Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I predicted a 34-28 victory for Michigan (LINK), which was only 3 total points off. And if Michigan hadn't whiffed on their two-point conversion attempt, it would have been even closer. Essentially, the game went almost exactly how I thought it would. I thought Michigan would be ahead late and then force a turnover, stopping a final drive, much like what happened against Rutgers. Instead, Michigan and Nebraska were tied late, and Brad Hawkins forced a fumble, leading to the game-winning field goal. Nebraska is a tough place to play at night - which we learned back in 2012 when Denard Robinson hurt his elbow and Russell Bellomy entered disastrously. Escaping with a victory this time feels good.
Hit the jump for more.
Nebraska is tough to defend. I mentioned this in the game preview, but Nebraska's offense is what I wish we would see from Michigan. The options, screens, tempo, etc. are what I would want to run if I were suddenly made offensive coordinator of an FBS team. Of course, Michigan doesn't have a speedy Adrian Martinez-like quarterback to make it work, and I'm not sure Adrian Martinez is The Prototype, anyway. He seems to have a tendency to make mistakes at critical times, just like he did with the late fumble. They use receivers in a lot of different ways - deep threats, screen-catchers, option pitch men, etc. - and their tempo makes it difficult to line up correctly and execute.
Thank goodness for Hassan Haskins and Blake Corum. Both of those guys are good arguments for Why Running Backs Matter. Yes, Michigan has an improved offensive line from certain years in the past, but those guys create yards that other guys don't. Corum ran for 89 yards on 13 carries (6.9 YPC) with 1 touchdown, while Haskins ground out 123 yards and 2 touchdowns on 21 attempts (5.9 YPC). Haskins continuously gained yards after contact - including an extra 3 yards and a first down when the officials inexplicably ruled him down before the marker - by pushing the pile and leaping a defender. There have been years in the past decade or so where Michigan's backs would not have been good enough to win this game. Both of those guys have been difference-makers this season.
Michigan's wide receiver depth could be an issue. People were talking about the depth of Michigan's wide receiver corps prior to the season, and I didn't understand it. Yes, Michigan has talent, but they don't have numbers or a ton of experience. With Ronnie Bell out for the season and Roman Wilson missing this game, the team was down to using all of its non-freshman receivers. Daylen Baldwin, Mike Sainristil, and Cornelius Johnson all played a major role in this game, while A.J. Henning played as a punt returner. That group right there is every scholarship receiver Michigan has except freshmen Cristian Dixon and Andrel Anthony.
Quarterback roulette. Michigan is really playing with fire with its rotation of Cade McNamara and J.J. McCarthy. McNamara had a subpar game (22/38, 255 yards, 0 TD, 1 INT) but mostly managed the team efficiently and took what was there. I thought his receivers hung him out to dry a couple times, such as a drop in the end zone by Baldwin and a poor adjustment on a deep ball by Cornelius Johnson. He doesn't/can't run the ball, so I understand the interest in playing McCarthy. But putting McCarthy in the game in obvious run situations is a recipe for trouble, just like it was at the end of the game. On 3rd-and-4 with Michigan needing at least a field goal to take the lead, the Wolverines inserted McCarthy - telegraphing a run since passing would be too dangerous - who obviously kept the ball, lost 5 yards, and nearly fumbled. Luckily, kicker Jake Moody still made the field goal to win the game.
I liked the way Michigan handled Martinez. Nebraska quarterback Adrian Martinez is always going to make a few plays a game because of his feet, but I liked the way Michigan handled him on the option for the most part. Rather than attacking him and trying to crush him, the edge guys slow-played the option, helping to string it out to the sideline and delay the pitch. Martinez carried the ball 8 times for 38 yards, but 20 of those yards came on one play, meaning the other 7 carries were tamped down for 18 net yards.
I did not love the way Michigan handled Nebraska overall. First of all, Michigan won the game so yay, and they shut out Nebraska in the first half, so also yay. But I would prefer to use zone coverage against Nebraska, because the tempo, motions, and running quarterback make it difficult to run man. Tempo makes it hard to figure out who's covering whom, motions do the same thing, and a running QB makes him tough to track if all the defensive backs and linebackers have their eyes on their man. Zone coverage leaves a team open to being hit by RPO's, but you can still keep things in front of you and you don't have massive busts like on the Austin Allen TD and the Rahmir Johnson TD. Man coverage on those plays left wide-open receivers in space and allowed some embarrassingly easy touchdowns.
Props to Jake Moody. Place kicking is boring except when it goes bad, but I think it's worth noting that Jake Moody was 4-for-4 on field goals, including makes from 21, 31, 35, and 39, the longest being the game-winner.
This was a game! This team kept on fighting, and did not curl up in a ball like many of the past. What a relief
ReplyDeleteWe were mostly zone in the first half, and I thought we handled Martinez masterfully. But a few screens later, MacDonald switching to Man. Hutch got too aggressive, and Martinez broke out ... Tip of the hat to Frost, because he emptied his playbook and tested our weaknesses. If anything, I'm excited about what MacDonald can do with 'his' guys
On offense, I don't mind Jim Harbaugh's style, and never understood the short-fused hiring of Gattis. But now, we're playing a physical brand with speedy guys who cannot make some of these blocks. On the other side, Frost ran speedinspace horizontally & vertically with a bunch of corn-fed Midwesterners ... Having an identity is great, but the personnel mismatches will cost us ... Knowing that, embrace every win! The coaches are putting these guys in position to make plays, so drops cannot happen
Oh yeah, and of course RBs do matter!
We're toast in this game with Smith and Green.
ReplyDeleteOf the batch of RBs that came in with Haskins, he was by far my least favorite. I though he was all elbows and knees and goofy looking running the ball, and while he broke tackles at the high school level, I couldn't see it working out for him here. On a nice 8-12 yard run, he made a real nice adjustment to a hole opening outside the design ... I think, and then made just a nasty move in that hole to make guys miss. Made me think of "Blind De'veon Smith", who ... as an aside, is now busking outsde Hardrock Stadium on Sundays. Smith would have never seen the hole open in the first place and would have driven into the pile for a gain of two because he was strong.
Still right about Vastardis though.
Pretty good depth at guard. Five ... count em ... five guys came in and played guard. Two of them played on both sides if you believe the post post game presser. I only noticed Barnhart and Filiaga to be honest. Were they as good as the starters? No! But still. Rummler's decision looks to make a ton of sense from his standpoint right now.
We just played two desperate teams with some talent on the road and came away with wins. That's pretty good. Nebraska's program in particular has to be way desperate. Remember the Stanley Cup mantra, "We have to play desperate hockey". I thought Nebraska played like it was an elimination game, which maybe it was. I hope not. I like Nebraska, and while not being a fan of Scott Frost, going back to that #@#^$@% miracle catch that gave them a share of our National Championship, I think he's a really good offensive coach and will win there, if the morons can just control their emotions. He abused our linebackers mentally.
I really do think that they are better as a program than they were when he took it over.
We block better at WR with Wilson and Henning out. If Henning is spending all his practice time fielding punts, I am delighted in the extreme and am in full support of that activity. I didn't see much opportunity for reverses and such anyway, but might well have missed it.
I pay no attention tho the pro game and haven't for quite some time. Are any of the pro teams bringing lots of tempo?
Sparty is gonna.
Jake Butt would like a word with you about Henning's blocking.
Deletehttps://twitter.com/JakeButtTE/status/1447202784651227141
Maybe you meant Wilson.
" I think he's a really good offensive coach and will win there, if the morons can just control their emotions. "
DeleteLOL. Sounds familiar.
I don't get it, what did he say about Henning?
DeleteThe tweet is about Henning. It's a response to a thread on the long Haskins run where Henning is going all out blocking downfield. Seen here
Deletehttps://twitter.com/JDue51/status/1447182231848505345
Ahhhh. That was some good blocking. Much improved.
DeleteI'm guessing someone told him, "You gotta block kid, this is Michigan."
I'm still interested in seeing what happens when he has to take a guy on face up.
But that was a nice bit of effort getting after it downfield and running the kid off the play.
Oh you want to argue about the value of RBs? LOL. Right now? I promise I'll circle back to that another day. Other points to debate up above too but I'm going to enjoy the moment and celebrate.
ReplyDeleteDid not remotely expect we'd come out of this 2 game stretch with 2 wins. 0-2 seemed more likely even with the strong start to the season. Two very entertaining games too. Cade talked about it in the post-game and I think I believe it - this team has different drive and character. Could see it again when they Jumped Around during Thunderstruck. They ran the jewels.
But the ol left brain is here to note that it might just be luck. Michigan has fallen on the wrong side of a number of coin flips like this in recent years. This game fortune favored blue. Just barely.
My biggest grumble from this one is simple. We are passing too much. Of course you want some balance but this team should never attempt more passes than run unless they're down big. It's just not playing to their strength. People can grumble about split zones calls or whatever and that's fine but this team is built on the run game, it's what they do best, it's what they've repped the most. Most of their failed drives were pass heavy. Run the dang ball! Late in the game we had their defense tired, Corum and Haskins were hitting big plays, and we let them off the hook with some questionable pass calls. I think Gattis had a very good day overall but should have leaned into his strength harder today.
With the WR depth depleted by injury we've got a pretty unexceptional group. And QB is what it is. Can't ignore them but the pass game is too wobbly to count on.
Play of the game is fairly obvious, even with a slew of candidates. But I want to talk about another Hawkins play. Very early in the game on the 4th down attempt Martinez run. Hawkins got off his block and forced him out before the marker. That's veteran awareness and playmaking right there in a not especially sexy way. Saved Michigan a TD and swung momentum back after an rough 3 and out followed by a big Nebraska drive. Gamechanger? Perhaps. Brad Hawkins is and was more than "fine" - he's one of our most important players.
Another guy underrated in the countdown was Ojabo. He's really popping as a junior and you can see the raw talent that was discussed coming to fruition. There were some worries about him being an irresponsible rusher that Martinez could exploit for big runs but they kept him in check. With the entire DL making such huges strides, it's probably time to give Shaun Nua his due?
A lot of us read the 2020 coaching staff struggles dead wrong. Zordich, Warriner and Brown are struggling. Harbaugh's kids look pretty good.
To the Harbaugh haters: What was that about Year 7? Still eating soup for dinner? Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
I know you'll be back if/when we lose to OSU, PSU, MSU, hell anyone, but Harbaugh has taken us far ahead of where we were in 2014.
Nebraska is in a similar circumstance. Frost is a really good coach and they would be fools to be impatient and fire a guy who is doing most things right even if he hasn't put the whole thing together yet. That program too, is a lot better off than they were. Like Michigan they don't have any real advantages other than things that happened before the players were born and a passionate fanbase. Like Harbaugh, Frost would be quickly scooped up by another team that would love to have him the minute he is let go.
Definitely agree on balance. I wanted (closer to balance) earlier in the year, but last night with WR drops & limitations in Cade's ability, we went with the pass a bit much. I especially didn't care for entire series bring pass-focused, which almost never went well
DeleteIs Don Brown really struggling? Arizona was #116 in total defense last season and is #62 now.
DeleteHe's on an 0-5 team, so he's struggling. A defense in the 60s (being generous, fancy stats say its worse) is struggling for a guy who has a track record of coaching top 20 defenses year in and year out since his BC days.
DeleteI will be interested to see how Hawkins grades out. Obviously he had two of the biggest plays (fumble and stopping Martinez) but I also thought he actually had a sub-par game to that point getting abused on bad run angles a few times. I have to give him credit for a couple of big plays late that changed the course of the game so kudos to him.
DeleteYeah,I'd rather have a 5th Year Senior at Safety than a RSFr who went through COVID CFB last year, but agree he's far from special
DeleteHawkins fended off Dax Hill in 2019 and ranked out as one of the best safeties in the Big Ten per PFF. He doesn't have elite speed you want at the NFL level but he's still considered a potential draft pick. He's not Peppers but he's one of the handful of best safeties we've had over the last 20 years.
DeleteI don't know what it is about our safeties but people seem not to like them very much. The most egregious was Delano Hill who people seemed pretty indifferent about but then he went out and got drafted in the 3rd round and started a handful of games in the NFL. Metellus was mostly dismissed as an afterthought and went in the 6th round.
The walkons got more love!
@ Lank 4:19 p.m.
DeleteDon Brown brought Boston College from #110 or something to #93 in his first year. You can't turn around a defense overnight. He did it at Michigan immediately because Michigan didn't need an overhaul; they were already a very good defense under D.J. Durkin.
@Unknown
DeleteI'm a Don Brown apologist, fan, and supporter. I think he can turn Arizona around at some point. He's also struggling.
When Greg Mattison took over the Michigan D in 2011 it went from 96th to 16th. It can be done.
Arizona may not be set up for the same success. 2010 was a string of bad luck for the Michigan D. So, I agree that Brown deserves time to turn it around. That's all fine but it is what it is right now -- A struggle.
The jury is still out but it's also possible that the game has passed him by and he can't rely on the same philosophy and tactics in an RPO-heavy world.
We've seen guys like Rodriguez and Chip Kelly - geniuses in the 2000s - fade after their strategies have been downloaded and their bag of tricks seems to be empty. Not saying that IS the case with Brown but I am saying it could be. 2020 was a wonky year but our defense was REALLY bad last year.
And for those who blamed it on undersized DTs... how's that working out? The big beef transfer is on the bench while our DL thrives with Brown recruits (Smith and Hinton) hitting their stride. Jenkins (DT/DE tweener) looks like next man up. Speight and Jeter look like solid back ups. Morris and Upshaw (tweeners) playing well bouncing around the DL.
The DL wasn't good last year and it is good this year but it has literally zero to do with recruiting true DTs or not.
amen on the haskins/corum comment. those guys have been really good. both are tough kids with excellent balance and corum has the acceleration theyve been lacking. its noticeable. pass pro has been good for the most part too.
ReplyDeletethey dont have the greatest TE room but they need to be a threat. its about time (a) mcnamera put throws on the numbers and (b) TEs caught the ball and got upfield. a few of those delayed releases were big (and relatively easy) conversions.
moody is a weapon. a college kicker capable of hitting 85% or whatever is a big deal.
maybe michigan went in with the plan to default to man if nebraska really pushed the tempo, who knows. theyve been better this year about mixing coverages prior to last night. they certainly have the ability to sell early playing time to top CB recruits bc depth chart isnt great there. those guys arent afraid to tackle though, ill at least give them that
My buddy that twits sent me this quote from Bob Wojnowski, "Adrian Martinez always gives both teams a chance to win".
ReplyDeleteThat's pretty right on. I'm a fan of the kidand have enjoyed the games I've watched him QB. He can really do some stuff, but the second half of last nights game is pretty representative of his career.
Oh, and can we get some more love for Robbins? What a weapon in the punting game. And yes, Moody is killing it on FG and kickoffs. Special teams are playing really well right now.
ReplyDeleteOur Kickers are special. Field position & points ... what we don't get from our offense, these guys come in and make up for it
DeleteYep. Talked about it in the preseason but Moody showed that he was a great kicker when he wasn't getting yanked around by the Nordin situation. Robbins had the depth chart clear up for him too.
DeleteSpecial teams is dialed in* and winning ball games for Michigan.
*OK some cleanup needed in the return game but Bell's injury kind of threw us. I'd also like to see someone else returning kickoffs than Corum. This seems like a Wilson or Edwards thing?
@Thunder
ReplyDeleteBefore I dive in on RB value, I would like to first formally acknowledge the irony of this coming up with Corum and Haskins.
You've been fairly skeptical of both all along. Corum and Haskins got modest TTB ranks of 83 and 78. Derrick Green and Ty Issac were in the 90s.
You also expressed doubt about Corum hype in the preseason countdown. I made the case why it was warranted. You also argued when I said Corum had the most impressive freshman year in a while. Now you want to take the other side.
http://touchthebanner.blogspot.com/2021/08/2021-season-countdown-17-blake-corum.html
A few months ago you had a very negative attitude about Charbonnet's transfer even though he had been passed by not just Haskins but also Corum in 2020. Very gloomy and cynical response to a 3rd stringer leaving town.
https://touch-the-banner.com/zach-charbonnet-ex-wolverine/
Moreover, in 2020 leadup these same 2 backs you are celebrating now were considered afterthoughts. Haskins was ranked 40th and Corum 58th. I didn't disagree with this because of my view on RBs but I did think you put Evans and Charbonnet way too high. I was telling you this was the deepest and best backfield Michigan had had in a long time and that while that was nice it wouldn't ultimately matter.
While you did eventually come around on Haskins late in the year you started it calling for more Charbonnet (not Corum or Haskins).
https://touch-the-banner.com/michigan-vs-minnesota-awards-6/
Preseason take on Haskins was doubtful too.
"Haskins can be slippery and powerful, but his big-play ability is lacking and he doesn’t present a mismatch for linebackers in the passing game since, well, he’s been a part-time linebacker himself. I imagine Haskins will take a step down on the depth chart this year, leaving room for Evans and Zach Charbonnet to take the bulk of the snaps."
I say all this not to call you out (predictions are hard) as much as to point out the irony of it. You saying THESE GUYS MATTER now when you very clearly thought they wouldn't until every other scholarship back left in the offseason.
I'll get into my nuanced response (trigger warning for JE) on value later but this needs to be said first. You were "against them" before you were "for them". I find this amusing.
-Lank
I will emphasize that this is not intended as a criticism of predictions. I thought Alan Bowman would be our starting QB by now so I'm in no position to get on a high horse.
DeleteWhat I'm talking about here is my ongoing debate (over the last decade now, going back to Smith/Shaw) about analysis of RB position and performance. I think Thunder has been consistently wrong about who will be a good back, what traits are most important to be a good back, reading too much into contextual stats like YPC, and how valuable it is to have a good back.
My views have evolved - Haskins and Charbonnet have softened my stance against taller backs but I'll stick to some core tenants about RBs:
+speed is overrated (see Hart, Haskins, Smith, Smith)
+talking about vision is feelingsball (it's about consistency and the OL)
+short > tall
+stocky > skinny
+value is determined by what happens if you have to be replaced
+RBs are losing value relative to 90s for a variety of reasons and the evolution of the game -- including frequent rotation and emphasis on passing
+RBs are over-recruited (*in Michigan's case the past tense applies, much to my satisfaction)
Forgot one: there is no hot hand. You play your best guys and don't worry about in game YPCs. Unless a guy is injured, sick, or otherwise compromised you play the guy(s) you'd usually play. Even if your 3rd stringer randomly broke one. Even if your 4th stringer averaged 12 ypc the week before in garbage time. You know your depth chart - stick with it.
Delete@ Lank 1:51 p.m.
DeleteLOL @ "speed is overrated." Only 1,000-yard rushers in last decade? Fitzgerald Toussaint and Karan Higdon, who are/were speedier than anyone in that foursome. Best YPC this season? The speedy Blake Corum. Most successful NFL running backs? Fitzgerald Toussaint and Chris Evans. Only NFL back drafted since 2008? Chris Evans.
You can keep insisting that I'm wrong about running backs, and all I've got on my side is yards per carry stats, overall production, NFL draft results, and NFL production.
You'll always have De'Veon Smith, though, the guy who never ever ever averaged over 4.8 yards per carry.
Sure I'll have Deveon Smith - who Hoke played, you criticized, and then Harbaugh played also. You can keep Ty Isaac and Derrick Green. Smith is the one that played in the NFL.
DeleteI'll also have Vincent Smith - who Rodriguez played, you criticized, and then Hoke played also. You'll have Mike Shaw. He probably has the edge in YPC. lol.
I'll also take Evans and Corum while we're here. You doubted both. Evans you called a slot receiver and spent most of his Michigan career begging for Ty Isaac. We know you don't value receiving skills out of the backfield from the Vincent Smith era. Like QB rushing, RB receiving hardly counts. And Corum you doubted based on...YPC.
Deveon Smith's NFL production is better than 90% of guys you put on "lets see more of" over the last decade. College production too.
DeleteEvans has ZERO carries, and is used ... to catch the ball & run
DeleteYou're really not very good at this
@Thunder
DeleteI'll be more diplomatic and acknowledge that speed matters for RBs. The most impressive freshman RBs in the last decade plus, to me, have been Corum, Evans, and Giles Jackson (who is mostly a WR). The common element that impressed with all of them was their speed and/or quickness.
Ironically, the freshman that impressed you the most was Charbonnet - who embodies MY side of the argument on what matters for a RB. Reliability. Blitz pickups. Breaking tackles. Moving forward. Not fumbling. Resilience. These things are just as important as who can outrun a LB after the OL has handed them 7 yards and a one-on-one matchup in space.
Ultimately you want the entire package but most of the time it's a pick your poison (weakness) situation. So if a guy's only thing is that he is slow (Hart, Smith, Haskins) you live with it. That's better than fast but...
On the topic of NFL success there's not really any M back who has done anything substantial in recent history. We're splitting hairs when Fitz is the top dog as he had a multi-year career as a backup and no one else is close. Evans is TBD. Smith barely played. Guys like Higdon never did but got camp invites. It's really not a great measure, but Smith stacks up favorably. He has been one of the most successful, just as he was in college.
Are you even aware of who you are trolling here JE? Try to follow along.
Delete@ Lank 10:58 p.m.
DeleteI doubted Blake Corum?
"You may consider this be a death knell for Corum’s career, but I really like him as a prospect. He’s built low to the ground, has good short-area change-of-direction skills, and has good long speed. He shows the ability to catch the ball out of the backfield and return punts, and he’s a tough runner who can shake off arm tackles."
https://touch-the-banner.com/blake-corum-wolverine/
Also ranked #17 on this season's countdown?
https://touch-the-banner.com/2021-season-countdown-17-blake-corum/
I mean, maybe Corum should have been ranked higher in the countdown, but that would be an argument that a running back matters even more...
LOL at the rest of your argument, too.
DeleteI don't value receiving out of the backfield? When I've spent the last several years begging for Chris Evans, Ty Isaac, etc. to be used in the passing game? (Fun fact: Karan Higdon, Chris Evans, and Ty Isaac all had higher average yards per catch than Vincent Smith. So maybe I just like guys who are good at stuff rather than guys who aren't so good at stuff.)
Your boy De'Veon Smith averaged 4.5 yards per carry and 6.6 yards per catch. His numbers are basically the worst of anyone we're discussing here. Vincent Smith was only slightly better at running (4.7) and at 9.5 yards per catch, was below several of those other guys.
The fact that you pat yourself on the back for being a fan of De'Veon Smith and Vincent Smith - arguably two of the worst starting running backs in the past several decades - is pretty odd.
Of course I'm not perfect (I liked Derrick Green's potential coming out of high school), but I didn't spend much time on the Derrick Green train once he got to college. I had moved on from him by the middle of his sophomore season, because I'm willing to acknowledge whoever's better...if they're actually better.
So yes, you've been right that a couple subpar Michigan running backs would...remain in the rotation. Congratulations, I guess...? Vincent Smith finished his career with 38 carries as a senior, so I'm not really even sure what we're talking about here. Especially because I was always high on Fitzgerald Toussaint, who started over Vincent Smith in 2011 and 2012.
Here's where I said Toussaint would be Michigan's best offensive recruit in 2009 (which was incorrect but just shows that I liked him better all along than Smith):
https://touch-the-banner.com/2009-recruiting-awards/
So...yeah, your argument is full of bunk.
"I’ve never seen so much off-season hype for a running back who averaged 2.96 yards per carry the previous season, but that’s where we are as Michigan fans, hoping for players to come out of nowhere and be stars."
DeleteAnd then in the comments you argued Charbonnet was more impressive as a freshman...even though Charbonnet transferred after getting passed by Corum.
Finally, since you brought it up, Corum's countdown rank is unexceptional by your standards - you have put the top 2 backs both in the top 20 for last several years. You put Corum below where you put Tru Wilson in 2019 and Derrick Green in 2013.
His ranking as a recruit was 83, which again is unexceptional by your standards.
Bottomline: Corum was just another RB recruit to you and after watching him play you didn't come away especially impressed. You gave him a pretty typical place for a backup RB in the countdown.
Always to your credit is that you aren't afraid to break from consensus. You don't shy away from a strong opinion. Particularly at RB for some reason! There are several guys you have gone out of your way to talk up and argue for them to get the ball more or make impassioned cases for why they will be successful. Corum wasn't one of those guys. But welcome to the party. Like I told you before the season started "Corum deserves the hype".
@Thunder
DeleteYou can pretend this is about Fitz if you want but you were pushing for Michael Shaw to play over Vincent Smith. Receipts here:
http://touchthebanner.blogspot.com/2010/09/michigan-vs-umass-awards.html
I'm not going to revisit the Michael Cox thing - you have his getting drafted I have his YPC at UMass.
I'll reiterate that despite you assertions about Smith's inferiority relative to his backups, and your doubts about Rodriguez's pecking order, when Hoke came in he made the same decision. Smith played more than Shaw and Cox transferred to find playing time. TWO professional coaching staffs made the same decision but you still insist you were right.
And I can go through the same exercise with Deveon Smith 4 years later.
https://touch-the-banner.com/michigan-vs-unlv-awards/
But Smith was chosen by TWO different coaches staffs. And THEN they went off to pro leagues where Smith was more productive at both of them. So FOUR different contexts where Smith was better than Isaac but you insist somehow that you got this right and all these other people are wrong.
You cling to YPC but ignore the big picture.
It's simple. You were wrong to call for more Shaw over V.Smith and you were wrong to call for more Isaac over D.Smith.
DeleteI don't recall saying anything that was skeptical of Toussaint or Evans or Corum. I don't recall ever debating about any of those guys with you (except for my preseason comments about Corum a few weeks ago). I do remember Ty Isaac and Michael Shaw and Michael Cox and Zach Charbonnet. The only one of those guys who proved themselves was Charbonnet and I said I was impressed very quickly. I'm still impressed with him - he's just the kind of solid but unexceptional back I've defended.
I have always reacted to you saying "the coaches should put the guy on the bench in because his YPC is better". I tell you "remember YPC is about context" and you dismiss it. Then the coaches play the guy you wanted in a meaningful context and we get to see it doesn't work.
All of this goes back to the broader point about RBs. You're not actually mad at Smith or Smith you're mad that the offense isn't working as well as you want with them in there. You think a different back can fix it. But the replacements come in and they don't. Why? Because RBs don't matter as much as you think.
That's why the best offenses of the last decade have had primary ball carriers include Smith, Smith, and a ragtag rotation of leftovers including a freshman, a walk-on, and a converted LB. It's almost like the worse you think the RB decision is the better the offense turns out to be.
I'll give you this though -- I would have ranked Corum much lower on the countdown. Even though I told you to buy the hype on him, I wouldn't put a rotating RB that high ever.
Delete@ Lank 7:54 p.m.
DeleteTell me where I'm wrong. Have you ever seen more hype for somebody who averaged fewer than 3.0 yards per carry the previous season?
By all accounts except one, Charbonnet had a more impressive freshman season than Corum. Charbonnet had arguably the best rookie season in Michigan history for a running back outside of Mike Hart. Yours is the only account that differs.
@ Lank 8:46 p.m.
DeleteI still think it's pretty funny you're talking about Vincent Smith. Why are we arguing about which third-string running back was better? In years when they were both on the roster, here's their carry split:
42 to 136
75 to 50
31 to 38
Both of them scored a grand total of 14 touchdowns each during the three years they were on the team together.
I honestly have no idea why we're in a Vincent Smith vs. Mike Shaw debate. This is like having a decade-old argument about which NFL wild card team was better during the 2011 season. The fact that you're latching onto this vague, inconsequential, supposed victory tells me that you're really, really reaching to try to pat yourself on the back.
Also also, here are the top yards per carry performances from a starting RB going back to 2009:
DeleteBlake Corum 6.3 (season not finished)
Hassan Haskins 6.2
Karan Higdon 6.1
Fitzgerald Toussaint 5.6
Karan Higdon 5.3
Brandon Minor 5.2
Zach Charbonnet 4.9
De'Veon Smith 4.8
De'Veon Smith 4.7
Vincent Smith 4.4
De'Veon Smith 4.2
Fitzgerald Toussaint 4.0
Fitzgerald Toussaint 3.5
You'll likely notice that every season from the Smith Brothers is in the bottom half of that list, undercut only by Fitzgerald Toussaint...whose OL was coached by a guy who followed up his Michigan stint by coaching at Akron, Purdue, Indiana State, and Texas State.
Yes, even when Michigan had decent offensive lines in 2010 and during the Harbaugh era, Smith and Smith could only eke out bottom-level numbers for Michigan running backs.
Vincent Smith was #21 in the conference in yards per carry in 2010, even with the threat of Denard Robinson beside him.
De'Veon Smith was #23 in 2014.
De'Veon Smith was #23 in 2016.
De'Veon Smith was #28 in 2015.
These are the guys you're defending and touting. They were not good. EVEN IF the coaches were right to play them because they were the best on the team, it shouldn't be at all surprising that someone would be wanting to replace them...because they were among the worst at Michigan in the last 13 years! (And really, they were even worse going back on a longer timeline, considering the guys going back 30+ years like Perry, Hart, Thomas, Wheatley, Biakabutuka, Powers, etc.)
You are very proud of yourself for supporting a couple of Michigan's worst starting running backs in my lifetime. I don't feel guilty at all for wanting better.
It's almost like he picks the M guy(s) who produce the least - and in at least one example, performs the worst - and then gets the shovel out, digs in, and posts repeatedly in support of
DeleteMaybe he craves the attention
@ j393 10:27 p.m.
DeleteI don't understand trying to defend the worst players at a position in the past 30 years. Nobody's insulting them as human beings. But if you look at it objectively, they're among the WORST starters - by numbers, by NFL standards, etc. They were not up to par with what Michigan needs to have a successful program. I'm sure they're fine human beings, and I know Vincent Smith has been involved with some great work after college, but there's a reason he never sniffed a football field after 2012.
De'Veon Smith is a better athlete than 99% of human beings, but that doesn't mean he should go down in the pantheon of Michigan football players. He was just a guy in comparison to other Big Ten football players.
I mean, the fact that the guy you think is the best RB of the group is last on the list kind of says it all doesn't it?
DeleteAnd the only 2 on the list who played in the NFL are at the bottom.
The point you are missing is that Smith and Smith aren't the worse. Their backups were worse. This is easily proven by their college production and playing time decisions. In D.Smith's case it's also proven by pro career.
DeleteYou seem to think it's irrelevant who you were arguing to insert in their place. It's not. That was the point of argument. That's the origin of the debate. That's why I gave the link.
Now you want to move the goalposts to be about Fitz Toussaint or putting Deveon Smith into some pantheon.
It's always been relative to the other available options.
You were wrong to call for these backups. You thought it mattered. It didn't. It's a fantasy and you refuse to let go of it even after other coaching staffs make the same decision. Even after the same decisions are made in the pros.
DeleteThe Smiths were better than their backups who you called to play instead. The player was good, the offense was good, but you insist - because of YPC - that they should have been replaced. Even if he goes on to make it to the NFL!
It's circular logic - you insist that YPC is the thing - you make some judgements based on it and then use YPC to try to prove yourself right.
DeleteWhy did the NFL have interest in Smith after a relatively weak YPC? Why did the NFL have interest in Michael Cox after an atrocious YPC at UMass? Why did the NFL draft Fitz Toussaint when his YPC went down every year?
It's not the indicator you insist it to be.
Your YPC argument (comparing starters across years) only proves my point. You aren't mad at the player you are mad at the offense. Notice the clustering of YPC by seasons. Its a team stat. The differences by player within a year are usually either contextual (who plays more against bad teams) or just basic math. Sample size and variance (i.e., insignificant). It's the kind of noise that you take to seriously, like when you doubted Blake Corum's hype heading into the year.
And you are doing it even now. You list Haskins as having the 2nd best year based on 61 carries. Apparently that makes the cut but Vincent Smith's 6.0 ypc on 50 carries doesn't. Drake Johnson's 6.0 ypc on 60 carries doesn't make it either. The cutoff must of been right there lol. Your guy Derrick Green has a 5.7 ypc season on over 80 carries - put him on the list Thunder! OK back to the point:
Fitz Toussaint is a guy whose YPC went down every year. Do you think he got worse every year? Of course you don't. The offense and OL performance dipped downward during the Hoke era. Toussaints YPC shows this. You know this and acknowledge it. Guess who was the primary RB in that era? Let's just ignore that.
The truth is none of us can predict what would happen if you teleported Deveon Smith onto the 2021 roster or Hassan Haskins onto the 2014 roster. But underlying your YPC arguments is a certainty that it would make a difference. The YPC is tied to the guy and not the context.
I've been making the case to you for a decade now that YPC doesn't work this way. Showing you countless examples where YPC is misleading.
What's galling to me is that you are ignoring the very obvious lessons learned. Vincent Smith being a primary back under 2 different staffs? Irrelevant. Fitz Toussaint's plummeting YPC? Excused as an outlier. Deveon Smith's college production? Ty Isaac was better, pro careers be damned. Your doubt around Corum in the offseason? Let's talk about a compliment a year earlier instead. The lack of correlation between RB YPC and team success? Let's dodge that one because RBs MATTER! On and on.
You aren't going to hear it, I get that. But you keep asserting things about RBs that aren't true. So I'm pointing those out to you - because it keeps happening. Every year there are bad RB takes and it's usually tied to something something YPC.
I don't think your RB takes are going to get good just by ignoring YPC but I think you would go a long way towards being more accurate if you started there.
YPC doesn't prove the point you think it does, because you're looking at wrong. Fundamentally.
Trying to make the case another way...
DeleteYou might look at YPA for QBs and see what kind of conclusions you would draw based on it. Would you call for backups based on it? Would you decide who a better starting QB is based on it? Or would you see it as a very limited indicator of QB play?
And here's the thing - sample size is much better for YPA than YPC. QBs don't rotate nearly as much and they end up with more attempts. But this stat can still be used to tell you that Joe Milton is better than Tom Brady. He isn't.
I see you JE trying to get in on a conversation you have nothing to add to. Who wants attention again?
DeleteWhy don't you go back to complaining about number of posts? Reading is tough for some.
@Thunder. I used college reference to check your conference YPC since I noticed you skipped some years. Here is what I found:
DeleteVincent Smith was #18 in 2010
Vincent Smith would have been #2 in 2011. (if he qualified)
Fitz Toussaint was #19 in 2012.
Fitz Toussaint was #24 in 2013
Derrick Green was #8 in 2014.
De'Veon Smith was #24 in 2015.
De'Veon Smith was #17 in 2016.
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/big-ten/2010-rushing.html
Draw conclusions from that.
@ ThunderOctober 14, 2021 at 9:13 PM
Delete"Tell me where I'm wrong." You're wrong because you doubted Corum's hype - and now you are hyping him. You did that based on YPC. The doubt you expressed was based on bad rationale and it has been disproven quickly.*
"Yours is the only account that differs."
No it's not. You said there was hype and that was true. I'm not the only one who noticed that Charbonnet transferred after getting passed by better players. I wasn't the only one who thought Corum might be The One.
I wish I was the only one... I'd feel proud about that. Regardless, maybe you should take a beat and reflect on it. I was telling you that Corum was MORE impressive than a guy who was more productive. Based on the eye test. How he moved. His physical abilities characteristics. The short stout quick back I've been talking about while you drooled over the retro beef backs.
I considered the context and said this guy whose had 2.8 ypc and ran for 74 yards on the season was more impressive than a guy who had 4.9 ypc and ran for almost 10 times that his freshman year. Corum looks like the best back we've had in over 20 years right now. You doubted him and I hyped him up.
And that's all fine but then to come at me like this is some kind of gotcha is laughable.
*Your doubt of Corum in the post was ultimately proven wrong but it was defensible. I take no issue with saying "I'll believe it when I see it". But you got snippy in the comments when I made my case for the hype. So here we are.
@Thunder
DeleteYou keep saying Smith and Smith are the worst backs "by NFL standards" in the last 30 years. This is not true. Please back it up.
There is a long list of guys who, like Vincent Smith, never got an NFL camp invite.
The is a longer list of guys who, like Deveon Smith, never got drafted.
There are only a handful of guys who played in the NFL like Deveon Smith.
Since the end of the Carr era I believe there are only 2 RBs who have better NFL careers than Deveon Smith: Toussaint and Evans. Add Denard to the mix if you must.
Out of how many RB recruits? Out of how many guys who started games?
Compare Smith to one of your favs - Brandon Minor. Another guy who got stuck in a rough coaching transition and went undrafted.
Smith had 2,500 yards and 23 TDs at Michigan. He made an NFL team and played in the NFL.
Minor had 1,700 yards and 22 TDs at Michigan. He made a practice squad and never played a game in the NFL.
Any reasonable person would compare the two and say that Smith was a more productive back in college and a more impressive pro career. But you will say that Smith is one of the worst and Minor was good because Smith averaged 4.5 YPC while Minor averaged 5.0 YPC.
Does that make sense? Is that reasonable?
Or is it more likely that Minor and Smith are in a similar cluster of Michigan RBs who are pretty good college players, will draw some fringe NFL interest, but ultimately aren't all that impactful relative to other similar options.
@ Lank
DeleteI think it's funny that, again and again, you ignore the guy who I called for THE MOST (probably, though it's likely not quantifiable) as a backup:
Michael Cox.
You keep saying De'Veon Smith had the best NFL career compared to the guys I wanted to play, but he didn't. Cox was drafted (Smith wasn't) and Cox actually carried the ball (Smith didn't). Cox played in 18 career games with 26 carries, 5 receptions, and 31 kickoff returns (Smith played in 5 games with 3 catches).
Regarding Minor, WOTS was that Minor had issues with a certain substance that was not quite as accepted in 2010 as it is a decade later. Despite that, he played for two losing teams in 2008 and 2009 (8-16 in that time) with bad offensive lines but still eked out 5.2 yards/carry both seasons. Smith played on winning teams in 2015-2016 (10-2 both years) and managed just 4.2 and 4.7 yards per carry.
Please explain to me how playing behind Magnuson/Kalis/Cole/Glasgow/Braden/Newsome/Bredeson (in De'Veon Smith's case) compares to playing behind Moosman/McAvoy/Ferrara/Huyge/Ortmann/Dorrestein/Molk/Schilling (in Minor's case). Smith had a full line of future NFLers, and Minor had Molk/Schilling.
If you put Minor on this 2021 team, he would probably be regarded similarly to Haskins - except with better long speed.
I said Corum would be good from the start (his recruitment). I said I've never seen so much hype for a guy who averaged 3.0 yards per carry. I never said he would be bad, and I had him as the #17 most important guy for the team in 2021.
If you interpret that as my doubting Corum, then you're just flat-out wrong. Sorry.
Do we really want to get into Cox again? We did that like a dozen times. You liked him based on his YPC in mop up duty and got mad at Rodriguez for not playing him more. Then Hoke didn't play him either.
DeleteUnable to earn a primary gig at Michigan he transferred and had a terrible YPC at UMass. Then he got drafted to return kicks, the Giants got hit with a tsunami of attrition and he got NFL carries that impressed no one. His YPC stunk there too.
Somehow you find this validating. I don't agree.
If you want a guy to return kicks then yeah, I'd take Cox or Shaw over Smith. That was always true. If you want a guy to flank Denard, block blitzers, and catch passes out of the backfield. Smith was the better player. In other words, Smith was the better college RUNNING BACK. Hoke and Rodriguez reached that same conclusion.
If you want to use YPC over and over why not in this case. Smith had 4.7 ypc for his career. Cox had 4.1 ypc.
If you want to case based on limited NFL playing time to make a case for Cox, go ahead and apply that logic for Deveon too.
Smith played in the NFL. Minor didn't. Smith outproduced Minor in college. You're making excuses for these basic realities. It seems like context of OL and team performance is relevant... except when it isn't.
DeleteI put all 3 of these guys in the same bucket: Smith, Minor, Haskins. You want to argue that the most productive one is the worst because of YPC. I'm telling you they are the same - quality college backs who gritty, tough, reliable, YAC-makers, tackle breakers. Not one of them should be returning kicks. But neither should Mike Hart, who cares.
As for Corum, you argued with me when I told you Corum was the most impressive freshman in a long time. You led your post talking about unproven hype. That's doubt. Don't deny it. You get far more credit for acknowledging the doubt you expressed with Haskins than pretending you thought Corum was a difference maker all along.
DeleteNobody said you said he was bad. Not once. That's moving the goalposts. That's strawman-ing your way through.
Doubt or no doubt, you didn't talk Corum up. You had a chances to. You've done with many others. but on Corum you passed. Youve said nice things yes, that goes for just about every RB recruit. Pick some typical recruit like Christian Turner and nice things will be said. Only a few notable exceptions including Deveon Smith and Kurt Taylor get the hard no confidence vote.
A TTB rank in the high 70s to low 80s is middling. You gave Kingston Davis an 80. You rated Corum below not only Green and Isaac but also Walker and Samuels. Others too, I'm sure. You didn't think he was awful nor did you think he was a special back. Just a solid prospect, like many others.
In addition to not calling it as a recruit, you didn't see it after his freshman year either. You've put backup RBs in the top 20 as a matter of habit in the countdown so it's not like you changed your mind after seeing him play. He was the last non-freshman standing.
Don't believe me? You ranked our guy Deveon Smith between 12 and 21 three years in a row. And you think he is one of the worst RBs at Michigan in the last 30 years or whatever.
And Haskins you were even more doubtful of, which, to your credit you acknowledged but not until after he was on campus for 3 years and a returning starter.
Bottom line is that Corum nor Haskins are in your hype club. You've gone out of your way to say some guys should be promoted from their bench roles (e.g., Isaac, Cox, Shaw) because they are superior to the starters in the past. Not here. You've gone out of your way to say some recruits would be stars. Not here.
So nobody thinks you HATE any of these guys. You just haven't seen them as stand outs. If you're arguing now that they are you should probably acknowledge you are late to the party in seeing it. Literally every other returning RB left town.
https://touch-the-banner.com/2016-season-countdown-12-deveon-smith/
Delete"Michigan did not have a great offensive line in 2015, and it showed. They were frequently stalemated, and Smith had to deal with linebackers in his face too often. It was a frustrating year, in some respects, to watch Michigan try to run the ball, because everything had to be manufactured. Whether it was unique blocking schemes, misdirection, or just outmuscling people like Smith did against BYU, nothing came easily. The days have long been past where Michigan had the talent up front and in the backfield to simply run power or counter trey and break off a 50-yard run. Harbaugh relied on Smith and fullback Sione Houma heavily to just plow through defenders."
I respect what you do, your writing ability, and your cut-through-the-crap takes but your read on Michigan RBs continues to be poor. You can correlate YPC to YPC but not to playing time, offensive performance, winning or NFL production.
DeleteI don't think anybody here cares about predictions. They are entertaining is the main thing but they are also exceedingly hard. You don't have to pat yourself on your back for them nor do you have to criticize yourself or cop to errors.
But when you dig your heels in and say "I wasn't far off" on Smith who you gave one of your worst rankings to out of all RB recruits, not just starters, and then say he was one of the worst backs in 30 years it's just not true. Objectively.
Anyway, your own rankings say he was one of the better ones.
https://touch-the-banner.com/ranking-michigans-running-backs/
You and I agree about the cluster you have at 6-9. There really shouldn't be a lot of disagreement here, but for some bluster and exaggeration.
@ Lank 8:39 p.m.
DeleteOkay, okay...you talked me into it. The 2015 offensive line was bad. So was the 2008 one.
Let's see how those running backs did:
De'Veon Smith (2015): 4.2 YPC
Brandon Minor (2008): 5.2 YPC
We can agree that they both played behind a bad OL (a scenario in which my point is confirmed) or we can agree that the 2015 line was better because it was filled with future NFLers (another scenario in which my point is confirmed).
@ Lank 7:16 p.m.
DeleteCox had 8.9 yards per carry. I never called for him to play more at Michigan once he averaged 3.6 yards per carry at UMass, a team that was #124 in scoring offense and finished 1-11.
I make my judgments/TTB Ratings/etc. based off how players do/will do at Michigan, not how they do/will do at borderline FCS programs.
You continuously point to De'Veon Smith's "NFL success" as a tick on your side of the ledger over guys who might have just been on practice squads, played in other leagues, etc., even though Smith's total production consisted of 3 catches for 27 yards (and 0 rushing attempts). But a dude who ran the ball, caught the ball, returned more kicks, and played in more games in the NFL...nope, NFL production doesn't matter anymore.
I think the only Michigan RB that I've pegged as a star (at least according to TTB Ratings) is Derrick Green. The truth is that Michigan has not produced star running backs for about 15 years. It's not doubting the player. It's doubting the production/system from the offenses themselves.
You continue to miss the meaning of this:
"You may consider this be a death knell for Corum’s career, but I really like him as a prospect. He’s built low to the ground, has good short-area change-of-direction skills, and has good long speed. He shows the ability to catch the ball out of the backfield and return punts, and he’s a tough runner who can shake off arm tackles."
The TTB Rating of 83 means/meant that I have doubts about how Michigan will use him. You need look no further than my TTB Rating for Donovan Peoples-Jones, Donovan Edwards, etc., other star recruits whose TTB Ratings have suffered because they were bound for a team that doesn't produce 1,000-yard receivers, 1,000-yard rushers, prolific passers, etc.
It's not a coincidence that while I've given TTB Ratings of 100 to Daxton Hill, Jabrill Peppers, Rashan Gary, and Cesar Ruiz (okay, Ruiz was a 99), the likes of Peoples-Jones, JJ McCarthy, Donovan Edwards, etc. have been capped in the low 90s, despite those players being 5-stars or close to it. Why? Skill players at Michigan simply don't live up to the hype.
You're confusing my evaluation of a player with his TTB Rating. Those aren't the same thing. I didn't think Cade McNamara was such a bad player that he only deserved a 65; I thought the depth chart ahead of him would cause him to leave town. The same goes for Nick Eubanks and Sean McKeon, who came in at the same time as Devin Asiasi but got lower ratings; I didn't think Eubanks was a terrible player, but Asiasi was better and would have eaten up a ton of the snaps for 3-4 years if he had stayed at Michigan. If Eubanks were the only TE in his class, he would have been rated higher.
But go ahead and assume when I say "I really like him as a prospect and he does a ton of things well" to mean "Thunder has strong doubts about whether he's any good or not."
A dozen posts over an eight hour period, and here's the assertions:
Delete1) RBs don't matter; and
2) Deveon & Vincent Smith were far & away better RBs than others in their era
Conflicting points. Dude can't make up his own mind, and gets frustrated at his inability to change someone else's ...
@ je93 11:42 p.m.
DeleteRight. And my point with all this is that running backs DO matter, just like any other position. It's better to have a good nickel corner than a bad nickel corner. It's better to have a good kicker than a bad kicker. It's better to have a good left guard than a bad left guard.
At no other position do we say, "This position doesn't matter." Hell, we've seen bad long snappers matter, and a lot of teams don't even give out scholarships to long snappers.
But Lank sits there and says, over and over again, that the guy who touches the ball 15-25 times per game doesn't matter. The running back is typically the best (or second best) athlete in his middle school, high school, etc. who then is strong enough, fast enough, shifty enough, smart enough, consistent enough, healthy enough, catches the ball well enough, blocks well enough, etc. to be a centerpiece of a college/NFL offense...
...and he doesn't matter.
@Thunder 958
Delete"I make my judgments/TTB Ratings/etc. based off how players do/will do at Michigan"
That's fine. If that's the case Smith was more productive than Minor, Isaac, Cox, or anyone else you want to name.
Your retort is always YPC, but when I bring up Cox's post-Michigan YPC you only want to talk about what guys do at Michigan.
Smith's marginal NFL "success" is relevant for guys who started at Michigan. Isaac in particular. I'm not disputing that some backups (Rawls, Cox) played in the NFL.
I'll just turn that argument right back around on you. Why does Cox's matter - a guy who transferred because he couldn't win the competition at Michigan - but Smith's doesn't. Neither did much but both made it.
@Thunder 958
DeleteThe TTB rank was pretty mediocre for a RB, by your own standards. Fact.
You argued with me when I said Corum was a freshman standout and deserved the hype. Fact.
You won't admit that you doubted him. Fact.
Maybe it's a matter of semantics and we can just agree that you didn't identify Corum as anything special either as a recruit or after his freshman year. Now that he LOOKS like he might be special you want to claim some kind of bragging rights? No dice.
@JE
DeleteThose don't conflict. I'd explain but you wouldn't get it because you never do.
How do those boots taste?
@Thunder
DeleteThat's right. Because, per your own TTB rank logic, value (aka how much a guy MATTERS) is based on who he is replaced by. At the college level and NFL level a RB is almost always replaced by a guy who is just as effective. Even if that guy is marginally better - it doesn't matter.*
So I can and do agree that RBs are some of the best athletes on the team and yet at the college and NFL level they are easily replaced by another guy just as good as them in the vast majority of cases.
*There are of course exceptions and I've always given the qualifier. To say they don't matter at all is hyperbole. Every player matters. Some just matter a lot less than others. RBs are among the least impactful. Nobody knows the longsnappers name and that's fine. If you spent every other game saying we need to replace the longsnapper and then they did and it didn't change anything I'd be telling you longsnappers don't matter instead.
After 2018 all our RBs left - 2019 offense was the best of the Harbaugh era.
2020 had the most talented and deepest RB group in 20 plus years - and the offense stunk.
Fitz Toussaint is the most successful NFL back in the last 20 years and he had one of the worst YPCs at Michigan.
If they mattered it would have mattered but they didn't so it doesn't.
Correction above:
DeleteAt the college and NFL level they are easily replaced by another guy just as EFFECTIVE as them in the vast majority of cases.
One guy can be better than another but it doesn't matter. Because you know why.
"running backs DO matter, just like any other position."
DeleteAh but that's exactly the point. You don't treat RB like any other position you talk about them more often, you call for backups more often, and you put more of them higher up in the countdown than nearly every other position.
Again, ALL POSITIONS MATTER is an ALL LIVES MATTER level retort. It's missing the point entirely.
@ Lank 12:14 p.m.
DeleteWhat does Cox's YPC at UMass have to do with his time at Michigan and what I thought about the depth chart in Ann Arbor?
BTW, running backs don't matter but Cox averaged 3.6 YPC at UMass...and his backups averaged 2.7, 2.8, 1.4, 2.0, 1.0, and 0.0 yards per attempt. You say backups come in and do just as well or better, but his didn't.
Anyone paying attention to football knows that Cox's NFL resume (drafted, used more, played longer) is more impressive than Smith's (not drafted, used less, a "running back" who never actually RAN the ball, played in only a handful of games).
Neither one was great, but your attempt to ignore Cox when talking about who I've promoted to play more isn't going to slip by without being called out.
As long as we're using FACTS...
...the only starting running back since Tim Biakabutuka to have a worse yards per carry average than Smith (4.5) was Clarence Williams (4.3). FACT.
Yuck.
Does anyone understand this nonsense?
Delete"RBs don't matter," but "here's why RBVS & RBDS were so much better on the same team, facing the same opponents"
LMOA, "all lives matter" ... just reeeaching
@Thunder
DeleteLOL to me ignoring anything. Looks at that word count man!
Nobody is ignoring Cox. We talked about him dozens of times. He was a career backup at Michigan, transferred for playing time, and struggled at a lower level of competition.
No one is arguing that D.Smith had a better NFL career than Cox. No one was even arguing about these two until you brought it up. They weren't at Michigan at the same time. Cox had 19 carries at Michigan over 3 years. Smith had nearly 500 over 4 years. Cox's count is less than Omaury Samuels or Christian Turner. But you're going to hang your RB-expert hat on that???
Cox is relevant to V.Smith and we're just not going to agree here. In my eyes V Smith had a better college career, beat out Cox under 2 different coaching staffs, and that's that. In your eyes the marginal NFL "success" he had is validating. and YPC...always YPC. Except when YPC doesn't suit your argument and then it's just contextual.
Let me put it more bluntly -- Cox was not a successful RB at any level beyond high school. Period. He got drafted based on his potential but he never produced as a RB. He transferred down to get playing time in college. He got gifted an opportunity at the NFL level due to a massive fluke of luck (multiple injuries to Giants RBs) and he didn't do anything with it. 2.9 ypc. Oh yeah, that doesn't matter now, I forgot.
Now you want to argue about D.Smith and Cox? OK we can go there. What was career YPC?
Deveon Smith 4.5
Michael Cox 4.1
No one is surprised you don't understand JE.
Delete"so much better"... You're making up arguments again . It's all you have.
Reaching? telling on yourself.
@Thunder
Delete"All positions matter" is missing the point. If you need me to explain it to your I can.
I think you'd rather be willfully obstinate and debate something different.
Do you see a conflict between the statements All Lives Matter and Black Lives Matter? If not, that's on you.
DeleteMake the connection. Or don't...bury your head and pretend.
Note of clarification since some people get touchy. This is not about race. I'm making a comparison (which, JE, again, does not mean it's identical things that are exactly the same) to a similar sounding statement that IS about race to a football thing that has nothing to do with race.
DeleteIt is obviously true that ALL ___ MATTER. As a response to a deliberately provocative statement it is obstinately missing the point for those who want to avoid the issues being raised.
@ Lank 1:29 p.m.
DeleteTHANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!
We're finally (somewhat) on the same page.
"Cox was not a successful RB at any level beyond high school."
You said it yourself. Even though he became a starter at an FBS school, he wasn't successful.
Just like De'Veon Smith and Vincent Smith. They became starters, but they weren't successful.
Which is why they're toward the bottom of the list of Michigan running backs!
This has been a positive development in this conversation. Good talk.
Seriously ...
Delete"Joe Milton has accomplished so much" because he's been benched by two P5 programs ... but at the same time, "Michael Cox hasn't done anything" despite being drafted & playing in the NFL
All those posts, yet unable to make a point
@ Lank
DeleteYou're also continuing to misrepresent the purpose and development of TTB Ratings. It is NOT a rating of a player's abilities. If that's all it was, I would just have given a star rating. Corum's rating of 83 is not done in relation to Kingston Davis or whoever else. Blake Corum in 2019 would get a different TTB Rating than the same player in 2010. Kingston Davis would get a different TTB Rating in 2022.
Davis was a burly RB/FB who came to Michigan when the story of Toby Gerhart was still fresh in our minds. Michigan's offense at the time was a "pro-style" offense that included a lot of stuff under center, with all kinds of FB/TE combinations. Knowing what we know now about the offense (Josh Gattis's) and the move to more of a spread/shotgun/pistol alignment, he a) probably wouldn't be recruited by Michigan and b) he would probably be bound for a Ben Mason-type fullback spot.
TTB Ratings are done on an individual basis, based on who's on the roster, who else is in the recruiting class, what type of development a player will receive, etc. I've said it before and I'm sure I'll have to say it again, but Donovan Peoples-Jones was only an 89 to me because I did not believe Harbaugh would develop/use him up to his potential (and I think we can all agree I was right). He probably would have been a 97-ish player if he had gone to Oklahoma, Ohio State, etc.
@Thunder.
DeleteWrong. Smith and Smith started at Michigan and graduated from Michigan. They went to major bowl games and had key roles on top 10 teams (2011, 2016).
UMass ain't Michigan. But even if it was, starting 1 year on a 1-11 team and rushing for 3.6 ypc isn't success.
"Which is why they're toward the bottom of the list of Michigan running backs"
Whose list? Not the one you published!
@JE you are so damn bad this.
DeleteHmmmm who has accomplished more a 33 year old or a 21 year old student?
Cox after 3 years: 1 year away from a degree. 0 starts. 19 carries. He would get zero the following year. Then transfer the next to try to get playing time at a lower level in his last year.
Milton after 3 years. Degree from Michigan. 5 starts. 50 carries on top of over 150 pass attempts. Lost his starting job and transferred to the SEC. 3 years of eligibility left.
I'm aware of the TTB rank logic but it's irrelevant to this debate. You were still wrong about these RBs. Davis didn't do anything. Corum might be a Heisman candidate. Completely different.
DeleteYou can make whatever excuses you want (Toby Gerhardt?!? LOL) to rationalize why you were wrong but you were. Sometimes you move on (e.g., Green) and sometimes you don't (e.g., Smith, Isaac).
Make a table. Line up the TTB RB ranks. Line up the yards and touchdowns they produced at Michigan. It's not gonna be pretty.
Which... who even cares? They are predictions for entertainment purposes. You like to pat yourself on the back sometimes but I doubt anyone reading cares much one way or the other. You probably get more credit for owning your mistakes than bragging. The thing I'm talking about here is not to criticize your TTB ranks but just to have some awareness that these rankings have a poor track record and your calls for which backups should play are even worse.
When you're hanging your hat on a guy who ran for 4.1 ypc in college, who couldn't get any playing time on two different coaching staffs at Michigan, who 'starred' on 1-11 UMass team. Kind of says it all.
The point has always been this -- Smith and Smith were better college backs than the guys you called for to replace them. You were wrong about that and I told you that at the time. I kept the receipts.
You want to use NFL production to say you were right on Cox over V Smith and that's a reasonable data point in your favor. Problem is you refuse to apply that exact same logic to Deveon Smith. With Cox it's NFL not YPC. With D.Smith it's YPC not NFL.
My take is simple - the coaches are making the right decision. Changing the RB isn't going to help. In both cases (Smith and Smith) two coaching staffs made the same decision and that should have been all the proof needed. It's like going to the doctor. Second opinion? Reasonable. Third opinion? Trying to hear what you want to hear.
So why we have to talk about what Cox did after he failed at Michigan, still, is wacky to me. Why we have to insist that Ty Isaac should have played more even as Smith outplays him in the pros. Wacky.
One more thing. No one here is forcing you to trash D.Smith and call him a failure. That's 100% on you. We can debate any of these players or topics without doing it. You choose to anyway.
DeleteSmith is the guy who did this:
https://touch-the-banner.com/michigan-20-indiana-10/
He (along with the OL) carried the Michigan offense on it's back and kept the team in national title contention. Even with O'Korn starting at QB. Were it not for late season injuries, untimely turnovers, and one very dubious spot, that team could have been in a national title game.
But now you want to call the starting RB on that team a failure and one of the worst RBs at Michigan in the last whatever. Because you gave him a low TTB rank as a recruit and wanted to be right. Because you insist YPC is THE measure for evaluating RBs...but only sometimes. Nevermind that he has more yards than only a handful of guys. Never mind that he played in the NFL. He is one of the worst and a failure.
No one made you do this.
@ Lank 11:55 a.m.
DeleteLOL. Talk about moving the goalposts... We went from talking about YPC and NFL production to talking about...bowl games? Really? Your measure of success for a running back is now whether he went to a (good) bowl game or not? Yikes.
I do not think this is a positive development for you in this discussion.
@ Lank 12:48 p.m.
DeleteBoy, I don't remember calling De'Veon Smith a failure...
Are you calling Michael Cox a failure?
@ Lank 12:25 p.m.
DeleteI'm not claiming to be right about all these backs. I own up to everything. I even do a review of my own ratings, so I can't escape it even if I wanted to.
But the TTB Ratings don't tell the whole story, so telling me that "You ranked Corum below Someone Else from 3 years previous" is irrelevant. They are not related to each other.
Today I learned that Mohamed Ibraham is not a good running back, because his team went 3-4 in 2020 and didn't go to a bowl game. Minnesota was also 0-1 in games in which Ibrahim played in 2021. That guy sucks.
DeleteAnother bad running back is Khalil Herbert. He played for a sucky team at Kansas, and then he brought Kansas's losing ways to Virginia Tech, who went 5-6 last year. The loser didn't even go to a bowl game despite rushing for 7.7 yards per carry and getting drafted in the 6th round.
Here is what you said word for word. "Just like De'Veon Smith and Vincent Smith. They became starters, but they weren't successful." The definition of failure is lack of success. So - yes, you did.
DeleteMichael Cox's Michigan football career was a failure. He got 19 carries over 4 years and transferred for playing time.
Smith and Smith's Michigan football careers were filled with success and they never had to transfer to seek playing time.
Only you would define success by YPC.
------------------------------
Are you saying the so very context-dependent TTB ranks are independent of production or predictive of production. Are you saying the criteria change every year even though you publish the same explainer every year? I can't keep the excuses straight.
And while we're talking TTB ranks. Given yours for D.Smith shouldn't you be the LAST person talking about him not being successful? If you're going to call Rashan Gary disappointing based on expectations isn't Smith a raging success? Has anyone in this blogs history outproduced their TTB rank by more?
On those other backs - did they ride pine for 4 years and then grad transfer to a lower level only to rush for 3.6 ypc? I didn't look it up. Just curious.
DeleteMichigan Careers:
Delete0 starts, 19 carries, 180 yards, 2 TDs, 8.9 ypc
14 starts, 272 carries, 1,700 yards, 17 TDs, 4.7 ypc
26 starts, 495 carries, 2,500 yards, 23 TDs, 4.5 ypc
Why did I ignore the first guy? The better question: Why do you want to bring him up?
Reminder: these are all over 4 years at Michigan.
@ Lank 5:45 p.m.
DeleteIt's just like you to want to get credit for both sides of the argument. De'Veon Smith became a starter. That doesn't mean he was a good starter. Vincent Smith became a starter. That doesn't mean he was a good starter. They. Were. Just. Guys.
There are average players in the Big Ten every year that you could sub in for them and you wouldn't notice a difference.
The 2016 All-Big Ten team included six running backs (1st-3rd teams), none of whom were named De'Veon Smith. The Honorable Mention list included:
Devin Redding (Indiana)
De'Veon Smith (Michigan)
LeShun Daniels (Iowa)
L.J. Scott (Michigan State)
Shannon Brooks (Minnesota)
Somehow Ty Johnson (Maryland) didn't get any accolades despite averaging over 9.0 yards/carry and gaining 1,000+ yards on 110 carries.
Regardless, Smith was included in a clump of running backs considered to be the #7-11 backs in the conference.
He was #12, #12, and #20 in the conference in yardage during his career as a starter.
The definition of JAG.
Joe Milton's graduation is such an accomplishment, the University of Michigan does not mention it on his bio ...
DeleteHe's a football player, with dreams of playing in the NFL. Unfortunately, he's as bad at QB as you are at making a point. Mike Cox however, made it to the League (long before reaching the age of 33)
Too easy
And I'm not taking anything away from De'Veon Smith. Yes, he had a great game in 2016 against Indiana. It was the best game of his career, and I acknowledged what a great game it was at the time.
DeleteJohn O'Korn completed 18/26 passes for 270 yards and 1 touchdown against Purdue in 2017. Sometimes mediocre players have good/great games. Pointing to the Indiana game to say, "See, D. Smith was a good player!" when he was a starter for three years is not very affirming.
Well I think we finally reached some points of agreement here Thunder. Smith and Smith were just guys. Like Tussaint. Like Minor. Like Hart. Like Higdon. Like Evans. Like Wilson.
DeleteJust guys, playing RB, pretty well, at Michigan.
In all these logical contortions you've turned this into me arguing these are the greatest RBs in history* when all I said in the first place was that they are better than their backups and that their backups wouldn't have made things any better. [Note: You said otherwise.] Results since have only reinforced the point.
We also both agree that Smith and Smith are two of the best 10 to 15 RBs to play at Michigan in the last 20 years out of I don't know how many (40?). https://touch-the-banner.com/ranking-michigans-running-backs/
So if the best guys are just guys, and their backups aren't any better, then ...isn't it logical to conclude that....running backs don't...well, nevermind.
My suggestion, now, is that instead of describing some of our best players as mediocre failures who should have been benched, we just appreciate them for being pretty good college football players who contributed to some very fun moments for us. The best of the bunch. Pretty good. But ultimately just some guys.
Kumbaya and all that shit.
Happy Friday. Go Blue.
*Axiom: If JE said it, it is wrong.
DeleteGodwin's law isn't about Hitler and the internet it's about JE and Milton.
We also agree that pointing to one game is not very affirming.
DeleteBeing a starter for three years is. Especially on good teams.
Smith's role and his production is affirming. At Michigan.
Know what isn't? Transferring to a lower level for playing time.
What else isn't? Riding the bench for 4 years.
"There are average players in the Big Ten every year that you could sub in for them and you wouldn't notice a difference."
DeleteRBs Don't Matter!
I can't believe how much we agree today Thunder.
Christopher Hitchens — 'Time spent arguing is, oddly enough, almost never wasted.'
Goodwins law? The guy who actually brought Hitler into this thread (and BLM, and Asians, etc) is talking about Godwin's law??? OK then ...
DeleteMaybe it's because you can't make a point. You know this, which is why you come back & restate, backtrack, or feel the need to clarify previous posts ... deep down, you know you're not getting your point across
I mean, consider this: you're celebrating a self-proclaimed victory in that "RBs don't matter," but while doing so point out that separate coaching staffs picked VSmith over others, and then the next staff also went with DSmith ... both staffs believed that who ran the ball mattered enough to go with Vincent/Deveon. Both coaching staff changes felt the difference mattered
You argue this point, while claiming victory in "RBs don't matter" ... Obviously, they mattered enough to the last three coaching staffs ... Unless, you're questioning the coaches, which would be yet another contradiction
You're a walking contradiction
@ Lank 8:15 p.m.
DeleteYes, we can both agree...that Vincent Smith and De'Veon Smith are interchangeable (a.k.a. "they don't matter) with any number of average running backs in the Big Ten.
@ Lank 7:57 p.m.
DeleteAt no point have I said that you're making them out to be the greatest running backs in history, nor have I said that they're failures. That's a complete strawman.
You keep trying to bat away je93's points in this, and I know that's fun for you, but he's actually winning this one. You say running backs don't matter, but then you make the case that V.Smith > Michael Cox, D. Smith > Ty Isaac, etc., and that undermines your whole point.
If running backs don't matter, then you shouldn't be/have been so down on Isaac.
You think you're keeping it a secret, but deep down, I know you realize that running backs matter. You just like to argue.
@Thunder
DeleteYou said they didn't succeed which is the same thing as failure.
Honestly kind of disappointed in your for taking JE's side here. He's wrong. There is no contradiction.
It doesn't undermine my point at all. I keep telling you inserting Cox wouldn't have made a difference. If I said "Michigan would have lost 5 more games with Cox at RB." then I'd be undermining my point but I've said nothing like that.
What I said was that last year's group was the best RB unit we've had at Michigan since Biakabatuka and Wheatley. Did it matter? No.
So I can acknowledge that one RB is better than another RB, just as I can acknowledge on long snapper is better than another long snapper. It doesn't mean I think it really matters.
So if what you mean to ask is how many more games would Michigan have lost by playing Ty Isaac instead of D Smith my answer is probably zero. Isaac was a solid backup who got pro opportunities. RBs don't really matter much. But I'm damn sure they wouldn't have won any more games playing an inferior RB.
So again, there is no inconsistency. Tell me where I'm wrong. But maybe not here since this post is about to go to the second page and I don't intend to keep clicking back...
Of course I like to argue.
DeleteI do think RBs don't matter. With all the caveats and qualifications that I've given a dozen times, I stand by the hyperbolic statement. Very few RBs make a significant difference at the college and NFL level. Very few are not replaced with a similarly productive player. The position gets outsized credit for a team stat.
RBs don't matter.
But like I told you after Washington and when I told you the hype was warranted on Corum (who else have I talked up like this after 20 carries or whatever) he might be one of those rare ones.
Walking contradiction
DeleteQuestioning the coaches is bad, unless Lank does it
Criticism on players is bad, except when Lank does it
Running Backs don't matter, unless Lank likes them
Just a tad of a double standard, but amusing all the same
Think of it like this.
DeleteOne can acknowledge that JE is really good at spelling his name with crayons. Better than most others. He's a superior crayon writer. Through hard work, reps, and vision he has become far better than most others at this skill.
But when it comes to winning arguments on this message board it is simply irrelevant.
Are Haskins and Corum good arguments for Why Running Backs Matter?
ReplyDeleteNo. But they are the closest Michigan has come in a long time. The reasons are partially individual (Corum is probably the best back Michigan has had since Wheatley and Haskins is another Deveon Smith - a bruising runner who makes his own yards but lacks elite speed)... but mostly it's circumstantial.
Why circumstantial?
1. The main reason that Corum and Haskins are more valuable than most RBs is simply that Michigan has stopped recruiting so many. In 2017 Michigan had 6 RBs on scholarship (Higdon, Evans, Isaac, Walker, Samuels, Taylor) plus Khalid Hill and Ben Mason. Now Michigan has 4 RBs and zero FBs. Backfield scholarships have been cut in half! That makes the ones we have far more valuable.*
*This is a brilliant fix. Michigan saw that walk-ons like Tru Wilson can be adequate backups and that there isn't a need to burn 8 scholarships on guys in the backfield to eat up late game carries. They know that RBs don't matter and they are recruiting accordingly. 4 guys is cutting it close even to me, but most teams don't need much more.
2. Michigan is running the ball way more often. They have run the ball on over 2/3s of downs. In every year except 2020 they run more than they pass, but even the Rodriguez/Denard teams did not run twice as often as they passed it like the 2021 team. And they're doing this barely even threatening QB runs. This is exceedingly uncommon and it does make RBs more valuable.
And yet...even in this context...how valuable are they really?
You don't have to look very far to know why Corum and Haskins don't MATTER. They were on the 2020 team - which had the deepest backfield in Michigan (recent) history. These two PLUS an NFL back, plus a guy some see as a Heisman contender at UCLA. Great backfield! Didn't matter - bad offense.
You don't have to look very far back in Michigan history to see that there is little to no correlation between a good offense and a good RB. The best offense of the Harbaugh era was 2019 where we had three backs, a converted LB, a freshman, and a walk-on perform at comparable levels. Close behind, 2016 with local whipping boy (and former NFL player) Deveon Smith getting the bulk of carries. The best offense of the century at Michigan used Vincent Smith as the most popular RB in 2010.
I love Haskins and Corum. They're fun to watch. They're good. They're likable (even if they have no idea how to eat corn on the cob). I love Haskins physicality just like I liked Deveon Smith. Corum is special. I wondered on this message board if he might be the rare back who truly matters. Perhaps. Ask again later...he might get there.
DeleteBut if you asked me if I preferred if Hayes or Steuber went down or one of the two RBs went down I'd probably take one of the backs. QB of course is more important. WR - you've seen the damage losing Wilson and Bell has caused even as we rarely throw. TE - losing All would be a HUGE hit.
As unimpressive as Edwards has been early, I think the offense will keep thriving with one of the primary guys getting more like 70% of the work than 50% and Edwards and Dunlop slotting in behind for the remaining meaningful carries.
For once we can't just shrug off a RB going down, and yet we'd still be OK - like we were when a bunch of guys left unexpectedly prior to 2019.
The vast majority of RBs are replaceable, even good ones. Dominant run-blocking OL, not so much.
There's one RB in CFB right now who MATTERS in my estimation and that's the kid over in East Lansing. He's averaging more than 2 ypc better than his backups while handling twice the workload. Corum and Haskins are splitting 50/50 and have a lower YPC than Edwards (not that that means much). They are good but they are not difference makers relative to each other. Nor relative to Higdon, Smith, Toussaint, Charbonnet, or any of the host of other good-not-great backs we've had over the last decade plus.
Compared to freshman, probably some marginal loss in production if one our lead backs went down. If you lost both of them it would be a big hit but you can say that at any position. Lose the top 2 guys at any spot and youre some degree of screwed (see QB 2017 and WR 2021 and DB 2010). Lose the top 2 kickers and you're really effed. Lose your top DEs and well, you watched last year. On and on.
It does happen though. Other backs who MATTERED in college include Barkley and Cook. It's not impossible. We could see another Darren Sproles. Barry Sanders mattered.
All players matter? Of course, but like Lives you're missing the point if you say this.
So I'll stick to my guns. Even as it's less true then it has been in the last 30 years at Michigan...
RBs don't matter.
Dude has been arguing with himself for eight hours ... but yeah, someone else is the troll
DeleteIf you're arguing with yourself you're not trolling someone else. And, trolling and length have no relationship. Try harder JE!
DeleteMessage board trolling is a desparate cry for attention
DeleteThere. That's your attention; do your thing
Telling on yourself. AGAIN!?!
DeleteOn Chris Evans' YPC
ReplyDeleteIn 2016, best YPC, better than Peppers, Higdon, Isaac, Smith.
In 2017, worst YPC, worse than Higdon or Isaac
In 2018, worst YPC, worse than Higdon and Tru Wilson
In 2020, average YPC, worse than Haskins and Charbonnet but above Corum.
Conclusions based on YPC?
Nope
HASSAN HASKINS!
ReplyDeleteRunningbacks DO matter!
Does Corum matter or does Haskins matter? Does Edwards matter? I can't keep track of how many RBs matter. All of them I guess. All RBs matter!
DeleteUnless they are named Smith. Put in their backups.
What positions don't matter? All positions matter!
What point am I making? No Point!
Edwards has been a significant downgrade when in. Dunlap hasn't gotten much time at all
DeleteHarbaugh & Hart would scoff at your opinions. They're meant to be clowned on, in the depths of the internet