The Sporting News Spring Top 10

I buy it. We've got a superb defensive coach with a lot of talent.

We have a new qb & wr coaches and a new OC. We improve to an "average" offense and we'll be a load.

 
If the D doesn't skip a beat, and we're knocking the a$$ off of people, and the offense doesn't go "full retard", then yeah, we'll be a load. Not sure if it's a top 10 kind of load, I'll let you know after breakfast

 
8 seems high to me. I'd guess somewhere mid-teens to 20.

I think we have entirely too many questions on offense AND defense. Both will see some significant adjustments.

 
I can't believe anyone would put us in the top 10 next year. Our schedule is very tough. We lose our #1 RB, our #1 WR, 3 from the oline, and some major talent in the defensive backfield.

I'd put us at preseason 18 or 19.

We got the talent to replace everyone I mentioned above but until they prove it on the field I'm not automatically putting us in the top ten.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alot of talent on the defensive side should help us win some close games. I am very excited to see what Beck brings to the table. But in sayiny that, top 10 is a bit of a stretch, IMO.

 
Preseason rankings do not take into account strength of schedule, so just because we have a tough schedule doesn't mean we should be ranked lower.

For those of you claiming we should be ranked lower, who would you put ahead of us. We return 3 possible All American's on defense at each level in Dennard, David and Crick, and on offense, we return a QB who killed teams when he was 100% and we brought in some very highly ranked offensive recruits.

Maybe we won't end up in the top 10 at the end of the year, but based on what we bring back and our coaching staff, we deserve to be top 10.

 
We're more than likely gonna be in the top 10 or 15 every preseason with our defense. We'll never be in the top 5, though, until the offense decides to play the whole season.

 
aholla3 said:
Preseason rankings do not take into account strength of schedule, so just because we have a tough schedule doesn't mean we should be ranked lower.
Click to expand...
Considering the Sporting News rankings in question isn't a real poll anyway, I decided to form my opinion with strength of schedule included. Why the heck would you not?

aholla3 said:
For those of you claiming we should be ranked lower, who would you put ahead of us. We return 3 possible All American's on defense at each level in Dennard, David and Crick, and on offense, we return a QB who killed teams when he was 100% and we brought in some very highly ranked offensive recruits.
Click to expand...
Well, we lost 3 of the 4 most important DBs on the team. That says to me we are going to have some growing pains. Returning a high quality front 7 and Dennard is great but you can't expect Ciante/A. Green to fill Hagg/Gomes/Prince's spots without a grace period. You are 100% right that we bring in some great recruits. Guess what though? None of those recruits have ever played a college football game.

aholla3 said:
Maybe we won't end up in the top 10 at the end of the year, but based on what we bring back and our coaching staff, we deserve to be top 10.
Click to expand...
I believe the complete opposite. Let the new kids prove themselves over a couple conference games and I'll gladly put them into the top ten in my book.

Like I said before, I'd start this team at about 18. I feel like we are talking about Notre Dame if you automatically put them in the top ten. We don't get their treatment, nor do I want it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
All I want for the next season is to have one of the freshman running backs and that includes Heard, to have a season like Mr Lattimore did over at South Carolina. I know we have Burkhead but we need someone to be good enough to spell him. It is gunna HAVE to be one of the freshman.

 
walksalone said:
If the D doesn't skip a beat, and we're knocking the a$$ off of people, and the offense doesn't go "full retard", then yeah, we'll be a load. Not sure if it's a top 10 kind of load, I'll let you know after breakfast
Click to expand...
Bingo was his name-o. Pair last year's D with even a mediocre O down the stretch, and we finish 13-1.

We lose a lot in our defensive backfield, but I think our front seven are going to be a lot for other teams to handle. And with the move to the Big Ten, the loss of Hagg will be mitigated by the need to play a true linebacker anyway. Thus, the only real loss will be Prince. But I feel big things are in the cards for Crick, David, and Dennard this year. So all in all, our D will be as good or better than last year's.

While our O may not ever hit last year's early-season highs, I think it will be more consistent than last year's from game to game and will be better than average.

Above Average O + Great D = Top-10 team.

 
I'd say 12-2 or 11-3, depending on the outcome of the bowl game (a BCS bowl game - you never know). A mediocre offense the whole year would have cost us Oklahoma State for sure. I am not a big fan of 'have your cake and eat it too' scenarios. What we had was a high-powered offense that shut down after some injuries, and if we talk hypotheticals, I think you could say 'if we had a mediocre offense all year instead of high risk/high reward.' Didn't we finish with 63rd percentile total offense (398/gm) and 69th percentile scoring offense (30.86/gm)? That is slightly above average, so what we are talking about here is a a hypothetically above average offense that finishes with similar numbers, but in a different way.

Put our pre-Missouri numbers up with an 'average' offense kind of finish, and you end up with great numbers overall on the season. As it stood, our post-Missouri numbers were 21.5 pts/game and 318 yds/game.

But yes, I'd agree that we would have had a better season. Less explosive, you can bet there still would have been calling out of the OC for not putting up great numbers ("yeah, we are winning, only because the D is bailing our asses out, and we lost a game or two as well"), but would have been more wins for us than what the gambit resulted in.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SkerChicago said:
aholla3 said:
Preseason rankings do not take into account strength of schedule, so just because we have a tough schedule doesn't mean we should be ranked lower.
Click to expand...
Considering the Sporting News rankings in question isn't a real poll anyway, I decided to form my opinion with strength of schedule included. Why the heck would you not?

aholla3 said:
For those of you claiming we should be ranked lower, who would you put ahead of us. We return 3 possible All American's on defense at each level in Dennard, David and Crick, and on offense, we return a QB who killed teams when he was 100% and we brought in some very highly ranked offensive recruits.
Click to expand...
Well, we lost 3 of the 4 most important DBs on the team. That says to me we are going to have some growing pains. Returning a high quality front 7 and Dennard is great but you can't expect Ciante/A. Green to fill Hagg/Gomes/Prince's spots without a grace period. You are 100% right that we bring in some great recruits. Guess what though? None of those recruits have ever played a college football game.

aholla3 said:
Maybe we won't end up in the top 10 at the end of the year, but based on what we bring back and our coaching staff, we deserve to be top 10.
Click to expand...
I believe the complete opposite. Let the new kids prove themselves over a couple conference games and I'll gladly put them into the top ten in my book.

Like I said before, I'd start this team at about 18. I feel like we are talking about Notre Dame if you automatically put them in the top ten. We don't get their treatment, nor do I want it.
Click to expand...
You two are saying basically opposite things, but I agree with both of you. You both make good points.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top