Derrick Green should be the starter next week against Notre Dame.

Submitted by aaamichfan on September 1st, 2013 at 1:31 PM

There is a serious case to be made here. While I agree that Green could use a little more time with Wellman to get things toned before he's an All American, he is still the best RB on the team. He led the team in rushing yesterday, and also looked the best doing it. 

The Notre Dame defense is relatively small, and I believe we definitely could benefit greatly from having such a big option pounding the rock at all times. We definitely don't want to rely on the arm of Gardner this week(interceptions killed us last year against ND), and can easily win this game with an effective ground game. 

Comments

michelin

September 1st, 2013 at 7:42 PM ^

Based on my recall and because of Green's body type,  I would have thought that he would more consistently gain yards but would have fewer long runs.  But the opposite was true.  Green was less consistent but had the longest run ( 30 for G vs. 20 yards for F).  That long rush helped account for his higher yard per rush mean average (5.3 for G vs 4.1 for F).*   Yet, the middle among the string of gains was a full yard greater for Fitz (3.0 yards for G and 4.0 for F)** Also, Fitz’s average was higher, when one accounts for the variability.***

 This simple analysis disregards the fact that,1. Fitz has an advantage in the passing and blocking games, 2. Fitz gained tougher yards at the beginning of the game with a fresh and not demoralized defense on CMU, 3. this was Green’s first college game and that his upside is enormous and 4.  Green may have had for some runs a less experienced Offensive line. However,based on this simple analysis, I expect that, if you put Fitz’s runs together in random order, you would have a higher percent of first downs than you would have with Green.  That is exactly the opposite of what I expected.

*On very short runs, Fitz scored 2tds, Green 1.  Presumably, Fitz could have gained more yards than one or two if the end zone did not limit him on his extra td run; so he probably would have had at least a 4.2 or 4.3 yard average. 

**Median length of run) =3 yds for G; and =4 for F.

***Mean divided by stdev =.63 for Green, .73 for Fitz

MichLove

September 1st, 2013 at 10:08 PM ^

Green shows great potential but in big games there is no way he should start over Fitz.. I do believe that Green solidified his #2 RB role but it should be about a 70-30 split in big games in Fitzs favor.. Gives us the best chance to win

lebriarj

September 2nd, 2013 at 3:51 AM ^

I think Fitz needs to start and deserves too. Eventually I think so time later in the season Green may start but Fitz had a better game and ran harder. When Green came in the game UofM was up 30 and UofM was pounding the ball.

RealJabrill

September 1st, 2013 at 10:21 PM ^

What is the rationale for not rotating Running Backs?  I understand you want to have consistency and rhythm, but wouldnt having the tail back as fresh as possible lead to the best results? 

In essence, I'm wondering whats the benefit for having a featured tail back

DT76

September 1st, 2013 at 11:27 PM ^

Much steeper talent gradient between qb1 and qb3 than there is between rb1 and rb6. I want my rb1 to be the one who is best at protecting qb1. End.

Sideline

September 2nd, 2013 at 8:29 AM ^

Why would we replace Fitz with Green? Why not just use all 5 backs? I could really see Fitz/Green doing a 65/35 split... I want to see Hayes get some touches too since he decommitted from ND to play for the greatest university in the world

markusr2007

September 5th, 2013 at 1:29 PM ^

then I like Michigan's chances to grind it out, but still score TDs.

If Michigan gets behind in the game, then I think we're looking at another crazy passing circus, INTs and WTF touchdowns with 20+ million viewers globally flirting with cardiac arrest.

I don't need that shit.

Just give me Michigan with a 14 point lead and a nice rotation of Fitz, Green and Smith. And don't freaking fumble.