How does Lewan coming back change your expectations for next year?
January 9th, 2013 at 9:45 PM ^
btw,Green isnt visiting Auburn again at all. siap
January 9th, 2013 at 11:24 PM ^
January 9th, 2013 at 9:47 PM ^
Well, one thing is now certain: we know who one of the captains will be.
January 9th, 2013 at 9:48 PM ^
January 9th, 2013 at 9:49 PM ^
Directly affects it, honestly. Our defense looks to be just fine, and might improve next year, but our offense is a question mark with the passing and run game incosistancies from 2012, and losing Denards rushing yards. Taylor should be an anchor next year for the offense and provide major stability for young Kalis who'll probably line up next to him. Devin should have the safest pocket in the B1G next year, and our running backs i'm sure are pretty happy to hear he's coming back too.
January 9th, 2013 at 9:52 PM ^
11-1. We start out with a W, somehow lose to ND because of our young defense and RB (assuming Green here), then run the table with an exciting Gameday presentation WIN over Ohio.
EDIT: Wait, the ND game is UTL.... hmmm. @PSU or @Iowa?
January 10th, 2013 at 10:11 AM ^
Young defense? We return all but Floyd, Demens, Campbell, Roh, and Kovacs. There's massive depth now too.
January 9th, 2013 at 9:55 PM ^
January 10th, 2013 at 9:44 AM ^
There's no doubt in my mind that 2013's interior line will be better than 2012's.
January 9th, 2013 at 9:55 PM ^
I feel much better now knowing that Gardner's blindside is safe.
January 9th, 2013 at 9:58 PM ^
What I think will really make or break the offensive line now is how much of a road grader Kyle Kalis/Chris Bryant/Braden/Magnuson can be in their first year of play. You can't say anything but good things about our previous linemen as people -- solid citizens, worked hard and gave everything they got. However, if we can conjure up two interior lineman that have a meaner streak geared towards a power running game, MIchigan can really have something going. I really believe it can be the difference between 8-5 and 11-2. That's how subpar the line looked to me at least in terms of power run blocking. If the cards line up right, I really think next year can be special.
January 9th, 2013 at 10:03 PM ^
Huge change! My expectation for next year was hoping to win at least our half of the Big Ten next year with an expectation we should win at least our half in 2014. Taylor Lewan (and the awesome leadership he demonstrates) bumps me to thinking we are likley to win at least our half of the Big Ten.
I see the biggest risks to next year as O-line, big step up for Devin Gardner, need healthy Blake Countess and need Jarrod Wilson or Marvin Robinson to be solid at safety. If those four happen we could be excellent in 2013 instead of just pretty good.
Lewan returning dramatically raises both the floor on possible O-line performance and raises the possibility the O-line could be pretty darn good next year from zero to 50-50 or so. Still risk with 3 new O-line starters, but it looks a whole lot better.
January 9th, 2013 at 10:03 PM ^
Doesn't change my expectations at all, I had 12-0 from day one. Now we shall win the twelve games by a slightly higher margin.
January 9th, 2013 at 10:08 PM ^
January 9th, 2013 at 10:08 PM ^
11-1 instead of 9-3. With the right bounces we could run the table. Kalis is young but will be a monster. Kalis + Lewan = Monster Mash
January 10th, 2013 at 9:06 AM ^
January 10th, 2013 at 9:31 AM ^
Their, I said it.
"We" should be excited every year.
January 10th, 2013 at 9:58 AM ^
January 10th, 2013 at 11:19 AM ^
Please name a team on our schedule that we can't beat? Going 12-0 with our schedule is definitely realistic.
January 10th, 2013 at 11:24 AM ^
We can beat every team on our schedule. We also could lose 5 games. Going 12-0 is almost never "realistic."
January 9th, 2013 at 10:08 PM ^
Taylor Lewan
A BIG BLUE WORLD salute. Thanks to you we're smelling the roses.
January 9th, 2013 at 10:09 PM ^
It definitly improves depth on the offensive line. The defense should be solid next season. With all the recruits and the returning players im actually very optimistic for next season. We return everything on special teams plus Gardner returns. Honestly our only issues next season are secondary, running backs, and offensive line
January 9th, 2013 at 10:10 PM ^
11-2 after beating OHIO twice!!!!
GO BLUE!!
January 9th, 2013 at 10:12 PM ^
This makes me feel a lot better about our QB depth. Devin's jersey will stay a whole lot cleaner now.
January 9th, 2013 at 10:13 PM ^
i don't see us winning more than 9.. unless we have big time playmakers show up on offense.. We can't pass it to gallon every play, and our offense is generally way too predictable..
Our D, will prob not be able to stop NW again.. We will lose to OSU, and could lose the ND, or a few other games.. ND returns most of their line.. Gardner should be in trouble most of that game.. specially if we have no running game
January 9th, 2013 at 10:22 PM ^
January 9th, 2013 at 11:48 PM ^
January 10th, 2013 at 9:40 AM ^
January 9th, 2013 at 10:15 PM ^
January 9th, 2013 at 10:17 PM ^
January 9th, 2013 at 10:24 PM ^
12-0, are you insane? 9-3 is realistc.
12-0 exists in some sort of fantastical land devoid of realism, or something.
Here is realistic:
On offense, we have a quarterback, two offensive linemen, one 5'6'' wideout, and an up and coming tight end. We have a bunch of really young guys trying to fill in on the interior of our O-Line with not really much knowledge of whether they will be better or worse than the fairly maligned guys who just left. Our wide receivers outside of Jeremy Gallon are complete unknowns. The running backs that we have are not very good, so much so, that we are praying to be rescued by a guy who hasn't even committed yet, let alone stepped on campus.
Our offense is a few good pieces and a whole lotta these: ?
All of this is of course assuming no one of significance gets injured, and we all know how that worked out this past season.
I could go on about the defense, but the point is, 12-0 teams generally don't have this many question marks coming into the season. I know the Big Ten isn't very good, but it's not like we've been shredding through it the past few years.
January 9th, 2013 at 10:49 PM ^
"12-0 teams generally don't have this many question marks coming into the season."
I can name two this past season: ND and OSU. 9-3 would be pretty disappointing given the schedule.
January 9th, 2013 at 11:03 PM ^
Notre Dame had the perfect storm of other teams collapsing and/or completely falling apart at the right time, lack of injuries, and calls, OH GOD, the calls.
That type of season is not replicable.
January 9th, 2013 at 11:31 PM ^
January 9th, 2013 at 11:43 PM ^
The 11-2 team overperformed and this year's team underperformed. I think 9-3 is a pretty good baseline.
People are already marking MSU in EL as a guaranteed W, which is completely and totally ridiculous, even if they have lost a lot of talent.
Nebraska, Ohio State, and Notre Dame can all state that they are better than we are, and it would be hard to argue against them.
Penn State has a good team, and would have been a tough game this year. I don't know what their team will look like next year, but we're going to have to go to Happy Valley which is a tough place to play.
All I'm saying is, if you're going down Michigan schedule and marking all of these games as easy Ws, you're not being very reasonable.
We have 5 very losable games on our schedule.
January 10th, 2013 at 1:45 AM ^
A couple breaks here and there and 12-0 is something not too far fetched. I believe the incoming starters at offensive line are going to have their growing pains but I believe the talent they possess is vast. I see a RB emerging early and giving us a huge boost in that area.
I also believe our receivers are much better then people are thinking they will be. People keep talking about gallon being our only threat. We have a freshman all American tight end coming back with a year experience. we have several young wide outs that are tall, fast, and physical. We have a quarterback that with an off season of work should be much more accurate next season.
Our defense has linebackers for days. Our defensive line will be young with exception of qwash who is a straight beast . We have depth and skill in the secondary. We have a kicker and a punter. We are Michigan fergodsakes!!!
We have a really great chance at bcs success again this coming year.
January 10th, 2013 at 11:46 AM ^
NW will be a tough game next year as well, and it's not like they were an easy out this year.
That said, IF the O-line can get their act together, I think double-digit regular season wins is very attainable. Gallon, Funchess, and Dileo are reliable targets, and I expect some of our sophomores to step-up.
Hayes and Rawls will probably take big steps forward (they need to) and Darboh and Chesson will be better. If we get good blocking and decent RB play, and a sophomore WR steps up, the sky is the limit.
That's a lot of "IFs". 9-3 or 10-2 seem most likely; 11-1 possible; 12-0 and 8-4 seem like outliers to me.
January 9th, 2013 at 10:49 PM ^
The conference sucks. Maybe it won't suck as bad next year, but anything can happen.
January 9th, 2013 at 10:53 PM ^
I could go on about the defense, but the point is, 12-0 teams generally don't have this many question marks coming into the season.Actually, they often do. ND had a new QB this season. Ohio had a new coach and rebuilding defense and was coming off a 6-7 season. Our 1997 team had four new starters on the OL. Pretty much every team in the country has question marks. National championship teams happen to have guys who step up at the right time.
January 9th, 2013 at 11:18 PM ^
OK, but the key words are "generally" and "this."
Also, there is a huge difference between 4 new O-Line starters, and 3 new O-Line starters, an entire receiving corps minus a 5'6'' guy, the entire running back corps, nearly the entire secondary, and half the D-Line.
My main point though is that it is insane to expect 12-0. This year's Alabama team did not go 12-0. Last year's Bama team did not go 12-0. The 2009 Florida squad, which if I recall correctly some group attempted to track the best football teams of the past 20 years and rated them number 1 overall, did not go 12-0.
Expecting 12-0 is generally dumb. Hoping for 12-0 is fine, but everyone does that every single season, so it's kind of moot.
January 9th, 2013 at 11:19 PM ^
January 9th, 2013 at 11:26 PM ^
I love the mighty mite, but if you think Jeremy Gallon is 5'8'', I've got a bridge to sell you.
January 10th, 2013 at 12:38 AM ^
January 10th, 2013 at 12:58 AM ^
That doesn't change the fact that he's still not ideal for this offense, as talented as he may be.
Jumping is one thing, but using your body to shield the defender from the ball on slants and out routes is something a 5'8'' player just can't do as effectively as a bigger receiver. Smaller body, shorter arms, smaller target.
Even if he can out jump people, a 5'8'' guy basically has to out jump a 6'2'' guy by 8 or 9 inches just to break even with height and arm length taken into account.
January 10th, 2013 at 8:59 AM ^
January 10th, 2013 at 9:33 AM ^
Jeremy Gallon had 829 yards receiving last year. Your "we only have a 5-8 receiver so we're going to be terrible" argument would be more valid if said receiver hadn't already proved he can be a productive college football player. We're going to have Gallon starting on one side and probably the winner of Chesson/Darboh on the other side. Add in Dileo in the slot and a potential breakout year from Funchess and we have a potentially very productive passing attack.
I actually agree with you about the seeming overly optimistic statements many here are making (winning 10 games is really, really hard even when we were uber talented 8-4 or 9-3 is still more likely), but you're undercutting your argument by dismissing Jeremy Gallon as merely a "5-8 receiver"
January 10th, 2013 at 11:15 AM ^
I'm not saying that we're going to be terrible. I just stated that our wide receiving is corps has two knowns (Gallon and Dileo), and a bunch of unknowns. Both of our knowns are undersized, and Gallon is not playing his ideal position. So based on that, it's probably not safe to assume that it will be a group capable of playing 12-0 football.
Is there anything wrong with that?
Gallon is good, but there's no denying that he's not in an ideal spot.
Let me put it to you this way, seeing as there is so much confusion with regard to this matter.....
There is a concept that's been around forever, but I think Bill Simmons coined a phrase for it.
The "Table Test."
In other words, what do you bring to the table (good attributes), and what do you take off the table (bad attributes)?
A perfect example of this for football would be Adrian Peterson in 2008. He ran for 1700 yards and 10 TDs, but he fumbled a ridiculous 9 times. So while you acknowledge the good (1700 yards, 10 TDs), you can't ignore the bad (9 fumbles).
I'm not denying that Gallon brings a lot to the table, but a lot of you are simply glossing over the things that Gallon takes off the table, and not only that, but you're basically admonishing me for even bringing those things up.
I'm not being debbie downer. I'm being, "Hey, we're probably not going to go 12-0" guy.
January 9th, 2013 at 11:55 PM ^
January 10th, 2013 at 12:37 AM ^
My point was that the receivers that are known quantities (Gallon and Dileo) are extremely undersized, and the rest are question marks.
If we are going to be a pro-style passing offense, having tiny receivers isn't ideal, and the receivers we have that fit the mold, are complete unknowns. That's not to say that they can't be good, but probably not 12-0 good.
January 10th, 2013 at 6:46 AM ^