Scout has CFN's unit ratings. Michigan's offense does pretty well; for example, running backs, offensive line and overall offense are all rated in the 20's. The defense on the other hand is rated 53 overall. Thus, if you believe CFN,if the defense performs, this could be a very satisfying season.
If you believe CFN, it's the Defense
QB ranking is 73. Probably the most important position this year. Don't get too giddy yet.
CFN ranks Michigan's Dline harshly.
60th in the nation and 9th in the BigTen with players like:
B. Graham - potential All Conference player
R. VanBergen - solid player
W. Campbell - solid Freshman prospect
M. Martin - solid starter
R. Sagesse - solid player
B. Graham All Big Ten is a given. The question is does he make first or second team All-American. Mike Martin "solid starter" was a freshman All-American last season. I think he earns at least All B10 Honorable Mention this year.
I love the enthusiasm on our defensive line, but I wouldn't say All Big Ten for Graham is a given. I think he will have a great shot at it, but it is never a given. I really like Mike Martin too, but Indiana has some players on the D-Line (pretty much all they have) that are really good.
Graham was honorable mention AA and second team All B10 last year. He is going in the second round at the latest and could easily be a first round pick. And why are we talking about Indiana d-line as it relates to Martin? Jammie Kirlew is a DE. Indiana's two deep has three redshirt freshmen at DT.
I can't argue with their ranking. Graham and Martin are the only players on that list who have proven anything on the field.
Well, lets think about this.
UofM has 2 Dlineman who are outstanding and have proven something on the field, including CFN's highest rated Dlineman in the conference (Graham).
Illinois DLine is ranked higher by CFN and has only 1 returning starter that has had serious knee problems and picked up a DUI. They also have a back up with good proven experience on the field, but neither have the accolades that Martin and Graham have gotten.
Wisconsin also only 1 returning starter on the Dline. Like Illinois, no one is getting mentioned as a cadidate for 1st or 2nd team all BigTen. Their only 2 backups with somewhat decent experience didn't do anything different stat wise than UofM's Van Bergen.
Isn't 2 great proven Dlineman better than the 1 at Illinois and 1 at Wisconsin?
P.S. UofM has 2 very good proven Dlinemen and will typically utilize 3 Dlinemen on the field at a time. Whereas Wisconsin and Illinois will both be typically utilizing 4 Dlinemen on the field at a time with just 1 very good proven Dlineman -- yet their Dline is ranked higher to CFN.
We don't have two proven great players. We have one (Graham). Martin was not a starter last year. He looked good in limited action, but we have yet to see if he can be an every-down player (and whether he can perform without having Terrance Taylor playing next to him). Everyone else is a complete mystery. One guy isn't enough to warrant us a high ranking. If Graham is the only lineman who produces, he'll face double-teams all year.
I am not saying that UofM deserves a high top 10 in the nation ranking with the Dline. I am saying UofM deserved higher than 9th in the conference.
You pointed out that UofM only had 2 players proven on the Dline and therefore we deserved our ranking (9th in conference).
Using your own logic we should be ranked higher.
Other conference defensive lines ranked ahead of UofM's have less players proven on the Dline and they have 4 man fronts not 3 like us.
Mike Martin may not be great yet, but he is very good - 2nd team freshman-all-American is more than what a lot of other guys can say. While Graham is rated as the best Dlineman in the entire conference...this is a better top 2 guys than what most other teams can say in our conference.
you're a buffoon.
certifiable f*#king nimrods! At least that is my assertion after reading this.
but I don't see the problem with their rankings of Michigan's units. If you think we should be ahead of one team or another for particular units, OK, but thinking that our QBs or receivers or linebackers or DBs should be ranked significantly higher is putting way too much faith in our potential. We sucked ass last year, and neither side of the ball has had the chance to prove squat in games yet this year. There's absolutely no justification for CFN or anybody else to rank us much more highly than they did.
Their ranking of our OL at #20 seems pretty generous to me, considering our troubles in '08.
As far as Van Bergen goes, why do so many people seem to be already convinced he's going to be a force on the defensive line? Based on what? I keep hearing about his "non-stop motor," but in nine games last year that non-stop motor had all of 8 tackles, 5 assists, no sacks, no tackles for loss, and 1 pass broken up. Unless he achieved those numbers in four or five snaps a game, they are hardly indicative that he'll be a difference-maker. He'll have to double or triple this output to reach the Olympian heights of Pat Massey's sophomore season.
I agree, except the defensive line is undervalued at 9th best in conference.
If all our starters stay healthy then that ranking is probably too low, but our depth is so thin that a 53 is probably justified.