[washingtonismoney]

Putative returning starting OL decides to depart:

https://twitter.com/Steve_Elmer/status/6...9669020672

https://twitter.com/EHansenNDI/status/69...6109937664

[washingtonismoney]

Putative returning starting OL decides to depart:

https://twitter.com/Steve_Elmer/status/6...9669020672

https://twitter.com/EHansenNDI/status/69...6109937664

[TrumpCard]

Their version of Graham Shuler, except he's graduating in 3 years.  Kudos to him, and I'm not sad to see him leave.

[TrumpCard]

Their version of Graham Shuler, except he's graduating in 3 years.  Kudos to him, and I'm not sad to see him leave.

[Hulk01]

It's tricky to calculate ND's number of likely returning starters, because they had so many injuries that as many as 30 guys might be considered 2015-16 starters.  But whatever the number, it's big; 

That's three starting linemen, two of them projected to go in the top 30.

All three starting WRs, including top 50 pick Wlll Fuller.

They lose Prosise but apparently will get back Folston, but he isn't nearly as explosive or versatile as Prosise.

Two guys off the DL, including nine-year starter, it seems, Sheldon Day.,

Two of their three LBs, including first round lock Jaylon Smith.

And who knows how to calculate their lost starters in the defensive backfield, but Kevaire Russell is one and the number one and two strong safeties, as I read it, are gone, as well as heavily-used Mathias Farley.

So their number of returning starters appears to be as few as 8 and not more than 10, an absurdly low number. 

Interesting too, perhaps, three of their near-certain OL starters are players we offered: Alex Bars, Quenton Nelson, and Sam Mustipher.

Our chances against them look good.

[Hulk01]

It's tricky to calculate ND's number of likely returning starters, because they had so many injuries that as many as 30 guys might be considered 2015-16 starters.  But whatever the number, it's big; 

That's three starting linemen, two of them projected to go in the top 30.

All three starting WRs, including top 50 pick Wlll Fuller.

They lose Prosise but apparently will get back Folston, but he isn't nearly as explosive or versatile as Prosise.

Two guys off the DL, including nine-year starter, it seems, Sheldon Day.,

Two of their three LBs, including first round lock Jaylon Smith.

And who knows how to calculate their lost starters in the defensive backfield, but Kevaire Russell is one and the number one and two strong safeties, as I read it, are gone, as well as heavily-used Mathias Farley.

So their number of returning starters appears to be as few as 8 and not more than 10, an absurdly low number. 

Interesting too, perhaps, three of their near-certain OL starters are players we offered: Alex Bars, Quenton Nelson, and Sam Mustipher.

Our chances against them look good.

[fullmetal]

I will be very interested in the Texas vs. USB game on Sept. 3rd...

[fullmetal]

I will be very interested in the Texas vs. USB game on Sept. 3rd...

[TrumpCard]

It definitely depends how you count.  Here is USB's depth chart from the Fiesta Bowl:
http://www.ourlads.com/ncaa-football-dep...dame/91487

This shows nine starters who have remaining eligibility.  As you noted, Folston started in 2014, so I would probably call him a returning starter, even though he might not be as good as Prosise.  Also, Redfield was the starter all last year until being suspended for the Fiesta Bowl, and he's returning.  The more questionable one is Jerry Tillery, a true frosh who started 3 games including the Stanford game this year. 

So I would say 9-12 returning starters, and I'd probably go with 11 as the most reasonable interpretation.  By my count, that's the same number that Stanford loses (again that number is subject to interpretation), though I suppose USB does lose more guys who project as first or second round NFL draft picks.

[TrumpCard]

It definitely depends how you count.  Here is USB's depth chart from the Fiesta Bowl:
http://www.ourlads.com/ncaa-football-dep...dame/91487

This shows nine starters who have remaining eligibility.  As you noted, Folston started in 2014, so I would probably call him a returning starter, even though he might not be as good as Prosise.  Also, Redfield was the starter all last year until being suspended for the Fiesta Bowl, and he's returning.  The more questionable one is Jerry Tillery, a true frosh who started 3 games including the Stanford game this year. 

So I would say 9-12 returning starters, and I'd probably go with 11 as the most reasonable interpretation.  By my count, that's the same number that Stanford loses (again that number is subject to interpretation), though I suppose USB does lose more guys who project as first or second round NFL draft picks.

[CTcard]

It definitely depends how you count.  Here is USB's depth chart from the Fiesta Bowl:
http://www.ourlads.com/ncaa-football-dep...dame/91487

This shows nine starters who have remaining eligibility.  ...

So I would say 9-12 returning starters, and I'd probably go with 11 as the most reasonable interpretation.  By my count, that's the same number that Stanford loses (again that number is subject to interpretation) ...

As I understood things, the traditional definition of returning starter was the player at a given position who had the most starts the previous season. For teams that run multiple formations, that gets very tricky as they don't start with the same positions every game - a bigger issue on offense than defense but an issue either way. For example, Stanford usually started games with either 3 WR, 1 TE or 2 WR and 2 TEs (with those formation not necessarily all that different as we often used TEs split out). Marx only started 1 game. It seems Schultz started 6 games, Owusu 4 and Irwin 3 - yet most consider Marx a starter and none of the other three.

Anyway, what most of us would consider Stanford's returning starters are,
offense: Caspers, Tucker, Rector, McCaffrey, probably Marx (or Schultz, not both).  [5]
lost: Hooper, Murphy, Garnett, Shuler, Hogan, Cajuste  [6]
defense: Thomas, Kalambayi, Palma, Lloyd, Holder ... possibly Meeks.  [5]
lost: Scarlett, Shittu, Anderson, Martinez, Harris, Whitfield  [6]


So, I would guess we'll see Stanford as having 10 returning starters on offense and defense, or 12 overall since most lists I have seen include a kicker and a punter. (Is Ukropina coming back?)

[CTcard]

It definitely depends how you count.  Here is USB's depth chart from the Fiesta Bowl:
http://www.ourlads.com/ncaa-football-dep...dame/91487

This shows nine starters who have remaining eligibility.  ...

So I would say 9-12 returning starters, and I'd probably go with 11 as the most reasonable interpretation.  By my count, that's the same number that Stanford loses (again that number is subject to interpretation) ...

As I understood things, the traditional definition of returning starter was the player at a given position who had the most starts the previous season. For teams that run multiple formations, that gets very tricky as they don't start with the same positions every game - a bigger issue on offense than defense but an issue either way. For example, Stanford usually started games with either 3 WR, 1 TE or 2 WR and 2 TEs (with those formation not necessarily all that different as we often used TEs split out). Marx only started 1 game. It seems Schultz started 6 games, Owusu 4 and Irwin 3 - yet most consider Marx a starter and none of the other three.

Anyway, what most of us would consider Stanford's returning starters are,
offense: Caspers, Tucker, Rector, McCaffrey, probably Marx (or Schultz, not both).  [5]
lost: Hooper, Murphy, Garnett, Shuler, Hogan, Cajuste  [6]
defense: Thomas, Kalambayi, Palma, Lloyd, Holder ... possibly Meeks.  [5]
lost: Scarlett, Shittu, Anderson, Martinez, Harris, Whitfield  [6]


So, I would guess we'll see Stanford as having 10 returning starters on offense and defense, or 12 overall since most lists I have seen include a kicker and a punter. (Is Ukropina coming back?)