Confused? 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. Extreme in both directions

Big 12 defenses get a bad rap sometimes. There have been plenty of strong defenses that were labeled as poor simply because of the extreme tempo and effectiveness of the offenses they faced.

Since 2007, when the spread offense really took off in the conference, six of its defenses have ranked in the Def. S&P+ top 10 and 30 have ranked in the top 30. Only nine have ranked 100th or worse.

The short version (Ben Queen-USA TODAY Sports)



2016 projected wins: 6.4



Projected S&P+ ranking: 43 (7 in Big 12)



5-year recruiting ranking: 42 (6 in Big 12)



Biggest strength: Patrick Mahomes is a potential All-American at QB, and he's still got lots of weapons.



Biggest question mark: The defense needs to force more turnovers and give up fewer 30-yard gains. Can it pull off at least one of two?



Biggest 2016 game: WVU (Oct. 15). Tech was 1-6 against top-40 teams last year, and WVU's the first one on the docket.



Summary: Texas Tech almost had the best offense in the country, but on two occasions the Red Raiders scored 50 points and lost because of a miserable defense. Can Kliff Kingsbury figure out defense before his time in Lubbock runs out? 6.4: 43 (7 in Big 12): 42 (6 in Big 12): Patrick Mahomes is a potential All-American at QB, and he's still got lots of weapons.: The defense needs to force more turnovers and give up fewer 30-yard gains. Can it pull off at least one of two?: WVU (Oct. 15). Tech was 1-6 against top-40 teams last year, and WVU's the first one on the docket.Texas Tech almost had the best offense in the country, but on two occasions the Red Raiders scored 50 points and lost because of a miserable defense. Can Kliff Kingsbury figure out defense before his time in Lubbock runs out?

The Big 12 just plays a different game than much of the rest of the country, and our insistence on evaluating defenses by total yards or points gives us false impressions.

It usually does, anyway. In Lubbock, our impressions are accurate. In 2008, Mike Leach's breakthrough season, the Red Raiders ranked fourth in Off. S&P+ and 84th in Def. S&P+. In 2011, a 5-7 season for Tommy Tuberville, they ranked 26th and 110th, respectively. And over the last two seasons under Kliff Kingsbury, Tech has gone all the way to the extremes. In 2014, the team ranked 23rd and 114th. In 2015: third and 121st.

Last fall, Tech was the Big 12 stereotype personified. On two occasions, the Red Raiders scored over 50 points and lost; once, they scored 53 and lost by 17. On three other occasions, they allowed over 40 points and won. The 2015 Tech offense might have been the best yet. And Kingsbury's charges went 7-6.

This is fun as hell, mind you. Only three times did a Tech game feature fewer than 80 points. In the Texas Bowl against LSU, Tech allowed more than 10 yards per play and still only trailed by a touchdown in the latter third quarter.

It's fun knowing Tech is guaranteed to produce five or six amazing shootouts a year. Even if the spread isn't your thing, and even if the thought of defense-free football makes you shudder, you have to admit it feels right for the id of the spread offense and air-it-out football to reside in West Texas.

If you're a Tech fan, however, this has to be conflicting. Kingsbury has been in charge for three seasons and has brought exactly what he was asked to bring to town. But in the last two years, he is only 11-14 because his team cannot pretend to make a stop.

Since Leach was run out of town following 2009, Tech has never played at a Big 12-average level (as seen in the chart below). The Red Raiders are dangerous, and preparing for them is in no way pleasant since you know you're going to be in for a four-hour track meet. But they've gone 40-36 in that span -- a tough out is still an out.

Can this change? Of course. Every year is an opportunity for change, and in defensive coordinator David Gibbs, Kingsbury has hired someone who is both seasoned and accustomed to the challenge of attacking the spread.

A starter on Colorado's 1990 national title team and a former DC at Minnesota, Auburn, and Houston, Gibbs was brought in a year ago. But there was only space for him to bring one assistant (LBs coach Zac Spavital). Following last year's troubles, three coaches were fired, and Gibbs was able to put a little more of his stamp on the defense. We'll see if that makes a difference.

Record: 7-6 | Adj. Record: 8-5 | Final F/+ Rk: 60 | Final S&P+ Rk: 62 Date Opponent Opp. F/+ Rk Score W-L Percentile

Performance Win

Expectancy vs. S&P+ Performance

vs. Vegas 5-Sep Sam Houston State N/A 59-45 W 53% 74% -2.2 12-Sep UTEP 125 69-20 W 93% 100% +28.5 +28.0 19-Sep at Arkansas 11 35-24 W 81% 83% +27.0 +22.5 26-Sep TCU 19 52-55 L 59% 32% +7.3 +4.0 3-Oct vs. Baylor 14 35-63 L 27% 1% -15.1 -11.0 10-Oct Iowa State 79 66-31 W 88% 99% +24.0 +22.5 17-Oct at Kansas 127 30-20 W 37% 71% -16.6 -21.0 24-Oct at Oklahoma 4 27-63 L 23% 0% -19.7 -22.0 31-Oct Oklahoma State 40 53-70 L 38% 13% -11.6 -14.0 7-Nov at West Virginia 31 26-31 L 65% 48% +9.3 +3.5 14-Nov Kansas State 81 59-44 W 87% 99% +9.3 +9.5 26-Nov at Texas 68 48-45 W 66% 80% -2.4 +4.5 29-Dec vs. LSU 10 27-56 L 9% 0% -17.9 -21.5

Category Offense Rk Defense Rk S&P+ 43.6 3 40.2 121 Points Per Game 45.1 2 43.6 125

2. Instant shootouts

Tech's 2015 offense was one of the nation's best, and not only because of tempo. On a per-play basis, the Red Raiders proved they could move the ball against anybody. The problem was that they couldn't move the ball well enough against good opponents to offset what the opponent was doing to their defense.

Texas Tech vs. F/+ top 40 :

Record: 1-6 | Avg. percentile performance: 43% (~top 75) | Yards per play: Opp 7.8, Tech 6.3 (-1.5)

: Record: 1-6 | Avg. percentile performance: 43% (~top 75) | Yards per play: Opp 7.8, Tech 6.3 (-1.5) Texas Tech vs. F/+ No. 41+:

Record: 6-0 | Avg. percentile performance: 71% (~top 35) | Yards per play: Tech 7.7, Opp 6.0 (+1.7)

Against seven top-40 opponents, Tech never scored fewer than 26 points. But the imbalance here was obvious. Good opponents were able to make enough stops to win, often comfortably.

Every offense was good in a Tech game -- even Kansas and UTEP scored 20 points -- but top-40 teams were able to treat Tech like Tech treated everyone else. The Red Raiders were unable to afford any offensive droughts.

Tech's offense almost cannot be better than it was; the Red Raiders have peaked until the defense figures out how to get the ball away from the opponent before the end zone.

Offense

Q1 Rk 8 1st Down Rk 9 Q2 Rk 10 2nd Down Rk 51 Q3 Rk 47 3rd Down Rk 5 Q4 Rk 6



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. Patrick Mahomes II 6'3, 219 Jr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8807 364 573 4653 36 15 63.5% 27 4.5% 7.5 Davis Webb 22 41 300 2 0 53.7% 0 0.0% 7.3 Nic Shimonek 6'3, 210 Jr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8175 Payne Sullins 6'2, 180 So. 2 stars (5.3) 0.7778 Jett Duffey 6'1, 200 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8559

3. The scary part: Mahomes can get better

There's only so much Tech can improve offensively. The Red Raiders averaged 43.6 adjusted points per game last fall, third in the country and only one-tenth of a point from first-place Baylor. Per Off. S&P+, Tech had the 18th-best offense of the 11-season (and 1,345-team) S&P+ era.

The offensive line is starting over, and both the top rusher and receiver are gone. With this turnover, it might be difficult to match last year's output. But they have a chance because Pat Mahomes II hasn't yet hit his peak. The junior from Whitehouse and son of a former baseball pro threw for 4,653 yards and 36 touchdowns and rushed for more than 600 non-sack yards despite hobbling around on a bad ankle for part of the season. Neither his interception rate (2.6 percent) nor sack rate (4.5 percent) were bad, but both could improve.

Mahomes is nearly the perfect spread quarterback, capable of making most throws accurately, making quick decisions, and getting the ball upfield with his legs if the defense overcompensates for the pass. He had a wonderful supporting cast, and we'll see if some new pieces can live up to a high standard. But in a country full of solid spread QBs, Mahomes might have been the best. And he wasn't quite full-speed.

Running Back

Player Pos. Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. Rushes Yards TD Yards/

Carry Hlt Yds/

Opp. Opp.

Rate Fumbles Fum.

Lost DeAndre Washington RB 233 1492 14 6.4 6.2 42.9% 5 2 Patrick Mahomes II QB 6'3, 219 Jr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8807 104 616 10 5.9 3.8 49.0% 5 2 Justin Stockton RB 5'10, 192 Jr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8672 61 367 5 6.0 6.3 45.9% 0 0 Quinton White RB 5'7, 209 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8413 9 29 0 3.2 1.4 44.4% 0 0 Jakeem Grant WR 8 68 2 8.5 10.5 50.0% 1 0 Demarcus Felton RB 5'7, 190 So. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8463 6 73 1 12.2 16.0 50.0% 0 0 Corey Dauphine RB 6'0, 194 RSFr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.9134 Da'Leon Ward RB 5'10, 180 Fr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8593

















Receiving Corps

Player Pos. Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. Targets Catches Yards Catch Rate Target

Rate Yds/

Target %SD Success

Rate IsoPPP Jakeem Grant IR 127 90 1263 70.9% 21.6% 9.9 55.9% 48.0% 1.99 Reginald Davis WR 6'0, 188 Sr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9274 69 38 536 55.1% 11.7% 7.8 68.1% 44.9% 1.64 Devin Lauderdale WR

68 43 633 63.2% 11.5% 9.3 63.2% 50.0% 1.67 Ian Sadler IR 5'11, 197 Jr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8748 62 42 596 67.7% 10.5% 9.6 50.0% 56.5% 1.52 DeAndre Washington RB 57 41 401 71.9% 9.7% 7.0 66.7% 42.1% 1.55 Cameron Batson IR 5'9, 173 Jr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8449 39 29 327 74.4% 6.6% 8.4 56.4% 51.3% 1.58 Tony Brown WR 6'1, 187 So. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8763 32 14 250 43.8% 5.4% 7.8 68.8% 37.5% 1.70 Zach Austin IR 5'11, 187 Jr. NR NR 30 22 238 73.3% 5.1% 7.9 60.0% 66.7% 1.06 Justin Stockton RB 5'10, 192 Jr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8672 27 22 341 81.5% 4.6% 12.6 66.7% 55.6% 2.28 Jonathan Giles WR 5'11, 184 So. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8322 20 15 143 75.0% 3.4% 7.2 55.0% 65.0% 1.03 Keke Coutee IR 5'11, 173 So. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8672 18 11 105 61.1% 3.1% 5.8 50.0% 44.4% 1.18 Ja'Deion High WR 5'11, 179 Jr. NR NR 15 8 111 53.3% 2.5% 7.4 60.0% 46.7% 1.35 Brad Pearson IR 9 5 47 55.6% 1.5% 5.2 77.8% 44.4% 1.25 Quinton White RB 5'7, 209 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8413 8 6 32 75.0% 1.4% 4.0 100.0% 37.5% 1.02 Dylan Cantrell WR 6'3, 212 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8717 Derrick Willies WR 6'3, 215 Jr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9041 De'Quan Bowman WR 5'11, 180 Jr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8566 T.J. Vasher WR 6'5, 198 Fr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8919

4. Interchangeable parts?

In DeAndre Washington, Mahomes and Tech had one of the most underrated backs in college football. The combination of Washington and Mahomes' ability meant the Red Raiders had every weapon. Washington was both efficient and explosive and even averaged a solid 7 yards per pass target out of the backfield.

In Jakeem Grant, Tech had maybe the fastest player in college football. When he was hand-timed at 4.12 in the 40-yard dash at Tech's pro day, it was almost believable. He's tiny, but he grew into a receiver equally adept close to and far from the line of scrimmage, and he averaged 9.9 yards per target as a senior.

Now the first string in the skill corps has been thinned out. Can the new guys provide the same threat?

Signs are encouraging in the backfield. Junior Justin Stockton produced averages nearly identical to Washington's; he rushed seven times for 101 yards in a romp over Iowa State, and he scored five touchdowns on just 61 carries. He produced higher catch and success rates than Washington in the passing game as well. You never know what's going to happen to productivity when you move someone from backup to feature guy, but Stockton could be excellent. Goodness knows he has the speed.

Though Ian Sadler and Cameron Batson aren't as fast as Grant (almost nobody is), they both produced a higher success rate last fall, and Sadler averaged a comparable 9.6 yards per target. If they can provide a similar level of stress on the interior, then the outside receivers -- seniors Reginald Davis and Dylan Cantrell, junior Ja'Deion High, sophomores Tony Brown and Jonathan Giles, four-star JUCO transfer Derrick Willies, four-star freshman T.J. Vasher -- should be just fine.

Tech will have speed, and its offense will be good. The question is whether last year's seniors were too good to be replaced without drop-off.

Offensive Line

Player Pos. Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. 2015 Starts Career Starts Honors/Notes Le'Raven Clark LT 13 51 2015 1st All-Big 12 Alfredo Morales LG 13 37 2015 2nd All-Big 12 Jared Kaster C 13 38 Baylen Brown LT 6'5, 309 Sr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8609 11 23 Tony Morales C 6'3, 285 Sr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8985 7 7 Emeka Okafor LG 4 4 Justin Murphy RG 6'6, 298 So. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8160 4 4 Poet Thomas LT

0 0 Robert Castaneda C

0 0 Paul Stawarz RG 6'5, 295 So. NR NR 0 0 Cole Collier LG 6'1, 286 So. 2 stars (5.2) NR 0 0 Ethan Smith RT 6'6, 278 So. NR NR 0 0 Conner Dyer OL 6'4, 268 RSFr. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9034



Madison Akamnonu LG 6'5, 294 RSFr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8989



Terence Steele RT 6'6, 285 RSFr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.7733



Cody Wheeler C 6'4, 293 RSFr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.7733



Zach Adams OL 6'6, 315 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8481





5. Interchangeable Parts? Part II

The large splits of the offensive line in the spread were originally designed to counter natural disadvantages. Even if a defensive end has superior talent, he still has to run further to get to the quarterback; even if a defensive tackle has a clear advantage in the middle, a running back still has space to get around him. You could succeed with "five dumpy linemen who could get run over slowly."

In this sense, maybe the loss of two all-conference linemen and two more with starting experience won't hurt as bad as instinct might tell us. Plus, hey, line experience might be overrated anyway.

Most of last year's two-deep is gone, and there will possibly be a redshirt freshman presence in the starting lineup, but at least Tech returns two-year starting tackle Baylen Brown (who will move from RT to LT), center Tony Morales, and guard Justin Murphy.

The line's sack rates were a little bit higher than normal last year, in part because of Mahomes' scrambling ability. That probably won't sink, but if there's a concern, it comes in run-blocking. Large splits or not, Tech was fantastic at creating space for Washington and Stockton.

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 94 1st Down Rk 106 Q2 Rk 114 2nd Down Rk 101 Q3 Rk 68 3rd Down Rk 109 Q4 Rk 126

6. If you're going to build your defense around turnovers, force turnovers

Total yardage is a stat often cited by analysts and fans. At Houston, it's ignored outright. "As far as I’m concerned, we can be last in the nation in total defense as long as we’re in the top 20 in scoring defense."

In a lot of ways, Gibbs is a man after my own heart. He has proven adaptable over 20 years, as he moved from ultra-young defensive coordinator to NFL position coach to college DC.

In 1999, Gibbs' Minnesota defense allowed just 16 points per game; his 2005 Auburn allowed 15.5. Realizing that was not conceivable in Texas, Gibbs recalibrated. As Houston DC, he geared around one simple thing: separating the offense from the ball. Instead of aiming to make a huge stop on every set of downs, a Gibbs defense tries to fool the QB into making a single foolish read and hacks at the ball with reckless abandon. To Gibbs, it is worth the risk of giving up extra yards if it means a potential turnover.

If you're going to give up yards like Tech did last year, however, you better get a ton of turnovers. And while the Red Raiders improved -- they went from 1.3 turnovers per game in 2014 to 1.9 -- they didn't improve enough to offset the yardage.

Turnovers are part skill and part luck. Your pass rush, level of aggressiveness in the secondary, and propensity for hacking at the ball before dragging an opponent to the ground can affect your opportunities. You aren't always going to get lucky like Gibbs' 2013 Houston defense did, but you can still create chances. There's an obvious risk-reward balance, and Tech's 2015 unit was completely imbalanced. Forcing 25 turnovers is great, but it doesn't mean much when you're giving up 44 gains of 30-plus yards (worst in FBS).

Defensive Line

Name Pos Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. GP Tackles % of Team TFL Sacks Int PBU FF FR Pete Robertson RUSH 12 52.5 6.4% 13.5 5.0 0 2 2 0 Branden Jackson DE 13 27.5 3.3% 4.5 2.0 0 1 1 0 Demetrius Alston DT 13 19.0 2.3% 3.5 2.0 0 0 0 0 Breiden Fehoko DT 6'3, 295 So. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9744 13 15.0 1.8% 4.0 1.0 1 0 0 0 Rika Levi NT 12 11.5 1.4% 1.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Gary Moore DE 6'5, 240 Jr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8772 11 11.0 1.3% 4.0 3.0 0 1 0 0 Kris Williams DE 6'1, 240 Sr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8348 10 8.5 1.0% 0.0 0.0 0 1 0 0 Zach Barnes RUSH 6'3, 240 Jr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8252 7 7.0 0.8% 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 Ondre Pipkins

(Michigan) DT 6'3, 317 Sr. 5 stars (6.1) 0.9707 6 5.5 0.9%% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Keland McElrath DT 8 4.5 0.5% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 1 Talor Nunez DE 6'4, 256 Jr. NR NR 2 3.0 0.4% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Kolin Hill RUSH 6'2, 250 Jr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8575 Broderick Washington NT 6'3, 305 RSFr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8361 Lonzell Gilmore DT 6'3, 250 RSFr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.7859 Mych Thomas NT 6'1, 325 Jr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8487 Houston Miller DE 6'4, 240 Fr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8486 Nick McCann DT 6'2, 300 Fr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8447 Noah Jones DE 6'3, 250 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8446



Linebackers

Name Pos Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. GP Tackles % of Team TFL Sacks Int PBU FF FR Micah Awe MIKE 13 101.5 12.3% 6.5 0.0 0 2 1 0 Dakota Allen MIKE

12 66.0 8.0% 6.0 0.0 2 1 0 0 D'Vonta Hinton WILL 5'9, 225 So. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8389 13 42.5 5.1% 5.5 2.0 0 0 1 0 Malik Jenkins SAM 6'1, 225 Sr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8144 13 40.0 4.8% 4.0 0.0 0 2 1 0 Sam Atoe SAM 10 8.5 1.0% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Mike Mitchell LB 9 5.0 0.6% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 1 Bobby Esiaba LB 8 3.0 0.4% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Kahlee Woods SAM 6'1, 225 Jr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8324 13 3.0 0.4% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Luke Stice

(Houston) WILL 6'0, 230 Sr. NR NR Jacarthy Mack LB 6'2, 197 Jr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8394 Johnathan Picone MIKE 6'1, 220 Fr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8351 Jordyn Brooks LB 6'2, 230 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8475 Brayden Stringer LB 6'2, 205 Fr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8406



















7. The good news: It almost literally can't get worse

That Tech's front seven is changing isn't in any way a good thing. The Red Raiders have to replace four of their top five linemen and five of seven linebackers. Change like this rarely results in improvement, and it has to be a concern that last year's defense faded so drastically in the second and fourth quarters -- that suggests depth problems, and now half the two-deep is gone. But at the very least, you can't get much worse than 124th in Rushing S&P+.

Even with the 21 non-sack tackles for loss generated by since-departed linebackers Micah Awe and Dakota Allen and end Pete Robertson, the Red Raiders were too easily pushed to the side up front, allowing more than 200 yards 10 times and more than 300 seven times.

The further development of four-star sophomore Breiden Fehoko is key to Tech's improvement up front. The blue-chipper found a spot in the rotation and led Tech tackles with four tackles for loss, and if he continues to progress toward his ceiling, Tech might be alright. And he could get help from big JUCO transfer Mych Thomas and former Michigan blue-chipper Ondre Pipkins.

Linebacker could be an issue. Dakota Allen was recently dismissed, which means there's a chance that true freshman Johnathan Picone, second on the depth chart after spring ball, could start from day one. Sophomore D'Vonta Hinton and senior Malik Jenkins flashed play-making ability, but when you've got a freshman mike, your ceiling might not be too high for a while.

Secondary

Name Pos Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. GP Tackles % of Team TFL Sacks Int PBU FF FR J.J. Gaines CB 13 66.5 8.1% 4.5 1 4 4 2 0 Jah'Shawn Johnson S 5'10, 176 So. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8395 13 65.0 7.9% 4.5 0 2 3 2 2 Tevin Madison S 5'10, 166 Jr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8291 13 56.5 6.8% 2.5 1 2 11 2 0 Keenon Ward S 5'9, 200 Sr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8640 12 50.0 6.1% 1.5 0 0 4 0 0 Nigel Bethel II CB 5'9, 187 Jr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8807 9 39.0 4.7% 0.5 0 1 11 0 0 Justis Nelson CB 6'2, 180 Sr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8222 13 38.0 4.6% 1 0 2 4 0 0 Thierry Nguema CB 5'10, 170 Sr. 2 stars (5.3) 0.7917 10 25.5 3.1% 0 0 1 3 0 0 Paul Banks III CB 6'2, 185 Sr. 2 stars (5.3) NR 7 13.5 1.6% 0 0 0 2 0 0 John White DB 13 10.0 1.2% 0 0 0 0 1 0 Payton Hendrix S 6'2, 199 So. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8866 11 7.0 0.8% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jalen Barnes DB 5 2.5 0.3% 0 0 0 1 0 0 D.J. Polite-Bray CB 6'0, 195 Sr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8007 Jamile Johnson DB 6'0, 210 RSFr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8769 Kevin Moore DB 6'1, 195 Fr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8472



















8. The secondary could be fine, with help

With an effective front seven, a harried secondary might have the weapons to thrive. I really like the hire of cornerbacks coach Karl Scott -- he was the defensive coordinator at Southeastern Louisiana two years ago when the Lions had the most efficient pass defense in FCS and forced 28 turnovers. He inherits an active set of safeties (Jah'Shawn Johnson, Tevin Madison, and Keenon Ward combined for 8.5 TFLs, four INTs, 18 break-ups, and four forced fumbles) and a set of cornerbacks that, at the very least, has experience.

Tech ranked 88th in Passing S&P+, which isn't good but is a lot better than the run defense. There is some potential here, but the DBs need more help than they will probably get.

Special Teams

Punter Ht, Wt 2016

Year Punts Avg TB FC I20 FC/I20

Ratio Taylor Symmank 33 46.0 4 5 6 33.3% Michael Barden 5'10, 174 So. 16 44.8 1 4 3 43.8%

Kicker Ht, Wt 2016

Year Kickoffs Avg TB OOB TB% Clayton Hatfield 5'10, 171 So. 70 61.9 31 4 44.3% Taylor Symmank 37 64.5 27 0 73.0%

Place-Kicker Ht, Wt 2016

Year PAT FG

(0-39) Pct FG

(40+) Pct Clayton Hatfield 5'10, 171 So. 53-54 11-11 100.0% 3-5 60.0% Michael Barden 5'10, 174 So. 19-19 2-3 66.7% 0-0 N/A

Returner Pos. Ht, Wt 2016

Year Returns Avg. TD Jakeem Grant KR 39 26.1 2 Tyler Scalzi KR 6'4, 238 Sr. 5 5.8 0 Cameron Batson PR 5'9, 173 Jr. 13 6.2 0

Category Rk Special Teams S&P+ 5 Field Goal Efficiency 27 Punt Return Success Rate 88 Kick Return Success Rate 48 Punt Success Rate 13 Kickoff Success Rate 30

9. A couple of huge losses

Grant was a very good receiver, but he was an even more dangerous return man, not incredibly efficient but all sorts of explosive. Meanwhile, punters Taylor Symmank and Michael Barden were effective, if rarely called-upon. But Grant and Symmank (also a deep kicker on kickoffs) are gone. Barden and place-kicker Michael Hatfield are back, and there are certainly plenty of return-man options from the deep, speedy receiving corps, but it might be difficult for Tech to match last year's top-10 special teams ranking.

2016 Schedule Date Opponent Proj. S&P+ Rk Proj. Margin Win Probability 3-Sep Stephen F. Austin NR 31.7 97% 10-Sep at Arizona State 57 -0.6 49% 17-Sep Louisiana Tech 84 12.5 77% 29-Sep Kansas 112 22.5 90% 8-Oct at Kansas State 67 1.0 52% 15-Oct West Virginia 33 0.8 52% 22-Oct Oklahoma 4 -11.9 25% 29-Oct at TCU 31 -6.7 35% 5-Nov Texas 34 0.8 52% 12-Nov at Oklahoma State 23 -9.6 29% 19-Nov at Iowa State 71 1.8 54% 25-Nov vs. Baylor 13 -9.9 28% Projected wins: 6.4

Five-Year F/+ Rk 0.3% (58) 2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk 41 / 42 2015 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin* 2 / 3.4 2015 TO Luck/Game -0.6 Returning Production (Off. / Def.) 74% (76%, 72%) 2015 Second-order wins (difference) 7.0 (0.0)

10. A little defense could turn a lot of games

Even with the worst non-Kansas power-conference defense in the country, Tech won seven games and came within a crazy deflection of beating TCU. And with six games projected within a touchdown, a little bit of defensive improvement in Gibbs' second year could turn a projected 6-6 campaign into 8-4 or better.

Then again, with so many new pieces on offense, the defense might have to improve simply to offset regression.

We've gotten glimpses of what Texas Tech could become under Kingsbury. Indeed, in three years back in Lubbock, his Tech offense has scored at least 34 points 23 times and has beaten good teams like 2013 Arizona State and an awesome 2015 Arkansas. With a few more turnovers and less frequent big opponent gains, there are a lot of wins on the table. But until the D actually proves itself, this is looking like a five- to seven-win year. Mahomes deserves better.