Name: Marlin Klein
Height: 6’6″
Weight: 245 lbs.
High school: Rabun Gap (GA) Nacoochee
Position: Tight end
Class: Redshirt freshman
Jersey number: #17
Last year: I ranked Klein #89 and said he would redshirt (LINK). He played in two games.
TTB Rating: 81
Klein never had much of a chance to play significant snaps in 2022. Not only did Michigan have a glut of tight ends, but Klein was built very slight. At his height and just 215 pounds, he was never going to hold up against Big Ten defensive linemen or linebackers, and even some safeties probably could have pushed him around. So he got in the game at the end of a couple blowouts against Hawaii and UConn and that was it.
This year he has more of a chance, and I think we will see him start to emerge. Several tight ends moved on from last year's team, so Klein moves up the depth chart a little bit. He is also listed at 245 this season, though he still looked pretty skinny in the spring game. I think blocking is still a major issue for Klein, so I don't foresee him playing a significant role in 2023. However, multiple players/coaches have mentioned in interviews that he's a bit of a freak athlete. The first three guys are probably Colston Loveland, A.J. Barner, and Matt Hibner, and Klein has a shot to be mixing in after that, along with Max Bredeson.
Prediction: Backup tight end
As with "other" positions, someday this kid may matter. Just not this year
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with this one as it feels like a low rank to me and Klein seems like perhaps the favorite to get a meaningful backup role. Consider, TE snaps last year vs OSU and TCU:
ReplyDeleteColston Loveland – 50, 70
Luke Schoonmaker – 24, 11
Joel Honigford – 18, 20
Max Bredeson – 8, 8
Matt Hibner - 1,11
Keep in mind these are AFTER Erik All was lost for the season, so these are the #2-6 TEs on opening day.
Michigan used 5 TEs in meaningful downs against TCU and OSU. They used just 2 RBs*.
Barner can replace some snaps but with All, Honigford, and Schumacher all gone - he can't replace them all. Klein is in the mix for TE#5 going into the season, which means he's got a pretty good chance of seeing meaningful snaps on critical downs in the key games. That's not true of most of the guys listed so far.
TE, like RB, is not a critical position. But at the same time you have TE5 out there more than RB3 when things count yet RB3 is going to be listed way higher on the list. TE3 (Honigford) saw almost twice as many snaps as all backup RBs combined against TCU and OSU (12 vs OSU, 9 vs TCU). TE4 (Bredeson) saw more than Mullings and Stokes combined in those 2 games.
Seems to me like Klein is in a similar position as someone like Stokes, Hall or Cabana. Vying for a backup role that could see some meaningful snaps and maybe a much bigger one if injuries strike.
*Technically 3 since they put Corum out there against OSU for a few snaps but that was a farce.
At he college level do you hold these valuations without regard for the system a given team might run?
DeleteI mean, okay...but what's the difference between Marlin Klein and Deakon Tonielli and Zack Marshall? If you get down into freshman/inexperienced running backs, you get...missed pass protection assignments and fumbles.
DeleteI also think sometimes we overrate the TE thing with Harbaugh. It's a schematic advantage, not a talent advantage. I think it's noteworthy that Michigan's tight ends aren't doing anything special in the NFL. He's not recruiting/developing stud players at the position. He's just using them better and/or more frequently.
Teams don't know how to defend an offense like Michigan's when they use 2 tight ends and a fullback/tight end (like Max Bredeson or Joel Honigford). They don't see it very often, and it creates a ton of misdirection when you compare it to teams that use a ton of 10 or 11 personnel. It's the same advantage that Rich Rodriguez had when he went full spread and ran the QB. It's not that Pat White and Steve Slaton were supreme athletes. It's that nobody knew how the hell to defend it.
Now everyone's so spread out that playing with 3 or 4 tight ends - which is old-school ball - is unique.
Agree, and it's why I think we'll keep Harbaugh. The NFL is a passing league, and I'm not sure his brand is wanted anymore. Or, at least, I hope not
DeleteThunder I agree with you in part. The missed assignments thing is the difference between a freshman and a soph. At TE and RB. Kleins last year should put him ahead of freshman.
DeleteAs for the argument about scheme vs talent... I agree. But Isn't it also true at RB? Guys like corum and loveland are special tangents but they're replacable parts ultimately.
If I have the ol to execute the run heavy scheme you win. Just like if you have the QB to execute the pass heavy scheme.
Anon I agree with your point. The scheme does matter. Our 4th TE is amost as important as our 4th wr. At osu that's not true. And we can get by with a QB who is a game manager. Osu can't.
DeleteJust curious as to what is a “critical” position on offense?
ReplyDeleteAssuming you're asking me. In rough order of most to least critical:
DeleteQB, OT, WR, OG, OC, RB, TE, FB
If you are a capitalist you will agree that the market is a good estimate of value. Doctors are paid more than Janitors and so on. So the NFL salaries provide insight to relative positional value.
https://thefootballusa.com/average-nfl-salary
https://sportsaspire.com/average-nfl-salary-by-position
https://www.pff.com/news/draft-surplus-value-of-each-position-in-the-nfl-draft
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/34096853/highest-paid-nfl-players-tracking-most-money-guaranteed-per-year-every-position
You can look at average values or the value of the top players in the position and in both cases RB is one of the least valuable positions. They are more valuable than special teams players though.
While the demand and supply are different in college, the rules of the game are all but identical and thus, so should be the positional values.
This is not new information. Very little has changed for RBs since a decade ago.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1563549-breaking-down-the-money-at-every-nfl-position
It was a different story in the 80s though.
Try again.
ReplyDeleteAt he college level do you hold these valuations without regard for the system a given team might run?
For Harbaugh, I believe so:
DeleteOC, RB, OT, QB, OG, TE, WR, FB*
*unless you see one on the field
It's different but not much. When the going gets tough we throw much more than when we don't have to. Even guys like Ruddock and cade had some high attempt games. We all saw the tcu game .
Delete@JE.
DeleteI can't back it up with any kind of data but I kind of agree with you on putting OC higher in the Harbaugh offense (and in college generally). TE is obviously higher too since you have 2 on the field so often.
Typical NFL offense (as listed above):
QB, OT, WR, OG, OC, RB, TE, FB
Typical college offense
QB, OT, OC, WR, OG, RB, TE, FB
OC a bit higher because busted line calls are more likely to lead to disaster.
Typical Harbaugh offense
QB, OT, OC, OG, TE, WR, RB, FB
Yes, even for Harbaugh, I would put WR over RB. You need more of them and our down years on offense (2017 and 2020) coincided with terrible WR groups and excellent RBs. 2017's leading receiver was Grant Perry, Kekoa Crawford, and freshman DPJ. 2020's were soph Ronnie Bell and Cornelius Johnson and Giles Jackson. QB play was most of it but the WR room seemed like a key factor (especially for Speight falling off like he seemed to in early 2017).
Setting aside the whole Haskins/Corums/Edwards replicability element, do you have an explanation for why RB is so highly ranked yet the offense struggled so badly in 2017 and 2020 with deep and talented RB rooms?
So how do you define the relative value of a specific position in a Harbaugh offense when NFL positional salary differences is not applicable?
ReplyDeleteUsage
DeleteHarbaugh runs an NFL offense. It's applicable. If anything the osu and Tennessee and Lincoln Riley type offenses would make QB and WR more valuable in college than NFL.
DeleteFor some teams, there was definitely a shift back toward running the ball last year, but the the NFL is still very much a passing league
DeleteSo is a college. where a mediocre QB like cade will attempt 44 passes in a game, even with a run-loving coach and 3 NFL RBs.
DeleteHarbaugh is going to run all over ECU and other over matched teams but the playcalls against osu, tcu, Georgia,etc are going to look very NfL like.
The NFL is a league with a salary cap and great parity. Do you think if the chiefs were playing a team as outmatched as emu is when they play Michigan that mahomes is going to throw 40 passes or more like 15-25?
Harbaughs offense is closer to the NFL than Tennessee Vols and probably most college teams. He's not running a Rodriguez run spread nor is he utilizing a military academy wishbone retro. That's part of his appeal to recruits. His offense is famously sophisticated. He uses TEs more than others but Michigan throws the ball plenty when having real competition.
In other words, the higher higher percentage of running plays in college can be explained mostly by a) the prevalence of one-sided matchups where running the ball is advantageous but also b) systems that utilize younger more injury resilient QBs in the run game and (last and least relevant) that sacks are counted as run plays in college but not the NFL.
DeleteSaying that RBs are less valuable in the NFL than college does not hold up to any scrutiny. The NFL had 8 guys with 250 carries, college had 11. 34 teams vs 130 teams. The NFL does not regularly have blowout games where the 4th-7th RBs are going to get to split 10-15 carries in the 4th quarter.
You don't have 40 point lines in the NFL but they happen every week in college. When this happens, the stronger team can often just dominate the LOS and run. They would do that to avoid higher risk plays (passing is still generally more likely to generate a turnover than run plays though the gap has narrowed dramatically in the last 30 years) and not risk an injury to their most important player - the QB (who is most likely to be injured when he's standing in the pocket and susceptible to a brutal hit). You save that exposure for when you need to win games.
Michigan is no different in philosophy, only in context. They play lots of tomato cans. The 49ers play none. The range between 30 teams and 130 is very different and having a strict salary cap and a draft that rewards failure further narrows things.
As for run pass split the range in college goes from Air Force (passing 11% of the time) to Mississippi State (69%). In the NFL the range is 44% to 68% tampa bay.
More insightful is the median - NFL teams are throwing 58% of the time in the NFL and the 48% in college. That 10 percent difference is explained by how many one-sided blowouts they are playing in. PSU and Clemson are both teams that were middle of the pack in pass percentage (65th and 66th). Clemson played games against Furman and Lousiana Tech and nearly half their games were over by early 3rd quarter. Penn State played games against Ohio, CMU, and Rutgers and half their games ended with scoring margins over 3 TDs. From there you're literally just trying to run out the clock.
Teams pass more when games are close or when they are trailing. Teams run more when games are decided and they are up big. The first scenario happens a lot more in the NFL than in college. Typical offenses like Penn State and Clemson are still going to have games where they throw 40 times (Sean Clifford threw 47 times against OSU, DJ Uiagalelei threw 41 times against top 25 ranked Wake Forest). Jared Goff's season high was 42.
So yes, Michigan runs the ball 60% of the time, while only 11 NFL teams even come close to 50%. But they don't get to play Hawaii, Colorado State, and UConn. Games that Michigan can win with my 12 year old at QB. (I'd say my 8 year old but that kid would fumble at least a dozen handoffs).
NFL players are not going to risk their $200M franchise QB with run calls against NFL-caliber athletes either.
Bottomline - the argument that RBs are more important in college than the NFL does not hold up.
It's easier to be a difference-maker at the college level because the range of talent is exponentially larger. But that's true at every position. That's why you can have somebody like Jason White or Mason Rudolph or Graham Harrell go crazy in college and be a total non-factor in the NFL
Even with Cade at QB (not a run threat) last year, close games like MSU and Nebraska ended up with balanced playcalling that looked like the NFL. Moreso than a team like Mississippi State, even thought their run/pass mix looks more NFL-like than MIchigan's.
"In other words, the higher higher percentage of running plays in college can be explained mostly by a) the prevalence of one-sided matchups where running the ball is advantageous but also b) systems that utilize younger more injury resilient QBs in the run game and (last and least relevant) that sacks are counted as run plays in college but not the NFL."
ReplyDeleteNot al all ... any of it.
It has to do with a specific coaches preference and/or recruiting advantages/disadvantages enjoyed/suffered in the recruiting opportunities for a specific school.
Military academies mostly all run some form of the triple option because Ken Niumatalolo kicked butt with it and showed the rest of them a style of play that they could recruit to. They value both different positions on offense and different skill sets within a given position that the rest of us do
The Georgia Tech flexbone under Paul Johnson was a similar situation. They could recruit effectively to it on offense and get kids that worked for them that were likely less valued at other places.
The old Kansas State guy is another excellent example of this. As an aside, he loved him some fullback too.
Forgetting the reality that every position on a football field is critical as Brady Hoke knew well having got sent packing from here because "“Everyone’s going to point to the offensive line, but really it’s all of us. It’s not just them. It’s not fair. It’s never one guy, one thing, in anything in life, unless you’re golfing. I guess that would be you. In a team sport, it’s not that way. All 11 parts have to be working in the same direction."
Lanky
The silliness of declaring that RB's and TE's are less critical positions across the board is made evident in your own comments above as you reprioritize positions from your NFL salary system of determining position value to your imagined Harbaugh order of valuing a position group on our team here.
What you get right is that to the extent that one position is more critical than another is simply a matter of system ... period.
Having said that, the entire thought is nonsense. If a TE flat out fails to block or a blind as a bat Tailback misses the hole, your play is still most likely toast, regardless of how good your RT, Center or OGs are.
Roanman
Roanman - the service academies are outliers, balanced by pass-heavy outliers like the air raid teams. Neither are representative of the college football, other than to illustrate the wide range of offensive schemes between 131 different teams in D1.
DeleteLet's be clear that the vast majority of these college teams fall within plus or minus 12% of a 50/50 run/pass split. Three college programs throw more than 62% of the time and 7 run more than 62% of the time - out of 131. The NFL also has 3 that exceed the 62% mark but none that run above it. I noted the median or "average" offenses above because they are more representative of the difference in college and the NFL. The vast majority of teams are passing between 40-60% of the time, in the NFL and in college. The difference is there, but dramatically overstated by some here and explainable by other factors (as noted above).
I'm acknowledging the differences between the two levels but a) they are relatively minor tweaks in aggregate because the rules of the game are essentially the same and b) they are more team-specific than systemic (to use a different sense of the word). In other words the difference between the Bears and Bucs (43% vs 68% passing) in the NFL and Air Force and Tennessee in college is bigger than the difference between the NFL and the entirety of college football.
Maybe when guys who aren't even coaching anymore like Snyder and Johnson have big coaching trees where their influence is prevalent (like Nick Saban, Rich Rodriguez, Mike Leach, etc.) things would be different. But right now these are fun and interesting experiments that ultimately mean nothing to Alabama, Michigan or any other Power 5 team except for the one time a year they might run into those goofball programs. Airforce can switch from passing 10% to 90% and it will have no consequence on the college football landscape.
Every position matters and all lives matter. Sure and of course but also that's deliberately missing the point. The long snapper matters too. You don't get everybody talking about them the way they obsess and glorify RBs.
DeleteI'm 100% with you that it's a team game. That's exactly why giving outsized credit to one player who happens to get all the credit in boxscore for a runplay doesn't make sense. No matter if you run the ball 60% of the time or 40% of the time - the success of a run game is mostly dictated by scheme and blocking at the LOS. There can be differentiation between backs in many different ways but rushing production is certainly less than 20% about the RB (if you assume every position matters the same it would be 9% for a primary back who plays every down). Moreover, the RB ability to leverage that 10-20% that is his vis a vis another RB (at least at a place like Michigan where even the scout team has guys who could be on scholarship at the academies or MAC schools on it) to make a substantial enough difference on the 20 plays out of 160 in the game where he is running the ball to be changing outcomes by more than a point or two is preposterous.
RBs don't matter has always been (openly) hyperbolic and reactive to the inequitable narratives. If everyone treated RB the same as every other position than I'd be less likely to point out the logic, research, and anecdotal evidence that says they don't (very much). Instead they are evaluated as one of the two most important positions on the offense, if not the entire team. Exactly backwards.
This last 2 seasons of Michigan football where the team just chugs along with 3 different guys at RB1 producing at the same level regardless should be telling. And yes, we've turned over guys at QB, OT, and OC too of course. The difference is that nobody said Karsen Barnhart is just physically incapable to do the job like they did about Donovan Edwards and no one proclaims we have no chance of beating Ohio State without Trevor Keegan* like they did with Blake Corum.
The other thing I'll disagree with you on is this -- the QB is a critical position in every system. It is critical to Rodriguez and it is critical to Johnson and it is critical to Harbaugh and Schembechler and every coach ever. Maybe less so than for Leach or Day but still critical. So no, some things aren't all about system.
DeleteSo again we are limited to talking about tweaks in value, even across different systems. You need a good OL to pass just like you need a good OL to run. You need a pass game to keep the defense from cheating against the run (and vis versa). And you can usually replace your RB with another whether you run him 40 times a game or 20.
If a TE flat out fails to block or a clumsy QB flubs the handoff, your play is still most likely toast, regardless of how good your RB is. This is the nature of football but especially of running plays.
It's a team game everyone acknowledges, until it's time to have a hero and then the RB is raised on a pedestal even though all available evidence says he's just a cog in a machine.
DeleteAnd this all ignores the big thing that the comments section of this site often ignores -- RBs matter in the passing game just as much in the running game. I would argue that the pass game is where you get MORE differentiation in RBs mattering than in the run game, but for one I will say I don't want to go down that tangential path at the moment.
So there's a question if the run/pass split even matters at all to the relevance of RBs. I would say to you Roanman that your ITS A TEAM game point should be considered as an argument against RBs rather than for them and the differences between college and NFL,even if they are bigger than I lay out above, are immaterial -- RB is a position that is out there on every play regardless.
Valuing players based on what your eye is drawn too (the ball) is a form of bias that we as fans can let go of and let the eggheads doing research and the well-paid experts determining salaries disabuse us of. Or we can be stubborn and insist that college is just different (even though the rules are the same).
BTW to the 1 or 2 people possibly still reading this. It's wild that Corum's injury is still seen as the issue with the offense against Illinois when both Keegan and Schumacker were missing all game and Corum was present and in full health for the less productive half of that game.
DeleteRBs mostly don't get paid in the NFL because they break. The same is true of LBs. It's financially irresponsible to sink a crap ton of money into a back when their careers are so short relative to the other positions. The Lions take a chance on a first round pick, but at least they get him on a rookie contract. Dallas screwed up royally with Ezekial Elliot. And that's all it is, you can't give em the bucks over years because mostly their careers are so short because of injury. If you want to win, you can't be paying them to be walking the sidelines in their civvies.
DeleteIt really is just that simple.
Roanman
Disagree Roanman. RBs don't get paid in the NFL because they do not make enough impact. They are paid less as veteran free agents AND they are paid less during the draft (i.e., they are drafted later than other positions). Teams who use high picks on RBs are routinely criticized for not looking at the value equation.
Delete"Positions like safety, linebacker, interior offensive line, tight end, and running back have become rarities in the first round of the NFL Draft because they don’t provide enough surplus value relative to acquisition cost. These positions are also readily available on the open market, so teams are betting off taking home-run swings on positions where elite options can’t be found in free agency."
The issue is that when the most productive RBs get hurt, their replacements generally slot right in. The other issue is that most of them are rotating without any evident difference. Why would you pay a premium for something that's so easy to replace?
If the problem was what you say (injury risk keeps their value down), NFL teams could give RBs shorter contracts for more money. Get that Mr. Important for one year. But that doesn't really happen. Because even then they aren't worth big money.
If you believe the sports press, possibly a silly thing to do, the Lions just emptied their RB room because having got the play blocked, they felt that they were leaving yards on the field because one guy wasn't running hard enough and the other guy had lost some explosion. They replaced them with a first round pick and a second contract guy. So if the argument is that RBs can be replaced, well ... can't we all. But if the argument is that they're all the same ... no, they are not.
DeleteRoanman
RBs aren't the same but the differences almost never matter. It's just not important enough of a position. I don't make the rules. I'm just an observer.
DeleteThe game of football has always been won in the trenches and whatever relative credit is to be distributed to the other positions has certainly evolved more towards the brain of the QB than to the other skill positions. Yes, even at Michigan where we throw the ball three times as often as we did in the 1970s with Bo.
Bo is dead and Harbaugh isn't a dummy.
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/2023-nfl-draft-first-round-rbs-are-becoming-more-scarce-a-look-back-at-recent-backs-drafted-in-round-1/
Delete"Teams are finding value on running backs later in the draft, players they don't have to consider giving a fifth-year option. Some of those backs are more productive than the top backs selected in the first round, and some teams are even finding stars on Day 3 of the draft (see Aaron Jones and Austin Ekeler). Day 2 and 3 of the draft is when teams tend to invest in running backs in this day and age, as five of the top-10 rushing leaders in 2022 were drafted in the second round or later. No running backs were taken in the first round in the 2013 and 2014 drafts, a far cry from the four running backs taken in the first round in 2000 and the five taken in 1990 (when the league had just 25 teams). "
And yes, it's only about system.
ReplyDeleteNiumatalolo would have preferred a guy with a big accurate arm, if he could have snagged him, but that kid ain't coming to Navy unless he's Roger Staubach. So what he really wanted/needed was a QB that was a DB about anywhere else. He was recruiting, smart kids who could read the line of scrimmage, make really quick, correct decisions and then scoot.
Harbaugh wants a kid that can throw it and threaten you with his feet so you always have to account for him. He'll take Cade if the kid he really wants has a generic heart condition and can't play, but he'd much rather have the guy who can take off and kill you if you ignore the threat.
Leach wanted Jayden Davis, a kid that can read a coverage at the snap and pretty close to immediately get the ball out to the guy who is open based on weakness in the coverage he was reading. Leach might have liked Cade.
What does a guy want to do? He's after the kid that can get that thing done at that position.
And again, it really is that simple.
Roanman
I have zero disagreement with this. It seems to me like you're arguing that system is not the whole thing and that everyone would love to have a QB with an arm and legs and a brain. I agree.
DeleteHarbaugh is recruiting all types of different QBs just like he is recruiting all types of different DEs.
I think we've gone off track. I prefer data based points over something subjective as much as anyone, but WTF does the NFL pass-rush ratio have to do with the 2015-23 MICHIGAN Wolverines? WTF does the play calling out of Knoxville or Stillwater have to do with Harball? Nothing. When JH got into coaching, Bo called & asked if he'd like up multiple tight ends and run through & over defenses. Harbaugh & Gattis/Weiss/Moore may not line up under Center as often, but Harballis still a run first run often Offense ... Cade having a game or two passing over 20x doesn't take away from that, nor does falling behind TCU in a playoff game w/JJ
ReplyDeleteHarball = run & run mucho. We either do that with one stud or a pair of trusted guys. Regardless, WHO carries the ball does matter
It was argued or implied that because college teams run more, RBs are more important in college. That's not true.
DeleteIt was argued or implied that SYSTEM is the primary determinate of positional value. That's not true either.
Michigan is a run first offense until they are aren't. They aren't the weird outlier you make them out to be in terms of running the ball. Here are some facts: Ohio State - a team roundly criticized as pass reliant and soft on the ground threw 48% of the time while Harball Michigan passes 39%. That means out of every 10 offensive plays, Michigan will run 1 more time than OSU.
Does that sound like a huge difference to you? It's significant and interesting, but not enough to dramatically alter the 90% similarity. Now further consider that a chunk of that 10% difference is that Michigan ran it's QB about 50% more often as OSU did.
In total there was a difference of 40 pass attempts by QBs (UM's QBs attempted 370 passes to OSU's 410.) 40 fewer pass attempts over an entire season. Which was almost entirely offset by a difference of 33 additional carries by MIchigan QBs in the run game. In total, Michigan QBs ran or passed for 7 fewer plays than OSU QBs ran or passed over the entire season.
The narrative - that Michigan is just going to pound the rock up the middle with it's top RB while other teams are busy tossing the ball all over the field doesn't stand up to the facts. Michigan is reliant on it's QBs as much as OSU, and (when not playing cupcakes) as NFL teams too.
Harball = something that evolves every year to suit the personnel and rotating crew on the offensive coaching staff. Our offense looks NOTHING like it did in 2015. It is very complex and multiple, just like the NFL.
You omitted a key point of the Bo conversation. Bo asked him if he was going to have a fullback. Harbaugh got rid of fullbacks in the offense. And Harbaugh, like every team in the NFL and pretty much every one in college, uses a TE. There's nothing unique about that - though it is unique how often he uses 2, they are generally splitting one of them out wide (not what Bo would have considered a TE because his hand isn't on the ground.)
https://www.latimes.com/sports/la-xpm-2011-oct-29-la-sp-jim-harbaugh-20111030-story.html
Harbaugh likes tight ends and he likes to run but Harbaugh is also a former QB and a brilliant coach who knows that balance is critical.
I didn't say Michigan was a run only team, I said run first & often. Do you want to account for the games we have thrown more v run more? Produced more yards or TDs by passing?
DeleteI also didn't say JH hasn't evolved his offense. One of my arguments for RBs mattering is that - behind the same Joe Moore OL - we adjusted our run game to fit the strengths of BC, after losing HH. What hasn't & will not change is the identity of a ground & pound approach. Not just run to pass ratio, but Yards, 1st Downs, TDs, you name it
"Michigan is a run first offense until they are aren't"
Interesting. The same logic can be applied to the Fullback position: JH got rid of the Fullback except when he uses one (Mullings fumble)
For fun, answer this: are we more likely to line up a RB/TE say FB in a game, or finish a game with pass heavy stats (Yards, 1st Downs, TDs)?
That's a valid point JE except that Mullings is a RB (and former LB) who lined up at FB on that play and fumbled, just like McKeon was a TE who lined up at FB and fumbled a couple years before. So if you want to quibble we can say "getting rid of fullbacks" should be specified as a personnel choice. A big change from 2015.
DeleteWe are more likely to lineup a RB/TE at FB in a game than finish a game with more yards passing than running. What is your point? Nobody here is arguing that Michigan doesn't like to run but the big distinction you are trying to draw for Michigan isn't very big.
Nobody said you said Michigan only runs. I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Can you backup your assertion that Michigan substantially altered their offense to differentiate between HH, BC, and BE? I'll grant you they did against Maryland in 21 when they threw a dozen times to BE when he stepped in as the backup to HH, but by the time he was RB1 it was back to power runs between the tackles. Actually he ran iso between the tackles the next week against OSU, back when you said he fell over a blade of grass.
Whatever changes you imagine are there between 2021 HH and 2022 BC and DE can be pretty well explained by the change at OC, QB, OL, etc. I think there have been tweaks but not more than what you see from game to game variation in playcalling, even if the personnel is identical.
Haskins had 18 receptions in 2021, Edwards had 18 in 2022
For the record I would argue that it does not matter if you get 5 yards on an outside zone vs 5 yards on an iso between the tackles. For that matter, it does nor does it matter if you get that 5 yards on a screen pass or you get it on a slant, or a QB draw. What matters is you got the 5 yards or not. The rest is style points.
Delete