Alabama transfer running back Justice Haynes has committed to Michigan as of Christmas Eve.
Haynes is a rising third-year player with two years of eligibility remaining. Standing 5'11" and 210 pounds, he rushed for 448 yards on 79 carries and scored 7 touchdowns as a sophomore in 2024. He was a backup to Jamarion Miller and was #3 in rushing yards behind quarterback Jalen Milroe and Miller. As a freshman in 2023, he ran 25 times for 168 yards and 2 touchdowns.
Haynes was a 5-star, the #3 running back, and #29 overall in the class of 2023 out of Buford (GA) Buford. Michigan has recruited several players from Buford over the years, but their best signee was running back Christian Turner (who transferred to Wake Forest and then Indiana).
Of all the players in the portal, Haynes was one of the guys I wanted most because it's pretty clear to see how he will translate to Michigan's offense. Michigan likes downhill running backs, and Chip Lindsey had success with a pretty similar back at North Carolina in Omarion Hampton. (Hampton is a little bigger at a listed 6'0", 220 lbs.) Haynes has quick feet, gets north-south quickly, does a good job of following his blocks, and also has contact balance.
Side note: I also was hoping to land Kentucky transfer Keeshawn Silver as a big nose tackle and Washington State QB John Mateer; Silver is headed to USC, and Mateer was a pipe dream, anyway, but decided to follow his offensive coordinator to Oklahoma.
Anyway, Haynes should leap to the front of the line at the running back position and make a good 1-2 punch with Jordan Marshall. I'll channel my inner Fred Jackson and say Haynes looks like De'Veon Smith . . . but fast! I like both Haynes and Marshall, and the Wolverines should have one of the best backfields in the Big Ten. Cole Cabana (Minnesota) and Tavierre Dunlap (Eastern Michigan) both decided to transfer after the season, but the program will have third-year back Benjamin Hall, second-year player Micah Ka'apana, and newly signed Jasper Parker and Donovan Johnson in addition to Haynes and Marshall.
Haynes is the second Alabama player to transfer to Michigan this cycle, joining defensive tackle Damon Payne. Michigan lost safety Keon Sabb to the Crimson Tide last off-season.
Angry runner with some speed. I wanted this guy, but please get him some OL!
ReplyDeleteLove the Deveon Smith comp. When I saw this run, I thought of The Game in 2o13, when a little known Smith forced similar collisions
https://x.com/mjoebean/status/1871690137119371303?s=42
Not a great sign for Benjamin Hall as he heads into his junior season. Haynes seems like a solid RB but not a true difference maker given where he sat on Alabama's depth chart the last couple season. I'm glad to have him, rather than not have him, since Hall doesn't seem to be HIM. I would LOVE to have "Deveon Smith but fast" for sure. But I find this addition to be a bit troublesome.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to get overly dramatic about a single portal addition but this seems like another example of Moore/Magree prioritizing the wrong thing to me. Not getting a QB last year, focusing on height at WR this year, focusing resources on high school recruits with big up front costs, are a few other spots that I have questioned (beyond the entire offensive approach in 2024).
Haynes recruitment was rumored to require a hefty NIL amount. It seems we may have outbid everyone else for him. If that's the case, I don't love this at all. I know we as fans aren't seeing the tradeoffs but we know they ARE working within a budget. Money spent one place is money not spent somewhere else.
Spending big on a RB that is probably not going to produce all that differently from guys you already have (Marshall/Hall) is dubious. Especially when your OL appears to be a potentially big deficiency (pessimistic view) or a spot of uncertainty (optimistic view). This approach has not worked at the NFL level and evidence that it will at the college level is N/A.
It seems that Michigan is letting itself get outbid on a lot of higher ranked QBs and WRs (and TEs?) and thusfar there's only one developmental addition on the OL. So investing heavily in RB when you have a lot of other more pressing and important concerns, especially on offense, seems not too smart.
I hope I'm wrong but this does not inspire confidence in the program leadership or direction of things. Oh well, I'm just a fan and my job is to clap and cheer so that is what I will do. I have doubts - I hope they are dispelled.
I share Lank's concerns regarding the path that Moore & team has chosen. I agree that UM is working with a budget and I would have rather we spend the money on both sides of the lines (OL/DL) rather than highly priced freshman QB and RBs. Is the team's philosophy still smash? If so, where is the OL? Guidice has transferred. Hinton & Priebe has graduated. Link is still Link.
DeleteWithout knowing the individual players, I am actually impressed by Ohio's transfer portal strategy. They got 2 OL (one fairly highly rated and has many seasons under his belt), a highly rated Defensive End & Tight End. I wished Moore would have gone the same route.
So if they pay, it's a mistake because their priorities are off? While I have similar concerns ... I notice you're questioning their roster management, while a few days ago you defended their decisions based on investment
DeleteLank 23 Dec at 7:o4PM
"Yes Keene is far better than Warren. That's why they paid to get him"
http://touchthebanner.blogspot.com/2024/12/tj-metcalf-wolverine.html
Unfortunately I share Lank’s concerns here. It would seem to me that position groups where freshman can contribute (e.g., RB) should be primarily addressed via recruiting whereas position groups like OL and TE, which typically require a bit more development,
Deleteshould be targeted via the portal. Haynes seems like a decent piece and I’m happy to have him but I really hope his addition isn’t at the expense of other, higher value position groups.
@FT
DeleteYeah I was bummed about OSU getting the Purdue TE. I think he would have been a good fit for us.
My opinion on Moore is that he is focusing his energy on addressing areas that were maybe suboptimal with Harbaugh. That's fine in theory, if you are ADDing things without subtracting anything, but it seems he maybe missing the boat on replicating some of the key elements of Harbaugh's success (OL, TE). Hope I'm wrong. You'd think with his background Moore would be all in on getting the OL to an elite level again.
@Jelllllly
It's not an endorsement of Moore's roster management to note that Keene cost money and that he's an upgrade of the guy they have. The exact same is logic is appropriate for Haynes. Haynes is better than Hall, that's why they paid to get him. There's no contradiction here. They wouldn't be paying money if they didn't think they were getting an upgrade and I agree they are.
The reason I have a different reaction for Keene (thumbs up) and Haynes (thumbs down) upgrades is because of positional value (i.e., spending money on QB upgrade is impactful, spending money on a RB upgrade isn't).
Haynes is one of the best RBs in the portal and reported to be a big deal in terms of NIL. Keene is not one of the best QBs in the portal and while I'm sure NIL was part of the appeal of MIchigan for him, it doesn't sound like they won a bidding war to get him.
The context of who is being replaced is relevant too. At QB Michigan has a walk-on and a freshman. At RB they have a junior, a sophomore, and multiple freshman. At one position the cabinet is full and at the other it is empty, relatively speaking.
SO -- Keene moves the needle on the 2025 wolverines and Haynes doesn't. The alternatives to getting them (or not) are very different, so are the consequences, and so are (probably, as far as I know) the costs.
Both guys improve the roster, but one seems like bad roster management and the other seems like good roster management.
This is another #fantasy where you are making connections and equivocations that don't hold up. In this case, spending money on upgrades = good roster management? That's your logic. Not mine.
There's a difference between paying what the market says value is for something you need and setting the market value for a luxury item.
I remain skeptical of Moore's decisions, as I have from day 1 when he was hired, when he focused on traveling around the country to talk to high school recruits.
@Anon
I'm good with using the portal for pretty much any position hypothetically. I just see a lot more need on OL/TE than at RB right now, on this roster. If we didn't have Marshall and Hall at RB though, if it was just a walk-on competing with freshman like at QB, I could see a need to go out and grab a RB from the portal.
When MIchigan wasn't spending big $ in the Portal (under Harbaugh) they were going out and getting impact players at undervalued positions (e.g., TE, OC, backup DT) and now I see them spending big $ at some places that I see as overvalued (high school QBs, established RBs).
Again, I hope my skepticism is proven wrong.
Counterpoint regarding OL/RB split:
DeleteWhat freshman running backs have come in and put the offense on their backs outside of Mike Hart? I know people like to say that running backs can contribute - a key word - early, but Michigan's best success on the field over the past however many years has come with Hassan Haskins (senior), Blake Corum (junior), and Blake Corum (senior). Fitzgerald Toussaint was a redshirt junior in 2011 when he had his best year.
Zach Charbonnet had a solid freshman season, but it was unspectacular. He was a Steady Eddie type who averaged 4.87 yards/carry, but I think people would be hard-pressed to identify a signature run he had that season. His longest carry of the year was 41 yards against Middle Tennessee State.
I'm all for recruiting/signing offensive linemen, but if you're going to plan on freshmen/sophomores carrying the load at running back, I think it's going to be a disappointing year.
Disagree with Thunder on several fronts. I disagree with the logic, I disagree with the assertions, and I disagree with the conclusion.
Delete1. I don't think the connection between RB success and team success is very strong. If you look at some of our most disappointing seasons like 2020 and 2017 -- the leading RBs put up over 6YPC. Didn't matter. Likewise our 2023 national champs had our top 2 RBs averaging under 5 YPC. Didn't matter.
The correlation with team success and RB experience also doesn't hold up. Michigan's least successful seasons on the field over the past several years have featured junior RBs as primary ball carriers in 2020 (Hasskins) and 2017 (Higdon).
2. I think the idea that RB needs to put the offense on his back is fundamentally a flawed premise. Holding up 2004 as a model for a freshman RB because Hart shouldered a massive workload as a feature back ignores that offenses tend to work best when multiple RBs are rotating. For example, 2019 (Charbonnet's freshman year) is a better model than 2004 (Hart's freshman year) as the run game and the offense as a whole were both better in 2019.
We can talk about subjective things like "putting an offense on it's back" and "signature runs" and how spectacular things are or are not, but what matters is the offenses results, not how the individual RBs make somebody feel.
3. Freshman and sophomores have proven they can do the job over at RB and over again. Most recent examples:
When Corum was a junior he was injured and things were generally expected to fall apart at the end of 2022 when he went down. Instead, the offense (at least at face value) produced better results with his backup, a true sophomore without extensive experience, was thrust into a feature as the primary back.
In 2018, Michigan had a strong running attack led by a couple veterans (senior Higdon, junior Evans) in the backfield and those 2 averaged 5.2 and 5.3 ypc. When both left in 2019 there was doom and gloom predictions and call for a big roster need at RB, but when the job was left to a freshman and a position-switching sophomore those two averaged 4.9 ypc and 5.1 ypc. No problemo.
In general seniors are going to be better than freshman. In general players get better with age. But there are no examples where youth at RB proved a hinderance to Michigan.
I wouldn't want to rely on freshman alone at any position but I don't think we need to seek out experience at RB anymore than height at WR. It's nice to have, but not an essential trait.
Thunder is obviously entitled to his opinion but I don't there there's much evidence to expect freshman/sophomores at RB to lead to disappointment any more than juniors/seniors at RB might, that goes for individuals and for teams.
Amazingly, coaches and facts around college football suggest otherwise. A look at national champions and their lead running backs:
Delete2023: SENIOR Blake Corum
2022: SENIOR Daijun Edwards
2021: SENIOR Kenny McIntosh
2020: SENIOR Najee Harris
2019: JUNIOR Clyde Edwards-Helaire
2018: Sophomore Travis Etienne
2017: JUNIOR Damien Harris
2016: JUNIOR Wayne Gallman
2015: JUNIOR Derrick Henry
2014: Sophomore Zeke Elliott
So in the last ten years, there have been 4 seniors at running back, 4 juniors, 2 sophomores, and 0 freshmen. Those are the facts.
Also, coaches around the country keep playing upperclassmen over underclassmen. And that includes Jim Harbaugh. So if we should "trust the coaches," well . . . let's trust the coaches then.
Winning teams tend to start juniors and seniors at RB?
DeleteCool -- so do losing teams! The 5 worst teams in ESPNs 2024 FPI ratings (NMSU, Kent State, Tulsa, Southern Miss, and Kennesaw State) had a senior, a senior, a senior, a senior, and a junior be their lead ball carriers. So clearly a trait of bad teams is reliance on veteran RBs?
Of course not! This is terrible logic. No one is arguing with your facts Thunder - Most players get better through their careers, so one would expect seniors to play over sophomores and juniors over freshman, generally. This isn't insightful or interesting. No one is saying we should choose freshman over seniors in a vacuum, Thunder. Not at RB or anywhere else.
The argument here is about what you choose to spend your money on. What positions and traits you emphasize to add to your roster. What you choose to spend your limited resources to get. No one is saying we should be cutting loose guys like Edwards and Corum as they age. We are arguing that Hall (JUNIOR), Marshall (SOPHOMORE), and the freshmen can handle the job. That team has more pressing needs to throw resources at.
Experience is valuable at every position. Perhaps it is more valuable at some positions (OL, QB, DT, Safety) than others. Perhaps it's not, and it's critical to have experience at EVERY position. That's the argument.
Let's not get it twisted. This should not be flipped into a "seniors are better than freshman actually" debate, because no one is arguing against experience, we're arguing against prioritizing it, at RB.
The question raised here is if it would be a PROBLEM to have younger players carrying a substantial burden at RB, and the fact that there have been sophomores as the lead ball carriers TWICE on the last few national champions indicates that it would NOT. The Michigan experience also indicates that it is NOT a problem, whenever it happens.
This is a bit like where you argue -- hey look tall WRs exist and some of them are really good therefore we should seek out tall WRs. Great -- except you can use the exact same logic for short WRs and nobody argues we should go out and get short WRs. If you have short and tall WRs thriving both, then it would seem like height isn't a key factor in being successful. Likewise, if you have upper and lowerclassmen thriving at RB, it would seem like experience isn't a key factor.
acknowledged: Most starters are upperclassmen (at all positions). acknowledged: Experience tends to help (at all positions).
It seems far more important at other positions than at RB to me and others because we've seen so many freshman and sophomore RBs over the years be key players on winning teams and we've NOT seen that as frequently at say QB or LT or DT. It does happen, just not as often, it seems.
"So if we should "trust the coaches," well . . . let's trust the coaches then."
DeleteThis post is explicitly about not trusting coaches (a specific coach, not being trusted on several fronts).
@ Lank 10:13 a.m.
DeleteYes, upperclassmen play more than underclassmen...so let's trust the coaches! Michigan doesn't have upperclassmen at running back next year, so let's get some! Upperclassmen are better than underclassmen!
Also, interestingly, you say that experience at QB is more important...but Alabama's sophomore/freshman combo of Jalen Hurts and Tua Tagovailoa won the national championship in 2017. Freshman Trevor Lawrence led Clemson to a natty in 2018.
Hmmm...zero freshman starting running backs have won a national championship in the last decade, but two freshman starting quarterbacks have.
(NOTE: I'm not saying you should put together a patchwork offensive line and expect great success because of a good/experienced RB. Michigan should be pursuing offensive linemen, too, and they are - they're trying to get Josh Thompson from Northwestern, the kid from Washington State, etc.)
Hall will be an upperclassmen Thunder. Michigan does have that! Already. Haynes (#3 RB in the 2023 class) is no more veteran than Hall (#55 RB in the 2023 class) or injury-ridden Cole Cabana for that matter.
DeleteYou can suddenly insist on trusting Moore on every decision after not trusting Harbaugh to make the most basic decisions on his depth chart decisions. I do not. I go the opposite way. I trust a proven head coach like Harbaugh on a lot of things (but never ever everything). An unproven head coach has to earn it. Moore has not for me.
"Upperclassmen are better than underclassmen!"
Very generally, we agree. No one her is suggesting Michigan roll with freshman exclusively at RB. We are saying you can trust the guys you have to develop as they gain experience rather than spending big. Can you name ANY team ever that has struggled because their RB group consisted of a freshman, another freshman, a sophomore, and a junior and all they were lacking was experience? I cannot.
You do recognize right that if you spend $1M to get a "proven" player at one position, you then have $1M less to spend at another position? Yes?
In this case we are saying the $XM spent on a junior RB, when you already have a highly ranked sophomore and a solid-looking junior (PLUS a couple freshman) that maybe that $XM would be better spent at problem spots like QB, OL, WR rather than RB.
These are related decisions. Tradeoffs. A choice. A strategy. It's been acknowledged from the outset that having Haynes is better than not having Haynes, all else being equal. But all else is not equal. Michigan now has $XM less to spend on other positions.
I'll give a specific example -- Sam Webb intimated that Michigan was outbid on Moss and Edwards at QB, so now we have less of QB than if we spent more at QB. I don't know the specific $ involved obviously, but again, it is being reported that Haynes was very much a $ situation and he was one of the top ranked RBs in the Portal so that's how Michigan seems to have decided to allocate their available money. They invested BIG in a freshman QB, they invested big in a portal RB, they went relatively cheap on a portal QB (one year after deciding to do nothing with portal QB). To me, that is not optimal.
If Underwood is Lawrence or Hurts or Tagavailoa well then that solves a whole lot of problems doesn't it? You don't have to worry about nailing resource allocations if that gamble pays off. But this is what it is -- a gamble.
A ferrari is better than not a ferrari, but that doesn't mean buying a ferrari is a smart decision. Is that a leak coming through the roof? Oh well, time to go for a drive and not worry about it!
Michigan has zero fifth year seniors, zero fourth year seniors, and one third-year player on the roster for 2025. That lone junior has 28 carries for 113 yards and 0 touchdowns in his career. Other than a spring game and a decent performance against a bad Big Ten team, he has shown nothing that suggests he can be a big-time running back.
DeleteThe financial aspect is pretty irrelevant to me, because nobody knows what anyone is getting paid. You don't know what Underwood is getting paid, you don't know how much they're offering Josh Thompson, you don't know how much Haynes is getting paid, etc. Until/unless there's reliable financial information like there is in other professional sports, it doesn't really matter.
Dave Portnoy said he would pay like $3 million for a good transfer QB, but Mikey Keene isn't worth $3 million. How do you know Portnoy's not paying $500,000 for Keene and offering up $1,250,000 to a couple offensive linemen? You don't!
Where/when did Sam Webb intimate that Michigan got outbid for Miller Moss and Billy Edwards? I haven't seen that at all. If anything, I heard him suggest on his show that Moss was interested in Michigan until he jumped in the portal, at which point other coaches started selling him on the fact that he wouldn't have to compete against a "Golden Boy" 5-star freshman. There's a similar case to be made for Edwards to choose Wisconsin over Michigan. And Moss's interest started being reported right around when Michigan played USC, which was a couple months before Underwood committed to Michigan.
So if you can point to anyone reputable actually saying Michigan was outbid for Moss/Edwards, please do so. If you've been listening to the same podcasts/radio shows I have been, you and I have very different interpretations about what Webb said regarding those guys.
Here's a pretty good argument/pitch Louisville could make that doesn't include Michigan getting outbid: "Michigan will pay you $1,000,000 and we will, too, but at least if you come to Louisville, we can guarantee you'll be the starter. That Bryce Underwood kid is legit. There's going to be a lot of pressure on those coaches to play him. Michigan did it back in the day with Tom Brady and Drew Henson." Hell, maybe Michigan offered a million and Louisville only offered $900K but offered a guarantee.
"But this is what it is -- a gamble."
It's all a gamble. Putting recruiting resources into a 5-star player is a gamble, because you might miss out on a 4-star that you could actually get and have produce. Playing a first-year starter is a gamble. Etc.
Lank misinterpreting? Say it ain't so!
Delete@Thunder
DeleteBen Hall is a junior. We were talking about what class guys are not how proven they are. But OK that's fine.
I would argue that Nothing Hall has shown suggests he cannot be a big-time running back. He has been a backup to some very impressive starters. To illustrate the point -- Kalel Mullings had barely done more through 4 years (50 carries/253 yards) than Hall had done after 2 years (28 carries / 113 yards). *Hall should add to those total on Tuesday.
And now that you are on team "trust the coaches" on depth chart decisions -- Hall was given snaps over Mullings at one point this season. So he can probably do some things.
I think Marshall is more impressive and will be ahead of Hall. I don't think Hall is going to be anything great (more like a Higdon than a Corum), but that's not the point. The point is we have a couple of non-freshman options, one of them an upperclassmen, a trait that you've decided to hang your hat on as being important. We have it!
-------------------------------------------------------
"Until/unless there's reliable financial information like there is in other professional sports, it doesn't really matter"
Nah. It matters. It matters A LOT. It is arguably THE MOST important thing in college football right now. Spending and winning align very closely.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5998305/2024/12/17/college-football-playoff-nil-roster-budgets/
I don't need every detail to be public to be aware that guys are getting paid a lot of money to play college football and that NIL budgets are a)finite and b)very important.
"I don't have all of the details so the whole thing is irrelevant" is burying your head in the sand. I'm sorry - NIL matters in college football. How much you have and how you spend it -- that's a massive part of college football.
@thunder
DeleteOn NIL money playing a role in the portal recruiting at QB:
Did you just say you have to read between the lines with Webb in the other thread? Anyway, yeah Webb said on his radio show that the reports about Underwood's NIL inflated expectations about what Michigan would pay at QB. That was specifically in the context of discussing Moss and Edwards cooling on Michigan rather suddenly once they were in the portal.
Webb has also talked about MIchigan having "slots" (i.e., budgets) for certain positions and that WR was below market. Considering the investment in underwood would take up a lot of the QB "slot" you can draw your own conclusions about what was left for the portal QB.
Or not! We don't have perfect info so we can just pretend like paydays are irrelevant LOL.
And yeah, just to be clear, I agree that the "threat" of Underwood was a factor too. Webb talked about that too -- but those guys were rumored to be hot and heavy for Michigan AFTER Underwood committed. So they were not turned off by that alone. That was known info, in advance, before they entered the portal. They were OK with it, seemingly.
What wasn't known info in advance? -- the NIL packages of the different schools could offer up. Maybe your theory is right and these guys just simply had not thought about the relevance of recruiting the top recruit in the country might have on them until Louisville and Wisconsin pointed it out to them. Or maybe they aren't idiots. Who knows! We don't have all the info LOL.
@Thunder
Delete"It's all a gamble."
That's like saying they are all football players. Yes - you are right. But not all of them are the same.
Bringing in a high school kid vs bringing in a proven starter is different levels of gamble. Ducks adding Dillon Gabriel - pretty much a sure thing. UCLA signing Dante Moore out of high school -- far from a sure thing, and Ducks getting him one year later was STILL not a sure thing.
We can look at some specific examples. The 2021 QB class that would now be seniors had 6 QBs who were 5 star recruits. 3 of them look like they'll be NFL starters and high draft picks (Ewers, Williams, McCarthy), 1 of them looks like a good college QB (McCord), and 2 of them are busts (Huard, Vandagriff). And all but JJ transferred. 1 of the 5 worked out for the teams that recruited them. That is......High Risk!
Meanwhile the top 5 proven veteran QBs in the portal last year all turned out to be at least quality starters for the teams signing them. Cam Ward, Will Howard, Riley Leonard, Dillon Gabriel, Will Rogers were safe additions with very little risk and they all produced. No busts. Arguably 5/5 successes......... Low risk!
Michigan could have thrown their freshman Underwood dollars at portal Mateer and their lesser Keene dollars at Smith (or something similar) but they chose the strategy they chose. Gambling (more) on the inexperienced unproven but high ceiling high talent option.
---------------
What you choose to spend on is a strategy. Just like investing -- you consider your interest level and risk level. You can embrace risk or go for sure things that might not pay off as much. You can play along like everyone else does and be conventional or you can try to find opportunities where not everyone is looking. It's a choice and we can talk about each others priorities and strategies without knowing every last detail.
If you hear that I've put a big bet on bitcoins you can know something about my strategy without knowing the specifics. Just like when I hear Moore talking about emphasizing height at WR tells me something about his strategy.
I hope you'd be dubious of me if you heard I'm a big bitcoin guy. I'm dubious of the WR height and the 5-star QB recruit guy. Might get rich...might fall flat. We'll see I guess.
Funny that I get called out for mentioning my guy Ian Gold in the Payne post but I'm supposed to think a recruiting pitch involving some guy named Drew Henson from 30 years ago is supposed to matter to a college kid...
DeleteBut you're right Thunder. WE don't know! The recruiting pitch could be anything just like the financials could be anything. So I guess recruiting pitches might as well be irrelevant too, just like finances we don't know about.
The financials are irrelevant to the discussion because we're just throwing numbers around and making guesses. They're not irrelevant to college football. You're saying Michigan offered too much money to Haynes, but you have no idea if that's true. You're saying Michigan isn't offering enough money to linemen, but you have no idea if that's true.
DeleteRecruiting pitches are obvious. Finances are not. "You've got a 5-star QB waiting in the wings" is common knowledge. Michigan knows it. Other teams know it. Miller Moss and Billy Edwards knew it. The money isn't common knowledge.
Yes, the top QBs in the portal for 2024 were "sure things" like Dillon Gabriel and Cam Ward and others...but you're forgetting Michigan's lack of receivers and lack of commitment to the passing game. This was discussed last off-season, and it's yet again an issue. It's one thing to say we'll pay you $2 million to play QB...it's another thing to say we'll pay you $2 million but you're only going to throw the ball 15 times a game, and oh by the way, we don't really have any good receivers for you. Almost all of the guys you mentioned were going to high-powered offenses known for their passing prowess, and the other guy (Cam Ward)...well...I'll let you reach your own conclusions there.
We definitely needed playmakers at WR
Delete@Thunder
DeleteNIL is very relevant to recruiting strategy - portal and high school both.
It was reported that NIL was a big factor in Haynes recruitment. "Whether RB should have been a priority, especially with the knowledge that this was reported to be a high-priced, NIL-centric recruitment, is another question." via Mgoblog
Finances are obvious. Recruiting pitches are not.
The results speak more loudly than your conjecture. Again, Edwards and Moss were interested in Michigan AFTER Underwood committed to Michigan. Webb said they were underwhelmed by the money offered after reading about what Underwood (supposedly) got.
Michigan did not throw the ball 15 times a game. You keep saying this is a huge deal and keeps recruits away but Michigan just landed the top QB recruit in the country a few years after getting JJ and they also got Shea Patterson to transfer before that. It does not seem to be scaring people away the way you insist it does. That's mainly because not everyone thinks counting stats are as important as you do. Cam Ward might be on your side though FWIW.
Dillon Gabriel didn't go to a high powered passing offense - he went to a dink and dunk offense (albeit a highly effective one). He has extremely low depth of target and Oregon ranked 75th in pass percentage. They passed 46% of the time. ND and Indiana also didn't pass much and got major additions at QB from the portal anyway.
Michigan didn't get an impact portal QB because they decided not to prioritize it. Period. That was true last year and it's true now.
I'd prefer De'Veon Smith . . . but vision.
ReplyDeleteHe didn't help us out so much, but Archie Griffith would be another example of a guy getting it done as a freshman ... and then some.
It does happen. But when it does happen, usually you got the stuff of legend going on.
I wouldn't call Charbonnet a legend. Or A-Train for that matter.
DeleteFreshman are frequently key contributors at RB. They aren't bellcows often, but we don't want a bellcow. That tends to happen when your RB room is problematic (as in Hart's case). We want multiple guys rotating, like Haskins/Corum/Edwards.
@Lank 26 Dec at 4:51PM
DeleteBut for a RunFirstRunOften SMASH offense, the value of RB1 increases, while the placeholder at QB almost certainly drops ...
Then we can consider, who's more likely to start all season? I could see Keene riding pine after the break (IF he even wins the job), not starting another game after September. For Haynes, we might ride him into a potential playoff. Wouldn't that change things up?
Moving past your distraction of "fantasy talk," I too have been clamoring for active portal moves, yet only had RB in the 'if a good one is there & willing' category behind QB, OLs & WRs and even TE. But once we got stuck with Keene, my guess shifted to OL (even in spring) & reinforcing the run game. It's who we are & have been
on RB experience depth & rotation, "That team has more pressing needs to throw resources at" ... this was more than enough for all to agree on, but someone always has to twist, exaggerate, misrepresent & lie ... not surprisingly, Lank goes to YPC as his only stat (IYKYK). I also chuckled when the only M example was Sophomore Edwards who started three games (Games 12-14), including an upset loss when a B12 team outrushed us AND we had to give a crucial goal line TD attempt to a converted LB
As for young RBs ZC would be my pick. We rode him to a narrow victory against ... Army. He also finished the season with all-Conference honors; notably, his RB2 was also getting his first college carries. The next closest in recent memory would be Corum, who shared carries with three other guys in a shortened FR year, and as a Sophomore lost carries to H2 after a midseason injury ... in other words, our offense has a not good season with young RBs leading
"I think the idea that RB needs to put the offense on his back is fundamentally a flawed premise" In addition to the 2o19 Army game, we had Kalel Mullings put the offense on his back this year. We'd have a losing season if he hadn't
"Can you name ANY team ever that has struggled because their RB group consisted of a freshman, another freshman, a sophomore, and a junior and all they were lacking was experience? I cannot"
DeleteThat would be more applicable if our QB & WR positions weren't still HUGE problem areas, and we weren't RunFirstRunOften SMASH ... where the roster stands, we're going to have to run, run, ru, maybe more than previous years ... Marshall was injured much of 2o24, Hall hasn't shown much, and the other guys are not even in consideration
If we were any other Offense I'd agree ... but this is MICHIGAN
Yeah it's going to be a team that runs a lot which is why you need to invest in OL and a QB that can keep defenses honest.
Delete"But for a RunFirstRunOften SMASH offense, the value of RB1 increases, while the placeholder at QB almost certainly drops ."
DeleteMaybe relatively to a pass happy team, but value is still low relative to other positions.
We had two excellent RBs this year and the offense struggled. The value of our RBs was marginalized because the OL was a rotating cast of new faces and the QBs couldn't run or couldn't pass downfield or both.
What would have made our running game produce better this year -- replacing Mullings/Edwards with Henderson/Judkins or...........replacing our terrible QBs with an average big ten starter like Altmeyer, Rogers, or Edwards?
Would it have made more of a difference to our run game if you could have had Blake Corum from the NFL...or Olu Oluwatimi? or Trevor Keegan? or Luke Schoonmacher? or Roman Wilson?
I don't know the answer to the second one because I think the world of Blake Corum, but I would bet a whole lot on those mediocre QBs being more valuable than the incremental improvement we could have gotten out of Judkins/Henderson over Mullings/Edwards.
on THAT, we agree: invest in positions of desparate need more heavily than in one where options do exist
DeleteTHAT is the point. RB is not a position of need.
DeleteIt never is at a place like Michigan (except in some worried hearts). EVERYTIME it is raised a capital p Problem, it turns out not to be. And it has been raised as a capital p Problem pretty dang often!
Sherrone Moore seems to see things differently than me though. I don't agree and don't trust the judgement of someone who thinks that way. At the same time -- I hope he is right and I am wrong! I hope I can tell myself "you should have trusted the coaches dummy" by this time next year.
But it's not the ONLY point. You said as much here, as we are the exact opposite of a pass happy team. This the value this investment at least TBD
Delete(RB) "never is at a place like Michigan (except in some worried hearts). EVERYTIME it is raised a capital p Problem, it turns out not to be"
Example? Because this seems like another example where agreement emerges, so you veer off into hyperbole laden statements in hope of argument ...
Examples covered above already.
Delete2022 - Blake the great Corum goes down and some don't think we stand a chance without him, but the true sophomore backup called out for his limitations as a ball-carrier repeatedly, steps in against OSU, the Big Ten champ game, and the CFB playoff and thrives. With a broken hand no less! The offense looks better than ever and the team posts 45, 43, and 45 points with Edwards getting vast majority of RB snaps in the highest stakes games. Giving up 51 points to TCU has nothing to do with Edwards or Corum, despite some claiming relevance.
2019 - Higdon goes pro and Evans gets suspended in the offseason leaving the RB room thin. A walk-on is projected to start over a converted LB and a freshman by most. Thunder's season preview expressed concern and he was not alone: "In year five of the Jim Harbaugh era, I did not think the Wolverines would be starting a walk-on running back without big-play ability, but I guess that’s where the program is right now." Charbonnet and Haskins stepped in and no problemo. Both are now in the NFL.
Like I said, already covered above, but have your fantasy.
I see Anthony Thomas was thrown in the discussion up above...but let's not get things twisted. He was the #2 rusher as a freshman. Chris Howard was the lead running back (868 yards), and he was less efficient in the dreaded yards per carry stat (4.1) behind Howard (4.8), Clarence Williams (4.6), and even fullback Chris Floyd (4.4). And before anyone suggests Floyd's numbers came on a couple runs, he ran the ball 59 times that year, or about 5 times per game.
DeleteYou can say trust the coaches - Thomas was the #2 back, after all - and that's fine, but we're not talking about freshmen who are "able to contribute." If you want to reach the pinnacle of college football, that's not going to cut it.
Lank, your example was laughed at. Edwards didn't start a season, but three games:
Delete- he was BOOM-BUST in The Game (ea carry covered in previous exchanges), and we became a passing team. 4 of 6 touchdowns were JJ, not RBs
- Purdue is ... purdont (but yeah, a great game)
- against TCU we were not only upset, but abandoned Harball. To the surprise of most sports nerds, MICHIGAN was air raid & the B12 opponent dominated the run game. Worse, in a short yardage, manball TD play, we opted for the recently converted LB
That makes the Edwards case a very bad example by objective means, but if you want to go with feelings, go for it
Was Tru Wilson ever projected as a Starter? By "most?" Did he ever even start a game? You're probably misrepresenting when that post was made & the context surrounding it ... anyway, Charbonet was The Man in 2o19 while Haskins adjusted to the position. We lose to Army without him, which likely changes the calculus on retaining Harbaugh after 2o2o. Not surprisingly, ZC is the highest drafted M running back this century, and has had the most success in the League. In other words, he was special, earning mention by Roanman & me as exception to young RB success & reliability
There it is. Nothing you're presenting supports your claim:
"RB is not a position of need"
@Thunder
DeleteWe are talking about freshman being able to contribute. That was Anon's quote "It would seem to me that position groups where freshman can contribute (e.g., RB) should be primarily addressed via recruiting..." to which you responded, talking about contributing but only listing the top rusher.
I would say Michigan reached the pinnacle of football with a freshman RB contributing in a major way, way back in 1997.
@jelllly
You keep saying Edwards started 3 games as if anyone is arguing the point. Edwards started the most important 3 games of the season and he thrived. Did you think the guy who thrived against OSU was going to stink up the joint against Hawaii? Edwards REPLACED Corum and it was not any kind of problem. The best Michigan RB of our lifetime was replaced by a guy widely criticized. That guy was an underclassmen. It didn't matter!
Edwards had more carries against TCU than OSU and the Harbaugh offense thrived in both games.
Yes Wilson was projected to start - check the TTB archives. "Prediction: Starting running back; 150 carries for 700 yards and 6 touchdowns". Check the mgoblog archives. The competition was acknowledged but fair to say "most" gave the edge to walk-on over the freshman and I don't think anyone named the top guy (Haskins). It wasn't a problem!
It's NEVER been a problem!
None of your points refute my argument. Swing and miss. Feel free to try again. Until then......hold up your latest one!
You didn't dispute anything, just repeated yourself ... then lied: MGoBlog had a preference for a slow blocker, but made no such prediction ... "most" was easy to debunk
Deletehttps://mgoblog.com/content/preview-2019-running-back
White flag accepted
@jellllllllllly
DeleteHold up your freshest L while you fantasize about a white flag.
Meanwhile your accusation about lies is just another confession.
https://mgoblog.com/content/preview-2019-running-back
.....lists Tru Wilson as the feature back, first RB in the preview, etc.
Thunder had Wilson rated higher too.
https://touch-the-banner.com/2019-season-countdown/
The only thing you debunked your own lie! LOL
God you're bad at this.
#notbuilt
@ Lank 10:23 p.m.
DeleteBecause "contributing" doesn't matter. Okay, let's just assume Jasper Parker comes in and runs for 450 yards.
So what? Are you going to win a national championship because a freshman came in and contributed with 450 yards?
You still need the Chris Howard or the Blake Corum or the Hassan Haskins to lead the way. Michigan didn't win a ton of games just because they had Donovan Edwards and Anthony Thomas contributing 500 yards across 13 or 14 games. So unless you have the Howard or Corum or Haskins (and I'm not sure Michigan does) on the roster, you need to find him.
So maybe Haynes is that guy.
Classic Lank: ignoring that Edwards "replacement" of corum was limited in number of starts AND results, instead shifting to a lie. TTB is not "most," and Brian did not "predict" Wilson would start. Instead, MGo made a humorous attempt to ease readers of a continued 'curse' of TRFr RBs, and encouraged them to accept the possibility of a slow Back who might block well. The debate continues: is this another attempt of misinterpreting through ignorance or misrepresenting through lies?
Delete"Listen to me now and believe me later: I'd rather have an elite pass protector who runs a 4.8 than a home run threat who can't pick up a ham sandwich. Assuming Zach Charbonnet dodges the Curse of Fred Jackson's Beverages, this year will be an acid test of that assertion"
*this aligns with the debate on whether McCulley was an upgrade to the WR room. If data supported your position, you'd reach for it, even if that meant misrepresenting stats
@Thunder
Delete"You still need the Chris Howard or the Blake Corum or the Hassan Haskins to lead the way."
You don't though. You yourself posted how teams won national championships with underclassmen as their lead backs. And Michigan's 2022 offense showed no signs of slowing down (if anything it spend up) when it went to giving 90% of the work to an underclassmen after Corum got hurt. You didn't think they had a chance against OSU, because of your assertions about the important of certain RB characteristics -- and you were proven wrong.
It's pretty simple if you start here:
You don't win with one guy you win as a team.
RB is one of the least important positions on the field.
still ignoring that we had went from RunFirstRunOften to Air Raid ... we even got out rushed by a small B12 team in an UPSET LOSS
Deleteour all-American RB mattered
My response keeps getting deleted. Apparently I'm not being nice enough.
DeleteI'll keep it simple -- Jelly you are lying.
and he didn't
If Haynes performs like Kenneth Walker did for MSU, this will be money well spent.
ReplyDeleteIf Haynes performs like Quinshon Judkins for Ohio (who is playing decently), I do not think he will be any different from Hall/Marshall (unless they turn out to be as bad as our QBs last year... then our HS talent evaluation the last 2 years really sucked).
My concern is not just the high NIL value but also the fact that that Haynes played for a well coached and talented team in Alabama. It is unlikely that he will outperform the way Kenneth Walker did (If so, Bama would have played him more this year and would be crazy to let him go).
Judkins is a very good RB - worth drafting in the NFL. He's just not very valuable to OSU because OSU can roll out multiple high end athletes and 5-star recruits at RB. So adding him is a total waste of money for them. They should have put their resources elsewhere (OL? DL?).
DeleteMistake by them, that potentially cost them a win over Michigan... glad they screwed up! Their loss was our gain.
---------------
Teams like OSU and Alabama shouldn't be spending big money on RBs because they have an unending free supply of elite athletes who want to play for them for free (or perhaps for whatever is going as the baseline salary these days). Michigan is a team like OSU and Alabama.
--------------------------------------------
Haynes will be worth the money if 3 of our 4 scholarship RBs suck or are hurt. That seems unlikely since Hall and Marshall look solid so far and there's a good chance at least one of the freshman can contribute, based on history of Michigan RB recruits.
You know what kind of RB Michigan could use. A massively impactful big ten workhorse thicc and powerful running threat like Kaleb Johnson! That right there? That's a Harbaughal!l back for ya.
DeleteWait....what's that you say, he just missed a bowl game to prep for the NFL?
Bummer for the Hawkeyes, they most have failed to move the ball entirely without him! Losing such a great RB is a devastating blow....
Let me check what happened. Huh, says here in the boxscore his backup RBs (a 5'9 freshman who weighs under 200 pounds and a 5'10 sophomore who weighs under 200 pounds) had 23 carries for 170 yards. That's well over 7 yards per carry.
They didn't seem impacted by missing their all Big Ten NFL-bound RB at all.
It's almost as though RBs, even good ones, can be replaced pretty readily.
It's almost like you could say that individual RBs don't even......oh nevermind.
Remember when we lost Colston Loveland & Will Johnson, then went into The Shoe and beat ohio?
DeleteRemember when we lost Mazi, Olu & Moody, then lost Zinter, and went on to win a National Championship?
Remember when we lost Dax, Hutch & Oh-Ja-Bo and more, then went undefeated?
It's almost like ... Lank is bored & lonely, desparate for debate
Didn't miss Mullings or Edwards today. HOLD IT UP!
DeleteWe didn't? Our only "big run" was for 24yds. We could have used BOOM from The Don. Marshall did get yards after contact, but nothing Herculean or historical like Mullings. We had ZERO rushing TDs and ZERO 4th Down attempts, the first time all season against a P4 opponent
DeleteGrateful for Marshall; there's a reason coaches call him "special," but there's also a reason that production from other RBs was ... 1.8ypc
*we didn't though, miss Colston Loveland, Myles Hinton, the two Gifts from God, Will Johnson, Josiah Stewart and Makari Paige ... maybe they don't matter
*we just went on the road and beat #2ohio & #11bama back to back with less than 1ooyds passing ... maybe QBs don't matter
Of course, that's simpleton thinking, or something a only troll would argue
We didn't. The offense looked the same as against OSU. It couldn't do much with Mullings/Edwards and it couldn't do much with Marshall/Hall. It couldn't do much with Warren and it couldn't do much with Orji.
DeleteThe "big run" was 27 yards by Mullings against OSU (plus the Orji and Warren runs) and it was 24 yards by marshall against Alabama.
Mullings didn't do anything historic.
We'll go ahead an add Marshall in the never ending chain of "if we didn't have THAT guy, things would be different!". Even when THAT guy is replaced, his replacement immediately becomes THAT guy. LOL
Let me know when you find an example of when losing a RB did matter.
Hmmm...the offense was bad against Alabama, just like it was all season.
DeleteGuys lost at some time before/during the bowl game: Colston Loveland, Donovan Edwards, Kalel Mullings, Tyler Morris, Myles Hinton, Andrew Gentry, Jeff Persi, Davis Warren.
Conclusion: TEs don't matter, nor do RBs, nor do WRs, nor do OTs, nor do QBs.
So maybe only centers, guards, and fullbacks matter?
Also, the defense was still good despite losing Josaiah Stewart, Mason Graham, Kenneth Grant, Will Johnson, and Makari Paige...
...so maybe defensive ends, defensive tackles, cornerbacks, and safeties don't matter?
I'm so confused!
I've given you an example:
DeleteJordan Marshall. Ben Hall. Two RBs, behind the same OL with the same game plan against the same opponent on the same day & location ... two completely different outcomes
We even discussed last month when more examples were provided, but you like to recycle old debates ... probably bored again
http://touchthebanner.blogspot.com/2024/11/preview-michigan-vs-ohio-state.html
*LMAO at comparing Marshall's run to Kalel Mullings ... one would have to look up down & distance, even which Quarter Marshall's came in ... Kalel shrugged off a bearhug by a 3ooLB DL, dodged Jack Sawyer and then ran us into a go ahead FG. That run will be played in future previews for The Game for the next decade plus
The RBs being gone making no difference at all was entirely predictable and it happens time and time again. 2022, 2017, 2024.
DeleteIn fact, whenever I've challenged you to come up with an example of where it did matter - you fall completely flat. You get stuff like Donovan Edwards (and the offense as a whole) absolutely thriving against TCU as the argument. Only proving me right.
I'm as surprised as anyone that the defense seemed to thrive without Graham and Grant. So is Vegas who set a 16 point line in favor of Alabama. Maybe Rayshaun Benny and Trey Pierce are just special irreplaceable talents? That's how this goes right?
@jelly
I'm just using your logic back at you. "Our only "big run" was for 24yds." You can't handle it. BUT BUT BUT ITS DIFFERENT. Ok lil fella!
@thunder
Look up the team passing stats in games that Loveland played in and games that Loveland missed. There's a correlation, and likely a causation. You can't do ANYTHING like that with RB, ever, and I can do it with the TE spot on THIS team.