Program Potential over the next few years
There was a small discussion in another forum regarding where we can go by 2011. Someone made a comment about M winning a MNC by then, some agreed and some disagreed. I had a lengthy response written out, but in the interest of keeping this argument out of an unrelated thread, I decided to start a new topic. Here is my reply to a comment saying we needed to well this year to even have hopes for a MNC in 2011:
I'm not saying "National Title or Bust" by any means, but to say definitively that we will not be competing for one isn't giving the team enough credit. We could go 5-7 this year and it wouldn't change my mind. I don't think that will happen, though.
USC went 6-6 in (I believe) 2001. We can compare this to our 2009, I think we agree 6-6 is doable, if not likely. That was PC's first year in the program and it's RR's second, but I think the point remains, the coach was new to the program. In 2002, USC went 11-2, and won a BCS bowl against a very good Iowa team. This is very possible for the 2010 version of Michigan; much more talented and experienced than the 2009 version. In 2003 (2011 for us, if you're following the parallel) USC won a national championship (albeit a shared championship, but they were the best team that year).
Now, are we USC? Maybe, maybe not. RR did big things before coming to UM with a lot less than he has here, so there's no saying he can't. Let me reiterate that I'm not counting on a MNC by 2011, but a similar situation has happened elsewhere, so don't write it off just yet.
Like you said, it's not like we're saying it's a lock-or even likely-but it's possible. If nothing else, the Big Ten hasn't been the toughest conference to make it through to the BCS Championship Game. With all the young talent everywhere on offense and hopefully two or three years in the new defense, UM can absolutely have a shot.
I find it hard to passionately argue about what-ifs three seasons in advance.
Given that, just like WolvinLA, I also think that the possibility of Michigan competing for a national championship in 2011 is greater than 0%.
I think by 2011 that the offense will be MNC material, but will the defense catch up enough? We need some depth and get some better defensive prospects. All in all, I agree with your post.
The defense will rely, in part, on some young guys coming in the year, but now in large part. The following are guys who are expected to be starters this fall who will still be around in 2011:
Mike Martin - DT
Ryan VanBergen - DE
Brandon Herron - Deathbacker!
Cissoko - CB
Emelien - S
That's 5 guys who, if are starters in 2011 as well, will be 3 year starters, which is rare. Guys who will likely have had significant playing time by the time 2011 rolls around are:
William Campbell - DT
Craig Roh - DE
JB Fitzgerald - LB
Isaiah Bell, Mike Jones or Brandin Hawthorne - S/LB hybrid
Justin Turner - CB
Mike Williams - S
All highly rated guys who will still be around in 2011. Throw in the best 2 or 3 guys from this recruiting class (Marvin Robinson comes to mind) and you have what could be a very solid starting line-up on defense. It won't be what the offense promises to be, but it doesn't project to be weak either.
I was in the wait-and-see camp in the other thread simply because the offense's production is still a wild card this year.
How will Tate perform? If Tate performs well (for a true freshman's standards), then we can expect great things in 2011. But what it Tate disappoints? Can we be sure that by 2011 we have an experienced QB capable of winning 11 or 12 regular season games? (*NOTE: obviously I am assuming Tate wins the starting job). If Tate or Denard do not develop as expected, can we rely on Devin in 2011?
What about the RBs? Sure, in theory, there's star power waiting in the wings. But it's still unproven star power. Can we safely say that Shaw will stay healthy or that Toussaint et al will carry a potentially heavy load?
What about the receivers? Those matriculating in 2010 will still be young, and we have no proven targets beyond arguably Mathews. The position *should* develop with guys like Stokes, but you never know.
I will say that I am not worried about the offensive line.
And, of course, there's the defense: little depth at several positions, unproven but talented players in others (like LB). I would expect the defense to be above average but not necessarily great. Good enough to put the team in contention? In the air.
In sum: yes, the offense SHOULD be clicking by 2011. And yes, the defense should be somewhere in the category of above average/good/very good, but those conclusions require certain assumptions: Tate/Denard meets expectations, no injury setbacks, the emergence of reliable WRs, defensive depth, etc.
I think we'll have a much better picture as the season progresses.
I agree with most of your opinion save two things. First, all of my predictions do not take into account things we can't predict like injuries, academic (in)eligibilities, off the field issues, ets. So yes, if star players get injured, it changes a lot.
The point I disagree with is the receivers. Stonum and Hemingway will be seniors, and it's safe to say one of those will be worthy of a #1 receiver. After that, Stokes and Roundree are guys that could fill in very well if one of the previously mentioned guys doesn't work out. And the guys who come in 2010 won't be that young in 2011 - sophomore receivers often perform well, and out of all of them, one should be ready to play, but they might not even need to. I think WR will be the deepest and most talented position on the team in 2011.
Yes, I cheated with the injuries qualification. Nice catch.
As to receivers: I agree that WR will be one of the deepest positions on the team by 2011 (along with OL). However, Hemingway is still largely an unknown quantity because of past injuries. And while Stonum arguably underachieved last year, he certainly has the ability. But I am not comfortable stating that "it's safe to say that one of those will be worthy of a #1 receiver."
In my ridiculously premature opinion, the defense will not be great in 2011; therefore, the offense must rate an A+ for the team to have national championship aspirations (a la Oklahoma this past year: great offense, so-so defense). For the offense to rate an A+, the receivers must (1) block sufficiently well on bubble screens and in general; (2) pose a legitimate downfield threat; (3) get open; (4) catch and maintain possession of the football; (5) be consistent; (6) have depth; and (7) do all of the other things that good receivers do.
Too many question marks for me, and I am not comfortable with relying on a true sophomore receiver to be a go-to guy. Those players are pretty rare.
Again, though, you might be right, and I actually think you are -- I would be willing to bet that the receivers are more than capable. At this point, however, I want to see some harder evidence of it before I ratchet up my expectations to potential national championship contender.
I don't think its MNC or bust, but its definitely double digit wins or bust.
Bingo.
tO$u, I miss the Cooper days.
It's very tempting to say that the marrying U of M football talent w/ Rodriguez's WVU blueprint will equal an MNC contender. I think there's an excellent chance that U of M will at least have one of those offenses that can score on anybody and often explodes for 40-plus points. I also think that Greg Robinson will turn out to be a really good hire. So, what the hell? Yes, I think U of M will be a national title contender...Michigan in the next couple of years will ride to victory over a road of bones.
If you look at the schedule it plays out pretty favorably as well. We lose Penn State and get Ohio State and Notre Dame at home. We go to Wisconsin who may have a new coach by then and be rebuilding and in all reality that program is slipping a little bit. Our only other road games are at Michigan State, Iowa and Northwestern which are winable games. We also get Indiana and Juice/Bennless Illinois as well. Throw in a couple of MAC teams and I really like our chances with that schedule. TP is hopefully in the NFL and I am not sure about the QB situation at MSU but they will probably have a first year starter their as well. Not to mention ND loses Tate, Clausen and possibly Floyd.
So yeah I know its a ways off but I too expect big things in 2011.
at the end of this year we will know a lot more about what we have now. Assuming that we show a large impovement (which I think will be the case) the recruiting will be easier. Our 2010 class will be pretty well locked up but I think our 2011 class (provided we show earlier said improvement) will bring in D depth. guys like Big Will will be settled into team 1 D. I would definitely say that being in contention for the coveted NC will not be out of the question.
I think another important factor will be how many players the defense gets from the offense. The recruiting, as many have mentioned with varying degrees of concern, has been offense-heavy. A lot of the kids play both ways in HS and a move to CB or S isn't out of the question for quite a few of the slot/RB/WR guys.
For that matter, if RR recruits a few more QB's, we could possibly see one of them move over to the other side of the ball.