Struggling quarterback? Check.
New front seven? Check.
Nine-win season? Yeah, I think so.
Now, I'm a glass 3/4 full kind of guy, so it's always worth taking me with a grain or two of salt, but there's no reason this Badger team can't win nine games. The schedule is weak, and more than anything else people are overanalyzing last season.
It sucked. It happens. Get over it.
Brass tacks:
NIU is a decent MAC team and will put up a fight. But their defensive line and linebackers won't be able to handle our rushing game. 1-0.
Fresno State will throw a lot of runs at our front seven, but they aren't as good as they were last year, and our offense should be better than it was last year, on the running game alone. 2-0.
Wofford is a decent FCS team. Period. 3-0.
Michigan State -- hmm. This game is a toss up. It's in Madison. That's good. They have a new quarterback and a new running back. That's good. It's the week after they play a big game (also on the road) against Notre Dame. That's good. They don't have any more talent than we do. That's good. They are a well-coached team. That's bad. Toss up, but I lean win, and I don't think that's a big stretch. 4-0.
First road trip, to Minnesota. Sure, they return a whole bunch of folks and they'll be anxious for this game to showcase their new home. Good people, watch their last five games last season. They are an ok team, not any more than that. The only reason the game last season was close was poor ball security on the Badgers part. 5-0 (yes, this revises my earlier thoughts on this game).
Ohio State: 5-1.
Iowa: 5-2.
Purdue: 6-2.
Indiana: 8-2. Just kidding. 7-2.
Michigan: they will be a decent team by the time this game comes around, but still playing with a true-freshman quarterback (no, Sheridan won't be in the rotation by this time), no more than a decent offensive line, it's in Madison, and we won't have another epic collapse. We'll have to work for it, but 8-2.
Northwestern. Damn. Bielema hasn't proven to be very good on the road and their defense will handle our running game. While they aren't a great team, they are a good team. 8-3.
Finally, Hawaii. June Jones is gone. This team isn't that good. 9-3.
Basically, I'm finding myself not buying into Minnesota and thinking we'll split MSU and Northwestern. I think MSU is a little overrated right now. They have a couple of big holes to fill, and it's not like they are USC.
This Badger team should have a potent, if run-heavy, offense, and a decent defense. Not a great team, but a pretty good team. Just like 12-1 didn't make Bielema a genius, 7-6 didn't make him a disaster. Solid team, solid record, not a lot of frills.
This is a Passing Offense
Tolzien is the starter. Good news.
I don't have anything against Phillips, but it seems like fans get all amped about him more because of his recruit rankings than anything else. Yes, it's nice that he can run. That's a bonus. But in Chryst's offense delivering the ball on time is more important . . . much more important. So I was wrong about Sherer (outspokenly wrong; put me in my place wrong). But the bigger picture for me remains the same: our quarterback needs to be able to deliver the ball reliably.
When Phillips is described as "erratic" during good times (and throws four picks in eleven attempts during bad), that's not a good sign. Will he improve? Of course he will. But for now, Chryst needs a guy who can deliver the ball and with the player makers we have on the receiving end, Graham, Toon, Kendricks, Anderson, Gilreath, Appleton, etc., it's that much more important that we use them.
I don't have anything against Phillips, but it seems like fans get all amped about him more because of his recruit rankings than anything else. Yes, it's nice that he can run. That's a bonus. But in Chryst's offense delivering the ball on time is more important . . . much more important. So I was wrong about Sherer (outspokenly wrong; put me in my place wrong). But the bigger picture for me remains the same: our quarterback needs to be able to deliver the ball reliably.
When Phillips is described as "erratic" during good times (and throws four picks in eleven attempts during bad), that's not a good sign. Will he improve? Of course he will. But for now, Chryst needs a guy who can deliver the ball and with the player makers we have on the receiving end, Graham, Toon, Kendricks, Anderson, Gilreath, Appleton, etc., it's that much more important that we use them.
Depth . . . "Or"
A few minutes early, and a few minor surprises. At quarterback Tolzien is listed first with an "or" Phillips. I think that means Tolzien will get the bulk, with Phillips in for particular packages (because of his running ability). I don't like it. Two-headed quarterbacks are no-headed quarterbacks.
Brown is listed first at tailback, but with an "or" Clay. Again, that reflects what I would expect, about a 60/40 split in the snaps.
Two surprises on offense: Mo Moore is listed as second string WR, rather than Kyle Jefferson. That's a good sign for Moore and a bad one for Jefferson. As expected, Gilreath is a #2, the starters are Anderson and Toon. The other surprise (mild) is redshirt freshman Kevin Zeitler ahead of Bill Nagy at right guard. However, this might just be more of a reflection of Nagy's lack of practice time due to injury (he still hasn't gone full speed/contact). I suspect Nagy will win that spot back as he gets fully healthy.
Two tight ends are listed as starters (and while they include a fullback depth, that's more for show than anything else; don't expect much traditional fullback action in Madison this year). The tight ends are listed as Graham or Kendricks and Kendricks or Turner.
On defense some mild shakeups: as expected the ends are Schofield and Watt. The tackles are Stehle and Moore "or" Butrym. Moore is considered more of a natural end, but is needed inside. I suspect that "or" decision will be made based more on the team the Badgers face.
Linebacker is where the real surprise is. McFadden is, as expected, one OLB. However, the other is redshirt freshman Mike Taylor over Blake Sorensen, who isn't even on the depth chart at OLB (true freshman Chris Borland is #2 behind Taylor), however, Culmer St. Jean is listed first at MLB with another "or" . . . Blake Sorensen. It's no surprise to me that Sorensen doesn't have the speed to play outside, but I wasn't aware that he put such a push on at MLB. Still, I expect to see St. Jean a lot more.
The safeties, as expected are Valai and Maragos, with freshmen backing them up. The corners are Henry and Devin Smith (who unseated Niles Brinkley), with Brinkley and true-freshman Dez Southward listed as "or" backups to Smith. Expect Southward to see the field as a nickel back pretty often. The coaches are pretty excited about him.
No surprise amont the kickers, Nortman and Welch, but the returners are Gilreath for punts (with Fenelus and Henry -- that last one's a surprise -- listed as "or" backups), and for kickoffs it's Gilreath and Fenelus.
Brown is listed first at tailback, but with an "or" Clay. Again, that reflects what I would expect, about a 60/40 split in the snaps.
Two surprises on offense: Mo Moore is listed as second string WR, rather than Kyle Jefferson. That's a good sign for Moore and a bad one for Jefferson. As expected, Gilreath is a #2, the starters are Anderson and Toon. The other surprise (mild) is redshirt freshman Kevin Zeitler ahead of Bill Nagy at right guard. However, this might just be more of a reflection of Nagy's lack of practice time due to injury (he still hasn't gone full speed/contact). I suspect Nagy will win that spot back as he gets fully healthy.
Two tight ends are listed as starters (and while they include a fullback depth, that's more for show than anything else; don't expect much traditional fullback action in Madison this year). The tight ends are listed as Graham or Kendricks and Kendricks or Turner.
On defense some mild shakeups: as expected the ends are Schofield and Watt. The tackles are Stehle and Moore "or" Butrym. Moore is considered more of a natural end, but is needed inside. I suspect that "or" decision will be made based more on the team the Badgers face.
Linebacker is where the real surprise is. McFadden is, as expected, one OLB. However, the other is redshirt freshman Mike Taylor over Blake Sorensen, who isn't even on the depth chart at OLB (true freshman Chris Borland is #2 behind Taylor), however, Culmer St. Jean is listed first at MLB with another "or" . . . Blake Sorensen. It's no surprise to me that Sorensen doesn't have the speed to play outside, but I wasn't aware that he put such a push on at MLB. Still, I expect to see St. Jean a lot more.
The safeties, as expected are Valai and Maragos, with freshmen backing them up. The corners are Henry and Devin Smith (who unseated Niles Brinkley), with Brinkley and true-freshman Dez Southward listed as "or" backups to Smith. Expect Southward to see the field as a nickel back pretty often. The coaches are pretty excited about him.
No surprise amont the kickers, Nortman and Welch, but the returners are Gilreath for punts (with Fenelus and Henry -- that last one's a surprise -- listed as "or" backups), and for kickoffs it's Gilreath and Fenelus.
Depth Chart: Offense
Ok, so I couldn't wait. Here's how I see the offense, sans quarterback:
And here's what I said about it over on the Bleacher Report.
Anticipation and the Depth Chart
Man, the anticipation of tomorrow's depth chart release is near killing me. Phillips? Tolzien? Sherer? For the record, I think it will be Phillips, but I'm not sure I read Bielema's comments about Sherer the same way the media has. I think what Bielema said is that they know what they have with Sherer, so they needed to give more reps to Phillips and Tolzien to make sure they know what they have with them. While I think the smart money's on Phillips, it still won't surprise me to see Sherer as the #1.
Brown over Clay? Taylor over Sorenson? Anderson over Gilreath? Smith over Brinkley? Who are the starting DTs? How does the offensive line shake out with all of the injuries?
Lots of good stuff due in tomorrow. And practically no new news today, which makes it tougher.
On an unrelated note, I've taken to penning some stuff for the Badgers page at the Bleacher Report. The first was a revised version of what I posted here the other day on quarterback potential, the second was a missive on my current worries about the defense, here.
Brown over Clay? Taylor over Sorenson? Anderson over Gilreath? Smith over Brinkley? Who are the starting DTs? How does the offensive line shake out with all of the injuries?
Lots of good stuff due in tomorrow. And practically no new news today, which makes it tougher.
On an unrelated note, I've taken to penning some stuff for the Badgers page at the Bleacher Report. The first was a revised version of what I posted here the other day on quarterback potential, the second was a missive on my current worries about the defense, here.
The Problem With Potential
The Badgers have a big decision to make (again) at quarterback. It's no secret that Chryst and Bielema have said if the competition is close this fall, they will go with the guy with more upside -- the younger guy who will have more time to develop. That's a not-so-subtle nod to Curt Phillips.
Indeed, every report out of practice this week indicates Phillips is the guy (Adam Hoge says Phillips took over 60% of the snaps yesterday). Jeff Potrykus (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) hedged and said maybe the staff knows what Sherer brings to the table, and they are just trying to evaluate where the other guys are. Maybe. Probably not (the coaches provided all the clues needed to connect the dots prior to the Donovan and Evridge decisions, I have to assume the same is true this year).
According to those practice reports, while Dustin Sherer still makes bad decisions, Phillips is still "erratic" and also throws picks (to quote Potrykus this week: "Phillips still isn't a polished passer. Nevertheless, more often than not the ball arrives on time and in a place that allows the receiver to make a play." [In a different article] "However, [Phillips'] throwing was erratic."). Based on these reviews, it sounds as though the coaches are implementing the above theory: if it's close, go with the guy still developing. So here we go.
Generally I don't disagree with the theory: Phillips will continue getting better, so let's go with him rather than someone who's likely already peaked (or near it). The problem comes when we're in a tight game -- maybe down a score -- and Phillips has been playing badly: throwing incompletions and picks, trying to do too much with his feet while our best receivers in 5 or more years languish unused. Do you put someone else in?
With all the talk about Scott Tolzein being a safe #2, wouldn't you rather have the guy who has the bigger arm and the potential for bigger plays lead you back (not to mention 7 career starts): you know, like the strikes to David Gilreath in last year's Illinois game and Isaac Anderson in the Minnesota game? Do the Badgers then effectively end up with a two-quarterback system? That dog don't hunt.Last season when Bielema addressed the quarterback derby he talked about the obligation to go with the guy who gives the best chance of winning today, not next year. If Chryst and Bielema have in the back of their heads that maybe Sherer is really that guy, and not Phillips, will they be too quick to give Phillips the hook? We can't have that.
Now, I've been a Sherer proponent, but the chorus is pretty loud that he hasn't made the strides the Badgers need him to. Assuming that's the case (and the coaches and folks attending practice know better than me), then it's time for someone else.The coaches are at the practices and want to win even more than I do. I trust they will make the right decision on the quarterback. But that doesn't mean I'm not nervous about it. I think it's next Wednesday that the starter is announced.
Whomever we go with, it's got to be concrete. Period. Can you give a guy the hook if he's awful (see Evridge vs. Penn State)? Yes, but if they have any doubts about their decision it will end badly.
Pick someone and stick with him.
Indeed, every report out of practice this week indicates Phillips is the guy (Adam Hoge says Phillips took over 60% of the snaps yesterday). Jeff Potrykus (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) hedged and said maybe the staff knows what Sherer brings to the table, and they are just trying to evaluate where the other guys are. Maybe. Probably not (the coaches provided all the clues needed to connect the dots prior to the Donovan and Evridge decisions, I have to assume the same is true this year).
According to those practice reports, while Dustin Sherer still makes bad decisions, Phillips is still "erratic" and also throws picks (to quote Potrykus this week: "Phillips still isn't a polished passer. Nevertheless, more often than not the ball arrives on time and in a place that allows the receiver to make a play." [In a different article] "However, [Phillips'] throwing was erratic."). Based on these reviews, it sounds as though the coaches are implementing the above theory: if it's close, go with the guy still developing. So here we go.
Generally I don't disagree with the theory: Phillips will continue getting better, so let's go with him rather than someone who's likely already peaked (or near it). The problem comes when we're in a tight game -- maybe down a score -- and Phillips has been playing badly: throwing incompletions and picks, trying to do too much with his feet while our best receivers in 5 or more years languish unused. Do you put someone else in?
With all the talk about Scott Tolzein being a safe #2, wouldn't you rather have the guy who has the bigger arm and the potential for bigger plays lead you back (not to mention 7 career starts): you know, like the strikes to David Gilreath in last year's Illinois game and Isaac Anderson in the Minnesota game? Do the Badgers then effectively end up with a two-quarterback system? That dog don't hunt.Last season when Bielema addressed the quarterback derby he talked about the obligation to go with the guy who gives the best chance of winning today, not next year. If Chryst and Bielema have in the back of their heads that maybe Sherer is really that guy, and not Phillips, will they be too quick to give Phillips the hook? We can't have that.
Now, I've been a Sherer proponent, but the chorus is pretty loud that he hasn't made the strides the Badgers need him to. Assuming that's the case (and the coaches and folks attending practice know better than me), then it's time for someone else.The coaches are at the practices and want to win even more than I do. I trust they will make the right decision on the quarterback. But that doesn't mean I'm not nervous about it. I think it's next Wednesday that the starter is announced.
Whomever we go with, it's got to be concrete. Period. Can you give a guy the hook if he's awful (see Evridge vs. Penn State)? Yes, but if they have any doubts about their decision it will end badly.
Pick someone and stick with him.
Real Blogs, Fake Blogs
I like the UW athletic department website. There's a lot of great info there. We all know their "blogs" aren't really anything more than propoganda. And that's ok, it's UW's site, afterall. But 1st and Goal, their purported news aggregator, ends up disengenuous. If you want people to come to your site first to see what's going on out there in the world of Badger sports, but it doesn't include the biggest stories because they aren't positive for the University? Well, it ends up not being a particular good source. Example. No Carter and Pleasant story. Well, the Journal Sentinel wrote about it, Badger Beat wrote about it, the real blogs (bloggers, not just professional journalists putting out short stories without waiting for the morning copy of the paper) wrote about it. UW still hasn't acknowledged it. That's a pretty big story to fall through the cracks.
So, anyway, this brings up what a blog really is, and what it isn't. In my view, it's not professional journalists writing short stories that aren't tied to the paper's morning edition. That's just online news content. It's not UW putting out fluff pieces. That's propoganda. A blog is some independent out there recording their thoughts on the web. Now, some folks have done it well enough to actually make a living at it (in the sports world there's Brian at MGoBlog and . . .? Anyone else?). But most folks are just doing it for the fun of it, and because they know the journalists aren't really allowed to include all the invective opinion we little people can write.
Want news? Go to JSOnline or the BadgerBeat (they are both good for it). Want propoganda and details about two-deeps, rosters, etc., videos of presser's with Bielema et al, and game highlight films? Go the UWbadgers.com. Want real opinion pieces that are more likely to include a little UW history and fan perspective? That's where the blogs come in. Anyway, rant complete.
So, anyway, this brings up what a blog really is, and what it isn't. In my view, it's not professional journalists writing short stories that aren't tied to the paper's morning edition. That's just online news content. It's not UW putting out fluff pieces. That's propoganda. A blog is some independent out there recording their thoughts on the web. Now, some folks have done it well enough to actually make a living at it (in the sports world there's Brian at MGoBlog and . . .? Anyone else?). But most folks are just doing it for the fun of it, and because they know the journalists aren't really allowed to include all the invective opinion we little people can write.
Want news? Go to JSOnline or the BadgerBeat (they are both good for it). Want propoganda and details about two-deeps, rosters, etc., videos of presser's with Bielema et al, and game highlight films? Go the UWbadgers.com. Want real opinion pieces that are more likely to include a little UW history and fan perspective? That's where the blogs come in. Anyway, rant complete.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
