Hayes and Rawls in the EMU Game
With our RB depth rather low and no lock in the 2012 class at the RB position would it be worth burning both of their possible redshirts in these up coming games? I ask this because there was an article up on AA.com that said those two both may get a shot at some playing time in this game coming up.
I would rather try and keep them both on the sidelines if possible we have a couple of guys who look like they need some work in Fitz and Shaw plus there is Smith so I would hate to see the possiblities of redshirts used up in some garbage time on two of our more highly rated RB's from last years class.
If either of these two have been used in our two games I apologize for this post but I cannot remember seeing either of them getting on the field for our first two.
September 15th, 2011 at 7:50 AM ^
Shaw did well to only lose two yards on that one play, and never saw any daylight vs. ND. He's more than capable with room to run. Same goes for Smith, Fitz, and Hopkins (but HOTTDB).
September 14th, 2011 at 5:59 PM ^
why people want to "give RB ___ a shot" against a crapbasket team like EMU. If RB ____ does well....who cares? You will not get any value out of watching a back run through 5 yard wide lanes in the defense. If a RB truly deserves playing time, you need to throw him into a game against a real opponent and see what he does with 5+ carries. Otherwise, you get people clamoring for players like Cox to start, which is hilarious. He has been evaluated by a number of different staffs running a number of different schemes that stress having multiple backs ready to go--with lackluster stables of RBs to begin with--and none of these staffs want to use Cox. He is not the answer because he tore up BGSU.
I'm all for letting new players get in during garbage time, though. Particularly those that work hard in practice but might not have all the tools yet.
September 14th, 2011 at 6:04 PM ^
Cox thrashed Delaware State. I sugguest you change your tone.
September 14th, 2011 at 6:17 PM ^
I dont know why we'd burn their redshirts when we apparently have 5 running backs on the depth chart in front of them. this is like the same logic as burning BWC's redshirt for special teams duty
September 14th, 2011 at 6:28 PM ^
Players who "burned" redshirts under Rodriguez:
Courtney Avery
Jibreel Black
Cullen Christian
Drew Dileo
Devin Gardner
Will Hagerup
Stephen Hopkins
Jeremy Jackson
Carvin Johnson
Marvin Robinson
Terrence Talbott
Ray Vinopal
William Campbell
Tate Forcier
Brandin Hawthorne
Mike Jones
Teric Jones
Denard Robinson
Craig Roh
Vincent Smith
Je'Ron Stokes
Boubacar Cissoko
Justin Feagin
J.B. Fitzgerald
Kevin Koger
Mike Martin
Sam McGuffie
Martavious Odoms
Michael Shaw
Darryl Stonum
September 14th, 2011 at 6:31 PM ^
Of the above players, I think the ones that were uselessly burned were:
- Devin Gardner
- Stephen Hopkins
- Marvin Robinson
- William Campbell
- Brandin Hawthorne
- Mike Jones
- Vincent Smith
- Je'Ron Stokes
- J.B. Fitzgerald
September 14th, 2011 at 6:48 PM ^
And further props to you for acknowledging that to an enormous extent, Coach Rodriguez's burning redhshirts, especially in the defensive backfield, was a pure necessity.
Now for your remaining list:
- Gardner; we all know the story, and that the end of the story is not yet written.
- Hopkins; meh.
- M-Rob, Hawthorne, J.B. Fitzgerald; all arguable cases. We desperately needed help on defense, they were there. I hope you give due credit for Josh Furman's redshirt as it was maintained.
- Stokes; does it matter?
- Vincent Smith; possibly your worst example. He was needed, he played, he pushed himself straight to the top of the depth chart. I don't know why anybody would have wanted to redshirt him.
- Big Will Campbell; no comment. I'm pretty sure I don't know enough about that story to argue with you.
September 14th, 2011 at 7:07 PM ^
we can say that Devin's redshirt may have been burned, but looking at that through the lens of what was going on at the time, I'm not so sure is was flagrantly so.
-Tate was possibly outwardly showing signs that he wasn't going to be around for too much longer, literally or figuratively speaking.
-Every system needs at least 2 competent QBs, the spread wants 3.
-That offensive coaching staff lived through '08. I can't imagine they wanted to be holding the bag with an injured started, an "on vacation" 2nd stringer and have Gardner be taking his first game snaps while playing on the road at OSU.
I will be really upset for Gardner if he lost that season of eligibility, but I can understand the decision to some degree.
September 14th, 2011 at 7:31 PM ^
- re: Gardner - The end of the story is not yet written, BUT the end of the story COULD have been written already.
- re: Hopkins - There was nothing that Hopkins did last year that couldn't have been done by someone else.
- re: Robinson, Hawthorne, Fitzgerald - None were needed. Most of their play came on special teams that could have been taken care of by other players or walk-ons.
- re: Stokes - It doesn't matter now, but it could have.
- re: Smith - Again, he didn't do anything that couldn't have been done by someone else. I could argue all day about why he shouldn't have pushed himself to the top of the depth chart, but I disagree that he was needed as a freshman in 2009.
- re: Campbell - There were upperclassmen (Sagesse, Banks, Patterson, etc.) who could have taken the few snaps he did.
September 14th, 2011 at 7:34 PM ^
I don't know why that comprehensive list was collapsed. I put it here for everyone to look at and decide for themselves. Then people negged it for no reason (other than the fact that it was me who posted it), and now nobody can see it unless they click. It's just kind of silly.
September 14th, 2011 at 7:42 PM ^
I didn't neg you. Even though I disagreed. That's what "respectfully disagreeing" is all about. Not sure if it is your account, or your browser, but your list is not collapsed for me. No need to click to see it all.
September 14th, 2011 at 6:30 PM ^
I rather worry about this when Michigan is up big. Can't take anyone lightly.
September 14th, 2011 at 6:54 PM ^
or Hayes over Cox if all things are equal otherwise. But I have always kinda hated the idea of not playing a kid because he's younger if that's the only reason. Redshirts are great, but I've always thought it sends the wrong message to the team if you try too hard to preserve them.
I get that building sustained depth at any position is desirable. But I would bet guys like Molk and Martin are hoping the best option at RB is getting the carries.
In this particular case though, I do agree with the "sample size too small argument." I mean, I want the best RB playing, period. But there haven't been enough carries collectively to make that decision based on what's happened in less than 7 quarters of our offense. Just my opinion.
September 14th, 2011 at 6:55 PM ^
Hayes sounds like he will move to WR more and more. and Rawls if he is showing he has potential give him some reps because besides fritz (and he is made of glass) I haven't seen much that impresses me as far as an every down back (smith is my fave this year)
September 14th, 2011 at 6:55 PM ^
Hayes sounds like he will move to WR more and more. and Rawls if he is showing he has potential give him some reps because besides fritz (and he is made of glass) I haven't seen much that impresses me as far as an every down back (smith is my fave this year)
September 14th, 2011 at 7:14 PM ^
I think you can say Devin's redshirt was pointlessly burned at first. Although even that is questionable since who knows where the hell Tate's mind was. The point is it would have been burned anyway since Tate and Denard were both hurt in the Bowling Green game.
September 14th, 2011 at 7:19 PM ^
first triple post
September 14th, 2011 at 7:20 PM ^
i like turtles
September 14th, 2011 at 7:18 PM ^
September 14th, 2011 at 7:27 PM ^
ND loaded the box last week and our starter didn't play. We stumbled early and got down and because we trailed for nearly the entire game, at times by 14 or 17 points. For better or worse (I tend to think better considering we won), Borges mostly abandoned the ineffective run and let Denard loose.
We have three weeks to figure out our identity at tailback, and there is no need to throw in freshmen that have not outperformed the upperclassmen in camp and practice. If Borges really preferred Hopkins to Rawls, what makes you say that all of a sudden Rawls is our savior? Same can be said with Shaw over Hayes. If the young guys make real strides, Fitz can't stay healthy, and Hopkins/Shaw continue to struggle, then Borges should make the call. But until then I prefer what we went into the year with. Fitz starting, Shaw spelling him for a change of pace, and Smith getting some carries and the bulk of the 3rd down work. It's to early to assume doom from the upperclassmen.
As a side note, I do believe Rawls should be considered more closely than Hayes as the role of short yardage back may be up for grabs if Fitz can't stay healthy. Hopkins was terrible last week and unless he looks better soon it may be time to give Rawls a shot by the time we hit the B1G schedule.
September 14th, 2011 at 9:14 PM ^
I really fail to see where Shaw has struggled so far this year. Had a couple of nice runs against EMU, and hardly touched the ball against ND. I think he's a lot better than people credit.
September 14th, 2011 at 11:11 PM ^
Nice to know he'll have a good game this weekend.
September 14th, 2011 at 8:28 PM ^
I want to see them on Saturday, if only because quality tailbacks almost never redshirt. If they redshirt this year - especially given the so-so guys in front of them - that would be a potential red flag.
September 14th, 2011 at 10:33 PM ^
burn one redshirt and save the other one
September 15th, 2011 at 10:49 AM ^
Play Rawls or Hayes if they will help. With the way this staff recruits I highly doubt we will have trouble recruiting a Big-time back, Hoke will send them onld tapes of Wheatley/Biakabatuka and Borges can send them tapes of Cadillac Williams and Ronnie Brown... Depth was an issue these last few years because of Late-Carr era complacency in recruiting and Rrod recruiting the water bugs. I would like to think the next great Michigan RB recruit was watching Saturday.
September 15th, 2011 at 12:17 PM ^
Our running game needs to improve. And we need to win now (this year).
It is true that our O-Line is not opening the holes. But none of our RBs has established himself as an every down back. If either Rawls or Hayes can fullfill this role, I support them playing.
Lack of a running game will allow the defense to zero in on Denard, increase his risk of injury, negatively impact our time of possession, and directly impact our win/loss column.
We can worry about next year next year. Hopefully then we'll be talking about Bri'onte, Garmon, or some other 4-star or better freshman tailback.
September 16th, 2011 at 2:44 PM ^
I'm okay with burning an RB's redshirt for a few carries. They usually either have it, or they don't. When was the last time that we actually had a fifth year senior running back? I literally don't remember one getting a carry since Ed Davis. I'm okay burning redshirts when you have reason to believe that you aren't going to need the guys that you have four five years. Gardner's burn was inexcusable.