Wednesday, March 22, 2023

Jordan Marshall, Wolverine


Cincinnati (OH) Moeller running back Jordan Marshall

Cincinnati (OH) Archbishop Moeller running back Jordan Marshall committed to Michigan on Tuesday. He picked the Wolverines over offers from Ohio State, Oregon, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and others.

Marshall is listed at 5'11" and 193 lbs.

ESPN: 4-star, 82 grade, #15 RB, #189 overall
On3: 4-star, 93 grade, #6 RB, #79 overall
Rivals: 4-star, 5.9 grade, #3 RB, #55 overall
247 Sports: 4-star, 91 grade, #13 RB, #173 overall

Hit the jump for more.

Marshall was offered by Michigan on an unofficial visit in June of 2022, and Ohio State offered a few days later. With the path Michigan vs. Ohio State recruiting has been on for the past decade or two, I just assumed that a highly rated prospect from Ohio with an Ohio State offer would pick Ohio State or go to SEC country. It doesn't seem like Michigan wins many of those battles. So in my mind, I put him on the back burner and assumed Michigan would have to look elsewhere for a back or two. But Marshall kept visiting, the buzz kept building, and then coming off of another unofficial visit this past weekend, he went ahead and committed.

Marshall has a lot of potential. At 5'11" to 6'0" and somewhere between 185-200 pounds (depending on the website you trust), he has adequate size for the position and should get into the low 200s with a college S&C program. He has very good acceleration, and his ability to put one foot into the ground and burst upfield is outstanding. He shows very good vision in Moeller's outside zone scheme, and he also does a nice job of timing his footwork and following his blocks on their counter runs. That training should fit in well with what Michigan does at the next level. I also like how Marshall finishes his runs with power; though he's not a bruiser, he lowers his shoulder, falls forward, and can run through some tackles for extra yardage. Marshall is also used in the screen game and on some downfield passes, and he shows some nice adjustments to the ball and an ability to snag one-handed grabs.

Any runner who seems to seek out contact brings a little bit of concern, especially when he's not the biggest guy around. With his running style, he reminds me a little bit of Zach Charbonnet, who did have some injury issues while at Michigan and missed three games this past season at UCLA. There are also some times where Marshall is looking for the big cutback rather than staying vertical and getting what he can. Mike Hart seems to do a good job of coaching that out of players, so that will probably be corrected.

Overall, Marshall has a chance to be a dynamic back at the next level. Especially if he has a good offensive line, his burst and physicality will be a problem for safeties and cornerbacks. Marshall should be a player who can play in year one. When he arrives on campus in 2024, Blake Corum and Donovan Edwards will both likely be gone, leaving Marshall to contend with the likes of Cole Cabana, Tavierre Dunlap, Benjamin Hall, C.J. Stokes, and perhaps others. Texas running back Taylor Tatum has also been crystal balled to Michigan.

Marshall is the eighth commitment for Michigan in the class of 2024. He would be the first signee from Moeller since offensive lineman Eric Wendt in the early 1990s.

TTB Rating: 88


  1. Dude could very well be RB1 as a TrFR ... welcome!

    1. Blake Corum might have something to say about that.

    2. Corum will be gone.....

    3. People said that last year. Including me. I don't know what is going to change between now and February. Is Michigan going to get poorer? Is Corum going to have more tread on his tires? Is the NFL going to suddenly consider him a 1st round talent? Is Michigan going to win the national title?

      Maybe graduation is a factor but I think the 'calculus' is going to be pretty much the same. Corum is Hunter Dickinson -- more valuable to his college team than any pro team.

  2. Moeller is a pipeline school to Columbus, it might arguably be the pipeline school to Columbus. Getting a kid out of Moeller is borderline miraculous ... and that would be any kid, doing anything.

  3. RBs don't matter but you might as well get ones that might.

    Prototypical size IMO.

    I'm a bit concerned about the high ranking though. The TTB equivalent of an SI Cover curse situation going on with high school RBs.

    1. High level runningbacks matter a lot for Michigan. Corum going down against Illinois was devastating and without Edwards and his speed it's a coin toss against OSU. You're losing it.

    2. Corum had one long carry but otherwise struggled most of the game against Illinois. Edwards (or Haskins) would have struggled too.

      We didn't have Edwards and his speed against OSU in 2021. Somehow we won.

      It's the OL.

    3. Take away Corum's long run of 37 yards, and he had 17 carries for 71 yards against Illinois, which is 4.2 yards per carry. Gash averaged 2.0 yards per carry.

    4. Corum is the best RB of my lifetime and Gash is a walk-on. Gash averaged over 5 ypc on the year.

      3 carry samples are never meaningful. and Gash had all of... 3 carries against Illinois. Corum averaged less than 2 ypc on 3 carries after his TD run. Neither 3-carry sample is meaningful.

  4. What is going on with Michigan recruiting? First we get a bunch of transfer kids, it has to be close to a record in terms of transfers. Next, we have a highly rated kid who was not academically eligible at ND. Then we get a a top100 kids from Ohio pipeline school. What is next? JUCO transfers? It seems like that is happening too. Is it Santa? Gotta be right?

    1. I'm certain the number of transfers is a record, at least in the modern era.

    2. New normal IMO. Portal is being used for freshman, sophs, juniors, seniors and grads.

      The "blame admissions" argument was always weak IMO.

      None of this is unique to Michigan.

  5. I'm so old I remember people criticizing Rich Rodriguez for being overly reliant on Ohio recruiting.

  6. RB's don't matter except when they do. Hopefully we can continue our recent OL and RB success and this debate can rage on. Marshall feels like a "can't miss" guy in ways that Derrick Green / Isaac / Grady never did. If I were to rank abilities that I want to see in a RB, acceleration and burst would be at or near the top. Surprised by the Charbonnet comparison - reminds me personally a bit more of Toussaint.

    1. There were not very many Green skeptics when he committed in Michigan fanbase, even though the recruiting industry was cooling on him slightly and the offers seemed to be falling off a bit near the end.

    2. There was a crowd of people who complained that Green fell over too easily for being a bigger back. Those people were right to be concerned.

    3. "acceleration and burst would be at or near the top."

      Agree. Change of direction is more important than straight speed. Also being low to the ground (limits exposure to big hits) and ability to catch (modern offense) are key.

      But that's splitting hairs -- if you have a great OL and good scheme you can put a lot of different types of guys in the backfield. We've seen Evans, Smith, Higdon, Corum, Haskins, Edwards all have success in the Harbaugh era and there's a big range of "types" there.

  7. For me, it's quite simple. Swap Deveon Smith for Edwards or Corum and the 2016 team makes the playoff. I'm not going to argue that someone like Higdon or Toussaint over Smith would make a huge difference - maybe, but I'm not certain. To your point, it starts to come down to scheme more than talent. But I'm exceptionally confident that Edwards and Corum push that team over the edge.

    1. Exactly. "xxx" doesn't matter depends on the circumstances. JOK was good enough against Indiana at home, and purdont on the road, but not much more. Our secondary was solid in 2018, until they faced Indiana's crossing routes, and then the platinum version in CBus

      Gash & stokes could get it done behind an elite OL against a soft schedule, but were tucked away against the stellar competition

      We're a championship caliber program now, and who carries the ball must definitely matters

    2. I think the biggest issues on the 2016 O was
      a) the LT going down and being replaced in the lineup by a true freshman and
      b) the QB getting injured (possibly as a result)

      This was during a decade of coaching transition where if an OL starter went down a true freshman or walk-on type stepped in.

      The RB rotation had 3 NFL players in it, and Ty Isaac, and Karan Higdon, and Drake Johnson.

      After that you go to receiver depth -- the top 3 (Butt, Darboh, Chesson) where very good but the depth wasn't there because Hoke liked guys who could theoretically win jump balls over guys who could get open or catch, and Grant Perry was just a guy.

      I don't think Haskins or Edwards would have made one lick of a difference positively if they stepped in at RB, nor do I think it would have made much difference negatively in 2021 if Smith had been back there instead of Haskins. That's not to pick on Haskins, the same is true for Perry, Higdon, Toussaint, etc. Corum might be an exception.

      Funny thing is that not many months ago I was the one arguing that plugging in Edwards would work out just fine. And before that I was arguing that plugging in Corum in place of Haskins would be a total non-issue. People here argued with me because "RBs MATTER!". It's a funny little cycle we are in.

      Anyway if I had to plug in one guy from the 2022 offense onto the 2016 it would be JJ McCarthy (QBs MATTER!) but after that it would be Olu Oluwatimi (to kick Cole out to LT) and then I don't know maybe like 8 o 9 other guys (mostly OL or WRs) before I got around to Corum or Edwards added to deep and talented RB room.

    3. As for level of competition - it's not really a coincidence that Corum's worst YPC game was Iowa and his worst success rate game was Illinois. Even great backs are more likely to struggle against elite defenses. This was always a charge leveled against Denard but it tends to get glossed over for people who manage to dodge the frustrating team losses. It's human nature - people want an easy answer to blame for things they don't like. It's usually more complicated.

    4. To be clear - I don't think Smith was anything special. I was a fan because I liked his toughness and resilience and all those tackles he broke, but I don't consider him a special talent and neither does the NFL. But same goes for a lot of guys who produced bigger seasons at Michigan (e.g., Higdon).

      The bigger issue is that value-wise RB is among the least impactful positions - probably the least impactful on offense - in terms of just plugging in another guy and going. We've seen that when Haskins and Higdon left over different seasons and we've seen it when Corum got hurt within the season. It all depends on the quality of the backup, sure, but we've seen people who are supposed to stink as backups get thrown into starting spots and thrive. Sudden bursts of development seem to always pre-date these opportunistic moments.

      Smith was good enough to play in the NFL, make multiple teams practice squads, and continues to be a pro RB today. Scape-goating him for 2016 failures ignores some major issues (Speights shoulder, Newsome's injury, Butt's injury, horrible officiating in Columbus, etc.). He played some great games (Indiana being the biggest one) but he wasn't a one-man wrecking crew against elite defenses. I'm not sure anyone I've watched play in a Michigan uniform is. Corum, Biakabatuka, Wheatley are the closest things but they all played behind NFL OLs so I'm not even 100% sure about them.

    5. Agree to disagree I suppose. The Iowa and OSU games were so close in 2016 and Harbaugh is so insistent on running the ball that I think a dynamic, stud RB would have made a substantial difference. I would agree with you re. a WR upgrade if we were a team that utilized WR talent to a greater extent.

      Deveon Smith carried the ball 12 times for 28 yards against Iowa and 21 times for 60 yards against OSU. I'm not going to argue that Olu wouldn't be great to have as well, but I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that a RB upgrade wouldn't have pushed that team over the edge.

    6. @ Lank 11:00 a.m.

      Michigan lost by 1 point to Iowa, 1 point to Florida State, and 3 points to Ohio State. If you don't think a dynamic, playmaking running back could have made a 2-4 point differential, then I'm going to have to strongly disagree.

      Not only are good running backs good when they get the ball, but opposing defenses have to game plan to stop them. Which opens things up for receivers, tight ends, and quarterbacks.

      Can other positions make a difference? Yes - offensive line, wide receiver, quarterback, etc., sure. But running back was not a strength. Michigan had good players there - they usually do - but they weren't anything special. If you take into account draft worthiness, Smith, Higdon, Evans, etc. weren't valued very highly. Meanwhile, some people are talking about Edwards like he's the next Alvin Kamara, and Corum was a potential Heisman winner/contender who was considered to be a 3rd or 4th round pick before he said he was coming back.

    7. You have a thing against Smith. You're entitled to your opinion. He was a very good back who played in the NFL and continues to play pro football.

      RB was one of the better positions on the 2016 team. QB, OL, and WR had no depth. RB did. Every position was NFL guys except QB.

      You put a lot of stock in the NFL draft and recruiting rankings. I do not. I am much more focused on the results and production. But since you want to go there. Evans was drafted. Higdon and Smith where not but they were fringe draft prospects who got signed as UDFAs quickly. Yes that matters because, for example, Chris Hinton made more money last year than a lot of guys who got drafted, and Deveon Smith produced more yards in the NFL than some guys who got drafted.

      Evans was a 5th round pick and Corum, who I think is the best and most talented back we've had at Michigan in my lifetime, MIGHT be a 3rd or 4th round pick. Though frankly, I think his draft stock is going to suffer by coming back unless he has an epic season better than last.

      And Edwards....c'mon man. It was a few months ago that you were doubting his ability to run between the tackles and questioning his durability and about a year ago you wouldn't even acknowledge he was a good RB. I'm with you -- he might get drafted higher than all these guys -- but this is a kid you've been criticizing for most of his career and now suddenly he's a game-changer on a team that already had Chris Evans AND Ty Isaac AND Deveon Smith AND Karan Higdon?

    8. I feel the need to say this - I love Blake Corum. Awesome player it's just that the position he plays isn't all that impactful, even if he is great.

      Defenses do have to pay attention - they stack the box and that does open the passing game up. But it's not about the RB. Defenses stacked the box against Michigan when Gash and Dunlap are in the game too. Illinois certainly did.

    9. Feel like you're overcomplicating this big time. Evans, Issac, Smith, Higdon - all fine. Not going to argue that playing one over the other makes a big difference. I'd even put Haskins closer to that bucket than the Corum and Edwards bucket. Corum and Edwards make a difference. I'm arguing more than 3 points of difference, which pushes that team over the edge. If you want to claim that RBs dont matter because Higdon = Isaac = Smith = Evans, fine. But Corum and Edwards are far superior players relative to those guys, which translates into at least some amount of points. I'm arguing more than 3.

      Don't really see which part of that statement is even debatable.

    10. Your feelings are your feelings but you'd be hard pressed to prove there is 3 points of difference there. It's 100% debatable and I think you're not really thinking it through.

      If you're trying to find 3 points of difference at one spot - the place where you have a couple NFL players rotating isn't the most likely candidate.

    11. @ Lank 3:38 p.m.

      You'd be hard pressed to prove there isn't 3 points of difference there. Everyone's talking about feelings right now, because it's all hypothetical when you start talking about putting players from 2022 on the 2016 team or players from the 2016 team on the 2021 team.

    12. My fault - I assumed that when the argument was boiled down to something so simple and straightforward - would the 2016 Michigan team have made the playoff if you add Blake Corum or Donovan Edwards to the team - that there would be very little debate otherwise. I maintain my view that RB is a position that will matter quite a bit as long as Jim Harbaugh is the coach. Not in terms of beating 90% of teams on the schedule, but for those remaining 10% the quality of the position makes a massive difference.

    13. Two years in a row Michigan lost it's most talented if not best RB and went out and beat ohio state by running the ball anyway. Instead of at least CONSIDERING that it indicates that the position is very easy to replace, instead people will completely toss aside their previous arguments about players and conclude that Hassan Haskins was a difference maker and also that Donovan Edwards is a difference maker and also that the guy that isn't there is a difference maker even though his absence (in one degree or another) didn't make a difference.

      Yes we're talking about feelings about hypothetical. But there's a fairly robust body of research out there in sports analytics that has evaluated this kind of thing over and over (at least at the NFL level) and none of it indicates that RBs have much value. These studies CONSISTENTLY find RBs to be the easiest to replace and least valuable individuals on the football field. And NFL salaries substantiate that.

      To give an example, football outsiders have a stat of yards above replacement and the very best running backs in the world produce 200 to 300 more yards than replacement-level players. On the season! That's 15-20 yards a game for the very best of the best. Is that worth 3 points in a pivotal game against an elite defense? Very likely not.

      Michigan beat OSU without Blake Corum. That's not a hypothetical. Donovan Edwards was criticized for not being an effective running back in this space. That's not a hypothetical. Smith and Evans played in the NFL which means they are better than replacement level college RBs. Not a hypothetical.

      To focus your "we would have won in 2016 if" energies on one of the strongest position groups on the team is wacky and there's no evidence to support it's true. There IS plenty of evidence to say that replacing one RB with another RB doesn't move the needle very much.

    14. Again, you're focusing on the NFL. I'm not talking about the NFL. I'm not even talking about 90% of college games. I'm focused on those 2-3 games per year that Michigan plays that come down to a few plays. I'm not going to argue that the RB position matters all that much to teams with Tom Brady and Patrick Mahomes - completely agree there. But Jim Harbaugh is going to run the ball 50%+ of the time and he's going to build his offense off of success in the run game. As long as that's the case, RB quality is going to have a major impact on the team's success.

      For the record, I'd actually put Haskins closer to Smith than to Corum or Edwards. All-time game against OSU and I'll always remember him fondly for it, but I don't look at him as someone who would move the needle massively.

    15. Michigan had 201 total yards of offense against Iowa in 2016. So yes, a 15-30 yard difference may have changed the outcome. A 20-yard increase in yardage would mean 10% more yards in that game. Ten percent more points would put them at 14.3 points to Iowa's 14. Lengthening a drive or two in a game may cut down on the opposition's opportunity/time to score. An extra 15 yards here or there may put Michigan in field goal range or make a long field goal into a reasonable field goal distance. There are myriad ways that 15-30 yards in a game at any given point could change the outcome.

      Give Michigan 30 more yards against Ohio State, and that represents an increase of almost 10% (they only had 310 total yards). A 10% increase in points puts the game as a 30 to 29.7 loss.

      Give Michigan 25 more yards against Florida State, and that represents a 10% increase. An extra 10% of points against FSU puts Michigan at 35.2 to 33 and a win against the Seminoles.

      These stats don't help you. Saying Michigan might have somewhere around 10% more total yards in a given game is not insignificant. Would it be 10% against an elite defense? Eh, maybe not.

      There's no way to solve this. Again, it's hypothetical. But saying "Michigan might only be 5-10% better if they had a good running back" is basically admitting that...yes, Michigan might have been in the playoff with a better running back!

    16. Everyone acknowledges this is a hypothetical. We're debating the hypothetical. There's no way to SOLVE it but there's a way to make a case based on evidence and facts and a way to make a case based on nothing other than opinions.

      In no way was I saying Corum was worth 15-30 yards. So everything you're doing with that hypothesis is a waste of time. That's the most impact it could possibly be and that's certainly NOT the maximum impact condition. Very far from it.

      That 15-30 yards might be the difference in a game like Purdue when compared to walk-on or 4th string freshman. That number is for the case of an average opponent and compared to a replacement level back. Neither of those apply for Iowa or FSU in 2016. If the defense is elite - the number goes down. If the RB who is getting replaced is a good player - the number goes down. If both, the number goes down a lot.

      Smith was WAY above replacement level at the college level (he is replacement level at the NFL though). Iowa was way better than average defense, as you noted. Difference against Iowa might be 5 yards or... 1 yard.

      Does that make a difference? It's possible. It's a game of inches. But very likely not.

      RB is one of 22 positions and it's towards the bottom of the list in impact among the 22. No RB is moving the offensive needle 10%, even in a run heavy offense, except for maybe somebody like Barry Sanders or Darren Sproles or maybe still some very good players with nobody backups.

      Put McCarthy in for injured Speight in those games and 10% is more likely. Put Zinter or Keegan, hell even '22 El Hadi, in for the freshman starter at LG against Iowa and he almost certainly doesn't give up 2 sacks or make countless errors in run blocking. That's more than 15 yards right there and more if you factor in the Speight injury that resulted. Put a TE better than Ian Bunting in against FSU - well you're not going to get 10% there either since Butt played much of the 1st half, but it's more likely than Smith who got fewer than half of the RB snaps anyway. Put a better OT like Hayes/Jones/Barnhart in for the hodge podge of players that rotated through LT all year long and maybe you get to 10%.

      Replacing an NFL back with another NFL back won't have changed the story much and we know that since there was ALREADY two NFL backs and quality backups available.

      You are overrating the RB position, consistently and systematically.

  8. Once again the “RB matters” debate. I think with a healthy Corum, we beat TCU. Put the coaches on truth serum, they will tell you that they will rather have a healthy Corum over a healthy Edwards in 2022. And it matters. Moreover, didn’t we see how we almost lost to Illinois without a healthy Corum/Edwards? How Stokes/Gash could not run the ball in the second half even behind the Rimington Award OL? The difference between a Corum and a Gash is that one defensive mistake against Corum result in a TD while a mistake against Gash result in a long gain.

    1. Some people just like to argue

    2. I don't JUST like to argue. I love to argue. I also like other things. I think this is passe but -- sorry not sorry JE.

    3. FT - the thing is that OSU kind of proved this kind of argument wrong but people are so stuck in thinking RBs have outsized importance because stats get attributed to them.

      Imagine if instead of RBs the rushing yardage totals got attributed to OLmen. It would be more accurate.

      Anyway anyone can say anything. Maybe we beat TCU with Corum and lose to OSU with him in which case we don't play TCU and the point is moot. Hypotheticals are like opinions everyone has one.

    4. Aren't you the same person arguing that Jake Rudock in 2015 had such a good offensive line that Rudock was the weak point on the team? So according to your own statements, didn't De'veon Smith have a good offensive line? And if that's the case, then why did he average 4.18 yards per carry?

      YPC for starting running backs in Harbaugh era:
      2015 Smith: 4.18
      2016 Smith: 4.67
      2017 Higdon: 6.06
      2018 Higdon: 5.26
      2019 Charbonnet: 4.87
      2020 Haskins: 6.15
      2021 Haskins: 4.91
      2022 Corum: 5.92

      So the 2015 offensive line was so good - with several players who stuck around the NFL for years or had roster spots or whatever - that it proves Jake Rudock wasn't good because his stats were nothing exceptional. But the running back - whose stats were literally nothing exceptional - was good, even though his numbers were demonstrably worse than literally every back since him.

      And the 2020 offense was terrible in a 2-4 losing season, but Haskins managed to average over 6.0 yards per carry, but Haskins wasn't a difference maker. But he still averaged 1.7 yards per carry more than Smith did in 2015.

      I don't know, Lank. It sure seems to me like you're just twisting the "facts" to fit your feelings.

    5. Typo: Haskins averaged 1.97 yards per carry more than Smith, not 1.7

    6. I'm sorry - did I put Deveon Smith on my list as the 4th best RB ever to play at Michigan? No I did not.

      Rudock and Smith are the same caliber of player. They're quality Big 10 starters - good enough to play in the NFL. I don't see much difference. Rudock was good and Smith is good. Neither is special, both are solid. Splitting hairs - Smith was a better and more productive player at the college level and in the NFL.

      Why did Smith average ONLY 4.2 YPC in 2015? Because quality defenses could stack the box and shut Michigan down - because the starting QB wasn't much of a threat to make them pay and neither was the starting RB.

      Funny that one is held up as a hero and one of the best ever (even though he threw 3 INTs to lose a close game) and another is scape-goated for narrow losses. Replacing Rudock with a better QB in 2015 would have made FAR more difference the replacing Smith with a better RB in 2015 (or 2016). That has really not much to do with either guy but is about the position they play.


      Haskins averaged 5.1 yards per career to Smith 4.5 for his career. That's a difference of 0.6 ypc. That's over 450 carries for each. HH was a better college RB and is a better pro - he's better. But much/most of that difference can be attributed to the difference in OLs - Haskins ran behind one of the best OLs in the history of the program in 2021 while Smith's career included some of the worst early in his career. Haskins had the lowest YPC on the team in 2021, which is pretty typical for a workhorse primary back (as Smith was in 2016 when he averaged 4.7 ypc and as Haskins was in 2021 when he averaged 4.9 ypc.

    7. @Thunder remember when you doubted the hype on Corum because of his YPC in 2020?

    8. Yep. I doubted the hype so much that I gave him a TTB Rating of 83 and ranked him as the #17 most important player going into the 2021 season.

    9. You value the role -- backup RB. Read the words in the post. And look back on all the RB TTB ratings and see if Corum's fits better as "worthy of hype" or "JAG". You gave him a mediocre TTB rating and you were a skeptic going into 2021, per your own words.

  9. From the 2020 squad, we replaced our B1G championship QB, and got better. We replaced our Center & RT, and got better. Do those positions not matter?

    We played with backup OL all 2021, at all but Center, still produced a Heisman finalist RB ... does this mean OL doesn't matter? Of course not

    This is a Jim MF Harbaugh offense. Changing QB, losing the top two TE, and sitting injured OL did not change scheme or production. Losing our Heisman RB did. Not having Edwards for Illinois did

    RB matters

    1. Changing QB changed production significantly.

      OL depth and experience was excellent, as was TE, as touted in the offseason. The concern at RB was a sharp contrast to those positions. OL and TE were not expected to be issues if attrition struck -- and they weren't when it did. RB was expected to be an issue -- and it never was.

      Illinois was an elite defense (#3 nationally) that Michigan looked past ahead of OSU. We still won the game down our top 2 RBs. In fact we scored more points in the 2nd half (without Corum) than in the first half (with him). It's funny that you try to hold this up as some example of RB importance when the results say otherwise.

      And of course there's the last 2 years of OSU games where the RB who was supposed to matter more than any other RB was not there and Michigan ran all over OSU anyway. The quasi-WR who fell over a blade of grass and couldn't hold up between the tackles suddenly was an impact player too -- just like the HARBALL back who mattered before Corum mattered he matters too.

      If every RB matters it seems like maybe there's no difference and none do.