Food for thought. Should Jeremy Gallon be M's third down back?

Yes, let's take our second-best receiver off the field on critical third downs. Great idea.

Does Gallon have ANY experience at running back? Like blitz pickups and stuff? That's really the point of a third-down back...blocking and dumpoff.

I'm sorry, I really don't understand even entertaining this thought. This is offseason stuff.

You want to take our best/toughest backfield blocker (VSmith) off the field on passing downs?

And it isn't like he has the dropsies.

Gallon is probably our best skill player, and our most consistent receiver. I'd be more in favor of grooming Norfleet to jump into the role if you're looking for a playmaking third down back. Smith should be able to handle the blocking now though, considering we're in B1G play.  

What made you think of this idea? I don't mean that in a snarky way, I'm serious. I never would have considered it. 

junk food. I hear it's bad for my health.

Because its always a great idea to take your best backfield blocker off the field and substitute him with a wideout.

I think it depends on if he can throw or not.

Can he pick up a blitzing LB? That would be my concern.

..... no

uh oh, bye week is like summer when we get bored and start asking crazy questions.

the answer, simply, is no.  a third down back requires certain skills, none of which has gallon practiced.  gallon blocks as a WR, but it's a completely different kind of block than trying to cut a fast charging LB.  also, gallon is a good third down option where he is at WR.  putting him at RB would require us to put a less effective receiver in gallon's spot.

Unless you're trying to get him injured or something, NO. Just no. 

Think my next topic will be: should Devin Funchess be moved to Defensive End?

Of all personel questions this one is second to last in the list of most expected. Right below it is "should we start Denard at DT too because of his quickness." It was a close decision and one I struggled with but that is how the list shook out. 

Geez: a crushing loss to ND, and now half of the board has its collective panties in a wad.  

If Michigan had scheduled a tomato can instead of Alabama, they would be 3-1, coming off a close loss to 10th-ranked ND, and everyone would be excited about the Big Ten season.  

So, really, it's easy to keep an even keel here: just remember that this 2-2 MIchigan team is the same team  that would be 3-1 with another tomato can, and that nobody is beating Alabama this year.  

This team could win the next nine or ten games.  They might not, but they aren't dead yet by a long shot.

OK - let's take the suggestion without malice and consider the proposal: on 3rd down, put a WR, Gallon, in the backfield.

1. Is there any historical basis for this type of move? Yes, actually, the Arizona Cardinals during the Super Bowl run a few years ago would run a set like this. It caused a mis-match with a speedy agile WR against a slower LB or force a switch of CB freeing up a lead WR like Larry Fitzgerald.

2. Is there any problems with this notion with the current Michigan team? Well, the teams who take advantage of such personnel switches and packages usually have a very accurate passer and a veteran line - often the ball has to gotten out quick and everyone has to be on the same page and break off routes depending on the coverage and if there is a blitz.

Conclusion: Probably not a good fit with this current team. DR#16 is not the ideal pocket passer, the line isn't as good as it has been in the past, and the current 3rd down back, Vincent Smith is actually a pretty good player - one could turn the proposal around and assert more efforts should be made to get Smith on the field if passing is going to be a big part of the game plan.

Gallon is going to lead Michigan in receptions by the end of the year.

Just no

all this talk about moving our second best receiver to running back on third down got me thinking... who do we view as the number 1 receiver?