 Date Opponent Opp. F/+ Rk Score W-L Percentile

Performance Win

Expectancy vs. S&P+ Performance

vs. Vegas 7-Sep Ohio State 3 24-42 L 26% 0% -7.5 -4.0 12-Sep Furman N/A 42-3 W 96% 100% +2.4 19-Sep at Purdue 93 51-24 W 81% 98% +14.2 +21.0 26-Sep at East Carolina 73 28-35 L 41% 26% -18.3 -15.5 3-Oct Pittsburgh 46 13-17 L 19% 2% -9.0 -9.0 9-Oct NC State 49 28-13 W 87% 95% +18.0 +13.0 17-Oct at Miami-FL 62 20-30 L 41% 24% -7.1 -4.0 24-Oct Duke 74 43-45 L 40% 18% +6.1 -4.5 31-Oct at Boston College 70 26-10 W 70% 73% +23.0 +13.5 12-Nov at Georgia Tech 64 23-21 W 76% 92% +3.4 +5.5 21-Nov North Carolina 24 27-30 L 47% 17% -1.1 +3.5 28-Nov at Virginia 78 23-20 W 51% 60% -0.8 -0.5 26-Dec vs. Tulsa 95 55-52 W 58% 69% -8.9 -10.5

Category Offense Rk Defense Rk S&P+ 28.1 74 23.9 37 Points Per Game 31.0 53 26.3 59

2. A struggle for traction

Beamer's final season was, like quite a few other recent Tech seasons, marked by highs and lows. The Hokies looked brilliant in their handling of teams like Purdue (which wasn't terrible at the beginning of the year) and NC State but would bottom out almost immediately. During a 3-5 start, they went 0-3 in one-possession games, but as you see from the win expectancy numbers above, there was justice in those results.

VT won three of its final four regular-season games to finish bowl-eligible, and while the overall level of play wasn't much higher in these games, it was steadier. Tech hovered in the 50-70 range in terms of percentile performances instead of jumping from 90 to 20 and back.

Variance is a sign of a young team, and the Hokies were led by a freshman running back, sophomore receivers, sophomore linebackers, and freshman defensive backs. But they were pretty experienced at quarterback and on the defensive line, which means Fuente's first team will not be without its turnover and question marks.

Offense

Q1 Rk 72 1st Down Rk 59 Q2 Rk 53 2nd Down Rk 59 Q3 Rk 83 3rd Down Rk 87 Q4 Rk 74

3. A Fuente-Cornelsen offense

Perhaps the most impressive thing about Fuente's performance at Memphis, the aspect of his coaching personality that leads us to assume he will do well in Blacksburg, is his adaptability. He doesn't employ a system so much as he just observes his team's strengths and weaknesses and sets about maximizing the former and minimizing the latter.

At Memphis in 2015, that meant a pass-first approach with lots of tempo and attempts to spread defenses out. The Tigers weren't Leachian in their passing, and they actually ran the ball more frequently than the national average on passing downs (35 percent). But with an inefficient running game, their strength lied in passing the ball quite a bit on first down, and Paxton Lynch completed 67 percent of his passes on those downs.

Fuente's urges usually drifted toward tempo and spacing, but while Lynch was more mobile than his lanky frame suggested (not including sacks, he rushed 70 times for 358 yards last year), the QB who starts for Tech in 2016 will probably carry a heavier rushing load.

The leading QB candidates at the end of spring ball appeared to be Brenden Motley and Jerod Evans. Motley spent part of the season in the starting lineup thanks to an injury to Michael Brewer, but he proved more efficient as a runner (45 percent opportunity rate) than a passer (56 percent completion rate). Evans, meanwhile, dominated at Trinity Valley Community College last year, completing 62 percent of his passes for 38 touchdowns and three interceptions. But in just eight games, he also rushed for 414 yards and four scores.

Neither Motley nor Evans is likely to pull a Denard Robinson or Taysom Hill and threaten to rush for 1,500 yards, but one assumes the read option will be in heavy rotation for Fuente and new offensive coordinator Brad Cornelsen, his co-coordinator at Memphis.

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. Michael Brewer 126 216 1703 13 7 58.3% 18 7.7% 6.6 Brenden Motley 6'3, 225 Sr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8498 92 163 1155 11 7 56.4% 15 8.4% 5.8 Dwayne Lawson 6'6, 230 So. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9127 3 9 51 0 0 33.3% 0 0.0% 5.7 Jerod Evans 6'4, 235 Jr. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9109 Josh Jackson 6'2, 207 Fr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8742



Running Back

Player Pos. Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. Rushes Yards TD Yards/

Carry Hlt Yds/

Opp. Opp.

Rate Fumbles Fum.

Lost Travon McMillian TB 6'0, 200 So. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8921 200 1042 7 5.2 5.2 39.0% 1 0 Brenden Motley QB 6'3, 225 Sr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8498 73 340 3 4.7 3.4 45.2% 6 2 Sam Rogers FB 5'10, 228 Sr. NR NR 62 260 2 4.2 3.4 35.5% 1 1 J.C. Coleman TB 48 210 1 4.4 2.5 39.6% 2 2 Trey Edmunds TB 47 185 3 3.9 4.7 29.8% 0 0 Michael Brewer QB 19 68 1 3.6 3.2 21.1% 1 0 Dwayne Lawson QB 6'6, 230 So. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9127 14 55 1 3.9 1.6 50.0% 1 0 Shai McKenzie TB 5'11, 215 Jr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9044 13 50 0 3.8 1.4 38.5% 0 0 Isaiah Ford WR 6'2, 190 Jr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8816 7 51 0 7.3 1.6 100.0% 0 0 Bucky Hodges TE 6'7, 245 Jr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9049 5 27 1 5.4 3.2 60.0% 1 0 Chris Durkin TE 6'4, 232 So. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8866 4 25 0 6.3 1.7 75.0% 0 0 Marshawn Williams TB 5'11, 243 So. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8778 D.J. Reid TB 6'1, 240 So. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8778 Deshawn McClease TB 5'9, 177 RSFr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8711



Receiving Corps

Player Pos. Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. Targets Catches Yards Catch Rate Target

Rate Yds/

Target %SD Success

Rate IsoPPP Isaiah Ford WR 6'2, 190 Jr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8816 125 75 1164 60.0% 34.7% 9.3 60.0% 52.0% 1.69 Cam Phillips WR 6'1, 198 Jr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8755 74 49 582 66.2% 20.6% 7.9 47.3% 47.3% 1.45 Bucky Hodges TE 6'7, 245 Jr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9049 70 40 530 57.1% 19.4% 7.6 61.4% 48.6% 1.38 Ryan Malleck TE 30 21 289 70.0% 8.3% 9.6 53.3% 53.3% 1.67 Sam Rogers FB 5'10, 228 Sr. NR NR 25 16 193 64.0% 6.9% 7.7 44.0% 40.0% 1.88 Travon McMillian TB 6'0, 200 So. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8921 17 12 64 70.6% 4.7% 3.8 76.5% 35.3% 0.92 Kevin Asante WR 4 1 13 25.0% 1.1% 3.3 50.0% 25.0% 1.05 Deon Newsome WR 5'11, 187 Jr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8482 2 0 0 0.0% 0.6% 0.0 100.0% 0.0% 0.00 Greg Stroman WR 6'1, 173 Jr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8229 Chris Durkin TE 6'4, 232 So. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8866 Jaylen Bradshaw WR 6'1, 198 So. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8312 C.J. Carroll WR 5'7, 165 So. 2 stars (5.2) NR Xavier Burke TE 6'2, 270 RSFr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8818 Chris Cunningham TE 6'2, 242 RSFr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8404 Divine Deablo WR 6'3, 210 Fr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8757 Eric Kumah WR 6'2, 203 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8641 Samuel Denmark WR 6'0, 182 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8565 Phil Patterson WR 6'2, 185 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8610

4. Great in 2017

Ball distribution was pretty top-heavy for Tech in 2015. Travon McMillian carried 200 times as a redshirt freshman while the next three tailbacks on the list combined for 108. The trio of Isaiah Ford, Cam Phillips, and tight end Bucky Hodges combined for three-quarters of all of Tech's targets.

That gives us a pretty good idea of who the starters will be, but Fuente's Memphis offenses disseminated the ball quite a bit more -- four running backs carried at least 60 times in 2015, for instance, while seven receivers were targeted at least 25 times.

That McMillian, Ford, Phillips, and Hodges all return is unquestionably a good thing. Ford turned into a strong No. 1 target, and McMillian held his own as a freshman from both an efficiency and explosiveness standpoint.

Outside of the starters, though, it's hard to figure out who might be a breakthrough candidate. Shai McKenzie is the second-leading returning tailback, and he carried 13 times. Deon Newsome is the third-leading returning wide receiver, and he was targeted twice with zero catches. If any of the top four get hurt, a very green player will be thrust into a big role.

Whatever happens with the skill guys in 2016, however, things will probably improve in 2017. The big four are all scheduled to return (though obviously NFL defection is possible) and whoever emerges as primary backups (and goodness knows there are plenty of candidates) will be back, too. There are plenty of well-touted options, and they will have their feet wet by 2017.

Offensive Line

Player Pos. Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. 2015 Starts Career Starts Honors/Notes Jonathan McLaughlin LT 6'5, 292 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8400 13 35 Augie Conte RG 6'6, 303 Sr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8402 13 23 Wyatt Teller LG 6'5, 304 Jr. 4 stars (6.0) 0.9301 12 18 Wade Hansen RT 13 16 Eric Gallo C 6'2, 297 Jr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8433 13 13 Kyle Chung C 6'4, 290 Jr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8291 1 1 Yosuah Nijman LT 6'8, 298 So. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8992 0 0 Parker Osterloh LG 6'8, 336 Jr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8435 0 0 Braxton Pfaff RG 6'5, 295 So. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8697 0 0 Darius Redman RT 0 0 Colt Pettit OL 6'4, 298 So. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8600 0 0 Billy Ray Mitchell OL 6'4, 286 So. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8482 0 0 Tyrell Smith C 6'3, 292 RSFr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8406



D'Andre Plantin OL 6'5, 290 RSFr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8345



Demetri Moore OL 6'5, 305 Jr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8546



Jarrett Hopple OL 6'6, 280 Fr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8466





5. Best line in a while?

The whole of the Tech line was less than the sum of its parts for a few years, but the 2015 line showed promise, at least from a run-blocking perspective. (Neither Motley nor Brewer were particularly good at the "get the ball out of your hands quickly" thing and took a lot of sacks that might or might not have been the line's fault.)

The 2016 line returns eight players from last year's two-deep and five players who have combined for 90 career starts. Offensive line coach Vance Vice ran Memphis' line last year with the opposite results -- the Tigers were 98th in Adj. Line Yards but 28th in Adj. Sack Rate. A lot of that has to do with offensive style, but Memphis was also dealing with major injury-related shuffling. Assuming Vice is able to click with his new personnel, then with a solid runner at quarterback, the Tech run game should be pretty solid.

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 87 1st Down Rk 33 Q2 Rk 5 2nd Down Rk 78 Q3 Rk 45 3rd Down Rk 32 Q4 Rk 36

6. About last year...

Welcome back, Bud Foster. Now fix your pass defense.

I was over the moon about Tech's defense heading into the 2015 season. Back then, I said, "Only injuries will keep Tech out of the Def. S&P+ top 5, and as we learned last year, even injuries will only drop the Hokies to 10th or so." And then Tech went out and ranked 37th in Def. S&P+.

Injuries played a role, to be sure, pinpointing the one person Tech could least afford to lose (cornerback Kendall Fuller) and knocking him out for the season after just three games. But even without Fuller, I would have expected Tech to post a top-20 Passing S&P+ ranking. Instead, the Hokies ranked 48th.

The biggest issue was big plays. Great, aggressive defenses are willing to sacrifice the occasional big gainer in the name of three-and-outs and turnovers. But while Tech's efficiency numbers were fine (10th in Success Rate+, eighth in Rushing Success Rate+), the big-play balance was skewed. Tech allowed 71 gains of 20-plus yards, 102nd in the country, which was a few too many considering the schedule didn't feature too many passing heavyweights.

Tech's havoc numbers were still strong, and while the loss of play-makers Luther Maddy, Dadi Lhomme Nicolas, and Deon Clarke is damaging, the Hokies do still return Andrew Motuapuaka at middle linebacker and Ken Ekanem and Woody Baron up front. But a secondary that was younger than expected last year has something to prove.

Defensive Line

Name Pos Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. GP Tackles % of Team TFL Sacks Int PBU FF FR Luther Maddy DT 13 37.0 5.7% 7.0 2.5 0 0 1 0 Dadi Lhomme Nicolas DE 13 33.0 5.1% 7.0 2.5 0 2 2 0 Ken Ekanem DE 6'3, 255 Sr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9223 13 27.5 4.2% 8.5 4.5 0 3 1 0 Woody Baron DT 6'1, 275 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8667 13 22.0 3.4% 8.0 3.0 0 0 2 0 Corey Marshall DT 10 12.5 1.9% 5.5 2.5 0 0 2 0 Vinny Mihota DE 6'5, 270 So. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8580 12 8.0 1.2% 2.5 1.0 0 0 1 0 Nigel Williams DT 6'4, 295 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8672 13 6.5 1.0% 1.5 0.0 0 1 1 0 Seth Dooley DE 6'6, 239 Jr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8181 11 2.0 0.3% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Ricky Walker DT 6'2, 288 So. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8818 Steve Sobczak DT 6'1, 300 So. 2 stars (5.3) 0.8200 Tim Settle DT 6'3, 344 RSFr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9509 Trevon Hill DE 6'5, 234 RSFr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8766 Darius Fullwood DE 6'4, 262 RSFr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8711 Harry Lewis DT 6'0, 270 RSFr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8514 Houshun Gaines DE 6'4, 231 RSFr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8419 Jimmy Taylor DE 6'3, 225 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8544



















Linebackers

Name Pos Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. GP Tackles % of Team TFL Sacks Int PBU FF FR Deon Clarke OLB 12 60.0 9.3% 10.5 3.0 0 4 0 0 Andrew Motuapuaka MLB 6'0, 235 Jr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8532 11 57.0 8.8% 11.5 4.0 1 3 3 1 Anthony Shegog OLB 6'3, 212 Jr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8344 13 22.5 3.5% 0.5 0.0 0 2 0 0 Ronny Vandyke OLB 13 20.0 3.1% 2.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Sean Huelskamp MLB 6'1, 207 Jr. NR NR 4 10.0 1.5% 3.5 1.0 1 0 0 0 Tremaine Edmunds OLB 6'5, 236 So. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8760 13 8.5 1.3% 2.5 0.0 0 0 0 0 Dahman McKinnon LB NR 3 4.0 0.6% 1.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Carson Lydon MLB 6'2, 237 So. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8454 11 3.0 0.5% 1.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Johnathan Galante OLB 5'9, 210 Sr. NR NR Jamieon Moss OLB 6'2, 220 Jr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8247 Raymon Minor OLB 6'2, 221 So. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9041 Tavante Beckett LB 6'0, 215 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8462



















7. Great in 2017, part 2

Baron and Ekanem are seniors, as is tackle Nigel Williams, who could play a larger role this year. But they are scheduled to be the only losses among the front seven when 2017 rolls around. Whoever else emerges at end (sophomore Vinny Mihota? Redshirt freshmen Houshun Gaines, Trevon Hill, or Darius Fullwood?), tackle (sophomores Ricky Walker or Steve Sobczak? Redshirt freshmen Tim Settle or Harry Lewis?), and linebacker (juniors Anthony Shegog or Sean Huelskamp? Sophomores Tremaine Edwards or Carson Lydon? Sophomore Raymon Minor?) will be back.

And if recruiting rankings and this defense's history are any indication, they'll do pretty well this fall.

Secondary

Name Pos Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. GP Tackles % of Team TFL Sacks Int PBU FF FR Chuck Clark FS 6'1, 204 Sr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8542 13 86.0 13.3% 3 1 1 8 0 1 Adonis Alexander CB 6'3, 192 So. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8426 12 46.0 7.1% 0.5 0 4 6 0 0 Brandon Facyson CB 6'2, 191 Jr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8737 13 25.5 3.9% 1 0 0 10 0 0 Mook Reynolds NB 6'1, 184 So. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8768 13 25.0 3.9% 4 0 0 1 0 1 Terrell Edmunds ROV 6'1, 201 So. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8361 13 25.0 3.9% 1.5 0 0 7 0 1 Desmond Frye ROV

10 23.0 3.5% 0 0 1 1 1 0 Donovan Riley CB 13 20.5 3.2% 0 0 0 2 1 0 Greg Stroman CB 6'1, 170 Jr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8229 13 20.0 3.1% 0.5 0 2 5 0 0 Der'Woun Greene ROV 5'11, 194 Sr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8767 11 6.5 1.0% 0 0 0 0 1 0 Kendall Fuller CB 3 5.0 0.8% 1 1 0 1 1 0 Jahque Alleyne FS 6'1, 175 So. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8646 12 3.5 0.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shawn Payne CB 6'3, 185 So. 2 stars (5.4) 0.7983 DuWayne Johnson CB 6'2, 180 RSFr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8585 Khalil Ladler CB 5'11, 178 Fr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8893 Reggie Floyd S 6'0, 200 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8675 Jovonn Quillen DB 6'2, 195 Fr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8570 Tyree Rodgers DB 6'1, 180 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8462



















8. Assumptions and improvement

Because Fuller got hurt, because Donovan Riley wasn't as impressive at corner as he was at rover in 2014, and because safety C.J. Reavis was dismissed from the team, the Tech secondary was quite a bit younger than it was expected to be last year. (That's what I'll use as my primary excuse for being so wrong about this unit!)

Freshmen Adonis Alexander, Mook Reynolds, and Terrell Edmunds all played much larger roles than anticipated, and while they very much held their own, combining for six tackles for loss, four interceptions, and 14 break-ups, they were still freshmen, and freshmen are going to suffer some glitches.

Freshmen also become sophomores. Alexander and end Gaines were arrested on misdemeanor drug charges in April and suspended indefinitely, but until noted otherwise, I assume they will both play in 2016.

Assuming Alexander is eventually back, and assuming corner Brandon Facyson has recovered from an offseason knee injury -- I sure am using the word "assume" a lot here -- the Tech secondary should be fine in 2016. Chuck Clark is a stalwart at safety, and older players like Greg Stroman and Der'Woun Greene could probably play a decent role if asked.

And as Foster has employed freshmen pretty well in the past (2015 was a bit too extreme in that regard), one could see an early role for DuWayne Johnson or Khalil Ladler working out relatively well.

Special Teams

Punter Ht, Wt 2016

Year Punts Avg TB FC I20 FC/I20

Ratio A.J. Hughes 70 42.9 10 18 22 57.1%

Kicker Ht, Wt 2016

Year Kickoffs Avg TB OOB TB% Joey Slye 6'1, 207 Jr. 72 63.7 50 0 69.4%

Place-Kicker Ht, Wt 2016

Year PAT FG

(0-39) Pct FG

(40+) Pct Joey Slye 6'1, 207 Jr. 41-42 10-11 90.9% 13-19 68.4% Michael Santamaria 5'8, 168 So. 3-3 0-1 0.0% 0-0 N/A

Returner Pos. Ht, Wt 2016

Year Returns Avg. TD Der'Woun Greene KR 5'11, 194 Sr. 16 27.4 0 J.C. Coleman KR 9 18.9 0 Greg Stroman PR 6'1, 170 Jr. 31 7.8 1

Category Rk Special Teams S&P+ 32 Field Goal Efficiency 20 Punt Return Success Rate 71 Kick Return Success Rate 119 Punt Success Rate 77 Kickoff Success Rate 19

9. The sequel to BeamerBall

The BeamerBall mantra of stealing an advantage through special teams was not as effective in recent years as it was in Beamer's heyday. Still, Tech graded out pretty well in special teams last year. The return game was very much all-or-nothing, but Joey Slye emerged as mostly automatic weapon in both kickoffs and place-kicking.

Slye was also asked to attempt 19 field goals of 40-plus yards, which is insane. But at least he made most of them.

2016 Schedule Date Opponent Proj. S&P+ Rk Proj. Margin Win Probability 3-Sep Liberty NR 32.4 97% 10-Sep vs. Tennessee 9 -7.7 33% 17-Sep Boston College 50 8.1 68% 24-Sep East Carolina 78 12.9 77% 8-Oct at North Carolina 27 -5.5 38% 15-Oct at Syracuse 44 0.1 50% 20-Oct Miami 30 2.8 56% 27-Oct at Pittsburgh 29 -4.5 40% 5-Nov at Duke 51 1.2 53% 12-Nov Georgia Tech 54 8.4 69% 19-Nov at Notre Dame 11 -10.9 26% 26-Nov Virginia 68 10.9 74% Projected wins: 6.8

Five-Year F/+ Rk 18.2% (33) 2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk 32 / 25 2015 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin* 4 / 7.3 2015 TO Luck/Game -1.3 Returning Production (Off. / Def.) 74% (66%, 82%) 2015 Second-order wins (difference) 6.7 (0.3)

10. Got a QB?

If the quarterback position is settled -- especially if Jerod Evans, a junior, wins the job -- then Virginia Tech sure seems to have a lot of pieces in place for Fuente. I'm not completely sure what that means for 2016; a top-30 performance doesn't at all seem out of the question, but beyond that we'll see.

We'll also see a pretty stout team in 2017. Only a few of Tech's best players are seniors, and whatever the Hokies produce in 2016, they'll likely produce more a year later.

Per S&P+, there are five likely wins on the schedule, two likely losses, and five games in which the Hokies have a win probability between 38 and 56 percent. That projects to about 7-5, but if Fuente is able to make a quick impact on the offense, that could easily drift toward nine wins or so.

Following a legend is never easy, but Fuente's own résumé, combined with Tech's late-Beamer slide, creates a pretty doable situation for a guy I would have voted Most Likely to Succeed in the 2015-16 coaching carousel class.