BTN Blogger's Big Ten Power Rankings
Considering the defense surrendered 33.3 points per game in Big Ten play last year with now-departed stars Brandon Graham and Donovan Warren, the Michigan offense figures to have a lot of pressure on itself. Luckily, the unit should be much improved in Year 3 under Rich Rodriguez, whether it's Tate Forcier or Denard Robinson leading the way.http://www.bigtennetwork.com/brentyarina/index.asp?topic_id=178
...will not get the benefit of the doubt in any of these pre-season looks.
We shall see how things turn out.
Was a lot more thoughtful than most of the claptrap we're seeing. Paul Myerberg did a lot more than look at last year's results and bump teams up or down a few notches. Slotting Michigan at #37 overall and 6th in the Big Ten makes a lot more sense to me (and probably most MGoBloggers) than does this "incisive" Big Ten "expert."
all detractors doubters negative nancys and haters
I am cautiously optimistic about the upcoming season. The team probaby doesnt deserve a positive outlook, so that's understanding. I think it's a good thing that this team will have to earn its respect in the college football world. I'm sure they can use the situation to their advantage.
wow , still hard to believe a Michigan defense had that type of average !
August 1st, 2010 at 11:01 PM ^
Prediction #1: If we allowed 33.3 points per game this fall in the Big Ten, we would go 4-4 in conference.
Predection #2: We will allow fewer than 33.3 points per game this fall in the Big Ten.
I'm not sure how that's possible. Michigan hasn't allowed more than 28.9 ppg in a single season average over the past 5 years. At the same time, they haven't scored on average more than ~30 ppg in any season, either (usually around 27-28 ppg).
Just for perspective, giving up 33.3 ppg last year would have put you 3rd to last amongst all BCS schools; only Texas A&M (33.5 ppg) and Washington State (38.5 ppg) were worse. Michigan would have ranked 103rd in the FBS in scoring defense.
The point being that, while I don't think you guys will give up 33.3 ppg this year, I just don't see how you could possibly go 4-4 in the Big Ten giving up 6 ppg more this year than last. It's possible, but incredibly unlikely.
I think you misunderstood. UM gave up 27.5 pt/game over the entire 12 game schedule, but UM DID give up 33.3 pt/game in Big 10 play last season, so giving up 33.3 in Big 10 play in 2010 would not represent an increase.
However, I do not agree with the poster you responded to that UM would go 4-4 in 2010 if they gave up 33.3 pt/game in Big 10 play again. If the defense is that bad again in 2010, RR will probably be looking for another job. Somehow, someway, the defense must be at least close to "average" for UM to be successful in 2010.
Ah, thanks for the correction. At any rate, I think we agree that giving up 33.3 ppg this year would be quite fatal.
Edit: 33.3 ppg in conference play!
Our defensive rankings are going to improve substantially because of our offense this year. Last year our offense had so many turnovers with many of them on the wrong side of the field. Additionally, we should improve on the number of 3 and outs that the team experienced on offense. In order to have a mediocre to good defense, we must have a competent offense.
with your sentiment Don. The offense should turn the ball over less taking pressure off the defense. I also believe based on one year more of experience. physical development and being better technicians that the offense will place pressure on the opposing teams offense to be high scoring taking them out of their game plan thus more turnovers to help the defense. I know thats not the hard numbers analisys this board is accustomed to that's just my gut feeling about type of athletes and what one additional year can do.
The fact that we are not getting any respect in the press, possibly opponents, and the play on the field from the past two years quite possibly sets us as underdogs. I don't think they will know what hit'em, frankly. can you tell I'm excited?
On turnovers and negative yardage plays? They really worked on that in spring…more hitting the qbs (other than spring game). Thinks they did a good job. It will be a point of emphasis in August.
See the link from yesterday PM: http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/rich-rodriguez-wdfn
Look, anytime you start a freshman qb (which we obviously have done the past two years), you are going to have turnovers. My guess is that we will again have a good number of turnovers this year, but it will no way be as catastrophic as last year. Plus I can think of a bunch of dumb plays that happened at the wrong end of the field that killed our ppg allowed average (Mesko vs. MSU, Tate vs. OSU, etc).
The only way our defensive ppg is around these putrid numbers is if we are scoring so damn fast that the other team gets 50 possessions per game.
Why do people think Northwestern is a bad team?
August 1st, 2010 at 10:16 PM ^
Northwestern's Rose Bowl trip was nearly 15 years ago. Older guys like me remember those awful teams they had in the seventies and eighties, but for the last decade and a half they've been intermittently successful. Like Stanford, I guess.
And forget the victories over Iowa and Wisconsin.
They were not a consistent team, but they could certainly be a dangerous team.
August 1st, 2010 at 11:20 PM ^
Breaking in a new starting QB probably won't help their consistency this year.
Yeah, Michigan did beat Northwestern 63-0 every year when I was growing up but they did the same thing to Wisconsin. I think the lack of respect is due more to their players being perceived to be studious, white (gritty!), small and slow.
nothing surprising here as the author is obviously basing his reasoning on last season's results +/- personnel changes (which in this case is not perceived as a net positive). hopefully our guys can prove him wrong.
go blue.
Going 3-13 in the B10 over 2 years usually won't help preseason rankings like this. Still, we should finish higher than that.
is the fact that Hopson is no longer on the staff. Most around here seemed to think he wasn't really having much of a positive impact on the defense, so I guess the question is are we now better off?
August 1st, 2010 at 10:28 PM ^
I think this is going to be huge.
I forget where I heard this but, I guess during one of the spring practices, some observers noted that Ezeh, Mouton and the other linebackers were getting personal instruction from GERG while the rest of the team ran drills. They appeared to be going over basics and fundamentals. The observer made this sound like a bad thing, but I can't think of anything better. Robinson turned Stevie Brown into a sure-tackling beast last year, and all he did was teach him fundamentals.
Plus from what we know by reading HTTV: 2010, the 3-3-5 that they'll be running is friendly to easily flummoxed linebackers, as it helps alleviate over-thinking for the inside and outside linebackers.
I predict a solidly average LB corps this year.
August 1st, 2010 at 11:17 PM ^
Good point. Addition by subtraction.
August 1st, 2010 at 10:21 PM ^
How many experts picked TCU to kick ass last year? Or, for that matter, Iowa? Or for that matter, Alabama a couple of years ago?
I've loved reading preseason fluff when we've been projected to be good. Obviously, this has led to some disappointment (and some happiness, in all fairness).
This year I'm hoping that we're the team that becomes ridiculous all of a sudden. We begin by wrecking shop, people say "well, they started off hot last year", we keep wrecking shop, and we don't stop until we've taken the college football world by storm.
It could happen.
/optimistic and full of kool-aid
August 1st, 2010 at 10:35 PM ^
...Exactamundo.
August 2nd, 2010 at 12:14 AM ^
This team has the makings and feel of one that comes out of left field and rocks people's jaws, like Penn State 2005. That team had come off of back-to-back terrible years to the tune of 7 - 16. One offseason later, bamn, 11 - 1.
BUT, the 2004 PSU defense was actually ridiculously good, like, top 10 good. And, they had 9 of those guys coming back including Paul Posluszny (Jr, Captain). They actually regressed om 2005 but were still really good.
HOWEVA, the 2004 PSU offense was TER-RI-BLE (ranked 104 of 117; 311 ypg). The 2005 unit had 8 starters returning and improved by 110 yards per game (!) and leapt to 33 of 117 in total offense.
My point: massive turn-arounds on one side of the ball happen more regularly that it might seem. Michigan doesn't need its defense to improve by 100 ypg, we only need 25-50 from those guys and we'll be good.
KOOL-AID! Get your kool-aid. Frosty Blue or tangy maize...FREE!
edit: for the record I don't think M wins 11 this year, just that we can surprise some folks pretty easily.
August 2nd, 2010 at 12:16 AM ^
Like someone said above, Michigan wont get any love from preseason polls, pecking orders, vague power polls like these. I'd rather read whether or not folks think the team will be in a bowl, what kind or why not?
And Northwestern will compete for a January bowl bid whether we like it or not. If Persa establishes himself, dont expect that to change in the immediate years, even with a resurgent Michigan and arriving Nebraska. The Cats have an outstanding record against the rest of the Big 10 this decade. And, with a QB playing well, the Wildcat coaches feel that not many Big 10 teams can check their spread their offense. Ask Wisconsin how they matched up a year ago. But, its all about Persa coming through. I'm kinda bullish on it, but we shall see.
Going into the 2008 season people in the press had higher expectations for Michigan then they do now. Michigan was even rated close to the top 25 to start the season if memory serves me right are were 3 point favorite over a ranked Utah team that went to a BCS bowl game. Thats why these polls mean nothing. Michigan was ushering in a new coach, with a completely new system, without the players to run it properely and just graduated a talented class of players. This year they have 2 years in the system, more experienced and fit QB's for the offense, and a couple of good recruiting classes for the system and they are totally off the radar. This is because the polls just make their best guess based on the previous season instead of applying actual logic to the polls.