NYtimes Ranks Michigan #48?!?

Submitted by SFBayAreaBlue on

So while giving a linkback to mgoblog, the 'quad' is filled with factual errors; taking away any credibility.

 

" The Big Ten, and Michigan in particular, has been – and with the exception of Michigan and, to a lesser degree, Illinois, still is – a smash-mouth, power running conference,"

 

I could understand forgetting about one team, but Purdue, Northwestern, Indiana,Illinois, Penn State under Robinson, osu under smith, and msu under stanton all ran version of the spread. that's over half the conference.

 

"As he did with W.V.U., Rodriguez inherits a program with mismatched personnel for his spread offense. His first season in Morgantown saw West Virginia finish 3-8; Michigan fans across the nation are hoping for a smoother learning curve for their Wolverines. "

 

Nevermind that the team RR inherited at WVU were a bunch of crappy athletes as well as being mismatched, while michigan has much better athletes and many of whom fit in quite nicely with the spread.

 

"Rodriguez may have erred in putting all his eggs in the Pryor basket: Michigan did not land one quarterback recruit in the 2008 class. "

 

Justin Feagin would like to have a word with you mr. fuckdumbass sportswriter.

 

medals

July 12th, 2008 at 1:50 PM ^

Let them play with a chip on their shoulder. The NYTimes article also shouts out this blog. Masel tov, Brian. NYT and the WSJ. You are blowing up in NYC . . .

doxa

July 12th, 2008 at 2:19 PM ^

Why is everyone so optimistic about the offense? I’ve looked this over countless times and I still don’t see us being able to produce in key areas (Quarterback and O-Line) Watch the W.V.U. vs Oklahoma game- They won because of a mobile quarterback…he threw the ball like a freshman, but damn could he run. I’m still going with a seven win year AT BEST. I know the counter argument: a. Better conditioning b. Better coaching c. More motivation d. New game plan While I agree with all of that, I don’t see how that makes a team who lost a lot into an eight or nine win team this year? I see it making us a freaking machine in about three years! Anyone want to help me out with the optimism for this year? GoBlue!

Blue Durham

July 12th, 2008 at 3:08 PM ^

I understand your concerns; I've had them in past myself.  Ancient history, I know, but Michigan lost 4-year starter Rick Leach -Oh no, how are we ever going to replace him - in steps John Wangler.  Ditto for Steve Smith (my favorite QB at M), in steps a coach's son no one had much confidence in, Jim Harbaugh.  And down the line.

Same with the O-line.  Bubba Paris, Greg Skrepnak, Jon Jansen, Steve Huchinson, etc.  These guys were all huge in their importance to the line, but they were replaced.  Jake Long was the best I've seen, but overall, the line play has been much better at Michigan in the past.

The players currently on the roster who didn't receive much playing time last year but will this year will benefit greatly from the attention (and many more reps with the first team) they'll now get from the coaching staff.  We just haven't seen it yet and wont until the Utah game.  And no, I really dont think Utah is going to beat Michigan. 

Miami?  Toledo?  Northwestern?  Minnesota?  Yeah, I think we have some tough games against ND, Wisconsin, Illinois, Penn State and OSU; but I certainly dont think Michigan will lose them all.

Oh, and last year's team that won 9 games, did so with an injured Henne or true freshman at QB for most of the year.  And with a RB that was also hurt much of the year. 

Finally, I do not mean this as an indictment against Lloydd Carr, who I have a great deal of respect for.  And not meaning to belittle Appalachian State's efforts, but that loss and the Oregon massacre were all at the hands of the coaching staff.  Those two games were an indication of the coaching staff's shortcomings, and those shortcomings didn't just evaporate with the win against ND.  They were there all season, and have been there for a number of years.  The current staff will not be so handicapped.

Blue Durham

July 12th, 2008 at 2:26 PM ^

Not surprising, the NY Times is wrong a lot. But I have no problem with the ranking - in the past, when Michigan's preseason ranking was low, they had successful seasons. 1985 (following the diasterous 6-6 1984 season) comes to mind immediately; unranked preseason, finished #2. 1997 (preseason #14). It always seemed like when Michigan was highly ranked they tanked, and early. But obviously all of this was under different regimes. I still think that Michigan is going to have a very good season simply because the shortcomings of the past few teams (easy to prepare for, predictable offense, poorly coached and conditioned defense - see gsimmons' posts) are addressed by RR's hire. And although Michigan has lost some key personnel (which happens virtually every year in college football) the talent is still there. And it isn't like the other teams Michigan is scheduled to play have 3 year starters at QB and RB returning. Except of course OSU, whose only issue is teams in SEC uniforms. Michigan wearing LSU's uniforms for the game in Columbus would probably tighten their sphincters a little bit.

hat

July 12th, 2008 at 2:36 PM ^

I'm not too optimistic about the offense, but when I think about how it would have looked under the old regime (predictable playcalling, overemphasis on execution, crappy conditioning), I'm exciting to see what RR can do. I think we can assume that he will pull out all the stops to gain an advantage when we have the ball. We won't tip off plays with formations and personnel. We won't avoid the middle of the field just because there's a 3% greater chance of a turnover.  We might run a few more trick plays.  (And MAYBE, because of Barwis's magic, our super-young OL won't be a total liability.) I feel like that kind of coaching, coupled with what could be a very good defense (and maybe good special teams as well), could be enough for us to squeak out 8-9 wins.

Jim Harbaugh S…

July 12th, 2008 at 4:03 PM ^

The 2001 team won 8 games and really could have won every game it played besides the drubbing at the hands of the Vols. 2001 Navarre was beyond awful, the running game sucked and Marquis walker was really the only reciever that I can remember doing anything that year. If the 2001 wolverines can win 8 games and compete in all but one game with that offense and Lloyd at the helm (not knocking on Lloyd here, just saying RichRod is an upgrade) - I see no reason why this 08 team can't do the same.

Blue Durham

July 12th, 2008 at 7:31 PM ^

I think that everyone is so used to Michigan either underperforming (wrt its talent level) or playing down to the competition.  If this was OSU and Tressel, everyone would be saying that they would be reloading and expect a down year of 10 wins.

I fully expect that will not recognize this team in the first quarter against Utah.  Team speed, a swarming defense, secondary in postion to make plays and taking proper pursuit angles, etc.  But granted, I do suspect that the offense will be a little rough.