#one guy went from level 41 to 47 in the span of a year and i've been on 41 for like... almost as long

[spectralarchers]

"I'm not a gamer!"

*proceeds to discuss best Pokémon Go strategies and help apps and which way to best optimize your gameplay with several friends made on a specialized Pokémon Go remote raid Discord channel*

*also owns a Got'cha Evolve autocatch watch AND an auto-walker*

[ask-white-fatalis]

every odd number for the OC questions

HOO BOY.

1. What’s their full name? Why was that chosen? Does it mean anything?Shiro’s full name is Shironus AkumaWraths full name is Wrathanula AkumaKaze’s name is simply Kaze AkumaQuins (my hunter OC’s) name is Quintor Zenerith 

3. Did they have a good childhood? What are fond memories they have of it? What’s a bad memory?Shiros childhood was horrid. for the first 100 years, wrath made his life a living hell in order to toughen him up, only to abandon him by exiling Shiro from his ancestral homeland for Shiro’s pacifistic beliefs.Wrath didn’t start as an asshole. he was a fairly average dragon and even at one point interacted with human beings. however, a turn of betrayal with the humans turn wrath cold and unfeeling.Kaze so far has had a good childhood, then again he is only 2 years old.Quin’s childhood was one of poverty and homelessness, as his parents were killed by a rogue Gore Magala when he was still very young.

5. Do they have any siblings? What’s their names? What is their relationship with them? Has their relationship changed since they were kids to adults? Shiro Has a brother and a sister. His brother, Kuro, Is a black fatalis and is his fathers favorite, often belittling Shiro about how little their father cares about him. Kuro has grown arrogant and crass, often womanizing with many female fatalis’s. Shiros sister is a creature even wrath fears because of how far he pushed her violent nature. given she is a crimson fatalis, the most violent of the 3 species, wrath had her trapped within an abandoned castle when she started to kill her own kind for sport. Kaze, Wrath, and Quin are only Child’s. 

7. Did they have lots of friends as a child? Did they keep any of their childhood friends into adulthood? ((most of my Main OC’s do not have many childhood friends, whether being unpopular, an outcast or generally displeasing in general (wrath…). however, I’m glad to say both quin and shiro are making friends in their adult life.))

9. Do animals like them? Do they get on well with animals? Shiro, although a predator by nature, does his best to respect all living creatures, even befriending some that most fatalis’s would just see as a meal.Wrath has a stern belief that fatalis kind are gods among mortals, that every creature is below that of his species, some of which need to be eradicated from existence.Kaze is learning shiros more pacifistic ways.Quin, even as a hunter, has many monster friends, including a zinogre he raised from a lost pup.

11. Do they have any special diet requirements? Are they a vegetarian? Vegan? Have any allergies?Shiro, Wrath and Kaze are carnivores, and require meat to feed them. however, to keep up kaze’s metal coat, he must ingest ores, like iron and dragonite.

13. What is their least favourite food?Shiro: Rhenoplos, their hide is too hard to chew and their meat is stringy and tough…Wrath: of all of earths creatures, humans by far taste the most foul. and believe me, I have experience to back that up… -growls-Kaze: STONES TASTE YUCKY, BLEEEEECH!!! >:cQuin: Grilled cheese. …. I’M NOT WEIRD, YOU ARE!

15. Are they good at cooking? Do they enjoy it? What do others think of their cooking?((Shiro,Wrath and kaze cannot cook cuz they are dragons, and even in gjinka form they eat food raw.))Quin is an average cook, and likes to surprise his wife with many dishes. his specialty is pizza.

17. Do they like to take photos? What do they like to take photos of? Selfies? What do they do with their photos?all: … what are photos?

19. What’s their least favourite genres?Shiro: I don’t care much for those horror books… they really seem unnecessarily Gorey… and i care not for what the young dragons call “Wrap music”. Wrath: Human arts are a waste of time. if i want entertainment fromthem, I’ll just burn their beloved libraries!! HAHAHA! STUPID PINK MONKEYS!Kaze: ROMANCE IS GROSS, BLEEEEECHQuin: I hate anything with adam sandler :I

21. Do they have a temper? Are they patient? What are they like when they do lose their temper?Shiro has a lot of patients, but LORD HELP YOU IF THAT FUSE GOES OUT. Wrath simply kills you if you bug him slightly so…Kaze, as a kid and thus doesn’t have an abundance of patients, and often complains if he doesn’t get his way.Quins temper is fairly level, but has none for people he thinks are rude.

23. Do they have a good memory? Short term or long term? Are they good with names? Or faces?Shiro and Wrath remember everything that has ever happened in their 100,000′s of years they’ve been alive.Kaze has very bad short term memory and has a bad attention span.Quin has a decent memory but has trouble with names.

 25. What do they find funny? Do they have a good sense of humour? Are they funny themselves?(( @monsterhunterayame asked this as well!))Shiro: what did the buffalo say to his kid when he went to school? -snorts- BISON!!! PFFFFFFHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, OH YOU HUMANS MAKE THE FUNNIEST JOKES!!! HAHAHAHA!!!Wrath: the screams of torment of my victims the second before i rip their heads off! humans make the most pitifully funny squeaks~Kaze: POTATO! :DQuin: My friends have named me the pun deputy~

27. What makes them sad? Do they cry regularly? Do they cry openly or hide it? What are they like they are sad?If he ever gets into an bad argument with a friend, shiro will feel very depressed, and often think that he ruined the friendship he worked hard to build. he does cry, but not openly.Wrath believes showing sadness is a weakness unbefiting of a dragon, and will never show anyone the sadness in his stone cold heart.Kaze often gets sad if he squishes a bug, and will cry openly, asking shiro if he can save the poor insect.Quins sadness comes from the thought of the gore magala ripping his new life out of his grip, and the parents he lost to the beast. 

29. What do they do when they find out someone else’s fear? Do they tease them? Or get very over protective?Shiro gets very protective of his friends,doing his best never to mention their fears.Wrath brutally abuses the knowledge of ones fear, often using it to torment his victims. Kaze is generally fearless,so he doesnt quite grasp why others would be afraid.Quin, if only for a harmless park would jokingly tease about the fear, but will immediately stop if he thinks he’s gone too far.

31. Do they drink? What are they like drunk? What are they like hungover? How do they act when other people are drunk or hungover? Kind or teasing?((Shiro, Kaze and Wrath do not consume alcohol))Quin does drink, but only the drinks that taste “fruity”. and if he gets drunk, he becomes very flirtatious, to the point where he bets he could shove a wine bottle up his… ehm…y-you get the point…

33. What underwear do they wear? Boxers or briefs? Lacey? Comfy granny panties?((for this purpose,monsters will be in gjinka form))Boxers: Wrath, KazeBriefs: Shiro, Quin

35. What’s their guilty pleasure? What is their totally unguilty pleasure?Shiro’s guilty pleasure: making purring noises when happy, and getting chin scritches.Shiros unguilty pleasure: Making friends!Wraths Guilty Pleasure: expressing joy.Wraths unguilty pleasure: killing.Quins guilty pleasure: SingingQuins unguilty pleasure: Raving about his wife, Naomi.

37. Do they like to read? Are they a fast or slow reader? Do they like poetry? Fictional or non fiction?Shiro,Kaze and Quin all enjoy reading fiction books, Quins fave being kaiju novels, whereas shiro and kaze like fairy tale fantasy books. Quin and shiro are fast readers,but kaze is still learning howto read.Wrath thinks books are a waste of time and prefers to just burn them.

39. Do they like letters? Or prefer emails/messaging?-All characters live in a technologically inept age in terms of writing, so all must stick to letters,-

41. What’s their sexuality? What do they find attractive? Physically and mentally? What do they like/need in a relationship?Shiro would most likely be Heterosexual however a certain fish gets him all hot and bothered so i guess its a bit ambiguous. in a relationship,shiro likes mutual respect and lots of small signs of physical affection, like cuddling. Wrath is Unfeeling, although he would only have relations with an opposite gender.Kaze is too young to determine.Quin is Bi-Sexual, and likes a lady with confidence and curves, and a man with a cute face and muscle, but not too much! Quin also likes physical signs of affection and someone he can have a laugh with and relate to.

43. Are they religious? What do they think of religion? What do they think of religious people? What do they think of non religious people?…. uh

45. How do other people see them? Is it similar to how they see themselves?Shiro: I HAVE ZERO REDEEMING QUALITIES! ;U;Wrath: all fear me,and all SHOULD fear me…Kaze: they think i’m a cute! owoQuin: I’m not sure really…i guess just some guy??? i dunno…

47. How do they act in a formal occasion? What do they think of black tie wear? ((Monster OC’s will again be refered to in their gjinka forms))Shiro is ALWAYS the fanciest and classiest dressed mother fucker in the room.Wrath doesnt care. Kaze is often told by shiro to dress fancy but often just likes to wear hoodies and shorts cuz they’re comfy.Quin dresses his best on formal occasions, and would buy a tux if it were necessary.

49. What is their most valued object? Are they sentimental? Is there something they have to take everywhere with them?For shiro, Four obsidian spires in a long forgotten valley are very close to his heart. every year he goes to see them for hours on end on one particular day.Wrath has a scar on his chest thats important to him, however, its to remind him to NEVER show weakness.Kaze has a scale from Shiro that he carries everywhere, to make him feel like shiro will always protect him. Quin’s only thing from his parents are his fathers Critical Brachydios dual blades. he takes them on every serious hunt he’s been on.

[junker-town]

Michigan State had a rebuilding-year record ... and now enters an actual rebuilding year

Mark Dantonio’s Spartans can rebound, but it probably won’t be all that noticeable until 2018.

The most direct path to playing like a top-15 team is recruiting at a top-15 level. Any other path is complicated and difficult to maintain. That this is so true is why college football’s oligarchy remains in place and why the blue-blood club welcomes new members so infrequently.

Mark Dantonio has won two of the last four Big Ten titles; Ohio State has won only one in that span, and rival Michigan has not even been to a conference title game. He has engineered five top-15 finishes in the last seven years, and despite inheriting a program that had bowled once in five years, he has bowled nine times in 10 seasons. His Spartans made the College Football Playoff in 2015; Michigan can’t claim anything close to that.

On paper, the Spartans have ranked 32nd or better in S&P+ in nine of his 10 seasons and 16th or better four times in a five-year span from 2011-15. He did this despite basically signing top-30 recruiting classes. That isn’t monstrous overachievement, but the steadiness is impressive.

Well, I should say it was impressive.

Everything came crashing down in 2016. The Spartans fell to 57th in S&P+, plunging 35 spots in Off. S&P+ (from 31st to 66th) and 28 spots in Def. S&P+ (from 13th to 41st). After winning nine of 10 one-possession finishes over a two-year span, they lost three of four. After averaging 9.7 wins per year through nine seasons, they lost nine games. Then they lost a number of expected starters to transfer or dismissal.

Following 2015’s CFP bid, State signed the 17th-best class in the country per the 247Sports Composite. It featured nine four-star prospects; only five remain on the roster just 16 months later. Four were recently dismissed because of sexual assault charges.

This has been a disastrous 10 months for what was once one of the steadiest programs in football.

There aren’t many routes to constant overachievement. Most require matriculation and development. You overcome a lack of elite recruiting by developing your two-deep, avoiding misses, and fielding experienced squads.

Dantonio has done that as well as anyone. But he went 3-9 with one of those experienced squads, and in 2017, a youth movement has been forced upon him. For the first time in a decade, there are questions about his decision-making and concerns about whether he can steer out of the skid.

Dantonio heads in with an incredibly green squad. The starting quarterback, top four receivers, half the first-string offensive line, half the first- and second-string defensive line and linebacking corps, and four of the top five defensive backs are gone.

The good news is that, until you’re pushed out, you have a chance to rebound. Plenty of strong athletes and regarded recruits remain, and even if State stinks, there’s a chance that a core of talent and leadership emerges. The Spartans will start very few seniors, so whoever takes hold will probably be back next fall. If Dantonio survives the calendar year with his job intact, he could get a head start on pushing forward again in 2018.

That’s the rosy spin. Before you can rebound, you have to stop plummeting. It could get worse before it gets better.

2016 in review

2016 Michigan State statistical profile.

A couple of Big Ten team previews — Illinois, Maryland — have focused on how inefficiency can render you inconsistent. Michigan State’s offense wasn’t as all-or-nothing as that of the Fighting Illini or Terrapins, but the Spartans ranked 86th in success rate and 102nd in points per scoring opportunity.

How inconsistent was the Sparty offense?

State vs. Notre Dame, Indiana, Northwestern, Michigan, Rutgers, and Ohio State: Avg. percentile performance: 72% (offense 79%, defense 49%) | Avg. yards per play: MSU 6.3, Opp 5.5 | Avg. score: MSU 31, Opp 26

State vs. Furman, Wisconsin, BYU, Maryland, Illinois, and Penn State: Avg. percentile performance: 31% (offense 29%, defense 37% | Avg. yards per play: Opp 5.5, MSU 5.0 | Avg. score: Opp 30, MSU 17

The first sample features four home games and four games against S&P+ top-50 teams; the second features three home games and three top-50 opponents. That’s about as even as you can get. The defensive output was similar, but in Sample A, State had a top-25-level offense; in Sample B, it was more like top 90.

If Michigan State could have played every game like it played the Michigan or Ohio State games, the season would have been fine. The Spartans averaged 5.7 yards per play against an awesome Wolverine D and held Ohio State to 4.6 in an unlucky loss.

Alas, there was another Michigan State, one capable of losing to Illinois, losing by double digits to Maryland, and barely easing by Furman.

Injuries played a role. Quarterback Tyler O’Connor dealt with inconsistency and concussion, got replaced, and returned thanks to Brian Lewerke’s broken leg. Plus, eight offensive linemen started at least three games (and only one started all 12).

Though the defense was a little steadier, for better or worse, the front seven was a revolving door, and not a single regular defensive back played in all 12 games. State’s depth was tenuous heading in, and thinner teams are going to struggle to withstand attrition.

Of course, depth is far more tenuous this year.

Offense

Full advanced stats glossary.

O’Connor pulled off a feat in his lone year as Michigan State’s starting quarterback. He produced a season passer rating of 135.2 — neither great nor terrible — but in only two of 11 games was his rating within 25 points of 135. On three occasions (losses to Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Penn State), it was below 90. In these games, he threw one touchdown to five interceptions and completed a miserable 47 percent of his passes.

On three other occasions (wins over Furman and Rutgers and the shootout loss to Northwestern), his passer rating was above 200. He had nine touchdowns to two interceptions then and completed two-thirds of his passes. Yes, that includes Rutgers and Furman, but it also includes Northwestern’s sturdy defense.

This level of inconsistency was impressive, but it tells us nothing about State moving forward. Not only is O’Connor gone, but so are his top four targets. The leading returning passer is sophomore Lewerke, who took over for O’Connor, completed 31 passes, and broke his leg. The leading returning receiver is junior Felton Davis III, who caught 12 balls, six against Illinois.

Photo by Gregory Shamus/Getty Images

Brian Lewerke

There are star recruits in the pipeline, at least. Lewerke was a high-three-star recruit, and both senior Damion Terry and redshirt freshman Messiah deWeaver were four-stars. In the receiving corps, Davis was a high-three, and sophomores Trishton Jackson and Justin Layne and redshirt freshman Cam Chambers were fours. The ceiling is high for the passing game, though co-coordinators Jim Bollman and Dave Warner aren’t going to throw much if they don’t have to.

As was the case in 2015, State maintained a straight-forward plan: run on standard downs, throw on passing downs. In 2015, with Connor Cook, the Spartans ranked 21st in standard-downs run rate and 121st in passing-downs run rate; in 2016, with a new QB, they still ranked 22nd and 100th, respectively. This predictability isn’t helpful unless you’ve got a strong passing unit. State did not.

It probably won’t in 2017 either; Lewerke had a lower completion rate and per-attempt average than O’Connor.

Photo by Leon Halip/Getty Images

LJ Scott

On the plus side, Lewerke also made fewer mistakes (he had lower sack and interception rates), and his running ability is intriguing. Not only did he take fewer sacks, he doubled O’Connor’s rushing average, attempting 18 non-sack rushes and gaining 169 yards.

Lewerke’s mobility can only help LJ Scott and Gerald Holmes. Despite the passing inconsistency and the ever-changing OL two-deep, Scott improved his efficiency (opportunity rate: 33 percent in 2015, 41 percent in 2016) and explosiveness (highlight yards per opportunity: 4.9 in 2015, 5.3 in 2016) and enters his junior year as one of the more proven backs in the conference. Holmes is more all-or-nothing, but you can take that from a backup.

The line is an experiment in optimism vs. pessimism. The optimist would point out that two-year starter Brian Allen is back after anchoring last year’s line and becoming the only lineman to survive all 12 games. Four others with starting experience return; that includes guards Tyler Higby and David Beedle, who started a year’s worth of games between them.

The pessimist would point out that the four most experienced guys after Allen are gone. Higby, Beedle, and tackle Cole Chewins have combined for 14 starts. The four departures combined for 62. Line consistency is a massive requirement for a predictable offense; there’s no guarantee it will exist. Still, a Lewerke-Scott backfield is appealing, and I don’t expect further drop-off from the State offense. I don’t expect improvement either.

Defense

The double dip will kill you. In last year’s State preview (awkwardly titled “You're not counting Michigan State out of the 2016 Big Ten title race, are you?“ and finishing with the line, “if State falls, it won't fall far. The Spartans are just too sturdily built.”), I noted that Dantonio’s defensive line recruiting was losing five of the top seven tacklers up front. It was difficult to imagine an MSU front struggling much, but 2016 was going to be a test.

It became more of a test when no one could stay healthy. Star tackle Malik McDowell missed three games, and the end spot opposite Demetrius Cooper cycled between Option A, B, C, and D. As a result, State fell from 15th to 49th in Rushing S&P+ and, more devastating, from 18th to 124th in Adj. Sack Rate. McDowell and Cooper were the only two who logged more than five tackles for loss up front, and neither topped seven.

Now, after losing five of seven, the line must replace five of last year’s top 10, including McDowell. And it might be six — Cooper’s status with the team is in limbo. That’s a ton of turnover in a two-year span.

Sophomore tackles Raequan Williams and Mike Panasiuk are your de facto leaders up front, especially if Cooper is gone. They were both four-star recruits, as were other young tackles like sophomore Kyonta Stallworth and redshirt freshman Naquan Jones. There could be enough talent to make some plays and occupy blockers for Chris Frey, Andrew Dowell, and the linebacking corps.

Even if there’s a future in the middle, end is a mystery. Cooper led the team with all of 2.5 sacks, and juniors Robert Bowers and Dillon Alexander combined for 0.5. For all of the recruiting at tackle, not only are there zero four-star ends, two walk-ons (Alexander and Kenny Willekes) could end up in the rotation. That’s not a recipe for an improved pass rush.

Photo by Bobby Ellis/Getty Images

Raequan Williams

If the pass rush doesn’t become less miserable, I’m not sure how the pass defense improves. Michigan State was shockingly bad last year after years of being known more for good pass defense than for anything else; the Spartans ranked 120th in Passing S&P+ and got gashed by nearly every passing game with a pulse (and some without a pulse). Notre Dame, Northwestern, Maryland, and Penn State combined for a 69 percent completion rate, an 11-to-2 TD-to-INT ratio, and a 177.4 passer rating.

And now State has to replace four of last year’s top five, including corners Vayante Copeland and Darian Hicks. (Junior Tyson Smith’s status is very much up in the air after he revealed he had a stroke late in 2016.) Yikes.

Maybe some new blood in the secondary isn’t the worst thing; plus, thanks to injury, four returnees got enough opportunity to record double-digit tackles. But aside from maybe Smith, no returnee defensed more than two passes last year; the known play-makers are gone, and play-prevention isn’t automatically going to get better with new starters.

The key could be the sophomores. Safety David Dowell was a spring game starter, corners Josh Butler and Justin Layne (a part-time receiver) were four-star recruits, and Layne showed some decent ball skills in limited action. There is not a single senior in the backfield, and if two of these three sophs find themselves, this unit could rebound in 2018. But 2017 is going to be a trial.

(That sentence goes for more than just the secondary.)

Photo by Michael Hickey/Getty Images

Justin Layne

Special Teams

Place-kicker Michael Geiger’s steadiness was the catalyst behind State’s improvement from 108th to 46th in Special Teams S&P+. Unfortunately, Geiger’s gone, and the coverage units and return game were still mediocre at best. It might be difficult for State to remain in the top 50 here.

2017 outlook

2017 Schedule & Projection Factors

Date Opponent Proj. S&P+ Rk Proj. Margin Win Probability 2-Sep Bowling Green 95 16.0 82% 9-Sep Western Michigan 74 9.7 71% 23-Sep Notre Dame 17 -7.1 34% 30-Sep Iowa 48 3.3 57% 7-Oct at Michigan 10 -17.2 16% 14-Oct at Minnesota 47 -1.8 46% 21-Oct Indiana 39 1.1 53% 27-Oct at Northwestern 37 -4.0 41% 4-Nov Penn State 8 -13.8 21% 11-Nov at Ohio State 2 -23.4 9% 18-Nov Maryland 72 9.1 70% 25-Nov at Rutgers 92 9.9 72%

Projected S&P+ Rk 44 Proj. Off. / Def. Rk 65 / 34 Projected wins 5.7 Five-Year S&P+ Rk 12.2 (19) 2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk 25 / 23 2016 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin* -5 / -5.3 2016 TO Luck/Game +0.1 Returning Production (Off. / Def.) 44% (35%, 52%) 2016 Second-order wins (difference) 5.0 (-2.0)

My February S&P+ projections suggested a rebound. A No. 44 ranking and 6-6 record would feel like a crippling disappointment for State in any other season, but it would mark a step forward this time.

The problem: February was quite a few transfers and dismissals ago. When I update the projections in August, it’s unlikely that State remains in the top 50.

There’s still a path to the postseason here; if State can sweep Bowling Green, WMU, and Maryland at home and Rutgers on the road, the Spartans would need to steal two other games to reach six wins, and with Notre Dame, Iowa, and Indiana visiting East Lansing, that’s not an impossibility.

Still, “with some breaks, State might win six!” is quite the low bar for a team that was in the national semifinals 17 months ago. I like Lewerke, and the State run game could power a far steadier offense, and it would be surprising if the run defense didn’t improve. But the passing game is starting over, and the smoking crater of a pass defense is going to take a while to rebuild.

State fell apart on the field and has since dealt with its worst offseason in the Dantonio era. A bowl would be nice, but the goal has to be building for 2018, even if that means playing some younger guys and losing a game or two you otherwise shouldn’t.

Team preview stats

All power conference preview data to date.

[junker-town]

Texas Tech’s offense will be great, but the defense will probably waste it. Aaaaagain.

This is the 2017 edition of the Texas Tech preview.

Air raid guys get a bad rap when it comes to defense. Their propensity for tempo and passing mean that their opponents get lots of possessions and lots of snaps. That leads to allowing quite a few yards and points even if they have pretty good defenses.

Adjusting for tempo and opponent, plenty of guys on the Hal Mumme tree have produced decent defensive performances.

Mike Leach’s last Texas Tech defense ranked 27th in Def. S&P+. His Washington State defenses have improved for a couple of years in a row, growing from 101st in 2014 to 63rd in 2016.

Dana Holgorsen’s West Virginia defenses have been top-50 for three straight years and top-40 for the last two.

Art Briles’ 2013 Baylor defense ranked 26th.

Sonny Dykes’ 2011 Louisiana Tech defense ranked 25th.

Mark Mangino had Kansas defenses at 21st in 2005 and 35th in 2007.

In Seth Littrell’s first year as North Texas head coach in 2016, the Mean Green improved from 120th to 93rd.

These are anecdotes and not statistically significant proof. But it shows that having an up-tempo, potentially pass-heavy attack and a solid defense is possible. Adopting the air raid does not commit you to awful defense.

Someone needs to tell that to Kingsbury.

Four years ago, Texas Tech’s hire was one of the most natural you’ll ever see. A former Red Raider quarterback under first Spike Dykes, then Mike Leach, Kingsbury enjoyed some time in the pros before returning to college football and succeeding as an offensive coach. Houston ranked seventh in Off. S&P+ in 2011 with Kingsbury as co-coordinator, and when he followed Sumlin to Texas A&M in 2012, his first Aggie offense, led by Johnny Manziel, ranked second.

Kingsbury was only 33 when Tech named him head coach in December 2012. It hadn’t even been 10 years since he threw his last pass — against Clemson in a dominating Tangerine Bowl win — in Red Raider red and black. Still, this felt right. After Leach’s controversial firing in 2009, Tommy Tuberville had taken over, and while he engineered two eight-win seasons and plenty of yards and points, the fit just wasn’t there.

Thus far as head man, Kingsbury has proved himself a great offensive coach. After a first-year reset, the Red Raiders have ranked 19th, first, and sixth in Off. S&P+. And in that three-year span, they have lost four times while scoring at least 50 points and 12 times while scoring at least 30.

Tech’s Def. S&P+ ranking the last three years: 114th, 124th, and 125th. The Red Raiders are the exception that proves the rule — yes, you can play decent defense with this offensive system. But Tech can’t. Or at least, Tech hasn’t yet.

After going 8-5 in his first year (with his worst offense to date, no less), Kingsbury has since gone just 16-21. The 2016 season was his second bowl-free campaign in three years. His status as a Tech legend has earned him a little more rope than another coach might get, but he’s stretched that rope out pretty far. His offense will remain prolific despite the loss of first-round quarterback Pat Mahomes II, but he and defensive coordinator David Gibbs have to rebuild their defensive line and hope injury was the primary cause for Tech’s dreadful pass defense.

There were a lot of injuries to deal with, for what it’s worth. Twelve different defensive backs made at least 6.5 tackles, and three of them played in all 12 games. The shuffling up front was nearly as bad. Even Nick Saban needs some semblance of continuity; Tech’s 2016 defense never had a chance.

Still, for most of three years the Tech defense has been the unfair air raid stereotype. And as magical as Kingsbury’s offensive touch is — again, I’m simply assuming another top-15 offense despite the Red Raiders losing an incredible quarterback, plus a nearly 1,200-yard receiver — he might be looking at a coordinator gig in 2018 if Tech can’t make a few stops per game.

2016 in review

2016 Texas Tech statistical profile.

If you’re looking for hope, maybe there’s this: Tech’s defense had three of its five best performances in the first five weeks, before attrition had set in.

First 5 games (3-2): Avg. percentile performance: 72% (~top 35) — 86% offense, 41% defense | Avg. score: Tech 55, Opp 39 (plus-16)

Last 7 games (2-5): Avg. percentile performance: 38% (~top 80) — 49% offense, 24% defense | Avg. yards per play: Opp 47, Tech 35 (minus-12)

The first five games did include frustrating shootout losses to Arizona State and Kansas State, but the KSU loss was fluky — Tech outgained the Wildcats by 257 yards and was only minus-1 in turnovers, but KSU scored two return touchdowns and won all four fourth downs (Tech was 0-for-3, KSU 1-for-1). Still, six weeks into the season, Tech was still a healthy 36th in S&P+. Six games later, the Red Raiders were 82nd following a 56-point loss to Iowa State.

Their final ranking bounced back to 66th thanks to a blowout of collapsing Baylor, but the last seven games saw five miserable defensive performances and a couple of offensive duds as well. Injuries played a role, but this was a disturbing look at how low the team’s floor is. Will good health lead to a longer look at the ceiling?

Offense

Full advanced stats glossary.

Even adjusting for tempo (and nagging injuries to Mahomes), Tech’s offense was ridiculous. Only four teams produced an adjusted scoring average (i.e. an Off. S&P+ rating) of 40-plus points per game in both 2015 and 2016: Cal, Clemson, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech. That’s two air raid programs (Cal was led by Sonny Dykes both years) and two that combined to go 50-6.

That Tech’s offense maintained most of its 2015 form was impressive, considering Mahomes had shoulder and wrist issues for much of the year. Mahomes was also asked to carry more of a load because of a complete restart in the run game.

The 2015 Tech attack featured 1,500-yard rusher DeAndre Washington behind a line that included three three-year starters; in 2016, freshman Da’Leon Ward led Tech backs with just 428 yards (4.2 per carry) behind a line that only had a couple of experienced pieces and had to start eight different guys at least once. Five of the eight were either freshmen or sophomores.

And Tech fell all the way from first to sixth in Off. S&P+.

Kingsbury’s track record makes it impossible to worry about points. In a limited sample size, Mahomes’ backup Nic Shimonek completed 66 percent of his passes and nearly matched Mahomes’ per-attempt averages. He wasn’t nearly as much of a mobility threat, but if he wins the starting job in 2017, he’ll probably be fine.

Of course, if junior Payne Sullins, JUCO transfer McLane Carter, or freshman Xavier Martin wins the job instead, he’ll probably be fine, too. But it’ll probably be Shimonek.

Michael C. Johnson-USA TODAY Sports

Nic Shimonek (16) and Demarcus Felton (27)

Leading receiver Jonathan Giles elected to transfer, which would be a source of concern for most offenses, but Giles was one of four Red Raiders targeted at least 80 times last year, and the other three are back.

Giles was impressive, mind you — he combined a 62 percent success rate with 16.8 yards per catch, a 97th-percentile performance overall. Still, the experience level at receiver is solid. Inside receivers Keke Coutee and Cameron Batson combined for 116 catches at 9.5 yards per target, Dylan Cantrell is a physical possession guy on the outside, and between senior Derrick Willies, sophomores Quan Shorts and Antoine Wesley, and redshirt freshman T.J. Vasher, odds are good that at least one more high-proficiency wideout will emerge.

Tech will be able to pass, and that should result in at least 30 points in most 2017 games. But to reach 2015 levels, the ground attack will be key. The line is in a far steadier place, especially if it finds itself less reliant on freshmen. But a back still needs to emerge.

It was easy to assume that guy would be Justin Stockton a year ago. Through his first two seasons, Stockton had averaged seven yards per carry with seven receiving touchdowns. But aside from a couple of long early receptions, he was woefully unproductive in 2016, and he spent the spring dealing with issues related to head injuries.

Da’Leon Ward, meanwhile, was efficient for a freshman but offered no explosiveness whatsoever; per carry, Demarcus Felton was the most productive of the backs, but 237 of his 354 yards came in a three-game span early in the season. Kingsbury has said that he’s looking for a potential graduate transfer to fill in the two-deep here. It’s not hard to see why, especially if Stockton remains a question mark.

Michael C. Johnson-USA TODAY Sports

Keke Coutee

Defense

New quarterback? Iffy running back? No matter. Tech will score points. Bowl hopes will again hinge on whether the defense can be at least semi-competent.

The Red Raiders were bad in every way a defense can be bad in 2016.

128th in plays of 10-plus yards (241, or 20 per game!)

128th in passing downs success rate (40.9 percent)

126th in success rate (49.4 percent)

126th in Adj. Sack Rate (32.9), 126th in passing downs sack rate (2.4 percent)

124th in plays of 30-plus yards (44, nearly four per game!)

123rd in rushing success rate (51.8 percent)

119th in standard downs success rate (52.5 percent)

118th in passing success rate (46.9 percent)

105th in points per scoring opportunity (4.92)

101st in stuff rate (16.7 percent)

Or, in chart form:

Tech had by far the worst success rate and IsoPPP average in the Big 12, a conference not known for defensive prowess.

Coordinator Gibbs is, on paper, the perfect air raid defensive coordinator. He found success as D.C. at both Minnesota and Auburn at times, and he calibrates his entire defense around forcing turnovers.

Well, that’s what he wants to do, anyway. He couldn’t do much of anything with Tech’s young personnel in 2016. Tech managed a paltry 13 takeaways (112th in FBS) and forced just nine fumbles (78th).

This went beyond injury; after all, the Red Raiders boasted two former blue-chip defensive tackles in Breiden Fehoko and Ondre Pipkins, they missed one game between then, and they still couldn’t stop the run to save their lives. Still:

Leading returning defensive end Gary Moore missed five games.

Leading returning linebacker Dakota Allen was kicked off the team in May (and then rejoined in December).

Second leading returning linebacker D’Vonta Hinton missed seven games.

Second leading returning safety Tevin Madison missed 10.

Safety Payton Hendrix missed six. Safety Keenon Ward missed three.

Cornerback Nigel Bethel II transferred before the season, and corners Paul Banks III and Desmon Smith missed a combined seven games.

And on and on. It was like coaching a brand new defense every week. And when you’re in a league full of high-tempo offenses adept at exploiting any crack, that’s deadly.

Photo by John Weast/Getty Images

Jah'Shawn Johnson

We don’t know if Kingsbury puts the right amount of emphasis on defense, and we don’t know if Gibbs’ turnovers-über-alles approach has merit. But continuity would help us find out.

It would allow us to figure out if a secondary that allowed a 151.6 passer rating (with 28 touchdowns to just five picks) was bad because of talent or inexperience. Six DBs with at least 13 tackles return, and five of them were either freshmen or sophomores last year. Safeties Jah’Shawn Johnson and Douglas Coleman III combined for 15 passes defensed and four tackles for loss, which might be a good sign of potential play-making ability, and at nearly four stars, junior Payton Hendrix was the closest thing to a star recruit the secondary has.

The cornerback situation is less clear, but between senior D.J. Polite-Bray, sophomore Dsmon Smith, and JUCO transfers Octavious Morgan and Jaylon Lane, there are options, I guess.

Allen’s return gives Tech a couple of potential play-makers at linebacker. He made six tackles for loss with three passes defensed as a redshirt freshman in 2015, and Jordyn Brooks had five and four, respectively, as a freshman last year. But they could be having to shed a lot of blockers if the line can’t do its job. The line was iffy last year with blue-chippers Pipkins and Fehoko; now both are gone. So is Kris Williams, the only player on the team to record more than one sack. Yikes.

I’m not particularly worried about the tackles. A foursome of 2016 backups — seniors Zach Barnes and Mychealon Thomas, sophomores Broderick Washington and Joseph Wallace — combined for 7.5 tackles for loss among 36 tackles, and Wallace had three in only eight games. The ends, though? Kolin Hill is the closest thing to a proven play-maker, and he had four TFLs and three breakups. Gibbs doesn’t mind a bend-don’t-break approach at times, but you need at least some attacking potential.

Photo by John Weast/Getty Images

Jordyn Brooks

Special Teams

Because Tech was good at finishing drives in the end zone, kicker Clayton Hatfield was only asked to take 14 field goals last year. But five of them were longer than 40 yards, and he missed only one. That’s an encouraging sign considering he might be asked to salvage a few more stalling drives this time around. (His five missed PATs are a red flag, however.)

Hatfield’s great per-kick average salvaged a No. 67 Special Teams S&P+ ranking for a unit that was iffy at punting (not that they punted much) and had no oomph in kick returns. There’s a good chance he’s relied on even more in 2017.

2017 outlook

2017 Schedule & Projection Factors

Date Opponent Proj. S&P+ Rk Proj. Margin Win Probability 2-Sep Eastern Washington NR 19.3 87% 16-Sep Arizona State 58 1.4 53% 23-Sep at Houston 49 -4.6 40% 30-Sep Oklahoma State 22 -8.0 32% 7-Oct at Kansas 107 10.9 74% 14-Oct at West Virginia 69 -0.9 48% 21-Oct Iowa State 57 1.3 53% 28-Oct at Oklahoma 5 -23.1 9% 4-Nov Kansas State 35 -2.7 44% 11-Nov at Baylor 28 -9.3 29% 18-Nov TCU 21 -8.2 32% 25-Nov at Texas 16 -15.0 19%

Projected S&P+ Rk 66 Proj. Off. / Def. Rk 4 / 124 Projected wins 5.2 Five-Year S&P+ Rk 3.6 (51) 2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk 45 / 45 2016 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin* -4 / -1.0 2016 TO Luck/Game -1.2 Returning Production (Off. / Def.) 61% (62%, 59%) 2016 Second-order wins (difference) 5.3 (-0.3)

S&P+ projects Tech fourth on offense and 124th on defense. The offense will be its typical awesome self (though maybe not quite as awesome — Giles’ transfer wasn’t part of the initial S&P+ projections), and the defense faces more burden of proof than any unit in the country.

I assume the secondary will come through, but it’s hard to paint an optimistic face on the defensive front. That means a lot more shootouts. We expect nothing less in Lubbock.

So can the Red Raiders win some more shootouts? S&P+ projects five relative tossups — Arizona State, at Houston, at WVU, Iowa State, and Kansas State are all between 40 and 53 percent win probability — and Tech will probably have to win at least three of those to bowl.

At some point, bowling might not be enough, but it would be a step forward. Kingsbury needs a few of those, but you can’t get a few without the first one.

Team preview stats

All preview data to date.