Michigan Football #24 in Some Guy's Poll
Found the link below on Dr. Saturday's post yesterday and didn't see it posted anywhere on here. Apparently, Jon Wilner of the San Jose Mercury News has Michigan #24 in his early 2010 pre-season poll. Although it doesn't count for much (nothing, actually), it is nice to see Michigan in some sort of poll.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2010/01/08/college-football-…
That's even better than the AP!
No, actually it isn't. The AP is comprised of sports writers who actually know what they're talking about. This is just some guy. Study up before you post next time.
I won't vote you down because I'm nice.
Play by play of PaperAirplane's reaction to this...
Resized: 
From the article:
"Three RichRod recruiting classes, a veteran defense and quarterback Tate Forcier make the Wolverines my sleeper team for ’10. (And if they flop, forget what you just read.)"
Does this article still have any credibility?
That said, Michigan should be #1. :)
March 10th, 2010 at 10:17 AM ^
I understand what you're saying, and I personally wouldn't refer to our defense as "veteran", but consider this: Here is a list of players on the defense this year who started at least a game last season...
JT Floyd, Troy Woolfolk, Jordan Kovacks, Mike Williams, Obi Ezeh, Jonas Mouton, Kevin Leach, Craig Roh, Mike Martin, Ryan VB, and JB Fitzgerald.
Say what you want about those guys, but that's 11 returning defensive players with starting experience.
March 10th, 2010 at 10:26 AM ^
This is an example of where the returning starters statistic can be so meaningless. You could say that Michigan's D has 8 returning starters (all positions except Graham, Warren, and Brown) and be sort of correct. But as any fan of the program (and MGoBlog readers) knows, this is not a veteran D by almost any other definition. I bet this isn't the last place you'll read about Michigan's "veteran D" between now and next August.
March 10th, 2010 at 11:06 AM ^
It's a veteran D insofar as they'll have had the same defensive coordinator for two years in a row.
March 10th, 2010 at 11:12 AM ^
If anything, this defense could have a nicely balanced batch of starters, when considering youth and experience:
3 seniors (Ezeh, Mouton, Woolfolk)
3 juniors (Martin, RVB, Williams)
4 sophomores (Jones / Hawthorne, Campbell, Roh, Emilien)
1 freshman (Turner)
"Three RichRod recruiting classes, a veteran defense and quarterback Tate Forcier make the Wolverines my sleeper team for ’10. (And if they flop, forget what you just read.)"
I'd bet that Michigan would be near the top of the league (Big Ten).
March 10th, 2010 at 12:52 PM ^
is a conference dude.
March 10th, 2010 at 10:01 AM ^
Bah-hahaha! This guy isn't going to make my top 25 sports newsguys. I think I would of went with 'an improved defense', but that's just me. I think the 2011 squad will have the 'veteran defense'. I do think we are top 25 material though, Tate will improve, the offense is 'veteran'; hopefully the "D" will come through with enough stops.
March 10th, 2010 at 10:12 AM ^
So what does he know? That's a real veteran defensive backfield we'll be sending out there. Emelian, Dorsey, Turner, Christian...ain't it great to have fifth year seniors??
#1 in our hearts.
March 10th, 2010 at 10:01 AM ^
If you threw a bunch of guys with downs syndrome out there and let them play a bunch of games, they would technically be a "veteran" defense also. I'll believe it when I see it with the D; they've ripped my heart out and pushed my blood pressure through the roof too many times the past couple years.
March 10th, 2010 at 10:04 AM ^
This might be the most dick thing I've ever read on this board.
I'm not going to say anything else because I'll get negged into oblivion but let's just say that it's censor worthy.
March 10th, 2010 at 11:36 AM ^
I don't think you'd get negged because I'm quite sure that anybody that read that comment is thinking the same thing you want to say.
March 10th, 2010 at 10:05 AM ^
You are no Seth McFarlane
March 10th, 2010 at 10:21 AM ^
Kinder words have never been spoken.
March 10th, 2010 at 10:15 AM ^
I guess this is as good a time as any to point out that the '08 Lions would have had the same record if no one on their team had arms or legs.
March 10th, 2010 at 11:54 AM ^
you are a man that chooses his words very carefully.......
March 10th, 2010 at 10:03 AM ^
Returning 6 starters and having three or four other positions filled with highly recruited new starters (Turner at CB, Campbell at DT, Dorsey/Christian at CB, possibly Robinson at Spinner or BS), I can see the optimism when you look at the roster on paper.
However, as we all know too well, in reality this defensive backfield is going to be a puzzle that may take much longer than August to piece together. And "returning starter" Ezeh may not be the starter in '10.
So, the "veteran defense" is actually 5 returners (with one position switch in VanBergen and Woolfolk with an unknown position at this time).
I hope what this guy sees on paper turns out to be correct
March 10th, 2010 at 10:06 AM ^
We lost BG and SB who were starters from the defense.
We all know that that doesn't mean anything but from an outsiders perspective it does look like we'll have a "veteran" defense.
March 10th, 2010 at 10:08 AM ^
It means nothing that we lost Graham? He was kinda good...
March 10th, 2010 at 10:17 AM ^
A defense is only as good as your worst player. Losing your best player isn't a huge loss if you can make a huge upgrade on your bottom most players.
Defensive lapses are much more important because a lapse on offense generally doesn't cost you too much at most a turn-over. A lapse in defense is generally a TD.
March 10th, 2010 at 10:20 AM ^
Would your response of "That's ONE player" change if I reminded you that you forgot about D. Warren?
March 10th, 2010 at 10:21 AM ^
And I knew I was forgetting someone.
Even then from an OUTSIDERS perspective we lost 3 guys on Defense. That's it we are returning 8. Returning 8 starters=veteran defense to an idiot out in California.
March 10th, 2010 at 10:33 AM ^
Is there some way we could work this guy's preseason poll into the BCS formula? I think you could make an argument that it's got as much merit as some of the other components.
March 10th, 2010 at 11:13 AM ^
It would be far better for their mental approach for them to go into the UConn and ND games ranked lower than the Irish and the Huskies. They need to have a Cape Buffalo-sized chip on their shoulders all year. The last thing this team needs is for people to start assuming that they're going to be somebody before they've actually won a bunch of games, esp. on the road. Until that happens, ranking them within a country mile of the top 25 is stupid.
March 10th, 2010 at 11:41 AM ^
when we were a perennial top 10 team. Hopefully once again, soon!
It will happen sooner than you think.
March 10th, 2010 at 11:47 AM ^
Though I love that this guy thought of us, he mentions Monte Kiffens defensive schemes being the key to Tennessee's season. I guess not everyone heard that Lane and Monty split to USC.
March 10th, 2010 at 12:01 PM ^
I like UM being ranked by someone, but the rankings at the end of the year are what will really count. Michigan will definitely be a top 25 team again. I'm guessing they end this season between 11-15 after winning a bowl.
But I am always optimistic.
I think that michigan will be a top 20 for sure and they will be able to keep that throughout the whole year.
March 10th, 2010 at 11:29 PM ^
Michigan is number one in my perseason poll.