Concerns with running-back-by-committee?
I have question for the Magnuses of the world: How concerned are you with Michigan's running-back-by-committee this year? FWIW, I'm not a fan of the situation. I think it's much better to have a No. 1 guy even if you have less depth. I've heard innumerable lineman say or imply that they block harder for some guys b/c they have so much confidence in them. It concerns me that we don't have that guy (to my knowledge)...As much as Forcier was hyped after the ND game last year, Michigan wouldn't have won w/ out Minor's decisive running. It makes me nervous not to have a guy whom everyone agrees is "the man." Agree? Disagree? There is no reality and we're all just the imagination of our own brains?
August 30th, 2010 at 1:06 PM ^
Can always having fresh legs in the backfield be a bad thing?
August 30th, 2010 at 1:06 PM ^
...if we're talking Fantasy Football. But in a system like this, I don't mind seeing a rotation, especially early in the year. The depth chart will work itself out in the first few weeks, and if one guy (i.e. Fitz) emerges as the primary guy, the coaches will adjust accordingly.
Running back is probably the position where the maxim "if you've got two starters, you don't have any starters" applies least.
August 30th, 2010 at 1:07 PM ^
Disagree, Acording to Fred Jackson this is the best group of RBs in the history of football, and they all look good.
August 30th, 2010 at 2:11 PM ^
August 30th, 2010 at 2:15 PM ^
If those guys were good.
August 30th, 2010 at 1:07 PM ^
I miss Michigan having a dominant tail back. But, the good news is that we have a lot of young talent who could emerge into that number 1 guy. I think there are advantages and disadvantages to each situation. With a #1 you have the risk of them going down, and the team struggling.Hopefully the O-line supports all of our running backs. I feel the same way about the running backs as I do the quarterbacks. When one is hot keep em in.
August 30th, 2010 at 1:28 PM ^
I read that as "I, miss Michigan, having a dominant tail, back..."
August 30th, 2010 at 2:34 PM ^
as well as something about having a dominant tail......
EDIT: need to refresh threads before responding, already said
August 30th, 2010 at 1:47 PM ^
My concern with rb by rotation is.. how is one of them supposed to get hot if they are constantly being rotated in and out. Same with any position for the most part.
August 30th, 2010 at 1:50 PM ^
It's not that hard to decipher. If a guy gets a couple carries and loses yards on both, he's probably not hot. If the next guy gets a couple carries and picks up 5 and 12 yards, then he's the guy you're going to go with.
You don't have to feed a back the ball 20 times to figure out whether he's going to get hot or not.
August 30th, 2010 at 2:00 PM ^
Right Magnus, b/c thats what generally happens. You have 2 guys who are so close in ability that one isn't a decernable starter over the other, yet when put into a game one can get 5-12 yd runs and the other can manage nothing more than a few no gains and losses. Clearly you know what your talking about.
August 30th, 2010 at 2:04 PM ^
If you watched Mike Shaw run the ball at all last year, yes, that is exactly what happens.
August 30th, 2010 at 2:05 PM ^
No other factors come into how many yards a player gets on a run, than whether or not that back is 'hot'. So its pretty clear by 3 touches per back who is the 'hot' back and who is not.
Are you letting your little brother play with your account today or something?
August 30th, 2010 at 2:14 PM ^
I don't know why you have so much ire built up for someone who answered your question, but is this really that difficult to understand?
If you have a back who's averaging 5 yards a carry and a back who's averaging 2 yards per carry, which back is the "hot back"? How many carries are you going to give a guy averaging 2 yards per carry when you have another back or two who are doing much better?
Again, it's not hard to decipher. The backs who are running well will get the carries. The backs who are getting caught in the backfield or stopped at the LOS are going to be removed. The end.
August 30th, 2010 at 2:25 PM ^
Ire flows high on Mondays. I get what you're saying, I just don't think its clear cut like that. If a back is that much better, his talent would show. I don't think on any given day, being hot gives you 5 more yards a carry than not being hot. And if you are taking your sample from just a few touches, too much else comes into play.
Could it be obivous at times? Possibly. IMO, doesn't provide as much benefit to having THE guy into a rythme and flow.
If rotating backs, for the sake of finding the the "hot" back, actually provided a +3 (in your most recent comment, +5-12 in your first) MORE yards per carry, wouldn't more teams do it? That's a pretty huge difference.
And if this is the case, as you said, rotating the backs would pretty much stop after the 1st quarter (or even first drive), because you would have found your back that gets 4 more yards per carry. Yet...magnus...it doesn't does it.
Regardless, have a good one, excuse the ire, my allotted time surfin has expired back to real life
August 30th, 2010 at 2:27 PM ^
btw, 90% of the time a RB gets caught in the backfield, he is not the one mostly at fault...someone else blew an assignment...
August 30th, 2010 at 2:35 PM ^
...unless he ran to the wrong hole or misread a block or danced too much in the backfield or...
August 30th, 2010 at 2:33 PM ^
In the ND game last year, Carlos Brown had 4 carries for 6 yards. Brandon Minor had 16 carries for 106 yards.
In last year's IU game, Brown averaged 7.5 yards, Minor averaged 4.2, and Shaw averaged 2.5 on two carries.
In last year's PSU game, Minor averaged 4.0 yards, Brown averaged 4.4 yards, and Shaw averaged -1 yard on one carry.
Yes, sometimes it's that clear-cut, and things get decided that quickly. You don't have time to give a "cold" back 10 carries before you send him to the bench permamently, and I can guarantee you that if Shaw or Brown busted a good run or two in those limited carries . . . they would have gotten the ball more later in the game. The coaches saw them get stuffed and decided to keep giving the ball to the "hot hands."
August 30th, 2010 at 2:42 PM ^
but I would agree with the approach by committee unless you actually have a back that is superior in all aspects and in all situations, but even then i would platoon the position to some extent if only to be prepared in the event of an injury.
There is not, at this point, any back that would be clearly superior and each offer advantages depending on the particulars of the defense that M is facing. I think the concept of a back getting 'hot' can be part of that, but i think it is a complex relationship between the mathc-ups on the offensive line v. the defensive players and how each back fit into that situation that can result in one back producing for a partrticular game as opposed to others.
August 30th, 2010 at 1:08 PM ^
This belongs in the All Meta-All Conspiracy thread.
August 30th, 2010 at 1:08 PM ^
...can any of them step up and pop blitzing linebackers anywhere close to as well as Minor did?
I went back and watched that final drive against Notre Dame from last season. Minor's blocks were absolutely crucial there.
August 30th, 2010 at 1:10 PM ^
Smith was actually great at picking up blitzes last year for a freshman. Yes he is tiny as hell, but the coaches always praised his ability to block from the position last year.
August 30th, 2010 at 2:05 PM ^
Find-and-replace all the Vincents for Mikes and Smiths for Harts and we are transported to 2003.
Also, this entire situation reminds me of 'aught-three. A marginal starter at the beginning of the year, a couple of young guys in the mix, then the cream rose to the top and the starter was obvious to the entire nation. I have a feeling that the top three backs, in rough order will be clear by the start of the Big10.
August 30th, 2010 at 2:54 PM ^
2004 is when david underwood sucked for 2 or 3 games got hurt and thats when hart came in and tore it up... in 2003 it was chris perry right from the start...
August 30th, 2010 at 3:22 PM ^
Mental math let me down.
August 30th, 2010 at 1:12 PM ^
Running back by committee is less of a big deal than the idea of playing 3 quarterbacks... I'll take a fresh pack of legs coming in and out of the backfield any day.
August 30th, 2010 at 1:13 PM ^
It'll get whittled down.. it always does. Remember how we found Mike Hart? All I remember was thinking about "that little dude, #20... he only got 3 plays, but damn did I like him."
Any idea how many other RB's got touches against Miami? Five. And that was despite the fact that David Underwood was clearly our "go to" guy, and Jerome Jackson was next on the list.
Somebody will emerge as the guy... just be patient.
August 30th, 2010 at 2:22 PM ^
I remember thinking that Pierre Rembert should have been starting over Underwood.
August 30th, 2010 at 2:44 PM ^
in the 4th as his coming out. Playing to wind down the clock and settle for a FG in a 3 pt game we run a draw play Hart gets the first, assume Victory formation, seal game. That's my first memory of him.
August 30th, 2010 at 1:13 PM ^
August 30th, 2010 at 1:14 PM ^
No, not worried. Until Mike Hart rolled around and took all the frickin carries for four years, MICH used to throw a stable of backs at people every week. Seemed to work out pretty well. I like using multiple options back there.
August 30th, 2010 at 2:02 PM ^
This is right - just last night I was watching the highlights of the '97 PSU game and was surprised by the amount of backs we played - three at least.
August 30th, 2010 at 1:16 PM ^
... I am concerned greatly for all our opponents who cannot game plan against one player. For fuck's sake people, it's game week! Let go of your concerns and celebrate the greatness that is college football.
There will be plenty of time to worry this year, don't make the week before game 1 one of those times.
3 100 yard rushers this week.
1 -- Delithium
2 -- Cox -- he busts a long one (sorry couldn't resist)
3 -- Hopkins or Smith or Shaw
August 30th, 2010 at 2:51 PM ^
I'd like to have as realistic assessment of the team as possible, though. The dagger-through-the-heart feeling I get when Michigan loses a game I expected them to win is unpleasant.
August 30th, 2010 at 1:19 PM ^
i dont think platooning at the RB position is as big an issue as at QB, where chemistry with teammates is vitally important. plenty of teams have had success with a platoon of backs. the superbowl Giants had three RBs (jacobs, bradshaw, ward) who all got substantial carries in each game. having multiple backs does two big things:
1. it keeps the RBs fresh
2. it makes it difficult for the opponent to prepare for a particular style of running game
August 30th, 2010 at 1:20 PM ^
QB by committee is a much bigger deal than RB by committee...
August 30th, 2010 at 1:21 PM ^
With the tempo of the offense being what it is we really need at least 3 backs that are starting level backs. It is nice to have a variety of talents within the depth chart, but the key is fresh personnel on the field as much as possible!
August 30th, 2010 at 1:21 PM ^
I have seen offensive linemen say that, and it's true. You do work harder when you have a quarterback and/or running back that you respect and like.
However, I haven't seen any evidence that these running backs lack that quality. I think they're all just relatively equal in the talent department. So I'm not concerned that the line won't block as hard.
Now, I'd prefer that we have a stud running back who can average 6.0 yards a carry and blow everyone out of the water. But I'm not of the mindset that you NEED one back to be successful.
FWIW, my team has a four-headed monster at running back. One kid is a bruiser who just runs straight ahead (Michael Cox). Another is a tiny little back who makes quick little cuts but isn't extremely fast (Vincent Smith). Another runs pretty hard, is fairly elusive, and has decent speed (Fitzgerald Toussaint). And the fourth has speed and moves but won't run over anyone (Mike Shaw). I'm not concerned at all that one back hasn't leaped out as the starter, because they all can work well in certain situations. But it would be awesome if we had a powerful guy with great speed who runs hard and makes quick cuts and block well and catch the ball out of the backfield... It's just rare to find those "perfect" players, whether you're in college or in high school.
August 30th, 2010 at 1:31 PM ^
When I hear the term perfect player at RB and the traits that embody it, I all too often come back to Tyrone Wheatley. Guy just seemed to have it all. Speed, power, size, decent elusiveness.
BTW Magnus, I've really been enjoying your countdown on your site. Figured I'd drop a line and say thank you.
August 30th, 2010 at 1:34 PM ^
He split time with Biakabutuka and Jesse Johnson. That RB committe was a terrible thing we needed 1 guy to carry the load!!
August 30th, 2010 at 2:47 PM ^
Cox will carry the ......
oh, that was easy
August 30th, 2010 at 1:48 PM ^
Thanks for the compliment.
August 30th, 2010 at 1:34 PM ^
OSU platoon's backs, and it works fine for them. There are really several ways this can come about:
1) Too many good backs to limit the touches to one guy.
2) No all-purpose back, but lots of guys who do one or two things very well.
3) No all-purpose guy, but lots of depth that can soak up a beating.
It's rather hard to tell which scenario you're in until after the fact (sometimes during). OSU is in a 1/2 situation; they lack a clear all-purpose Beanie Wells type guy, but they DO have a lot of talented players who need to improve in 1-2 facets of their game. I have no idea which scenario you guys are facing, but it's probably not worth fretting over right now. You can't really tell what the situation is until the feces is well and thoroughly into the oscillator, anyway.
August 30th, 2010 at 2:10 PM ^
You can't really tell what the situation is until the feces is well and thoroughly into the oscillator, anyway.
August 30th, 2010 at 4:13 PM ^
is your best back. He's quite good catching the ball out of the backfield too.
Also, on that note, this is probably the reason that Vincent Smith is listed as the #1 for UM, as he can catch the ball.
August 30th, 2010 at 1:47 PM ^
Talent + Depth + Fresh Legs = WIN!
August 30th, 2010 at 2:08 PM ^
but I think by the time the B10 season rolls around we'll have a running back that establishes themselves as the starter and the rest will give him breaks.
No, I don't have any idea who that one will be.
August 30th, 2010 at 2:12 PM ^
I want to see both the QB's and RB's rotate, with the "hot hand" getting most of the reps late in the game. I see nothing wrong in making opposing coaches work harder in preperation.
August 30th, 2010 at 2:24 PM ^
Look at our CB situation