Magnus gives dire warning about the running game?

Submitted by Larry Appleton on August 21st, 2017 at 1:45 PM

http://touch-the-banner.com/2017-season-countdown-11-chris-evans/

Magnus predicts that Evans will wind up as the team's leading rusher.  No problems so far.

BUT, he also predicts that Evans will have WORSE numbers than he did last year (when he had 88 rushes for 614 yards)!  Meaning our leading rusher will only have about 600 yards.

Is this an indictment on the offensive line, or is there something else afoot?  Either way, hold me.

Comments

stephenrjking

August 21st, 2017 at 1:49 PM ^

It's a prediction. We have a deep RB corps. There appears to be an increase in focus on the empty set short passing game. And we have serious questions on the OL.

I'm not going to read too much into the prediction, other than that Magnus thinks we won't have a back that's the big feature guy.

ZooWolverine

August 21st, 2017 at 4:08 PM ^

The yards are not really individual, they are parts of an amount, specifically the total distance he ran. Same reason age and money use less rather than fewer (less than 30 years old, less than $50, less than five miles).

The Maizer

August 21st, 2017 at 5:03 PM ^

I don't think this is correct. Once you apply units it becomes a counting number and you use fewer. E.G. I have less money but I have fewer dollars or I have less yardage but I have fewer yards. Easy way to figure it out is if you ask how much or how many? How many yards vs. how much yards?

ZooWolverine

August 22nd, 2017 at 11:29 AM ^

Time, distance, and money are sort of exceptions to the countable rule; really, a better way to think of the rule is that for fewer to apply, the thing being measured should be both countable and discrete--three cups of coffee in separate mugs are discrete and separate and thus get fewer, while three cups of flour together in a canister are not discrete and separate and get less. The way I think it makes sense to think about this is that if I say less than 100 years, I'm really saying any amount of time less than that--not that it would be exactly 99 years or another countable number of years, like fewer would imply.

The strangest one to me is less than $50, but it is less, even though money is discrete once you get to the penny (for most uses). But fewer only applies in a situation like when you have fewer than 50 one dollar bills.

Best explanation at Merriam-Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/fewer-vs-less

Despite the rule, less used of things that are countable is standard in many contexts, and in fact is more likely than fewer in a few common constructions, especially ones involving distances (as in "less than three miles"), sums of money (as in "less than twenty dollars"), units of time and weight (as in "less than five years" and "less than ten ounces"), and statistical enumerations (as in "less than 50,000 people")—all things which are often thought of as amounts rather than numbers.

A few other sources with similar explanations, just to prove it's not only M-W:

Old AP style guide online: http://www.mdjwebcontent.com/tj/2006_APSTYLEBOOK.pdf

GrammarBook.com: http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/definitions/fewer-v-less/

GRMaizenBlue

August 21st, 2017 at 1:51 PM ^

I have a hard time believing we wont have at the very least a decent rush attack this year. We have 3-4 guys with different skill sets (not counting our FBs) to throw in there and I have to believe 1-2 have a great year.  Its possible he meant Evans wouldnt be able to keep up with the 7ypc pace he was on last year. Im still optimistic with the group as a whole.

 

pistolwolf

August 21st, 2017 at 2:12 PM ^

 how you can say whatever you want these days and no matter how stupid it may sound or how unlikely, you can always say "it`s just my opinion". nice to know there are so many people out there that all ready know what is going to happen. very precise. i wonder what they will be eating for breakfast on those days? oh, thats right he already knows.

Cranky Dave

August 21st, 2017 at 1:53 PM ^

Dire warning at all. Combined with recent rumblings from camp I take that to mean Isaac and Higdon will get more carries and yards

Actually Thunder wrote that, not Magnus. Although they might be the the same person.

Mgotri

August 21st, 2017 at 1:54 PM ^

I feel like he is talking about Evans having less yards/carry. 614 on 88 carries is absurdly high, and as the #1 back he will get many more carries not in garbage time which will cause a regression. 

Perkis-Size Me

August 21st, 2017 at 1:56 PM ^

Touissant ran for over 600 yards in 2013 behind arguably the worst offensive line in the history of Michigan football. This year's OL will be considerably better than that one. And far better coached. 

Agree to disagree, Magnus. I don't think this team will be a worldbeater on the ground but I have a hard time believing that our leading rusher will have only 600 yards to his name. 

mGrowOld

August 21st, 2017 at 1:56 PM ^

Here's our rushing stats from 1997.  No real dominant player but if memory serves things worked out pretty good that year.

Rushing Receiving Scrimmage
Rk Player Att Yds Avg TD Rec Yds Avg TD Plays Yds Avg TD
1 Chris Howard 180 868 4.8 7 35 263 7.5 1 215 1131 5.3 8
2 Anthony Thomas 130 529 4.1 5 21 205 9.8 0 151 734 4.9 5
3 Chris Floyd 59 262 4.4 2 7 83 11.9 0 66 345 5.2 2