Online Now 4095

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 1994
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3669
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

247Rumors

College football scuttlebutt and scoop- powered by Football Rumor Mill

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

Helwagen: Early Top 25 For 2013

  • No doubt Manziel's a great player, but AFAIK (and I don't follow them), aTm is losing some very talented players, first round draft guys. I seem to remember another team with a young Heisman winning QB in Tebow not doing as well the next year (2008). Just don't think having a Heisman winner automatically makes you a top 3 team. But, as always, we'll have to see, they could certainly prove me wrong.

    Hackenberg won't be a part of the QB equation this year, unless he blows summer practice out of the water. Tyler Ferguson is the JUCO guy they brought in for competition in the spring.

    I think overall I'd agree with you on PSU's outlook, Steve. Some nitpicks: 1) McGloin was a big part, but his limitations also affected the offense. His immobility as a QB was appalling. 2) Not sure I'd put Wisconsin as a loss outright, considering we did beat them last year. 3) With the coaching turnover (Doug Marrone took I believe 6-7 coaches to Buffalo), losing a good QB among other very good players, not sure I'd put Syracuse at a toss-up. I'd expect a win. However, I might put Virginia, as bad as they are, as a toss-up.

    With 8-4 being a reasonable outcome, that would certainly put them well within the top 50.

    Thanks for the thoughts, Steve.

    signature image

    psubills62

  • TAMUWolverine said...

    Your list claims Michigan is a top 20 team, then you go on to tell a PSU fan that PSU isn't a top 50 team, yet you think the game will be a tossup. That's some interesting logic there. I assume it has nothing to do with Michigan being Michigan...

    No, I think Michigan is going to be good. I'm just giving Penn State and its homefield the proper respect. That's a tough place for anybody to visit. If they find a quarterback (and Hackenberg is a good one, even if he will only be a frosh), they could win 8 games again in 2013. Whether one of those is Michigan remains to be seen.

    If the game was at Michigan, I'd say UM by 10 or more. At PSU, could go either way if you ask me today.

    Let me say it one more time, clearly: Michigan is going to be good, probably in that 9-3 or even 10-2 range. Gotta win those big home games with ND, Neb and OSU to have a special year, though.

    SteveHelwagen ●

  • SteveHelwagen said...

    Michigan not a finished product, some holes to fill. It will be a nice team and I think Gardner will do well. They've lost at PSU with better teams, right?

    We also beat them 9 straight under Lloyd Carr. Like Ace Sanders, Rich Rod is gone.

    MrWoodson

  • TAMUWolverine said...

    Your list claims Michigan is a top 20 team, then you go on to tell a PSU fan that PSU isn't a top 50 team, yet you think the game will be a tossup. That's some interesting logic there. I assume it has nothing to do with Michigan being Michigan...

    Your mistake is assuming Helwagen's stuff is based on logic.

    MrWoodson

  • psubills62 said...

    No doubt Manziel's a great player, but AFAIK (and I don't follow them), aTm is losing some very talented players, first round draft guys. I seem to remember another team with a young Heisman winning QB in Tebow not doing as well the next year (2008). Just don't think having a Heisman winner automatically makes you a top 3 team. But, as always, we'll have to see, they could certainly prove me wrong.

    Hackenberg won't be a part of the QB equation this year, unless he blows summer practice out of the water. Tyler Ferguson is the JUCO guy they brought in for competition in the spring.

    I think overall I'd agree with you on PSU's outlook, Steve. Some nitpicks: 1) McGloin was a big part, but his limitations also affected the offense. His immobility as a QB was appalling. 2) Not sure I'd put Wisconsin as a loss outright, considering we did beat them last year. 3) With the coaching turnover (Doug Marrone took I believe 6-7 coaches to Buffalo), losing a good QB among other very good players, not sure I'd put Syracuse at a toss-up. I'd expect a win. However, I might put Virginia, as bad as they are, as a toss-up.

    With 8-4 being a reasonable outcome, that would certainly put them well within the top 50.

    Thanks for the thoughts, Steve.

    Agreed on all points ...

    I met Hackenberg at the Under Armour practice in Orlando. He is a great kid. If he's the best they have this year, I hope he plays ... but they are also able to protect him. You don't want him to get hurt or you don't want to sacrifice a season and go 4-8 just to redshirt one guy, but if they could do that, he could take them to 2 bowl games in 2016-17, something to think about.

    SteveHelwagen ●

  • JDgopher said...

    Michigan will be a much better team than Wisky. Michigan is top 15 or so and Wisky is just gonna suck. A&M that high is laughable IMO. They lose a ton of talent and three of there four best players aren't coming back including two guys that will go in the top 5 of the NFL draft, they don't reload with talent like BAMA does, Johnny Football returning or not. I also have a hard time thinking a team that loses it's head-coach just keeps winning big like Oregon. When has that ever happened? I think they lose 3-4 games next year. My top 5 would be BAMA, OSU, Georgia, Clemson and South Carolina. Each team returns there starting QB, each team has had little to no coaching changes, and each team has recruited well for the last 4 years. One more thing look out for TCU next year.

    Nova where is FSU and the rest of your recruiting rivals?

    Valet Cock ●

  • gatornate10 said...

    Sure it does, but Reef, elam, Bostic, McCray, and Evans are the only real losses.
    Morrison replaced Jelani for the 2nd half of the season.
    Evans will be easy to replace with a secondary one of the 5 starters at corner.

    So really, replacing Reef, Elam and Bostic are the major concern. Morrison will prob slide over
    into a Bostics spot...done, Taylor who has started and played as much as anyone will replace Jelani's/Morrison. McCray's spot will be filled with the starter before McCray, Ronald Powell, so thats the LBs
    Roberson a 2 year starter can replace Evans an prob improve the position, as well as Poole. Corner is full Pirifoy, Watkins, Riggs, Brown, and VH III everyone will agree will play right away. Add Ramsey when he joins.

    So we are down to replacing Reef and Elam. Easley will slide down and replace floyd with Orr and Jacobs still there and Fowler and Bullard will remain as DEs. in 3-4 Fowler can slide down or play Buck.

    Elam is now about the only position of concern, Marcus Maye is capable along with others but replacing 1 key positions is alot different then 7 as the author initially wrote.

    Also that is replacing all "starters" with "starters" with the exception of Elam. This is before any of the great recruits of the last 2 years get a crack at it. VHIII, McMillan, Brian Poole, Valdez Showers, Caleb Brantley, 1 more secret, McAllister, Anzalone, etc. All who have the ability to play right away based on ability.

    I was referring to every team in general

    Jeff4SC ●

  • Holy Crap we are ranked. Won't let you down Steve ;)

    signature image signature image

    MasonHurricane

  • Ahhh Michigan fans in the offseason. It's 2012 all over again

    signature image

    Ichabod ●

  • SteveHelwagen said...

    I take a pretty liberal view of starters. Few guys start an entire 14 game season due to injuries or otherwise.

    On defense, I usually look at 11-12 guys because most teams play nickel half the time.

    I have DE Stinson, SLB Hubbard, MLB DePriest, WLB Mosley, Jack Dickson, CB Belue, S Sunseri, S Clinton-Dix all coming back and NG Williams, DE Square, LB Johnson and S Foster leaving.

    Those guys all played enough to be considered starters, even if they didn't start every game.

    That's what I was looking at.

    Steve, that makes sense. CB Miller should be included in the 'leaving' list of course. Which would leave you at 13, but that's fine. I just wasn't aware of your criterion. Now I know!

    Oh and I think you meant Robert Lester* as the S 'leaving', not Robert Foster. I've heard he's good, but we're hoping that guy comes to T-town a couple of years before he goes to the NFL biggrin

    This post was edited by jrogers2 on 1/24/2013 at 11:21 PM

    jrogers2

  • Ichabod said...

    Ahhh Michigan fans in the offseason. It's 2012 all over again

    Don't worry, only about 8 more months

    This post was edited by Ducksworth on 1/24/2013 at 11:41 PM

    signature image signature image signature image

    Ducksworth ●

  • Ducksworth said...

    Don't worry, only about 8 more months

    Until you realize that you're not as good as you think?

    signature image

    Ichabod ●

  • Ichabod said...

    Until you realize that you're not as good as you think?

    Eh, our schedule is easy at the beginning for sure. So I guess you have to wait 9 or 10 months until we realize it.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Ducksworth ●

  • SteveHelwagen said...

    I like Nebraska, Martinez, Abdullah, Bell and Enunwa. THey are going to put points on the board.

    But is the defense going to do any better? ... and they were equal opp ... they gave up 500 rushing to wis and 500 passing to uga ... that was awful

    Maybe bo needs to spend more time on the defensive side of the ball to sharpen things up. That is his forte no?

    davebucknut

  • Clemson at 6? blank

    Playsignature image

    mpcoan

  • davebucknut said...

    Maybe bo needs to spend more time on the defensive side of the ball to sharpen things up. That is his forte no?

    It is supposed to be his forte, I can't believe he let the Big Ten title game get out of hand like that. They never seemed to leverage the ball, UW's slow runners beat them to the corner all night long, no adjustments

    SteveHelwagen ●

  • mpcoan said...

    Clemson at 6? blank

    Maybe swayed too much by the bowl win over LSU, I dunno. They need to find a way to beat South Carolina. Tajh Boyd is pretty good, though.

    SteveHelwagen ●

  • I don't have a real good handle on the new format just yet. But using these rankings, maybe this is how the postseason would stack up using the first year locations:

    Semifinal in New Orleans (Sugar Bowl): Alabama (1) vs. Oregon (4)

    Semifinal in Pasadena (Rose Bowl): Ohio State (2) vs. Texas A&M (3)

    Fiesta Bowl: Texas (12) vs. Stanford (7) -- Texas still goes here as Big 12 champ, Stanford would be logical regional pick

    Orange Bowl: Clemson (6) vs. Florida (11) -- Clemson here as ACC champion, Florida logical regional pick

    New Bowl in Atlanta (not gonna call this Chick-Fil-A apparently): Georgia (5) vs. Louisville (10) -- Georgia here as good host school, Louisville still in Big East at least for 1 more year highest rated champ from "group of 5" at-large conferences

    Cotton Bowl: Notre Dame (8) vs. South Carolina (9) -- ND would be perfect fit to anchor this game, who would Lou Holtz pull for between ND and So Caro??

    Championship Game (they say Dallas may get first one): OSU-A&M winner vs. Alabama-Oregon winner

    Again, I have no idea how they will be slotting these teams. Hopefully they will use regional and competitive considerations to get us logicall match-ups that will draw and will also be competitive. My guess is they will want to avoid rematches, so you wouldn't have a selected game that pits, say, Georgia against South Carolina. They'd only meet in a playoff game as seeded.

    SteveHelwagen ●

  • Once again clemson is ranked significantly higher than what they should be. They beat one SEC team and now they are national title contenders. What is with the love fest with them? I guess Carolina will have knock them off their high horse again.frustrated

    harveya ●

  • Brendan Kelly, who is listed under Wisconsin's key losses, will be back next year. He was granted a sixth year of eligibility by the NCAA.

    jarjohm

  • SteveHelwagen said...

    As I look at it, they have 6 starters back on offense, 5 on defense and both specialists.

    Steve,

    The D number looks correct due to the fact there were a few senior D ends who were listed as starters even though a younger players played more than them typically, but how are you coming up with 6 starters returning on offense?

    From my count they return the following on offense.

    LT - Donovan Smith
    LG - Miles Dieffenbach
    RG - John Urschel
    RB - Zach Zwinak
    TE - Kyle Carter
    TE - Garry Gilliam
    WR - Allen Robinson
    WR - Brandon Moseby - Felder

    They loose, McGloin, Stankiewitch at C, and Farrel at RT. Who else do you include to get to 6? Zordich could be considered as a FB I guess, but PSU uses a FB a lot less than they used to and I'd argue including two TE for them is a lot more relevant then the FB position. But even if you count Zordich, that is still 7, correct?

    signature image

    Derock63

  • jarjohm said...

    Brendan Kelly, who is listed under Wisconsin's key losses, will be back next year. He was granted a sixth year of eligibility by the NCAA.

    Thank you i will add him in

    SteveHelwagen ●

  • Derock63 said...

    Steve,

    The D number looks correct due to the fact there were a few senior D ends who were listed as starters even though a younger players played more than them typically, but how are you coming up with 6 starters returning on offense?

    From my count they return the following on offense.

    LT - Donovan Smith LG - Miles Dieffenbach RG - John Urschel RB - Zach Zwinak TE - Kyle Carter TE - Garry Gilliam WR - Allen Robinson WR - Brandon Moseby - Felder

    They loose, McGloin, Stankiewitch at C, and Farrel at RT. Who else do you include to get to 6? Zordich could be considered as a FB I guess, but PSU uses a FB a lot less than they used to and I'd argue including two TE for them is a lot more relevant then the FB position. But even if you count Zordich, that is still 7, correct?

    Thank you i misread depth chart, Moseby-Felder, Gilliam/Carter, Urschel should all count. Make it 8 or 9 on offense instead

    SteveHelwagen ●

  • SteveHelwagen said...

    Maybe swayed too much by the bowl win over LSU, I dunno. They need to find a way to beat South Carolina. Tajh Boyd is pretty good, though.

    So I guess you arent factoring in their average defense??

    Jeff4SC ●

  • SteveHelwagen said...

    Thank you i misread depth chart, Moseby-Felder, Gilliam/Carter, Urschel should all count. Make it 8 or 9 on offense instead

    did you look at the Sec E schedules at all when putting Uga in front of SC? (or defenders lost?)
    .
    SC lost a@ UK the week after beating #1 Bama in 2010, swept in 11 and lost the fumblefest flukish game @UF last year.....that's it---they have owned the east lately and David Pollack isnt making the schedules this year. idk thier schedule next year but they dont get both Missisipi's and Kentucky twice like they have recently. this is the year SC gets a little sched break and could lose to them and back into secc. SC has two QB's i'd take in a clutch spot over Uga's esp. when Clowney has EM playing scared/ missing wide open throws etc
    .
    not sure the clem's son ranking even warrants a response but if you want a chunk of that fools gold...go right ahead

    signature image

    BritBrant

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports