[washingtonismoney]

From an ESPN insider piece:

...the importance of returning starters may be less than previously thought. Since 2004, FBS teams have averaged approximately 12.97 returning starters per season. Teams with 13 or more starters returning from the previous season won a combined 53 percent of their games during that time period. Teams with 12 or fewer starters won about 50 percent of their games since 2004 -- hardly a of extremely large proportions disparity.

And:

...the positions your returning starters play matters, and it starts at QB. We looked at BCS teams since 2000 to determine which positions were most important to the most successful teams in college football, and discovered that 80 percent of all quarterbacks who have led their teams to a BCS bowl game were returning starters....

Besides quarterback, BCS teams have the highest return rate at offensive tackle (71 percent of tackles on BCS teams are returning starters), cornerback (71 percent) and free safety (72 percent).

Full version here, if you subscribe: http://insider.espn.go.com/college-footb...-positions

[washingtonismoney]

From an ESPN insider piece:

...the importance of returning starters may be less than previously thought. Since 2004, FBS teams have averaged approximately 12.97 returning starters per season. Teams with 13 or more starters returning from the previous season won a combined 53 percent of their games during that time period. Teams with 12 or fewer starters won about 50 percent of their games since 2004 -- hardly a of extremely large proportions disparity.

And:

...the positions your returning starters play matters, and it starts at QB. We looked at BCS teams since 2000 to determine which positions were most important to the most successful teams in college football, and discovered that 80 percent of all quarterbacks who have led their teams to a BCS bowl game were returning starters....

Besides quarterback, BCS teams have the highest return rate at offensive tackle (71 percent of tackles on BCS teams are returning starters), cornerback (71 percent) and free safety (72 percent).

Full version here, if you subscribe: http://insider.espn.go.com/college-footb...-positions

[Redrum]

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. 

If you use their raw numbers standard (12 starters returning)  we come up short
Defense=  C. Thomas, Skov, Masifilo, Bademosi, Howell, M.Thomas =  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.   

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.

[Redrum]

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. 

If you use their raw numbers standard (12 starters returning)  we come up short
Defense=  C. Thomas, Skov, Masifilo, Bademosi, Howell, M.Thomas =  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.   

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.

[slide]

just an add.  Barry Browning started a few games as a true FR at CB last year, and saw a good bit of action in games that he did not start. 

Griff Whalen also saw a good bit of action at WR.  neither Griff nor Owusu are counted as starters. 

Mabry, Bentler and Danser also played a number of snaps.  not starters, but still a lot of game action.

[slide]

just an add.  Barry Browning started a few games as a true FR at CB last year, and saw a good bit of action in games that he did not start. 

Griff Whalen also saw a good bit of action at WR.  neither Griff nor Owusu are counted as starters. 

Mabry, Bentler and Danser also played a number of snaps.  not starters, but still a lot of game action.

[97fan]

Redrum:

You left out free safety. Mike Thomas returns, which makes that spot a plus.

I think the article raises a deeper point that is impossible to measure: it's not only the quantity of returning starters that matters, it's also their quality.

On defense we return four of our top six starters from last season (Fua, Chase Thomas, Skov, Michael Thomas, Howell, and Sherman).

We also return four of our top six starters on offense (Luck, Marecic, the tailback by committee, Decastro, Martin, and Beeler).

This team seems to me like sort of the inverse of our 1993 team. Others may recall the details better, but that year I believe we had something like 11 or 12 starters returning from the Blockbuster Bowl team. Preseason expectations were pretty high. But on defense especially, key guys like John Lynch and Ron George were gone. And we couldn't stop anyone.

[97fan]

Redrum:

You left out free safety. Mike Thomas returns, which makes that spot a plus.

I think the article raises a deeper point that is impossible to measure: it's not only the quantity of returning starters that matters, it's also their quality.

On defense we return four of our top six starters from last season (Fua, Chase Thomas, Skov, Michael Thomas, Howell, and Sherman).

We also return four of our top six starters on offense (Luck, Marecic, the tailback by committee, Decastro, Martin, and Beeler).

This team seems to me like sort of the inverse of our 1993 team. Others may recall the details better, but that year I believe we had something like 11 or 12 starters returning from the Blockbuster Bowl team. Preseason expectations were pretty high. But on defense especially, key guys like John Lynch and Ron George were gone. And we couldn't stop anyone.

[97fan]

I stand corrected on preseason expectations in '93. But it would be interesting to know how many starters returned from the '92 team, and who they were. I think it was somewhere around 11 or 12 starters back, including Steve Stenstrom and Justin Armour. Besides those guys, though, I don't think many of the top players from '92 returned. In addition to Milburn, George, and Lynch, Darrien Gordon was also lost to the NFL after '92.

[97fan]

I stand corrected on preseason expectations in '93. But it would be interesting to know how many starters returned from the '92 team, and who they were. I think it was somewhere around 11 or 12 starters back, including Steve Stenstrom and Justin Armour. Besides those guys, though, I don't think many of the top players from '92 returned. In addition to Milburn, George, and Lynch, Darrien Gordon was also lost to the NFL after '92.

[Robbie]

If you are not an ESPN insider member, there is a 30-day free trial available: http://es.pn/mSa1Pl

[Robbie]

If you are not an ESPN insider member, there is a 30-day free trial available: http://es.pn/mSa1Pl