Sam McGuffie (image via AnnArbor.com)
THE ROSTER
Kevin Grady (RS Jr.)
Carlos Brown (Jr.)
Brandon Minor (Jr.)
Avery Horn (RS Fr.)
THE RECRUITS
Michael Cox
High school: Avon (CT) Old Farms
Ratings: Rivals 3-star RB
College: Michigan UMass
Other notable offers: Boston College, Connecticut, Maryland
Scoop: Cox redshirted as a freshman. He had 13 carries for 113 yards (8.7 yards/carry) and 2 touchdowns in 2009, and then he had 6 carries for 56 yards (9.3 yards/carry) in 2010. He remained for 2011 but didn’t touch the ball. He took a grad transfer exception to end up at UMass in 2012, where he ended up as the starting running back. He had 198 carries for 710 yards (3.6 yards/carry) and 5 touchdowns, along with 13 catches for 63 yards. He was drafted in the 7th round (#253 overall) in the 2013 NFL Draft by the New York Giants. Over the 2013-2014 seasons, he totaled 26 carries for 76 yards and 5 catches for 21 yards. He was used extensively as a kick returner, totaling 31 returns for 697 yards (22.5 yards/return). He has been out of the league since the end of that 2014 season.
Sam McGuffie
High school: Cypress (TX) Cy-Fair
Ratings: Rivals 4-star, #10 APB
College: Michigan Rice
Other notable offers: Notre Dame, USC
Scoop: McGuffie played immediately as a freshman, carrying the ball 118 times for 486 yards (4.1 yards/carry) and 3 touchdowns; he also caught 19 passes for 175 yards and 1 touchdown. He transferred to Rice after the season and sat out 2009. He carried the ball 197 times for 883 yards (4.5 yards/carry) and 6 touchdowns, and he also caught 39 passes for 384 yards (9.8 yards/catch) and 3 touchdowns, in 2010. An injury-shortened season in 2011 saw him carry the ball 38 times for 158 yards (4.2 yards/carry) and 1 touchdown, along with 9 catches for 72 yards (8.0 yards/catch) and 1 touchdown. He moved to slot receiver for 2012, catching 54 passes for 603 yards (11.2 yards/catch) and 5 touchdowns. He went undrafted in 2013 and spent some time on a few practice squads. He’s now a member of the U.S.A. bobsled team.
Michael Shaw
High school: Trotwood (OH) Trotwood-Madison
Ratings: Rivals 4-star, #7 RB, #102 overall
College: Michigan
Other notable offers: Clemson, Nebraska, Penn State, Tennessee, West Virginia
Scoop: Shaw started his career as a backup and maintained that role for the remainder of his four-year career. He had 42 carries for 215 yards (5.1 yards/carry) in 2008. Then in 2009, he had 42 rushes for 185 yards (4.4 yards/carry) and 2 scores. In 2010 he ran 75 times for 402 yards (5.4 yards/carry) and 9 touchdowns. With the arrival of Brady Hoke in 2011, his attempts fell to 31 while rushing for 199 yards (6.4 yards/carry) and 3 touchdowns. For his career, he had a respectable 190 carries for 1,001 yards (5.3 yards/carry) and 14 touchdowns, along with 19 catches for 124 yards (6.5 yards/catch) and 1 score. He was undrafted in 2012 and did not play professionally.
Hit the jump for other players the Wolverines targeted in 2008, along with some other bits and pieces at the end.
THE TARGETS
Brandon Barnes
High school: Bunn (NC) Bunn
Ratings: Rivals 4-star, #33 ATH
College: North Carolina State
Other notable offers: Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Penn State
Scoop: Barnes redshirted in 2008. He grabbed 25 carries for 79 yards as a backup in 2009, and then dislocated his ankle in 2010, causing him to miss the whole season. He returned in 2011 to run 3 times for 10 yards. His most productive year was as a fifth year senior in 2012, when he ran 44 times for 125 yards and 1 touchdown, along with catching 7 passes for 70 yards. He was not selected in the 2013 NFL Draft and his career appears to be finished.
Jonas Gray
High school: Detroit (MI) Country Day
Ratings: Rivals 4-star, #4 RB, #72 overall
College: Notre Dame
Other notable offers: Michigan State, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Scoop: Gray was a little used backup during his first three seasons in South Bend, averaging 25 carries for 103 yards and 0 touchdowns in that time. He burst onto the scene in 2011 when he had 114 carries for 791 yards (6.9 yards/carry) and 12 touchdowns. He went undrafted in the 2012 NFL Draft but latched on with a few practice squads, interspersed with some cups of tea with the New England Patriots, Miami Dolphins, and Jacksonville Jaguars in 2014-2015. In total, he has 134 carries for 588 yards and 5 touchdowns in the NFL. He did not play in 2016.
Josh Haden
High school: Fort Washington (MD) Friendly
Ratings: Rivals 4-star, #3 APB, #107 overall
College: Boston College
Other notable offers: Florida, Ohio State, Tennessee
Scoop: As a freshman in 2008, Haden ran 120 times for 479 yards (4.0 yards/carry) and 1 TD; he also caught 13 passes for 100 yards (7.7 yards/catch). He played in seven games in 2009, gaining 221 yards on 59 carries (3.8 yards/carry) and scoring 1 TD. After the 2009 season, he transferred to Florida and then Toledo, but he did not end up playing at either school. His career appears to be done.
Desmond Johnson
High school: Yazoo City (MO) Yazoo City
Ratings: Rivals 3-star RB; Scout 3-star, #85 RB
College: Southern Mississippi
Other notable offers: N/A
Scoop: Johnson redshirted in 2008. He had 7 carries for 72 yards and 1 touchdown in his lone 2009 appearance. He was a key backup in 2010 with 115 carries for 611 yards (5.3 yards/carry) and 8 touchdowns; 23 catches for 172 yards and 1 TD; and an average of 28.8 yards/return on kickoffs. Johnson missed half of his redshirt junior season with an injury, but he started a couple games and had 75 carries for 424 yards (5.7 yards/carry) and 2 TDs; he also caught 9 passes for 83 yards. As a fifth year senior in 2012, he ran the ball 98 times for 519 yards (5.3 yards/carry) and 3 TDs. He ran a 4.82 forty at his pro day and was not drafted; his career looks to be over.
Ray Polk
High school: Phoenix (AZ) Brophy Prep
Ratings: Rivals 4-star, #11 RB, #200 overall
College: Colorado
Other notable offers: Arizona, Arizona State, Nebraska
Scoop: While redshirting in 2008, Polk practiced at running back. But by the spring of 2009, he had moved to safety. He made 40 tackles and 1 TFL while starting three games that year. A starter at free safety by 2010, he made 72 tackles. His best year came in 2011 when he made 80 tackles, 1 INT, and 6 PBUs. He played in just seven games in 2012 due to an ankle injury, and he finished with 45 tackles, 2 TFLs, and 1 PBU. Despite a 4.4 forty and a 39″ vertical, he was not chosen in the 2013 NFL Draft. He was picked up the Jaguars for a while, but he never made the active roster and his career appears to be done.
Cameron Saddler
High school: Monroeville (PA) Gateway
Ratings: Rivals 3-star, #8 APB, #247 overall
College: Pitt
Other notable offers: Virginia, West Virginia
Scoop: Saddler tore his ACL and subsequently redshirted during his freshman season. His biggest contribution in 2009 was at kickoff returner, where he averaged 25.3 yards/return. In the same role in 2010, he averaged 20.9 yards/return while making a few catches and returning a few punts. He became a part-time starter at receiver in 2011 before having his sternum broken on a 40-yard catch; he ended the year with 19 catches for 207 yards (10.9 yards/catch) and 1 TD. Then as a fifth year senior in 2012, he caught 16 passes for 229 yards (14.3 yards/catch) and 1 TD. He was not taken in the 2013 NFL Draft and his football career was finished.
Darrell Scott
High school: Ventura (CA) St. Bonaventure
Ratings: Rivals 5-star, #1 RB, #6 overall
College: Colorado South Florida
Other notable offers: Florida, Florida State, Miami, Texas, USC
Scoop: Scott earned some immediate playing time at Colorado, where he ran 87 times for 343 yards (3.9 yards/carry) and 1 TD; he also caught 9 passes for 105 yards (11.7 yards/catch). He was disgruntled in 2009 when he ran just 23 times for 95 yards (4.1 yards/carry) and caught 4 passes for 35 yards, announcing plans to transfer to UCLA – except UCLA didn’t want him. Instead, he transferred to South Florida, where he had to sit out the 2010 season due to transfer rules. When he was eligible again in 2011, he was USF’s starting tailback and ended the year with 153 carries for 814 yards (5.3 yards/carry) and 5 TDs; he also caught 15 passes for 169 yards (11.3 yards/carry) and 1 TD. He declared early for the NFL Draft, went undrafted, got signed to the Dallas Cowboys practice squad, but was cut after the 2012 season and never played in the NFL.
Kye Staley
High school: Guthrie (OK) Guthrie
Ratings: Rivals 4-star, #13 ATH, #130 overall
College: Oklahoma State
Other notable offers: Arkansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma
Scoop: Staley redshirted in 2008 and suffered a debilitating knee injury that caused him to miss the 2009 and 2010 seasons. When he finally saw the field, he was a 5’10”, 236 lb. fullback after being listed by Rivals as a 6’0″, 215 lb. athlete. He had 1 carry for 4 yards and 10 catches for 81 yards and 1 TD as a redshirt junior in 2011. As a fifth year senior in 2012, he caught 12 passes for 166 yards (13.8 yards/catch) and 2 TDs. He was granted a sixth year of eligibility for 2013 and wound up with 9 carries for 32 yards and 2 TDs in his final college season. He tried out for the NFL, but he did not make a roster.
CONCLUSIONS
Yeah . . . that was a pretty terrible attempt at recruiting running backs. There were a couple decent role players who went elsewhere, but the only name you probably recognize nine years later is Jonas Gray. Of the guys Michigan actually offered, the Wolverines did very well. Cox spent a couple seasons in the NFL, Shaw was very productive in a limited role, and McGuffie was decent at Michigan and Rice before fizzling out in the NFL.
Biggest miss: Jonas Gray. Gray had a good senior year and one good game in the NFL, but otherwise, he didn’t do much. Playing at Notre Dame, he was obviously capable of playing well against quality competition. He’s not really someone that you regret missing on years later, though.
Biggest bust: Josh Haden. Darrell Scott came out of high school with massive hype and had a so-so career, but Haden didn’t do anything noteworthy and disappeared from the game entirely. That’s disappointing for the #107 overall player in the country.
Best in class: Mark Ingram. Yep, the best running back in the country in 2008 grew up within the state, and Michigan never offered him. Ingram, of course, went to Alabama, where he won the Heisman Trophy in 2009 and became a 1st round NFL Draft pick in 2011. Altogether, he had 572 carries for 3,261 yards (5.7 yards/carry) and 42 touchdowns during his time in Tuscaloosa. He also caught 60 passes for 672 yards (11.2 yards/catch) and 4 touchdowns during college. He has spent his entire career with the New Orleans Saints, for whom he has 4,238 rushing yards and 32 rushing touchdowns during the past six seasons.
You need to login in order to vote
That’s… I don’t know, but disappointing is far too weak of a word to describe it.
You need to login in order to vote
Michael Cox was drafted by the Giants in the 7th Round. Pick 253 (1 ahead of Mr. Irrelevant)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_NFL_Draft
You need to login in order to vote
Good point. Thanks for the correction, and welcome to the site!
You need to login in order to vote
Ingrahm was a highly ranked recruit in the state of Michigan; came from an NFL perdigree – Why did/would Michigan NOT offer this guy?
Serious question…………INTJohn
You need to login in order to vote
More importantly, Mike Shaw spurred the seminal Smith v. Shaw debate that continues in various forms to this day. YPC vs snaps. Big plays vs reliability. Speed vs tackle-breaking. etc.
The form it will take today is me arguing vehemently with the following statement: “Of the guys Michigan actually offered, the Wolverines did very well.”
I would say the Wolverines did very very poorly. Cox struggled to see the field and transferred. McDuffie was a contributor for 2 years but transferred. Shaw was a middling backup under Rodriguez who became buried the minute Hoke arrived. By 2011 all of them were either gone or buried on the depth chart behind younger players.
Rodriguez used 3 scholarships on RBs (too may!) – and none of them were difference-makers (poor talent identification). Maybe things are different if he sticks around but that seems dubious.
Michigan football would have been better off if Rodriguez had taken none of these 3 recruits and had instead invested scholarships at other positions. The snaps those guys took from Minor, Brown, Smith, Toussaint, Rawls were wasted snaps.
You need to login in order to vote
That’s fine. Take them away and you lose about 1,650 yards and 21 touchdowns of production. That’s roughly the same amount of production as your boys Smith and Rawls put up at Michigan. (The above trio had a few more yards and 1 fewer TD, based on a quick look.) Smith was JAG, and Rawls didn’t do jack squat at Michigan.
You need to login in order to vote
It would be a loss only if Michigan downed the ball instead.
All of these guys are JAG. Point is you don’t need to have 10 JAGs when you can have 4 JAGs.
You need to login in order to vote
I can’t take you seriously when you suggest we recruit zero running backs.
You need to login in order to vote
I don’t think you have to take one in every class.
In 2008 Michigan had Minor, Brown, and Grady. McDuffie and Shaw helped but that was a lost year anyway.
In 2009 they had the above 3 plus Smith.
In 2010 they had Toussaint, Smith, Hopkins
In 2011 they had the above 3 plus Rawls.
At no point did M need the ’08 guys.
Did it make sense to take a RB or two in 08 – sure, given the roster it did. But 3 is overkill. No one should ever take 3 RBs in one class.
You need to login in order to vote
That’s dumb. Almost every school takes a running back in every class, and usually multiple backs. They can play other positions, they can play in the backfield together, sometimes they bulk up and turn into fullbacks, sometimes they play well, and sometimes they wash out. You’re out of touch if you think Michigan should avoid taking running backs in every class.
You need to login in order to vote
It’s a dangerous gig. Maybe it’s flippant to put it this way, but they break.
I want to be 5-6 deep with running backs. They improve over time just like players at every other position, or at least they did before Fred Jackson got old and slow. The blocking is the most common area for improvement, but vision, power, strength all can come along.
I’m wanting at minimum one a year and two every other. If I can get three good ones occasionally, I’m taking them all.
You need to login in order to vote
Right. You have to take more guys than you “need”, just like on the OL.
You need to login in order to vote
They will break, sometimes, just like your OT or SS will break sometime and you adjust by putting in a guy from a nearby position.
I’m not saying you need 1 RB only but you rarely need more than 3. 4 or 5 on the roster is plenty.
QB is a more important position and there should be more scholarships allocated to it.
You don’t need a short yardage guy if you have FBs worth a damn. You don’t need a 3rd down back if you have versatile slot WRs. If you do have a situation specialists they should be able to do an OK job rotating in on standard downs too.
You need to login in order to vote
The Fred Jackson argument is the absolute dumbest meme ever to come out of mgoblog.
You need to login in order to vote
Almost every school takes too many RBs. I’m not quibbling that conventional is conventional, I’m quibbling that conventional is dumb.
There was a time in the NFL where every NFL team had RB as one of their highest paid players, but the game has evolved and now many (though certainly not all) teams tend to view RBs as disposable/interchangeable pieces.
You need to login in order to vote
Yeah, in the NFL they’re disposable/interchangeable. I guess my GM post yesterday must have confused you. Michigan can’t go out and sign a guy off the street and teach him the playbook in three days. You have what you have on the team. A kid has bad grades and another kid tears his ACL, your Michigan roster only has 1 or 2 guys available to play on Saturday.
You need to login in order to vote
That logic applies to every position. Michigan doesn’t have 5 guys lined up at every position on the field. The reality of scholarship limits is you have to take some calculated risks and you can’t plan for attrition at every position.
You need to login in order to vote
No, it doesn’t apply everywhere, because the shift from OT to OG or OG to OC isn’t that big. The shift from DT to NT or WDE to SDE isn’t that big. Going from WR to RB or vice versa is huge.
You need to login in order to vote
The shift from FB to RB isn’t that big.
But that wasn’t my point or yours. You were talking about injuries striking.
And you yourself have argued that LG and RG for example aren’t so interchangeable because of footwork.
I mean, I take your point, but I hope you get that you can’t have every position ready to go if multiple points of attrition strike.
RB may be more likely to get hurt than PK and may require more rotation, but that’s already accounted for if you are taking 4 RBs.
You need to login in order to vote
…except many fullbacks aren’t equipped to be successful at running back. Sione Houma was a good feature back in high school, so he’s not exactly a great example. Other fullbacks at Michigan (Obi Oluigbo, Khalid Hill, Joe Kerridge, etc.) wouldn’t be so effective.
Left guard and right guard are interchangeable with some practice. I’ve never argued that they can’t switch. Can they switch mid-game? That would be tough. It doesn’t take a different skill set. It just takes getting used to the angles, footwork, etc. So that’s not really relevant here.
You need to login in order to vote
As for position changes, I would argue that works against RBs also. FBs can play there (e.g., Houma, Hill) and you can use WRs (especially slots) situationally as well. If you aren’t giving scholarships to FBs I could buy this argument, but we are.
I don’t think you will see many RBs at other positions in the years to come, and we haven’t seen many in recent years either. The RB to FB moves that were common under Bo have become rare. The RB to LB moves (e.g., Ian Gold) are too.
You need to login in order to vote
Yeah, sometimes you can line up a RB at WR, too. That doesn’t mean you recruit fewer WRs.
You need to login in order to vote
It should!
You need to login in order to vote
LOL. With your roster-building strategy, you would only use about 70 scholarships. You don’t need extra RBs, you don’t need extra WRs, you don’t need extra safeties, etc. You’re the anti-Matt Millen…and while you probably think that’s a compliment, it’s not.
You need to login in order to vote
We recruit way too many WRs too.
The number of scholarships Michigan allocates to RB/WR/TE/FB is way too high.
The OL and DL has crumbled from injuries each of the last 2 years. The secondary will be in a precarious position next year because of a lack of depth. We had a walk-on as our backup MIKE this year as you’ve pointed out.
Meanwhile we have 5-star dudes transferring out, red-shirting, and getting zero carries in the final 3 games at RB. Meanwhile our 4th string TE (not even counting Hill!) would start for most teams. Meanwhile we have a bunch of play-makers like Crawford, McDoom, and Johnson spending most of the game on the bench.
It makes no sense.
You need to login in order to vote
I agree that there are some positions with too many scholarship guys, but taking zero running backs in virtually any class is…ill-advised.
You need to login in order to vote
OL, DL, DB. These are the positions where Michigan is not getting enough people.
You need to login in order to vote
DBs and WRs go back and forth a lot. Most of the guys who make it to this level never leave the field in high school.
I still think “Big Play Brad” winds up at Safety before this thing is over.
You need to login in order to vote
Sigh!
Why rehash? With so many things so readily available to make yourself miserable in the here and now, we gotta go wallow in old news?
Although I’ve heard it said that Michael cox was the single greatest Michigan running back ever, just not while he was here.
You need to login in order to vote
I suspect you answered your own question.
When you have Mike Cox’s visage tatooed on your forearm like Thunder does, you don’t need a lot of reminders.
You need to login in order to vote
Cox wasn’t even the most productive college RB of that group. It was Shaw (for Michigan) and McGuffie (overall).
You need to login in order to vote
I know, that’s what’s so weird about your tatoo.
You need to login in order to vote
I find myself in a conundrum. In college, I think the RB is one of the most important positions in recruiting. I believe it should be recruited like a QB. At least 2 per cycle, preferably 3. While at the professional level I find it to be way down the list. This is probably because a good college RB can be worked for 3-4 straight years at near the same level, need very little learning curve to transition into the college game and can make more immediate impact on a university. This is why, I believe, Najee Harris will be the biggest miss in this recruiting season. Bigger than Wilson and bigger than Solomon, if he doesn’t come to UM. Najee Harris-type backs can take over a game and make a below-average line look decent. Harris could carry the ball 25-30 times with his build. Chris Evans, despite me liking his style, probably will burn out after 15 carries and will probably never even be tested with that many.
As for the difference with professional level, I think it has to do with shelf life and offensive line maturation. I think RB’s have such a small shelf life with the current size of todays defenses. Their most impact is often left in the college game. Offensive lineman can function better in schemes in NFL making the RB better. Patriots have dealt like this for years.
You need to login in order to vote
Optimal Roster Breakdown for Michigan*
K: 2 (count a robust walk-on program for backups)
QB: 5 (Most important position on the field)
RB: 4-5 (rarely need to red-shirt, can use FB/WR situationally)
FB: 2 (sometimes position switchers)
TE: 5 (2 positions really in this offense and most need a red-shirt)
WR: 7-8 (really only need 4-5 per season, but some may return kicks and red-shirts can help)
OL: 18-20 (red-shirting mandatory. experience and cohesion are huge. this is the foundation of the entire offense)
DL: 16 (red-shirting optional, but rotation is heavy. need 9-10 guys a year)
LB: 7 (red-shirting preferred. This is pretty much down to 2 spots outside of jumbo packages)
DB: 16-18 (I’m including the VIPER spot here, so 5 positions. CBs rarely need to red-shirt but Safety is a position where it can be a great benefit. These are also athletes who can return kicks, play some WR, etc.)
Total 85
*by this I mean a Harbaugh team that seeks to have a power running attack heavy on FBs and TEs, a ‘traditional’ passing QB, and a dominant defense.) A Rodriguez team (no FB/TE) would obviously be very different.
You need to login in order to vote
You don’t need 20 scholarship linemen. Or 19. Or even 18.
Four running backs is too few. The top four guys this year would have been Drake Johnson, De’Veon Smith, Ty Isaac, and Chris Evans. Johnson got hurt and Evans got dinged up. That would have left you with Smith and Isaac.
Your roster breakdown is somewhat unrealistic. I know you say “conventional is dumb,” but there are outside-the-box thinkers in college football. In fact, I think Harbaugh is a somewhat innovative thinker. And they don’t see it the same way as you.
You need to login in order to vote
I think that’s the logic that got us to where we are on the OL – the weakest link on the entire team, patching holes with starting freshman every year. We’ve had some attrition at OL, but that’s something that has to be expected an accounted for.
That attrition is the entire argument for taking more RBs, but at OL it’s not supposed to happen (?).
On top of that you need OL to red-shirt while true freshman can play at RB.
For Michigan to succeed they need a dominant OL. That’s what the offense is founded on. You can’t do that by hoping you hit a recruiting home run in every class. Starting caliber freshman are too rare.
You need to login in order to vote
The problem with the OL numbers has been the players we’ve picked up (all OGs, for example) or a complete lack of players. You don’t need 20 guys. You need 15-17 players with the right mix. I don’t think Michigan has done a great job of recruiting/developing OL in the last 5 or 6 years, but it’s not just because of a raw lack of numbers.
You need to login in order to vote
INT John pointed out the numbers discrepancy between power running teams like Stanford and Alabama. It isn’t JUST about the numbers but the numbers are a big part of it.
You really don’t know much that first year almost everyone requires tons of physical and technique development coming out of HS. So if you take a 5 man class you will probably have 2 guys gone by 2nd or 3rd year. Then from the other 3 you’ll probably have one solid starter and 2 guys who may or may not be guys you feel good about starting by the time they are seniors. This is just how it goes with recruiting. Overall half your guys are going to wash out or top out at Kugler-level backups.
If you want to have an OL that has 5 guys who are either NFL-caliber talent, or above average veterans, you need to take around 20 guys or have exceptional success in talent identification and development. So far, Michigan hasn’t shown it has that. So they need around 20 guys.
Michigan needs to attack OL recruiting with aggression. Bring on the blitz of recruits. Power in numbers.
You need to login in order to vote
I don’t agree they took all OGs, they’ve just missed on the OTs and not taken enough of them to account for attrition. Braden was a failed OT who moved to OG. Magnuson was solid but it took him a couple years to be good enough to hang at OT.
I mean, it’s not like we are overflowing in qualified OG candidates. We had to plug true freshman into OG spot this year.
You need to login in order to vote
Most of the guys we have recruited have been interior guys. That’s why offensive tackle is such a priority this year. You may not agree, but the proof is in the pudding, and that’s one reason why some people were so worked up about losing Swenson and Hamilton toward the end of last year’s cycle.
You need to login in order to vote
And yet we still can’t field two reliable OGs who were recruited to play OG.
I’m not going to run through the recruiting of the last 6 years to prove my point but it seems to me that you could count as many OTs as OGs depending on how you classified the OT/OG swing guys. Anyway you’re SUPPOSED to take more OGs because that’s how you end up with OCs most of the time.
Bottomline: not enough OL
You need to login in order to vote
That part that surprises me is you were making this same argument about only needing ~15 OL a few years ago too. Has the last 4 years of UM football not taught us anything?
You need to login in order to vote
I didn’t say we need 15 OL with only 3 of them being OTs, though. That’s what you’re missing. I’ve said repeatedly and in this discussion that Michigan hasn’t been recruiting the right mix of players, and they haven’t been getting them consistently enough. Taking 1 or 0 or 3 gets you off schedule. You need to take 4-5 every single year, because by the time they get to their fourth and fifth seasons, you’re down to about 15, anyway.
You need to login in order to vote
When did we have only 3 OT? That never happened. We’ve always had a bunch of people who were 6’4 or 6’5 and could project to either spot.
You need to login in order to vote
I mean, I can make the same argument about not getting players consistently enough at RB too. Why do we need 7 or 8 guys? Just recruit the 2 you need. DO BETTER and numbers aren’t necessary.
You need to login in order to vote
I didn’t say you need 8 guys at RB. But 4 is too few.
You need to login in order to vote
I buy the 15 argument for Rodriguez because he showed he could hit at a high rate and develop people into starters reliably by year 2. Haven’t seen it from Harbaugh yet.
Like I said, if you succeed with the guys you bring in then you can scale it back. Until then they should be attacking with numbers.
OL should be like RB – a competitive meritocracy. Not about the only guy who is remotely functional.
Derrick Green is like Kyle Kalis, except instead of being encouraged to transfer Kalis was a multi-year starter.
You need to login in order to vote
You don’t need elite contributors in year two if you recruit the right guys who are playing by the time they’re seniors.
You need to login in order to vote
Name another position where 2 guys get hurt and you still have 2 or 3 other good options.
Beyond Smith, Evans and Higdon they really didn’t need a 4th guy with Hill getting goalline carries. The whole Higdon/Isaac battle was unnecessary as both guys were essentially the same replacement level college back. Kareem Walker was waiting in the wings and probably would have done something similar.
Peppers, Shallman, Poggi, and Johnson were other options. Beneducci, Henderson, and Wilson were walk-ons who could have gotten some of the garbage time snaps that Issac/Higdon/Davis used up.
I’m not saying Michigan didn’t need a 3rd RB but they barely needed a 4th unless you count an injured player. 5 more than covers the need. Of course we take way more than that.
Why? Because RBs are overrated.
You need to login in order to vote
You’re missing the point with the injury thing. The RB is the FOCAL POINT of your offense. This isn’t Texas Tech or Washington State where you drop back to throw the ball 60 times. You can’t convert Eddie McDoom to RB on a whim. It’s also not a spot where a RB can typically play 80 plays a game. Michigan rotates guys for different plays, different locations on the field, because a guy gets tired, because his helmet comes off while getting tackled, etc.
You can get 2 guys hurt at cornerback and still have other guys to mix in because cornerbacks play almost the entire game. You can get two guys hurt at middle linebacker and still be okay because you can slide over a MIKE, insert other backup, etc. You can’t do that at RB, because it’s a position unto itself.
We’re not talking about running backs being overrated. That’s a separate topic. But you have to have more guys than 4. And yeah, we didn’t need more guys this year…but when your starting RB breaks his leg (Toussaint) or a key backup tears his ACL (Johnson), those aren’t things you overcome quickly.
You need to login in order to vote
Ahhh – there we have the. The RB is the “FOCAL POINT”.
No – he is not. Unless you have an exceptional player (e.g., Barkley, Cook) he is not. He is replaceable cog that you rotate in and out with another guy who does more or less the same thing.
The FOCAL POINT is the QB.
You need to login in order to vote
Yes, indeed, the RB is the focal point of Michigan’s offense. It’s not a QB-driven offense. It’s built off of the running game. A mediocre running back/running back makes everything tougher for the QB. Nobody else is touching the ball 20 times a game. You need running backs. And the difference between him and the QB is that most QBs play every single snap, whereas just about zero running backs play every snap. I understand wanting 5 quarterbacks because experience is important, but if you rotated QBs and played four of them every game, you’d probably want 6 or 7 or more.
You need to login in order to vote
It’s built of the RB which is built off the OL. If you want to call the OC the focal of the point of the offense I would disagree with you less.
The running game can’t function without a strong OL and/or QB. Otherwise the D will just load the box and good luck to anybody who isn’t Barry Sanders.
The quarterback touches the ball 80-90 times a game. The RB spends half the time blocking or pretending to do something.
You need to login in order to vote
The problem is that you need 3s CB to play at a time. If two of them are hurt you are down to your 5th best CB playing critical downs. MAYBE you can plug in your 3rd best safety/viper into that spot instead. That guy typically is not going to be a jabril peppers/delano hill level player who can cover WRs reliably.
So yes, you do need to rotate your back and your starter at RB. So what? We do the same thing on DL. It doesn’t mean you need 5 guys for every DL spot.
You need to login in order to vote
Again – you CAN slide over a FB or some WRs. Of course it’s not optimal but no position is in great shape if it loses it’s top 2 guys.
So if your starter is hurt your backup and 3rd string guy will have to take on a bigger load. It still doesn’t require a 4th guy. If you have a big lead and want to protect your top 2 healthy backs – run your damn FB. It’ll make him happy, fans will love it, and if your OL is worth a damn he’ll plunge forward for 3 yards and clock will tick.
You need to login in order to vote
There’s a difference between putting in backups and switching positions, whether you agree with it or not.
You need to login in order to vote
Sure there is. But if you are talking about a specialized rotation then a FB can handle a chunk of the workload.
Anyway, I’m not suggesting you put a FB or WR into your RB rotation as a matter of routine.
I am saying if you lose 2 guys to attrition you can do that in a pinch. Talking 3rd string RB AFTER the top 2 are injured. Very uncommon.
Again, the parallel situation is what do you do when you lose two boundary corners, two MIKEs, two free safetys. You make some compromises but you still function as a team.
You need to login in order to vote
A boundary corner is the same as a field corner for the most part. A free safety is the same as a strong safety for the most part. It’s not the same deal. A running back is not the same as anybody else. Greg Mattison has said over the years that the MIKE/WILL are interchangeable, the safeties should be able to play both spots, etc. I don’t remember Tim Drevno or Al Borges saying that RBs/FBs are interchangeable, and there’s a reason for that.
You need to login in order to vote
I’m not arguing RB and FB are interchangeable.
I’m arguing that in a pinch you can use one to fill a role. Same goes for a safety playing at CB or OLB. Same goes for an OL moving around.
You’re not usually going to have 2 RBs go down so you’re not usually going to have to deal with a FB playing at RB.
The FB part of the conversation is a worst reasonable case scenario. If you hate it so much put Peppers, Hudson or Thomas back there on some plays. OR PLAY THE TWO RBs you still have left more!
You need to login in order to vote
I would say the opposite in that you are usually going to have 2 running backs go down, at least at some point during the year. Academics, injuries, etc. all add up, especially at RB where they take a pounding. Just this year we had Johnson, Davis, Isaac, Smith, Walker, and Evans each miss time due to injury.
You need to login in order to vote
Yeah OK – you make a valid point about higher than average attrition at the spot. Particularly true given the lack of red-shirting. I’ll raise the target roster number to 5.
You need to login in order to vote
The stronger argument here (that you’re not making) is that RBs are increasingly specialized. There are 3rd down backs, 1st and 2nd down backs, there are pass catching threats who can block, there are pure runners, there are speed/screen guys, etc.
I can dispute that piece too, but that’s a better argument than rotation or attrition.
You need to login in order to vote
Rotation and specialization are pretty interchangeable to me. I’m making that argument. I’m just not calling it what you want.
You need to login in order to vote
You can rotate two guys who are the same. This is what Stanford has done most of the time under Harbaugh/Shaw.
You need to login in order to vote
If Michigan lost their top 2 backs this year (Johnson and Smith), they would still have had Evans and Isaac (or Higdon) and HIll and Peppers. They would have been just fine.
Pick any 2 backs you want – Michigan would have been fine.
Why? Because there are too many damn RBs on the roster.
You need to login in order to vote
Think of all the times we’ve had walk-ons starting. It’s happened that a starter (NOT even a key backup) has been a walk-on (due to need) at every position I can think of. Except RB and WR.
QB – Sheridan
FB – Kerridge
TE – Kwiatkowski
OL – Glasgow / Burzynski
DL – Glasgow / Heininger
LB – OK … I can’t think of one here but it probably happened.
DB – Kovacs
The list is even longer if you include panicked position switches. Again, RB and WR are exempt from this.
You need to login in order to vote
Evans and Isaac as your two running backs is not ideal. Peppers doesn’t know the playbook, and Hill is a 263-pounder who averaged just over 1 yard per carry. Come on.
I’m not saying Michigan needs 7 running backs on the roster every year (or 8 or whatever we have). But recruiting only up to the point where you have 4 is stupid. Nobody does it. Because it is stupid.
You need to login in order to vote
Why are Evans and Isaac not ideal. You’ve spent most of the last decade arguing Michigan needs more speed at RB and those are arguably the two fastest backs on the roster.
Hill is a short yardage specialist who average 1 yard a carry because 1 yard is what you need. he probably had the highest success rate on the team. Give him more opportunities on 1st and 10 and he’d probably approach what Higdon/Isaac/Green/Houma have done the last 2 years.
I don’t think you are making a cogent argument for why you need more than 4 guys that doesn’t also apply at other positions. There are positions that rotate (DL), specialist positions (K), and critical positions (QB) and none of them take the extreme numbers that RB takes.
In an era when RBs red-shirted maybe this made sense but it’s simply unnecessary in modern football for any healthy RB to red-shirt.
You need to login in order to vote
You don’t think I’m making a cogent argument because you disagree. You think a WR or FB can play RB in the blink of an eye. Naturally, the argument doesn’t make sense even though the preponderance of evidence is against you.
I happened to take a look through the top 10 recruiting classes for 2017, and amazingly, they all have at least 1 running back committed. I guess you’ve figured out the flaws that all the elite coaching staffs in the country have been missing.
You need to login in order to vote
I mean – I’ve seen FBs get carries in games. They do fine. I’m not even talking about the FB traps and such, I’m talking about them coming into games late (just like 4th string RBs do) and looking competent.
I think teams should take a RB in pretty much every class. The exception would be when they take too many in the surrounding classes (which just so happens to be the case for almost every team).
You act like it’s ridiculous to disagree with convention. Yet the game evolves and changes all the time. Remember when the run-and-shoot was ridiculous? Now it’s almost the norm in the NFL (give or take a TE who can catch). Remember when not blocking a DL would have been considered absurd? Remember when 200 pound LBs were laughable? Convention isn’t always right.
You need to login in order to vote
I think the real argument for too many numbers at RB and WR is the hunt for impact play-makers. You gotta have them.
Where I really differ with the conventional opinion is that for Michigan’s offense to be Michigan’s offense you really can’t afford to take those shots until you have locked in a strong OL. And that point you really don’t need a true ‘playmaker’ at RB you need a Toby Gerhart guy who you can rely on to plow forward with consistency. This is what hopefully Kingston Davis, Karan Higdon, or Kingston Davis will become one day.
I have less of problem with putting those numbers at WR because your ‘playmaker’ there can be used at other positions, might be a great kick returner,. The guys who don’t make it will usually get a shot at CB (except the “jump ball” guys who I am always frustrated by recruiting).
Also, finding difference-making WRs is a lot easier than finding difference-making RBs. Most RBs are just a guy — as evident anytime they go down and their backup does basically the same thing (see: almost every Wisconsin RB ever, Michigan RBs in the 80s and 90s, Alabama today).
You need to login in order to vote
This is a lot of comments for this topic. Mike Shaw’s power never dies!
You need to login in order to vote
Mike Shaw’s power is wearing off. I am tired.
You need to login in order to vote
I think you guys should just settle this with an old fashion duel. Or at least just call each other on the phone and spare us all!
You need to login in order to vote
Hamilton vs. Burr…with paintballs.
You need to login in order to vote