Our Big Top 25 Prospects Omission

The NFL counts who ever is on the field for the first snap of the game for each team. You can see here, http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201109110chi.htm, both teams have two starting TEs, and no starting FBs. For some reason the Bears are missing a starting DE and DT, don't ask me why.

Personnel on the field for the first snap.

Not sure, but I think it's "Neither". I did some research a couple of years back to see if it was possible to use game box stats to infer if someone was playing a "starting role" on a team, whether or not they were counted as a starter (short answer: it was possible, but depending on the position was easier or harder, and took a *lot* of data correlation to figure out). But as part of that, I was looking at specific cases and teams a lot to figure out my baselines.

It certainly wasn't a standard 2WR-1TE-1RB-1FB thing, because some teams officially listed their starting offensive skill players, for example, as 2WR-2TE-1RB, sometimes as 3WR-1TE-1RB, sometimes the above standard, etc. It was even more variable on defense, with teams sometimes listing five DB's on their starters list, and of course the 3-4 versus 4-3 thing caused variation.

On the other hand, it also didn't seem to correlate to personnel on the field for the first snap, although I'm not as sure of that (since the play--by-play doesn't list players on the field unless they touch the ball). But anecdotally, I know there have been games when the Patriots, for example, might list someone (say, BJGE on offense or Brandon Spikes on defense) as a starter (at least, according to the CBS graphics), and then start their first offensive play in a spread 5-wide, or their first defensive play in a nickel. I've never gone back to check if the actual official starting line matched the CBS graphic which was shown, though, but that's just my impression.

The other thing you would see is that the official "starter" might not even play as much as some non-starters. Again, a Patriots example (the team I know best)--sometimes Kevin Faulk would be officially listed as the starting RB, and then Danny Woodhead or Stevan Ridley or BJGE would play the most snaps of the RB's in the game.

I imagine it's even harder to list "starters" on defense, because there the personnell you play in many cases will depend on what the other team does, not who you would prefer to consider your "starting defense".

My guess is that teams list an "official" starting lineup before the game, but it's probably a source of gamesmanship the same way the injury report it.

You can't be a prospect if you've already arrived.

Seriously, if there is a player that is in 100% of fantasy football lineups for the last 10 weeks of last season, then he isn't a prospect anymore.

Those graphics are packaged before the game starts. The networks have no clue which team's goong to start on offense, let alone which players.

On an internet where some people get offended by any suggestion that someone might disagree with them, it's easier to apologize than to defend the omission.

As a Steeler fan, the only apology I want is from the team for selling ad space on the front of this year's tickets.

A combination of the QB calling his own plays and coaches or players on the sidelines uses hand signals.

The NFL really needs to start recording substitution data. It would lead to some interesting analysis.

Agreed that "starter" doesn't mean what it once did. I can remember a couple years where Jim Finn was a nominal starter for the Colts, but barely played.

I'm sure this phenomenon is why contract incentives are often written in terms of % of total snaps played, rather than starts. Anyone aware of a player contract with a bonus tied to starting?

Aaron--understand about being fed up with the printers. Is there any way to have Createspace keep printing the first version as necessary, and then giving them a minor edited version (like spelling corrections) to substitute in its place, without taking the book off the market?