I like this chart by Phil Steele for quick reference. All college FB teams listed with returning starters for 2014. For football prediction junkies.

http://www.philsteele.com/Blogs/2014/JAN14/DBJan23.html

.

(02-08-2014 09:08 AM)tyler90wm Wrote:  

Thanks for that. My copy and paste was unreadable. Good job.

It's a nice way to group things but means very little when projecting ODU. For example he has ODU not returning a starting running back when in actuality Gerard Johnson, a rising soph, is ODU's #1 tailback so he missed there.

Also he has ODU returning 9 starters on defense but a good number of those are going to be replaced by either transfers, incoming freshman or JUCO's.

(02-08-2014 09:14 AM)ODUR8R Wrote:  It's a nice way to group things but means very little when projecting ODU. For example he has ODU not returning a starting running back when in actuality Gerard Johnson, a rising soph, is ODU's #1 tailback so he missed there.

Also he has ODU returning 9 starters on defense but a good number of those are going to be replaced by either transfers, incoming freshman or JUCO's.

I'm sure there are a few misses but it's a good overall snapshot for comparison's sake. I don't consider his listing of 9 returning defensive starters that will be beat out by newcomers a mistake. His is not trying to predict who will start. I would imagine a number of returning starters around the conference will lose their jobs in 2014. Probably more at ODU than most.

nice dig....

On D for USM....very nervous about our DL and LB numbers.....toss in our recruiting numbers and our current DB situation...shows how we are in trouble with the front seven and overloaded at the back....

On O...but we do have a true sophomore QB returning that got better as the sun rises....that's critical moving forward and Monk did get skill players that we desperately needed. We will find out this year how Eloss' recruits start to pan out.

as an aside that caught my eye outside the homer interest, was the top 3 sec teams are bottom feeders.....meaning, the g5 better dominate the top...

Last year we had 3 I think...

I worry more about the two deep everywhere but QB, offensive line and LB. Every team, provided they have the depth, rotates the defensive line and wide receivers a ton. Also have a decent rotation in the defensive backfield and running back. 21 of our 22 second teamers are back, so we have 34 of 44 on the two deep.

19 returning starters for UTSA hell ya.

Lose a QB replace with a SR
Lose a TE replace with a SR
Lose a LB replace with a SR

This year has an opportunity to be real special.

(02-08-2014 09:08 AM)tyler90wm Wrote:  

The chart is misleading. I know at MT we played 5 RBs, all were effective. We played 8 OL, all were effective and 8 at WR. I don't know about the other schools be we are really only worried about QB and CB. Otherwise we will be better.

This information is really not as significant as some folks seem to believe. It depends on who is was, the depth at that position, whether it was skilled positions, etc. At schools like Alabama it means very little.

(02-09-2014 11:10 AM)Franko Wrote:  This information is really not as significant as some folks seem to believe. It depends on who is was, the depth at that position, whether it was skilled positions, etc. At schools like Alabama it means very little.

I get your point, but what is the relevance here. The last time I looked, there were no Aabama's in C-USA. I think this data is exceedingly meaningful to teams like UTSA, FIU, ODU and even, yes, Western Kentucky.

(02-09-2014 11:47 AM)ODU AGGIE Wrote:  

(02-09-2014 11:10 AM)Franko Wrote:  This information is really not as significant as some folks seem to believe. It depends on who is was, the depth at that position, whether it was skilled positions, etc. At schools like Alabama it means very little.

I get your point, but what is the relevance here. The last time I looked, there were no Aabama's in C-USA. I think this data is exceedingly meaningful to teams like UTSA, FIU, ODU and even, yes, Western Kentucky.

A good team last year returning most of its starters would certainly be bullish. I was also thinking that if a particuar team was lousy last year and also has a pile of starters to replace, that might actually be a good thing.

As a Tulsa fan, I have mixed emotions after looking at that list. Yes, we were very young last season & we should improve with 16 returning starters. However, as bad as we were last season, I don't know if 16 returning starters is a good thing !