Pondering a "What If?"

Submitted by MGrad on
Tryng a get a sense of the general consensus from the MGB participants regarding the Wolverines' best-case scenarios offensively and defensively.  I suppose a poll would make it more concrete, but a diary entry would let others chime.  This has been covered by others, but, I wanted to take time to "rank" Michigan offensively and defensively for 2009 within the conference based upon its best-case performance to potential, and avoidance of injury on both sides of the ball.  It is a look at personnel and staff more than schedule.  This scenario would have seniors living up to expectations, and the sophs and freshman performing solidly+ within the coaching schemes.  For the other teams, I am just trying to go with the general opinions that I've seen, and not imposing any personal bias.  Here is how I rank them, and a sentence to summarize "why":
Offense:
1. Illinois - plenty of proven experience across the board at skill and line positions
2. Iowa - their offensive line should be terrific
3. Michigan
4. OSU - TP and O-line experience put them just above Michigan if Blue doesn't hit on all cylinders, which I am assuming
5. Penn State - O-line and receivers need to prove themselves first

6. Wisconsin - seems to have too many new starters to rank any higher
7. MSU - I think they are generally overrated given the rebuilding throughout the backfield and along the line
8. Northwestern - less worse than the remainder
9. Purdue - less worse than the remainder
10. Minnesota - less worse than Indiana
11. Indiana - going to be a rough year

Why Michigan #3? Well, I think that if everything goes according to RR's plan, Tate has a good year recognizing defenses and feeding the dot receivers and TEs, Minor can go for 1400 yards behind a much more solid O-line, avoid turnovers, and the stretch O begins to finally spread its wings.  There are many hopeful ifs in there, but that's the point.  I think if Michigan can get things rolling early, we might see dramatic results.  Much of the rest of the Big 10 will have questions to answer themselves offensively.  Even if Michigan is more "average" to expectations, I see it in the top 5 offensively, which will take pressure off the defense, too, in terms such as time of possession, field position, playmaking etc. 

Defense:
1. OSU - reloading at linkbacker seems to be their biggest question
2. Iowa - if their line performs well, they might be the best defensively
3. Michigan
4. Penn State - secondary kinda feels like Michigan's last year to me
5. MSU - enough quality returning to be formidable
6. Wisconsin - solid, but not special
7. Northwestern - secondary and LB play should be decent
8. Illinois.- unimpressive D last year bleeds into this one
9. Purdue - they are at least one step up from the stench of the cellar
10. Indiana - in the battle for worst, they lose because of their D-line
11. Minnesota - not less worse than Indiana


Why Michigan #3 again? There are certainly equally significant ifs on the defensive side of the ball, and healthy skepticism in the team's ability to meet these goals, but hear me out.  If Graham and Martin can be nasty all Big 10ers, Ezeh be a 100 tackle stud, and secondary avoid the big play thanks to strong play from Warren and Turner, with solid pursuit angles and tackling across the board, I think GERG's scheme will be well-suited to the offensive schemes in the Big 10.

This kind of offensive and defensive scenario would see a radical shift in the give-away/take-away margin.  And, if players just held the ball last year, where would it have ended?

I am not going to try to translate this optimism into wins and losses, just thought I'd put it out there for consideration.

I am not rating the kicking games, but since we have one of the most powerful forces binding the fabric of space punting... 

Comments

Korean Wolverine20

August 22nd, 2009 at 5:19 PM ^

at first I thought these were ur legit predictions and I was about to flame your ass, but I read that these were ur "optimistic" predictions and I agree. These are my "optimistic" predictions, and they are very optimistic, but im just gonna post a general stat line. Tate- 2000 passing yards, 15 TD 4 int, 450 rushing yards, 6TD Minor- 1200 rushing, 14 total TD, 200 rec, 3 fumbles, 1 lost. Mathews- 500 rec yards, 4 TD Koger- 300 rec yards, 5 TD Graham- 18 TFL, 13 sacks, 1 int TD Martin- 2.5 sacks, 6 TFL Ezeh- 90+ tackles, 2 sacks, 3 FF, 2 int, 1 defensive TD Mouton- 80+ tackles, 3 sacks, 2 FF, 4 int Warren- 45 tackles, 1 sack, 1 FF, 5 int, 2 defensive TD's

Maize and Blue…

August 22nd, 2009 at 8:34 PM ^

yards wise I think all those numbers are realistic. If Tate has that TD/Int ratio I think 8-4 is quite realistic and can even be exceeded. I expect BG to have a struggle to get to 13 sacks because of the attention he'll get but, that'll free up others to come off of the edge and get more than expected.

CheckOutMyRod

August 22nd, 2009 at 11:24 PM ^

but there is no way Tate only throws 4 ints unless he misses some time! A true freshman at qb only throwing 4 picks all year?/ Hell Griese only threw 4 in 97 but he was a senior. I REALLY hope I'm wrong but there is no way I see him going for 2,000,15, and 4. Boy I hope your right! I dont see Minor with 14 tds either but that seems in reach more than tate. Other than that I think your pretty right on.

Korean Wolverine20

August 23rd, 2009 at 3:52 PM ^

Minor had 9 total? TD's last year and he's healthier this year so yeah... and as for the 4 int, yeah... that is really low, but like I said, they are optimistic, but I see RR going pretty easy on Tate, and calling a lot of screens, slants, and easier passes. but maybe like 8-12 would be more realistic yeah

letsgoblue213

August 23rd, 2009 at 1:10 AM ^

Here are my guess stats. I know yours are supposed to be optimistic. Mine might by a bit optimistic too but here goes: Tate- 1600 pass yards, 12 TD, 8 INT, 300 rush, 3 TD Denard- 300 pass yards, 3 TD, 4 INT, 150 rush, 3 TD Minor- 1100 rush yards, 12 total TD, 4 fumbles Brown- 600 rush yards, 4 total TD, 2 fumbles Odoms- 600 rec yards, 3 TD Mathews- 500 rec yards, 5 TD Koger- 300 rec yards, 4 TD Graham- 20 TFL, 7 sacks (due to double coverage) Martin- 16 TFL, 9 sacks Ezeh- 100 tackles, 3 sacks, 1 INT Mouton- 85 tackles, 2 sacks, 2 INT Brown- 70 tackles, 6 sacks, 3 INT Warren- 50 tackles, 6 INT Zoltan- 42 yards per punt, 1 rush TD

UNCWolverine

August 22nd, 2009 at 5:36 PM ^

I'm sorry, but I just can't get behind this type of optimism. According to your rankings Michigan should finish no worse than 3rd in the conference. This from a team that was 3-9 last year and didn't even receive a point in the AP preseason poll. 6 other BigTen teams received points, not to mention CMU. Do you REALLY think that Michigan's offense is better than OSU's? Man I would love to eat crow if we finish 8-4 and 3rd in the BigTen. But I guess I'm just more a realist and don't want to set myself up for another huge disappointment by setting expectations so high.

Tater

August 22nd, 2009 at 5:44 PM ^

It isn't last year anymore. I still don't understand why even locals ignore history and treat last year as the new norm instead of treating it as the aberration that it was. When UM starts 4-0, they will regain respect, both in Ann Arbor and nationally. If they trounce ND instead of just beating them, they should be ranked in the teens. That should be reinforced by beating newly-overrated MSU.

UNCWolverine

August 23rd, 2009 at 1:23 PM ^

Tater, come on now. Are you trying to tell me that the previous 100+ years of Michigan football are more closely related to the 2009 team than the 2008 team? I'm not even going to get into the multiple reasons that last year was not an aberration. Jim Harbaugh, Elvis Grbac, Todd Collins, Scott Dreisbach, Brian Griese, Tom Brady, Drew Henson, John Navarre, and Chad Henne are not walking through that door. Our QBs are Nick Sheridan and two true freshmen. Do you want me to make the same list for our OLine, LBs, and DBacks? EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT NOW. The jerseys, stadium, helmet, and fight song don't win games anymore. I would think that after App State, Toledo, etc. everyone would understand this, but I guess I was wrong. Keep believing that our storied past will have anything to do with the 2009 season, because it sure as hell had nothing to do with last year. I understand that this team will be better because: 1. The returning players will be physically better. 2. Offensively year 2 will inevitably be better as the returning players better understand the system. 3. TF/DR cannot be any worse than the QB situation last year. But if your argument is that we will be #3 in the BigTen JUST BECAUSE we are Michigan football then -100 point for you.

jmblue

August 22nd, 2009 at 9:56 PM ^

Yes, we were 3-9. But what would our record have been if Threet and Minor (to name just two of our many injured players) had been healthy all season? 5-7? 6-6? We weren't a good team last year, but it took a perfect storm of problems to post as bad a record as we did. A team that is competitive going into the 4th quarter almost every week shouldn't finish 3-9.

samsoccer7

August 22nd, 2009 at 5:41 PM ^

I find it hard to think these are even normal optimistic predictions. To me, these are extremely optimistic. Even if our frosh and sophs play "solidly within the coach's gameplans" that still makes them frosh and sophs, meaning their ceilings are generally lower than upperclassmen. Also, with a new scheme, even if it's better than the old scheme, doesn't necessarily raise the ceiling for each player. I am really trying to be cautiously optimistic as to not expect another letdown (need I say 2 years ago?). But if you even dream we could be 3rd in O and D in the Big10, you will be disappointed. That said, this is not a flame by any means. I think the dreamers should dream big, but the last thing we need is this entire board thinking we're gonna be that good and be hugely disappointed. I'm looking for a modest to big improvement from last year, and doubling wins would probably meet that. I'm STILL being more optimistic than that and hoping for 7 solid wins. That would really set us up for a big boost the following year, which is when my expectations are REALLY gonna be high. Even then, maybe 2nd in O and D in the Big 10 would be great. It's hard for a team to be that "damn" strong on both sides of the ball. I don't know what our offense numbers were in 1997, but I know the D was badass. Rambling stopping now.

biakabutuka ex…

August 22nd, 2009 at 6:18 PM ^

Michigan Offense > MSU Offense Michigan Defense > Penn State Defense Michigan Special Teams > sliced bread With a true freshman QB I don't want to get my hopes up, but I think we can hope to be better than MSU. Especially since we have our running backs and to a lesser extent, the O-line. As long as our D doesn't get the injury bug I think we can be more formidable than Penn State. It really worries me, though, that our offense is looking so good in practice. They shouldn't be breaking so many big plays. I'm hoping it's because the D can't go full throttle lest players start getting injured.

MGrad

August 23rd, 2009 at 3:42 PM ^

I get your points. As far as practice, though, I am not forming opinions about the D, because the play calling could easily be set up to "stress test" the defense against some of the plays that massacred them last year. I am sure that they film it, and pick apart the players who missed their assignments. This is a tough time of the year physically, because they are getting pounded on the field for the first time, and are not relenting on the Barwisization. It does seem curious to have that kind of big play comment from RR, though. Big plays usually come from broken assignments, bad tackling or mismatches. The GERG scheme was supposed to minimize the latter, so if we are to believe what the coaches are saying about improving tackling, it seems to suggest that there are still too many broken assignments in the new schemes. Makes sense, with all the role transition and freshmen under the new DC. They still have time to reinforce the scheme assignments, and you can bet they will be game-planning via film each week big time. I think that they will get there.

MGoBlueEyes

August 22nd, 2009 at 7:19 PM ^

I expect an improvement in turnovers just out of the sheer HORROR of last season, being so bad, they can't do much worse if they tried. The main problem with the defense is depth. A few serious injuries and we're in deep trouble, our starting safeties will likely be a true freshman (Emelien?) and a converted corner (Woolfolk). The D-line will be ok if it stays healthy. Linebacking is a question mark to me, how good are they really? Hard to say, at least for me. The secondary is a concern depth-wise, and inexperience wise at safety. I really can't see UM doing better than 7-5, ok maybe 8-4 if they stay healthy and get lucky. Remember this was a squad that lost to a *bad* MAC school (Toledo) last season. Of course we have a new DC and all that, but I don't see UM doing any better than 7-5.

formerlyanonymous

August 22nd, 2009 at 9:12 PM ^

My most optimistic accounts don't have our offense any better than PSU (although maybe equal). I could see Michigan to [TEAM REDACTED] being shuffled in any particular order, but you said go optimistic.
  1. Illinois - Best Option
  2. OSU - Pryor+OL+either RB looks good.
  3. Penn State - Clark and Royster will make plays.
  4. Iowa - I'm not high on Stanzi yet
  5. Michigan
  6. Wisconsin - Bullish on Clay carrying the team.
  7. [TEAM REDACTED] - Lack of proven HB is worrisome
  8. Minnesota - Decker almost gets them 7th alone.
  9. Northwestern - Know too little but suspect then to get yards
  10. Purdue - Michigan 2008
  11. Indiana - What everyone else says.
I'd buy that defense standing though. EDIT: Rittenberg threw a wrench in the Wisconsin thought as he's reporting Zach Brown is the probable starter to open the season. I'm not sure if that's good or bad. I'll just leave it as is for now.

I Miss Bursley

August 22nd, 2009 at 10:17 PM ^

I can get on board with the offense as #3 in the big ten as a very optimistic prediction. The defense though...I agree with the Ifs you posted as an explanation but theyre a bit much, no? The questions on D are far more serious than those on offense. Lack of depth, inexperience, new scheme, loss of starters and much more. I hope i'm wrong but even an optimistic view of the defense puts them at 6 with a ceiling of maybe 4. Anyways lets be honest this is a crapshoot, this is Michigan we're talking about...one way or the other they're gonna manage to surprise us. Gotta love M.

StephenRKass

August 23rd, 2009 at 1:08 AM ^

1) First, and a minor issue, how are you ranking the offense and defense? It isn't stated, but I would assume this is a simple ranking of points for (offense) and points against (defense.) I'm also not sure exactly how you factor in special teams. Do you subtract / add in points for and points against occuring during kickoffs, punts, returns, etc.? Is a successful fake punt attributed to the offense or to special teams? Or are you just ranking spec teams by kicking and punting distance and return yardage? At any rate, let's stick with PF/PA to rank the off & def. 2) Final team rankings have many variables, but the permutations for teams near the top seem to be the following, more or less: A) Suffocating defense, meh offense (2002 Buckeyes.) B) Explosive offense, meh defense. C) Good offense, good defense. (2004 Iowa.) D) Suffocating defense, explosive offense. (MNC.) Occasionally, teams are rather strong offensively, but terrible defensively, (cf. 2007 Michigan State,) leading to pretty crummy final standings. (for 2007 State, 3-5 Conference, 7-6 overall.) In general, however, I would bet that if a team finishes both 3rd offensively and defensively, that they would be third in the conference at worst, and quite likely, first or second. The caveat is that in a year where a team has a suffocating defense, they can overcome a so-so offense (cf. 2002 Buckeyes?) and outrank a balanced team. Yes, I want to be optimistic, but the implications of 3rd in offense and defense for Michigan (or any other team, for that matter) are 3rd place at worst, and more likely, first or second. It isn't in me to drink that kool aid for the Wolverines this year. 3) Final problem: I would submit that this may be the hardest season in 40 years to predict Michigan's performance. We JUST DON'T KNOW what to really expect. Will RR's offense be firing on all cylinders? Or will the performance of a freshman qb be too crippling? Will Gerg & Barweis make a massive difference in the defense? Or will having to adjust to their 3rd DC in 3 years, plus the lack of depth, overwhelm our defense? Of course, like everyone else, I want to be optimistic. Rather, I want Michigan to win all their games. But I can't really predict. Now, I'm not a betting man, as I don't have the disposable cash or the necessary knowledge. But someone smarter than me, who is close to the team, who knows football well and can really assess this year (9-3? 5-7?) is going to make some serious money with what amounts to insider information. Because no one on the outside really knows. Coaches have to sell confidence to their own team, as well as the fans. But I really suspect that someone close already knows whether or not such confidence is warranted or misplaced. To put this in perspective, I think RR had a very good idea beforehand that 2008 was going to be a disaster, a train wreck of a year. Very few of us on the outside really knew. But I'd love to know if anyone close to the team made a mint by betting that they wouldn't win more than five games, or whatever. (how these things are structured are gambling questions far beyond my expertise.) Having said that, I think that betting tends to payoff the best for those betting on unknowns. Sigh . . . 2 & 3 more weeks, and we'll all have a real clue.

biakabutuka ex…

August 23rd, 2009 at 10:31 AM ^

Modern science is amazing. Have you seen VH1 recently? They can pin down the top ten most outrageous celebrity catfights of the 90s, in order. I don't even know how they do it. If they can do that, these offense and defense rankings have to be legit. // I'd go with with a weighted score based on points per possession and yards per play, on both sides of the ball. No clue what you do for special teams.

Durham Blue

August 23rd, 2009 at 11:57 AM ^

in offense if Tate matures quickly. Most freshmen tend to want to make something happen on every play at the expense of taking a sack or throwing a wild interception. Based on what I've seen in the scrimmage highlights, my feeling is Tate will not, at least initially, be any different. However, if he matures quickly (first 2 games) then I can easily see this offense ringing up some big yards this year. I will even venture to say UM will finish better than 3rd in the B10 if Tate just manages the offense with a focus on minimizing turnovers and lets the playmakers do their thing. Defense? I'm a little nervous due to youth and lack of depth. I am thinking bottom half of the B10. But look for the D to make major strides as the season progresses, much like the UM running game last season).

AMazinBlue

August 23rd, 2009 at 4:08 PM ^

optimistic, I'm thinking more like high fourth. If Tate and DRob limit their mistakes, i.e. fumbles INTs and misreads and the OL remains healthy and is as improved as we hear, AND our special teams DON"T FUMBLE THE BALL, then yes I can see our offense being the top half of the Big 10. But, we're talking about turning the keys of the offense over to freshman, 18-year olds that have never seen the size and speed of the defenses they will be facing. RR even said, it is very rare that a freshman starts as QB in college. Pat White red-shirted. I'm hoping for an explosive year on offense, but I won't let my hopes get too high until after ND or MSU. The defense...probably more like low fifth to high sixth. There just isn't enough experience in the secondary and the LBs have yet to prove they can read and tackle well enough to stop the run. If GERG is successful implementing his gameplan and schemes and the tackling is light years better than last year and th offnese doesn't lead the nation in 3-0uts then, yes I can see 4th in the Big 10. Third in the conference would mean all stay healthy, Graham has a great year and Ezeh and the secondary play to or above their potential. I still say 9-3 and if that happens, then 3rd or 4th on both sides of the ball will happen.