Let's see more of this guy on offense . . . Donovan Edwards. Edwards caught 10 passes for 170 yards and 1 touchdown in the 2021 matchup against Maryland. This year he caught 0 passes for 0 yards. Because he didn't play in the game. Michigan only has four scholarship running backs on the team, and it appears that the Wolverines coaching staff only trusts two of them - Blake Corum and Edwards. So when one goes out with an injury, the other is going to get the lion's share of opportunities. Hopefully Edwards can return healthy from his leg injury to relieve Corum a little bit and they can be consistent as a 1-2 punch.
Hit the jump for more.
Let's see less of this guy on offense . . . Isaiah Gash. Or any walk-on running back, really. For the past couple seasons, Michigan has been going with just four scholarship backs, and I think that's relying on too thin of a roster. It was Leon Franklin in 2021 and now maybe it's Isaiah Gash in 2022. Franklin doesn't have much juice, and Gash is 175 lbs. That's probably why neither one got a scholarship coming out of high school. I think Michigan should be aiming to have five or six scholarship backs. And obviously I hope the current guys can get and stay healthy.
Let's see more of this guy on defense . . . Nikhai Hill-Green. We're four games into the season, and we have yet to see projected starting linebacker Nikhai Hill-Green. Michigan's linebackers struggled a little bit on Saturday - in coverage and against the run - and it would be nice to at least have the option of playing Hill-Green.
Let's see less of this guy on defense . . . Kalel Mullings. One of the glitches on Saturday was when inside linebacker Kalel Mullings was communicating with his fellow defensive players and forgot to cover the tight end, which turned into a touchdown. Even if your teammate is confused, you can't be caught unaware. Because then instead of one person screwing up the play, it ends up being two. I think Mullings has improved since last year, but Hill-Green was supposed to be the start for a reason, and he has more experience.
Play of the game . . . D.J. Turner II's interception of Taulia Tagovailoa. Midway through the second quarter, Maryland was up 13-10 and driving into Michigan territory. With Michigan struggling a little bit to put everything together, I was afraid that a 20-10 lead might be too much to overcome for the Wolverines. Luckily, cornerback D.J. Turner stepped up in a big way with a diving interception of a pass intended for Jacob Copeland. Replays showed that the ball did indeed hit the ground, but they didn't definitively show that the ground helped Turner secure the ball, so Michigan took over possession.
Michigan DB #5 DJ Turner has been a name to watch this season for the Wolverines after snagging two INTs in 2021. Makes a great play on the ball here against Maryland, getting position to step in-front of the receiver for the pick. #NFLDraftpic.twitter.com/FE9WGPPw4f
— Jonathan Heitritter (@J_Heits) September 24, 2022
MVP of the game . . . Blake Corum. This is an obvious one. Corum was the only consistently good aspect of Michigan's offense. He pounded away with 30 carries for 243 yards and 2 touchdowns, ending with the seventh most rushing yards in Michigan history. And he created a ton of those yards on his own with great vision, jump cuts, and power. Much like the 2021 Penn State game and Hassan Haskins, Michigan wouldn't have won this game without a great performance from Corum.
So if you think they should have five or six scholarship running backs, that implies something has to give somewhere else. Where do you think they are putting too much scholarship emphasis that might be the source of a few more scholarships for the running back room?
ReplyDeleteI don't think anything in particular has to give. If you're just freeing up 1-2 scholarships to use elsewhere, it just depends on the current roster construction, age of players in the position group, etc. The roster is always going to be in flux. But for example, the current team is playing All (until his injury), Honigford, Schoonmaker, Loveland, and walk-ons at tight end. There are a couple scholarship tight ends not seeing the field, like Louis Hansen and Marlin Klein. No offense to Hansen, but I would rather have another scholarship RB on the team than a sixth or seventh scholarship tight end. You're more likely to hit on a walk-on tight end than a walk-on running back.
DeleteThis is the right question. The roster size never in flux. It is always 85 so scholarships are zero sum.
DeleteI'd rather have Ronnie Bell and Joel Honigford than Tavierre Dunlop.
You're more likely to hit on a walk-on RB than a walk-on TE. Tru Wilson is better than any walk-on we've had at WR or TE that I can remember.
RB Tru Wilson: 0 career starts
DeleteWR Kelvin Grady: 8 career starts
TE Mike Kwiatkowski: 6 career starts
WR Bo Dever: 1 career start
WR Nate Schoenle: 1 career start
RB Wilson: 634 yards and 2 TDs
DeleteWR Dever: 26 yards on 1 reception
WR Schoenle: 46 yards on 4 receptions
Grady wasn't a walk-on, he was on scholarship in another sport.
You do make a good point Anon on Kwiatkowski. He was a walk-on and did contribute to the team as a blocking TE. He wasn't Wilson, he had 4 catches for his career, but he had a legit role on offense.* I honestly had forgotten all about him.
* The asterisk is to note that this was when Brady Hoke took over for Rich Rod, who didn't bother recruiting TEs. Watson and Koger graduated and so the remaining scholarships were Brandon Moore (1 career catch) and 2 freshman, including future WR Devin Funchess.
Wilson beat out several scholarship backs (Turner, Samuels) and was expected to be a starter until Charbonnet showed up and Haskins changed positions. Kwiatkowski caught a favorable transition and coaching change that left a wide open hole in the depth chart for him. Today his spot would have been filled by a grad transfer.
I don't blame Franklin or Gash for pissing Dunlap ... we can get away with 4 scholly RBs, but they have to perform. They have to matter
ReplyDeleteI think you can always count on one scholarship RB never panning out for various reasons (think O'Maury Samuels, Kurt Taylor, Kareem Walker, etc.). So if you keep 4, you really have 3. And if you have 3, one is likely to be a young guy like Dunlap/Stokes who needs seasoning, so you really have 2. And then if one of the 2 gets injured, you really have 1.
DeleteMichigan has now been in this situation a couple times in the past couple years when they've chopped down the RB room to 4 scholarship guys. Haskins last year and Corum this year. If something happens to Corum, Michigan is in serious trouble.
The logic behind the math here (4=1) is this:
DeleteIF we assume young guys aren't ready and
IF we assume somebody is hurt and
IF we assume somebody is a bust THEN...
You still have the best RB in the country rounding for 250 yards.
Sorry that wasn't pessimistic enough, I missed a step
IF we ALSO assume another somebody is hurt THEN...
We're in serious trouble!
Well here I agree but what Thunder is missing is that you can do this exercise at ANY position and reach the same conclusion. Name a bust, a freshman who isn't ready, and then assume 2 injuries. That position is in trouble. LT, CB, Safety - you name it, there's trouble.
Turns out without 100+ scholarships were're always in trouble LOL
You say "all running backs are good," but then when the coaches and everybody else agree that Blake Corum is the only viable player at the position, you say Hypothetical Player X is never going to get hurt.
DeleteOkay, so let's give WR Ronnie Bell all the snaps, because he'll never get hurt...
...I mean, let's give TE Erick All all the snaps, because he'll never get hurt...
...I mean, let's give LG Trevor Keegan all the snaps, because he'll never get hurt...
Giovanni El-Hadi messed up some, but he didn't get yanked off the field on his first mistake. Probably because missing a LB on an inside zone or a kickout on a pull/trap is unlikely to swing the game wildly.
C.J. Stokes fumbling the ball results in never seeing the field again, because turnovers can be deadly.
While I'm in the "RBs do matter" camp, I do get Lank's take on RB recruiting a bit
Delete... if the 5th/6th guy is going to be a reach, I'd rather address a bigger need, or a guy who will contribute in SpTms
Stokes is a freshman backup who received a teaching moment - which is common practice at RB. He was available to come back in if they needed him. They didn't - because Corum was there.
DeleteEl-Hadi is a sophmore OL filling in for an injured starter. His mistake did not cause a turnover, and OL is a position where guys could rotate but typically play the whole game (that's allowed).
You'll have to point me to where I said "No one will every get hurt". That's a strawman argument.
Haskins carried the ball 27 times or more in 4 games last year. No one fretted about him getting hurt.
DeleteHart carried the ball 44 times once. No one fretted about him getting hurt.
Corum can carry the ball 30 times. It's not a problem.
This is a thing you have about size of backs and risk of injuries but Ty Isaac was hurt all the time and Mike Hart was not.
Nah, I brought up the concern about Haskins's work load after Penn State last year when Corum was out. You're just conveniently forgetting it.
Delete@je93
DeleteThere's been no argument from me that Michigan should reach for a fifth running back.
@ Lank 12:48 p.m.
DeleteYou're basically undermining your entire argument about running backs and whether they matter or not. You basically said that an offensive lineman can make a big mistake and not be held accountable (a.k.a. benched), but a running back's big mistake (i.e. fumbling) gets him benched. If running backs aren't important, there shouldn't be such a premium on putting the right guy(s) on the field like Corum. Just leave the mistake-prone guy in there, since they're all good and not that important.
@ThunderSeptember 30, 2022 at 7:13 PM
DeleteYour concern was proven invalid.
@ThunderSeptember 30, 2022 at 7:42 PM
DeleteI didn't say that at all. Nor did I say the coach's punitive approach to fumbles was necessarily right.
" I think Michigan should be aiming to have five or six scholarship backs. "
Delete"There's been no argument from me that Michigan should reach for a fifth running back."
These two statements are contradictory. Why not just say "I want Michigan to recruit better players" if you're upset that Dunlop and Stokes aren't good enough fast enough.
Michigan is, presumably, taking the best guys they can. So wanting more guys means taking lesser guys. Lesser than Dunlop and lesser than Stokes (at least in the coaches eyes). Wanting to fill out the depth chart by taking multiple guys in a class is how we got Dunlop.
These second-choice guys will then tend to be lower on the depth chart than a Corum or Edwards or Stokes. And if they are good - like Charbonnet - they will leave. Not always, but most of the time.
The coaches aren't always going to right but they're also going to be spend 2 scholarship-years on guys to, essentially, hedge their bets. This is betting against yourself and I'm glad the coaches don't do it. The only way that is good for the team is if it's guys who might move to other positions (e.g., Gentry as a second QB)
I think where we agree is that the RB coach's job is harder and the margin for error is smaller with 4 RBs instead of 5. But we have a whole position coach for 1 of 22 spots -- that coach SHOULD be able to focus and deliver. Harbaugh trusts Hart to do his job. And he should.
Again - this issue of RB depth hasn't been a problem yet. The closest we've come to an actual problem is having too much depth (in 2020) and guys transferring out because of it. That's not a problem either, but it's a more legitimate concern than the hand-wringing about hypothetical worst-case scenarios about 1 position (and not any others).
Especially with a robust pipeline of walk-ons who aren't willing to let go of their high school glory just yet and are more than capable of filling out the outer fringe of the depth chart.
Mullins to RB as soon as possible
ReplyDeletehttps://www.touch-the-banner.com
DeletePerhaps that would indeed be the "long-term" answer if something were to happen. Maybe Michigan just got him reps there in the spring to be an emergency option.
DeleteYeah let's pull a guy starting at LB and have him be a 4th string RB. That makes perfect sense.
DeleteKalel Mullings hasn't started the last three games.
DeleteNeither did Blake Corum until this year I guess they should have turned him into a linebacker.
DeleteIn essence, you're right. But technically, you're wrong. Blake Corum started the season opener against Minnesota in 2020.
DeleteWe would have 5 scholarship running backs but we wasted a scholarship on JJ McCarthy!
ReplyDelete"We would have 5 scholarship running backs but we wasted a scholarship on JJ McCarthy!"
DeleteThe single most idiotic comment in the history of Touch the Banner, right there.
Roanman
Glad to hear I did an excellent job at impersonating the other Anonymous!
DeleteThe "other Anonymous" never would say that about JJ McCarthy. You are a troll. You are one of many problem commenters on the internet who are careless, and start flame wars. Your type should be banned, or at least addressed through moderation.
DeleteHit and run commenter. Throws a bomb and runs away.
DeleteAnonymous. The JJ hatred is a bit much. The kid is 19 years old and you are posting about him on the internet. Get a life.
ReplyDeleteWho is hating JJ McCarthy?
DeleteIt's funny watching Corum, it didn't seem like 243 yards. Was he even tired after the game?
ReplyDeleteHopefully the offense will find an identity .Right now they are a scramled fllock of ducks, waiting for a leader to take over, then they can fall in to formation. And who will the leader he?
I would make the exact opposite argument as Thunder and say that 4 is plenty. I think there's a stronger case to be made for 3 than 5.
ReplyDeleteThe RB concern is completely contrived. We are fine and continue to be fine with 4 backs. We haven't had a problem yet! If we're trying to have results-oriented analysis let's focus on results. The RB room has gotten better as it's gotten smaller.
The fake issue here boils down to Dunlop being a bust. It happens, as Thunder correctly points out.
The biggest thing that is ignored in the fake concern is that Michigan routinely has freshman contributors at RB and sometimes they're even starters. That's because many RBs (not all but most) who WILL be good enough to start come in ready to contribute as freshman.
Stokes is fine and will contribute this year. He fumbled and needed to learn a leasson. He's not Corum but he can play.
Edwards played a big role when Corum went down and saw critical snaps against OSU. He could play, and he did, and he produced.
Corum stole snaps from Evans and overtook Charbonnet. Anybody saying he wasn't capable as a freshman is ignoring the coaching decisions.
Charbonnet was a starter. Duh.
Evans had 700 yards. Also Duh.
This is all in the Harbaugh era and even that vastly undersells the potential contributions of freshman RB because usually Michigan has had so many dang guys these players don't even get a real opportunity.
The program is making the smart call. RB continues to be a strength position. It was when we had 7 or 8 guys on scholarship and it is with 4 guys on scholarship. Those extra scholarships help us grab guys like Ronnie Bell and Mike Danna.
Lanknows: All running backs are good.
DeleteAlso Lanknows: Dunlop is a bust
(P.S. His name is "Dunlap.")
Yeah that's fair. I always said it was hyperbole and there exceptions. Corum matters, Barry Sanders mattered, etc. Likewise some RBs are busts, like Dunlap and Teric Jones.
DeleteThe funny thing is that by going from 8 scholarships in the backfield to 4, the coaches have proven both of us right.
DeleteRBs don't matter - I am right because the coaches stopped recruiting so many of them and the position got better if anything
RBs do matter - You are right because now there IS a difference when a RB gets hurt, unlike when there was a deep bench
In other words, RBs matter a lot more when there's only 4 on the roster.
To be clear these are all opinions on my part. I acknowledge they may not align with consensus and I know Thunder doesn't agree. I don't mean to come off overly sarcastic or antagonistic. Thunder is expressing a very traditional mindset that's been applied for decades. Many agree with it.
ReplyDeleteBUT the outcomes and results back up a different stance. Harbaugh's offensive philosophy has modernized dramatically since Pep Hamilton came on and subsequently through Gattis and Weiss. The backfield scholarships have been cut in half. This is not unique to Michigan -- OSU also uses only 4 guys on scholarship.
It's an infusion of analytics into the philosophy of a coach who has been, yes, open to change, but also heavily influenced by an old school mentality. The old school mentality is you need lots of big strong RBs so you can ride them hard and then have another one ready who is just as good the minute anyone is hurt because RB is such a critical position. But Harbaugh has not cared about size of his backs in a long time and that's clear in his choices in the NFL and in recruiting.
Analytics (data-driven focus on outcomes to gain marginal advantages via counter-intuitive approaches) are new to the program but have been influential. Michigan isn't necessarily a leader here but like many other teams/programs they have shifted their approach. NFL teams devote less salary to their RBs and keep active replacement-level backups, if not making them starters. It only makes sense for OSU and UM to follow a similar strategy with scholarships - those are the constraint in college, rather than money (salary cap) in the NFL.
Thunder's comments do point to a valid concern -- this puts the pressure on the offensive coaches to hit on recruiting and development side of things. If you whiff badly (as appears to be the case with Dunlop) your margin for error (and injury) narrows because you do absolutely want to have a couple backs you can rotate through. One guy can get 30 carries but one guy can't play the whole game.
In 2020 Michigan had too many RBs on the roster. Many were complaining about the coaches because they wouldn't pick a primary back and this was somehow a problem. It was a fake problem. Now it's the opposite situation and Michigan has very clear hierarchy 1, 2, 3 and people think it's a problem. It's always something. People grouse about RB no matter what. Even when there is unprecedented success.
RBs offer different skills - just like QBs - but offenses aren't one-size-fits-all. You're not necessarily going to call the same plays with McCarthy/McNamra or with Haskins/Edwards or with Gray/Green. That's not a problem. That's adapting to your personnel and it's something that's expected.
The next game Michigan has a problem with RB depth will be the first (at least in my lifetime). Until we see it, it's worrying about a hypothetical. Meanwhile you can name any other position and see instances where unprepared freshman, walk-ons, or clearly deficient starters have been put out there in critical situations. RB is always flush and continues to be flush, even with half the scholarships it used to get.
You are writing War and Peace, Vol 2?
DeleteYep, preorders available at the link below:
DeleteAbridged version:
Delete4 scholarship RBs is fine.
Modernized approach informed by analytics.
We're not alone.
No evidence it's a problem.
Coaches need to produce.
Helps other positions.
People gripe about every position. It's the nature of sports.
DeleteIf Blake Corum gets hurt and is unable to go against a good team, Michigan is going to be hurting. Edwards is already hurt, you said Dunlop/Dunlap is a bust, and obviously Stokes is on a short leash.
There qas so much promise going into this season. Now I can't feel optimism .I'm hoping the Iowa defense isn't intimidating to McCarthy, and that Corum play the full game healthy .But the Iowa offense is historically bad. So even by accident Michigan should win .
Delete@Thunder
DeleteYes - to a degree. But this is different.
I don't hear people calling for more DB recruits when we are using walk-ons or freshman very often. Nor do I hear people say "we're another injury away from a problem" if we can't have a dime package with 6 veteran scholarship DBs out there at all times and "whatif more things go wrong?", "we might have to alter our playcalling or personnel packages slightly".
Or think about QB where we have essentially the same situation despite no busts and one other guy on scholarship (5 total). We have a extremely talented and valuable starter, a quality backup who is hurt/unavailable, and 3rd string option is still not great -- a freshman, or a walk-on. None of them will be remotely as good as the starter and Michigan's chances will be dramatically diminished if the starter is suddenly out.
But no one is using this to say "We need a 6th scholarship recruit to address this problem" at QB - the most important position on the field. Yet we do say it at RB.