Rittenberg's Post-Spring Big Ten Rankings
U of M checks in at #9 behind Wisconsin.
9. Michigan -- I'm tempted to move up the Wolverines after what appeared to be a solid spring, but until the games begin there are simply too many question marks. Can quarterback Tate Forcier maintain the composure he showed this spring in a game situation? How much has the offensive line improved? Will the defense settle in immediately with Greg Robinson's vision? The potential is certainly there to climb up the rankings, but there needs to be more evidence.
Apparently there aren't question marks at #1 Ohio State, Several Big Ten squads lose sizable senior classes, but no one in the league reloads like the Buckeyes.
I'm obviously biased, but I think that Penn State and maybe even Iowa will finish ahead of Ohio State this year. It's easy to say that Ohio State will just reload, but what positions will really be better? Quarterback, obviously, and probably the offensive and defensive lines, but running backs? I don't think either Saine or Herron can be as good as Beanie was. Linebackers? Not after losing Laurinaitis and Freeman. The secondary? Chekwa might be the best player, and he looked bad in the spring game. The wide receivers are also unproven, although it's a pretty talented group.
I just don't see this team winning a conference title. Maybe, since I think the Big Ten has another down year ahead of it, but even if it comes down to one game vs. Penn State, that game will likely be in State College on a Saturday night. Not the easiest place to win
Iowa was basically a one-man team offensively in 2008, and that one man (Greene) is gone. I highly doubt they'll contend for the conference title.
Iowa had a great defense last season and returns 8 of their starters on that side of the ball. It was one of the best in the Big Ten. Their offense returns 6 starters, including 2 very good offensive lineman and its quarterback. Iowa also finished #20 in both polls last season.
While both sides of the ball lose their best players (Greene and Mitch King), Iowa will absolutely contend for the conference crown this season, and it should surprise nobody if they end up winning the conference.
The only thing that might hold Iowa back is their schedule as they have to play at Penn State, Wisconsin, and Ohio State. They'll probably lose at least 2 of those games, which might be too much for the conference championship
They spelled his first name wrong!
Can I get a link to this?
Anyway, I'm confident UM will not finish the year as the #9 team in the B10. About OSU, I don't think they win it this year. They'll be solid but I think they drop a bit this year with losing so many players. The team I think could win it is Illinois. Their offense will be sick this year with a lot of talent and depth. D is a big question mark but every team seems to have a big question mark this year.
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/bigten/0-3-414/Big-Ten-post-spring-power-ran…
by putting us at 9 rittenberg is basically saying we'll be just as bad as we were last year. that isnt going to happen
Out of curiousity does anyone know where Rittenberg picked us to finish last year?
keep us off the radar please. I'm loving the thought of a sneaky 9-3 this year.
I know he's just a beat writer for the Leader, and that his job is to keep storylines in motion and nothing more, but I think Rittenberg could squeeze just a bit more analysis into his writing, and skimp on a few of the more cliched turns of phrase.
People seem to forget that we likely have 4 QB candidates in Sheridan, Robinson, Furrha and Feagin, who are all better than the second best QB we saw in the spring game.
I'm not sure if Feagin plays QB still but I know I'd be more excited if he played opposite Tate in the spring game instead of the Coner.
Our QB problems pale in comparison to what they were last year.
Furrha, seriously? I mean, Jack Kennedy was out there and he couldn't pass Cone on the depth chart. Why think Furrha could?
Look, the problem with your argument is that we've seen Sheridan play. Only Robinson has the potential to rob him of playing time, and we don't know whether he will adjust any better than Feagin did (or didn't). Rittenberg's not picking us at ninth because Cone looked bad as backup QB. Rittenberg's picking us ninth because Sheridan looked bad as starting QB and there's little reason, at this point, to believe that Tate is any more able to be the savior than Threet was last year.
I'm not expecting a big 10 championship, but you can't honestly say 9th in the big 10 is not low.
Coner will not see the field in a competitive game. Sheridan has only gained experience, Kennedy looked smoother than Cone, Furrha was actually recruited by several D1 schools to play football and he us a spread QB.
You're right in that none have seen the field, but QB change is a normal thing for a program to endure, and the their is a lot more talent on the depth chart (come fall) than their was in fall '08.
Oh, I completely agree that ranking us #9 is asinine. I think we can get to 6-6, maybe 7-5.
Your post just made it sound like the reason Rittenberg was picking us to finish so poorly was that Cone looked bad in the spring game, and that if he had remembered about these other four quarterbacks he would have ranked us higher. My point was simply that, whether we like it or not, Sheridan will be the second QB unless/until Denard learns the system. And we've seen Sheridan play. Sheridan = death kitten. So I can't imagine that Rittenberg would raise us in his rankings were he to remember something that he likely never forgot in the first place - that Sheridan, not Cone, will be the second QB off the bench. That was the part that I was responding to (well, that and Furrha being ahead of Cone).
6-6 likely means 3-5 in the Big 10. Which would be somewhere around 8th or 9th.
3-5 probably wouldn't be as low as 9th. It'd probably be 6th, 7th or 8th.
The 8th place team last year was 3-5. The year before, the tenth place team was 3-5.
Actually, there was no 10th-place team in 2007. There was a four-way tie for seventh place. Situations like that are pretty much the only way a team one game below .500 will be placed that low. Generally, if a team is good enough to make a bowl, it will finish in the top seven or eight.
There was already a statement about not bringing up Furrha, but can we also try our best to not mention Jack Kennedy as any kind of safety net at quarterback? I want to believe that Michigan fans at least learned a little about overrating our QBs last season, but can anyone honestly say they had _heard_ of Kennedy before the spring game and his mild success against the no-name walk-on defense? And with all due respect to Furrha and the HS I attended and am student teaching at, Pioneer is not exactly a hotbed of D-1 talent. I went to those games, and at no time did I think twice about the quarterback play.
In my heart of hearts, I had hoped that the last season had taught us just a little about wild quarterback predictions, but I guess that's only for some of us.
Are we deeper at QB? Probably, since we have two QBs who seem fit for the system, and another who has even won a game in it, despite physical limitations and a penchant for "Hail Sheris". Hell, the Coner even had a Threet-4th-quarter-vs.-Wisky-esque run in the Spring game. But citing Furrha and Kennedy as viable D-1 options borders on reckless homerism. Let's try and keep things in perspective, because if either of these guys sees the field, ever, something very dire indeed has gone down.
If Kennedy or Furrha set foot on the field in any situation other than "Up by 30" or "Down by 30", we're in deepdeepdeepdeepdeepdeepdeep trouble.
If Furrha sets foot on the field and we are down by 30, I submit that we would still be in deepdeepdeepdeep trouble.
Tate is way ahead of Threet and Sheridan and the only evidence you needed to see came from the spring game. I'm not talking about him tearing up our weak defense either for those of you who want play devil's advocate.
Also, I don't believe Sheridan's or Threet's experience and knowledge of the playbook puts Tate at a disadvantage. How many times did we see Threet make the wrong choice on a zone run? Not to mention his lack of acceleration to make anything out of it anyways.
Let's not forget that Sheridan and Threet threw WR screens like their lives depended on it. I'm sure Tate can live up to those lofty expectations.
Eh, sorry chally I'm not really ranting at you. I realize we shouldn't expect Tate to come in as the next Tebow, but neither should we expect the complete opposite.
No worries, Mark. I have high hopes for Tate as well.
I'm just trying to cut Rittenberg a little slack here. I think his ranking is way low, but I suspect that the fans of every team on that list think the same.
The fact is, we entered last season with everyone on these boards predicting 8-4 or 9-3 seasons. SI or ESPN predicted a 5-7 year and we all scoffed. We were confident in the ability of a 4* QB that we had never seen play, our brilliant new DC, and of course Barwis.
After finishing worse than anyone could have imagined, we are now predicting 6-6 or 7-5 season, confident in the ability of a different 4* QB that we have only seen play once (in a non-contact scrimmage), our cross-your-fingers-and-hope-hope-hope retread DC, and of course Barwis.
In short, we have a lot of question marks, and after last year we simply don't have the clout to get sportswriters like Rittenberg to overlook those flaws and trust that Michigan will be Michigan again.
I see what you mean. Last year sure was a humbling experience!
UoM will have to earn back respect before being rated higher in meaningless preseason polls.
Please stop with the Feagin talk. He will never be a featured QB. I said the same thing about Grady at every turn and I was right. Feagin is probably a great kid, but he has no business being on this roster. He should not be mentioned during QB discussions in the future.
If I'm wrong and he does factor into the QB scenario in the future then we are fuct.
Feagin will never be a featured QB because he doesn't have the ability. Grady was never a featured back because he was a bonehead.
There are multiple reasons Grady was never a featured back. I'd put "bonehead" toward the bottom of that list.
Right. I just don't believe he foresaw Hart's emergence and Grady's injuries.
Don't get me wrong - I thought the poster above made a BS statement. But Hart's emergence has nothing to do with Grady's lack of success. Hart won the job before Grady ever stepped on the field. That's like saying Henne's presence prevented Mallett from being a star.
Ah you're right. I don't know why I thought him and Hart were the same year.
You're probably thinking of Max Martin. He was in the same freshman class as Hart, and showed a lot of potential. He probably would have never beaten out Hart, but could have been a very good #2 back if he hadn't gotten in trouble with the law and flunked out of school.
Yeah, you know, Grady figured Hart's freshman year before he showed up was just a fluke.
Returning Big 10 strength is an issue everywhere. People are obsessing about everything that OSU lost (and it is considerable) but check Penn State - they lost their entire offense other than Clark and Royster. If you think that incredibly experienced offensive line didn't help make them go, you're on drugs. On D, they lose most of their defensive line rotation, partly due to the draft and party due to injury.
Illinois returns most of a very good offense, but may have one of the most laughably bad defenses in the Big 10.
Iowa doesn't lose that many players, but they lose their three best from last year.
MSU loses their entire offense.
Northwestern loses all their offensive skill players and 3 o-linemen (and their best defensive player).
I'm not saying OSU is neccesarily the conference favorite, but it makes some sense.
I understand this, but Michigan fans should be able to recognize as well as anybody when reputation is inflating a team's preseason ranking. Everybody loses a lot in the Big Ten, but Ohio State is getting totally gutted, losing a lot of players like Jenkins, Freeman, Laurinaitis, Wells, Robiskie, and Hartline who have been key players since 2006. Those guys will be difficult to replace. Plus, while Pryor will be improved, he is still only a sophomore.
I think this could definitely be a year where somebody comes out of no where and wins the conference. I don't know who will do it, but I would take the field over Ohio State, no question
Winning 4 straight big ten titles will help ones reputation.
No one thought their defense would be that good after they lost AJ Hawk and the other two linebackers (which I think was after the '05 season). They reload the defense and play in the national title game after the '06 season. Everyone thought OSU would have a little drop off after they lost Smith and some other key players on offense after the '06 season. Would do they do - reload and play in the national title game after the '07 season.
Sure OSU losses a lot but right now they consistently have the best 85 man roster year in and year out in the big ten. They've lost 2 big ten games in 3 years. They'll probably have the most talented team in the big ten again this year, and Tressell's teams rarely beat themselves.
Forgive me if this has been mentioned, but zombie nation has polled Big Ten blogs' predictions of 2009 finish. The have UoM at 6 as the wildcard (most highly variable in individual ranking). http://www.zombienationpsu.com/2008/06/big-ten-bloggers-preseason-picks…
The link is to predictions for 2008.
feel like an idiot.
I always thought Grady's main problem was that his clock is stuck on 4:20. Chronic "partying" usually robs a player of both the mental and physical edges he needs to compete at what is probably the 95th to 99th percentile of athletics. I don't know if that qualifies as being a "bonehead" or just having different priorities, but it could easily be the root of most of his problems.
FWIW, the apostrophy in your quote is wrong because, in that sentence, the grammar Nazis are not possessing anything nor would substituting is for 's be correct.
Thanks for the Rittenberg info however.
It was a joke.
my sarcasm meter. I'm a little off today.
In 2007, the 9th Big Ten team finished 3-5. I expect M to go 3-5 in conference, 3-1 out to get to 6-6. Rittenberg's ranking is a little low, but nothing too drastic.
...is right where it should be given what happened in 2008. I don't think it is where the Wolverines will finish in November 2009, but there's no reason they should be higher as of May 16, 2009. The only way to rise up those rankings is to win baby, and it starts on September 5th.
When you go 3-9, you're generally not going to get a lot of preseason hype the next year.
There's still a ton of question marks with this team. Like the writer said, it remains to be seen how Forcier does on saturdays in the fall. I think he'll be better then what UM had last year, but he's still a true frosh. Also, I don't get to caught up in the hype of what people did the spring. Every year it seems there's a couple players that shine in the spring but for one reason or another can't replicate that on saturdays in the fall.
The defense is a huge question mark in my book too. I think the starting dline should be good, but not so sure about the depth (and you need solid second stringers to let the starters catch a rest). Other then Mouton, the LB's are still a question imo. And the secondary - when was the last time UM had a solid secondary unit? It's been a long time. Not to mention that the tackling and over/incorrect pursuit angles still need to be improved.
Like you said, I don't they'll be in 9th place at the end of November but right now, unless you're a UM fan, I don't think you can expect them to be picked much higher then 9th.
If Tate was the freshman qb last year, we could have gone 6-6 quite easily. This year, not only do we have him but a better back up qb, be it Denard or Nick with a year under his belt, as well as a team with a year under it's belt. There is no way we'll be 9th in the Big Ten.
No Way.
You must have not watched our defense, kick returns, field-goal kicking, offensive line, or wide receivers.
Details, details...
9th seems low, but whatever - let's use it as motivation.
I hope that the team finds the motivation to win from some other source (their love of the school, their pride, their hope to go pro, their internal drive) than a ESPN-employed Northwestern douche who arbitrarily picked post-spring game rankings for the conference four months before an actual game was played.