08-23-2011, 07:47 AM
QB returning = (plus)
Offensive Tackles returning = Not clear whether both have to return to count in this statistic. If you have to have both to meet their criteria = (minus)
Cornerbacks returning = (minus) just based on fact that Sherman ended up signed by the Seahawks. Guess he was decent.Â
If you use their raw numbers standard (12 starters returning)Â we come up short
Defense=Â C. Thomas, Skov, Masifilo, Bademosi, Howell, M.Thomas =Â 6
Offense= Luck, Taylor, DeCastro, Martin, (one TE of Ertz, Fleener) = 5
I know the first defense Stanford fans will put up is that Stanford rotated so many players in and out that the backup subs should get some credit for bringing lots of experience to the game. They are supposedly "almost starters". True, but Harbaugh himself followed the rule = the best guy starts. Why start fudging now?  Objection two = Owusu should count as a starter. Uh, OK. But everybody who follows the team knows the issue is does he really start or limp through a season of part time performance? Don't think that's what the compilers of the criteria had in mind. Â
The other argument is that, particularly in the defensive backfield, the guys we have, as a group, are better or will be better eventually as they get experience. Ummmm. Exactly. As they get experience.
But, as the authors of the Returning Starters Theory use as their thesis, it is the returning experience (no mention of durability over the season) that seems to be a clear indicator of success. Well, duh. But we fall a bit short in the Well, Duh Test. The scrimmage results seem to bear this out. We are missing three pretty key guys: Beeler, Phillips and Hall.
Offensive Tackles returning = Not clear whether both have to return to count in this statistic. If you have to have both to meet their criteria = (minus)
Cornerbacks returning = (minus) just based on fact that Sherman ended up signed by the Seahawks. Guess he was decent.Â
If you use their raw numbers standard (12 starters returning)Â we come up short
Defense=Â C. Thomas, Skov, Masifilo, Bademosi, Howell, M.Thomas =Â 6
Offense= Luck, Taylor, DeCastro, Martin, (one TE of Ertz, Fleener) = 5
I know the first defense Stanford fans will put up is that Stanford rotated so many players in and out that the backup subs should get some credit for bringing lots of experience to the game. They are supposedly "almost starters". True, but Harbaugh himself followed the rule = the best guy starts. Why start fudging now?  Objection two = Owusu should count as a starter. Uh, OK. But everybody who follows the team knows the issue is does he really start or limp through a season of part time performance? Don't think that's what the compilers of the criteria had in mind. Â
The other argument is that, particularly in the defensive backfield, the guys we have, as a group, are better or will be better eventually as they get experience. Ummmm. Exactly. As they get experience.
But, as the authors of the Returning Starters Theory use as their thesis, it is the returning experience (no mention of durability over the season) that seems to be a clear indicator of success. Well, duh. But we fall a bit short in the Well, Duh Test. The scrimmage results seem to bear this out. We are missing three pretty key guys: Beeler, Phillips and Hall.