Deinhart's Prediction for Michigan Football 2011
Western Mich W
ND L
Eastern Mich W
SDSU W
Minnesota W
at NU W
at Mich State L
Purdue W
at Iowa L
at Illinois L
Nebraska L
Ohio State L
6-6 with a minor bowl for Michigan in Hoke's debut.
What say ye, oh brilliant MGOBLOG guys?????
February 15th, 2011 at 10:12 AM ^
February 15th, 2011 at 10:36 AM ^
Is it still considered a prediction when it's a universal fact?
February 15th, 2011 at 10:02 AM ^
If we go 6-6 there is going to be some major yelling about Hoke. Especially considering we did better last year, and return almost our entire starting team. 6-6 would not be considered a success by any means, thats a disappointment.
February 15th, 2011 at 10:16 AM ^
No, it'll be the same excuse that was used for RR. Switching systems, cupboard bare on defense, etc. I'm not saying that those weren't valid reasons for RR his first year, just that it'll be the same thing if Hoke goes 6-6, which I don't think he will.
February 15th, 2011 at 10:23 AM ^
Eh, the switching systems on offense could be a legitimate excuse especially with the changing blocking schemes, but the cupboard being bare will never fly as an excuse. Plus, the switching schemes on D I think is universally regarded as beneficial.
February 15th, 2011 at 2:49 PM ^
The cupboard is much barer on defense than it was when Carr left.
February 15th, 2011 at 10:32 AM ^
19 returning starters. I was expecting 9-3 with the previous coach and will expect no less from Hoke and company. Mattison > Robinson especially a Robinson forced to run a D he had never run before so the D should be improved. Not to mention all the game experience the youngsters got under their belts last year.
If Hoke doesn't go at least 8-4 I don't think he will be here long. 2012 schedule is a killer with Bama basically on the road and true road games against ND, Nebraska, and OSU. It doesn't help that the "timeline" led to a weak recruiting class that I don't see providing much help for 2012.
February 15th, 2011 at 11:16 AM ^
Keep in mind Vince Lombardi couldn't win with this D
February 15th, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^
Let's stop this kind of talk now.
February 15th, 2011 at 1:20 PM ^
...Means that you'll probably just have a slighly less terrible defense. If Mattison can get this group into the top 50 nationally, it would be a huge accomplishment but that's the only way we're getting to 9 wins. With this defense and the tough schedule (more on this below) it's going to be tough to get to 9 wins, and the RR crew wouldn't have gotten there.
Remember that we won the ILL game on a super lucky bounce on 4th down in overtime, won the ND game on a last minute drive that was made possible by QB issues for them and that we lost all our games by double digits. We were very fortunate to be 7-5. Our "pythagorean" wins or mean wins as calculated by football outsiders was only 5.7.
To expect a jump to 9 wins is extremely optimistic. Even with the old staff, the offense wasn't going to improve much: it was already so good there is little room for improvement besides the elimination of some TOs and a better FG kicker. And the defense, well, I've talked about that. The talent isn't there and the coaching wasn't there with the old staff. There's no reason to think after 2 whiffs, RR would somehow be able to talk a competent D coach into working with him.
As for the schedule, ND is going to be killer next year. They already were hugely improved toward the end of last year, they're going to be downright scary next year. SDSU was a better team than Uconn last year and with a lot returning players (who were actually good), and some coaching stability despite a coaching change, it's not unreasonable to think they'll be as good or better next year than they were this year. The big ten schedule is pretty much similar to last year as NU should be as good as PSU was last year and NEB should be about as good as WIS. So the schedule goes:
2010 2011
ND << ND
UCONN < SDSU
UMASS = WMU
BGSU = EMU
IND = MINN
PSU = NU
MSU > MSU
PU = PU
IOWA > IOWA
ILL < ILL
WIS = NEB
OSU = OSU
If we get out of there with 8 wins, it'll be a major first year success for Hoke. I would think 7-5 should be the benchmark.
February 15th, 2011 at 1:58 PM ^
We were a two-point conversion, a bad DR pass and a missed extra point away from going 8-4 in 2009. BRING BACK RR.
February 15th, 2011 at 2:25 PM ^
..using anecdotes to emphasize the objective stats. According to Football Outsider's and Sagarin, our record was significantly better than our overall performance on the field, i.e. we had a better record than expected due to "luck" or whatever you want to call it (And no it wasn't RR's brilliant late game coaching that caused the tipped pass to fall right into our hands against ILL). I thought RR was a good in-game tactician, but the "luck" factor is precisely that: luck. Even the good coaches don't consistently make good "luck" for their teams (in 2009, we were on the other end of the "luck" spectrum).
The objective measures (using margin of victory, etc) are better predictors of future performance than record alone. So before everyone just uses the simple method of saying, well, we were 7-5 last year and return a bunch of guys, so BOOM it has to be 9-3 next year, let's actually analyze things objectively.
February 15th, 2011 at 3:52 PM ^
the miracle comeback against ND and the really bad late call that gave us the IU game 2009. I'm not saying these close games should have been won or lost necessarily, just that on average teams win half of them. But yes, in 2009, we were "unlucky" and the numbers say we were more like a 6-6 team.
This is the reason our 11-0 start in 2006 shouldn't have been as much of surprise as it was and Oklahoma last year wasn't a surprise despite both teams losing 5 games the previous season. Those 5 loss teams were both ranked top 10 in sagarin's predictor ratings and returned a lot of players from those strong teams.
ND fits this profile for next year. Lost a bunch of close games, ranked high in the margin of victory ratings, return a lot of guys. I'd be surprised if they aren't a BCS team next year.
February 15th, 2011 at 2:25 PM ^
Doesn't SDSU lose nine offensive starters (even though the returnees are a quality QB and RB)? I doubt they'll be better than UConn.
February 15th, 2011 at 3:59 PM ^
According to this analysis, http://www.nationalchamps.net/2011/earlybird/teams/sandiegostate.htm
SDSU returns 8 starters on offense, including the good QB and excellent RB you mentioned. Plus, four guys on the line. They'll have two Sr tackles. They should be better than Uconn was this year making that look like a very losable game.
February 15th, 2011 at 2:16 PM ^
Are the doldrums of February so bad that we put Deinhart predictions of UM gloom on here to stir things up?
February 15th, 2011 at 10:32 AM ^
No. It would be the same excuse if RR had had 10 starters returning on offense.
February 15th, 2011 at 10:46 AM ^
February 15th, 2011 at 3:18 PM ^
The cupboard won't be bare on defense...not after the last 2 recruiting classes and all the experience given to the young players last year. Yea, they weren't ALL elite 5* talent coming out of high school, but all those freshman and sophomores had a year of game experience...and that's something that can't be taught (this is keeping in mind, of course, we all know 5* star players don't always pan out (still waiting on Big Will) and a lot of 2* and 3* players rise up and take center stage...Ray Vinopal was a pleasant surprise). Compound that with Greg Mattison running the show and you can bet there's going to be a legitimate defensive improvement in this coming year alone.
HOWEVER, this being said, I'm still going to go with a 7-5 and a mid-major bowl due to simple growing pains that accompany any coaching change.
February 15th, 2011 at 10:37 AM ^
to fire Brandon.
February 15th, 2011 at 11:08 AM ^
A .500 season and bowl game would be pretty good for Cowhoke™ considering that he's got a career losing record.
February 15th, 2011 at 11:34 AM ^
Is that supposed to be a pun on Cowpoke? Or are we just putting a cow on the front because he is a larger man? I don't think your trademark will be worth very much.
February 15th, 2011 at 10:02 AM ^
Illinois and ND could be toss-ups, so I'm going with 7-5
February 15th, 2011 at 10:23 AM ^
Curious on why you say Illinois could be a toss-up? They return a maturing QB, but they lose their best offensive player, by a mile, in Leshoure. They also lose arguably their two best defensive players in Wilson and Liuget. We're going to be more talented than Illinois, that is a must win on the schedule.
If I had to rate the six losses Deinhart predicts, I'd call Illinois a probable win; MSU, ND and Iowa as toss-ups; Nebraska somewhere between toss-up and probabl loss depending on both teams progress through the season; and Ohio St. a probable loss.
February 15th, 2011 at 10:28 AM ^
I definitely buy your take on Illinois, but you do realize Nebraska played in the Big12 championship game last year. They're no slouch and I'm just guessing but I would bet they reloaded instead of rebuilt in the offseason.
edit: n/m missed that you said probably loss (just read toss-up, initially)
February 15th, 2011 at 11:13 AM ^
Yeah, I don't know what to make of the Nebraska game. On the one hand, they won the last two Big12 north titles, but on the other, they seemed to get worse as the seaon went on last year. They also lose a significant portion of their secondary.
There is so much uncertainty in trying to predict that game, mostly to do with the progression of the two quarterbacks. Martinez has near-Denard type game breaking ability with his legs, but is a far worse passer. Martinez also seemed to lack a certain mental toughness towards the end of the season, so I think there are more questions about his work ethic than Denard's. But, Martinez has the advantage of working in the same system again next year (I think). Also, of course, there is the question of the two QBs staying healthy.
At best, I can only see that game as a toss up. Even if Denard really takes to the new offense and Martinez struggles with injury issues, Nebraska's defensive front will keep them in the game. At worst, it will be a probable loss with the offense having to play a great game to win and the defense doing just enough to contain a dangerous QB.
February 15th, 2011 at 11:30 AM ^
I've paid some attention to Nebraska the past couple of years, when they've won the Big12 North. Their biggest problem is clearly sustained offense. Two years ago their offense was non-existent, last year they were just all over the place in terms of offensive production. Even with Martinez, I don't see them having a consistent enough offense to be a powerhouse next season. Depending on how Michigan looks with the new coaching staff, I don't see any reason why Michigan can't beat them, especially if Nebraska is having one of their all-too-frequent off days.
February 15th, 2011 at 12:13 PM ^
I don't think they were that all over the place last year. It seemed to be a tale of two teams. With a healthy Martinez for 7.5 games, they had 5.5 games of excellent production and two games of poor production. After his injuries mounted, they only really had one good offensive performance (45 against Colorado, I don't count 31 in OT against Iowa State).
In the first 7 games, they scored 48 or more, four times and then put up 28 points in the first quarter against Missouri before Martinez's injury.
There were certainly some ups and downs in the first 7 games, they slept walked against their FCS opponent, and they choked against Texas. But as a whole, the offense with a healthy Martinez was better than they've shown in a while. The problems showed up when he got dinged, and that's what I was referencing with my questioning of his mental toughness. There were transfer rumors, benchings, etc. It's possible he doesn't ever truly recover to lead a potent Nebraska offense.
I do think Michigan can win that game next year. It's at home, after a long season, there's a reasonably good chance that Martinez's injury problems will be back and the offense will be stuck in neutral again. But, if Martinez is healthy, and leading an offense as productive as the one from Nebraska's first half of last season, it's going to be a tough game to win.
February 15th, 2011 at 1:18 PM ^
Fair enough. Nebraska wasn't as inconsistent throughout the season as I made it out to be (that Texas game sticks out more than it should). They started strong and definitely petered out towards the end, in large part because of Martinez's injuries. But I think Nebraska's offense is very one dimensional, with Martinez running the option. Granted, Martinez could recover physically and develop more of a passing game, but given his off the field/on the sideline problems with the coach, I don't see him pulling off a Denard-esque off season.
I think you're on the money, though, that Nebraska coming at the end of the season will definitely benefit Michigan. If Borges's plan to run Robinson less is true, I can see this game being a match-up between a normally functioning Michigan against a beat-up Nebraska.
February 15th, 2011 at 10:35 AM ^
@Illinois is never a gimme. The place is a wind tunnel and the weather can be awful.
February 15th, 2011 at 10:54 AM ^
Certainly no gimme, but if we're going to continue to improve, it's one we must win. We should, however, be the better team, so I'm not too worried about it.
February 15th, 2011 at 10:56 AM ^
No offense, but I think with a new attitude and coaching staff all the games are must wins. Now will we win all on the schedule this year probably not, but I have a very good feeling we will be competitive in all of them this year. Also think we win the games we are suppose to and win them big, and win a few if not more than a few of the so called toss up games. This team is going to surprise a few teams in the Conference this year.
On another note, how do we all think Nebraska will be entering the B10 this year? If I recall when PSU joined they were considered one of the elite teams in the country at the time, and since joining this conference they truely have only been at best mediocre.
February 15th, 2011 at 11:24 AM ^
Penn State became mediocre well after they joined the Big Ten, not necessarily when they first entered the conference. They had nine or more wins in their first seven seasons...including 12-0 in 1994.
February 15th, 2011 at 11:54 AM ^
I'm a little confused about your definition of a "must win" is. To me, it is a game that in order for you to have the type of season you had hoped for, you must win. The only teams that have must wins for every game on the schedule are teams with honest expectations of being national champions. That's almost certainly not going to be us this year.
For me, this season we need to be at least 8-4 since 2012 has a murderous schedule. So, assuming we get at least one win out of MSU, ND, Iowa, Neb. and OSU, we must win the rest. Every loss of that group, i.e. to Northwestern or at Illinois, makes a succesful season much, much more difficult.
I think we will be competitive in every game, I wouldn't rate any opponent as "sure loss," but I just can't picture our defense being improved enough to make the upper echelon opponents anything less than tough games to win.
February 15th, 2011 at 11:36 AM ^
I would like to think the benching of so many starters will disrupts OSU's chemistry and fracture the team leading to a season collapse, but I'm also a dreamer.
February 15th, 2011 at 11:57 AM ^
That would be awesome... But, with the sweatervest in charge, here's how I picture a collapse going. Say they start 3-4/4-3. Season goals are pretty much shot, except for the one goal they consider supreme to all others. Can't you see Tressel spending the next five weeks maximizing his chances of beating us? Nobody in Columbus would be happy going 6-6 or 7-5, but if one of those wins came in Ann Arbor, he'd be foregiven, and he knows it.
February 15th, 2011 at 10:04 AM ^
I think Deinhart can go fuck himself.
February 15th, 2011 at 10:05 AM ^
We're going to beat senior Dan Persa (or whoever replaces him, doesn't really matter) but lose to Illinois?
February 15th, 2011 at 12:15 PM ^
Didn't Persa tear his achilles? He will probably be back in time for the season, but will he be at full speed? His mobility is a big part of his game.
February 15th, 2011 at 10:05 AM ^
I don't think Illinois without Leshoure can match up offensively. I know they scored a lot of points last year and bring Scheelhaas back, but it was a close game last year and we lose much less.
February 15th, 2011 at 10:32 AM ^
It's also an away game this year.
February 15th, 2011 at 10:35 AM ^
True, but the way too early signs would say that they'll have a had time finding the talent they had on the field last year, while our offense will probably be significantly better.
Denard should play the whole game this year too.
February 15th, 2011 at 11:31 AM ^
They lose Corey "Stop Punching Me in the Dong" Liuget.
February 15th, 2011 at 11:32 AM ^
I forgot they lose Liuget, but that's another big problem for Illinois.
February 15th, 2011 at 11:54 AM ^
They also lose Martez Wilson, who was all over the field for them last year. They didn't show much of a defense against us last year, and losing Wilson and Liuget won't help things.
February 15th, 2011 at 10:06 AM ^
my hindsight is better than his foresight...so I can't tell you what I think until a year from now
February 15th, 2011 at 10:08 AM ^
Captain Hindsight?
February 15th, 2011 at 11:18 AM ^
I'll tell you later
February 15th, 2011 at 11:22 AM ^
+1. Well played sir.