Vincent Smith
The man needs to be the every down back. He has the best vision by far and is competent in blitz pickup. He has the respect of his team and seems to have finally fully recovered from his knee injury from OSU freshman year.
Not to knock Fitz and Shaw but Smith needs more touches.
It appeared the coaches are warming up to this idea. Manball in the past has included the Morris boys which are not exactly typical RB's.
12 carries for 132 yds...........not to mention his awesome screen last week for TD
September 17th, 2011 at 5:27 PM ^
September 17th, 2011 at 5:29 PM ^
is not Jaime Morris. Not by a long shot. Also, the Morris boys were exceptions.
Smith doesn't need more touches. If he got more touches, his production would drop dramatically, as we saw last year. The reason he got more touches today was because it's Eastern and he had wide open running lanes due to freaking out about Denard.
Smith is good. He has good vision and has a move or two. He's excellent in pass protection and catches the ball well. But he's not an every-down back.
September 18th, 2011 at 2:04 PM ^
in the Ohio game. Anyone who has paid attention to football knows a RB isn't back to full strength until the second year back. He played a game 9 1/2 months removed from the injury when I was fully expecting him to RS last year.
How come the other backs didn't seem to have wide open lanes due to the Denard factor? Or do they only freak out about DRob when Vincent is in the game. He is the most consist and dependable RB on the roster right now. Or does Smith benefit from being in the game when we are in spread formations which seems like the only time we are consistently able to move the ball? 31 yards in the first quarter against EMU may have been the worst offensive performance I have watched.
September 17th, 2011 at 5:28 PM ^
Denard and Vince!
September 17th, 2011 at 9:34 PM ^
He is an excellent compliment to Denard in a wide open Zone Read Spread scheme. He is much less effective as the isloated I back in a Pro set. He needs space to use his quickness. He's not going to run people over for 20 carries a game.
To the extent that the offense continues to look something like what we saw today, Smith is the main man.
September 17th, 2011 at 5:28 PM ^
He is much too small to be the every down back in our sets. He is listed as 20-25 pounds lighter than Shaw and Toussaint. He is a speedy back who should play on our offense, but can not pick up the blitz or rushes like a bigger Shaw or Toussaint could. He is great for long downs though....
September 17th, 2011 at 5:37 PM ^
September 17th, 2011 at 5:40 PM ^
Why only problem with Smith's size was when we (and by we I mean out old coaches) were running him into the line on 3rd and 1. I hae no problem with the way he was used today.
September 17th, 2011 at 10:03 PM ^
Contrary to what you believe, Smith was actually pretty efficient on 3rd and short
September 17th, 2011 at 5:41 PM ^
Denard and Shaw are the same weight.
September 17th, 2011 at 6:08 PM ^
Saying something is "retarded" makes you sound like a 14 year old or someone with an extremely limited vocabularly.
Smith is small, and I would not like him to be a 20+ carry back, but he has done very well with the carries he has seen this year. Good to see him show the same flashes he did his freshmen year.
September 17th, 2011 at 7:59 PM ^
NO ONE here needs your permission to use the word "retarded".
Get over yourself.
September 17th, 2011 at 9:26 PM ^
True, but there is something to be said for decency toward other people.
September 17th, 2011 at 5:35 PM ^
You're argument should not be about bigger backs if the backs you speak of are under 200 lbs. These are not big backs. There is a reason why Vince is in on 3rd down- he is the best blocker of the 3, even though he is 20 lbs lighter. Also, Fitz and Shaw are both faster straight line than Vince. I don't see what you're trying to state.
September 17th, 2011 at 5:35 PM ^
The thing about Smith is that he isn't actually very fast or speedy at all. The coaches decision to have him return kicks is ridiculous.
As for being too small - no way. There are plenty of successful small backs around. Becuase he's small he doesn't take as many big hits as the other backs and compared to Shaw and Toussaint he stays much healthier.
He's also the best blocker between the backs.
September 17th, 2011 at 10:30 PM ^
elusive.
Something none of the other backs are. He gets yards because he doesn't get tackled. That's good enough for me.
September 17th, 2011 at 5:30 PM ^
I think the coaches know this. Its not a question of ability so much as durability. If he could be the every down back, he would.
September 17th, 2011 at 5:44 PM ^
I don't mind having three backs rotate..That's how you wear down that D ..And that's how you win games late in the fourth quarter ..Three are always better than one...As long as all three are productive there is nothing wrong with it...
September 17th, 2011 at 5:33 PM ^
No back on the roster looks significantly better than Smith. Given what he offers besides being a ball carrier (pass threat, blocker, ball-security). Even last year, the argument that Shaw was the better back was based primarily on his performance vs inferior competition. Smith is certainly not a big-play threat in the same way that Shaw is, but every other aspect of the game he is the superior back.
I will say that Toussaint appeard (against Western) to be the best guy and for that he deserves more carries.
The coaches are doing the right thing. I think they should keep rotating backs until someone distinguishes themselves to where it's obvious. However, when push comes to shove, Smith should be the guy on the field.
September 19th, 2011 at 12:58 AM ^
"I will say that Toussaint appeard (against Western) to be the best guy and for that he deserves more carries."
What exactly did Toussaint do against Western that Shaw didn't do besides get more carries?
September 17th, 2011 at 5:35 PM ^
Smith gets no respect because of his size and "lack" of speed. He's doing the same stuff he used to do in HS: using his intellect to perform better than many players who are bigger and faster than he is.
September 17th, 2011 at 5:47 PM ^
Lack of size: Yes. Lack of speed: No. He appears to be the fastest guy on the offensive side of the ball besides Denard. I still do not think he should be the everydown back when he is only 5-6 and 170 lbs. Weight is not everything, but being 6 inches shorter than the other backs makes you vulnerable.
September 17th, 2011 at 6:16 PM ^
Where do you get your info?
Would you like to bet on a race between Smith and Shaw?
September 17th, 2011 at 6:19 PM ^
You don't have to click twice to double post.
September 17th, 2011 at 6:54 PM ^
If you're saying that fast is equal to straight line speed, vince is not the 2nd fastest guy on offense. He is not even the 2nd fastest at his position.
September 18th, 2011 at 12:48 AM ^
" being 6 inches shorter than the other backs makes you vulnerable."
please elaborate.
September 17th, 2011 at 5:42 PM ^
I must say, Vincent Smith looked awesome from where I was sitting. I would love to see him as the featured back against SDSU with some Toussaint mixed in there.
September 17th, 2011 at 5:48 PM ^
I'm hoping that today's balance is what the coaches stick with. Fitz looks good as a versatile RB, and Smith looks good as a shifty change-of-pace guy. Give Shaw a few carries here and there, maybe give Rawls or Hopkins a few short-yardage opportunities, and we're all set.
I would like to see more RB carries overall, but I'm sure the coaches agree on that point. Nobody wants Denard to carry 26 times. On the other hand, the defenses have been crazy giving Denard so little respect on the zone read, which explains some of his inflated carries so far this year.
September 19th, 2011 at 1:02 AM ^
start using the backs for specific plays enough that defenses can start to key on them, sure, rotating backs is fine.
September 17th, 2011 at 5:49 PM ^
Look at the following years.
2009......full season sans OSU game. 5,8 ypc
2010...... slowed by injury 4,4 ypc
My argument by no means argues that he will continue at a ridiculous pace of 10+ ypc.
I like Fitz but he is too porcelain for me right now. Smith is tough, blocks and can catch. Good things happen when he gets the ball
September 18th, 2011 at 12:37 AM ^
Those 2009 numbers are of course inflated by the Delaware State game, in which he received the majority of his carries. Against Big Ten opposition that year, he made some impact catching passes, but not too much carrying the ball.
September 17th, 2011 at 5:50 PM ^
On a similar note, Gallon has solidified himself as the 3rd WR right? Looked good on the two catches I remember and the long punt return that got called back
September 17th, 2011 at 6:01 PM ^
the most on the offense IMO. I just wish Denard would stop throwing jump balls to him.
He is making people miss and has looked very comfortbable on punts.
September 17th, 2011 at 7:59 PM ^
i agree. gallon had a great game. too bad that punt got called back, but that was a legit block in the back. not sure how much of an effect it actually had on anything though.
September 17th, 2011 at 6:06 PM ^
"5'6"? Fuck you, pay me. Too slight? Fuck you, pay me. Not boss enough to be feature back? Fuck you, pay me."
September 17th, 2011 at 6:18 PM ^
All I know is he looks like Sonic the Hedgehog when he gets into the open field. See: 2:28 of this video.
September 17th, 2011 at 6:15 PM ^
There are several comments in this thread regarding Smith's lack of size and top end speed and this is why he can't be the every down back. Really? I think Mike Hart might have something to say about that.
September 17th, 2011 at 7:50 PM ^
Vincent Smith is not Mike Hart. Not even close. Height and a lack of straight-line speed are their only two similarities.
September 17th, 2011 at 10:25 PM ^
I am not saying Vincent Smith is Mike Hart reincarnated. I am just saying that lack of break-away speed and size are not sufficient reasons to discredit his ability to be an everydown back, when one of the best backs in Michigan history had those characteristics. Vincent Smith has shown the shiftiness and agility to pick up chunks of yards with every touch so far this season. He also is a great pass blocker and catches the football out of the backfield as well as, if not better than any back we currently have on the roster.
I am just wondering what are reasons other than those previously mentioned above that people are against letting him be the primary back.
September 17th, 2011 at 6:49 PM ^
and there are backs that are 'game time' performers and that's Vincent!
Hail, Hail ...
September 17th, 2011 at 6:53 PM ^
Vincent Smith has done nothing but good things this year. Sure he tore an ACL, but he's not really injury prone like Fitz and Shaw. He's not a real big homerun threat, but I'll take consistent gains over Shaw who will have a 50 yard TD followed by 3 negative yardage runs. I agree with others that we should look elsewhere on short yardage, but otherwise I wouldn't mind him being our primary back.
September 17th, 2011 at 6:59 PM ^
Its too bad they arent bigger/faster but they could be the best playmakers we got after denard and martin
September 17th, 2011 at 7:09 PM ^
MM cannot be listed as one of our best playmakers this year. He is eerliy absent today and the fact that a casual fan would never of know of him today except that he had to come out because his helmet came off. BTW, Big Will stuffed that play MM was out of.
September 17th, 2011 at 7:12 PM ^
I am probably giving him too much credit for prior years. I do think he is getting doubled a lot but I could be wrong.
September 17th, 2011 at 7:23 PM ^
It doesn't matter how tall he is. He's the shiftiest back we have. The best blocker. Best recording back. Give him 20 carries a game and you have your guy.
September 17th, 2011 at 7:45 PM ^
would probably mean about 12-15 touches. Denard will get 12-15 and a 2nd back and looks to be our best and primary option again this year no matter what the coach speak is.
September 17th, 2011 at 7:45 PM ^
great day for smith. i'd like to see him and fitz splitting time back there (like they did today), with smith in there during crunch time. but i think they make a nice 1-2 punch.
i was at the bar, so i couldn't see the replay very well, but he wasn't actually down on that touchdown run that got called off, was he??
September 17th, 2011 at 7:47 PM ^
it was the correct call. He kept his knees off the turf though.
September 17th, 2011 at 7:57 PM ^
alright, now i'm confused. did his elbow go down or something?
September 17th, 2011 at 8:22 PM ^
yes. forearm was on the ground