Depth Chart 2011: No Longer Decimated

[Ed-M: What are these numbers? Returning players on 2-deep? Next year's upperclassmen? Whatever: to the board with you]

edit:  fuck it, see below.  Much better stated.

EDIT 2:

I am sorry for not writing what I was using down.   I DERPed up.  I am doing this by Varsity letters earned by returning players. 

For paragraph 2 I will state this: for career back-ups I awarded a varsity letter only if they are an upper-classman.  This was to differentiate between a returning sophomore who only played (for example) 3 games and crap time, and who hasn't gotten enough lifting time in and a 5th year returning senior (who you could say would equal Banks I guess, so it's still off).  The thought was that a returning 5th year who was a career back-up would only get 1 vasity letter awarded beause they didn't do much in PT, but they did get scheme training, and weight training.

*We run a 3-3-5, not a 4-3.  Thus, we’re under a player here.
**For convenience I’m putting the Spur as a WLB, not an additional safety, for this metric.
*** based on the metric below, the average is 5.9 years of PT.

Complicated crap that you might not care about:

If you shift the numbers on DL to a three man front, it gets really complicated.  Whose production do you take out?  The other team's least or most experienced player?  I can't think of a metric for this other than AVG EXP/player/3 DL positions.  If you use that, the average EXP for DL is about 5.9 years. If anyone has any better ideas for this metric, tell me.

WHAT THIS MEANS:

You’ll see that our DL is more experienced than average (per player, not unit) while the rest of our D will be just around the normal experience level. In Fact, our secondary will be more experienced than the average BT secondary. This makes sense.

• We lose 1 player in the secondary: Rogers.  Not much of a loss, but a significant loss when you think about PT.  Counter that with Woolfolk, a 5th year Senior taking Roger's place, and you don't lose any experience.
• We don't lose any other players in the secondary; everyone comes back with experience
• After such decimation for two years, we should have expected this.  It only makes sense that teams will tend back to the norm.

The fact that the DD argument will no longer be tenable next year (due to us having MORE!!! experience than an average BT team)  is a good thing.  While we can no longer cling to that as a legitimate excuse for RR, we can now bring up our expectations.

• DD is no longer a valid excuse.  It's premise was that we lost experience; we now will have average experience.  If low PT was the reason for a poor defense, a middling PT/experience factor should give us a middle-of-the-pack defense.
• Our D SHOULD be middle of the pack, based on the PT logic.  I've argued from day one that a middle of the pack D would give us a shot at the BT title and if our O is #1 (which it could be, but depends on TOM) a shot at the MNC.
• We should shoot for the BT title next year.  If our offense continues taking the strides it has, and we stop this TOM BS our D should finally be good enough for this to be a goal.