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 6:38 PM ^
No SHIT!
August 14th, 2011 at 6:38 PM ^
August 14th, 2011 at 6:56 PM ^
Maybe you should read the thread again, nowhere in the OP's statements does it say 3rd and long back. It says 3rd down back which is pretty wide open for interpretation.
August 14th, 2011 at 7:01 PM ^
Maybe you should read his comment again. He didn't say read the OP he said read the thread, where the difference has been explained.
August 14th, 2011 at 7:14 PM ^
Before I posted there was no mention of 3rd and short or 3rd and long anywhere in the thread, just 3rd down back. That left it wide open to your own interpretation of what the OP meant.
August 14th, 2011 at 7:45 PM ^
August 15th, 2011 at 1:28 AM ^
People who actually watch football know what a 3rd down back is. 3rd-and-short back is the same thing as a goal line back and it is nearly the opposite of what a 3rd down back is. Realistically your regular running back should be big and tough enough to pick up 3rd and short if your base formation is the I-form or pro-set, so the short yardage back is extremely rare.
August 15th, 2011 at 1:38 AM ^
Yeah I've never watched a game of football that's why I created an account on a board mainly aimed at football that I don't watch...seriously some of you guys on here are your own worst enemies. You're always right and no ones opinion is right except yours.
August 15th, 2011 at 2:10 AM ^
Do you realize how hypocritical you are? Multiple people have told you that a third down back is not the same as a short yardage back and you refuse to realize that YOU are the one that is wrong. Instead you complain about others thinking only their opinion is right. Well in this case their opinion us right!
August 15th, 2011 at 11:40 AM ^
You're a douche. Just my opinion. And you can't spell worth monkey shit.
August 14th, 2011 at 7:47 PM ^
August 15th, 2011 at 1:41 AM ^
People like you make the board that way. Someone posts an opinion and because it's not in agreement with yours it's wrong. If you don't like my opinion then skip my replies, it's pretty easy.
August 14th, 2011 at 6:14 PM ^
August 14th, 2011 at 6:18 PM ^
Feature: Shaw
Third Down: Smith
I always thought vinny could bring something special to this ball club.
August 14th, 2011 at 6:47 PM ^
August 14th, 2011 at 7:10 PM ^
Vincent Smith ought to be the 3rd down back. That's what he should have been his whole career.
August 14th, 2011 at 7:20 PM ^
Smith has the bulk and strength to be our short yardage power back. Put in the jumbo package near the goal line. May be tougher against the bigger teams in the B1G but against most of our non conference opponents a 3rd down or short yardage back will have success.
August 14th, 2011 at 7:25 PM ^
You honestly see Smith as a short yardage power back? I would prefer any other back (except Hayes) as our short yardage power back. Smith would be a great third down back though.
August 15th, 2011 at 8:48 AM ^
August 14th, 2011 at 7:49 PM ^
"Smith has the bulk and strength to be our short yardage power back..."?
August 14th, 2011 at 7:49 PM ^
"Smith has the bulk and strength to be our short yardage power back..."?
August 14th, 2011 at 8:00 PM ^
Starter: Shaw
3rd down: Smith
Cox and Hopkins get spot duty, but I see Cox getting more reps if Shaw isn't getting it done.
August 14th, 2011 at 8:01 PM ^
August 14th, 2011 at 8:48 PM ^
This made me laugh heartily.
August 15th, 2011 at 7:39 AM ^
Well, Vincent Smith was 7-for-11 on converting 3rd and 3 or shorter into first downs on hand offs....and at least a couple of the misses were due to famously poor execution in front of him.
Just sayin'...........
August 14th, 2011 at 9:37 PM ^
Feature: Shaw
3D: V. Smith
August 14th, 2011 at 11:08 PM ^
So they're not going to tell us who this 3rd-down back is? And it's going to be made clear at the first game?
God, I hope not! That'll mean we're in more than a couple 3rd-and-long situations. Against Western. I'd rather not see that, thanks.
August 15th, 2011 at 12:23 AM ^
I think, given the context, Smith has to be the 3rd down back, where he will serve very well. I think that Cox will win the starting job and Shaw will be the guy who gets the 10-or-so carries per game. I also think that we will see Hopkins at FB and I'm hoping he can sort of play a BJ Askew role (I always liked Askew more than Perry).
August 15th, 2011 at 3:28 AM ^
3rd down back will be V.Smith
August 15th, 2011 at 5:44 AM ^
I think we'll have a guy that carries the load, but I still think there is going to be a lot of situational running.
Starter:
1. Thomas Rawls
2. Mike Cox (bare with me on this one...because I think he's the odd man out)
Speed Back:
1. Mike Shaw/Fitz Toussaint
Short-yardage Back/Running FB:
1. Stephan Hopkins
3rd Down Back:
1. Vincent Smith
2. Justice Hayes
...now, I think Hayes won't get enough carries to be worth burning a RS...so remove him. I'm not sure you need a "backup 3rd down back" as that player is really only playing on 3rd and medium and 3rd and long. If it's 3rd and short, you have your short yardage guy in (Hopkins).
Also, I put Cox in the "starter" category, but that's just because he 1. didn't fit elsewhere, and 2. because the backup to that "position" isn't getting any carries unless it's a blowout.
So that leaves you with.
Starter (20-25 carries):
1. Thomas Rawls
Speed Back (7-10 carries):
1. Mike Shaw/Fitz Toussaint
Short-yardage Back/Running FB (situational):
1. Stephan Hopkins
3rd Down Back (situational):
1. Vincent Smith
When I say speed back, I mean a lot of the speed, get to the edge plays, BUT ALSO, we're going to run some 2-back "pro-set" stuff (actually SDSU ran A LOT of it) with the Speed Back and the Running FB each offset to the right and left of the QB. Or Shotgun, 2RB stuff using the same personnel. (That's where Houma fits in as a RB/FB ala BJ Askew).
That battle for speed back should be a good one. And maybe that person because so good that HE becomes the starter. If that's the case, I'm guessing you'd move Shaw/Fitz to starter, leave the other one a speed back, and redshirt Rawls along with Hayes. The situational spots seem set.
August 15th, 2011 at 9:36 AM ^
This position scares the hell out of me. Great guys but other then the true freshmen, the others were entirely unable to establish themselves as the feature back last year. Could be scheme-related and maybe one will shine but I am scares. Here's how I see the field:
<br>
<br>V. Smith - If he can regain his pre- injury form he will likely start initially. He is actually pretty shifty, and catches the ball nicely both out of the backfield and on the short yardage stuff. His biggest problem is that he is never going to bowl anyone over but in late 2009, he showed some ability to get yards after contact. I actually think that smith will benefit from not running the Zone read. Too many times last year he was brought down right after taking the handoff. Having the RB set up behind he qb, instead of next to him, should benefit smith, who is shifty but lacks initial burst. Bottom line - should be adequate and maybe even fairly good but low ceiling.
<br>
<br>Shaw - he came in with some hype and dumped of good speed. Injuries played a part but he has never really shown the ability to be an every down back. For his size (and he added some weight), he vandals a hit and block ok. But lacking real shiftiness, speed or size, I don't see him as the starter.
<br>
<br>Hopkins - love his size, and his recruiting profile spoke of great speed for a big man. Throw out last year since e was a true freshman. I hunk he has potential in this offense, but e is an unknown quantity now. Prediction - he plays some at fb and is te "short yArdage" back. May increase reps over the season if he comes along. He has a high ceiling as a clay type of back. Still unknown.
<br>
<br>Cox - I have always thought that his combo of siZe and speed was the most interesting but at this point my dreams of him being Minor Rage 2.0 have faded. I don't see him being the guy.
<br>
<br>Fitz - you all know the story, potential galore. A cross between Chris Perry, Mike Hart, a Puma, Superman and Tom Beady (I know not a RB but it can never be a bad thing to be crossed with Tom Brady genes). But, his injuries seem like They will get the best of him and like cox, I don't see him bronchus guy.
<br>
<br>Now for he two frehman.
<br>
<br>Rawls - seems like Jackson and Borges love this guy, he can e a true north south runner but with enough juke ability to make people miss. I love his potential bit he probably needs a year of red-shirting to gain polish. That said this guy could take over the job mid-season. highest ceiling of all of these guys In this offense.
<br>
<br>Hayes - while he is the higher rated of our freshmen RB tandem, it seems like Rawls has gotten more attention. This kid's speed could make him a great change of pace to Rawls. He could be a great homerun threat. But I don't see him starting this year - he will need a hear of. Strength and conditioning.
<br>
<br>Those are my thoughts. Likel hat Vince is the starter with Hopkins playing the role of short yardage and fb. Shaw may get some carries, and Rawls may come on by mid season.