- Adam Rittenberg, ESPN Staff Writer
- 0 Shares
My mailbag will come to you just once a week from here on out, right around this time on Fridays. Don't forget to follow us on Twitter.
Have a great first football weekend! To the inbox ...
Craig from Braintree, Mass., writes: Hi Adam. Just reviewed your chat today. In general, agree with your comments on Minnesota except the lack of depth. Yes they have areas of lack of depth -- LB, CB, WR -- but elsewhere they are deeper than last year. That depth, plus Nelson's additional experience, plus their bowl experience, is why I like the team better. I also think Kill's health is better and that can't hurt.
Adam Rittenberg: Some good points here, Craig. I think we saw in Thursday's opener against UNLV how Nelson's experience last year paid off. He looked very comfortable moving around in the pocket, and his athleticism on designed runs also gives Minnesota a good weapon in the ground game. I'm still a little concerned at whether Minnesota's skill players will make an impact against good Big Ten opponents. The Gophers line struggled to dominate UNLV for much of the game and didn't show the physical play we saw in the bowl game against Texas Tech.
You're right that I overlooked some of the depth in the secondary despite losing corners Michael Carter and Troy Stoudermire. The Gophers have some playmakers back there. The good news is Minnesota won its opener easily and still has a lot of room for improvement. And we're all pleased that Coach Kill seems to have his health more under control.
John from Au Gress, Mich., writes: As far as Defensive POY is concerned, it was interesting to see what a rival network found when it polled BIG players and coaches. Max Bullough was the runaway choice. Two things work against Max for this award (1) few journalists take enough time to recognize the value of a defensive quarterback like Bullough and (2) with all the "3 and outs" the MSU defense will force, he won't have enough tackles to get his due. Total tackles is an overhyped stat too. My first thought is the overall defense must stink if you get that many opportunities. Borland will probably lead the BIG with around 150 tackles and he would probably like to stay around 100. He seems like a great team guy, and would rather have the defense get off the field.
Adam Rittenberg: John, some good points here, and I couldn't agree more about tackles being an overrated statistic, especially when it comes to linebackers. I would hope the award isn't given based on total tackles, as some standout defenders will be on the field a lot less than others. For me, it's between Borland and Bullough for this award. Both are the nerve centers of their respective defenses. If the Spartan Dawgs once again finish in the top five nationally, I'd have no issue with Bullough getting the hardware. Ultimately, Borland makes more impact plays than Bullough -- or any Big Ten defender, for that matter. Borland is just a freak in that way. Does it mean he's more valuable to his defense than Bullough? It's up for debate. Both are exceptional players, and as I recently wrote, both have a ton of respect around the Big Ten.
Curtis from San Angelo, Texas, writes: You wrote, "Bad calls shouldn't be hidden from fans in the stadium when those at home see them replayed over and over." No, they probably shouldn't. On the other hand, replays of bad calls shouldn't be used like gasoline being poured on a fire, either. Not everyone enjoys going to a sporting event and hearing "fans" yell obscenities (sometimes en masse) at the officials for missing a call. As long as humans are involved, calls will be missed. Hopefully this won't backfire and lead to egging on rude behavior.
Adam Rittenberg: Curtis, I think there's a compromise here, although the replays will be at the discretion of each Big Ten school. I agree that a controversial call shouldn't be replayed 20 times in super slo-mo in the stadium, but fans who pay good money to watch those games have the right to see what everyone else does at home. Big Ten officiating chief Bill Carollo wants his crews to be held accountable. He puts a lot of pressure on them to get it right. Sure, some fans will act like idiots, but the yelling at the officials is going to be there with or without the replays. It's important to enhance the game-day experience at a time when attendance is dropping a bit and the modern-fay fan wants more out of his/her Saturday afternoon.
Lone Wolf McCaw from Siberia, USSR: I don't get it Adam, I don't. I see there are a lot of coaches that won't name who their starters are. Why? I get there are players and positions where you just don't know who is better, or want to see how they perform in a real game. But you can't tell me that, that is the case with all the teams that won't give out a depth chart. Are the coaches writers for a mystery TV show or something, and want to keep us guessing til the end? How does not revealing who your starters are benefit the team in any way, shape or form? I will hang up now and listen to your answer.
Adam Rittenberg: Lone Wolf, as a media member in the business of information, you're preaching to the choir, brother. Some coaches think concealing their starting quarterback provides an advantage because opponents have to prepare for more than one player. I'm not sure I buy that. Teams have so much time to prepare for the opener that they almost overprepare. I think the secrecy has more to do with taking pressure off of the starter, and even the player or players who lose the competition. When you have a true freshman starter, as Penn State likely will with Christian Hackenberg, you can delay the heavy scrutiny until after he plays his first game. But I'm not a fan of keeping this under wraps.
Steve from Washington, D.C., writes: Count me among the many Northwestern fans who are incredibly psyched for this season. I'm stoked to see the speed and talent that we have lined up on the defensive side of the ball. What keeps me up at night, though, is that we play in a conference known for power football, big linemen pushing up the middle with a big RB running behind them. Do you think NU will struggle to stop an up-the-gut power run game? Which matchups should I be particularly worried about in this regard?
Adam Rittenberg: Steve, I think this is a fair concern, although Northwestern's run defense improved significantly in 2012, going from 84th in 2011 to 21st last year (127.6 ypg). The big issue is the loss of defensive tackle Brian Arnfelt, hardly a household name around the Big Ten but a huge part of Northwestern's success against the run. The Wildcats lack depth at defensive tackle and need Sean McEvilly to stay healthy and others (Will Hampton, C.J. Robbins) to step up. Standout safety Ibraheim Campbell also plays a huge role in stopping the run. Campbell might be Northwestern's most valuable player, especially against teams like Wisconsin that run the power.
Adam from DC writes: Ohio State lost seven starters from last year's squad, including all four defensive linemen and two of their three linebackers. OSU also won some close games last year and didn't exactly lead the conference in defense.You picked the OSU Defense for your fantasy team. Why so much faith in the 2013 OSU defense?
Adam Rittenberg: Adam, it has more to do with how fantasy points are awarded for defense, at least in the ESPN College Football Challenge, which Brian and I use. Ohio State's defense actually recorded the most fantasy points (149) in the Big Ten last year, while Michigan State's defense, undoubtedly the best in the league, finished sixth in fantasy points (105). Defenses are awarded points for team wins, of which Ohio State will have plenty, and can pile up points for scoring touchdowns and forcing turnovers. Ohio State might not be the most stifling Big Ten defense, but I expect the Buckeyes to make a bunch of plays, even with all of their youth. The Buckeyes feature several big-play defenders like linebacker Ryan Shazier and cornerback Bradley Roby.
Jeff from San Diego writes: I had a slew of Hawkeye questions for you, but really you can answer them all by responding to this one question; will Kirk Ferentz still be Iowa's coach in three years?
Adam Rittenberg: In three years? Hmm, that's a very tough one. I'm inclined to say yes, but I'm not confident in my answer. That would put Ferentz in his 17th season at Iowa. Obviously, he has a hefty contract that goes for much longer, and maybe he'd like to keep coaching the Hawkeyes for another eight years. Still, it's a long time, and if the momentum doesn't turn soon, Iowa will face a tough decision with its highly paid coach. I don't think Ferentz is in danger this season, but he has to show some positive signs soon. The move to the West division and the soft schedules the next few years should help him.
Ben from Ann Arbor, Mich., writes: Adam, where would you have put Jake Ryan in your preseason rankings had he been healthy? I'm thinking between Roby and Dennard, but I'd appreciate your unbiased opinion.
Joe from Columbus, Ohio, writes: Really? No Carlos Hyde in the top 25? Does his three-game suspension (no charges by the way) really merit that much of a drop? Where would he have ranked had he not been suspended? I figured he would have be top 10/ top 15 for sure.
Adam Rittenberg: Ben, I think we would have had Ryan around No. 11 or No. 12, behind both Roby and Dennard, who have a little more potential to be nationally elite than Ryan does. I'm a big fan of Ryan's playmaking ability, though, and can't wait to see him back on the field for the Maize and Blue. Joe, we were in a bit of a bind with Hyde because when we kicked off the rundown, his status for the season was very much in doubt and there had been some chatter that he wouldn't play this fall. We had to make our full list on the assumption that he wouldn't play. If the Hyde situation hadn't happened, you'd probably see him right around the No. 15 spot.