Phil Steele's 2016 Returning Starters Ranking [Michigan - 5th (B1G), 65th (nationally)]
Phil Steele's Complete Breakdown of Every CFB Team's Returning Starters
Michigan comes tied for 65th nationally, and 5th in the B1G with 13 returning starters.
Other notables (nationally):
- Minnesota (T-65th)
- Oklahoma (T-65th)
- Clemson (T-81st)
- Iowa (T-81st)
- Alabama (T-98th)
- Notre Dame (T-113th)
- Michigan State (T-113th)
- Ohio State (128th - dead last)
B1G Rankings:
Edit: Sorry, I neglected to "fact-check" Steele's numbers. Michigan should have 14 total returning starters (8 on offense, 6 on defense), which would put them tied for 41st in the nation, and 3rd in the B1G. Steele probably assumed that AJ Williams was a starter, maybe?
February 17th, 2016 at 1:52 PM ^
It's just a compilation of the total number of starters returning. It's not like the starters are being ranked.
February 17th, 2016 at 2:05 PM ^
Man, I can't wait for that Purdue - Rutgers B1G Championship Game. Maybe ESPN will have butt cam for that game too.
February 17th, 2016 at 2:17 PM ^
February 17th, 2016 at 2:31 PM ^
February 17th, 2016 at 2:50 PM ^
Mark Sanchez begs to differ.
February 17th, 2016 at 3:47 PM ^
Mercy.
February 17th, 2016 at 5:46 PM ^
February 17th, 2016 at 9:26 PM ^
That's right. Let's all be thankful for Mr and Mrs Someone's
February 17th, 2016 at 3:47 PM ^
Mercy. Mercy.
February 17th, 2016 at 8:26 PM ^
...I never get mad at an 18 year old kid for choosing to go there or to UCLA.
February 17th, 2016 at 2:21 PM ^
Very interesting, Purdue and Rutgers are bringing back a ton of starters. Awful, sucky, terrible starters...
February 17th, 2016 at 2:38 PM ^
Yeah, this metric is useless unless you consider talent level too. Adrian could return all 22 starters for a 4th straight year and a Michigan team starting 22 freshmen would still win
February 17th, 2016 at 4:49 PM ^
Go Bulldogs!
February 17th, 2016 at 6:26 PM ^
Just the Homecoming Game.
February 17th, 2016 at 2:38 PM ^
Rutgers/Purdont - Throw out the record books when these guys matchup.
February 17th, 2016 at 2:54 PM ^
February 17th, 2016 at 4:44 PM ^
I LOL'd. I am a child
February 17th, 2016 at 9:45 PM ^
February 17th, 2016 at 1:54 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 17th, 2016 at 1:55 PM ^
Offense: lost QB, FB, and Center. 11-3 = 8.
Defense: Lost 3 LBs, DT, Safety. 11-5 = 7 (assuming base 4-3 and not nickel package, which would be 8).
Not sure where they are getting 7, unless they are considering Green a lost starter because he started in '14, or maybe they think Michigan is base 22 personnel on offense, and losing Williams as well?
February 17th, 2016 at 2:02 PM ^
11-5=6.
February 17th, 2016 at 2:02 PM ^
Pretty sure 11-5 = 6
February 17th, 2016 at 2:26 PM ^
And yes, I look like an idiot now for not actually doing the math. For some reason got the 7 they called out on offense and 6 on defense screwed up. Oh well, at least now I look like an idiot.
February 17th, 2016 at 2:53 PM ^
Don't worry about it, Coyote. Those guys aren't properly vetted nor the most trustworthy MGoUsers so we aren't really sure if they are right or not.
February 17th, 2016 at 3:11 PM ^
Let's have it in English, Poindexter.
February 17th, 2016 at 4:12 PM ^
February 17th, 2016 at 1:55 PM ^
But my only gripe with him is that even in his preseason rankings, he puts WAY too much stock in returning starters. Returning starters is a good tool to use, but if you have a steady stream of NFL caliber talent, its an overrated stat.
February 17th, 2016 at 2:03 PM ^
Phil Steele does tend to put a lot of stock into returning starters than most. Personally, I view having a lot of starters more as an indication for a team's "floor," but the "ceiling" is determined by those good enough to declare early.
On the other side, there are teams like App State, WKU and UNC who were near the top of Steele's "Exp. Rankings" last season, and they finished 2015 well beyond expectations.
February 17th, 2016 at 2:17 PM ^
Phil Steele thought I was one of the top players coming out of Indiana, which was 100000^10000% wrong
February 17th, 2016 at 2:22 PM ^
Not to mention that in this day and age of multiple packages, what constitutes being a starter? On Offense, every team will generally have one starting QB, your top two receivers and your five linemen. On defense, definitive starters are probably just a couple linebackers, two cornerbacks, two safeties, and maybe a lineman or two. Everything else can be very situational based on game plans, opponents, or just general package rotations.
On offense, I say we return 9 "starters" (Cole, Kalis, Braden, Magnesun, Butt, Smith, Darboh, Chesson, Perry) and lose 4 (Rudock, Glasgow, Williams and Pick a FB). On Defense, we return 6 (Lewis, HIll, Peppers, Stribling/Clark, Wormley and Glasgow) and lose 6 (Wilson, Morgan, Bolden, Ojemudia/RJS, Henry and Ross).
I would count 25 starting positions for last season. I'm sure other teams go higher or lower depending on how variable their team is. It seems sort of silly to then rank teams based on how many return out of an arbitrary 22.
That isn't to say there isn't value in looking at it, just that a whole ranking of everyone probably doesn't make sense. I'd say look at the teams at the very top or the very bottom of returning starters for any insight based on sheer numbers. For everyone else, you know, actually evaluate the roster.
February 17th, 2016 at 4:15 PM ^
February 17th, 2016 at 1:55 PM ^
Well this is worthless....
February 17th, 2016 at 1:55 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 18th, 2016 at 11:47 AM ^
February 17th, 2016 at 1:57 PM ^
Well there ya have it, folks. Purdue vs. Rutgers in the B1G championship next year.
/s
February 17th, 2016 at 1:57 PM ^
And now we know the only Big Ten list that would have Purdue and Rutgers at the top.
February 17th, 2016 at 1:59 PM ^
February 17th, 2016 at 2:02 PM ^
thought we had 8 returning starters on offese?
1. Chessun
2. Darboh
3. Cole
4. Braden
5. Kalis
6. Magnuson
7. Butt
8. Deveon
Losing Graham Glasgow, Jake Rudock and Kerridge/Houma. I guess he's counting AJ Williams as a starter?
6 on D is accurate as we lose Henry, Mario/RJS, Bolden, Morgan and Wilson.
My conclusion: Phil is wrong, we have 14 returning starters! (unless he's speculating one of the OL doesn't return for a 5th year or gets beat out and that comes to fruition. Then I be like dang Phil Steele you know yer shit)
February 17th, 2016 at 2:05 PM ^
That's the biggest waste of storage media I have seen in the last 5 minutes. That's because I saw everything else posted today.
February 17th, 2016 at 2:09 PM ^
13: Braden, Cole, Glasgow, Kalis, Magnuson, Rudock
12: Chesson
11: Butt, Smith
9: Darboh
4: Poggi
3: Houma, Kerridge, Williams
2: Hill, Ways
1: Canteen, Harris, Isaac, Johnson, Newsome
I just don't see how you get the numbers that he did.
February 17th, 2016 at 2:25 PM ^
Those official numbers? Curious how they determine a starter, is it literally starting on the field for the first play or some pre-game designation?
February 17th, 2016 at 2:28 PM ^
http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/mich/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/2015-… (page 26 of the pdf has the starting lineups game by game)
I'm pretty sure that the "starting offense" is just the 11 players on the field for the first offensive snap, and not taken from the depth chart or anything like that.
February 17th, 2016 at 2:39 PM ^
Interesting. I think you're probably right because the only way Newsome would be listed as a starter is if we ran the first play out of a six lineman set.
That release is also a little confusing because it uses the academic designation for players rather than an eligibility based designation (i.e., All fourth year players are Seniors, not RS-Jrs. or Seniors). I wonder if that caused Steele to miscount. Because there is no real way to find a fifth departing starter based on those numbers or based on normal formations.
February 17th, 2016 at 2:38 PM ^
13: Lewis, Morgan, Wilson
12: Bolden, Peppers
11: Wormley
10: Henry
9: Glasgow
8: Hill
7: Clark
5: Jenkins-Stone, Ojemudia, Thomas
4: Godin, Hurst, Ross, Stribling
3: Charlton
1: Gedeon
That's a total of 40 players who started one or more games for Michigan this year (21 offense, 19 defense).
February 17th, 2016 at 2:11 PM ^
So he wrote an entire article about counting. Not analysis, counting. Then proceeded to count incorrectly. Excellent work.