2006 Preseason Polls (official thread) - Page 4

xrayrandy · #46 (**permalink**) 03-13-2006, 10:43 AM

My apologies over the ND information being incorrect. I was using this depth chart.
http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/...epth-chart.pdf

NOTREDAMECHIEF · #47 (**permalink**) 03-13-2006, 12:59 PM

No problem, just clearing things up...

NOTREDAMECHIEF · #48 (**permalink**) 03-13-2006, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandgk

NDChief - first a bit on xrayrandy's pithy assessment of the ND defensive returners.

I have never understood the logical disconnect opined by some ND fans I know that goes, ND is losing lots of defensive starters - therefore there is a guaranteed improvement over the 2005 squad - which was victimized by teams with speed and aerial talent. xrayrandy is obviously turning that around, and I have to say I agree, precisely because the ND Defensive roster for 2006 is effecively unproven. (As evidence of the easy pickings against the 2005 ND DBs the Fiesta Bowl comes to mind of course, but it isn't the only instance).

The reason why this opinion is difficult to understand is that the losses to graduation are spread throughout the defensive positions. LB being hit harder than any other spot. I have heard assumptions that the DBs will be greatly improved with incoming frosh, retruning jr/sr but the former are unproven commodities at the college level, the latter with the exception of Tom Z part of a problem, not of a solution.

About your comments concerning the ND offense -- in part taking the 2005 depth chart as a guide -- in part reading of an MD fan photo montage of offensive starters. LINK

Yes Reba returns for ND having lost the 2005 season to inujry. So Quinn will still have two tall receivers to hit deep, if he has time to set and read. To do that he needs not just beef on the line, but also a really good running game. ND's offensive losses negatively impact both requirements.

Loss 1 - TE, On the line lets start at TE, Fasano goes - and he was more than a pass catcher, so there may be a drop-off in protection, run blocking and pass catching.
Loss 2 - Matt LeVoir Starting Offensive Tackle, gone - his replacement Duncan saw limited action last year.
Loss 3 - Dan Stevenson OG and a vital part of opening space for RB Darius Walker. Morton splits from Center back-up in 2005 to fill this slot.
Loss 4 - FB Rashon Powers Neal - also part of helping the running game, gone.
Loss 5 - Depth in the receiving game - Matt Shelton.

So, I guess you are right that the number of losses on the line is less than randy suggested, though I think you are still under-counting effective line losses. as 2 starting linemen are gone. Plus, while Walker returns, big parts of the ND run-blocking will be gone.

Now, add to all this defensive and offensive turmoil a darned tough opening half of the ND schedule and this is why I think many observers scratch their heads at the notion of ND as a top 10 team. Just when they need to show the best, most coherent football they will likely be getting newcomers and relative newcomers on track.

That is a recipe for a 2 or more losses in the first five games, and a lower than #10 ranking. Once ND gets situated in that double-figure ranking range it will be enormously difficult for them to dig out.

I agree with randy, ND next year is not a top 10 team.

LOSS 1- Not much of a drop-off- Back-up is a better blocker than Fiasano was.

LOSS 2 -Big impact

LOSS 3 - Minor drop-off

LOSS 4 - End of season starter returns

LOSS 5 - Shelton did not play much - ND is very deep at WR

As far as LB is concerned ND has 2 capable back-ups one of whom I have been waiting to see in action..... Brockington

jlb1705 · #49 (**permalink**) 03-13-2006, 01:29 PM

What is this "I want OSU to start of #4-#7 and be #1 by the end of the season" or "I want OSU to be #2 going into Austin" crap? I'm a Buckeye fan, goddamnit, and I want them to be #1 today, tomorrow, at the beginning of September, on the third Saturday in November, on the day after the third Saturday in November, and in January. Leave the accurate rankings for the other teams. I'd rather have the competitive advantage of being somewhat overrated. I say bring on the top ranking, and bring on the best shot of anyone who thinks they can take it away from them.

MililaniBuckeye · #50 (**permalink**) 03-15-2006, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlb1705

What is this "I want OSU to start of #4-#7 and be #1 by the end of the season" or "I want OSU to be #2 going into Austin" crap? I'm a Buckeye fan, goddamnit, and I want them to be #1 today, tomorrow, at the beginning of September, on the third Saturday in November, on the day after the third Saturday in November, and in January. Leave the accurate rankings for the other teams. I'd rather have the competitive advantage of being somewhat overrated. I say bring on the top ranking, and bring on the best shot of anyone who thinks they can take it away from them.

Hear, hear! I could never, ever, understand the thought process of "I'd rather be ranked lower to start". Totally devoid of any common sense.

Steve19 · #51 (**permalink**) 03-15-2006, 03:04 PM

I gotta jump on this train. Why not be #1? Everyone brings their A-game when they play Ohio State! I wanna be #1.

JonathanXC · #52 (**permalink**) 03-15-2006, 03:07 PM

Being #1 is great. You get a lot more coverage during the season. Lets face it. Being #1 or not being #1 isn't going to have a big impact on how teams play against us. We get everyone's best shot. So whether we are preseason #1 or preseason #11...I think our record will remain the same. Let's just win them all...

But I find it hard to believe with how good this team looks to be next year, that we aren't #1 or #2 to start the season.

barlow1802 · #53 (**permalink**) 03-15-2006, 03:31 PM

im all for going cost to cost number 1.. i think that we will be ranked around 4 but i'd love for us to be number 1, why not?