Skip to content
CFB/LAB
Menu

Texas Tech

2026 season

Big 12
2026 preseason report

Historical preseason snapshot from 2026-07-29, including roster context and illustrative season projections. This is not a live injury feed.

What every system says

Texas Tech's rank in each system (1 = best). Middle rank 15 across 8 systems; best 10, worst 26, so they disagree by 16 places.

Lab EPA
#26
Through week 92026 · 138 rated FBS teams · Through week 9. Rank 1 is best; lower rank numbers are better. Higher rating values are better. Equal ratings take separate places, ordered by team name.
Lab SRS
#15
up 32026 · 138 FBS roster teams, including prior-only teams · Through week 9 · built 2026-11-06T12:26:24.430328+00:00. Rank 1 is best; lower rank numbers are better. Higher rating values are better. Equal ratings take separate places, ordered by team name.
SP+
#10
down 12026 · 138 published SP+ teams · Provider week 10 · captured 2026-11-02T14:10:13.208713+00:00. Rank 1 is best; lower rank numbers are better. Higher rating values are better. Published provider ranks; tie handling is not documented in this snapshot.
Elo
#13
no change2026 · 138 rated FBS teams · Through week 9 · captured 2026-11-06T12:01:15.459089+00:00. Rank 1 is best; lower rank numbers are better. Higher rating values are better. Equal ratings share the best tied rank; the next rank skips places.
FPI
#13
up 12026 · 138 rated FBS teams · Event cutoff not supplied · captured 2026-11-06T12:01:15.459089+00:00. Rank 1 is best; lower rank numbers are better. Higher rating values are better. Equal ratings share the best tied rank; the next rank skips places.
CORE
#15
up 3 · Through week 9 · captured 2026-11-06T12:01:15.459089+00:002026 · 138 rated FBS teams · Through week 9 · captured 2026-11-06T12:01:15.459089+00:00. Rank 1 is best; lower rank numbers are better. Higher rating values are better. Equal ratings share the best tied rank; the next rank skips places.
CFBD SRS
#22
up 12026 · 138 rated FBS teams · Event cutoff not supplied · captured 2026-11-06T12:01:15.459089+00:00. Rank 1 is best; lower rank numbers are better. Higher rating values are better. Equal ratings share the best tied rank; the next rank skips places.
WEPA
#26
down 12026 · 138 rated FBS teams · Event cutoff not supplied · captured 2026-11-06T12:01:15.459089+00:00. Rank 1 is best; lower rank numbers are better. Higher rating values are better. Equal ratings share the best tied rank; the next rank skips places.
Compare every team

FPI context

ESPN FPI via CFBD · 2026

Résumé and schedule

Results earned and schedule difficulty

Strength of record
#17 of 138
Schedule strength
#68 of 138
Remaining schedule strength
#45 of 138
Game control
#31 of 138

Unit efficiency

Performance by unit

Overall
#27 of 138
Offense
#52 of 138
Defense
#23 of 138
Special teams
#22 of 138

Ranks calculated among rated FBS teams; ties share rank. #1 means strongest résumé, hardest schedule, best game control or highest efficiency. These are separate measures, not a combined forecast. Captured Nov 6, 2026, 06:01:15 CST. FPI supplies no results-through week; capture time records when we received it.

Why the ratings disagree

Texas Tech · 2026. Each system answers a different question. The cards show each source's rank (published or computed here) and coverage, so a rank gap can also reflect which teams have data.

Record

7-1 wins–losses

No rank assigned

Results earned. Wins and losses do not account for opponent strength or victory margin.

2026, provider Week 10; captured 2026-11-02T14:10:13.208713+00:00

SP+ workbook record

Descriptive EPA

0.107 net EPA/play

#26

2026 · 138 rated FBS teams · Through week 9. Rank 1 is best; lower rank numbers are better. Higher rating values are better. Equal ratings take separate places, ordered by team name.

Observed per-play efficiency after opponent adjustment. FBS-vs-FBS plays; no preseason strength prior. Sparse schedules can produce sharp early movement.

2026, through CFBD Week 9; opponent adjusted ridge

Lab EPA from CFBD plays

Local predictive SRS

10.93 points

#15 · Up 3 places since the previous CFBD cutoff

2026 · 138 FBS roster teams, including prior-only teams · Through week 9 · built 2026-11-06T12:26:24.430328+00:00. Rank 1 is best; lower rank numbers are better. Higher rating values are better. Equal ratings take separate places, ordered by team name.

This season's 8 games, with recent games counting a bit more: average margin +13.38 (with blowouts capped at 35 points and overtime games counted as a 1-point result, then 2.5 points of home field removed) against opponents averaging -1.89, schedule #65 of 138 (#1 = toughest); 1 FCS opponent counts at −25; FBS opponents alone average +0.88. That is worth +11.49 on its own; the preseason prior of +9.03 still carries 23% of the weight, giving +10.93.

How each game enters this SRS rating

Texas Tech · 2026, through CFBD Week 9. Margins are team minus opponent. The fit caps margins and treats overtime as a one-point result before adjusting for venue. Recent games carry more weight; the fit share includes the preseason prior in its denominator.

GameRaw margin → transformedVenue adjustmentRecency weightFit shareOpponent ratingMargin termOpponent termTotal term
Week 1 · Abilene Christian
home · 2026-09-05 · ID 401856770
+23.00 → +23.00-2.500.73498.29%-25.00 (fixed lower division)1.700-2.073-0.373
Week 2 · Oregon State
away · 2026-09-12 · ID 401856783
+11.00 → +11.00+2.500.76378.62%+4.861.1630.4191.582
Week 3 · Houston
home · 2026-09-19 · ID 401856811
+2.00 → +2.00-2.500.79378.96%+9.51-0.0450.8510.807
Week 4 · Sam Houston
home · 2026-09-26 · ID 401856805
+35.00 → +35.00-2.500.82499.31%-14.733.025-1.3711.654
Week 5 · Colorado
away · 2026-10-03 · ID 401856821
+22.00 → +22.00+2.500.85729.67%-5.302.370-0.5121.857
Week 7 · Arizona State
home · 2026-10-17 · ID 401856828
+28.00 → +28.00-2.500.925910.45%-1.622.664-0.1702.494
Week 8 · Cincinnati
away · 2026-10-24 · ID 401856840
-13.00 → -13.00+2.500.962210.86%+1.34-1.1400.145-0.995
Week 9 · Arizona
home · 2026-10-31 · ID 401856842
+8.00 → +8.00-2.501.000011.28%+11.060.6211.2481.868

Game terms +8.89 points; prior term +2.04 points. Their unrounded sum is the fitted rating +10.93 points. The preseason prior is +9.03 with 22.57% of the fit weight. Displayed values are rounded; the producer checks the unrounded identity within 0.00000001 points.

These are additive terms of the current fit, not the effect of removing a game. Opponent ratings already reflect the connected schedule. Lower-division opponents use the fixed anchor, not an individually fitted rating. The rating's model-based 95% band is ±8.8 points; this decomposition does not reduce uncertainty or assign causal effects.

Download fitted terms and source hashes

Estimated strength from schedule-adjusted scoring margins, margin caps, home-field adjustment and recency weighting. Half of prior-season strength, including postseason, carries forward with two games of weight. SRS includes FCS opponents under a fixed strength assumption. 8 current games; prior available.

2026, through CFBD Week 9; generated 2026-11-06T12:26:24.430328+00:00

Lab SRS from CFBD scores

External SP+

18.8 SP+ points

#10 · Down 1 place

2026 · 138 published SP+ teams · Provider week 10 · captured 2026-11-02T14:10:13.208713+00:00. Rank 1 is best; lower rank numbers are better. Higher rating values are better. Published provider ranks; tie handling is not documented in this snapshot.

Bill Connelly's published predictive strength estimate. Its method and scale differ from local SRS.

2026, provider Week 10; captured 2026-11-02T14:10:13.208713+00:00

Bill Connelly SP+ workbook

External CORE

15.98 net points per 100 offensive + 100 defensive plays

#15 of 138 by overall (ranked here; CORE publishes no rank)

2026 · 138 rated FBS teams in this CORE board · 2026, through regular Week 9; model core-v1; captured 2026-11-06T12:03:20.826325+00:00. Rank 1 is best; lower rank numbers are better. Higher rating values are better. Equal ratings share the best tied rank; the next rank skips places.

CFBD's context- and opponent-relative efficiency. Offense is higher-better; defense is points allowed above average, so lower is better; overall is offense minus defense. It counts only pass and rush plays from FBS-vs-FBS games, with no special teams, overtime or garbage time; early-week values are pulled toward average but are still uncertain, and it is not a résumé ranking. Its scale is not comparable to EPA, SRS or SP+. Offense 5.69 on 445 plays; defense -10.29 on 461 plays.

2026, through regular Week 9; model core-v1; captured 2026-11-06T12:03:20.826325+00:00

CFBD CORE ratingCORE board: offense vs defense

EPA ranks Texas Tech 11 places lower than local SRS at the matched cutoff. This identifies a disagreement; it does not isolate its cause. SP+ movement compares provider weeks 9 and 10. Provider weeks may differ from CFBD weeks, so no cross-provider rank gap is calculated. CORE reports its own inclusive cutoff and is shown beside these systems for comparison only; it is an external research rating and is never blended into the lab's opponent-adjusted EPA, local SRS or any pick.

Team ratings and rank gaps are not matchup spreads or win probabilities. Matchup context and a calibrated forecast mapping are required. Do not average EPA, SRS, SP+ and CORE values across their different scales.

Read local SRS assumptions and forecast evidence

Program context

2026 · CFBD records, polls, recruiting, coaches
Record
7-1 · conf 4-1 · home 5-0 · away 2-1 · expected wins 6.1
Polls (Week 10)
Coaches Poll #13 · AP Top 25 #13
CFP latest
#15 · 2026 regular Week 10 · captured 2026-11-06
CFP final
not published
Against the spread
2026: 4-4 ATS (-5.1 avg) · 2025: 12-2 ATS (+8.0 avg)
Head coach
Joey McGuire · hired 2021-11-08 · 27-13 over 4 captured seasons
Recruiting classes
2024 #25 (236 pts) · 2025 #48 (202 pts) · 2026 #18 (250 pts)
Returning
53% of production · 57% of usage
Passing, receiving and rushing detail
CategoryProductionUsage
Passing27%23%
Receiving57%53%
Rushing99%93%

Shares of prior-season PPA and usage returning in each category. Missing values are unavailable.

Provider values from CFBD captures dated 2026-09-22, 2026-11-06. head coach for the season; tenure counts cover only the captured seasons, hire date is the provider's. Returning usage carries no signal beyond returning production in this repo's research; neither is a model input.

Recruiting by position group

2023–2026 classes · High school · CFBD · captured 2026-11-06 UTC

Position groupCommitsAvg. starsAvg. ratingTotal rating
Defensive Back173.290.882615.00
Defensive Line143.360.888412.44
Linebacker53.000.86944.35
Offensive Line193.320.883516.79
Quarterback43.500.88923.56
Receiver163.440.891214.26
Running Back23.500.89101.78
Special Teams113.090.86559.52

Recruiting class aggregates, not current roster strength. Commits count recruits across the window; total rating also reflects class size. JUCO, prep-school and transfer ratings are excluded. These values do not enter the prediction model.

Player efficiency and usage

2026 · observed 2026-11-06 UTC

Passing and rushing WEPA adjust efficiency for opponents. Kicker PAAR measures points added above replacement. Higher is better within each metric. Metric rows are ordered by sample size, followed by usage-only players. Usage is the share of team plays involving the player within each category; categories overlap and should not be added. CFBD definitions

Player / historyMetricValuePlays / attemptsOverall usageUsage detailRecruiting
Will Hammond · QB

CFBD athlete 5126468. Texas Tech (2024–2026)

Passing WEPA0.26417949.9%
Pass 96.3% · Rush 12.3%

1st 47.5% · 2nd 48.8% · 3rd 58.9%

Standard downs 43.6% · Passing downs 65.2%

2024: 4★ · 0.9173
J'Koby Williams · RB

CFBD athlete 5086393. Texas Tech (2024–2026)

Rushing WEPA0.3619022.6%
Pass 11.6% · Rush 32.8%

1st 27.0% · 2nd 22.7% · 3rd 13.2%

Standard downs 24.8% · Passing downs 17.0%

2024: 3★ · 0.8878
Cameron Dickey · RB

CFBD athlete 5193580. Texas Tech (2024–2026)

Rushing WEPA0.1875417.4%
Pass 4.6% · Rush 28.2%

1st 18.5% · 2nd 18.2% · 3rd 14.1%

Standard downs 19.9% · Passing downs 11.1%

2024: 3★ · 0.8838
Quinten Joyner · RB

CFBD athlete 4917949. USC (2023–2024); Texas Tech (2025–2026)

Rushing WEPA0.0974810.4%
Pass 0.8% · Rush 18.7%

1st 9.1% · 2nd 11.4% · 3rd 9.4%

Standard downs 12.3% · Passing downs 5.7%

2023: 4★ · 0.9272
Thomas Castellanos · QB

CFBD athlete 4773919. Florida State (2025–2025); Boston College (2023–2024); UCF (2022–2022); Texas Tech (2026–2026)

Rushing WEPA0.3163418.1%
Pass 21.3% · Rush 16.3%

1st 14.7% · 2nd 16.8% · 3rd 27.3%

Standard downs 16.3% · Passing downs 22.4%

2022: 3★ · 0.8815
Will Hammond · QB

CFBD athlete 5126468. Texas Tech (2024–2026)

Rushing WEPA0.2993149.9%
Pass 96.3% · Rush 12.3%

1st 47.5% · 2nd 48.8% · 3rd 58.9%

Standard downs 43.6% · Passing downs 65.2%

2024: 4★ · 0.9173
Stone Harrington · PK

CFBD athlete 5103116. Texas Tech (2024–2026)

Kicker PAAR6.54020—
Pass — · Rush —

1st — · 2nd — · 3rd —

Standard downs — · Passing downs —

Not linked
Ashton Rowden · RB

CFBD athlete 5290564. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——3.6%
Pass 0.0% · Rush 6.7%

1st 4.4% · 2nd 4.6% · 3rd 0.0%

Standard downs 4.2% · Passing downs 1.9%

Not linked
Bryson Jones · WR

CFBD athlete 5195409. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——1.7%
Pass 3.8% · Rush 0.0%

1st 1.8% · 2nd 0.8% · 3rd 3.0%

Standard downs 1.6% · Passing downs 1.9%

Not linked
Chase Campbell · WR

CFBD athlete 5217186. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——2.8%
Pass 5.4% · Rush 0.8%

1st 3.2% · 2nd 2.8% · 3rd 2.3%

Standard downs 2.5% · Passing downs 3.3%

Not linked
Coy Eakin · WR

CFBD athlete 4916941. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——5.7%
Pass 12.9% · Rush 0.3%

1st 5.6% · 2nd 4.9% · 3rd 8.5%

Standard downs 5.0% · Passing downs 7.5%

Not linked
Donte Lee Jr · WR

CFBD athlete 5220256. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——2.0%
Pass 4.6% · Rush 0.0%

1st 2.2% · 2nd 1.5% · 3rd 2.4%

Standard downs 2.3% · Passing downs 1.4%

Not linked
Jalen Jones · WR

CFBD athlete 5227057. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——2.5%
Pass 5.8% · Rush 0.0%

1st 3.1% · 2nd 2.1% · 3rd 2.0%

Standard downs 2.0% · Passing downs 3.8%

Not linked
Jett Carpenter · TE

CFBD athlete 4695195. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——2.3%
Pass 4.5% · Rush 0.6%

1st 1.3% · 2nd 3.5% · 3rd 3.3%

Standard downs 2.8% · Passing downs 1.1%

Not linked
Kenny Johnson · WR

CFBD athlete 4923295. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——10.6%
Pass 24.5% · Rush 0.0%

1st 10.7% · 2nd 10.8% · 3rd 10.4%

Standard downs 9.5% · Passing downs 13.2%

Not linked
Kirk Francis · QB

CFBD athlete 5151618. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——1.4%
Pass 3.0% · Rush 0.0%

1st 0.0% · 2nd 3.8% · 3rd 0.0%

Standard downs 0.0% · Passing downs 6.3%

Not linked
Leyton Stone · WR

CFBD athlete 5186738. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——1.4%
Pass 3.0% · Rush 0.0%

1st 0.0% · 2nd 3.8% · 3rd 0.0%

Standard downs 0.0% · Passing downs 6.3%

Not linked
Malcolm Simmons · WR

CFBD athlete 5079691. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——2.6%
Pass 4.3% · Rush 1.4%

1st 1.6% · 2nd 2.2% · 3rd 4.3%

Standard downs 2.5% · Passing downs 2.9%

Not linked
Matt Ludwig · TE

CFBD athlete 5209381. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——2.8%
Pass 6.3% · Rush 0.0%

1st 3.1% · 2nd 3.1% · 3rd 1.9%

Standard downs 2.5% · Passing downs 3.4%

Not linked
Micah Hudson · WR

CFBD athlete 5079492. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——4.7%
Pass 10.8% · Rush 0.0%

1st 5.6% · 2nd 3.2% · 3rd 4.7%

Standard downs 5.0% · Passing downs 3.8%

Not linked
Terrance Carter · TE

CFBD athlete 4867887. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——8.2%
Pass 17.1% · Rush 1.4%

1st 7.0% · 2nd 4.4% · 3rd 17.5%

Standard downs 6.0% · Passing downs 14.0%

Not linked

Transfers

Incoming · 23 reported
PlayerFromDateStars / ratingEligibility
Adam Trick · EDGEMiami (OH)2026-01-074★ / 0.9000Immediate
Amarie Fleming · EDGENot reported2025-11-193★ / 0.8600Immediate
Austin Romaine · LBKansas State2026-01-043★ / 0.8700Immediate
Brendan Sorsby · QBCincinnati2026-01-055★ / 0.9800Immediate
Bryce Butler · DLWashington2026-01-053★ / 0.8600Immediate
Corey Platt Jr. · LBHouston2026-01-133★ / 0.8800Immediate
Davin Martin · CBUTSA2026-01-053★ / 0.8700Immediate
Donte Lee Jr. · WRLiberty2026-01-043★ / 0.8600Immediate
Jacob Hand · KTexas Tech2026-01-11— / —Immediate
Jalen Jones · WRAlabama State2026-01-043★ / 0.8600Immediate
Jamond Mathis · EDGEKent State2026-01-123★ / 0.8400Immediate
Jett Carpenter · TENevada2026-01-093★ / 0.8500Immediate
Jojo Johnson · DLOregon State2026-01-073★ / 0.8600Immediate
Jordan Church · IOLLouisville2026-01-154★ / 0.9100Immediate
Jordan Rogers · SPittsburg State2026-05-03— / —Immediate
Julien Laventure · DLAkron2026-01-053★ / 0.8300Immediate
Kenny Johnson · WRPittsburgh2026-01-073★ / 0.8600Immediate
Kirk Francis · QBTulsa2026-01-143★ / 0.8300Immediate
Malcolm Simmons · WRAuburn2026-01-124★ / 0.9100Immediate
Mateen Ibirogba · DLWake Forest2026-01-074★ / 0.9600Immediate
Thomas Castellanos · QBFlorida State2026-08-213★ / —Immediate
Trey White · EDGESan Diego State2026-01-053★ / 0.8600Immediate
Will Karoll · PUCLA2026-01-213★ / 0.8300Immediate
Outgoing · 21 reported
PlayerToDateStars / ratingEligibility
Amier Washington · DLUCLA2026-01-103★ / 0.8600Immediate
Braylon Rigsby · DLOklahoma State2026-01-083★ / 0.8700Immediate
Chapman Lewis · SUtah State2026-01-193★ / 0.8300Immediate
Cheta Ofili · EDGETCU2026-01-093★ / 0.8600Immediate
Deante Lindsay · CBAbilene Christian2026-01-123★ / —Immediate
Dylan Spencer · EDGEUTSA2026-01-073★ / 0.8500Immediate
Eddy Smith · DLUTSA2026-01-093★ / —Immediate
Jacob Hand · KTexas Tech2026-01-11— / —Immediate
Justin Horne · LBNot reported2025-12-253★ / —Immediate
Kasen Long · DLUtah State2026-01-273★ / 0.8500Immediate
Kelby Valsin · WRNot reported2025-12-263★ / —Immediate
Macho Stevenson · CBTulane2026-01-073★ / —Immediate
Maurion Horn · CBOklahoma State2026-01-063★ / 0.8600Immediate
Mitch Griffis · QBEast Carolina2026-01-093★ / —Immediate
Preztynn Harrison · WRHoward Payne2026-01-193★ / —Immediate
Price Morgan · WRIncarnate Word2026-01-12— / —Immediate
Roy Alexander · WRNot reported2026-01-05— / —Immediate
T.J. West · WRUTSA2026-01-073★ / —Immediate
Trey Jackson · TESMU2026-01-123★ / 0.8600Immediate
Tyson Turner · WRHouston2026-01-103★ / 0.8500Immediate
Upton Bellenfant · KSouth Carolina2026-01-08— / —Immediate

Transfer observations can include unresolved destinations. CFBD supplies no timezone for transfer dates and no athlete ID linking these records to the efficiency table. These observations do not establish current roster membership or game availability.

Descriptive context only; no player or transfer value enters the prediction model. Adjusted metrics require unambiguous season/team history. Usage-only rows use the captured athlete ID and team; conflicting usage identities are omitted. Missing values are unavailable, not zero. Provider coverage is incomplete.

Coaching eras

Continuous appointments at Texas Tech. Records are CFBD-attributed results; active tenures and the current season may be incomplete.

Joey McGuire · career 35–18 across 5 seasons and 1 schools

Tenure timeline · 15 appointments
  1. 2022–present · Joey McGuire · active at capture

    35–18 · 53 attributed games · 5 seasons

    Hired 2021-11-08. Exact effective dates unavailable.

  2. 2021–2021 · Sonny Cumbie

    2–3 · 5 attributed games · 1 seasons · incomplete attribution

    Hired 2021-10-25. Exact effective dates unavailable.

  3. 2019–2021 · Matt Wells

    13–17 · 30 attributed games · 3 seasons · incomplete attribution

    Hired 2018-11-29. Exact effective dates unavailable.

  4. 2013–2018 · Kliff Kingsbury

    35–40 · 75 attributed games · 6 seasons

    Hired 2012-12-12. Exact effective dates unavailable.

  5. 2010–2012 · Tommy Tuberville

    20–17 · 37 attributed games · 3 seasons

    Hired 2009-12-31. Exact effective dates unavailable.

  6. 2000–2009 · Mike Leach

    84–43 · 127 attributed games · 10 seasons

    Hired 1999-12-09. Exact effective dates unavailable.

  7. 1986–1999 · Spike Dykes

    82–67–1 · 150 attributed games · 14 seasons

    Exact effective dates unavailable.

  8. 1981–1985 · Jerry Moore

    16–37–2 · 55 attributed games · 5 seasons

    Exact effective dates unavailable.

  9. 1978–1980 · Rex Dockery

    15–16–2 · 33 attributed games · 3 seasons

    Exact effective dates unavailable.

  10. 1975–1977 · Steve Sloan

    23–12 · 35 attributed games · 3 seasons

    Exact effective dates unavailable.

  11. 1970–1974 · Jim Carlen

    37–20–2 · 59 attributed games · 5 seasons

    Exact effective dates unavailable.

  12. 1961–1969 · J.T. King

    44–45–3 · 92 attributed games · 9 seasons

    Exact effective dates unavailable.

  13. 1951–1960 · DeWitt Weaver

    49–51–5 · 105 attributed games · 10 seasons

    Exact effective dates unavailable.

  14. 1946–1950 · Dell Morgan

    31–24 · 55 attributed games · 5 seasons

    Exact effective dates unavailable.

  15. 1932–1940 · Pete Cawthon

    67–23–6 · 96 attributed games · 9 seasons

    Exact effective dates unavailable.

Season résumé · 2015–2026

Coach-attributed records appear beside team-season ratings, recruiting and poll context. Shared seasons appear once per coach; rows are not assigned to individual stints. Ratings describe team performance, not a causal coaching effect.

Season / coachRecordConferencePostseasonSP+SRSRecruiting rankFinal poll
2026 · Joey McGuire · incomplete attribution0–0——21.913.118—
2025 · Joey McGuire12–28–10–127.622.3487
2024 · Joey McGuire8–56–30–14.33.925—
2023 · Joey McGuire7–65–41–06.17.328—
2022 · Joey McGuire8–55–41–08.59.743—
2021 · Matt Wells · incomplete attribution5–3——9.8-1.764—
2021 · Sonny Cumbie · incomplete attribution2–3——9.8-1.764—
2020 · Matt Wells4–63–60–0-4.2-1.449—
2019 · Matt Wells4–82–70–02.72.361—
2018 · Kliff Kingsbury5–73–60–08.77.372—
2017 · Kliff Kingsbury6–73–60–14.84.849—
2016 · Kliff Kingsbury5–73–60–03.7144—
2015 · Kliff Kingsbury7–64–50–14.55.232—
Download coaching history JSON

Source: CFBD · captured 2026-10-26T02:02:59.394463+00:00 UTC. Season résumé covers 2015–2026; timeline spans all returned tenures. — means unavailable. Career summaries cover active coaches at capture. This snapshot is descriptive and is not a pregame cutoff.

CFBD season overview

2026 stored season snapshot, including postseason and garbage time. Raw CFBD PPA is not opponent-adjusted EPA or player WEPA. No week cutoff; these values do not enter our forecasts.

Captured 2026-11-02 13:51:41.272114 UTC · Source data

Stat rankings

CFBD FBS ranks · source updated 2026-11-01 14:08:43 UTC · calculated 2026-11-02 13:47:25 UTC · provider cache expiry 2026-11-02 13:57:25 UTC. Rank 1 is best; percentiles use CFBD’s 0–100 scale.

StatisticOffense rank / populationPercentileDefense rank / populationPercentile
PPA / play53 / 13862.026 / 13881.8
Success rate35 / 13875.234 / 13875.9
Explosiveness118 / 13814.6116 / 13816.1
Standard-down success41 / 13870.822 / 13884.7
Passing-down success26 / 13881.890 / 13835.0
Pass PPA46 / 13867.228 / 13880.3
Rush PPA33 / 13876.625 / 13882.5
Pass explosiveness125 / 1389.564 / 13854.0
Rush explosiveness69 / 13850.458 / 13858.4
Line yards30 / 13878.841 / 13870.8
Second-level yards10 / 13893.449 / 13865.0
Open-field yards17 / 13888.341 / 13870.8
Stuff rate80 / 13842.329 / 13879.6
Power success108 / 13821.914 / 13890.5
Havoc131 / 1385.1T50 / 13863.5
Front-seven havocT113 / 13817.979 / 13843.1
DB havocT129 / 1386.2T28 / 13879.6
Points / opportunity55 / 13860.634 / 13875.9
Average field positionT12 / 13891.6T16 / 13888.3
Field-position expected points8 / 13894.919 / 13886.9

Player PPA and usage

Ordered by overall usage. Open a player for pass, rush, down and situation splits. Usage is the provider’s share of team plays in each situation; PPA is the provider’s average or total for that player. Missing values stay blank (—); play counts are not supplied here. Standard downs are 1st down, 2nd-and-7 or shorter, and 3rd/4th-and-4 or shorter; other situations are passing downs.

Will Hammond · QBUsage 49.9% · Avg PPA 0.236 · Total 57.220
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall0.23657.22049.9%
Pass0.29360.74496.3%
Rush0.40812.65012.3%
1st down0.14114.84747.5%
2nd down0.25019.78148.8%
3rd down0.56830.08158.9%
Standard downs0.13720.54843.6%
Passing downs0.39936.67365.2%
J'Koby Williams · RBUsage 22.6% · Avg PPA 0.288 · Total 36.296
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall0.28836.29622.6%
Pass0.3369.40511.6%
Rush0.27426.89232.8%
1st down0.23315.86227.0%
2nd down0.1154.81422.7%
3rd down1.38319.35713.2%
Standard downs0.27827.50424.8%
Passing downs0.3268.79217.0%
Thomas Castellanos · QBUsage 18.1% · Avg PPA 0.383 · Total 23.737
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall0.38323.73718.1%
Pass0.39411.83421.3%
Rush0.50215.54816.3%
1st down-0.043-0.99514.7%
2nd down0.3596.81216.8%
3rd down0.65011.69727.3%
Standard downs0.1335.30516.3%
Passing downs0.83818.43222.4%
Cameron Dickey · RBUsage 17.4% · Avg PPA 0.091 · Total 6.579
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall0.0916.57917.4%
Pass0.3142.5154.6%
Rush0.0634.06428.2%
1st down-0.086-3.00318.5%
2nd down0.2085.19518.2%
3rd down0.1461.60114.1%
Standard downs0.0432.55619.9%
Passing downs0.3094.02311.1%
Kenny Johnson · WRUsage 10.6% · Avg PPA 0.559 · Total 32.976
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall0.55932.97610.6%
Pass0.55932.97624.5%
Rush—0.0000.0%
1st down0.3308.91110.7%
2nd down0.2505.00010.8%
3rd down1.37815.15710.4%
Standard downs0.35213.3899.5%
Passing downs0.93319.58713.2%
Quinten Joyner · RBUsage 10.4% · Avg PPA -0.076 · Total -4.430
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall-0.076-4.43010.4%
Pass1.4502.9010.8%
Rush-0.131-7.33118.7%
1st down-0.069-1.5919.1%
2nd down0.2234.69311.4%
3rd down-0.088-0.8769.4%
Standard downs-0.114-5.59912.3%
Passing downs0.1301.1695.7%
Terrance Carter · TEUsage 8.2% · Avg PPA 0.280 · Total 9.517
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall0.2809.5178.2%
Pass0.2497.73317.1%
Rush0.5951.7851.4%
1st down0.2513.2667.0%
2nd down0.7114.2634.4%
3rd down0.2783.89717.5%
Standard downs0.3396.0996.0%
Passing downs0.2143.41814.0%
Coy Eakin · WRUsage 5.7% · Avg PPA 0.412 · Total 13.184
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall0.41213.1845.7%
Pass0.51615.98212.9%
Rush-2.798-2.7980.3%
1st down0.4826.7545.6%
2nd down0.7016.3074.9%
3rd down0.0140.1238.5%
Standard downs0.4889.7665.0%
Passing downs0.2853.4187.5%
Micah Hudson · WRUsage 4.7% · Avg PPA -0.048 · Total -1.238
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall-0.048-1.2384.7%
Pass-0.048-1.23810.8%
Rush—0.0000.0%
1st down0.1141.6035.6%
2nd down0.3321.9923.2%
3rd down-0.160-0.7994.7%
Standard downs-0.181-3.6295.0%
Passing downs0.3982.3903.8%
Ashton Rowden · RBUsage 3.6% · Avg PPA 0.012 · Total 0.087
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall0.0120.0873.6%
Pass—0.0000.0%
Rush0.0120.0876.7%
1st down0.4261.7054.4%
2nd down-0.539-1.6184.6%
3rd down—0.0000.0%
Standard downs0.0520.3114.2%
Passing downs-0.224-0.2241.9%
Chase Campbell · WRUsage 2.8% · Avg PPA 0.100 · Total 0.598
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall0.1000.5982.8%
Pass0.1530.7665.4%
Rush-0.167-0.1670.8%
1st down-0.221-0.6633.2%
2nd down-0.131-0.2612.8%
3rd down1.5221.5222.3%
Standard downs-0.398-1.5922.5%
Passing downs1.0952.1903.3%
Matt Ludwig · TEUsage 2.8% · Avg PPA 0.360 · Total 2.882
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall0.3602.8822.8%
Pass0.3602.8826.3%
Rush—0.0000.0%
1st down0.1720.6903.1%
2nd down-0.237-0.7113.1%
3rd down2.9032.9031.9%
Standard downs0.0840.4212.5%
Passing downs0.8202.4603.4%
Malcolm Simmons · WRUsage 2.6% · Avg PPA 1.703 · Total 11.921
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall1.70311.9212.6%
Pass2.07510.3754.3%
Rush0.7731.5461.4%
1st down-0.340-0.6791.6%
2nd down2.8915.7822.2%
3rd down2.6755.3514.3%
Standard downs0.0200.1012.5%
Passing downs5.91011.8202.9%
Jalen Jones · WRUsage 2.5% · Avg PPA 0.231 · Total 1.615
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall0.2311.6152.5%
Pass0.2311.6155.8%
Rush—0.0000.0%
1st down0.1190.4773.1%
2nd down0.6741.3482.1%
3rd down-0.210-0.2102.0%
Standard downs0.1190.4772.0%
Passing downs0.3791.1383.8%
Jett Carpenter · TEUsage 2.3% · Avg PPA 0.677 · Total 5.416
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall0.6775.4162.3%
Pass0.3042.1304.5%
Rush3.2873.2870.6%
1st down-0.204-0.4081.3%
2nd down0.5672.2673.5%
3rd down1.7783.5573.3%
Standard downs0.7355.1462.8%
Passing downs0.2700.2701.1%
Donte Lee Jr · WRUsage 2.0% · Avg PPA -0.244 · Total -0.974
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall-0.244-0.9742.0%
Pass-0.244-0.9744.6%
Rush—0.0000.0%
1st down0.0090.0172.2%
2nd down0.3520.3521.5%
3rd down-1.344-1.3442.4%
Standard downs0.1230.3702.3%
Passing downs-1.344-1.3441.4%
Bryson Jones · WRUsage 1.7% · Avg PPA 0.609 · Total 3.653
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall0.6093.6531.7%
Pass0.6093.6533.8%
Rush—0.0000.0%
1st down0.1050.3141.8%
2nd down3.2333.2330.8%
3rd down0.0530.1063.0%
Standard downs0.2370.9491.6%
Passing downs1.3522.7041.9%
Kirk Francis · QBUsage 1.4% · Avg PPA -0.102 · Total -0.102
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall-0.102-0.1021.4%
Pass-0.102-0.1023.0%
Rush—0.0000.0%
1st down—0.0000.0%
2nd down-0.102-0.1023.8%
3rd down—0.0000.0%
Standard downs—0.0000.0%
Passing downs-0.102-0.1026.3%
Leyton Stone · WRUsage 1.4% · Avg PPA -0.102 · Total -0.102
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall-0.102-0.1021.4%
Pass-0.102-0.1023.0%
Rush—0.0000.0%
1st down—0.0000.0%
2nd down-0.102-0.1023.8%
3rd down—0.0000.0%
Standard downs—0.0000.0%
Passing downs-0.102-0.1026.3%
Where Texas Tech sits · 2026 FBS distributions138 teams · raw PPA

2026 · Through provider Week 9. Each metric uses only published FBS teams with a numeric value. Higher percentile is better; tied values receive the midpoint of their positions, rounded to a whole percentile. Missing values are unranked.

Offense PPA/playOffense PPA/play: 0.166 (62nd percentile; 138 teams)62ndOffense success rateOffense success rate: 0.466 (75th percentile; 138 teams)75thOffense explosivenessOffense explosiveness: 1.137 (15th percentile; 138 teams)15thOffense pass PPA/playOffense pass PPA/play: 0.283 (67th percentile; 138 teams)67thOffense rush PPA/playOffense rush PPA/play: 0.165 (77th percentile; 138 teams)77thDefense PPA/playDefense PPA/play: -0.024 (82nd percentile; 138 teams)82ndDefense success rateDefense success rate: 0.376 (76th percentile; 138 teams)76thDefense explosivenessDefense explosiveness: 1.315 (16th percentile; 138 teams)16thDefense havoc createdDefense havoc created: 0.166 (64th percentile; 138 teams)64th
Values and percentiles
Texas Tech metric values with FBS percentiles, 2026
MetricValuePercentileBetter
Offense PPA/play0.16662nd138 teamshigher
Offense success rate0.46675th138 teamshigher
Offense explosiveness1.13715th138 teamshigher
Offense pass PPA/play0.28367th138 teamshigher
Offense rush PPA/play0.16577th138 teamshigher
Defense PPA/play-0.02482nd138 teamslower
Defense success rate0.37676th138 teamslower
Defense explosiveness1.31516th138 teamslower
Defense havoc created0.16664th138 teamshigher

Passing profile

2026 · CFBD passing family · raw PPA

Captured 2026-11-06. Offense: 100% of 236 attempts charted. Average depth of target 9.6 yards (74th percentile of FBS). Yards after catch 4.7 per completion. Completion 64.8%, 7.3 yards per attempt, pass PPA 0.28.

Completion percentage over expected (CPOE)
SideActualExpectedCPOE (pp)Qualifying / all attempts
Offense62.7%59.2%+3.5201 / 236
Defense allowed65.4%62.7%+2.7289 / 327

Actual and expected use the same qualifying attempts, which can be fewer than all passes. CPOE is their difference in percentage points (pp); higher is better on offense, lower allowed is better on defense. CFBD models FBS-vs-FBS passes, excluding spikes, throwaways, intentional grounding and attempts without air yards. — means unavailable; small samples have fewer than 40 qualifying attempts.

Depth of target vs yards after catch, FBS offenses
Air Force: ADOT 13.0, YAC 3.9Akron: ADOT 7.7, YAC 4.9Alabama: ADOT 9.9, YAC 5.3App State: ADOT 8.5, YAC 5.3Arizona: ADOT 8.1, YAC 5.8Arizona State: ADOT 7.9, YAC 6.1Arkansas: ADOT 7.6, YAC 5.4Arkansas State: ADOT 9.0, YAC 5.3Army: ADOT 12.5, YAC 3.7Auburn: ADOT 7.9, YAC 5.1BYU: ADOT 8.8, YAC 5.9Ball State: ADOT 7.6, YAC 5.4Baylor: ADOT 10.2, YAC 5.1Boise State: ADOT 7.6, YAC 5.0Boston College: ADOT 8.0, YAC 6.6Bowling Green: ADOT 6.4, YAC 5.6Buffalo: ADOT 10.1, YAC 2.2California: ADOT 6.2, YAC 5.6Central Michigan: ADOT 9.0, YAC 5.5Charlotte: ADOT 7.1, YAC 5.5Cincinnati: ADOT 7.2, YAC 6.7Clemson: ADOT 6.9, YAC 5.8Coastal Carolina: ADOT 10.6, YAC 5.8Colorado: ADOT 8.6, YAC 7.1Colorado State: ADOT 5.6, YAC 8.3Delaware: ADOT 9.4, YAC 6.4Duke: ADOT 8.6, YAC 6.6East Carolina: ADOT 8.9, YAC 6.2Eastern Michigan: ADOT 7.2, YAC 5.3Florida: ADOT 7.1, YAC 6.7Florida Atlantic: ADOT 8.4, YAC 4.5Florida International: ADOT 8.0, YAC 5.3Florida State: ADOT 10.4, YAC 8.1Fresno State: ADOT 8.0, YAC 6.0Georgia: ADOT 8.2, YAC 7.7Georgia Southern: ADOT 6.9, YAC 5.1Georgia State: ADOT 8.3, YAC 6.3Georgia Tech: ADOT 7.3, YAC 4.7Hawai'i: ADOT 8.4, YAC 4.2Houston: ADOT 8.3, YAC 6.7Illinois: ADOT 9.9, YAC 4.0Indiana: ADOT 11.3, YAC 4.9Iowa: ADOT 7.5, YAC 6.2Iowa State: ADOT 9.2, YAC 5.3Jacksonville State: ADOT 8.3, YAC 5.8James Madison: ADOT 8.5, YAC 5.1Kansas: ADOT 12.5, YAC 5.2Kansas State: ADOT 7.8, YAC 5.3Kennesaw State: ADOT 6.7, YAC 4.9Kent State: ADOT 9.4, YAC 5.2Kentucky: ADOT 6.7, YAC 7.0LSU: ADOT 8.0, YAC 6.9Liberty: ADOT 11.3, YAC 6.0Louisiana: ADOT 8.5, YAC 5.1Louisiana Tech: ADOT 6.5, YAC 6.2Louisville: ADOT 9.1, YAC 7.1Marshall: ADOT 8.9, YAC 5.3Maryland: ADOT 6.9, YAC 6.0Massachusetts: ADOT 10.4, YAC 4.6Memphis: ADOT 10.3, YAC 5.6Miami: ADOT 7.3, YAC 7.2Miami (OH): ADOT 10.7, YAC 6.2Michigan: ADOT 9.9, YAC 4.8Michigan State: ADOT 7.6, YAC 4.1Middle Tennessee: ADOT 8.0, YAC 5.5Minnesota: ADOT 6.1, YAC 6.1Mississippi State: ADOT 8.8, YAC 5.6Missouri: ADOT 10.1, YAC 5.1Missouri State: ADOT 8.6, YAC 5.7NC State: ADOT 8.9, YAC 5.4Navy: ADOT 13.8, YAC 8.0Nebraska: ADOT 8.6, YAC 5.9Nevada: ADOT 8.4, YAC 6.1New Mexico: ADOT 9.9, YAC 6.1New Mexico State: ADOT 9.6, YAC 4.4North Carolina: ADOT 7.4, YAC 6.4North Dakota State: ADOT 10.0, YAC 4.6North Texas: ADOT 9.2, YAC 6.0Northern Illinois: ADOT 8.4, YAC 5.5Northwestern: ADOT 8.8, YAC 5.5Notre Dame: ADOT 9.6, YAC 4.9Ohio: ADOT 9.6, YAC 6.1Ohio State: ADOT 11.0, YAC 5.1Oklahoma: ADOT 8.3, YAC 5.3Oklahoma State: ADOT 8.5, YAC 6.2Old Dominion: ADOT 10.9, YAC 4.3Ole Miss: ADOT 8.7, YAC 4.1Oregon: ADOT 7.6, YAC 6.5Oregon State: ADOT 8.8, YAC 7.7Penn State: ADOT 9.8, YAC 5.1Pittsburgh: ADOT 9.2, YAC 5.6Purdue: ADOT 8.5, YAC 6.9Rice: ADOT 10.8, YAC 4.9Rutgers: ADOT 11.3, YAC 5.5SMU: ADOT 8.4, YAC 6.3Sacramento State: ADOT 8.2, YAC 4.3Sam Houston: ADOT 7.8, YAC 5.5San Diego State: ADOT 9.7, YAC 5.2San José State: ADOT 10.0, YAC 3.7South Alabama: ADOT 10.7, YAC 5.2South Carolina: ADOT 8.8, YAC 5.9South Florida: ADOT 7.7, YAC 6.3Southern Miss: ADOT 8.2, YAC 5.1Stanford: ADOT 8.9, YAC 4.9Syracuse: ADOT 8.9, YAC 5.5TCU: ADOT 9.5, YAC 4.6Temple: ADOT 9.0, YAC 6.9Tennessee: ADOT 6.9, YAC 6.8Texas: ADOT 8.3, YAC 6.3Texas A&M: ADOT 8.8, YAC 5.3Texas State: ADOT 8.6, YAC 6.8Toledo: ADOT 9.1, YAC 6.1Troy: ADOT 8.9, YAC 6.5Tulane: ADOT 9.2, YAC 4.9Tulsa: ADOT 8.7, YAC 4.7UAB: ADOT 9.8, YAC 4.4UCF: ADOT 7.0, YAC 5.4UCLA: ADOT 9.1, YAC 5.8UConn: ADOT 11.2, YAC 6.3UL Monroe: ADOT 8.1, YAC 5.8UNLV: ADOT 10.5, YAC 4.3USC: ADOT 8.0, YAC 6.4UTEP: ADOT 8.7, YAC 4.9UTSA: ADOT 7.1, YAC 6.0Utah: ADOT 9.5, YAC 5.8Utah State: ADOT 9.9, YAC 4.5Vanderbilt: ADOT 9.2, YAC 5.1Virginia: ADOT 8.3, YAC 5.3Virginia Tech: ADOT 6.5, YAC 7.0Wake Forest: ADOT 8.7, YAC 6.0Washington: ADOT 7.9, YAC 6.5Washington State: ADOT 7.1, YAC 4.0West Virginia: ADOT 13.8, YAC 8.5Western Kentucky: ADOT 6.9, YAC 5.4Western Michigan: ADOT 8.5, YAC 5.1Wisconsin: ADOT 7.5, YAC 6.9Wyoming: ADOT 8.4, YAC 5.6Texas Tech: ADOT 9.6, YAC 4.7Average depth of target (yards) →Yards after catch per completion →

138 teams with at least 40 charted attempts. The highlighted point is Texas Tech.

Target mix by zone, Texas Tech offense
Short left21% · 49Short middle23% · 53Short right38% · 87Deep left6% · 13Deep middle2% · 4Deep right10% · 22

Highlighted bars are deep zones. Shares are of located attempts only.

Defense and rushing detail
Texas Tech passing defense and rushing profile, 2026
SideAttemptsChartedADOTYACComp %PPACPOECPOE att
Passing offense236100%9.64.764.8%0.28+3.5 pp201
Passing defense32798%7.85.164.2%0.10+2.7 pp289

Rushing production

SideAttemptsYards / carrySuccessPPALine yards / rushSecond-level yards / rushOpen-field yards / rushStuff ratePower success
Offense3125.449.7%0.183.301.301.6016.4%66.1%
Defense allowed2423.134.7%-0.042.801.000.9019.7%61.5%

Second-level yards are gained 5–10 yards past the line; open-field yards are beyond 10. These are provider per-rush averages, not totals. Power success measures success with two or fewer yards needed. Exact line-metric and power-success denominators are not supplied in this feed.

Rushing sample and attribution

SideYards recordedIndividualUnattributedSacksKneelsTeam rushesMultiple carriersDirection located / eligible
Offense305 / 312303912220295 / 298 · 99.0%
Defense allowed241 / 242237525440213 / 213 · 100.0%

Counts are attempts. Team totals include sacks, kneels, team-only rushes and unresolved attribution; these categories can overlap and must not be summed. Direction coverage uses ordinary direction-eligible rushes, not all attempts. Missing fields in older captures remain unavailable.

Raw provider values, no opponent adjustment; not model inputs. CFBD metric definitions.

Game-by-game passing and rushing

2026 · Passing CPOE · percentage points. Dashed line: season +3.5 pp. 7 of 8 captured games have this metric. Missing observations break the line.

-6.03.112.2W1W2W2 vs Oregon State: +9.5 ppW3W3 vs Houston: +2.5 ppW4W4 vs Sam Houston: -2.5 ppW5W5 vs Colorado: +3.9 ppW7W7 vs Arizona State: +12.2 ppW8W8 vs Cincinnati: +4.6 ppW9W9 vs Arizona: -6.0 pp

CPOE is completion percentage over expected on qualifying FBS-vs-FBS attempts; positive means more completions than expected. PPA is raw provider PPA. These are game observations, not opponent-adjusted forecasts. P labels postseason weeks.

Game log and attempt coverage
WeekOpponentPass attCPOE attComp %*Expected %*CPOEADOTPass PPARush attRush yds/carryRush PPA
W1Abilene Christian340———6.70.42394.40.17
W2Oregon State282774.1%64.6%+9.5 pp6.50.64473.50.12
W3Houston282860.7%58.2%+2.5 pp12.60.33325.30.29
W4Sam Houston313158.1%60.5%-2.5 pp9.60.27356.40.40
W5Colorado262665.4%61.5%+3.9 pp8.4-0.06384.8-0.15
W7Arizona State272770.4%58.1%+12.2 pp9.70.50376.80.28
W8Cincinnati373764.9%60.3%+4.6 pp8.6-0.01375.30.12
W9Arizona252544.0%50.0%-6.0 pp16.50.23477.00.21

*Completion and expected rates use the same CPOE-eligible attempts. ADOT uses available air-yard attempts; a game needs at least one. No missing family is filled with the other family’s data.

Punting and returns

2026 season to date · CFBD · captured 2026-11-06T12:25:52.746993+00:00. Descriptive totals, including postseason when present.

Our punts

23 punts · 48.2 gross yards/punt · 43.2 net yards/punt

5 inside the 20 · 1 touchbacks · 0 blocked

Known gross yards: 23/23 punts. Known net yards: 16/23 punts.

Our punt returns

14 returns · 10.5 yards/return · 0 touchdowns

3 muffs · 0 opponent punts blocked

Known return yards: 14/14 returns. Return totals include team-only and unattributed plays.

Recent games
GamePuntsGross yd/puntNet yd/puntKnown net yards
Week 8 · Cincinnati331.332.52/3
Week 7 · Arizona State165.0—0/1
Week 5 · Colorado355.734.01/3
Week 4 · Sam Houston448.847.84/4
Week 3 · Houston358.739.52/3
Team style
Rating history