Deinhart is an idiot.
Deinhart's Prediction for Michigan Football 2011
Is it still considered a prediction when it's a universal fact?
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.
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.
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.
The cupboard is much barer on defense than it was when Carr left.
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.
Keep in mind Vince Lombardi couldn't win with this D
Let's stop this kind of talk now.
...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:
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.
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.
..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.
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.
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.
Are the doldrums of February so bad that we put Deinhart predictions of UM gloom on here to stir things up?
No. It would be the same excuse if RR had had 10 starters returning on offense.
But he had 1 returning starter...isn't that close enough? Just drop that pesky "0" and it is basically the same
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.
to fire Brandon.
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.
Illinois and ND could be toss-ups, so I'm going with 7-5
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
@Illinois is never a gimme. The place is a wind tunnel and the weather can be awful.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think Deinhart can go fuck himself.
We're going to beat senior Dan Persa (or whoever replaces him, doesn't really matter) but lose to Illinois?
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.
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.
It's also an away game this year.
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.
They lose Corey "Stop Punching Me in the Dong" Liuget.
I forgot they lose Liuget, but that's another big problem for Illinois.
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.
my hindsight is better than his foresight...so I can't tell you what I think until a year from now
I'm going to wait till the spring game, fall practice, etc.
|"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."|
Plus my predicition last year will be similar to mine this year. 13-0.
So we'll win the Big Ten Championship game and not go to a bowl?
It's all about 14-0 nowdays.
shares your sentiment
There are 3 types of people in the world, those who can count and those who cant
defense or offense is going to look like or all that much about the depth chart at certain positions. What is the rush to start predicting won-loss records.
By the way, who is this Deinhart guy?
You are formally declared a Michigan Man.
I think Iowa and Illinois are toss-ups that we really need to win. I'm saying 8-4, though it's really way too soon to tell
Did they not just lose their starting quarterback, running back, best WR, best defensive lineman and starting safety from a team that went 7-5 in the regular season?
Exactly what I thought of when I saw the L next to Iowa, even though its at Iowa. Ferentz should have a difficult time replacing the talent lost on both sides of the ball.
He can't even properly replace fluids and electrolytes, let alone whole players.
Not just best lineman (I'm assuming you are talking about Clayborn), but bascially they lose their whole defensive line with Klug and Ballard as well.
ya, im sorry, but if we lose to iowa a team that graduates 26 seniors then we truly have a pathetic team
When I awake and start swearing.
Yeah that's not happening because... Hokeamania
MSU loses several starters on their lines and both of their stud linebackers. If our offense doesn't have much of a drop off in terms of production from last year (a pretty significant if), I think we can put up points. If their o-line isn't getting as much push as last year, I think we have a great chance at winning that game.
and over-rated last year.
If we lose to Michigan State again. I can't take another year of listening to those fans rub it in our face.
Basketball. At the Breslin Center. First time since 1997. Pride somethingsomething Fall.
W/ 20 returning starters... I think everyone of those losses is at least a toss up on paper except TSIO and Nebraska.
Nebraska could be considered a toss up.. They were definitely getting worse as the year went on and we have them at home, so it should be a pretty good game. Depends on how our season is going until then.
skipping ahead to 2012? i thought we played Bama!! .....
Pump the breaks hombre, WAAAAYYY too early to make any predictions... we havent even seen any of spring ball yet. This is a dumb prediction.
Wait and see how Denard and Devin do in the Borges ball. How do our running backs look, can anyone emerge as the "go to guy" like in Michigan days of yore. Do the taller receivers like Stonum start to dominate in the more Pro-style offense? How does the D mature? Any LBs step it up to help Demens? Does the defensive backfield mature? Is T-wolf a beast again? Just pump the breaks, wait at least until June to start looking at predictions.
To make predictions, outlined your assumptions, and be prepared to adjust as we move forward during 2011........That's part of the "off season" hot stove fun around here....
anything short of 8 wins will be considered a disaster.
Coach Hoke's called B1G title or bust. Seems semi-reasonable with pretty much everybody coming back and our lines in peak form.
The context he said it in was that those were the expectations every year. I have a hard time thinking we can go through everyone this year, but we should be better than 7-6.
Western Mich Michigan Wins
ND Michigan Wins
Eastern Mich Michigan Wins
SDSU Michigan Wins
Minnesota Michigan Wins
at NU Michigan Wins
at Mich State Michigan Wins
Purdue Michigan Wins
at Iowa Michigan Wins
at Illinois Michigan Wins
Nebraska Michigan Wins
Ohio State Michigan Wins
I like mine better (I know, wishful thinking)
I also predict that Michigan will win the Spring game!!!
Are suffering from Hoke Syndrome.
Hoke springs eternal indeed.
Realistically though - I see us as at least a 8-4. It is a relatively easy schedule compared to what we have lined up in 2012.
No way Michigan wins the spring game.
They have to play Denard.
My prediction is that we open 2012 with a win over Bama not WMU. (that is 2011's schedule not 2012)
Meant to put 2011 and not 2012, good catch, thanks....corrected....
I think this is a worst case (hopefully) with the six wins indicated being locks. ND/MSU/Ill/Iowa are the big question marks. Could go 6-6, could go 10-2....
My prediction? Deinhart is an idiot.
Oh and I'm going for 8-4 or 9-3.. Optimistic, I know.
He probably doens't have a very high opinion of Al Borges and his ability to keep the offense clicking with Denard. Considering how many returning starters we have and the slightly easier schedule, 6-6 would be a huge disappointment. I think that anything less than 8-4 would be a big disappointment. Hoke shouldn't receive a grace period because he's changing the offense. That is 100% voluntary.
Western Mich W
Eastern Mich W
at NU W
at Mich State L
at Iowa W
at Illinois L
Ohio State L
9-3 with a decent bowl for Michigan in Hoke's debut.
Western Mich W
ND L (toss up, but I will say loss. They looked damn good the last part of last season)
Eastern Mich W
at NU W
at Mich State W (toss up, but b/c last toss up lost, this win...makes sense)
at Iowa W
at Illinois W
Ohio State L
10-2...BAM! HOKEAMANIA JUST HAPPENED!
I'm not curbing my expectations because DB may have botched the coaching search. I expect 9-10 wins on what should be another progression for this team. It may be a bit unrealistic but why should we lower our expectations with a coaching change?
See: Last three years.
It is impossible to predict most individual games, so here are my preductions by grouping:
1. As close to definite wins as possible - Western, Eastern, SDSU (I heard they lost their super-awesome coach), Minnesota, Purdue
2. Should wins - NU, Illinois (they lose a ton, we lose nothing)
3. Toss-ups (with reasoning)
-ND - I know we beat them, but we can't expect Dayne Crist to miss half of the game again; also in the beginning of the season, they were adjusting to a new coach, but by the end, they looked a lot better; they are loaded in talent; this is only our second game under a new scheme - scary / very good chance we could lose this one
-MSU - they lose a lot and we return a lot, but it is impossible to predict this rivalry game; Dantonio has had good success against us; even if our offense drops off generally from last season, against MSU, our offense (scoring) was not great last year; defense should improve
-Iowa - our offense against Iowa was not great, so we should perform at least as well, if not better (Junior Denard, actual running back hopefully), our defense has to be better, but still, Iowa is a decent team, well coached and with a lot of upper classmen
4. Hate to say it but probable losses - Nebraska, Ohio State
Totaling this up, if we will ALL of the "definite wins" and even if we lose 1 of the 2 "should wins," we are at 6 wins. If we win 1 of the 3 "toss-ups" we are at 7 wins. To me, unless our transition is as rough as the last one, or unless something goes really wrong (Denard injury, 2 OL injuries), this should be our floor.
Realistically, I think that we win all of the "definite wins" and "should wins" and beat two of the "toss up" teams, giving us 9 wins. This would be a great showing for year 1 under a new coach.
Sorry, but I gotta chime in here. The knock on RR was D and Special Teams. His offense is, for the most part, superb. Now, with Hoke and Mattison righting the D and Special Teams ship, and this will be drastic improvement by the time the Big Ten conference play starts, then it is not far-fetched, AT ALL, to think our overall performance will drastically improve.
I predict we will beat MSU and OSU. Yep. OSU in Ann Arbor.
|Sat., Sep. 3||vs. Western Michigan||Ann Arbor, Mich.||WIN|
|Sat., Sep. 10||vs. Notre Dame||Ann Arbor, Mich.||WIN|
|Sat., Sep. 17||vs. Eastern Michigan||Ann Arbor, Mich.||WIN|
|Sat., Sep. 24||vs. San Diego State||Ann Arbor, Mich.||LOSS|
|Sat., Oct. 1||vs. Minnesota *||Ann Arbor, Mich.||WIN|
|Sat., Oct. 8||at Northwestern *||Evanston, Ill.||LOSS|
|Sat., Oct. 15||at Michigan State *||East Lansing, Mich.||WIN|
|Sat., Oct. 29||vs. Purdue (Homecoming) *||Ann Arbor, Mich.||WIN|
|Sat., Nov. 5||at Iowa *||Iowa City, Iowa||LOSS|
|Sat., Nov. 12||at Illinois *||Champaign, Ill.||TIE|
|Sat., Nov. 19||vs. Nebraska *||Ann Arbor, Mich.||WIN|
|Sat., Nov. 26||vs. Ohio State *||Ann Arbor, Mich.||WIN|
I'm all for not losing...but what's your scenario for a tie? Does it involve time travel to the pre-OT rule?
I'd ask for an explanation about the tie but I'm certain I don't want to know the answer.
Did you just say it isn't far fetched to see a drastic improvement in the team....then predict 1 more win for the season? Did I miss something?
Also, the only reason RichRod got "knocked" for special teams is because of uninformed fans who saw our field goal kickers struggle and thought that was the only aspect of special teams. As a whole, special teams under RichRod wasn't that bad and was arguably the best in the B10 2 years ago
I think the whole inability to field 5 consecutive kicks/punts without a major gaffe plays a bit into the perception.
This is not true...and exactly what I was talking about in my post. Pick out one area of special teams that needs work, point to it and say see, special teams sucked under RichRod.
And watching, unsure what the rule is, a blocked kick lying on the field as the other team scrambles to recover. And having two of the same # jersey on the field at once. These didn't help terribly.
"Also, the only reason RichRod got "knocked" for special teams is because of uninformed fans who saw our field goal kickers struggle and thought that was the only aspect of special teams. As a whole, special teams under RichRod wasn't that bad and was arguably the best in the B10 2 years ago"
Haha, wait...what? You're not really serious are you?
Do you want to actually look at special teams rankings over the last couple years or just post snarky bullshit? I guarantee if Gibbons pans out and lives up to his high school all American status not a single person would have said a word about special teams.
I would have said something, because the only returner I saw the last 3 years who could consistently catch and field a punt was Dileo.
Why are we wasting time on this idiot's prediction? What the hell does he know about either side of the ball for us right now?
And yeah, if we go 6-6, there will be blood...
At this point I don't have much more confidence than the 6-6 he is saying. But this could all change within the next month. Think of our expectations last year before Denard emerged at Spring Ball. If I hear about some defensive players vastly improving my assessment of the team will only improve.
I'm sorry but we can and should beat Lil Bro this year. I know they have a good running game and a decent QB but if our D tackles 40% better this year and gets 2 more sacks a game we should be a pretty good team.
I'm not going to buy into this death D again for another year. We have a lot of young guys who played and WILL get better this year. I'm sure the we have the right coach on D this time and even if he makes us into a ok D we should be a 9 win team.
Western Mich W
Eastern Mich W
at NU W
at Mich State W
at Iowa W
at Illinois W
Ohio State L
I'm saying 9-3 and the Notre Dame and Nebraska could be wins.
I don't think Iowa, Illinois and Little Brother will be better.
I'm not angry or whateva but it's muthafuckin February
a totally ignorant comment from Deinhart unites the fanbase against him, instantly
Should beat Iowa and Illinois. I think ND is a toss up game, but if Denards healthy I'd say we should beat them too.
Nebraska seems like a stretch for a win though, even if it is at home.
I have to believe the offense will continue to progress and this year they might actually get some help on the defensive side of the ball so we don't have to score 67 to win a damn game.
WMU - win
ND - tossup
EMU - win
SDSU - win
Mn - win
@ NW - tossup
@ MSU - tossup
Pur - win
@ Iowa - tossup
@ Ill - tossup
Neb - loss
Osu - loss
Bowl - tossup
that gives me 5 wins, 6 toss ups, and 2 losses. generally think that UM splits the tossups, giving them an 8-5 season. If NW and Ill were at home i would have them as wins, but on the road, things happen. i think iowa loses a lot and is showing some signs of decay.
Offense returns essentially everyone, minus schilling. If Borges is a good enough coordinator to adapt his offensive style to denard and play at a similar level to last year, we will be golden. Defense should see huge strides, so think top 20 offense and hopefully a top 70 defense. If we had a defense and special teams last year we could have won 9 or 10 games. Hopefully that number is actually reached this year. My prediction 12-2 with a bowl win. Optimistic? Yes. Reachable? I think so.
I don't think this is that far off.
We are basically going to minimize our strength (Offense) and try to rectify our major weakness (Defense).
I see our Offensive numbers dropping significantly (down to 40's-ish nationally) and our defensive numbers going up marginally (up to 80's is nationally), which is the makings of a pretty mediocre football team. 6-6 seems around accurate with 1 or 2 toss up games. Our ceiling is definitely 8 wins, though.
Our ceiling is definitely 8 wins, though.
disagree, if Borges can wield Denard properly and the D can make a more significant statistical leap than 20 or so spots. I am anticipating a better turnover margin if nothing else
I know you bullshit a lot so I never know if you are serious, but...
"if Borges can wield Denard properly"
as "properly" as RR did? Not possible, so I would say this is a definite no.
"D can make a more significant statistical leap than 20 or so spots"
I think that is possible, but that would still take us up the the very lofty 100th defense in the nation... so even if this happens it doesn't mean much.
"I am anticipating a better turnover margin"
We have all been expecting this for around four years. I think we might be cursed.
I keep my expectations low so that when they are exceeded I am happy. I do think 8 is the ceiling though. There is no evidence in the coaching hire that has made me feel like 2011 will be a great year.
my bloodstream is 47% feces
I know that we will never agree on this, but I don't share your concern about the offense. Yes, our offense put up big numbers but do you really believe that they played like a "top offense" against MSU, Iowa, PSU, Wisco, OSU or MSU (Gator)?
I agree with you that Denard will not be deployed in a way that will allow him to personally be as effective froma statistical standpoint, but I do believe that he will be deployed in such a way that will allow the entire offense to be MORE productive - from a points on the board standpoint - against the better teams that we face.
I am far less concerned with Denard racking up massive stats than I am with our offense being able to consistently score against teams like Iowa, MSU, PSU and the like.
Also, as a final point, even if you believe that Denard was deployed in a way that would maximize the total offense, wouldn't you concede that by mid-season, this deployment led to him getting so beaten up that his productivity - even in the RR offense - dropped off, significantly?
I am pretty certain brian did an entire write up about how this point:
"this deployment led to him getting so beaten up that his productivity"
was a random act and had nothing to do with "the RR offense."
Basically a drop back passer gets hurt just as much as a running QB so the whole point about trying to blame RR for his own offense's downfall is bullshit. It is just random. Denard getting hurt didn't help, but it also didn't help that we never saw a full RR playbook. Last year was Denards first as a starting QB in the RR offense. the playbook had all of maybe 20 plays open in a game and we were a top 10 offense. Had we waited around to see an actual second year QB maybe we would be talking about Oregonian levels of awesome, but that is all past us now. in short, no we will never agree on this because you haven't been reading this blog long enough to know what is a fact and what is a meme made up by the MSM about RR because they are butt hurt that he didn't shake their dick when they met eachother that one time in Freemont, MD.
EDIT: 11,000 points? Ehh, maybe you have been reading long enough and just forgot about that post...
As a point of clarification, I was not blaiming "RR's offense" for Denard getting hurt. Simply that every time you run, you are going to get hit (unless you go out of bounds), and that every hit is a chance for an injury, so running Denard so frequently had to, by its nature, increase ithe chances of injury. Also, one thing that Brian's post did not take into account - and I think that this was a flaw in his reasoning - was that not every injury is the sort that sidelines you. So yes, perhaps running QBs don't get sidelines any more than their pocket counterparts, but running QBs take a heavier beating. So, even when Denard was playing, how much of this was playing through bruised quad muscles (the most common area hit on a RB), sore shoulders affecting his throwing, tweaked ankles or painful knees. This was really my point - that in last year's offense - putting aside the fact that Denard came out of 6 (or 7?) games because of injury - even when he was in, he took a beating which, over the course of the season, had to affect him. Brian's post didn't take this into account.
As to the playbook - I actually agree on this point. I think that had RR stayed, we would have seen some more plays, because Denard would be capable of doing more. But, (1) I don't know if the difference would have been drastic, since RR's WVU playbook was really not as diverse as many expect - he was damn effective, but he didn't really run many more plays. And (2) my comparison was not to what would have been 2011, it was to 2010, and my point was that, as compared to 2010, we would not take a step back on offense against the better teams. The fact that we might have been more diverse on 2011 doesn't really address that point.
I was going to make a snarky comment about your comment that I haven't been reading this blog for very long, but I see your edit, so no snark.
"and that every hit is a chance for an injury, so running Denard so frequently had to, by its nature, increase ithe chances of injury."
I guess I just don't buy that. Then why aren't RBs hurt every other game?
I am saying our offense will take a significant step back this coming season compared to the 2010 season. If I am wrong then I am a fucking moron who sucks at life and is stupid and is a butt and I like to kiss my own butt.
I think that they do get hurt more often than QBs. Just look at Michigan over the past few years: Minor, Brown, McGuffie, Toussaint, even Hart's senior year. Hell, include Denard in that list, as he was banged up often this past season. I have never done a sampling of this, but if anyone out there has any evidence to support or disprove this assumption, I would be interested to know.
Also, there are different types of backs. Guys like Chris Perry, Hopkins, Brandon Jacobs - the "big backs" are built to take a beating. Denard is pushing 190, and is pretty light and lean when compared to some of the larger objects hurtling themselves at him. So, while some backs can take a beating, I am not sure that Denard is built for that.
Finally, RBs don't have to throw the ball. So, things like sore shoulders do not impact them. For a QB, a sore shoulder can destroy their passing game.
I don't really understand this argument that is circulating the Michigan fan-base. RR was a tremendous coach offensively and we put up insane numbers (yardage-wise) last year, but it's not like Borges and Hoke don't know how to run an offense. SDSU threw for nearly 4000 yards last year, had a 1500 yard rusher, two receivers over 1000 yards, averaged 35 points a game (19th nationally) and put up 35 against a great TCU defense.
We're going to put up solid numbers next year, offensively and defensively, and that is why we will win at least 8 games next year.
"SDSU threw for nearly 4000 yards last year,"
Ask yourself if that is putting Denard in a position to succeed. Denard is not going to throw for 4,000 yards.
Our offense will take a siginificant step back next year. If you don't at least admit that then you have the maize and blue-iest of maize and blue goggles on. Which is fine. I don't want to step on anybody's vag this morning.
I think you're just being a bit pessimistic. Denard may not throw for 4000 yards, but with all the returning starters it really shouldn't be surprising if they manage to average solid numbers once again. Add that to improved field position due to (hopefully) competent defense and special teams, and Michigan's offense could yield better efficiency than last year, thus not being "a significant step backward."
We were a top 5-10 offense most of last year. I don't equate that to "average solid numbers once again." I think around a 40s-ish nationally ranked offense is "solid" and also a siginificant step backward.
Wouldn't a top 5-10 offense put up more than 14 points against OSU or MSU (Gator)? I know that OSU has a great defense, but if we were truly top, how come we couldn't score after our first two drives? We were a top 5 offense against the crappy teams but a below-average offense against good defenses. I can't explain why the dichotemy was so great, but it was.
If we take a step back in offensive production against the crappy teams - which I agree with you that we will - I am ok with that. We shouldn't need 40ish points to beat teams like Indiana, Illinois and Purdue.
But, if that step back comes with a step forward against the Iowas and MSUs of the conference - teams that we need to beat in order to win our division - I am ok with that.
Honest answer? We had a first year QB last year. Defenses figured out and keyed on our 10-20 plays we ran all year. Look at the tape, we had no more than 10-20 plays on offense last year.
So shouldn't that mean that a maturing Denard and a playbook that doesn't require Denard to be about 98% of our offense will result in enough improvement to offset some of the change in scheme? We might get some actual production from our running backs, which would be nice to see.
Frankly, nobody really has a clue as to what will happen. Will better use of the RBs lead to more space for Denard? Will Denard's decision-making speed up due to experience? Will we waste Denard's gifts on a bad fit with the new offense? Who knows? Let's just wait and see, because at the end of the day our speculation here has zero impact on the reality on the field. Let's just enjoy being Michigan fans and see what things look like in the Spring.
You've been tripping over your own vag for a couple months now.
That's super. Ripping me with the joke I just made.
Did you forget about "I know you are, but what am I?" That one works well too when you can;t think of anything funny or, you know, actually on topic to comment.
You are fucking hilarious though, in a sad and very fragile sort of way.
Meh. Rubber, glue, and all that jazz.
Just curious, if our ceiling is 8 wins, who are the 4 teams that are not even toss-ups in your opinion?
Have you always been this depressing, or is this the result of witnessing the last three painful seasons?
Dudeness was a freshman in 2008, so 3-9 put him in a foxhole with Rich Rod rather than disillusioned him from a "doomed experiment" or whatever the anti-RR characterization was. He felt cheated by RR's firing because he wanted a senior year of maximum Rich Rod output and he doesn't get it. His angar was compounded by the hiring of what he and other perceive to be the Omega Notriguez hire in Bradleth Wayne Excelsior Hoke. Now he traverses the deserts of the internet laying waste to Hokeamania and all its denizens
I guess I just don't see it. Iowa loses so much talent (Stanzi, DJK, Sash, Ballard, Klug, Clayborn, and their RB whos name I cannot think of at the moment) and MSU loses key centerpieces of their team (about half of their offfensive line, basically their linebacking core, a top receiver in Dell, and Rucker at CB) that I cannot attribute a certain loss to either of those teams with all that we have coming back. As for ND, I think this will be a tough game for us to win because they really came together at the end of the year, but I don't think they are more talented than us and we do have the intangibles on our side (our first home night game). Nebraska and OSU I agree with, though I am not willing to say they are lock losses, only most likely.
I say we get one more win just out of sheer tremendousness. I can see us winning against Illinois or ND. Depending on how much the defense comes along, I don't count out Iowa or MSU. Ferentz is an idiot and MSU is a rivalry game, anything can happen. Plus it's like triple revenge, so there's that. I couldn't find the video of the guy's predictions for last year.
Nebraska's the only true threat to stopping Michigan from being in the B1G title game.
WM - W
ND - L
EM - W
SDSU - W
MINN - W
NU - W
MSU - W
PUR - W
IOWA - W
UI - W
UN - L
OSU - L
Deinhart dies of gonorrhea and burns in hell
plus with DBs hand selected coach my expectations are even higher. and Coach Hoke, agrees ... Big "12" championship or bust. Go blue
We can't lose that game again!
...that come before a staff has held a single practice.
And before a new defensive system has been installed.
And before an offensive system has even been revealed.
I think it goes a little more something like this.
Western Mich W
Eastern Mich W
at NU W
at Mich State W (My hate for MSU will not allow me to call this one a tossup)
at Iowa W/L (Toss Up)
at Illinois W
Ohio State L
9-3 or 10-2 and a Capital One bowl appearance (with a win) to hopefully set the stage for a big 10 championship in 2012!
...coming off a 7-5 season and losing only Mouton, Schilling, Dorrestein, and a few unremarkable backup types. If I had to guess the % chance that UM wins each one:
Western Mich 95%
Eastern Mich 99%
at NU 65%
at Mich State 50%
at Iowa 60%
at Illinois 60%
Ohio State 35%
That works out to 7.99 expected wins or 8-4. Dienhart seems to be assuming that the defense will suck because "it always does", and the offense will suck because RR is gone.
If we go 6-6 I will be heading out on sabbatical that is for sure...
Western Mich W
ND Toss up
Eastern Mich W
at NU W
at Mich State Toss up
at Iowa L
at Illinois W
Ohio State L
I see 7-3 with two toss up games. Now knowing college football we will probably drop a pressumed win and gain a surprise win along the way. I'm thinking an 8-4 finish with an average bowl game.
To go with my prediction I expect at least 8-4. Anything less would be a dissapointment.
I wonder what any of these "predictions" can really be based on other than last year (a different system with a different coach) and the fact that we're running a different offense... I'll hold off paying any attention to these until at least after the spring game.
Maybe I'm being too optimistic but when you look at how were switching to a better defensive scheme for the Big 10, our defensive players are older and the majority have significant playing experience, Mattison and position coaches should be more competent at teaching our players and making them understand, along with the fact we get Woolfolk back plus a wildcard in Marrell Evans, I don't think it's too much to think our defense can be ranked between 60-70 in total defense, which would be around 375 yeards a game, a significant improvement. Our offense will drop off some next season but it can probably still be around 20-25 in total offense. So say 23rd in total offense along with 65th in total defense leads to more than 6 wins, i'd say 8-4, with the other 2 wins coming against illinois and iowa with the msu game being a tossup. but like I said, maybe im being too optimistic
!0 wins are a must for this team, based only on returning players. This is a year for great expectations and they will be reached which is nice for Coach Hoke and staff and future recruiting. Jump on the wagon look at the graduation rate of two deeps and the schedule rotation.
Yeah, I guess I agree that > 0 wins are necessary, but I think the spanish punctuation is unnecessary, amigo.
We're changing the current team culture in some ways and also reworking the schemes on both sides of the ball. He may be right. He may not. Looking for them to pass the casual fan eye test. More organized with better tackling on defense. Sounder special teams. Better 4-quarter production, efficiency, and valuing of the ball against teams we need to beat on offense.
Try this: Holding the team to specific win expectation this season and reacting based on that expectation, is a fool's trap. The expectation is to win the league like Hoke says. I'd say we should all be disappointed if we don't. Michigan has won it 42 times. If we don't, it will come down to whether the overall performance leaves the fans with a reasonable expectation we'll win it soon and often.
If it doesn't look reasonable and were still getting beat to a pulp by our rivals, the season is a failure. Win total itself isn't the best measuring stick this season. IMO
Is based on, let's see...no information on new players' potential, no spring game, no observation of team under the new coach...
Doesn't seem like it's worth much at this point, does it?
Oooh! Oooh! I want to join in on the pointless speculation!
WMU-- Surprise! When the band "takes the field", they literally do. They keep it close for the first quarter, but WMU proves too much for the MMB to handle, losing 59-10. The fan base goes batshit and immediately calls for Prof. Boerma to resign.
ND--Michigan's first night game proves to be the longest in school history by spanning 10 OTs with Michigan winning 107-106 on a missed 2pt conversion by ND at 2:30 AM. The students are then asked to "politely" wake up the alumni before they leave.
EMU--The EMU football team gets lost on the way to the Big House, causing a forfeit.
SDSU--Defensive slugfest. Michigan wins 3-2.
Minnesota--I can't even really joke about this one. Michigan in a lolandslide.
NW--Dan Persa goes Denard on UofMs defense, but Denard goes Denard 2.0 on NW. NW scores 14 quick points in the first quarter but becomes mind-blowingly ineffective afterwards. M wins 31-14.
MSU--With the Spartans rolling in winless, they look to this game to get back on track. The NCAA passes a rule a day before the game allowing negative points for "poor class and sportsmanship." M 49, MSU -27
Purdue--Hoke releases a statement "We're going to beat the *expletive* out of (Danny) Hope's mustache. At the end of the game during the handsake, Hoke whips out an electric razor and goes to work. Oh, the game? M wins by 20 something.
Iowa--Iowa forfeits. They can't field a team because their entire team is recovering from their "workouts" in the Ann Arbor hospital, where they claim to receive the "best care they have ever received"
Illinois--Michigan gets to the 1-yard line on every drive and fails to punch it in every single time. Illinois wins, 29-0.
Nebraska--Nebraska forfeits. They got lost in a corn field.
OSU--The game gets cancelled due to weather. Instead, Hoke challenges Tressel to a winner-takes-all game of rock paper scissors. M wins, Paper-Rock.
I think we go 8-4. ND, MSU, OSU, and Nebraska will be tough. I don't know how much Iowa loses but that could be difficult too. NW and Ill should be wins, but those aren't "for sure" wins.
I sure hope we don't go .500. I am sick of flipping coins to predict a win or loss. 8-4 is what I expect and will not be suprised if we win 7 or 9.
is this guy? Does he not know that we have 19 returning starters and we just hired Greg Mattision. If we go 6-6 i would be mad to say the least. I expect at least 8-4 with the bowl game. I want us to win all the games.GO BLUE!!!
I predict Deinhart will disappear in a freak yachting accident. 8-4 or 9-3 with a bowl win. Go Blue!
I am gonna stick with the 13-0 crowd. Keep a smile on my face between now and then.
only it'll be 14-0. BigTen championship game!
come on people...the schedule starts with 5 straight home games and finishes with Nebraska and OSU at home... we couldn't ask for better short of DB taking us to the MAC ... POY - record setting QB returns (with a 5 asterisk QB in the wings if he goes down)... Woolfolk... Martin... Lewan... Omameh...Molk...Stonum...Demens is showing signs...we have got the pieces for a great team - Avery fricking won the Illinois game with that 3rd down tackle (that he missed the previous week against PSU)...point being...we are improving by leaps and bounds. Roh is not a LB anymore... back to the line where we saw so much promise his first year...RVB is a SR... Hoke-ahey Van Bergen Hoke-ahey. Just hold back the transfer mojo and injury BS and Hoke has no excuses. This staff knows what they are doing. They aren't talking 7-5. Let's go Blue people.
It's frustrating to hear less than 8-4. Disappointing not to get 9-3. The team can do even better. We are not going to be bad at football next year...IMO. And...I'm sorry but ND sucks...I respect them but how can people call that a loss. ND finds ways to lose more often than not. Let's not let the debacle that was ntMSU put a palor on what looks like the best team we have had since the horror. No one is going to be in tears come banquet time this year. This team is still rising.
Western Mich W
Eastern Mich W
at NU W
at Mich State L
at Iowa L
at Illinois L
Ohio State L
I don't see this happening. I mean 4 games immediately strike out at me. Notre Dame, MSU, Iowa, and Illinois are not all going to be losses. If we lose all 4 of those games I will be flat out amazed. I understand the concept that simply bringing back starters and a better defensive coach won't necessarily mean success, but MSU, Iowa, and Illinois will regress in my opinion. They are all losing some big starters that have had a big influence on their team's success. Now, Notre Dame is going to be a beast in the near future, but I don't think they're going to be quite there yet, especially at the very beginning of next season. Plus, I hope we are not all forgetting that Notre Dame is a home, night game. The team and stadium is surely going to be pumped up. This will undoubtedely give us an advantage. I mean, I don't see us winning all 4 of these games by any means, but I think it's a little unrealistic to have us winning 0
That prediction is nothing more than a FAILURE!!!! You want a real prediction for next season 14-0!!!! We'll be the first to win the Big Ten championship, and bring home a NC!!!!