RB situation question.
After this year Minor,Grady and Brown are out and looking at the Recruiting board I see were not really targeting any big backs like Grady, someone who can come in on short yardage situations and goal lines someone with some power to get those extra yards, seems to work out well for the suckeyes. any thoughts?
January 19th, 2009 at 6:55 AM ^
We will still have Mark Moundros, I believe Rich Rod has compare him to Owen Schmidt a couple times this past year.
January 19th, 2009 at 6:56 AM ^
Moundros will be back next year and Mike Cox is a bigger back and was Freshman last year but might have redshirted.
January 19th, 2009 at 7:03 AM ^
He's small (5'8/5'9), and he burst onto the scene with his speed at the junior AA combine last year, but Teric Jones will punch people in the mouth. He's around 190-195, and he was more than a homerun hitter for Cass this past year. He's not going to go between the tackles 30 times a game, but he's powerful.
January 19th, 2009 at 7:04 AM ^
grady and big back in the same sentence is kind of funny. the kid is 5-8 and about 215. weight wise yes he is big for his height, but for a short yardage back no. i forget what game it was this past year that RR put him in on 3rd and 1 and grady ran right up the gaurds ass instead of hitting the larger than life hole 2 feet to the left. when he got back to the bench RR laid into him. grady has been a bust, he fumbles way to much and has never been able to put a couple of games together. like people have already said we still have moundros and looking back at RR's WV teams the full back plays a huge part in the offence.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:57 PM ^
I thought we killed the "Grady has fumblitis" meme already.
The stats show that his fumbles are about average and Minor (until mid season this year) has fumbled way more than Grady.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:11 AM ^
Minor has an inherent advantage of not being loaded...so I'm guessing Grady probably has great hands...
January 19th, 2009 at 7:09 AM ^
Will have Moundros but I don't see RR using him, last year only had 3 attempts for 14 yards, Cox was a RS last year 6'0 205, just saying it would be nice to have a bigger back to pound the D late in the game if we have the lead, and when it rains/snows , just a thought.
January 19th, 2009 at 7:20 AM ^
moundros never got used by loyd other than to block. i think MM carried or caught the ball once in 2007, so RR had to work him into the O slowly. i'm pretty sure you're going to seem get that quick hand off up the gut a lot more often this year than last.
January 19th, 2009 at 7:28 AM ^
Moundros is more of the blocking back from what I've seen so far of him, hope he proves me wrong but I still would like to see us go after a big physical back to do some punishing
January 19th, 2009 at 8:21 AM ^
At 6'0", Cox has the frame to be your big, phyisical back.
January 19th, 2009 at 8:48 AM ^
we don't need a big physical back. Give me 10 Teric Jones' before I get 1 P.J. Hill.
Plus what everyone else said about MM
January 19th, 2009 at 9:31 AM ^
hmmmm... maybe we should wait to see what Jones does with the ball at the D1A college level before we anoint him as superior to PJ Hill.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:37 PM ^
a big fatass like Hill in Ann Arbor, now or ever.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:06 AM ^
Awesome post.
I hate fat-backs.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:12 AM ^
I for one, love them. Vida Guerra? what?
January 19th, 2009 at 5:50 PM ^
He said ten Teric Jones'. In a fight, I take ten Teric Jones' any day.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:41 AM ^
A big back that is a true running back would be nice playing in the BigTen and the weather we have, and with a young time, would be a nice thing to wear the D down late in games. Will have to see what Jonesy can do if he don't get a Redshirt this year.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:47 AM ^
They answered this exact question from an emailer today on WTKA.
Per Sam Webb: Mike Cox is our big, short yardage back.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:02 AM ^
Cox is 6'2 215?
January 19th, 2009 at 10:08 AM ^
It's not uncommon for a a kid to put on weight from the time they show up on campus as an 18-year old and then spend a year under a rigorous S&C program.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:44 AM ^
I know a kid who goes to Cox's prep school he told me that Cox was absurdly jacked, but that he pretty much never lifted. If that's true than I would think he'd probably add more weight than the average player can once he got on a serious weight lifting plan.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:13 AM ^
A "big" back is overrated. You don't need TJ Duckett or Brandon Jacobs to be successful on short yardage plays. You need a guy with decent power who's willing and ready to run over people instead of searching for a hole. This could be Moundros, Cox, or honestly, Toussaint and Shaw. Shaw is going to be a beast before he leaves Michigan, as long as he stays healthy. He's going to be our home run hitter.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:29 AM ^
I think Magnus is correct. Mike Hart was a SMALL back, but he was great at short yardage. More importantly is having an offensive line that can reliably get push up front.
I would defer to commentors who played LB or DL, but I would suspect that the real wearing down of a defense is more from the blockers than the RB. Having 5 OL and possibly a FB and TE pounding on 5 to 7 guys for several consecutive plays is likely more damaging than the RB hitting one guy on each of those plays.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:32 AM ^
Yes - I would imagine getting run into by 300+ pound guys every play takes more of a toll than a 220 pound RB.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:47 AM ^
I played OL and DL. Passing plays involve a lot of hand-fighting and finesse moves on both sides, so it doesn't wear you down very quickly. As a defensive lineman on running plays, the 300-pounders across from you are firing off and trying to drive you into the ground. You're using your entire body to try to fend off that blocker and chase the running back. So yeah, from the standpoint of taking a physical pounding, I'd much rather stuff a lighter running back in the hole when he gets a running start than I would take a short-range blow from a guy who's my size or bigger.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:32 AM ^
I disagree with the proposition that we need a big back at all. Sure, you want a decent straight-ahead runner for the occasional short-yardage down, but Mike Hart was that guy at 5'9 195.
As far as late in games, when the defense is getting tired, that's precisely the time you want to use your speed backs to run past tired defenders. Big plays are easier to come by and more backbreaking at that point. The use of big backs late in games is a Carr-esque strategy (sit on a lead and run the clock down).
January 19th, 2009 at 10:49 AM ^
speed > size. I don't want to see any size anywhere at any skill position.
Y'all still talk about "wearing defenses down with big backs". FUCK THAT...I'm sick and tired of that philosophy. Miami did it right first and now we're following the blueprint: smaller, quicker guys playing at a high intensity.
You want Nebraska of the mid-90's? Go cheer for Wisconsin, see where that gets you.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:51 AM ^
Speed kills.
Just ask Sam McGuffie's neurologist.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:54 AM ^
haha
Well Marty Odoms avoided losing brain cells all season. Plus we are recruiting plenty of depth at these positions to avoid being burned by any single injury. I still say this is the way to go and has been since the early 90's.
January 19th, 2009 at 6:55 PM ^
so cruel.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:28 AM ^
moundros was never really a running fullback. helmuth was recruited as a running, shortyardage fullback, but obviously hes getting converted to dline this yr.
January 19th, 2009 at 6:31 PM ^
Why does it have to be either size or speed? I think RR would want to threaten defenses with a combination of size and speed.
January 19th, 2009 at 6:46 PM ^
Big, fast guys? No way, I'll take the little, slow guys anyday.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:13 PM ^
Size AND speed usually comes from upper echelon recruits...yes that would be nice. But if we can't reach a USC level of recruiting, I say recruit all the little buggers we can.