The following depth chart has removed these listed players from the depth chart:
- RB C.J. Stokes (transfer to Charlotte)
- WR Darrius Clemons (transfer to Oregon State)
- WR Eamonn Dennis (transfer)
- TE Matt Hibner (transfer)
- DL Reece Atteberry (transfer)
- LB Joey Velazquez (transfer to Ohio State)
- CB Cam Calhoun (transfer to Utah)
- CB Amorion Walker (transfer to Ole Miss)
- S Keon Sabb (transfer to Alabama)
Also, I re-added QB Jack Tuttle and S Quinten Johnson, both of whom have come back to the program; Tuttle got a seventh year of eligibility, and Johnson pulled out of the NFL Draft.
It also assumes that every currently rostered player and every currently committed prospect will be here in the fall of 2024, which is obviously not true.
Hit the jump for the depth chart.
QB: Jack Tuttle (7th), Alex Orji (RS So.), Davis Warren (RS Jr.), Jayden Denegal (RS So.), Jadyn Davis (Fr.)
RB: Donovan Edwards (Sr.), Kalel Mullings (RS Sr.), Benjamin Hall (RS Fr.), Tavierre Dunlap (RS Jr.), Cole Cabana (RS Fr.), Micah Ka'apana (Fr.), Jordan Marshall (Fr.)
WR1: Tyler Morris (RS So.), Karmello English (So.), Kendrick Bell (RS Fr.)
WR2: Semaj Morgan (So.), Channing Goodwin (Fr.)
WR3: Fredrick Moore (So.), I'Marion Stewart (Fr.)
TE: Colston Loveland (Jr.), Max Bredeson (RS Jr.), Marlin Klein (RS So.), Zack Marshall (RS Fr.), Deakon Tonielli (RS Fr.), Brady Prieskorn (Fr.), Hogan Hansen (Fr.)
LT: Myles Hinton (RS Sr.), Evan Link (RS Fr.), Andrew Sprague (Fr.)
LG: Giovanni El-Hadi (RS Jr.), Nathan Efobi (RS Fr.), Luke Hamilton (Fr.)
C: Greg Crippen (RS Jr.), Amir Herring (RS Fr.), Jake Guarnera (Fr.)
RG: Josh Priebe (RS Sr.), Raheem Anderson II (RS Jr.), Dominick Giudice (RS Jr.), Connor Jones (RS So.), Ben Roebuck (Fr.)
RT: Jeffrey Persi (RS Sr.), Andrew Gentry (RS So.), Tristan Bounds (RS Jr.), Blake Frazier (Fr.)
EDGE: Derrick Moore (Jr.), T.J. Guy (RS Jr.), Kechaun Bennett (RS Jr.), Cameron Brandt (So.), Enow Etta (RS Fr.), Dominic Nichols (Fr.)
DT: Mason Graham (Jr.), Rayshaun Benny (RS Jr.), Alessandro Lorenzetti (RS So.), Brooks Bahr (RS Fr.), Manuel Beigel (Fr.), Ted Hammond (Fr.), Owen Wafle (Fr.)
NT: Kenneth Grant (Jr.), Roderick Pierce (So.), Ike Iwunnah (RS Jr.)
Rush LB: Josaiah Stewart (Sr.), Breeon Ishmail (RS Fr.), Tyler McLaurin (RS Jr.), Aymeric Koumba (RS Fr.), Devon Baxter (Fr.), Jaden Smith (Fr.)
MIKE: Ernest Hausmann (Jr.), Jimmy Rolder (Jr.), Micah Pollard (Jr.), Jason Hewlett (RS Fr.), Mason Curtis (Fr.), Cole Sullivan (Fr.)
WILL: Jaishawn Barham (Jr.), Jaydon Hood (RS Jr.), Semaj Bridgeman (RS Fr.), Jeremiah Beasley (Fr.), Zach Ludwig (Fr.)
CB: D.J. Waller (So.), Jyaire Hill (RS Fr.), Myles Pollard (RS So.), Jo'Ziah Edmond (Fr.)
CB: Will Johnson (Jr.), Kody Jones (RS So.), Jeremiah Lowe (Fr.)
Ni: Ja'Den McBurrows (RS Jr.), Zeke Berry (Jr.)
FS: Rod Moore (Sr.), Cristian Dixon (RS Jr.), Jacob Oden (Fr.)
SS: Makari Paige (RS Sr.), Quinten Johnson (6th)
K: Adam Samaha (RS Fr.)
P: Tommy Doman (RS Jr.)
Looking forward to portal additions. When Harbaugh was The Man, we often reinforced depth & increased competition. That meant predicting which positions would get filled wasn't automatic
ReplyDeleteHopefully QB is at the top of the priority list
Tuttle should be obtaining his doctorate by the time this is all said and done.
ReplyDeleteI know I know, no depth chart is perfectly accurate. But in light of Rod Moore's injury, I'll reiterate here my earlier grumblings about the inherent and unnecessary flaws in formatting.
ReplyDeleteThis make it look like next man up with Moore's season ending injury is... Christian Dixon? Of course this is very much NOT the case. In reality, its QJo, Hillman, Berry and McBurrows who elevate in importance. Dixon's role (deep bench) is mostly unaffected.
This is an easy fix! Just treat safeties like you do TEs and lump them together. It's not like Paige or Moore were any more likely than the other to be the deep player (free safety) in one high coverage.
The different treatment of WRs, TEs, and Safeties doesn't make sense. Especially considering that Max Bredeson is not going to be lining up shoulder to shoulder with Miles Hinton very often. Certainly not compared to how often McBurrows or even one of our CBs have to drop back and play a safety-like role.
The simple and mostly accurate "starters" look like so:
QB
RB
TE x 2
WR x 2
OT x 2
'OG x 2
OC
DT x 2
Edge x 2
LB x 2
CB x 2
Safety x 3
That's going to be right >80% of the time. Specificity beyond that leads to inaccuracy and confusion. Our defense is too "multiple" to fit into the 1980s paradigm. So too is our offense which is more likely to have an H-back shaped player on the field and a TE-shaped player lined up in the slot than whatever the world "WR 3" means.
If nothing else the backups can be grouped, even if we want a more detailed version of the starters to show things like NT, slot WR, fullback, or rush package QB.
Okay, so I could list the top guards...but if Josh Priebe goes down to injury, Andrew Gentry (currently listed second at RT) could move inside to start at guard. If Greg Crippen gets hurt at center, he might be replaced by OG Raheem Anderson.
DeleteSometimes injuries lead to position switches, depth chart changes, etc.
Your solution doesn't eliminate problems; it just changes the problems.
On a side note, I just came across this from Michael Spath regarding Donovan Edwards. But it's another somewhat well respected source indicating Edwards struggled in 2023:
Delete"The good news in spring ball so far has been the running game as Donovan Edwards has shown signs of being the back we all hope he can be. Someone close to him mentioned that after the 2022 season, the entire offseason mantra was about toughness and playing through contact. There was a lot of "hitting the hole hard" and it really stuck with Donovan, but there was such a singular focus on it that he became an incredibly impatient runner and often ran up the back of his linemen, missing key opportunities. As the messaging changed to "be patient" Edwards swung too far the other way. "Physically, he was a specimen last year. He did everything you could ask for in the offseason but mentally, he was all over the place, and it didn't help that he was constantly compared to both Blake and to his best moments. That's a lot to live up to." So far in spring, the message has been simpler: be yourself. Can't say for sure it will morph into the 1500-yard back he's capable of, but there is tremendous optimism Edwards will be a consistently great performer in 2024."
https://www.on3.com/boards/threads/a-little-of-this-a-little-of-that-on-spring-football-hockey-hoops.1375814/
love the big plays Edwards has delivered, but his acknowledgement of last year's struggles and openness with how he dealt with it speaks volumes of his maturity
Deletehttps://wolverineswire.usatoday.com/2024/03/25/after-a-step-back-year-michigan-football-rb-donovan-edwards-has-his-fire-back/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/donovan-edwards-was-humbled-now-hes-back-for-a-senior-year-with-michigan-football/ar-BB1ky7Gz
@Thunder.
DeleteThe solution I said "If nothing else the backups can be grouped" would address your issue of OT moving to OG or OG moving to OC. They are practicing these positions already so I don't know that you can even call it a position change.
But that's kind of beside the point. The depth chart can be degrees of wrong. We can agree that it will never be perfect. That doesn't mean it should be inherently inconsistent and incorrect by design.
Edwards moved from being a starter in 2022 to 2023. As has been discussed ad nauseum, he was disappointed by this -- and he should be. But Lank and Thunder are not named Donovan. We as fans should have anticipated the challenge just by looking at the depth chart (LOL). And with that... not assumed he was going to rush for 1400 yards as a backup.
Delete"be yourself" has always been the message. We talked about that mid-season. No one was telling him to do anything differently even though he was "struggling". Because what he was "struggling" with was the decrease in opportunities that came with being Blake's backup again after starring in 2022.
"be yourself" = don't change.
If you're not playing well, people will tell you to try something different or work on something to get better. That never happened with Donovan. It was always about how he perceives the situation.
"He did everything you could ask for in the offseason"
Meaning, he worked hard and got better.
" but mentally, he was all over the place, and it didn't help that he was constantly compared to both Blake and to his best moments. That's a lot to live up to."
Expectations were the issue. Not his play but the expectation that he put on himself (good) and other people put on him (not good). The struggle was around the expectations not being met.
For OL depth chart you can identify the starter at each of the 5 spots and then have an ordered listing of backups.
DeleteThat takes you from 90% right to 95% right. Maybe you still don't have OL6 identified correctly because depending on who goes down it could be 3 different guys. But most of the time you'll have it mostly right, or maybe off by a spot or two. Whereas, the current approach -- putting Evan Link as the top backup option at LT is almost certainly incorrect when he is OL8 at best and more likely OL10 or OL11.
You can do this at DB as well for the 3 safety/nickel spots -- since probably the 4th best option (Zeke Berry?) will play starter-level snaps across multiple spots like Sabb and QJo did last year.
@ Lank 4:14 p.m.
DeleteYou are welcome to create your own website and post your own depth charts if you like. Complaining about the format of the depth charts has been a constant gripe of yours for years, and it's not changing. I don't create my depth charts with Lank's parameters in mind.
@ Lank 4:20 p.m.
DeleteLOL. There's mounting evidence coming from every angle that you are basically the only one who didn't realize Edwards was struggling in 2023. I said he was struggling. NFL scouts said it. Others have said it. Here you have Michael Spath's sources saying he was being too impatient to start the year, and then he was too patient - from running up the backs of his linemen to then being too slow to find holes.
It's okay. I knew you wouldn't accept it. But it's a chance for you to realize you're vastly outnumbered by people who know what they're talking about, and you're still not hopping on board. Oh well.
It's your website. I have no argument on that.
DeleteRe:Edwards.
The evidence that matters is playing time, production, and winning. You want to talk about expectations and perception - which I'm not even disagreeing with. I'm disagreeing with conflating these two things together.
Edwards production for a starter stunk and for a backup was excellent. If only we could know what his job was somehow.
There is no new information or "mounting" evidence being presented on his performance. The season ended in January with Edwards having multiple long TD runs. The guy you said was playing poorly all year - which I was dismissive all year -- had a huge game on the BIGGEST STAGE. He graded out well to PFF and Mgoblog pretty quickly after the early year. But you disagreed, because YPC.
The mounting evidence to close the season was that you were dead wrong but you'll never admit that. The mounting evidence during the season was that you were dead wrong in the preseason but you won't admit that either -- instead you'll blame it on Edwards.
BTW - which NFL scout says Edwards was struggling? Do you mean media people? I think you do.
"vastly outnumbered by people who know what they're talking about"
DeleteYou mean like the coaching staff that makes playing time decisions and put Edwards out there, all season long, when they had the option of playing Blake Corum, Kaleel Mulling, and Ben Hall more often?
The season long mounting evidence was that you were wrong in the August with bad expectations and wrong in October with bad analysis of performance.
Take THAT from people who know what they are talking about: Jim Harbaugh, Sherrone Moore, Kurt Campbell, and Mike Hart. Meanwhile please tell me about Mike Spath and talking heads at PFF...
As was the case with Michael Shaw, Mike Cox, Ty Issac, and Deveon Smith -- your RB takes were proved wrong by people who know what they are talking about -- college and pro football coaches.
DeleteAdd Don Edwards to the list, except he was already on it for what he did in 2022 when you were also wrong about him being able to step in for Blake Corum. Being wrong both in the preseason and regular season is quite a feet though.
@ Lank
DeleteI'm not going to regurgitate the RB argument from 10-15 years ago. I've grown tired of it. You and I clearly aren't going to agree.
What's relatively FRESH right now is the stuff about Donovan Edwards not having a good season. There's mounting evidence that he struggled in 2023, which is coming from all directions - Edwards himself, bloggers, NFL scouts, insiders, etc. The insiders here are even pointing to the coaches having a hard time getting him to figure out when to be patient and when to hit the hole.
Unfortunately, you're also conflating the argument. I haven't seen anyone calling for him to be benched or buried on the depth chart behind Ben Hall, etc. You have a hard time walking the line between what's been said and then making ghosts to argue against. You frequently lean toward arguing with ghosts.
Donovan Edwards did not have a good 2023 except insofar as he managed a few timely good runs against PSU and Washington. Like a good baseball prospect or perhaps even a solid veteran, you keep throwing him out there in the hopes that he eventually "gets it" or comes out of his slump, and eventually he kinda did. I mentioned that during the season, saying he was in a slump.
Yes, you're right that my pre-season prediction was incorrect. Oh, the horror of a prediction not coming true! Just imagine how embarrassed NFL insiders will feel in about three weeks when they predict all 32 1st round draft picks...and then only get 29 of them wrong.
I'd rather be wrong about predicting the future than look back at what already happened and be wrong about history.
There is no mounting evidence. There is continued narrative about Edwards struggling relative to expectations of producing like a starter.
DeleteDonovan Edwards had a great 2023 -- his team won a national championship and he was a major contributor to that in plays and yards and touchdowns and wins.
I don't need Donovan Edwards to "get" anything. He's been an excellent player through his first 3 seasons whether he was 3rd string (in 2021), 2nd string (in 2023), or starter (in 2022). He has done what the team needed from him in every situation: including taking a back seat in 2023 and 2021. You read this as slumps and hot streaks and you've been wrong either way because Edwards has been good all the way through.
Your takes are hot and cold depending on what happened most recently. Your prediction was wrong because your analysis was wrong. That's why you got called out in the preseason.
Your assessment in the midseason was also wrong. You said the fact that he was running for 3 YPC was a problem after October and I told you it was not. I was right, the coaches agreed with me, and the payoff came in November, December, and January.
So WRT to being wrong about history....sorry about your luck again.
"Donovan Edwards did not have a good 2023 except insofar as he managed a few timely good runs against PSU and Washington"
DeleteThis is the same line of thinking that made you wrong about Shaw, Cox, Isaac. You're overly focused on YPC which is overly dependant on long runs. Edwards had a more productive day the week before PSU against Purdue but you don't care because for some reason passing yards don't count for RB. He also played a big role in the Rose Bowl. Of course you've mentioned his drop in that Alabama game already, but not him being a decoy that draws defensive attention that allowed Morris and Loveland to have big plays. Basketball fans know about gravity, some football fans do too. No DC is ever ignoring Edwards and there's a reason for that and a benefit to the team that doesn't show up in the box score or YPC. All season long.
I'm looking at it the same way the coaches are -- they put the best guy out there who does the job on a play to play basis, NOT who is most likely to break a long run the most often. Who is least likely to fumble, miss a block assignment, grind an extra couple yards out, or be able to run a route is more important than who can break a 50 yard run 5 times out of 100 carries rather than 4 times.
The coaches do not think your way -- playing time tells you the story.
@ Lank 8:19 p.m.
DeleteYou're still arguing with ghosts. Who's saying that Edwards should have been benched? Why are you persisting with this discussion about "playing time tells the story?" When did I argue that the coaches were wrong for putting him on the field?
I know you're struggling when the best thing you can say is, "Well, he was a good decoy." LOL.
Ignoring everything & everyone - including MGo and Edwards himself - in favor of ... feelings
Deletespeaking of strawmen - I am not saying anyone is saying he should have been benched.
DeleteThe point is that the coaches had plenty of good choices for RB. And when coaches have choices they make playing time decisions based on merit, ability, and performance.
So the coaches looked at Mullings, Edwards, and Corum and said -- all 3 of these guys are bring things to the table that make them worth playing beside and ahead of these each other. For ANY of them, if they were sitting there thinking "this guy is struggling" --> they could resolve the issue easily by making a different choice to play 1 of the other 2 options. Edwards did not have to play! Mullings did not have to play! Corum did not have to play! They earned every snap and the coaching decisions made were reflective of who they thought was the best option to play the best.
When it comes to do or die situations -- games against PSU, OSU, Alabama -- why in the world would they put a "struggling" player out there? Why would they put a guy out there who they think - as you have repeatedly asserted -- isn't playing well? Knowingly and willingly.
Do you have an answer to that Thunder?
They wouldn't! Is the answer. The explanation is obvious -- they didn't think that Edwards was playing poorly or his performance was lacking. They stayed fully confident in his abilities. In other words, they thought the exact opposite of what you thought.
This is not about feelings. This is not about you ignoring his value to the offense in ways that don't show up in the stats. This is about hanging banners with a top 5 offense where Edwards played 370 snaps and put up 800 yards in a backup role to the greatest RB of our lifetimes.
The OVERWHELMING evidence of the season was success success success, which Edwards played a massive role in.
If you want to pretend that Mullings had a great year playing 87 snaps and Edwards had a bad year while playing 373 go on right ahead but clearly the coaching staff very strongly disagreed with your opinion or they wouldn't have played Edwards 20+snaps a game and Mullings 5+ snaps a game if they agreed with your take about who is struggling and who is playing well.
You, Thunder, are concerned about your predictions, expectations, and focused on long runs ascribed to individual performance. You are grading on curve, based on your feelings. The coaches, Thunder, are not. They are concerned about winning games, as a team, and putting the best players out there to help them do that on a down-to-down basis.
Edwards was the #1 backup on a top 5 offense that won a national championship. Nobody else played more than Edwards except for Jones (who started after Zinter got hurt). Not Tyler Morris, not Max Bredeson, not Semaj Morgan and certainly not Kaleel Mullings (who also had a good year, but not nearly as good as Edwards.).
DeleteThis is a pretty basic fact that your narratives have yet to address. Why did Edwards play so much while struggling so badly and why did he continue to play so much when Michigan was playing it's most critical downs of the season when they had other options who were (according to you) playing better?
*SUPPOSEDLY struggling so badly
Delete@ Lank 1:41 p.m.
DeleteI already answered the question in the previous post, but I'll reiterate:
Sometimes you have a veteran player or a promising prospect who is in a slump, but you keep rolling him out there in the hopes that he'll hit his groove. J.J. McCarthy sucked against BGSU, but he kept playing. Karsen Barnhart got embarrassed against PSU, but he kept playing. Unfortunately, some of those slumps last for longer than one game...or two games...or three games...
But there's another extreme example that I'm sure you won't like and will blow out of proportion, but back in 2008, Michigan had to put *someone* on the field at quarterback. It was either Nick Sheridan or Steve Threet. Both of them were bad, but you can't go out there without a QB. I'm not saying Donovan Edwards is Nick Sheridan bad - that's certainly not the case. Pat Kugler wasn't a good center, but Michigan needed *someone* to play center.
You need a backup RB. You can't give Blake Corum 350 carries in a season. Kalel Mullings wasn't a good running back in 2022, but Michigan still put him in there against TCU. Was it because Mullings was good? No. It was because nobody was good, and he was the least worst option.
@ Lank 3:57 p.m.
DeleteWhen I say "NFL scouts," there are at least two I've heard who have mentioned Edwards's struggles: Daniel Jeremiah and Dane Brugler. Jeremiah is a former NFL scout and well respected in the industry, and Brugler is one of the top draft prognosticators/analysts. Yes, they're in the media, but they're scouting nonetheless.
If you're going to poo-poo the opinions of Brugler and Jeremiah because, well, Lank said so, then again, that says more about you than them.
So you are saying the coaches were just trying to get Edwards to play through a slump? And that's why in the 3rd to last game of the season with the score tied against a top 10 opponent on the road Michigan coaches putting Edwards in there? On on 3rd and goal nursing a narrow second half lead Michigan was still just trying to bust Edwards out of his 9 game slump?
Deletevia Mgoblog, against PSU. Corum had 36 snaps to Edwards's 22; Mullings got 3 in two back sets with Edwards.
We already know Corum can handle more than 36 snaps and Mullings can handle more than 3. Yet Edwards got 20+. This is not a case where Michigan needed a guy who wasn't good enough to step into a role because of roster issues or injuries. This was Michigan having the best RB of our lifetime healthy and fully available and a guy you said played well all year and is a good RB also available, in addition to Donovan Edwards. They had real options, and even I, a relative skeptic on Mullings agree and acknowledge that he proved to be a capable player and useful contributor. Yet Edwards is in there. All because the coaches hope he can break his slump? With the season on the line??
C'mon man. You're dodging.
Why wasn't Kaleel Mullings getting those snaps against PSU?
Agree to disagree on your definition of NFL scouts. They are media talking heads. Respected or not, their job is to entertain you. They don't work for any NFL teams so they are not NFL scouts.
DeleteSpeaking of NFL draft "scouts" -- the consensus projection of Edwards is a 2nd round pick which is higher than the consensus projection of Corum.
https://www.nflmockdraftdatabase.com/players/2025/donovan-edwards
https://www.nflmockdraftdatabase.com/players/2024/blake-corum
Edwards draft projection seems to be strong, despite a season worth of "struggles" according to you. So add the "NFL scout"/draft media to the Michigan coaching staff as people who don't seem to think Donovan Edwards performance is any issue or concern at all. But keep pretending it's just Lank out on an island with an absurd hot take... don't let the forest get in the way of your tree.
Corum's game by game snap count to finish the year.
Delete33 36 45 35 38 37 33
He played 45 the week after PSU. So the coaches knew they could play Corum more.
Mullings snap count over the same 6 game stretch:
8 3 2 5 10 6 8
The coaches also knew they could play Mullings more.
Yet - those chose to play Edwards who was supposedly struggling? With a conference championship and then a national championship on the line?
They didn't have to play Edwards at all. But they did -- his snap counts in the final 6 games:
36 22 26 25 23 18 20
I'll tell you why he played so much when he didn't have to -- because the coaches knew he was THAT GOOD. He was one of their best players and an elite playmaker and the "struggles" with production were superficial, fleeting, and ultimately irrelevant. "Be yourself" and "get in there" is all the coaches said to him. Everything else is feelings about role and expectations.
Wait a minute, wait a minute...
Delete...we're going to dismiss Dane Brugler and Daniel Jeremiah because they're "there to entertain you"...
...in favor of a website called mockdraftdatabase.com?
LOL.
I see you're dodging the question about why Edwards played so much when he wasn't needed to with Mullings available.
DeleteWhy would a player who is struggling be picked to play 3x or 4x more than a player who is playing well with championships on the line?
As for Bugler/Jeremiah. Yes, I'm going to put a bit more emphasis on the group consensus from 100s than someone cherry-picking data from 2 sources generally? More importantly -- where do Bugler or Jeremiah currently project Edwards to go in the NFL draft? Bugler is on record as praising Edwards strongly and even Bugler also had Edwards ahead of Corum in draft status previously.
"His blend of burst, acceleration and vision makes him dangerous any time he touches the ball, with one NFL area scout comparing him to the Jaguars' Travis Etienne Jr.," Brugler wrote.
Guessing Brugler/Jeremiah still see him as a sure fire NFL player after his 2023 season, just as they did after his 2022 season, even if he "struggled" to the tune of 800 yards as Blake Corum's backup on the national champs.
What the coaches say & do only matters when it fits the narrative. Remember when they wasted a TO to get The Don out on a goal line situation?
DeleteRemember the Hart interview mid season?
Same with the media. When they're critical of Don, it's for clicks. When the draft grade or UFR grade is friendly, it's spot on ... remember when that same MGo crew laughed at Don running into the OL @sses on that first UW touchdown? Sam even carried on the jokes & laughter with Devin on MMQB
GoodX
@ Lank 6:35 p.m.
DeleteI've already answered the question twice. Rephrasing the question doesn't change the answer.
@ je93 10:05 p.m.
DeletePFF GRADES FOR RETURNING MICHIGAN RUNNING BACKS
Kalel Mullings: 81.0
Donovan Edwards: 70.2
Ben Hall: 67.5
Tavierre Dunlap: 66.4
Cole Cabana: 64.1
If you believe in PFF, Mullings was significantly better than Edwards...and Edwards was just barely better than freshman Ben Hall, who was just a shade better than Tavi Dunlap.
You've answered why they played Edwards -- to get him out of a slump. You haven't answered why they didn't play Mullings instead.
DeleteI call BS on your argument -- There's a national title on the line. If you're talking about snaps against Bowling Green....OK yeah, that's where you hold a glorified practice and don't have to worry about losing.
If you're talking about PSU, OSU, Alabama. NOPE. You're playing your best guys as much as you can. That's why Mike Hart had 50 carries. That's why Corum's snap count went from 20 something to 30 something or even 40+ when it came to situations that matter.
So, again, why didn't Mullings play ahead of Edwards against PSU, OSU, Alabama, etc. If you believe PFF -- why didn't the coaches play a "significantly better" player? Did they mess up? Were they trying to keep games closer than they needed to?
You haven't answered this. And the dodge on this is exactly why you'll never be right no matter how many talking heads you quote.
@JEL
Delete"Remember when they wasted a TO to get The Don out on a goal line situation"
This matters. The coaches preferred Corum in short yardage situations. No one has ever disputed this. Furthermore, they prefered Mullings in these situations as well. This was a good way to spare Corum of workload. The difference in opinion was always your assertion that Edwards couldn't get the job done (he was deficient) because somebody else was better at it (by the coaches decision). That got disproved when Edwards was forced into doing it out of need at the end of 2022.
The media are for clicks, regardless. As always you miss the point JEL. The point here is that the same media that are supposedly critical of Edwards are sitting here calling him a top tier player and projecting him to go higher than Blake Corum in the draft.
@ Lank 12:07 p.m.
DeleteI've already answered the question, but here's even more:
If Donovan Edwards got demoted to 3rd or 4th string - in my OPINION - he would not be wearing a Michigan uniform in 2024. So do you want to sacrifice a potential #1 running back in 2024 for a few snaps here or there when you're going to win the game anyway? Do you want to go into 2024 with Ben Hall, Cole Cabana, or freshmen leading the way at RB?
Edwards admittedly offers up the ability to throw and catch the ball. He can be lined up in a few places and can do things like throw a dime of a TD pass to Roman Wilson against Iowa in 2021. He's a versatile back.
None of that means he was playing well. You said yourself that he was a good decoy. Sure. I mean, that's not nothing. But when that's one of the best things you can say about a player's season - he was a good decoy! - that probably doesn't bode well for how you played.
@ Lank 12:14 p.m.
DeleteI know you'll ignore this, too, but Donovan Edwards is not one of PFF's top 10 returning backs in the country for 2024, though he did warrant an "honorable mention":
https://www.pff.com/news/college-football-the-top-10-returning-running-backs-for-the-2024-season
You're still dodging the question Thunder.
Delete"do you want to sacrifice a potential #1 running back in 2024 for a few snaps here or there when you're going to win the game anyway? "
No. That's acknowledged above repeatedly and specifically with the mention of Bowling Green. We are not remotely talking about "a few snaps here and there". We are talking about the do-or-die snaps with the season on the line.
The question here is if you're going to play your 3rd best guy over your 2nd best guy with your national championship on the line, all because you hope that he will return in 2024 or you hope he can break through a season-long slump (according to you).
"Do you want to go into 2024 with Ben Hall, Cole Cabana, or freshmen leading the way at RB?"
Are we pretending Kaleel Mullings doesn't exist? Mullings is just as affected by Edwards if he is 3rd in the rotation vs 2nd in the rotation. Those snaps can go to either guy and either guy can be back. Or not if they don't like their role. Why risk it with Mullings but not Edwards? Because you know Edwards is better, obviously.
I don't think Jim Harbaugh was thinking for one second that he would sacrifice anything in 2023 with a national championship on the line for the sake of 2024. I think Jim Harbaugh would rather start the roster fresh from scratch in 2024 and win a national title in 2023 than risk the natty for anything.
Your logic continues to fail to address why Mullings played so much less than Edwards if Mullings was playing better. Specifically why he was playing so much less against PSU, OSU, and Alabama.
I'll grant you that you've answered why he and Ben Hall might have been getting snaps against Indiana. But not against PSU, OSU, and Alabama.
Acknowledging that Edwards is a threat whenever he's on the field and draws defensive attention isn't "the best things you can say about a player's season". I've said a lot of good things about Edwards, time and time again, that's just one that you're choosing to fixate on to argue with a strawman.
DeleteAnd on PFF -- Why would I ignore PFF including Edwards in a conversation of one of the best backs in the country? You said this was a guy who played poorly over the whole of the season and PFF is saying he is one of the best backs in the country. Just completely goofy that you would think this is countering anything I am saying. It reinforces it.
No one is seriously worried about Edwards in any respect other than how he handled moving from a starter to a backup role and dealt with starter-level expectations that he couldn't produce as a backup. No one wants him to change anything ABOUT HIS PLAY, other than just continuing to get better -- like he did from 2020 to 2021, 2021 to 2022, and yes, 2022 to 2023 as well.
@ Lank 3:38 p.m.
DeleteI've answered the question repeatedly. You just don't like the answer. Oh well.
Telling me Edwards is honorable mention but not top 10 for best back in the country after coming off what you called a bad season is about as much of a gotcha as JEL telling me Joe Milton is only projected to be drafted by the NFL but not in the first round after 4 or 5 years of calling him a bad QB.
Delete@ Lank 3:40 p.m.
DeleteNaturally, Edwards is on the national championship-winning team and had a couple big plays in the national championship game. Any back with two 40+ yard big plays in the national championship game is going to get some attention, clicks, etc.
You do realize that Edwards isn't like the #11 PFF graded back in the country who just happened to miss the cut because they were only doing a top 10? It's entirely possible that PFF looked at him as a dark horse candidate to break out in 2024. I mean, he only graded out in the 70s and Kalel Mullings isn't even on here after grading out 11 points higher, so there's clearly a lot of wiggle room in here.
Even if we assume he's the #11 back in the country...you said up above that Dane Brugler has him as a "top tier" player and that he'll be drafted ahead of wherever Corum gets taken.
So is Corum going to be the 12th RB drafted? Does a "top tier" player get taken 11th at his position in the draft? The #11 running back drafted in 2023 was Eric Gray in the 5th round to the Giants. Gray ran for 48 yards as a rookie in 13 games.
And what does the NFL draft have to do with Michigan? I've been told by some on this blog that NFL draft position doesn't have anything to do with how they performed at Michigan. So does the draft suddenly matter to validate your opinion, not mine? Is Brugler to be trusted when he says Edwards is a "top tier" back but not when he says that Edwards struggled?
So many questions...and so many potential answers that might have you talking out of both sides of your mouth...
Again, I will refer you to PFF. These are not my words:
DeletePFF GRADES
Blake Corum: 84.0
Kalel Mullings: 81.0
Donovan Edwards: 70.2
Ben Hall: 67.5
Tavierre Dunlap: 66.4
Cole Cabana: 64.1
PFF doesn't grade by stats. They rate by performance. They're telling you that Donovan Edwards was much closer to Ben Hall, Tavierre Dunlap, and even Cole Cabana - all of whom barely saw the field - than they were to Blake Corum or even Kalel Mullings.
If you want to say he had a good season because he ripped off a couple big runs against Washington and was a good decoy, that's fine. That's not my definition of a good season. I said all season that he wasn't performing well. PFF is telling you he did not perform well. If you don't get it yet, you're not going to. Oh well.
"What does the NFL draft have to do with Michigan? "
DeleteWhy don't you ask the person who brought it up? That's you. Talking about what NFL scouts think.
These NFL scouts, that you brought up, think he's a not only a good player, he's one of the best players. So does PFF. His draft stock remains very high as does his expectations for 2024. Even after a "disappointing" season of "struggles", nobody is phased. And you won't be either because you'll put Edwards in the top 10 of the countdown like you do with every RB
To answer your question - being an NFL draft pick generally means you are an excellent college player. One of the best.
That's what Edwards is.
Why did I bring up Brugler's take?..... because you brought it up LOL. Even the guy you brought up who you say is critical of Edwards and agrees with you -- that same guy thinks Edwards is the bees knees. I didn't ignore it - I pointed it out to you since you brought it up.
"If you want to say he had a good season because he ripped off a couple big runs against Washington and was a good decoy, that's fine"
I don't want to say that. I haven't said that. I have said repeatedly that he was good and why he was good and it's not a couple of plays, its hundreds of them. Analysis by highlight is your thing, not mine.
"PFF is telling you he did not perform well"
False. PFF says he played well per the grade above expects him to continue to play well in 2024. Their grades are per play average grade, not production.
You STILL haven't answered why Edwards (not playing well per you) was chosen over Mullings (playing well per you) against PSU, OSU, and Alabama. You can say you have, but you are lying not just to me but to yourself. We both know you don't think Michigan was putting out anything less than the best players they had available against PSU, OSU, and Alabama.
They are not working on individual development or building for future seasons in these scenarios. You know that. So, No Thunder, you haven't answered the question. You are dodging it because you know, you KNOW you are wrong about Edwards. Your preseason prediction was wrong because your analysis was wrong - like I told you in August. Your early season analysis was wrong too - and Edwards showed you that, and the coaching staff showed you in November, December, and January.
Keep boiling everything down to long runs at your own peril. You've been wrong on this for over a decade and it's clear it's not going to stop.
But it's all good - we both agree in this case that the back who is most likely to produce long runs is also the best back in 2024 and that playmaking from the RB position is a critical factor in 2024. We're more aligned than ever!
@Thunder, yeah. I've asked Lank for context on UFR/PFF in the past, and when he dodged I've shown him this AND what each writes in their narrative. Fact is, both have the same observations as we've discussed here on TTB. As you say, everyone sees it but our contrarian
Delete@Lank, I've never said Edwards couldn't get it done, I've said he isn't. At your request, I've listed every carry from his biggest moment, 2o22 The Game, where he was textbook Boom-Bust. As for the media, both can be true: they see Edwards obvious talent & potential, but note his deficiencies, not unlike me
"No one wants him to change anything ABOUT HIS PLAY, other than just continuing to get better -- like he did from 2020 to 2021, 2021 to 2022, and yes, 2022 to 2023 as well"
I also remember when we talked about improvements needed to make back in 2o21, but you argued that as well. Here, you are arguing he got better, and that coaches want him to keep getting better ... we're back to NOT EVEN YOU AGREE WITH YOU
You're bringing up Milton again ... with more lies. DESPARATE
#caseclosed
Back to Edwards. Love the young man. Spiritually strong, he owns his struggles and speaks openly on how he addresses them. It's admirable, and not very common in modern times. But Edwards owns his struggles; he knows they happened. Only you deny. Even the draft guys who give him the 2nd & 3rd Round grades say the same things we've said here for three years:
- relies on big plays to equal out small gains between the tackles
- recognition of rushing lanes should be a second quicker
- vision doesn’t always reveal cutback lanes
- contact high usually brings him down quickly
- contact balance is inconsistent – sometimes brought down by initial contact
- doesn’t have a lot of power in his frame, but he’s a tough running back who is willing to play through pain
- has the speed and footwork to bounce runs outside, but his vision leaves yards on the table
- high contact usually brings Edwards down
- contact balance is inconsistent but allows him to slip some arm tackles
- relied heavily on big plays to equal out small gains between the tackles in 2022
- recognition of rushing lanes should be a second quicker
- vision is still developing and doesn’t always reveal cutback lanes
https://sportstalk.substack.com/p/donovan-edwards-rb-michigan-2024
Lots of great things to like about The Don. Loads of potential. But every bit of critique is warranted, and obvious to everyone but the board contrarian
@ Lank 6:38 p.m.
Delete"'PFF is telling you he did not perform well'
False. PFF says he played well per the grade above expects him to continue to play well in 2024. Their grades are per play average grade, not production."
PFF's grade was 70.2 for Edwards. Again, he was barely ahead of the fourth-and fifth-stringers, and he was WELL behind Michigan's #1 and #3 backs.
I have some bad news for you, Lank. Edwards was the #278 graded back in the nation last year. He's #71 among backs in the 2025 draft class.
He's on the PFF link I post because of clicks; he's a former high-level recruit on a national championship-winning team who broke off some big runs on a national stage.
He's #278 in the country because he didn't play well.
The objective truth is out there if you choose to see it. Right now you're too entrenched in your opinion to see it.
@Thunder
Delete70 is not a grade of a poorly performing player. Period.
Moreover, a 70 including snaps against PSU/OSU/Alabama defense is more impressive than a 70 of snaps against Bowling Green. A 70 of 100s of snaps is more impressive than a 70 over 20 snaps.
The per snap grade is not telling you a meaningful story when the roles are entirely different. Which is the same thing I tell you about YPC. The ranking of players by YPC or by PFF does not tell you who had the best season because it's per play and ignores context.
Just like in 2020 when those things told you the freshman RB was not impressive even though he was stealing snaps from last years starter and a projected NFL draft pick and sent the latter off to transfer. Just like in in 2014 when there were other ball carriers who were sporting better numbers and fans speculated Hoke was "playing favorites" but then the Jim Harbaugh's coaching staff would come in and choose to play the same guy again over other 5-star options.
"He's #278 in the country because he didn't play well"
Then why did he play so much in 2023?
Then why did he play over Kaleel Mullings with the season on the line?
Then why is he ranked so highly in the NFL draft?
Then why is he in the discussion for one of the best RBs in CFB in 2024?
Maaaaaaaybe your methods aren't so definitive Thunder? Maybe you're missing the forest for the trees. Maaaaaybe if multiple coaching staffs keeping saying YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN Thunder you would consider re-examining your RB takes. And maybe not...
"he was barely ahead of the fourth-and fifth-stringers, and he was WELL behind Michigan's #1 and #3 backs."
DeleteIt's funny that you note this and instead of thinking -- "Hmmmm maybe my methodology isn't so good for this, as there is a disconnect with reality" -- you continue to insist that the counter-intuitive goofball perspective (Edwards isn't good anymore) makes sense and the thing that your eyes and the coaching staff and the game results have told you (Edwards is really dang good) doesn't.
Maybe I'll have to spend the next decade pointing out all the times inferior players sport superior PFF scores like I have with YPC. But that will be a waste of time because, like YPC, you'll cart it out when it's convenient for your narratives and ignore it when it isn't.
You'll accuse me of that and when you do remember all the times I said the coaches were playing the wrong guy and snap counts weren't telling. It'll be zero times.
@ Lank 2:41 p.m.
DeleteI can't do much more than point out statistics and objective third-party analysis. You're trying to make this about feelings.
I think it's funny that you think Blake Corum had a good grade because he's good, backup Kalel Mullings had a good grade because he played in easy situations against weak opponents, but Donovan Edwards had a much lower grade because he...played only in tough situations? IDK. Your logic is all over the place.
And when logic changes instead of staying consistent...it's probably not logical.
Team success is not about feelings.
DeleteIndividual snap counts are not about feelings.
800 yards is not about feelings.
Edwards played a ton, on a team that was great, with plenty of other options available to the coaches. You know all of this to be true. And yet...
Your "objective" analysis is per play rushing yards (which are a small and limited metric of RB play) and per play PFF grades (which are subjective). You aren't being objective at all because you want to dismiss your poor analysis as an off hand prediction.
"when logic changes instead of staying consistent...it's probably not logical." Here we agree. Your selective use of YPC being a perfect example.
My logic is that the coaches play the better player.
You continue to dodge the question about why Edwards played over Mullings against PSU, OSU, and Alabama because you don't have an answer.
"I think it's funny that you think Blake Corum had a good grade because he's good, backup Kalel Mullings had a good grade because he played in easy situations against weak opponents, but Donovan Edwards had a much lower grade because he...played only in tough situations"
DeleteI think it's funny you think so highly of these grades now when you've repeatedly said to take them with a grain of salt.
I think all 3 were good. Blake was the best. Donovan was second best. Mullings was a distant 3rd. Like the depth chart and snap count say.
Sorry if your selective use of metrics doesn't agree with this, but I believe the coaches actions speak volumes -- and the results on the field speak for themselves. Ironic given this sites' name, but the banners tell us what Harbaugh, Moore, and company were right.
They know a lot more than you do even if you write a weekly season post that posits otherwise and perform dubious analysis based on PFF or YPC. You were wrong on Edwards in November of 2022 (saying we couldn't win without Corum), you were wrong on Edwards in August of 2023 (overrating him based on rushing results in final 3 games of 2022), you were wrong on Edwards in October (underrating him based on rushing results in September 2023), and you're wrong about Edwards now (misevaluating his performance on the season).
All that said I look forward to what way you'll be wrong about Edwards in 2024. LOL
Oh, okay. I guess we can't use the grades you used to rely on to make your points, and we have to go by snap counts.
DeleteIn that case, Nick Sheridan was a really good quarterback because snap counts! Also was Mark Huyge! And Juwann Bushell-Beatty! And Cam Gordon was a good free safety for like six games, because he was the starting safety...but then he wasn't a good free safety when he got moved away from free safety, and his replacement was a good free safety, except for the first half of the season when he was behind Cam Gordon.
Out of 48 running backs in the 2025 draft class who had 370 offensive snaps or more (Edwards had 370), Edwards ranks #43 in PFF's rating. He's #43 out of 48.
Keep on telling yourself that it's because of snap counts or whatever. I guess all those guys above him must have been playing in garbage time against weak opponents to prop up their grades...
I guess stats and third party analysts lie, but only Lank knows the truth.
@Thunder
DeleteLike you have said before in other conversations -- the grades and stats are useful and interesting. We both agree. But we both also agree that they are not definitive - which is why you made a big deal about Vincent Smith's YPC in 2010 and 2012 and dismissed Vincent Smith's YPC in 2009 and 2011. That's why you thought Fitz Toussaints YPC was meaningful in 2011 but not so much in 2012 and 2013.
While stats are objective, they are also contextual. PFF grades are subjective and contextual. They are both interesting and useful but with limits.
Nobody says we can't use them. Certainly not me. I can tell you're waving a white flag in arguments when you start with these kind of obvious strawmen. The point is that there's something more telling than the stats. A statement you would (and have) agreed with -- except when you don't.
Playing time decisions trump those. They account for the things that don't show in grading or the stat sheet -- which are most things. They account for what matters (the team) while the stats and grades are about the individual. This is the same thing I told you for years and it played out with Shaw/Smith and it played out with Smith/Isaac and it's playing out with Corum and Edwards even though in the last case you and I are in lock-step in agreeing on the playing time decisions* The coaches are (almost always) right - and if they aren't they have more interest than anyone to fix it.
Nick Sheridan got of snaps -- on a 3 win team, as a walk-on injury replacement and was demoted shortly thereafter. There is no equivalence to Donovan Edwards getting meaningful snaps for 3 years running, in backfields shared with HH, Corum, and Mullings, on Big Ten conference champ playoff teams.
The better comps are Tyler Morris and AJ Barner. Those guys may or may not stand out in stats or grades but they played, and played a lot, in meaningful situations, with other quality options available, on a 15-0 team with a top 5 offense. And Barner (and probably eventually Morris) is going to play in the NFL.
So these tell you at lot more than PFF grade rankings. PFF itself doesn't think Edwards is anything other than an excellent college player and NFL scouts are looking at him as a lock to go to the next level. Even they don't believe the grades (which to be clear were better in the 2nd half of the season than the first).
That fact that you're arguing somebody this good (objectively), was playing so much (objectively), and a team that good (objectively) was playing badly all season is farcical. You can pull up YPC and PFF grades till you're blue in the face and it's still going to be farcical.
I'll leave you with some Edwards facts:
780 yards
5 TDs
373 offensive snaps (13th on the team)
on the 15-0 national champions
He played often. He played well. He was a key contributor and the top offensive backup on the best team in Michigan history. The ONLY reason he was a backup is that the great RB in Michigan history was a starter.
You know all that - which is why you will again put Don in your top 20 in the countdown even with other good options (like Mullings) available. This time, unlike last year, you will be right. You'll hear no argument from me on him being a top 20 player this year. Even though Don plays one of the least important positions on the field he's so dang good that he'll be one of the key play-makers on offense. You know this and you agree. You just won't admit it.
*Interestingly you seem very non-committal on Mullings vs Edwards.
DeleteThat could be a pretty fun one...
Only a select few "know the truth" about why the coaching staff picked a RB playing badly all season over a guy playing well all season when championships were on the line against PSU, OSU, and Alabama.
DeleteUnless that never happened! LOL
The truth is as obvious as it is simple. The better player played over the lesser player. The entire premise was a goofball theory by people focusing on incomplete metrics. The coaching staff would have dismissed it as the foolishness it was. And they did. Don't change is all they ever told the guy supposedly struggling. Just be you.
The results speak for themselves. Unless...
@ Lank 1:34 p.m.
DeleteSnap counts are also not definitive. Who was Michigan's best wide receiver in 2023? It was very clearly Roman Wilson. Stats, grades, NFL scouts, etc. all agree. Cornelius Johnson notched 137 more snaps than Wilson.
@ Lank 2:30 p.m.
Once again, you're back to arguing with ghosts.
Wilson missed time for an injury.
DeleteJohnson and Wilson played different positions - WR1 and WR2.
Alright that second one is a joke (mostly). I'll take the spirit of your point, aside from their difference in roles and availability, and acknowledge that "definitive" is probably too strong of a word. There is broader context to take into consideration as well and (obviously) you can't ONLY look at snap counts and certainly from year to year. It's definitive in the context of individual positions - looking at something like QB or RB.
As for ghosts - I see one whenever I ask you to answer why Edwards was playing so much more than Mullings against PSU, OSU, and Alabama when you say Mullings was playing better all season long.
@ Lank 10:03 p.m.
DeleteWilson started all 15 games this past season. What injury caused Johnson to play 137 more snaps while Wilson was healthy enough to play the entire year? That's about 9 snaps per game that are unaccounted for if the theory is that the best player plays more snaps.
I've already answered your question multiple times. You just don't like the answer.
You continue to dodge the question for PSU, OSU, and Alabama. Your answer for Bowling Green doesn't hold for those. You know it - which is why you won't say it. Dodge.
DeleteMeanwhile you want to argue about Johnson vs Wilson when I already agreed you had a point and already addressed your question. If you want to insist on arguing about it, I can play along.
The head injury is the injury that I am referring to. Does it explain the entirety of the snap differential? Probably not all of it, but a big chunk. Otherwise we can talk about how you list these guys as playing different positions on the depth chart. One of them is WR1 afterall and the other is WR2. Remember when you used to say slot WR was a different position?Maybe Wilson just played a different position and had a better backup while Johnson did not. Let's check your depth chart for answers...
Anyway, you like to make a big deal about WR height so maybe we can just say they both played starter snaps whenever healthy and acknowledge that they brought different enough skillsets to the table to warrant different levels of use depending on situations and playcalls. Just like AJ Barner and Colston Loveland did. Barner played more snaps than Loveland.
So go ahead and pretend like I am saying snap count tells you everything you ever need to know in every situation. Dodge why Edwards played so much more than Mullings against OSU and Alabama and PSU if he was playing so poorly while Mullings was playing so well. With the national title on the line...LOL
@ Lank 8:13 p.m.
DeleteYou're like a child who wants a cookie.
CHILD: Can I have a cookie?
PARENT: No. Cookies aren't healthy.
CHILD: Why can't I have a cookie?
PARENT: I already told you cookies aren't healthy.
CHILD: But why can't I have a cookie?
PARENT: I already told you.
CHILD: But whyyyyyyyyyyy?
PARENT: You asked a question, and I already answered.
CHILD: Why won't you tell me why I can't have a cookie?!?!?!
PARENT: *rips hair out*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodgeball
Delete@ Lank 11:37 a.m.
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension
Let's go multiple choice:
DeleteA) Michigan is trying to do everything it can to beat Ohio State during the Ohio State game. Their focus during the ohio state game is 100% on beating Ohio State that day. The coaches play the very best players it can play during the Ohio State game.
B) Sure, Michigan would like to beat Ohio State, but the coaches need to keep in mind long-term player development. So sometimes during the Ohio State game they choose to play a guy who isn't playing well over a guy who is playing well. Their focus should always be on the future, even against Ohio State, and doing what they have to keep players happy on the chance that they could return to the roster in future seasons, even if some of them are maybe going to enter the NFL draft in 2 months.
Lmao, this entire thread could have been scripted ahead of time ... the half truths, the projecting ... all hallmarks of the TTB board contrarian
Delete@ Lank 1:22 p.m.
DeleteYou're funny.
If Michigan coaches are content to play a guy playing poorly over a guy playing well at RB against OSU the only explanation must be that ...... RBs don't matter.
DeleteFor a guy who thinks running backs don't matter, you sure do spend a lot of time arguing for how much Donovan Edwards matters.
Delete‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️
DeleteFor a guy who likes to accuse me of arguing with ghosts... you sure do like to do it yourself.
DeleteYou can't tell the difference between playing well at RB and making an impact. Learning nothing from Illinois 2022. Or Ohio State 2022. Or Fitz Toussaint. Or....
It's OK, we'll just add this to your "resume" of RB takes. The best of which (according to you) is a guy you disagreed with Hoke and Rodriguez about ended up rushing for 75 yards in the NFL. .
..Kind of says it all.
Dude...you said Giles Jackson was a proven option at running back and had the highest upside of any running back on the roster. So you can miss me with the aspersions about bad running back takes.
DeleteHaving to regurgitate an argument from like 14 years ago tells me pretty much everything I need to know about this conversation. I'm bored with the Michael Cox discussion.
Yes I said a guy who played RB for Michigan against Alabama was a proven option at RB. I also talked about his upside at the position. Not exactly extended harping for Michael Shaw, Michael Cox, and Ty Isaac to get snaps over guys who were clearly better than them.
DeleteThe facts speak for themselves with Cox, as they do with Edwards.
@ Lank 4:02 p.m.
DeleteWe apparently live in a world where your take on Giles Jackson being a proven option at running back is defensible...
...but my take on Michael Cox, who actually played RB in the NFL, is indefensible.
This is a discussion that's never going to go anywhere. After 14 years or whatever, I don't know why you think it needs to be rehashed over and over again.
The Michael Cox conversation tells is old news but it tells how far back these kind of hot takes go. Also indicates that you will never admit that you were wrong even when you clearly were. That's still relevant to Edwards, who you have been wrong about multiple times both in underrating what he is capable of and then overreacting to badly overestimate what he should (and ultimately would not) do.
DeleteCox didn't have success at Michigan, he didn't have success and UMass, and he didn't have success in the NFL. But you'll STILL, to this day, act like you were anything other than wrong about Mike Cox. All because he (barely) got drafted by the NY Giants. Nevermind the results - here's someone else (it can just be one person) who agrees with you so you are write.
In the other thread you can let the facts speak for themselves.
Cox in the NFL 76 yards
Cox at UMass 710 yards
Cox at Michigan 169 yards
This is a feather in your cap? You made a hot take that said the coaches should play Mike Cox more, you used it as part of your criticisms of Rich Rodriguez, and then Brady Hoke came here and.....made the same call. Cox never achieved squat.
So yeah - at this point - that's indefensible . You were wrong. If Hoke had played Cox you might not have been. If Cox had gone on to thrive at a lower level you MIGHT not have been. If Cox had gone on to look anything other than below replacement level after a slew of injuries felled the depth chart ahead of him, you would not have been. But you. were. wrong. about. Mike Cox.
My Giles Jackson take was never remotely that strong. I liked his potential at a position he played in high school and then closed his freshman year playing. Once Blake Corum arrived and Chris Evans returned there was 4 NFL RBs on the roster and no reason to use Jackson at RB. There was hardly enough snaps for the 2 guys ahead of Jackson to close 2019, let alone adding Corum and Evans. So my speculation about dude's upside in the spring (which if you recall was paired with criticism of his receiving skills which are still, 4 years later, pretty suspect) was over by summer.
https://touch-the-banner.com/2020-season-countdown-13-giles-jackson/
Did you keep hearing me harp about how Giles Jackson was a weapon that needed to be unleashed as a RB? Of course not. It was over for me.
LanknowsOCT 04, 2020 AT 4:14 PM
I agree with this optimism for Jackson. The coaches really prioritized getting him the ball at the end of the year and with some of the playmakers leaving, Jackson should be a top target and potentially a breakout star.
Hamler? Yes please.
While I hope Michigan keeps using him as a RB as well as WR, the reality is the RB room is overflowing with talent and WR depth appears to be lacking. Getting your best players on the field probably means Jackson in the slot, but I hope we have some creativity to shift him in and out of the backfield too.
Like -- who comes off more wrong here? Even while you thought he was one of the 15 most important players on the team in 2020! I'm more wrong for agreeing with you than I was speculating about his upside in the spring LOL.
Meanwhile, now that we've covered my worst RB take, my best RB takes are "Blake Corum is worth the hype actually", "Donovan Edwards is very capable of being the lead back actually", "Ty Isaac SHOULD be Deveon Smith's backup actually" were all pretty spot on and all disagreements with you. ---- notable thing here being that all one has to do is disagree with your RB hot takes and chances are they will be right.
So nice call out on Giles Jackson's potential at RB, but it would help your case if you weren't yourself very hot on Giles Jackson as a WR and didn't also have a track record of denying that he played RB like someone who didn't watch the damn bowl game.
I disagree. But I'm going to move on now. There's no law saying we need to come to an agreement.
DeleteA depth chart that is both more simple and more accurate:
ReplyDeleteQB: Jack Tuttle (7th).
Backups: Alex Orji (RS So.), Davis Warren (RS Jr.), Jayden Denegal (RS So.), Jadyn Davis (Fr.)
RB: Donovan Edwards (Sr.).
Backups: Kalel Mullings (RS Sr.), Benjamin Hall (RS Fr.), Tavierre Dunlap (RS Jr.), Cole Cabana (RS Fr.), Micah Ka'apana (Fr.), Jordan Marshall (Fr.)
WR: Tyler Morris (RS So.), Semaj Morgan (So.)
Backups: Fredrick Moore (So.), Kendrick Bell (RS Fr.), Channing Goodwin (Fr.) I'Marion Stewart (Fr.)
TE: Colston Loveland (Jr.), Max Bredeson (RS Jr.)
Backups: Marlin Klein (RS So.), Zack Marshall (RS Fr.), Deakon Tonielli (RS Fr.), Brady Prieskorn (Fr.), Hogan Hansen (Fr.)
OL: Myles Hinton (RS Sr.), Giovanni El-Hadi (RS Jr.), Greg Crippen (RS Jr.), Josh Priebe (RS Sr.), Andrew Gentry (RS So.)
Backups: Jeffrey Persi (RS Sr.), Raheem Anderson II (RS Jr.), Tristan Bounds (RS Jr.), Amir Herring (RS Fr.) Nathan Efobi (RS Fr.), Evan Link (RS Fr.), Dominick Giudice (RS Jr.), Connor Jones (RS So.), Ben Roebuck (Fr.), Blake Frazier (Fr.), Andrew Sprague (Fr.), Luke Hamilton (Fr.), Jake Guarnera (Fr.)
DT: Mason Graham (Jr.), Kenneth Grant (Jr.)
Backups: Rayshaun Benny (RS Jr.), Roderick Pierce (So.), Alessandro Lorenzetti (RS So.), Brooks Bahr (RS Fr.), Manuel Beigel (Fr.), Ted Hammond (Fr.), Owen Wafle (Fr.), Ike Iwunnah (RS Jr.)
EDGE: Derrick Moore (Jr.), Josaiah Stewart (Sr.).
Backups: T.J. Guy (RS Jr.), Kechaun Bennett (RS Jr.), Cameron Brandt (So.), Enow Etta (RS Fr.), Tyler McLaurin (RS Jr.), Aymeric Koumba (RS Fr.), Devon Baxter (Fr.), Jaden Smith (Fr.), Dominic Nichols (Fr.), Breeon Ishmail (RS Fr.)
Linebacker: Jaishawn Barham (Jr.), Ernest Hausmann (Jr.)
Backups: Jimmy Rolder (Jr.), Micah Pollard (Jr.), Jaydon Hood (RS Jr.), Jason Hewlett (RS Fr.), Mason Curtis (Fr.), Cole Sullivan (Fr.), Semaj Bridgeman (RS Fr.), Jeremiah Beasley (Fr.), Zach Ludwig (Fr.)
CB: Will Johnson (Jr.), D.J. Waller (So.)
Backups: Jyaire Hill (RS Fr.), Myles Pollard (RS So.), Jo'Ziah Edmond (Fr.), Kody Jones (RS So.), Jeremiah Lowe (Fr.)
Safety: Makari Paige (RS Sr.), Quinten Johnson (6th), Ja'Den McBurrows (RS Jr.)
Backups: Zeke Berry (Jr.), Cristian Dixon (RS Jr.), Jacob Oden (Fr.) Injured: Rod Moore (Sr.)
Kickers: Adam Samaha (RS Fr.), Tommy Doman (RS Jr.)
Backups: None
Is it perfect? No
Is it more accurate and less misleading? Yes
Is not showing LG, OC, NT, Nickel a problem? No more so than not showing FB or slot WR. Which is not really a problem at all. Nobody expects depth charts to cover every formation or possible personnel groups. It's inherently a general exercise that should reflect the typical and primary personnel groups. But people do look to them as a "next man up" tool when injuries hit. The above is very useful for that. Seeing Evan Link listed as the backup LT and Christian Dixon as next guy in to replace Rod Moore is not.
I'm critical of the format when it clearly fails, as in the case of Rod Moore. Christian Dixon doesn't even register in the top 5 options to replace Moore.
DeleteIt also fails in addressing TE where Loveland (13), Barner (9) and Bredeson (3) combined for 25 starts in 15 games last year. Maybe Sherrone Moore will prefer WRs to TEs but this was nothing new for the Harbaugh teams.
But at least we have EDGE on there, so I guess that's some progress.
Worth revisiting this in the spring particularly WRT the meaningful buzz from spring on OL and backups on DL and at DB.
DeletePortal opportunities remain at QB, WR, TE, and DB but I think any lingering concerns about DL depth seem to have been addressed with strong play by guys like Guy, Brandt, Pierce, Etta. Not to say they couldn't use a guy like Mike Danna or Cam Goode but it would be a bit of a luxury.