Michigan is going to win it all, well that's what Michigan thinks

[GoBlueNavyNuke]

When your defensive headliner is a sophomore DB who played in three games (started one), had 8 tackles, and sat out the rest with an injury, I think it's hard to classify it as top tier. (assuming Peppers was the star DB you were referencing) I have no doubt that Michigan will show improvement over the next few years, but as was mentioned here, much of his success at Stanford was the result of Luck's emergence at QB. Those guys don't come around very often.

And how much of Andrew Luck being Andrew Luck was because of the coaching he received from Harbaugh?

No doubt he was a major boon to those Stanford successes, but we've also seen many 5-star QB recruits flame out and never truly develop. Luck will be the first to tell you he owes a lot to Jim Harbaugh.

 

[Voltaire26]

How about we win a couple of games before we throw the gauntlet. Harbaugh is great and I am looking forward to this and future seasons, but the reality is this team was 5-7 and we have a tough schedule. I am not looking for any miracles. I am looking to reestablish the greatness Michigan football once had. Michigan is not going to win it all this year.

 

[ericd7633]

I am more than willing to admit the depth to which Michigan sunk these past couple of years was much deeper than the early 90's. But........the general parallels are still there, and worth noting. Not saying that Michigan will win it all, but underestimate this team at your own peril.

So I've seen that you think Michigan will go 9-3. Exactly how in the hell is that the same to a team winning it all?

Also, if you're willing to admit Michigan has sucked more the previous 3 years than they did in the 90's the situations would then not be the same.

 

[7Samurai13]

So I've seen that you think Michigan will go 9-3. Exactly how in the hell is that the same to a team winning it all?

Also, if you're willing to admit Michigan has sucked more the previous 3 years than they did in the 90's the situations would then not be the same.

He's the same guy that thinks Hoke has Michigan going in the right direction. Just an FYI. But I think the Notre Dame, OSU, and MSU fans all agree with his opinion.

 

[belcherboy]

IMO, whomever is betting on Michigan is doing so because it must be a pretty big longshot. I haven't seen the payout, but I imagine a $100 bet would reap you a pretty serious return if Michigan were to win it all (although if a lot of people started betting on them, it would likely affect the payout for those who are just now starting to bet on Michigan to win a national title).

From my viewpoint, you might as well play the pick 3 lottery in your state. I would think the odds would be around the same. It's possible that Michigan could make it into the playoffs, and win it, but it is FAR from likely. I hate to say it, but I just don't see how Michigan gets past Utah. Again, I'll be rooting like crazy for it to happen, but I think that Michigan is going to have a tough time getting out of the state of Utah with a "W" in Harbaugh's first game as head of the Wolverines. If Michigan loses that first game, they would likely have to win out the rest of the season to have a chance to make the playoffs.

 

[ericd7633]

IMO, whomever is betting on Michigan is doing so because it must be a pretty big longshot. I haven't seen the payout, but I imagine a $100 bet would reap you a pretty serious return if Michigan were to win it all (although if a lot of people started betting on them, it would likely affect the payout for those who are just now starting to bet on Michigan to win a national title).

From my viewpoint, you might as well play the pick 3 lottery in your state. I would think the odds would be around the same. It's possible that Michigan could make it into the playoffs, and win it, but it is FAR from likely. I hate to say it, but I just don't see how Michigan gets past Utah. Again, I'll be rooting like crazy for it to happen, but I think that Michigan is going to have a tough time getting out of the state of Utah with a "W" in Harbaugh's first game as head of the Wolverines. If Michigan loses that first game, they would likely have to win out the rest of the season to have a chance to make the playoffs.

That article stated they were 100/1 to win the title.

 

[umichgradfan]

I think Michigan will be better this year but I doubt very much they win it all.

Ditto.

 

[umichgradfan]

Month out, Michigan Wolverines, Ohio State Buckeyes popular bets to win title

Interesting article, Ellupo.

 

[Irish7478]

And how much of Andrew Luck being Andrew Luck was because of the coaching he received from Harbaugh?

No doubt he was a major boon to those Stanford successes, but we've also seen many 5-star QB recruits flame out and never truly develop. Luck will be the first to tell you he owes a lot to Jim Harbaugh.

Luck's comments regarding Harbaugh seemed pretty lukewarm. He said things like, we worked hard, we played hard, I was fortunate to be coached by him. That sounds like something you say, when you're trying not to offend anyone. Maybe Luck is pretty laid back, I don't know, but he didn't sound all that enthusiastic about Harbaugh. As to the number of 5 star players that flame out, it's true that many do, but some look good from the start, and I think Luck falls into that category.

 

[GoBlueNavyNuke]

So I've seen that you think Michigan will go 9-3. Exactly how in the hell is that the same to a team winning it all?

There is what I think will happen and what could happen are two different things.

Yes, in all likelihood I think Michigan will win 8 or 9 games. Four games are of concern for me: Utah, Penn St., MSU, and Ohio State, of which I do expect Michigan to only win 2. Then there will likely be a trip up or two in the remaining 8 games.

That being said, no game is unwinnable, and if the cards fall just right it could be a very special year. Remember Hoke went 11-2 winning in his first year, and the Rich Rod years were worse than the Brady Hoke years.

Also, if you're willing to admit Michigan has sucked more the previous 3 years than they did in the 90's the situations would then not be the same.

The same? No
Has similarities? Yes

 

[ericd7633]

There is what I think will happen and what could happen are two different things.

Yes, in all likelihood I think Michigan will win 8 or 9 games. Four games are of concern for me: Utah, Penn St., MSU, and Ohio State, of which I do expect Michigan to only win 2. Then there will likely be a trip up or two in the remaining 8 games.

That being said, no game is unwinnable, and if the cards fall just right it could be a very special year. Remember Hoke went 11-2 winning in his first year, and the Rich Rod years were worse than the Brady Hoke years.



The same? No
Has similarities? Yes

You also said the same thing last year about how it could be a special year. Spare me if I think you're anything other than a complete biased homer. The fact your trying to compare the best team Michigan has had in the last 65 years to the one that is going to take the field next year is utterly ridiculous.

 

[GoBlueNavyNuke]

You also said the same thing last year about how it could be a special year. Spare me if I think you're anything other than a complete biased homer. The fact your trying to compare the best team Michigan has had in the last 65 years to the one that is going to take the field next year is utterly ridiculous.

I can admit I was wrong, but I stand by the arguments I made with the facts I had at the time.

Am I biased? Of course! No true fan isn't. But I do try to be at least moderately objective.


Now, if you want to argue against what I stated with some facts, please do.

 

[ericd7633]

I can admit I was wrong, but I stand by the arguments I made with the facts I had at the time.

Am I biased? Of course! No true fan isn't. But I do try to be at least moderately objective.


Now, if you want to argue against what I stated with some facts, please do.

I already have. Like the 31 players that went on to play in the NFL off that 1997 team and how this upcoming team has no where near that.

 

[GoBlueNavyNuke]

I already have. Like the 31 players that went on to play in the NFL off that 1997 team and how this upcoming team has no where near that.

Which I'm calling bullshit. Like I said, there is talent on this roster. For all his faults, recruiting wasn't a problem in the Hoke years. And Harbaugh made a lot of NFL talent with a lot less to work with at Stanford.

Again, I'm not saying the number will be as high as it was in 1997, but you are clearly understating the talent at Michigan.

 

[7Samurai13]

I can admit I was wrong, but I stand by the arguments I made with the facts I had at the time.

Am I biased? Of course! No true fan isn't. But I do try to be at least moderately objective.


Now, if you want to argue against what I stated with some facts, please do.

The defense that Michigan has coming back is not top tier. They are barely in the top 25 in points allowed. The offense is not anywhere near what it was back then. No great wide receivers, no good QBs to choose from with any real experience. Comparing this team to being like 1997 is like comparing this years UNC team to the Michael Jordan years.

 

[Wamu]

Am I biased? Of course! No true fan isn't.

I'm not biased. When I say meeeechegan sucks it's the truth!

 

[Wamu]

The defense that Michigan has coming back is not top tier. They are barely in the top 25 in points allowed. The offense is not anywhere near what it was back then. No great wide receivers, no good QBs to choose from with any real experience. Comparing this team to being like 1997 is like comparing this years UNC team to the Michael Jordan years.

Hey they got Jim Harbaugh DAMMIT! He might even ask the NCAA for a 5th year of eligibility once the season starts & he goes fuckin' crazy because his QB's stink.

 

[ericd7633]

Which I'm calling bullshit. Like I said, there is talent on this roster. For all his faults, recruiting wasn't a problem in the Hoke years. And Harbaugh made a lot of NFL talent with a lot less to work with at Stanford.

Again, I'm not saying the number will be as high as it was in 1997, but you are clearly understating the talent at Michigan.

I'm not underestimating anything. My view is right in line with mock projections and what scouts at the next level have said.

 

[GoBlueNavyNuke]

The defense that Michigan has coming back is not top tier. They are barely in the top 25 in points allowed. The offense is not anywhere near what it was back then. No great wide receivers, no good QBs to choose from with any real experience. Comparing this team to being like 1997 is like comparing this years UNC team to the Michael Jordan years.

Geez, you guys are taking the parallels comment greater than it was meant to be taken.

Yes, the offense isn't going to be great, but they have plenty of good options on WR, a stable of RBs and as for "good Qb's with experience" did you miss this off-season news?
QB Jake Rudock transferring to Michigan
The offense, while not going to light the world on fire, can be dependable. Which is all it needs to be.

Because remember, the 1997 team was lead by the defense, which Michigan's is one of the best in the conference, if not the country. For all the terrible spots the offense last year put the defense in, they still had top 10 stats.

 

[GoBlueNavyNuke]

I'm not underestimating anything. My view is right in line with mock projections and what scouts at the next level have said.

Projections at this point are purely speculative.

The only way we know what the number of draft pick there will be is by watching the upcoming drafts.