Michigan's 3rd down back?
I know Borges had stated he may use a 3rd down back this season in his press conference a few days back. But it was revealed today that Michigan will be using a 3rd down back and that player has already been named the third down back. Jackson stated he will not reveal who that player is, but it will be obvious when the team plays Western.
My question is ... who do you feel the 3rd down back is? Apparently it will be a back that is not going to be amongst the final few backs considered to be a starter this season. I know a lot are thinking Vincent Smith, but I have to assume he is going to battle down to end for the staring spot.
What are your thoughts? Toussaint or Hayes maybe? I know Jackson is very high on Rawls and Hayes .... could we possibly see Rawls as the starter and Hayes as the 3rd down back at some point this season?
EDIT: Link to article stating the 3rd down back has already been chosen:
August 14th, 2011 at 4:48 PM ^
Hayes could have a chance to be the third down back, but I think Smith is definitely the leader, and it's looked like he's been very impressive so far this fall. He's gotta be the one they're talking about
August 14th, 2011 at 4:50 PM ^
If they are thinking Smith as the 3rd down back this early, do you believe they feel he isn't going to be the primary back ... this early in fall practice?
August 14th, 2011 at 6:47 PM ^
Swanson oneil most likely
August 14th, 2011 at 6:48 PM ^
I'm thinking that Smith's size is against him in the primary back competition. The coaches want a guy to carry 20-30 times in a game, and justified or not there's probably fear that he won't be able to stay healthy on that pace.
August 14th, 2011 at 10:30 PM ^
Ronnie Hillman was tiny last year, so it's not totally out of the question.
August 14th, 2011 at 4:50 PM ^
I think the starter will be Shaw/Rawls/Cox, and the 3rd down will be Smith/Hayes
August 14th, 2011 at 4:56 PM ^
No love for Fitz? I think he could fight for 3rd down back.
August 14th, 2011 at 5:13 PM ^
It's not that I don't like him, I would just like to see him actually stay healthy.
August 14th, 2011 at 6:32 PM ^
Really doubtful its Fitz as he does not excel in pass protection. Smith seems logical as a good blocker and also able to get into the flat and make a catch and make someone miss.
August 15th, 2011 at 12:09 AM ^
Fitz has been all of, what, 4 plays and you can deduce that he doesn't excel in pass protection?
August 14th, 2011 at 4:51 PM ^
No chance that it is Rawls. He is more of a bruiser than a pass catching third down type back.
August 14th, 2011 at 4:56 PM ^
August 14th, 2011 at 5:00 PM ^
Smith would be ideal with his catching ability and jack rabbitt like movements.
August 14th, 2011 at 5:00 PM ^
The feature back will be Shaw and the 3rd down long situational will be Vincent Smith.
Book it.
August 14th, 2011 at 6:48 PM ^
I actually agree with HD on this.
But Hopkins is lurking out there if he can hang onto the damn ball.
August 14th, 2011 at 5:10 PM ^
What about Steven Hopkins?
<br>
<br>
August 14th, 2011 at 5:21 PM ^
I don't think you know what a 3rd down back is. He's expected to play in primarily passing situations, not 3rd and short.
August 14th, 2011 at 7:13 PM ^
but how are Hopkins' hands? Wouldn't a bigger back who can block as well as catch be what you're looking for?
August 14th, 2011 at 7:38 PM ^
You're looking for more than just good hands. You want someone who might be a tough cover for an LB, who can be dangerous in space. In receivers you're usually going to prefer one who can make a defender miss rather than one who can break tackles. If you have a big back that can do all of that I would imagine he's your every down back.
August 14th, 2011 at 5:23 PM ^
reggie bush when you hear 3rd down back
August 14th, 2011 at 5:29 PM ^
I dont know who Steven Hopkins is...
August 14th, 2011 at 7:10 PM ^
StePHen, sorry. Yes I know how to spell it, I just had a brain lapse. No need to get all on me about it...
August 14th, 2011 at 10:00 PM ^
It's pronounced steffen if that helps.
August 14th, 2011 at 8:07 PM ^
We might see Hopkins as the starting fullback and a back-up at tailback.
August 14th, 2011 at 5:10 PM ^
Is there a link to the info that the 3rd down back has been determined already? Last I heard they were looking at identifying a 2-deep soon.
I wouldn't assume Smith is going to remain in the running for primary back. If they've really selected a 3rd down back, it's probably him. He's the best blocker and pass-catcher, so it makes good sense to have him be the 3rd down back.
August 14th, 2011 at 5:18 PM ^
I just edited the post with the Link.
August 14th, 2011 at 5:34 PM ^
Who is our 1st down back? We have a lot of sifting to do before we have any idea what RB plays and when.
That being said I would go with Smith, Fitz or Hayes. So basically I have no clue or preference. I just want about 800 yards out of one of the RBs on our roster. If that happens, I believe we have a pretty healthy Denard all year.
August 14th, 2011 at 5:26 PM ^
Smith as a 3rd Down back is downright scary, he's not a good blocker does anyone else remember him getting annihilated when he would go to pick up his block? I can't remember specifically but I think it was the Wisconsin game where he got destroyed trying to block. He doesn't have the size to get those tough yards on 3rd down either, he gets hit and can't break tackles. I think it'd be a battle between Hopkins (unless he's the FB) Hayes or Toussaint, those guys to me are 3rd down backs.
August 14th, 2011 at 5:41 PM ^
1. 3rd down back is not the same as a short yardage back.
<br>2. I thought overall Smith was a good blocker for Denard. Yes he took a shot vs Wisconsin but I remember helping Denard break some good runs.
August 14th, 2011 at 6:33 PM ^
August 14th, 2011 at 6:52 PM ^
Maybe you should read it again, OP states who do YOU think will be the 3rd down back. IN YOUR OWN OPINION, which is what the OP was asking of everyone is who you think it should be. If you don't agree with me that's fine, but "negbombing" someone for their opinion because it doesn't match yours totally devalues the OP's question. I like to think of a 3rd down back as a bigger guy with good hands who can catch (yes Smith has shown he catch) or who can hold his block longer to create more time for the QB. I guess I missed these discussions of a third down back compared to a goal line back, but I know the difference. In my opinion V. Smith is a fine running back, he's small, shifty and crafty in open space but as far as breaking tackles and dragging guys after contact I think he lacks that skill set from what I've seen so far of him and in 3rd and long situations I'd like to see a guy who can break a tackle often and create more yards after contact.
August 14th, 2011 at 6:55 PM ^
With all due respect, thank god you are not a coach. /Rickybobby'd
August 14th, 2011 at 7:07 PM ^
But I'm such a great coach in NCAA 12....kidding. I'd be interested to have you elaborate on that point.
August 14th, 2011 at 7:11 PM ^
Sure. You claim to know what a 3rd down back is but I don't think you do. A 3rd down back to anyone who actually watches a bit of football is widely recognized as a back that comes in on obvious passing situations on 3rd down. You ever see Brandon Jacobs or Jerome Bettis in on these situations? By your definition they are perfect for it. No guys like Reggie Bush and that little white guy from NE make careers out of this exact position. They are usually too small to be an every down back (Smith) but are sure handed and are gutsy enough to chop a blitzing LB if need be.
edit: LWG is Danny Woodhead I believe
August 14th, 2011 at 7:26 PM ^
You're using two extremely large RB's there in Bettis and Jacobs. I'd never use those guys in that situation, and considering Michigan doesn't even have any RB's that are 6'4" 265lbs (Jacobs) or 5'11" 255lbs (Bettis) those are pretty bad examples, Hopkins is probably the only guy remotely close. All my point is, I'd like to see a guy bigger than 5'6" and 170 lbs, I think that's where the confusion is. Bush is 6'0" 200lbs and Woodhead is 5'9" 200lbs, not even comparable to Smith.
August 14th, 2011 at 7:29 PM ^
Darren Sproles, Felix Jones,Mewelde Moore, Correl Buckhaulter, and old school Eric Metcalf, Dave Megget. Woodhead and Bush are not the same weight, I don't care what the roster says.
August 14th, 2011 at 7:57 PM ^
August 15th, 2011 at 8:46 AM ^
August 14th, 2011 at 5:37 PM ^
I think people are confusing 3rd down backs with 3rd-and-inches backs. Blocking and pass catching abilities are far more important than being a bruiser
August 14th, 2011 at 5:35 PM ^
I think that when we're under center it will be Hopkins/Shaw/Rawls and shotgun will be Smith/Shaw. And on 3rd downs that aren't short yardage situations it will be Smith.
August 14th, 2011 at 5:37 PM ^
Hopefully we can recruit a John Clay in this class or next. I wouldn't mind seeing a 245 lb. bruiser to compliment Denard or Devin.
August 14th, 2011 at 5:59 PM ^
August 14th, 2011 at 5:41 PM ^
Edit: This was supposed to be the Dudeness post about it being Shaw and Smith.
I agree 100% with this. Though I also say that if he is in fact a real person, Fitzgerald Toussaint has a chance.
August 14th, 2011 at 7:03 PM ^
August 14th, 2011 at 7:46 PM ^
It's spelled Toussaint. (Think of the word "saint" - his name means "All Saints").
August 15th, 2011 at 10:43 AM ^
Fitz was coming off of a knee injury (and wearing a brace) so I'm not sure that's the best way to judge his speed (against BGSU compared to his actual top speed). Woolfolk would have gotten burned by a few MAC receivers a few months ago as well. Rivals had him at 4.5 out of high school, that's pretty fast.
August 14th, 2011 at 5:39 PM ^
Denard. Definitely the 3rd down back. As well as the 1st, 2nd, & 4th.
August 14th, 2011 at 5:56 PM ^
My $$ is on V Smith although Hayes could make waves there too. Being that the position is decided so soon into camp I'd have to guess Smith. Seems like Fitz is gonna get buried on the depth chart but who knows. Dang, I like that kid though.
August 14th, 2011 at 5:57 PM ^
Featured: Hopkins/Shaw
Third Down: Smith/Hayes
Short Yardage: Rawls/Hopkins
August 14th, 2011 at 6:05 PM ^
I think it will depend on whether it is 3rd and long or 3rd and short. Smith or Hayes on definate passing downs, but makes no sense to have them in there if all we need is a yard or two. Dare I say that the third down back could actually be " third down back(s)."