Athlon: How do the Big Ten teams stack up in returning starters?

Donate To GopherHole
BleedGopher

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
60,716
Reaction score
15,966
Points
113
per Athlon:

* New coach P.J. Fleck inherits a Minnesota team with 12 returning starters. Finding and developing a new quarterback is the top priority this spring, but injuries and transfers have thinned out the offensive line. The one-two punch of Rodney Smith and Shannon Brooks should be one of the Big Ten’s top tandems at running back this season and needs to carry the offense until the passing game stabilizes. Depth is also an issue in the secondary and on the defensive line. In addition to losing cornerbacks KiAnte Hardin, Ray Buford and Jalen Myrick, Coney Durr is recovering from a knee injury suffered in the Holiday Bowl and may not play in 2017.

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/big-ten-football-2017-returning-starters-analysis

Go Gophers!!
 

Team - Offense - Defense - Total

Indiana - 5 - 9 = 14
Maryland - 6 - 6 = 12
Michigan - 5- 1 = 6
MSU - 2 - 3 -= 5
tOSU - 8 - 7 = 15
PSU - 10 -7 =17
Rutgers - 4 - 7 =11

Illini - 5 - 5 =10
Iowa - 7 - 8 =15
Minnesota - 8 - 4 =12
Nebraska - 5 - 7=12
NW - 8 - 8 =16
Purdue - 5 - 6 =11
Wisconsin - 9 - 8 =17
 

How are the Gophers returning 8 offensive starters when we lost Leidner, Wolitarsky, Pirsig, and Moore? Our offense was playing with 12 on the field this whole time?
 

I knew Michigan was ravaged by graduation/the draft, but I didn't realize Sparty was losing so much. A lot of folks expecting a bounce back year in East Lansing but it's tough to do it when you're replacing 80% of your starters. Of course, it could be a blessing in disguise as their starters were junk last year.
 

How are the Gophers returning 8 offensive starters when we lost Leidner, Wolitarsky, Pirsig, and Moore? Our offense was playing with 12 on the field this whole time?
 


Iceland12 said:
Team - Offense - Defense - Total

Indiana - 5 - 9 = 14
Maryland - 6 - 6 = 12
Michigan - 5- 1 = 6
MSU - 2 - 3 -= 5
tOSU - 8 - 7 = 15
PSU - 10 -7 =17
Rutgers - 4 - 7 =11

Illini - 5 - 5 =8
Iowa - 7 - 8 =15
Minnesota - 8 - 4 =12
Nebraska - 5 - 7=12
NW - 8 - 8 =16
Purdue - 5 - 6 =11
Wisconsin - 9 - 8 =17
Click to expand...

It is a good year to be playing Michigan and Michigan State.

Lot of guys with significant starting experience returning on offense. I count 10 (heavy on TE/FB): Smith, Greene, Wright, Calhoun, Weyler, Wozniak or Lingen or Beebe, Still, Tyler Johnson. I would call Brooks a starter as well. Woli, Mitch, Pirsig, Moore are the four to replace.

On defense I count 9 returning with significant starting experience: Richardson, Stelter, DeLatti, Poock, Celestin, Winfield, McGhee, Shenault, Ayinde all had starting experience. (lose Myrick, Hardin, Travis, Lynn, Ekpe, Ekpe, Elmore, Rallis).

Nice to have kicker/punter firmed up.
 






Iceland12 said:
Team - Offense - Defense - Total

Indiana - 5 - 9 = 14
Maryland - 6 - 6 = 12
Michigan - 5- 1 = 6
MSU - 2 - 3 -= 5
tOSU - 8 - 7 = 15
PSU - 10 -7 =17
Rutgers - 4 - 7 =11

Illini - 5 - 5 =8
Iowa - 7 - 8 =15
Minnesota - 8 - 4 =12
Nebraska - 5 - 7=12
NW - 8 - 8 =16
Purdue - 5 - 6 =11
Wisconsin - 9 - 8 =17
Click to expand...

The math looks a little fuzzy to me.
 


Depends on how you define "starter." You could say that it's the player who started the most games at a position, or widen it out to mean anyone who started at least 1 game at that position.

In my job (covering HS sports) when I do season previews, I will generally count players who started more than one game as a returning starter. But, I have also seen people take it from the perspective of: the starting lineup for the final game of the season. (so, if someone started 2-3 games earlier in the year, but missed the final game due to injury, they would not be counted as a returning starter.)

I've know coaches who started multiple lineups during a season, either for injuries, ineffectiveness, off-field incidents, grades, etc. A team I cover last year booted two senior starters off the team for bad attitudes very late in the season, so underclassmen wound up starting the last regular-season game and a playoff loss. Do you count those guys as "returning starters?" They were not the primary starters at those positions, but they were the starters at the end of the season. it's not always so cut-and-dried.

You would really have to know the criteria the writer of the story was using in order to judge if his info is accurate.
 

Michigan may not return starters but they are in most everyone's upcoming Top 25 between 5 and 15. The guys playing this year were all higher rated coming in than the guys who left. And they had 11 guys drafted this year, plus 4 or 5 undrafted free agents. Sounds good but Michigan will be fighting for top 4 nationally again, very likely.
 



60's Guy said:
Michigan may not return starters but they are in most everyone's upcoming Top 25 between 5 and 15. The guys playing this year were all higher rated coming in than the guys who left. And they had 11 guys drafted this year, plus 4 or 5 undrafted free agents. Sounds good but Michigan will be fighting for top 4 nationally again, very likely.
Click to expand...

I would bet they finish 3rd in the east which honestly might be top 10 in the country.
 

Oops. I got Moore confused with Mayes. My guess is the writer used info before Moore left the team or is lousy at math.
 

Iceland12 said:
Team - Offense - Defense - Total

Indiana - 5 - 9 = 14
Maryland - 6 - 6 = 12
Michigan - 5- 1 = 6
MSU - 2 - 3 -= 5
tOSU - 8 - 7 = 15
PSU - 10 -7 =17
Rutgers - 4 - 7 =11

Illini - 5 - 5 =10
Iowa - 7 - 8 =15
Minnesota - 8 - 4 =12
Nebraska - 5 - 7=12
NW - 8 - 8 =16
Purdue - 5 - 6 =11
Wisconsin - 9 - 8 =17
Click to expand...

I really don't see how wisconsin doesn't win the West.
 

GopherHomer said:
I really don't see how wisconsin doesn't win the West.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how they are reporting 9 returning offensive starters when they lose Clement, Ramczyk, and Wheelwright. Also, Clement's backup, Ogunbawale is gone. wisco's run game wasn't nearly as good as previous years and there are more question marks this coming season. Not saying the offense will be worse, but I wouldn't crown them just yet.
 

Gophers7NatTitlesBadgers0 said:
I'm not sure how they are reporting 9 returning offensive starters when they lose Clement, Ramczyk, and Wheelwright. Also, Clement's backup, Ogunbawale is gone. wisco's run game wasn't nearly as good as previous years and there are more question marks this coming season. Not saying the offense will be worse, but I wouldn't crown them just yet.
Click to expand...

I know...I've just unsuccessfully predicted their demise so often I thought I would try a different approach.
 

swingman said:
It is a good year to be playing Michigan and Michigan State.

Lot of guys with significant starting experience returning on offense. I count 10 (heavy on TE/FB): Smith, Greene, Wright, Calhoun, Weyler, Wozniak or Lingen or Beebe, Still, Tyler Johnson. I would call Brooks a starter as well. Woli, Mitch, Pirsig, Moore are the four to replace.

On defense I count 9 returning with significant starting experience: Richardson, Stelter, DeLatti, Poock, Celestin, Winfield, McGhee, Shenault, Ayinde all had starting experience. (lose Myrick, Hardin, Travis, Lynn, Ekpe, Ekpe, Elmore, Rallis).

Nice to have kicker/punter firmed up.
Click to expand...

You make a good point that calling someone a returning starter is NOT an exact science.

I know it's completely subjective, but I usually try to think of it in terms of who would be starting if we were healthy. . .

On offense - Leidner, Woli, Moore, Pirsig were starters. However, you dice it, I believe we are returning 7 starters.

On defense - This is a little tougher to call. I think they only "starters" we lost are Myrick, Travis, Hardin, and (2)Ekpes (it's hard to say whether you should consider Elmore or Winston the other starter). So let's say we are bringing back 6 starters.

It's also not really a great way to rank the amount of talent coming back. There are tons of other factors:

(1) I don't expect much of a drop off from Scott Ekpe to Stetler/Jackson.
(2) Who is really the starter the Winston (FR who started a lot at the end of the year) or Elmore (the JR who doesn't seem to be an ideal fit in PJ's new scheme)?
(3) Leidner, has experience, but is anyone concerned about replacing the actual production from that position?
(4) Woli is more than just losing 1 starter, he was clearly our best option.
(5) This discussion also excludes people like Durr and Buford who (likely) would have played a ton next season (possibly starting opposite eachother).

It's like - - - losing Durr and/or Buford for next season probably hurts us more than losing Scott Ekpe (IMO).
 

GopherHomer said:
I actually am somewhat concerned about replacing Leidner's production. He was not a consistently accurate passer, but he did produce some pretty nice overall numbers when you factor in rushing yds/tds. This isn't romanticizing his tenure as quarterback but given what we have on the roster, I would be thrilled and a little surprised if our QBs in 2017 match what he did throughout his career.

Completely agree with everything else in your post, though.
Click to expand...

Same. Mitch's teams stayed in games, and some of that was Mitch did what he could to keep them in it. He often didn't close the deal but there's no reason to think that someone else will automatically even keep it close.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
You make a good point that calling someone a returning starter is NOT an exact science.

I know it's completely subjective, but I usually try to think of it in terms of who would be starting if we were healthy. . .

On offense - Leidner, Woli, Moore, Pirsig were starters. However, you dice it, I believe we are returning 7 starters.

On defense - This is a little tougher to call. I think they only "starters" we lost are Myrick, Travis, Hardin, and (2)Ekpes (it's hard to say whether you should consider Elmore or Winston the other starter). So let's say we are bringing back 6 starters.

It's also not really a great way to rank the amount of talent coming back. There are tons of other factors:

(1) I don't expect much of a drop off from Scott Ekpe to Stetler/Jackson.
(2) Who is really the starter the Winston (FR who started a lot at the end of the year) or Elmore (the JR who doesn't seem to be an ideal fit in PJ's new scheme)?
(3) Leidner, has experience, but is anyone concerned about replacing the actual production from that position?
(4) Woli is more than just losing 1 starter, he was clearly our best option.
(5) This discussion also excludes people like Durr and Buford who (likely) would have played a ton next season (possibly starting opposite eachother).

It's like - - - losing Durr and/or Buford for next season probably hurts us more than losing Scott Ekpe (IMO).
Click to expand...

I actually am somewhat concerned about replacing Leidner's production. He was not a consistently accurate passer, but he did produce some pretty nice overall numbers when you factor in rushing yds/tds. This isn't romanticizing his tenure as quarterback but given what we have on the roster, I would be thrilled and a little surprised if our QBs in 2017 match what he did throughout his career.

Completely agree with everything else in your post, though.
 

GopherHomer said:
I actually am somewhat concerned about replacing Leidner's production. He was not a consistently accurate passer, but he did produce some pretty nice overall numbers when you factor in rushing yds/tds. This isn't romanticizing his tenure as quarterback but given what we have on the roster, I would be thrilled and a little surprised if our QBs in 2017 match what he did throughout his career.

Completely agree with everything else in your post, though.
Click to expand...

Same. Mitch's teams stayed in games, and some of that was Mitch did what he could to keep them in it. He often didn't close the deal but there's no reason to think that someone else will automatically even keep it close.
 

GopherHomer said:
I actually am somewhat concerned about replacing Leidner's production. He was not a consistently accurate passer, but he did produce some pretty nice overall numbers when you factor in rushing yds/tds. This isn't romanticizing his tenure as quarterback but given what we have on the roster, I would be thrilled and a little surprised if our QBs in 2017 match what he did throughout his career.

Completely agree with everything else in your post, though.
Click to expand...

Don't believe we will ever have a QB in the PJF era match what Mitch did in the running game. The production difference will be in the passing game. Big question will be can the passing game production offset that.
The non statistical things like toughness and leadership are also questions for this coming year.
 

There is no question that QB is the key question mark going into next season. If we have one QB step up and be productive from the start the season sets up pretty well with the toughest games back loaded on the schedule.
 

nsmike said:
There is no question that QB is the key question mark going into next season. If we have one QB step up and be productive from the start the season sets up pretty well with the toughest games back loaded on the schedule.
Click to expand...

I really disagree with this take (no offense). We got virtually nothing from our QB last season. Leidner was bad. He would have been absolutely atrocious if you took out the Indiana State game (I know, I know, it feels like cherry picking).

The fact is, in Big 10 play, Leidner threw for around a 50% completion rate, had worse than a 1:3 TD/INT rate, and rushed for 25 yards per game. That production should be EASILY replaceable. IMO.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I really disagree with this take (no offense). We got virtually nothing from our QB last season. Leidner was bad. He would have been absolutely atrocious if you took out the Indiana State game (I know, I know, it feels like cherry picking).

The fact is, in Big 10 play, Leidner threw for around a 50% completion rate, had worse than a 1:3 TD/INT rate, and rushed for 25 yards per game. That production should be EASILY replaceable. IMO.
Click to expand...

But you already mentioned the loss of Wolitarsky. He was all Leidner had to throw to last year and he's gone. It works both ways with the QBs and WRs. The void of talent at WR scares me just as much as the QB position.

I do think Croft/Rhoda can get the ball to open WRs, but that means you have to have WRs that can get open first. If they can't, it's hard to expect any more production out of the QB position, especially when they are not runners like Leidner.
 

81st in QBR last year, 60-ish the year before. That's not going to get it done as far as winning the west or the Big Ten. The lack of production by the offense as a whole has been offset by the overachieving defense. That, and a very nice turnover ratio helped bump the scoring offense last season.

If we can't replace Mitch's 2016 performance we are in for a tough slog. Mitch had some really great performances (Nebraska 2015 4th quarter for example) where he picked up the team but far too many mental lapses. His performances vs Wisconsin have terrifying statistics. I dare you to look them up - cover your eyes.

We all loved Mitch as a stand up MN boy but he was never able to turn the corner. I think we're all ready to turn the page.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
81st in QBR last year, 60-ish the year before. That's not going to get it done as far as winning the west or the Big Ten. The lack of production by the offense as a whole has been offset by the overachieving defense. That, and a very nice turnover ratio helped bump the scoring offense last season.

If we can't replace Mitch's 2016 performance we are in for a tough slog. Mitch had some really great performances (Nebraska 2015 4th quarter for example) where he picked up the team but far too many mental lapses. His performances vs Wisconsin have terrifying statistics. I dare you to look them up - cover your eyes.

We all loved Mitch as a stand up MN boy but he was never able to turn the corner. I think we're all ready to turn the page.
Click to expand...

Agree with everything you have said. Mitch was flat-out embarrassing in the wisconsin games - although their defense did that to several teams. The badgers have, what I consider, the best defense in the conference (maybe the country). Obviously what Leidner provided was not good enough to win the West - my only point is that I have no reason to believe that Croft/Rhoda will be able to surpass the production that Mitch provided in 2017. Through recruiting/coaching, I believe that Fleck will eventually elevate our passing game but unless he is the greatest coach on the planet I don't think 2017 is the year we will see a jump. Our previous staff was a bunch of geniuses on the defensive side of the ball, so my biggest fear for 2017 is that our current staff sees a drop-off on defense while time is needed to improve the offense.

That fear is the basis for my prediction of 5-7 wins next year (important to note, though, that would also be my prediction for next year if Claeys was still in charge - we are in store for a natural, cyclical decline based on the talent level at which we were recruiting).
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
But you already mentioned the loss of Wolitarsky. He was all Leidner had to throw to last year and he's gone. It works both ways with the QBs and WRs. The void of talent at WR scares me just as much as the QB position.

I do think Croft/Rhoda can get the ball to open WRs, but that means you have to have WRs that can get open first. If they can't, it's hard to expect any more production out of the QB position, especially when they are not runners like Leidner.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, I guess I am failing to see how one necessarily contradicts the other. I think losing Wolitarsky hurts regardless of who is replacing Leidner. I also think Leidner had very little production even though he had Wolitarsky.

Because Leidner wasn't very good last year, I think we will get more (or as much) from our passing game even though we lost our best receiver. That said, I obviously think we'd get even more from the passing game if we had Wolitarsky coming back.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
Same. Mitch's teams stayed in games, and some of that was Mitch did what he could to keep them in it. He often didn't close the deal but there's no reason to think that someone else will automatically even keep it close.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Mitch's biggest individual issue wasn't throwing, it was mental: he tended to choke in tight games against strong opponents (at least he did as a senior). In contrast, he more or less kept it together against weaker opponents. He wasn't helped by a less-than-stellar receiving corps.

There was a lot of pressure on Mitch the last three years. Having a successor who can stay mentally even would help but running more plays designed to get the ball out of the QB's hands faster may help too.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom