North Carolina football finally lived up to its potential! (Now what?)

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.

If I’m convincing myself this is the year North Carolina puts everything together, it must be mid-June, and there must be about 12 weeks left in the offseason.

And here’s where I talk myself into the Heels. The offense that started to break through returns almost everybody. The defense welcomes back almost every lineman and defensive back and brings in Gene Chizik, one of the best coordinators on the market.

All you have to do is ignore the letters on the helmet and that pretty Carolina blue, and you’ll be talking yourself into the Heels, too.

What happens when your annual tradition of talking yourself into UNC actually comes to fruition? Do you keep doing it? Do you talk yourself into a further breakthrough?

And what happens if the long-awaited breakthrough wasn’t quite as impressive as it seemed?

In 2015, Larry Fedora and UNC won 11 games and spent time in the AP top 10 for the first time since 1997, when Mack Brown was the head coach. They won their first division title, and after falling behind by 19 points early in the fourth quarter against No. 1 Clemson, they damn near came back, getting to within eight points and falling only after a controversial onside kick penalty.

A bowl loss meant UNC finished only 15th in the AP poll after threatening to reach higher, but it had been nearly 20 years since the Heels had done this.

So why didn’t the numbers like UNC very much? The Heels nearly caught Clemson and beat Miami, Duke, Wake Forest, and Illinois by an average score of 56-20. Their ceiling was immense, and their floor only made a couple of appearances. Why did S&P+ only place them 29th at the end of the year?

It starts with schedule strength. UNC faced only two particularly good teams (Clemson and Baylor) and lost by a combined 19 points. Their best wins were against teams like Pitt and NC State, and two of their non-conference slots were filled by FCS opponents (which is the case again in 2016). Their great performances were offset by quite a few that were just fine.

Saying these things got me yelled at by UNC fans last year, but after the defense had been exposed a bit, I was pretty comfortable with where the Heels ended up in S&P+. And if nothing else, it shows that there’s still room for this team to grow.

Setting the bar at 11 wins making the encore pretty tricky, but UNC returns a deep well of talent in the skill positions and on the offensive line, and the defense brings back enough to suggest that, after moving from woeful to mediocre in coordinator Gene Chizik’s first season, the odds of continued growth are high.

The Tar Heels lose just enough play-makers to raise an eyebrow, but depth is solid in most units, and if a new quarterback emerges to replace Marquise Williams, you might be looking at back-to-back division titles. It doesn’t take that much of a leap to get there.

Looking back, it’s not hard to explain why UNC’s S&P+ ratings ended up lower than it may have seemed they should be. A couple of dominant early games were offset by opponent adjustments and a loss to a South Carolina team that ended up far weaker than anticipated. Meanwhile, the defense gave out at the end of the year, turning each game into a shootout.

In the middle of the season, though, the Heels clicked. And it was impressive to watch.

The middle of the year is when S&P+ lost track. Three times in five games, they overachieved their projected score by at least four touchdowns. Their massacres of Duke and Miami were ridiculous. They came back down to earth, but if nothing else, this five-game span was a loud hint of UNC’s capabilities.

Note: players in bold below are 2016 returnees. Players in italics are questionable with injury/suspension.

Williams’ career in Tar Heel blue was a reminder of how long four years can be. As a freshman in 2012, he spelled QB Bryn Renner in blowouts and dropped serious hints about his dual-threat potential. He dealt with academic issues and briefly left school, but each year put a few more pieces together.

After throwing for more than 4,700 yards and rushing for more than 1,300 in his sophomore and junior seasons, he completed the puzzle in 2015. He averaged 8 yards per pass attempt and 7.4 yards per (non-sack) carry. A lack of schedule strength boosted his numbers a bit, but he turned into the player it appeared he could one day become years earlier.

As is the case in college football, you put the pieces together, and then you leave. Williams is out of eligibility, so Fedora will attempt to keep UNC moving with a new guy.

Small samples in 2012 led us to a pretty accurate conclusion on Williams’ potential. And if they do the same for Mitch Trubisky, all will be well.

In two years of backing up Williams, Trubisky has thrown 125 passes. Most came in the latter stages of blowout wins, which means they have to be discounted heavily, but his numbers have been eye-popping: 82-for-125, 1,014 yards, 11 touchdowns, four interceptions, 156.4 passer rating. And he was nearly flawless in 2015, completing 85 percent of his passes and topping Williams with 7.3 yards per carry.

Again, the sample is tiny and perhaps misleading. But when you produce those numbers, then you seize control of the starting job in spring ball, it’s hard not to create optimism.

If offensive coordinator Gunter Brewer has a quarterback, he should have everything else he needs, too.

Quinshad Davis provided Williams with a sure thing. Of the 135 players targeted at least 80 times last year, his 58.5 percent success rate ranked 13th, sixth among power conference receivers. His average of 7.8 yards per target wasn’t particularly impressive for a No. 1 target, but his efficiency was quite useful.

Without Davis, Trubisky will need to find different options for moving the chains consistently. But it’s hard to look at this set of skill position guys and feel any sort of pessimism, not with the fivesome of running backs Elijah Hood and T.J. Logan and receivers Ryan Switzer, Bug Howard, and Mack Hollins returning.

Clemson game aside, Hood and Logan were magnificent last year, especially down the stretch. With a division title to seize, Hood rushed 55 times for 467 yards and five touchdowns over the final three games of the regular season. Against a solid NC State run defense, he and Logan combined for an absurd 320 yards on just 27 carries.

Of the 53 players who rushed at least 200 times in 2015, only two combined an opportunity rate of at least 46 percent with an explosiveness average of at least 6 highlight yards per opportunity: Hood and Ohio State’s Ezekiel Elliott. That’s awfully good company to keep.

Meanwhile, Switzer, Howard, and Hollins combined for 115 catches, 1,945 yards, and 10.4 yards per target. Losing your top target but returning that is rare. Granted, all five of these players could be gone after 2016 (if Hood goes pro, and he probably should), that’s something you worry about in 2017. For now, soak it in.

Efficiency could indeed be a slight issue in the passing game, though tight end Brandon Fritts could still give Trubisky a solid possession option, and Logan and Hood could probably stand to catch a few more passes as well.

The UNC line is in the same position as the skill core, losing one key player but returning more than most.

All-American guard Landon Turner is gone, but it’s hard to worry too much when you return two more all-conference guys (Jon Heck and Caleb Peterson) and three others who have started at least 10 games each.

UNC’s line was spectacular last year, ranking third in Adj. Line Yards and 27th in Adj. Sack Rate. It’s rare to keep your sack rate under 5 percent when you’ve got a mobile quarterback (mobile QBs tend to trust their legs a bit too much and take quite a few sacks) who is looking downfield quite a bit. The Heels stunk in short-yardage, and with only one guy topping 300 pounds, they don’t have the biggest line in the world. But they were effective for Williams, Hood, and company last year, and it’s hard to imagine them being much less effective this time around.

It was a “one of these things, not like the other ones” experience when the 2015 Broyles Award finalists were mentioned last year.

The award is given to the top assistant coaches in the country, and it wasn’t surprising to see those associated with the top units in the country represented. Kirby Smart’s Alabama defense ranked first in Def. S&P+. Brent Venables’ Clemson defense ranked fourth. Kendal Briles’ Baylor offense ranked first in Off. S&P+. Lincoln Riley’s Oklahoma offense ranked eighth.

Chizik was also a finalist. His UNC defense ranked 70th.

He didn’t run an elite unit, but there’s no question that the Heels’ defense improved. They rose 29 spots from 2014’s No. 99 ranking, and while they were less efficient, they did an infinitely better job of preventing big plays: They allowed just 60 gains of 20-plus yards (68th in FBS) after allowing 84 (127th) in one fewer game in 2014.

Chizik applied an extreme bend-don’t-break approach, and with the UNC offense cruising for most of the year, the tactic worked. The Heels didn’t make a lot of disruptive plays, but they forced opposing quarterbacks to remain patient, and few succeeded. On first downs, the most QB-friendly of downs, opponents completed just 54 percent of their passes with two touchdowns, nine interceptions, and just a 104.0 passer rating. On third downs, the rating sank to 98.8.

The UNC run defense was horrific, but the pass D meant UNC had at least one relative strength. That was one more than in 2014.

Indeed, the run defense was awful. UNC ranked 116th in Rushing S&P+, 117th in Adj. Line Yards, and 125th in stuff rate, and anyone who watched the bowl performance against Baylor won’t be surprised by any of those numbers.

At least part of the issue came from an uncertain, constantly shuffled defensive line. Twelve linemen ended up averaging at least 0.9 tackles per game (which is a pretty good sign that you are a “regular” of sorts), but while four played in all 14 games, the other eight missed a combined 40 games. The lineup for one game looked little like the lineup for another.

The line technically has to replace three of last year’s top six tacklers, but nine of those 12 regulars return. Ends Mikey Bart and DeJaun Drennon combined for a decent 11.5 tackles for loss, and while all of Bart’s play-making came in the pass rush, it appears there is decent run-stopping potential at tackle once the level of experience improves. Nazair Jones and Tyler Powell were sophomores last year, and Jeremiah Clarke, Robert Dinkins, Jalen Dalton, and Andrew Crawford were freshmen.

As with the offensive line, the D-line isn’t enormous. Only Clarke and Crawford top 300 pounds (and in 2016, a 295-pound tackle could be seen as undersized). Still, the line was less than the sum of its parts last year, and if it can both set and maintain a steady rotation this year, I would expect improvement. Almost can’t get worse.

There are questions at linebacker, though, where Shakeel Rashad and Jeff Schoettmer combined for 176 tackles, 15 tackles for loss, seven passes defensed, and four forced fumbles. Sophomore Andre Smith and junior Cayson Collins each flashed potential last year, and with no seniors in the likely rotation, whatever the linebackers do in 2016, they will probably do more in 2017. Still, there isn’t as much known play-making ability in this front seven as there are for quite a few other ACC Coastal teams. The offense and pass defense will have to remain strong because while improvement in run defense is likely, there might only be a little bit of improvement.

Injuries could turn a strength into a weakness pretty quickly. UNC returns four of its top five defensive backs, including a pair of monster play-makers in corners Des Lawrence and M.J. Stewart (combined: five TFLs, six INTs, 28 PBUs). They were disruptive as hell despite a less-than-reliable pass rush. Meanwhile, safeties Donnie Miles and Dominquie Green have proven reasonably reliable as well.

Most of last year’s second string is gone, however, and after these four strong upperclassmen, the pool of DB talent is loaded with freshmen and a couple of sophomores. Players like Patrice Rene, Myles Dorn, and Cameron Albright were pretty well-regarded recruits, but they are quite green. You don’t want to have to rely on them, at least early in 2016. With the projected starting four, this is a top-50 pass defense even if the pass rush doesn’t improve. With a couple of injuries, the floor sinks pretty far.

Granted, punting was a bit of an issue, but in Ryan Switzer, T.J. Logan, and Nick Weiler, UNC has three of the ACC’s better special teams weapons. Switzer has been one of the best punt returners in the nation for three years, Logan’s kick returns were efficient if not incredibly explosive, and Weiler was automatic inside of 40 yards and pretty good outside of 40, too. If Joey Mangili can get an extra yard or two out of his punts, while still producing mostly fair catches, this could be a top-five special teams unit.

UNC returns quite a bit of its defensive production (mostly because of the cornerbacks) and is projected to improve slightly despite the losses of Williams and Davis.

And with the schedule, that might be enough to make the Heels the Coastal favorites again. They do have to head to Tallahassee, but in terms of primary Coastal challengers, they get Pitt and Virginia Tech at home.

Thanks to both a friendly ACC home schedule and two more FCS opponents, UNC has more likely to sure wins than most of the teams in the ACC’s midsection. Per S&P+, they have at least a 66 percent chance of winning in five games, and they’re only below 45 percent in two.

UNC isn’t too many ifs away from another season of double-digit wins: If Trubisky turns out to be the real deal, and if the defense survives a potential lack of depth in the back, they’re there.