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. Limbo

Of the 13 public schools in the Big Ten (sans Northwestern), Purdue only outearned or outspent Rutgers in 2014-15. A PennLive report in June declared Purdue the poorest program in the conference.

On the field, the Boilermakers have not played at a conference-average level, per F/+, once in 11 years. They've only really come close a couple of times.

Darrell Hazell, currently 6-30 as Purdue's head coach (the worst win percentage in school history), appears to have kept his job primarily because of his large buyout.

These are not the salad days of the program. The Boilermakers have never been considered a first-class football citizen within the Big Ten, but they have had plenty of good runs. They finished with two or fewer losses 10 times in 13 years from 1926-38. They went 9-0 and finished fifth in the country in 1943. Jack Mollenkopf led them to three consecutive top-10 finishes in the 1960s. (1968 Purdue: in the book. Leroy Keyes is one of the best players you've maybe never heard of.) Jim Young produced three straight top-20 performances from 1978-80. Joe Tiller led a Rose Bowl run in 2000 and produced 10 bowl bids in 11 years from 1997-2007.

There isn't an immense history here by Big Ten standards, but you can win games at Purdue. It takes a certain level of investment, and for one reason or another, Purdue is struggling with that at the moment.

Back in a 1995 Sports Illustrated feature, Steve Spurrier, then Florida's head coach, almost perfectly described what it takes to win:

If you want to be successful, you have to do it the way everybody does it and do it a lot better—or you have to do it differently. I can't outwork anybody, and I can't coach the off-tackle play better than anybody else. So I figured I'd try to coach some different ball plays.

The short version (Brian Spurlock-USA TODAY Sports)



2016 projected wins: 4.5



Projected S&P+ ranking: 88 (14 in Big Ten)



5-year recruiting ranking: 67 (14 in Big Ten)



Biggest strength: The defensive line was active and quick and is not as undersized as last year.



Biggest question mark: Take your pick between a paper-thin offensive line, a paper-thin secondary, and a defensive front that might have sacrificed its biggest asset (quickness) to address a liability (size).



Biggest 2016 game: Cincinnati (Sept. 10). Any hope of a bowl bid will require a 3-0 start.



Summary: Hazell has won just six games in three years, hamstrung by a lack of playmakers and depth. Can a pair of new coordinators and more experience at quarterback lead to marked improvement in West Lafayette? The odds aren't great. 4.5: 88 (14 in Big Ten): 67 (14 in Big Ten): The defensive line was active and quick and is not as undersized as last year.: Take your pick between a paper-thin offensive line, a paper-thin secondary, and a defensive front that might have sacrificed its biggest asset (quickness) to address a liability (size).: Cincinnati (Sept. 10). Any hope of a bowl bid will require a 3-0 start.Hazell has won just six games in three years, hamstrung by a lack of playmakers and depth. Can a pair of new coordinators and more experience at quarterback lead to marked improvement in West Lafayette? The odds aren't great.

He was talking specifically about strategy and tactics, but it goes for program building as a whole, too. You either do the same thing everybody else is doing, only better, or you come up with something different. Purdue's most recent run of success came when Joe Tiller brought his funky, new-fangled spread offense to town. But back in my 2013 Purdue preview, I said that I was wary of the Hazell hire because it was basically an attempt to take the former path instead.

His biggest draw could be his TresselBall experience. He knows the lay of the land in the Big Ten, and he studied under a known winner in Tressel. But TresselBall works best when your recruiting rankings are superior to those of your opponents and your talent advantage allows you to avoid too many risks. The only guy to win at any high level in West Lafayette in the past three decades, Joe Tiller, brought an innovative offensive scheme to the table in the process.

Hazell had overseen a miracle run at Kent State in 2012, but he had only two years of head coaching experience, and his major draw seemed to be that he had a lot of ties to former Ohio State head coach Jim Tressel. Under the right circumstances, Hazell could probably succeed again.

But trying to follow the Tressel script, only with far less administrative support, resources, or recruiting advantages, probably isn't going to work. You're going to have to severely outwork everybody else, and that's hard to do, especially when your recruiting (two-year rank: 71st, worst among all power-conference programs not named Kansas and worse than non-power programs as well) is tying your hands behind your back.

It's easy to skip ahead and basically say that Purdue is doomed to be a disaster until either Hazell's contract runs out or gets close enough to its expiration that either athletic director Morgan Burke (retiring in 2017) or his successor feels comfortable with eating the remainder of his salary.

But Purdue will be playing football in 2016, and that means Hazell has another opportunity to do something he hasn't been able to do for more than a week or two at a time: build traction. After engineering slight improvement in 2014, he lost any semblance of that last year. The defense slid, and the offense, led by an all-freshman backfield, couldn't improve enough to make up the difference.

Hazell has to hope that two new coordinators and an all-sophomore backfield can build something. Anything's possible, right?

Record: 2-10 | Adj. Record: 5-7 | Final F/+ Rk: 93 | Final S&P+ Rk: 86 Date Opponent Opp. F/+ Rk Score W-L Percentile

Performance Win

Expectancy vs. S&P+ Performance

vs. Vegas 6-Sep at Marshall 58 31-41 L 67% 41% +0.5 -2.5 12-Sep Indiana State N/A 38-14 W 87% 100% +5.3 19-Sep Virginia Tech 59 24-51 L 22% 2% -14.2 -21.0 26-Sep Bowling Green 25 28-35 L 66% 36% -6.8 -5.0 3-Oct at Michigan State 9 21-24 L 49% 19% +22.2 -1.0 10-Oct Minnesota 55 13-41 L 8% 0% -17.8 -25.0 17-Oct at Wisconsin 32 7-24 L 14% 0% -0.2 +7.0 31-Oct Nebraska 36 55-45 W 90% 97% +20.1 +20.5 7-Nov Illinois 65 14-48 L 7% 0% -29.0 -31.5 14-Nov at Northwestern 52 14-21 L 53% 37% +7.5 +9.0 21-Nov at Iowa 38 20-40 L 26% 1% -1.8 +2.0 28-Nov Indiana 61 36-54 L 34% 10% -14.8 -11.0

Category Offense Rk Defense Rk S&P+ 26.1 84 30.0 79 Points Per Game 25.1 92 36.5 112

2. They had something going early

Ivy League check: I noted in last year's preview that, per Jeff Sagarin's 2013 rankings, Purdue would have been the fifth-best team in the Ivy that year, behind Brown, Dartmouth, Harvard, and Princeton. In 2014, the Boilers improved to second, behind only Harvard. They remained second last year, one spot behind Harvard. If nothing else, a sign that last year's regression wasn't significant.

I also noted in last year's preview that, for the first two-thirds of the 2014 season, Purdue was showing legitimate progress. Their average percentile performance through eight games was around 58 percent, equivalent to playing at a top-55 or so level from week to week. They were a one-point loss away from being 4-4 at that point, but injuries wrecked them late in the year.

The difference between 2014 and 2015: Purdue could only maintain that higher-level form for one month instead of two.

First 4 games :

Record: 1-3 | Average percentile performance: 61% (~top 50)

: Record: 1-3 | Average percentile performance: 61% (~top 50) Last 8 games:

Record: 1-7 | Average percentile performance: 35% (~top 85)

Once again, if you were looking, you could see early flashes of competitiveness. Purdue led Marshall until the Thundering Herd scored two touchdowns in the final three minutes. The Boilermakers were tied with Bowling Green until the Falcons scored with nine seconds left. With three minutes left against Michigan State, they got the ball back with a chance to tie or take the lead. (They stalled out at midfield.)

Per the win expectancy figures above (which basically take all the key stats from a given game and say "You could have expected to win this game X percent of the time"), Purdue played in three relative tossups (Marshall, BGSU, Northwestern) and lost them all. That resulted in a backslide in the wins department.

Still, when Purdue looked bad, Purdue looked bad. "Allowing 51 points to Virginia Tech" bad. The defense indeed regressed, and the offense only occasionally generated any sort of momentum. And the frequency of poor play picked up as the season progressed.

Offense

Q1 Rk 84 1st Down Rk 88 Q2 Rk 83 2nd Down Rk 112 Q3 Rk 61 3rd Down Rk 51 Q4 Rk 92



3. A Terry Malone offense

If Hazell somehow steers out of his current skid, it won't be because of the sudden adoption of some new, trendy offense. In replacing John Shoop -- champion of athletes' rights and direly unsuccessful offensive coordinator -- with tight ends coach Terry Malone, Hazell doubled down on Big Ten Football™. Malone was Michigan's offensive line coach when the Wolverines won the national title in 1997 and spent 13 years with the New Orleans Saints before coming to West Lafayette.

Malone has described his new offense as "a West Coast passing team with gap blocking mixed in with some zone blocking." That's fine. But a key for the Boilermakers will be better balance. They only passed well on a couple of occasions and ran well for the first month of the year.

A pass-first attack with a freshman quarterback is rarely going to succeed to any major degree. David Blough took over the offense for games four through 10, basically, and produced a passer rating better than 114 just twice.

In those two games (against BGSU and Nebraska), he was brilliant, completing 70 percent of his passes with six touchdowns to just one interception. The rest of the season: 53 percent with four TDs to seven INTs. Blough was not ready to properly guide a QB-dominated offense, and after averaging 6.5 yards per carry through the first four games and stealing the starting job from D.J. Knox, Markell Jones averaged only 4.8 yards per carry over the final eight.

Blough and Jones might develop more staying power as their experience level increases. We'll see if Malone's tweaks play a positive role.

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. David Blough 6'1, 205 So. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8650 169 293 1574 10 8 57.7% 18 5.8% 4.7 Austin Appleby 119 207 1260 8 8 57.5% 11 5.0% 5.5 Aaron Banks 6'4, 202 So. NR NR 1 1 4 0 100.0% 0 0.0% 4.0 Elijah Sindelar 6'4, 226 RSFr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8733 Jared Sparks 6'1, 200 Fr. 2 stars (5.3) 0.7649

Running Back

Player Pos. Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. Rushes Yards TD Yards/

Carry Hlt Yds/

Opp. Opp.

Rate Fumbles Fum.

Lost Markell Jones RB 5'11, 211 So. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8332 168 875 10 5.2 5.8 33.9% 4 2 D.J. Knox RB 5'7, 206 Jr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8098 108 409 2 3.8 4.2 26.9% 2 2 David Blough QB 6'1, 205 So. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8650 49 209 4 4.3 5.0 30.6% 4 2 Austin Appleby QB 45 150 4 3.3 2.5 31.1% 7 3 David Yancey RB 5'10, 220 Jr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8244 5 13 0 2.6 1.2 20.0% 0 0 Keyante Green RB 5'9, 225 Jr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8547 Richie Worship RB 6'1, 252 RSFr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8439 Tario Fuller RB 6'0, 192 RSFr. 2 stars (5.3) 0.8359

















Receiving Corps

Player Pos. Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. Targets Catches Yards Catch Rate Target

Rate Yds/

Target %SD Success

Rate IsoPPP DeAngelo Yancey WR 6'2, 216 Sr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8298 98 48 700 49.0% 20.9% 7.1 55.1% 36.7% 1.78 Danny Anthrop WR 81 57 450 70.4% 17.3% 5.6 61.7% 43.2% 1.22 Markell Jones RB 5'11, 211 So. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8332 48 34 239 70.8% 10.2% 5.0 64.6% 41.7% 1.01 Domonique Young WR 6'3, 210 Sr. 2 stars (5.2) 0.7967 43 21 276 48.8% 9.2% 6.4 53.5% 41.9% 1.39 Cameron Posey WR 6'1, 192 Sr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8081 35 26 255 74.3% 7.5% 7.3 42.9% 45.7% 1.37 Gregory Phillips WR 6'0, 196 Jr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8005 30 13 142 43.3% 6.4% 4.7 56.7% 36.7% 1.22 D.J. Knox RB 5'7, 206 Jr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8098 29 26 189 89.7% 6.2% 6.5 51.7% 48.3% 1.13 Cole Herdman TE 6'4, 238 So. 2 stars (5.2) 0.7711 26 18 139 69.2% 5.5% 5.3 57.7% 50.0% 1.03 Shane Mikesky WR 16 10 119 62.5% 3.4% 7.4 56.3% 43.8% 1.63 Anthony Mahoungou WR 6'3, 210 Jr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8556 15 8 93 53.3% 3.2% 6.2 46.7% 46.7% 1.06 Jordan Jurasevich TE 14 10 58 71.4% 3.0% 4.1 71.4% 50.0% 0.86 Bilal Marshall WR 6'2, 201 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8642 13 7 72 53.8% 2.8% 5.5 30.8% 30.8% 1.58 Trae Hart WR

8 7 31 87.5% 1.7% 3.9 50.0% 25.0% 1.33 Dan Monteroso WR 6'3, 192 Sr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8233 5 2 64 40.0% 1.1% 12.8 60.0% 40.0% 3.31 Jarrett Burgess WR 6'2, 216 So. NR NR 4 0 0 0.0% 0.9% 0.0 50.0% 0.0% 0.00 Brycen Hopkins TE 6'5, 251 RSFr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8029 Terrance Landers WR 6'4, 170 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8321 Jack Wegher WR 5'9, 195 Fr. 2 stars (5.3) 0.8286

4. Wanted: possession receivers

That Purdue's offensive ratings improved at all in 2015 (from 92nd in Off. S&P+ to 84th) was impressive considering the youth in the backfield. But any further improvement is going to require reliability in the receiving corps.

A West Coast offense is reliant, in part, on stretching the field horizontally and using the pass as an extension of the run game. It can work reasonably well if a quarterback has some reliable, efficient targets. It can work beautifully if those targets can occasionally take shorter passes, break a tackle, and create big gains.

Since "working reasonably well" would represent an upgrade for this offense, we'll set the bar there. Blough needs some efficient options, and while Jones is decent out of the backfield, only two players managed a 50 percent success rate on their targets: tight ends Cole Herdman and Jordan Jurasevich. Jurasevich is gone, but Herdman and senior Cameron Posey (the only wideout with a success rate better than a paltry 44 percent) could be the keys to success.

Another efficiency name to watch: Richie Worship, a Mike Alstott-shaped redshirt freshman with just enough versatility to potentially spend time as a tailback, fullback, and/or H-back.

If Herdman, Posey, Jones, Worship, and possibly other options like Domonique Young or Gregory Phillips are reliably keeping Purdue ahead of the chains (and Jones is able to maintain his September form beyond September), then Purdue has the makings of an efficient offense. And if the efficiency is there, then the all-or-nothing tendencies of a player like DeAngelo Yancey (14.6 yards per catch, 37 percent success rate) can come in handy in play-action.

Offensive Line

Player Pos. Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. 2015 Starts Career Starts Honors/Notes Robert Kugler C 12 43 Jordan Roos RG 6'4, 301 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8650 12 30 Jason King LG 6'4, 310 Sr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8327 12 29 Cameron Cermin RT 6'5, 310 Sr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8328 12 18 David Hedelin LT 10 17 Martesse Patterson LT 6'3, 340 So. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8386 2 2 Kirk Barron C 6'2, 310 So. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8292 0 0 Bearooz Yacoobi RT 6'5, 297 So. 2 stars (5.3) 0.8007 0 0 Joey Warburg LT

0 0 Matt McCann OL 6'6, 321 RSFr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8563



Michael Mendez LG 6'4, 302 RSFr. 2 stars (5.3) 0.7652



Jalen Neal OT 6'8, 315 Jr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.7826



Grant Hermanns OT 6'7, 260 Fr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8065



Tanner Hawthorne OT 6'6, 275 Fr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.7891







5. Depth is a concern up front

Purdue's line stats were better than that of the offense as a whole. The Boiler front did a nice job of making sure Jones and Knox were at least able to get past the line before absorbing contact, and their short-yardage blocking was deecnt. Two starters are gone, but a starting five of seniors Jordan Roos, Jason King, and Cameron Cermin and sophomores Martesse Patterson and Kirk Barron could potentially hold its own this year. The five average 6'4, 314, and have combined for 79 career starts.

The rest of the two-deep, however, will be filled almost primarily with newcomers -- freshmen, redshirt freshmen, or JUCO transfer Jalen Neal (only a couple of which were even three-star recruits). Any injury to the projected starting five could portend disaster.

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 119 1st Down Rk 113 Q2 Rk 77 2nd Down Rk 118 Q3 Rk 108 3rd Down Rk 101 Q4 Rk 109

6. A Ross Els defense

A year ago, Ross Els was preparing for his first season as an assistant coach at Lincoln (Neb.) Southwest high school. He had just spent four seasons as linebackers coach at Nebraska after holding the same role for four seasons at Ohio (under former Nebraska head coach Frank Solich). Nebraska, Nebraska, Nebraska.

During Els' time at NU, he served under Bo Pelini, whose defenses tended to craft an aggressive identity around whatever they were actually good at. When Pelini had Ndamukong Suh, he crafted basically a dime defense, allowing the line to generate havoc by itself and over-manning the rest of the D. When he had a phenomenal secondary, he left it to do its thing while trying to get creative with the pressure up front.

Adaptability is a great trait to have, and it's great to be able to play to your strengths. But it requires actually having strengths. In the primary opponent-adjusted categories above, Purdue ranked better than 72nd in only two of them: FP+ (the field position generated for the offense, in which special teams plays a significant role -- namely, kick returner Frankie Williams) and Passing Downs Success Rate+. The Boilermakers were abysmal against the run and only slightly less bad against the pass. They closed drives well with a nice passing downs pass rush, but that strength was negated by the inability to create passing downs.

That said, there's a decent amount of havoc potential up front. If a line led by Jake Replogle and Gelen Robinson is able to make some plays up front, Els will probably be able to take advantage of it in the way he deploys the back seven.

Defensive Line

Name Pos Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. GP Tackles % of Team TFL Sacks Int PBU FF FR Jake Replogle DT 6'5, 294 Sr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8209 12 47.0 6.9% 14.0 2.0 0 2 0 0 Gelen Robinson RUSH 6'1, 265 Jr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8599 10 24.5 3.6% 9.0 1.5 0 0 1 0 Evan Panfil DE 6'5, 268 Sr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8216 12 22.5 3.3% 6.5 4.0 0 0 1 0 Ryan Watson NG 12 22.5 3.3% 2.0 1.0 0 0 0 0 Antoine Miles RUSH 6'3, 248 Jr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8389 12 20.5 3.0% 6.0 4.0 0 0 2 0 Ra'Zahn Howard NG







12 17.0 2.5% 1.5 1.0 0 1 0 0 Shayne Henley DE 6'3, 250 Sr. 2 stars (5.3) 0.7844 12 8.0 1.2% 1.0 1.0 0 0 0 0 Eddy Wilson NG 6'4, 306 So. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8225 9 7.0 1.0% 0.0 0.0 0 1 0 0 Michael Rouse III DE 5 6.5 1.0% 3.5 1.0 0 0 1 0 Will Colmery DT 6'5, 278 So. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8200 Keiwan Jones DT 6'2, 282 So. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8006 Fred Brown DT 6'1, 290 RSFr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.7793 Austin Larkin RUSH 6'3, 252 Jr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8406 Rob Simmons DE 6'6, 215 Fr. 2 stars (5.3) 0.8294



















7. The line could be a relative strength

Five of the linemen above were listed in last year's preview: Jake Replogle, Gelen Robinson, Evan Panfil, Antoine Miles, and Will Colmery (who is out indefinitely with a tumor). All five are listed between 12 and 19 pounds heavier than they were last year. Replogle is actually the size of a typical tackle at 294 now, and ends Panfil, Robinson, Miles, and Shayne Henley now average 258 pounds.

Purdue's line isn't necessarily bigger than normal now, but it's at least normal. That can't hurt when it comes to being less of a pushover up front. Purdue ranked 113th in Rushing S&P+ and 110th in power success rate allowed. That's not going to work out very well for you in the Big Ten (or any other conference).

The key to improvement, however, might be whether this increased size has taken away from collective quickness. Purdue's only defensive asset last year was speed up front -- the Boilers were 49th in Adj. Sack Rate and 46th in stuff rate. Replogle and Robinson combined for 19.5 non-sack tackles for loss, and Panfil and Miles combined for a decent eight sacks. If they maintain solid production while getting bowled over a bit less, then an experienced linebacking corps with up to four interesting pieces could thrive, and this becomes a pretty solid front.

Linebackers

Name Pos Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. GP Tackles % of Team TFL Sacks Int PBU FF FR Danny Ezechukwu WILL 6'2, 251 Jr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8170 12 59.5 8.8% 2.0 1.0 1 2 1 1 Andy James Garcia SAM 6'0, 231 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8165 12 48.5 7.1% 4.0 1.0 0 3 0 0 Ja'Whaun Bentley MIKE 6'2, 250 Jr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8478 5 37.5 5.5% 7.5 0.0 0 2 0 0 Jimmy Herman MIKE 6'4, 230 Sr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8335 8 31.0 4.6% 6.0 0.5 0 0 1 0 Garrett Hudson MIKE 6'3, 240 Jr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8147 11 23.5 3.5% 3.0 0.5 0 0 0 1 Markus Bailey SAM 6'1, 230 So. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8460 3 8.5 1.3% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Evan Pulliam WILL 6'2, 225 Sr. NR NR 11 4.0 0.6% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Dezwan Polk-Campbell LB 6'3, 220 Jr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.7957 5 3.5 0.5% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Wyatt Cook LB 6'2, 240 RSFr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8499 Sawyer Dawson LB 6'1, 233 RSFr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8442



















Secondary

Name Pos Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. GP Tackles % of Team TFL Sacks Int PBU FF FR Leroy Clark SS 5'10, 197 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8431 12 71.0 10.5% 1 0 2 9 0 0 Anthony Brown CB 12 50.0 7.4% 1 0 4 6 0 0 Robert Gregory FS 6'1, 231 Sr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8880 12 40.0 5.9% 0 0 1 0 0 1 Frankie Williams CB 12 38.5 5.7% 1 0.5 3 7 1 1 Brandon Roberts FS 5'11, 198 So. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8205 11 31.0 4.6% 1 0 1 0 0 0 Da'Wan Hunte CB 5'9, 188 Jr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8131 12 14.0 2.1% 2.5 2 0 0 1 0 Tim Cason SS 5'11, 195 So. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8488 6 3.0 0.4% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Myles Norwood CB 6'0, 174 Jr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8337 10 2.0 0.3% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Austin Logan NB 6'0, 200 Sr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8429 Evyn Cooper CB 6'2, 195 RSFr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8398 Mike Little CB 6'0, 175 RSFr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8382 Andy Chelf NB 6'0, 190 RSFr. 2 stars (5.3) 0.8011 Kamal Hardy CB 6'0, 190 Jr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8389 CJ Parker S 6'2, 205 Jr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.7859 Brandon Shuman CB 5'11, 185 Fr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8315 Navon Mosley S 6'0, 180 Fr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8315 Josh Hayes CB 6'0, 184 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8264 Simeon Smiley CB 6'0, 195 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8184

8. Got enough DBs?

If Purdue is able to create some havoc up front, the onus of improvement switches from the front of the defense to the back. That could be problematic. The pass defense was decent early in the year before completely falling apart late, and now two of three disruptive defensive backs are gone. Safety Leroy Clark is solid, and corner Da'Wan Hunte was pretty good near the line of scrimmage. But departed Anthony Brown and Frankie Williams combined for 20 passes defensed; all returnees combined for 13, 11 from Clark.

Hazell brought in two JUCOs and four true freshmen to try to flesh out the two-deep a bit, but the fact that Hunte is the only CB who made more than two tackles last year is an obvious concern.

Special Teams

Punter Ht, Wt 2016

Year Punts Avg TB FC I20 FC/I20

Ratio Joe Schopper 6'0, 193 So. 58 40.2 2 19 18 63.8% Thomas Meadows 8 39.1 1 2 1 37.5%

Kicker Ht, Wt 2016

Year Kickoffs Avg TB OOB TB% Paul Griggs 52 61.8 17 1 32.7%

Place-Kicker Ht, Wt 2016

Year PAT FG

(0-39) Pct FG

(40+) Pct Paul Griggs 38-40 5-8 62.5% 0-3 0.0%

Returner Pos. Ht, Wt 2016

Year Returns Avg. TD Frankie Williams KR 22 23.0 0 Danny Anthrop KR 16 17.0 0 Frankie Williams PR 8 8.0 0 Trae Hart PR 2 4.5 0

Category Rk Special Teams S&P+ 123 Field Goal Efficiency 127 Punt Return Success Rate 118 Kick Return Success Rate 41 Punt Success Rate 96 Kickoff Success Rate 99

9. A total special teams reset (and that's okay)

Frankie Williams was a steady, if not particularly explosive kick return.

There. I just listed Purdue's special teams strengths in 2015. Part of winning with a TresselBall approach is doing the little things well and mastering the art of field position. Purdue didn't even come close to doing that, grading out 123rd in Special Teams S&P+.

Joe Schopper could have been worse as a freshman punter last year, and maybe he turns into a decent weapon. Regardless, he's the only contributor returning. That might not be a bad thing.

2016 Schedule Date Opponent Proj. S&P+ Rk Proj. Margin Win Probability 3-Sep Eastern Kentucky NR 20.0 88% 10-Sep Cincinnati 70 -1.0 48% 24-Sep Nevada 91 4.6 61% 1-Oct at Maryland 62 -9.5 29% 8-Oct at Illinois 76 -7.0 34% 15-Oct Iowa 38 -7.8 33% 22-Oct at Nebraska 26 -18.2 15% 29-Oct Penn State 28 -10.9 26% 5-Nov at Minnesota 42 -13.7 22% 12-Nov Northwestern 46 -4.7 39% 19-Nov Wisconsin 37 -7.9 32% 28-Nov at Indiana 56 -10.5 27% Projected wins: 4.5

Five-Year F/+ Rk -15.4% (91) 2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk 71 / 67 2015 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin* -5 / -6.2 2015 TO Luck/Game +0.5 Returning Production (Off. / Def.) 66% (68%, 65%) 2015 Second-order wins (difference) 3.4 (-1.4)

10. Beat Cincinnati

A quick glance at the win probabilities above quickly bring two things to light:

There aren't many likely wins on this year's schedule. The most likely wins come early.

Purdue has a 39 percent chance or better of winning in four games: the first three, and the late-season visit from Northwestern.

Any hope for a fourth-year surprise from Hazell and company will require fantastic play in September. Win as you're supposed to against EKU (not a guaranteed out) and Nevada and win a tossup game against Cincinnati, and you're 3-0 and at least fending off hot-seat demons for a little while. Maybe confidence blooms from there, leading to an upset of Maryland or Illinois or Iowa, and maybe you're still holding onto bowl hopes into November. The scenario isn't completely off the table, at least.

With the way Purdue has played in September these last couple of years, 3-0 definitely isn't out of the question. It's just that decent Septembers have been submarined by a total lack of depth, leading to poor Octobers and Novembers.

The offense is more experienced this time around, and the defensive line could be a legitimate strength. But Purdue is starting from far back of most of the rest of the conference, and improvement is probably only going to do so much good.