Ouch! CFN Prediction on 2010 Gophers

Donate To GopherHole
D

Duluthguy

Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
330
Reaction score
0
Points
16
CFN's "way too early predictions" for the 2010 season ranks the Gophers at #73 which equates to a last place finish.
 

Well, I think, same as last year, anywhere from 4-8 to 8-4 is possible. Which means we probably finish 6-6 again. While I don't think we'll come in last, I would be surprised at a top 5 finish.
 



college football news hates the Big Ten and hates the Gophers even more. While it's a fairly entertaining site, you cannot take anything it writes about the Big Ten seriously. Even when it grudgingly gave the Big Ten the its post bowl season nod as the best conference it wrote something to the effect of saying the Big Ten wasn't impressive it's just that the other conferences were worse. The writers are clearly much more invested in the SEC, Pac-Ten, and Big 12. Their coverage of those conferences is much more even handed and knowledgeable.
 



Gophers next year!

I am going out on a limb here, but I feel this is our "breakout" year. We are long overdue for a good season and a few upset wins. Sure would be nice to nail down USC. Maybe Lane Kiffin would shut his mouth for a few weeks anyway.

Our offense needs to improve a lot. Really a lot.

Go Gophers!!!
 

I admit I do prefer irrational exuberance. It has its price of course, but the payoff is good.

There are too many wildcards to make any meaningful guesses as to how this team will perform. If we can maintain the defense, and improve the offense, this could be a better year. And last year's redshirts are a wildcard. I really doubt they put the same level of research into the Gophers that they do with the top teams. It could be a year of surprises.
 

I'm a little surprised by the last place prediction, even by CFN, but at the same time I doubt any of the preseason magazines, etc. will place the Gophers any higher than ninth. Too many of the other teams seem to be moving forward, and everyone will take off big points for a largely new defense - even if it will be more talented. Unfortunately, the "experts" might be right and they are usually closer to the truth than us fans who have a vested, emotional interest.
 




"closer to the truth than us fans who have a vested, emotional interest. "

Well, at least most of us feel that way.

I'd be happy if they were rated better. I'd be happier if they had won two more games. I'd be VERY happy if they could figure out how to win 8 games with the schedule they have next season. I hope you're right ruralgopher!

It's going to be a long, LONG off-season.:banghead:
 

By the way, if CFN is really anti Big Ten, they are still apparently impressed with a fair number of Big Ten teams for next season. Their countdown is down to #16, and they still have yet to mention Wisconsin, Iowa, Penn State and Ohio State.
 

Big Ten:
(xx)
(xx)
(xx)
(xx)
(44) Michigan
(49) Mich St
(56) N'western
(58) Purdue
(62) Indiana
(69) Illinois
(73) Minnesota

Schedule:
(72) Mid TN St
(D2) So Dakota
(xx) USC
(91) No Illinois
(56) N'western
(xx) Wisconsin
(58) Purdue
(xx) Penn St
(xx) Ohio St
(49) Mich St
(69) Illinois
(xx) Iowa

I gotta call BS on this already. Are they implying that Iowa, Wisconsin, Penn St, and Ohio St are all top 15 teams? Also, we're the worst of the Big Ten? According to ranks we'll be 2-10, 0-8. None are true, none will happen. At least wait til the Spring games are played before making a ridiculous ranking.
 



It would be nice to be more highly rated, but a rating doesn't win games for us. If a low rating keeps opponents underestimating us, that's not a bad thing at all. While it's true that they don't have any emotional interest in the Gophers, it's also unlikely that they put anywhere near the same level of research into all the teams. Usually the "usual suspects" get the lion's share of research effort, and the rest of the teams just get assigned a spot without a lot of research.

If Gray can hold onto the ball, the offense could really take a leap forward with a real threat of the QB running the ball. It means someone has to spy on the QB, which ties up a defender. I admit I'm a big option fan, and while it's unrealistic that the Gophers would go with the option as the primary attack, adding some option to the mix would at least keep the defense guessing. In any case, I'm hoping the offense is tuned to what the players are capable of doing.
 

Magpie's post got me thinking that CFN's ranking the Gopher's last in the Big Ten doesn't necessarily equate to being picked to finish last in the Big Ten or a 2-10 record. I know that sounds confusing, but I remember reviewing all of their predictions from last season, and they did not hesitate to predict that a lower ranked team would beat a higher ranked team. Presumably, they are fairly considering home field advantage, how teams match up, etc. Unfortunately, the home schedule is so tough, their actual prediction for the season probably won't budge too much higher.
 

It's all based off the fact that we return most of our starters from an absolutely brutal offensive unit, yet, we lose numerous starters from a defense that was decent (better than we've seen in a while), but wasn't like '85 Bears or anything. They aren't considering the replacements, whether they think they're better or not, and really, they shouldn't. I have no problem with the ranking. You gotta show them you belong higher, not expect it given to you. Though having IU ahead of us is kind of a slap in the face lol. And people are waiting for Michigan to break out, but that's far from a guarantee, though I'm expecting them to make moves this season. Not surprising that Illinois is ranked ahead of us. Other than those three, the rest beat us in the standings last year, so what can you say?
 

It's not as irrational of a prediction as you might think. Our offense showed no signs of improvement last year, and now we will have yet another offensive coordinator & we lose our top 2 receiving threats (not to mention a probabe starting RB). Our defense - which was responsible for half of our wins - loses 9 starters, and we are not known as a team that can reload. Throw our difficult schedule on top of that and we have a ton of work to do just to break .500.

On paper we are not good heading into this year. It will be up to Horton and Brewster's recruits to prove everyone wrong.
 

gopher7 said:
It's not as irrational of a prediction as you might think. Our offense showed no signs of improvement last year, and now we will have yet another offensive coordinator & we lose our top 2 receiving threats (not to mention a probabe starting RB). Our defense - which was responsible for half of our wins - loses 9 starters, and we are not known as a team that can reload. Throw our difficult schedule on top of that and we have a ton of work to do just to break .500.

On paper we are not good heading into this year. It will be up to Horton and Brewster's recruits to prove everyone wrong.
Click to expand...

What I really like about Brewster's staff is that on defense they rotate a number of players in throughout the game. This helps develop the talent on the bench and keeps the defense fresh for the game. By doing this we can reload better than in the past and while we'll most likely see a drop at the beginning of the year, our defense should improve as the year goes on as both our starters and bench get more experience. Again for next season as it was last year, our offense will still be the unit that determines success on the field.
 


I'd be interested in seeing, of the people who think we'll win 8 games, which games do you see us winning?
 

Costa Rican Gopher said:
I'd be interested in seeing, of the people who think we'll win 8 games, which games do you see us winning?
Click to expand...

I don't personally expect it, but I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility. I think there are 5 games that are "must-wins" however: MTSU, South Dakota, NIU, Northwestern, and Illinois. If we want to have any sort of success this year, we need to win those games, then try to grab like @ Purdue, @ Wisconsin and an upset at home. Then you got 8.
 

Not to worry! Those predictions are wrong!!! Do you remember how fast and powerful Gray ran when he got trucking. Now picture him running the option where the defense has to decide if he is going pass run or pitch to another man Lamonte Edwards who will resemble Gray in his running ability. The key for the offense is to immediately start refining the development of Gray and Edwards. There will be no more one handed tackles. Hope the new OC is aggressive in his approach. It may take a few games for the defense to start adjusting to the new personnel but there is some good young talent there and a top notch DC.
 

W - @MTSU
W - USD
L - USC
W - NIU
W - NW
W - @UW
W - @PU
L - PSU
L - OSU
L - @MSU
W - @ILL
L - IOWA

That's as optimistic as I can get right now. Winning the games we should win at home, at Illinois because they are terrible, and winning the axe @ Wisconsin because we need to win 1 trophy game in my 4 years on campus, and I'd like to be there to watch us do it in enemy territory.
 

NDGopher said:
W - @MTSU
W - USD
L - USC
W - NIU
W - NW
W - @UW
W - @PU
L - PSU
L - OSU
L - @MSU
W - @ILL
L - IOWA

That's as optimistic as I can get right now. Winning the games we should win at home, at Illinois because they are terrible, and winning the axe @ Wisconsin because we need to win 1 trophy game in my 4 years on campus, and I'd like to be there to watch us do it in enemy territory.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be a "negative Nancy" but in your optimistic scenario you have us 7 games total, with 3 Big-10 road wins. That means we'll not only win 3 Big-10 road games, we'll also have to win back to backers. I don't care who you play, if they're in the Big-10 and you're on the road it's no cake walk. This illustrates (in my mind at least, lol) why I think 6-6 needs to be considered a solid year. My .02
 

Since I threw it out there I'll answer.

I see us losing to USC, Penn St, Ohio St, and either Wisc or Iowa- but not both.

So I see the rest as wins.

I should say that this is what I will accept as a successfull season. Any less and it will be unsuccessful barring something wierd. It is time to start winning.
 

WAGopher said:
What I really like about Brewster's staff is that on defense they rotate a number of players in throughout the game. This helps develop the talent on the bench and keeps the defense fresh for the game. By doing this we can reload better than in the past and while we'll most likely see a drop at the beginning of the year, our defense should improve as the year goes on as both our starters and bench get more experience. Again for next season as it was last year, our offense will still be the unit that determines success on the field.
Click to expand...

This is the statement that makes the most sense. Unfortunately, the 2nd half of our schedule is just brutal.

Here are the likely candidates to see playing time on defense:

DE:
DL Wilhite - 11 total games played, 0 starts, 4 total tackles, 3 sacks
Anthony Jacobs - 23 total games played, 4 starts, 26 tackles, 2.5 sacks
Rashede Hageman - Never played
KGM - Never played
Matt Garin - Never played
TOTALS: 34 games played, 4 starts, 30 tackles, 5.5 sacks

DT:
Brandon Kirksey - 22 games played, 0 starts, 24 tackles, 1 FF
Jewhan Edwards - 24 games played, 1 start, 16 tackles, 1 FR
Eric Jacques - Never played
Harold Legania - Never played
TOTALS: 46 games played, 1 start, 40 tackles, 1 FF, 1 FR

Summary for DL experience: 4 projected starters have combined for 5 career starts. Every projected backup has never played

LB:
Keanon Cooper - 13 games, 0 starts, 43 tackles, 1 sack, 1 PD, 1 FF
Gary Tinsley - 13 games, 0 starts, 21 tackles, 1 sack
Spencer Reeves - 9 games, 0 starts, 1 tackle (most minutes were on special teams)
Sam Maresh - Never played
Brent Singleton - Never played
Mike Rallis - Never played LB in college (safety stats: 16 games, 26 tackles)
Aaron Hill - Never played
Ryan Grant - 11 games, but all at special teams
Totals: 35 games, 0 starts, 65 tackles, 2 sacks, 1 PD, 1 FF

Summary for LB experience: 3 projected starters have never started a game while Reeves has seen little time at the position. Every projected backup as played little or none at LB. Rallis is the only one with experience playing a position on defense and it was at safety

CB:
Michael Carter - 12 games, 2 starts, 11 tackles, 1 sack, 2 PD, 1 FF
Ryan Collado - 37 games, 20 starts, 107 tackles, 2 sacks, 1 INT, 6 PD, 1 FF
Christyn Lewis - Never played (JUCO)
Kerry Lewis - Never played
Dwight Tillman - Never played (JUCO)
Johnny Johnson - played only special teams
Totals: 49 games, 22 starts, 118 tackles, 3 sacks, 1 INT, 8 PD, 2 FF

Safety:
Kyle Theret - 38 games, roughly 32 starts (don't have exact number), 192 tackles, 9 INTs, 20 PDs
Kim Royston - (only listing Gopher stats) - 13 games, 13 starts, 86 tackles, 1 sack, 1 INT, 7 PDs, 1 FF
Hershell Thornton - Never played (JUCO)
Kenny Watkins - Never played
*** include Rallis here if you like but I've heard that he's probably moving to LB.
Totals: 51 games, 45 starts, 278 tackles, 1 sack, 10 INT, 27 PD, 1 FF

Summary of DB experience: 3 of the 4 projected starters have combined for 67 starts (more if you include Royston's couple of starts at Wisconsin). Every projected backup has never played.


Summary of the experience on defense: For the projected starters, almost all of the experience is in the defensive backfield. Of the front 7, they have combined to make 5 total starts.

The biggest thing: Every projected backup has NEVER PLAYED their position.

From an on outside observer, it's hard to take a leap of faith and not predict some major hurdles to overcome when projecting the 2010 Minnesota Gophers. The figures above basically state that the starting front 7 has little experience while every backup has never played their position.

I fully expect almost every preview article or mag to predict dire results for the Gophers. Thankfully the game isn't won on paper but don't act shocked by these types of predictions. The offense was pathetic last year and we now lose our top playmaker and our defense is about as green as it gets.
 

The beauty of it is that my definition of success doesn't have to line up with anyone else's. One person could make a solid argument that going 6-6 against a tougher schedule would be success, someone else could say that the only successful team is the conf champ. I think 8-4 will be a success.
 

I hate to crap in someone's cereal, but needing 8 wins to have 2010 be a success will end up being disappointed. Next year's team isn't going to win 8 games and the reasons have been mentioned over and over again on this board. I'll gladly eat a a large crow sandwich if I'm wrong but people would write books about this team and name schools after Brewster if they can somehow go 8-4 in 2010 given what they're up against and the makeup of the roster.
 

i would love to see us win 8 games, and i think we can, but really i think we will win 6-7.

L-MTSU, i feel nervous about this game, 9-3 team last year, dangerous QB, first game of the year on a thursday night on the road, i hope i'm wrong about this one.
W-USD
L-USC, close like the cal game, lane kiffin will reusse his pants on the sidelines.
W-NIU
W-NW
L-Becky, they'll beat us by 3, as usual
W-PU
W-PSU
L-OSU
L-MSU
W-ILL
W-hogeyes.

i'm probably off on a couple of these games (for instance the MTSU game, and beating both PSU and hogeyes at home) but i think in some way we will win 6 or 7. but i'm not ruling out 8, we would've probably gotten 8 this year with a little more offensive production, especially in the red zone.
 

Costa Rican Gopher said:
I'm not trying to be a "negative Nancy" but in your optimistic scenario you have us 7 games total, with 3 Big-10 road wins. That means we'll not only win 3 Big-10 road games, we'll also have to win back to backers. I don't care who you play, if they're in the Big-10 and you're on the road it's no cake walk. This illustrates (in my mind at least, lol) why I think 6-6 needs to be considered a solid year. My .02
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Agreed.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom